OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 04:57:40 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Changes in the Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgical Practices  (Read 20755 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,796



« on: February 21, 2007, 09:46:38 AM »

On a Byzantine Catholic website, I have read several times some concern that the Byzantine Catholic Liturgy has been changed by one of their bishops.  What were the changes and how significant are they?

Thomas
Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2007, 10:08:36 AM »

It seems to me they are fairly significant and a serious departure from the 64 Liturgikon (aka the Red Book)

My understanding is the changes are rougly as follows:

- A number of prayers formerly recited silently by the priest, must be recited aloud such as the first antiphon prayer.

- Some prayers are removed altogether such as the little litanies, and multiple verses are not aloud in other places.

- The revised liturgy includes the use of "inclusive" or "gender neutral" language in some places, and the creed is one of the things that has been altered to accomodate this form of language.

I'm sure there are some other changes as well.  I also believe they are severely curtailing the ability of parishes to use Slavonic if they so choose.

There are a number of reasons these changes came about.  My impression is the minority of "high church" i.e. Orthodox leaning Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics are absolutely horrified.  The majority of the church though I think will not really have an issue with the changes, and some of course laud them.

Hopefully !username will stop by and fill in the additional details.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 10:09:51 AM by welkodox » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2007, 10:57:37 AM »

Unfortunately, the majority of the church had no idea this was happening until Metropolitan Basil sent out a letter letting every parish know that the new books will be delivered by the end of January and must be in place and in use by June (I think).  Most of the revision was done almost hush-hush.  The only people who really knew about it before the promulgation of Met. Basil's letter were the "high church" minded who strongly objected not only some of the revision, but also the process itself.

The good thing about it is that the music is printed in the new books, making it more accessible to visitors.  Some of the English translation is cleaned up to match the music more (part of the "good").  "Theotokos" is used now instead of "Mother of God".

The big problem for many is the translation of "anthropos" in the Creed.  The revised Creed now reads "for us and for our salvation", omitting "men".  Some people are in a huge uproar over this.  I can see their point about the faulty translation, but at the same time, they're bleating like donkeys, coming up with ridiculous reasons for opposing this translation, such as "it will confuse people who might think that "us" just refers to those present".  Anyone who can figure out that "us men" refers to all of humanity can also figure out that "us" refers to the same. 

That being said, I'm not a fan of the new translation of "anthropos".

The little litanies have, for the most part, been removed already, at least in the eparchy of Parma.

I haven't heard about curtailing Slavonic, which would be a shame.  It wouldn't surprise me, though.

Unfortunately for the Pittsburgh Metropolita, this revision will most likely cause a number of people to 'dox. 

BTW, you can see the new books in pdf form at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute's website.  The books themselves are put together quite nicely.  It's a shame that the commission had to muck around too much with the English translation Sad.  Otherwise, it would have been a welcome "revision".
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2007, 12:18:04 AM »

Anyone who is really interested can go to the Byzcath.org site to get much, much more information.  It's run by a layman in the Byzantine Catholic Church (i.e. the site is unofficial).  They have an entire subforum dedicated to the revised DL.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2007, 01:31:10 AM »

Well first of I would say none but a handful of parishes were following the 64 Liturgicon in the first place. 

In the new Liturgikon:

Prayers that must now be taken aloud:

Prayer of the First Antiphon

Prayer of Offering (Lord God Almighty who alone are holy...)

Anaphora (From It is proper and just...through Especially for our most holy...Theotokos)

Prayer of Intercession for the Living (Remeber O Lord this City...)

Prayer of the Litany of Supplication (To you O Master...)

Prayer of the Bowing of the Heads (We give thanks...)

Prayer of Thanksgiving (We thank you O Master...)

The Little Litanies are omitted, as they were before.
The Antiphons are one verse,  as most parishes only took one verse.
The Third Antiphon is mandated, it was not taken before.
The Beatitudes are included as an otion for the Third Antiphon.
The Litany of Catechumens is taken if there are Catechumens at the Liturgy, it was not taken before.
The Little Litanies for the Prayers of Faithful are omitted as they were before.
The Litany of Offering is omitted as it was before.
Teplota is mandated, it was omitted before.

They were minor translation changes here and there.
Theotokos is used rather than Mother of God.
The Filioque is omitted.
Minor horizontal inclusive languuage is used. The Creed reads "for us" rather than "for us men". "Brothers and Sisters" is used rather than "Brethren". "Lover of Mankind" is replaced with "Who loves us all".

The Music was reset to be truer to the Slavonic Prostopinje originals.

There has been no curtailing of Slavonic.

Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, the majority of those most opposed and stating they are leaving (for other Greek Catholic or Orthodox Churches) are not cradles but transfers from the Latin Church.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Maksim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #5 on: February 22, 2007, 03:20:36 AM »

Perhaps I shouldn't comment on the internal affairs of the Byzantine Catholics, but I am very surprised at the "inclusive language" aspect.

I wonder what the intended goal of this change is?  Most younger women I know consider "inclusive language" to be either simply outdated (a relic of 1970s feminism), or downright patronizing.  It seems odd that a traditionally-minded church would introduce it at this late date.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 22, 2007, 10:07:22 AM »

Thank you, Father Deacon, for the rundown.  I knew we could count on you.

I hadn't thought about it, but you're right.  Those bleating the most about leaving seem to be the canonical switches from the Latin church.

This is one convert that's sticking around, though!
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #7 on: February 22, 2007, 10:13:03 AM »

What I have sensed is people are most upset the use of inclusive language in the creed (a "minor" change of course is potentially major to somebody else) and that parishes that wish to take a fuller liturgy can no longer do that.  The revised liturgy AFAIK is the mandated standard which one cannot deviate from (even if only a minority were doing it before).  The prayers that must be read aloud would also bother me if it was my church.  The people who I have spoken with privately who are most disturbed and considering leaving are people who are born in to the church.  The number of those who will go though I surmise is fairly small.  Like I said, I don't think the majority will really mind for various reasons.

Maksim, the language aspect from what I have been told can at least in part be attributed to Fr. Taft in the Oriental Congregation.  He is a fairly influential figure.  There was a symposium in 1998 on the use of English in Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches which might give some background

Quote
The keynote address by the Reverend Professor Robert Taft, S.J., of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (himself an Eastern Catholic) dealt with translation problems with respect to liturgy, language, and ideology. He made known his dislike of “sacral,” “numinous,” or “archaic” liturgical English (as confusing obfuscation with mystery). He endorsed “horizontally” inclusive language, on the grounds that liturgical translations are for “people of today” and should be in an idiom and style most readily comprehensible to them.

He prescribed as axiomatic that the nature and style of liturgical translations should be determined by the nature of the recipient rather than the donor language, and that fidelity to the nature of the recipient language must take precedence over that to the donor. Whatever criticisms might be levied against the current International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of the Latin Catholic liturgy into English, the members of the translation team had clearly set forth the principles on which they were to operate before embarking on their task—a thing unheard of among translators of Byzantine liturgical texts into English. He observed also that the very flexibility of the English language itself encouraged clumsy vocabulary and syntactical usage among people lacking a wide experience of reading and writing it.

As a problem of ideology he cited making shibboleths of mistranslations by reading into them matters of deep significance. Examples included “writing ikons” (instead of painting them), translating chram as “temple” rather than “church,” translating Theotokos as “Birthgiver” (an otherwise nonexistent English word; does one say “Good morning, Birthgiver” to one’s mother?), or basing a whole theology on the misunderstanding of “Orthodoxy” as derivative of orthos and doxa (i.e., right worship) rather than, as in truth, of orthos and dokeo (i.e., right teaching). On the issue of gender-inclusive language, he ended with the statement that it is because it gives power to the disenfranchised that it is feared and resisted by the clergy.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r

The last statement I bolded I think in particular shows what is at work here, and if you think it sounds like some of the stuff that's come out of the Roman Catholic Church, you're not alone.  I read comments from another priest in the BCC, known for his expertise on the liturgy, that essentially echoed Fr. Taft's statements.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 10:14:31 AM by welkodox » Logged
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2007, 03:10:55 PM »

The Music was reset to be truer to the Slavonic Prostopinje originals.

Well, some of the music has been changed outright.  For example, the "long Amens" after the words of institution that were found in all published variations of Subcarpathian Rusyn plainchant have been changed to "short Amens" because of a new overemphasis on the epiclesis. (There is also an unpublished innovation being implemented that the laity are to recite aloud the deacon's triple "Amen" after the epiclesis.)

Quote
There has been no curtailing of Slavonic.

Officially, no. But the new books, which have NO SLAVONIC in them at all, are replacing the old books which had all liturgical texts in both English and Slavonic in parallel. In other words, when the old books (which are now forbidden) are thrown out, Slavonic goes with them.
Logged
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 22, 2007, 03:25:46 PM »

Anyone who is really interested can go to the Byzcath.org site to get much, much more information.  It's run by a layman in the Byzantine Catholic Church (i.e. the site is unofficial).  They have an entire subforum dedicated to the revised DL.

That particular subforum is run by an activist moderator who was placed there under the pretense of impartiality, as he is (evidently) a priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. However, if you read his responses, he is hardly impartial towards the New Revised Liturgy; on the contrary, his posts consistently denounce it. That whole "Revised Divine Liturgy Forum" is woefully bereft of impartiality; its purpose is to slant lay opinion against the liturgical books (first, trying to stop the promulgation, now, to have it rescinded). The only thing that's worse than the blatant slant is the hysterical chicken-little postings of militantly-clueless Athanasios O'Donnelly-come-latelys who have been in the Byzantine Catholic "Metroplia" (sic, as one of the loudest and most obnoxious posters spells it) for all of about three months.

(See why I've been banned for life from the Byzantine Forum?  ha ha)

To be honest, I'd just as soon have the Byzantine American Catholic Church of Pittsburgh use the 1964 English translation (with a few necessary corrections of grammar and translation) and the rubrics of Ordo Celebrationis, but such is not our fate. I know, based on who prepared the Revised Liturgy, that it is a scholarly translation of not inconsiderable merit, and seems to be well within the authority of the hierarchs (whether ecumenically/inter-Byzantine Catholically ill-advised or not) to implement. But the heavy-handed way it's being accomplished makes me uncomfortable, and the lack of pastoral concern for those who are attached to traditional Rusyn Byzantine Christianity (in other words, doing it "our way" but in the best way, without trendy neoOrthodox innovations and without discarding our legitimate customs such as our entire body of paraliturgical hymnody), like me, only drives another wedge between hierarchy and the rank & file laity.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 03:57:38 PM by Lemko Rusyn » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #10 on: February 22, 2007, 04:01:17 PM »

Lemko Rusyn

Quote
That particular subforum is run by an activist moderator who was placed there under the pretense of impartiality, as he is (evidently) a priest of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese. However, if you read his responses, he is hardly impartial towards the New Revised Liturgy; on the contrary, his posts consistently denounce it.

“activist”???  I guess we have different views then.  I think the priest in question does a good job and doesn’t enter the fray in that subforum, and feelings there have been running hot.  That’s the business of a different board though, so I would suggest discussion of the particulars of another board should probably not happen here.  I mentioned it for informational purposes for anyone who might be seeking more information on the changes, so let’s just leave it at that.

Quote
To be honest, I'd just as soon have the Byzantine American Catholic Church of Pittsburgh use the 1964 English translation (with a few necessary corrections of grammar and translation) and the rubrics of Ordo Celebrationis, but such is not our fate.

I’ve talked to other people who hold the same view.  The hierarchs of that church seem to have a different view.

I also think you’re correct in your assessment of the fate of Slavonic.

Quote
I know, based on who prepared the Revised Liturgy, that it is a scholarly translation of not inconsiderable merit and seems to be well within the authority of the hierarchs (whether ecumenically/inter-Byzantine Catholically ill-advised or not) to implement. But the heavy-handed way it's being accomplished makes me uncomfortable, and the lack of pastoral concern for those who are attached to traditional Rusyn Byzantine Christianity (in other words, doing it "our way" but in the best way, without trendy neoOrthodox innovations and without discarding our legitimate customs such as our entire body of paraliturgical hymnody), like me, only pushes another wedge between hierarchy and the rank &

Speaking as an outsider, it seems to me the hierarchs of the BCC think the Rusyn identity of the church is a dead end, and they are taking the relevancy tack – i.e. a liturgy accessible to “modern” and presumably non Rusyn people.  I have my own feelings about what the results of this will be.

I have also heard from some people that what may play in to all of this is a desire of the hierarchs to

A.   Distance themselves from the Orthodox
B.   Do something different than the Ukrainians

Also, in my opinion you could put an army of liturgical scholars together and come up with the most accurate, scholarly translation imaginable and still have it be a flaming disaster.  Whenever I read some of the scholarly arguments, thoughts, etc. such as the ones I posted by Fr. Taft I have to admit I get the same feeling that I do when I interview someone at work who has spent their whole professional career in academia.
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 22, 2007, 04:10:21 PM »

Liturgical "experts" can be very destructive, just look at the modern Roman liturgy.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 22, 2007, 05:23:10 PM »

I have also heard from some people that what may play in to all of this is a desire of the hierarchs to

A.   Distance themselves from the Orthodox
B.   Do something different than the Ukrainians

On point A., the claim is out there that Metropolitan Nicholas of ACROD has reacted favorably to the whole thing (which I find doubtful). Regardless, I suspect that point A. is of little consideration to the Pittsburgh Metropolia hierarchy one way or the other.

On point B., it's an interesting, perhaps ironic, coincidence, that just a few short months ago the Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church decreed that the 1942 Roman editions of the "Ruthenian" books were normative for the entire UGCC and that the 1944 Ordo Celebrationis is the universally-applicable rubrics for Matins, Vespers, and the Divine Liturgy.

Quote
Also, in my opinion you could put an army of liturgical scholars together and come up with the most accurate, scholarly translation imaginable and still have it be a flaming disaster.

Certainly true. While I'm sure the New Revised Liturgy is a solid scholarly translation, that doesn't mean it's necessarily a solid pastoral translation. Just the number of changes to the text of prayers alone (nevermind the huge change in music being implemented at the same time) ensures that this may be quite traumatic to many people. The newbies & casual occasional visitors probably won't have a problem with it, but it's going to knock a lot of people for a loop. In the long run, most of them won't care, certainly not about the essential distinctions between "substance" and "essence", how to "welcome" vs. "receive" the King of All, or "may our lips be filled" vs. "may our mouth be filled". But the whole style, sound, and feel of this liturgy is very different, and that may alienate more than a handful of the cerkovny ljude ("church people"), the cornerstones of the parishes. I have yet to hear many people express a real enthusiasm for it, but then, it's not really been used anywhere yet except the cathedral in Munhall (Pittsburgh).

In short, from this skeptic they get a "Lotsa luck!" from me and that's it.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2007, 05:26:36 PM by Lemko Rusyn » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2007, 05:53:03 PM »

Quote
On point A., the claim is out there that Metropolitan Nicholas of ACROD has reacted favorably to the whole thing (which I find doubtful).

I haven’t heard anything one way or the other.  I certainly don’t think any such thing will ever be tried in the ACROD.

Quote
Regardless, I suspect that point A. is of little consideration to the Pittsburgh Metropolia hierarchy one way or the other.

Yes, I doubt they care one way or the other.  I do think all of this will contribute to the further separation of the BCC and the ACROD.

Quote
On point B., it's an interesting, perhaps ironic, coincidence, that just a few short months ago the Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church decreed that the 1942 Roman editions of the "Ruthenian" books were normative for the entire UGCC and that the 1944 Ordo Celebrationis

Yes, I saw that and I have seen the UGCC mentioned as a possible refuge.  In my limited experience with them they seemed to place a lot of emphasis on the religion of Ukrainianism which I suppose may or not be an issue for people.

One other comment made a few times is that the people considering leaving are not the natives but the transplants.  In the end, I think it probably doesn’t matter who is discouraged by this or who is leaving.  Losing people is bad, no matter who it is.  It’s people out of the pews and money out of the plate.
Logged
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2007, 06:06:59 PM »

One other comment made a few times is that the people considering leaving are not the natives but the transplants.

It's really hard to say. There are so few Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic "natives" who participate online in any Byzantine/Catholic/Orthodox forum/listserv, that those voices are rarely, if ever, heard. So of course, the "transplants" who tend to participate are the voices we hear about leaving.

Outside the cyber-world, there are still plenty of people who don't know anything about any of this. In a local parish here (metro DC) it hasn't been mentioned yet -- nothing in the bulletin, nothing from the pulpit!  Most of the online Metropolia parish bulletins seem to have nothing about it, either, which makes me think that it's going to be pushed off until the last moment in these parishes, or the priest has no intention of going through with it.

Quote
In the end, I think it probably doesn’t matter who is discouraged by this or who is leaving.  Losing people is bad, no matter who it is.  It’s people out of the pews and money out of the plate.

Agreed!  And more importantly, as a stodgy old Greek Catholic monsignor growled at me once, "these are souls that are at stake."
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2007, 07:43:11 PM »

Minor horizontal inclusive languuage is used. The Creed reads "for us" rather than "for us men". "Brothers and Sisters" is used rather than "Brethren". "Lover of Mankind" is replaced with "Who loves us all".

I have a question about that, if I may.  First, as you point out, it is *horizontal* language, that is, it is referring to human beings, not to any Member of the Trinity.  I know that in both Anglo-Saxon and Latin there are different words that mean "Human Being" "female person" and "male person"  In Old English it's "mann", "wif" and "wer"; "homo" "femina" and "vir" in Latin (iirc, I know little Latin and less Greek).  In Greek does "anthropos" mean "male people" or "human being"?  Are there different words in Greek for "male" and "female" persons?

Thank you in advance.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2007, 09:08:22 PM »

Ebor,

Anthropos can mean human generically or man specifically.  Gender specific words are aner for male and gyne for female.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
stosh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 66


« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2007, 02:32:47 AM »

This whole issue of the revised Divine Liturgy in the BCC just makes me feel better about being an Orthodox Christian. I've been Orthodox for four months now, and it seems much, much longer.

I've never felt better spiritually, and have absolutely no regrets about converting from the BCC, to the Orthodox church, and would never consider leaving Orthodoxy.

I have family and friends in the BCC, and pray that they can find peace in the church with the new liturgy.
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2007, 10:20:11 AM »

It's really hard to say. There are so few Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic "natives" who participate online in any Byzantine/Catholic/Orthodox forum/listserv, that those voices are rarely, if ever, heard. So of course, the "transplants" who tend to participate are the voices we hear about leaving.

I do know one of your more recent additions is completely approving of the changes.

Quote
Outside the cyber-world, there are still plenty of people who don't know anything about any of this. In a local parish here (metro DC) it hasn't been mentioned yet -- nothing in the bulletin, nothing from the pulpit!  Most of the online Metropolia parish bulletins seem to have nothing about it, either, which makes me think that it's going to be pushed off until the last moment in these parishes, or the priest has no intention of going through with it.

That's not good, this is not the type of thing where I would think people would want surprises.  I thought they were mailing out information packs and videos?
« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 10:20:49 AM by welkodox » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,477


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2007, 11:19:12 AM »

I do know one of your more recent additions is completely approving of the changes.

That's not good, this is not the type of thing where I would think people would want surprises.  I thought they were mailing out information packs and videos?

I believe the Metropolita mailed everything out, but it's up to the various bishops, and then do the various parish priests, to let their people know what's what.

For what it's worth, my parish in Baltimore was told about it as soon as the letter was promulgated.  From what I've heard, we're starting with the revised liturgy at the last minute, so to speak, for the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul (June 29, 2007).
« Last Edit: February 23, 2007, 12:45:21 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
James2
Mr.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: skeptic
Posts: 749



« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2007, 01:57:33 PM »

Liturgical "experts" can be very destructive, just look at the modern Roman liturgy.
As the old joke goes:

Q.  What's the difference between a liturgical reformer and a terrorist?

A.  You can negotiate with a terrorist.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2007, 12:13:07 AM »

Ebor,

Anthropos can mean human generically or man specifically.  Gender specific words are aner for male and gyne for female.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Thank you very much for the information.  That being the case, it would seem to me that the word "men" is not crucial to the translation.  Is it possible that people don't like having the word taken out because that is what they know and are used to? 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2007, 01:44:57 AM »

I would agree with you somewhat but I think it is a valid point to say anthropos should be translated not omitted. So say "for us humans" if you don't like "for us men" but don't just edit out anthropos.  It is bad form.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Monomakh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Just South of Nowhere
Posts: 9


« Reply #23 on: February 26, 2007, 08:15:15 PM »

Well first of I would say none but a handful of parishes were following the 64 Liturgicon in the first place. 


Why didn't you mention that parishes weren't allowed for many years even up until now to use the 64 Liturgicon?  Your statement is a specious one in that it misleads people here to think that not using the 64 Liturgicon was organic.  The Byzantine Catholic Church of America was in direct disobendience to Rome from the day the 64 Liturgicon was promulgated.  Now the powers that be want to once and for all finalize their chopped up and watered down version of the 64 liturgicon replete with feminized inclusive language.


Quote
There has been no curtailing of Slavonic.

The texts that I have seen don't have any Slavonic and the Archbishop Basil's letter of promulgation says that the new text is the only text allowed.  Why do you think that Slavonic is allowed?  I hope that you are right but what are you basing this on?

Quote
Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, the majority of those most opposed and stating they are leaving (for other Greek Catholic or Orthodox Churches) are not cradles but transfers from the Latin Church.

Absolutely not true.  First of all, the Byzantine Church of America has done an abysmal job of evangelizing, so to try and make it like there are a plethora of converts is misleading.  There are some and some of those are disgruntled Latins.  Secondly, Stosh on this board is a cradle Byzantine who left, I am a cradle Byzantine who is considering at least leaving and going to another Eastern Rite or Orthodoxy.  I can find many many more examples of cradles who are upset that they have been deprived of Orthodox practices our whole lives and in spite of the Pope's calls to return to our Orthodox roots, our leadership is taking us farther and farther away from what Rome has told us.

If you want to believe that cradles are not upset about this, go to an OCA church and meet your fellow Byzantines who are either going to leave or already have had enough of the modernization and feminization of our leadership.

Monomakh
« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 08:20:33 PM by Monomakh » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #24 on: February 26, 2007, 09:00:33 PM »

Quote
the Byzantine Church of America has done an abysmal job of evangelizing, so to try and make it like there are a plethora of converts is misleading.  There are some and some of those are disgruntled Latins.

Thanks for chiming in Monomakh. On the point I quoted, I would say I don't quite agree with one part.  I personally would not consider Latins who change to the Ruthenian church converts, nor would I consider receiving such people evangelization (far from it actually).  To me it is akin to somebody changing jurisdictions in Orthodoxy, as you are already in communion with those people.

It has actually always surprised me that both sides (Latin and Byzantine) encourage the movement to one side or the other.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2007, 09:02:12 PM by welkodox » Logged
Monomakh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Just South of Nowhere
Posts: 9


« Reply #25 on: February 26, 2007, 09:19:07 PM »

Thanks for chiming in Monomakh. On the point I quoted, I would say I don't quite agree with one part.  I personally would not consider Latins who change to the Ruthenian church converts, nor would I consider receiving such people evangelization (far from it actually).  To me it is akin to somebody changing jurisdictions in Orthodoxy, as you are already in communion with those people.

It has actually always surprised me that both sides (Latin and Byzantine) encourage the movement to one side or the other.

Welkodox,

yeah, convert is the wrong term.  I meant to say a person who goes from East to West (whatever that is).  But you'll appreciate this.  I know a Byzantine priest who makes Roman Catholics who join the church he is at go through the same education as Protestants and other Christian converts.  But if say an Orthodox marries a Byzantine and wants to become Byzantine he doesn't require them to do the same.  Needless to say the church he serves is actually orthodox in union with Rome rather than a quasi-orthodox church like most Byzantine churches.  Unfortunately he is one of the few traditional priests that we have.

Monomakh
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2007, 09:41:18 PM »

I know a Byzantine priest who makes Roman Catholics who join the church he is at go through the same education as Protestants and other Christian converts.  But if say an Orthodox marries a Byzantine and wants to become Byzantine he doesn't require them to do the same.  Needless to say the church he serves is actually orthodox in union with Rome rather than a quasi-orthodox church like most Byzantine churches.  Unfortunately he is one of the few traditional priests that we have.

 Cheesy
Hmmmm.  I wonder what the bishop would say if he caught of wind of that.

What has this priest said about the changes?
Logged
Monomakh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Just South of Nowhere
Posts: 9


« Reply #27 on: February 26, 2007, 09:58:17 PM »

Cheesy
Hmmmm.  I wonder what the bishop would say if he caught of wind of that.

What has this priest said about the changes?


This priest obviously deplores the changes and is doing all that he can to not only preclude the changes, but to continue the Byzantine rite as a whole back to it's authentic self.  His goal is a church that is truly orthodox and in union with Rome.  Archbishop Basil has given talks where he says that the Byzantine Catholic Church should be an authentic place of worship, yet he promulgated something that is anything but authentic and caters to the whims of modern society.  I've seen some of this in Orthodoxy , but at least with the Orthodox it is the exception rather than the norm.  In the Byzantine Church currently and unfortunately it is the exception to be orthodox and the norm to appeal to secularism.  Too bad.

Monomakh
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2007, 02:02:12 AM »

Monomahk,

"Why didn't you mention that parishes weren't allowed for many years even up until now to use the 64 Liturgicon?  Your statement is a specious one in that it misleads people here to think that not using the 64 Liturgicon was organic.  The Byzantine Catholic Church of America was in direct disobendience to Rome from the day the 64 Liturgicon was promulgated.  Now the powers that be want to once and for all finalize their chopped up and watered down version of the 64 liturgicon replete with feminized inclusive language."

Until 64, the 1905 Lviv Liturgicon was the norm.  How is dropping what had been the norm for 60 years organic?  I'm not saying the 64 isn't better but all this talk of organic is ridiculous.  Hierarchs decide to make a change and they do it.  That is how liturgical change happens.  You may like or dislike the change but it is hardly ever organic, despite the musings of todays liturgical scholars.

You also consistently ignore the fact that some people would be just as upset if the 64 Liturgicon were mandated without any abbreviation.  Are you concerned if they leave?

In either case, I believe both sides represent about 10% of an average parish.  The average parishioner (and I mean regular Sunday attender) just doesn't care about this.  The music is more likley to upset than the rubrics or translation, and I don't now that that is going to upset all that many. I can sing the old stuff and I can sing the new stuff. If I can, anybody can.

"Why do you think that Slavonic is allowed?  I hope that you are right but what are you basing this on?"
Common sense

"Absolutely not true.  First of all, the Byzantine Church of America has done an abysmal job of evangelizing, so to try and make it like there are a plethora of converts is misleading.  There are some and some of those are disgruntled Latins."

I never said we have a plethora of converts.  We do have plenty of Latins.  But my comment were based on what I've seen stated at byzcath.  Most who have stated they left or leaving becasue of the promulgation are Latin or Latin transfers.  They say so in their posts usually going something like this: I left the Latin Church because of bad translations, inclusive language, etc. I never thought I would see it enter the Byzantine Church but now that it has I cannot in good conscience stay.  In my own parish not a single person has left or threatened to leave over the promulgation but at least two have told me they will leave if we try making them Orthodox. 

Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
stosh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 66


« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2007, 03:17:47 AM »

Deacon Lance, this whole thing is a crock!

I was a cradle Byzantine. I never had a 65 Liturgicon liturgy in my parish.  Yet, I visit a friends parish and lo and behold RED BOOK!!! My parish was a GREEN BOOK parish the whole time I was in it! 

Can you explain why one parish can be red book, and another be green book. Why should one cradle Byzantine in the same diocese be deprived of something another cradle Byzantine is getting in another parish?

I highly doubt ANYBODY would leave if the 65 Liturgy was promulgated. Most of the people 65 and older remember the Liturgy when it was red book, IN SLAVONIC!!

I MIGHT have stayed Greek Catholic, IF the red book was mandated, but my soul longed for the CORRECT expression of the Byzantine Rite. Thank God I found it in the Orthodox church.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,421



« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2007, 11:07:41 AM »

I would agree with you somewhat but I think it is a valid point to say anthropos should be translated not omitted. So say "for us humans" if you don't like "for us men" but don't just edit out anthropos.  It is bad form.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Well, that sounds entirely reasonable to me.  Smiley  Perhaps there needs to be more people trained in both translations and graceful writing in their own language.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2007, 11:35:30 AM »

Most of the people 65 and older remember the Liturgy when it was red book, IN SLAVONIC!!

Gosh, I don't think I've even HEARD of a Slavonic liturgy in the Pittsburgh Metropolia being celebrated with anything other than the 1905 L'viv Sluzhebnyk.

Except the last few years at the Uniontown otpust they've tried to conform it to the Pataki liturgikon, which is comical to watch.

(One of the co-authors of the Pataki liturgikon, God rest his soul, rewrote the Slavonic books in his own parish in New Jersey to fit what he saw as the future of our liturgy. Let's just say all those who are rending their garments now ought to give thanks that his liturgy never got any farther than what of it made it into the Pataki liturgikon.)
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2007, 06:24:55 PM »

Gosh, I don't think I've even HEARD of a Slavonic liturgy in the Pittsburgh Metropolia being celebrated with anything other than the 1905 L'viv Sluzhebnyk.

Except the last few years at the Uniontown otpust they've tried to conform it to the Pataki liturgikon, which is comical to watch.

(One of the co-authors of the Pataki liturgikon, God rest his soul, rewrote the Slavonic books in his own parish in New Jersey to fit what he saw as the future of our liturgy. Let's just say all those who are rending their garments now ought to give thanks that his liturgy never got any farther than what of it made it into the Pataki liturgikon.)
The liturgy at the Byzantine parish here in New Mexico is often a mixture of English, Spanish, and Old Slavonic.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2007, 07:11:56 PM »

"I was a cradle Byzantine. I never had a 65 Liturgicon liturgy in my parish.  Yet, I visit a friends parish and lo and behold RED BOOK!!! My parish was a GREEN BOOK parish the whole time I was in it!"

The Altar Litrugicon is not actually red but black and this the English Litrugicon everyone uses whether they are using 05 Lviv, Grey, Green, Blue or Red Book rubrics or any of the accepted abbreviations. 

"Can you explain why one parish can be red book, and another be green book. Why should one cradle Byzantine in the same diocese be deprived of something another cradle Byzantine is getting in another parish?"

There is an old Russian Orthodox proverb: "As the priest goes so the typicon goes."

"I highly doubt ANYBODY would leave if the 65 Liturgy was promulgated."

Then you don't understand many of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia.
 
"Most of the people 65 and older remember the Liturgy when it was red book, IN SLAVONIC!!"

As Lemko relates if the Liturgy was in Salvonic it was likley from a 1905 Lviv Liturgicon.

"I MIGHT have stayed Greek Catholic, IF the red book was mandated, but my soul longed for the CORRECT expression of the Byzantine Rite. Thank God I found it in the Orthodox church."

There is only one correct expression?  The Russians, Old Rite Russsians, Greeks, and Ruthenians all have differing expressions.  I believe they are all correct and acceptable to God.


Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Monomakh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Just South of Nowhere
Posts: 9


« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2007, 01:49:35 AM »


Until 64, the 1905 Lviv Liturgicon was the norm.  How is dropping what had been the norm for 60 years organic?  I'm not saying the 64 isn't better but all this talk of organic is ridiculous.  Hierarchs decide to make a change and they do it.  That is how liturgical change happens.  You may like or dislike the change but it is hardly ever organic, despite the musings of todays liturgical scholars.

Father Deacon, you need to reread my post regarding how I used organic because what I wrote was: 'Your statement is a specious one in that it misleads people here to think that not using the 64 Liturgicon was organic.' 
I agree that all the talk of organic is ridiculous.  By the way, the person using the phrase 'organic' the most on the byzcath board has been Fr. David Petras.  I hope that you pass your sentiments on to him instead of misdirecting them at me because I agree with you that this talk of 'organic' is incorrect.  I'd be more than happy to dig out his quotes where he goes on about defending the new liturgy because of organic developments.

Quote
You also consistently ignore the fact that some people would be just as upset if the 64 Liturgicon were mandated without any abbreviation.  Are you concerned if they leave?

The 64 Liturgicon is what Rome instructed our church to use and yet this instruction was blantantly disobeyed from the first day.

I do not ignore the fact that no matter what happens somebody somewhere will be upset.  That is yet another reason to follow what Rome told us to do and follow the 1964 Liturgicon.

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that the Liturgical Instruction clearly states the following:

"21. The ecumenical value of the common liturgical heritage
Among the important missions entrusted especially to the Eastern Catholic Churches, <Orientalium Ecclesiarum> (n. 24) and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (can. 903), as well as the Ecumenical Directory (n. 39), underscore the need to promote union with the Eastern Churches that are not yet in full communion with the See of Peter, indicating the conditions: religious fidelity to the ancient traditions of the Eastern Churches, better knowledge of one another, and collaboration and fraternal respect of persons and things. These are important principles for the orientation of the ecclesiastical life of every single Eastern Catholic community and are of eminent value in the celebrations of divine worship, because it is precisely thus that the Eastern Catholic and the Orthodox Churches have more integrally maintained the same heritage.

In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.[26]"

What part of the Liturgical Instruction do you disagree with and why?



Quote
"Why do you think that Slavonic is allowed?  I hope that you are right but what are you basing this on?"
Common sense

If common sense were prevalent we wouldn't even be discussing this debacle of a new liturgy.  The letter from Archbishop Basil says that only the new text can be used.  The new text does not contain Slavonic.  What are you basing your belief that Slavonic can still be used?  Believe me when I say that I hope that you are correct that Slavonic is still allowed.  You may be interested to know that I know of at least one priest in the greater Cleveland area who is not in favor of Slavonic at all and is using the new liturgy as an excuse to purge his parish of it for good.  He also plans on implementing the new liturgy starting in April.   Maybe he doesn't have any common sense?


Quote
  In my own parish not a single person has left or threatened to leave over the promulgation but at least two have told me they will leave if we try making them Orthodox. 

Trying to make them Orthodox, that's hilarious, they should be so lucky.


Monomakh
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 01:59:46 AM by Monomakh » Logged
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2007, 02:54:15 AM »

You may be interested to know that I know of at least one priest in the greater Cleveland area who is not in favor of Slavonic at all and is using the new liturgy as an excuse to purge his parish of it for good.

I daresay Father Progressive is way behind the curve.  Haven't you heard, "there are no more Ruthenians" and "we've been in this country for over 100 years!"  I can't step into a Pittsburgh Metropolia church for more than two minutes until it becomes crystal clear that the former is absolutely correct (for the Pittsburgh Metropolia, anyhow), and the latter they are still trying to prove, as if they really don't believe that's we're American (enough) yet, as if nobody prayed in English before St. Judson Procyk descended from heaven to save us pagan Slavs from our spiritual, liturgical, and moral death.

Yeccchhhhhhh. The further away I stay from the clergy/hierarchy, the closer I feel to God.

Preterpivyj za nas strasti, Isuse Christe, Syne Božij, pomiluj nas...
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 02:55:41 AM by Lemko Rusyn » Logged
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2007, 03:02:17 AM »

Trying to make them Orthodox, that's hilarious, they should be so lucky.

What I really wish for is to be able to continue to pray in a Pittsburgh Metropolia church the way the God-beloved people in Mahanoy City, in Saint Clair, in McKees Rocks, in Rus'ka Dolina, in south Philadelphia, in Hawk Run, in Clarence, in Sykesville, in Windber, in Brooklyn, taught me to pray by their quiet yet unwavering example.

Most of those dear people would probably cringe at the thought that they might be, or should be, Orthodox.

But you know what?

They already are.
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2007, 05:23:27 AM »

Unfortunately, the majority of the church had no idea this was happening until Metropolitan Basil sent out a letter letting every parish know that the new books will be delivered by the end of January and must be in place and in use by June (I think).  Most of the revision was done almost hush-hush.  The only people who really knew about it before the promulgation of Met. Basil's letter were the "high church" minded who strongly objected not only some of the revision, but also the process itself.

The good thing about it is that the music is printed in the new books, making it more accessible to visitors.  Some of the English translation is cleaned up to match the music more (part of the "good").  "Theotokos" is used now instead of "Mother of God".

The big problem for many is the translation of "anthropos" in the Creed.  The revised Creed now reads "for us and for our salvation", omitting "men".  Some people are in a huge uproar over this.  I can see their point about the faulty translation, but at the same time, they're bleating like donkeys, coming up with ridiculous reasons for opposing this translation, such as "it will confuse people who might think that "us" just refers to those present".  Anyone who can figure out that "us men" refers to all of humanity can also figure out that "us" refers to the same. 

That being said, I'm not a fan of the new translation of "anthropos".

The little litanies have, for the most part, been removed already, at least in the eparchy of Parma.

I haven't heard about curtailing Slavonic, which would be a shame.  It wouldn't surprise me, though.

Unfortunately for the Pittsburgh Metropolita, this revision will most likely cause a number of people to 'dox. 

BTW, you can see the new books in pdf form at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute's website.  The books themselves are put together quite nicely.  It's a shame that the commission had to muck around too much with the English translation Sad.  Otherwise, it would have been a welcome "revision".

While many people are vowing to leave for the Orthodox Churches I pray they do so for spiritual reasons.    While it is obvious taking the word men from the creed and changing "Lover of Mankind" to "God who loves us all" was a bow to the feminist-humanistic pressures, I would pray that if people do leave they do it because they accept Orthodox teachings and are following the will of God.
Logged

username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,065



« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2007, 05:27:42 AM »

What I really wish for is to be able to continue to pray in a Pittsburgh Metropolia church the way the God-beloved people in Mahanoy City, in Saint Clair, in McKees Rocks, in Rus'ka Dolina, in south Philadelphia, in Hawk Run, in Clarence, in Sykesville, in Windber, in Brooklyn, taught me to pray by their quiet yet unwavering example.

Most of those dear people would probably cringe at the thought that they might be, or should be, Orthodox.

But you know what?

They already are.

How are they Orthodox?  They are Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic.  Mind you I am not showing disrespect, I was Greek Catholic so I have a fairly good understanding of both sides of the fence.  I still have many many many good friends that are Byzcath, one of them is my spiritual brother. 
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,928


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2007, 09:20:20 AM »

"What part of the Liturgical Instruction do you disagree with and why?"

None.  But it depends on what Orthodox one wishes to mirror.  From my point of view ACROD is the only Orthodox we have to worry about and they utilize the same abbreviations we do.  The new music is seen by their hierarch as an improvement and Metropolitan Nicholas is sending his seminarians to Pittsburgh to learn it.   

However, many seem to want to imitate the OCA which follows the Russian Recension and where Prostopinje is all but forgotten in most of the parishes that were formerly or were splits from Greek Catholic parishes. 


"Maybe he doesn't have any common sense?"

Nor pastoral sense for that matter.

Fr. Deacon Lance


Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2007, 09:44:33 AM »

Quote
From my point of view ACROD is the only Orthodox we have to worry about and they utilize the same abbreviations we do.

I would have to go through the list, but we certainly are not making silent prayers be read aloud, using inclusive language or altering the creed.  Our pew books also give the options for doing additional things such as the reading of the beatitudes if the parish custom is to do so.  So people can have a fuller liturgy if they wish.

Here is the text for anyone that wants to compare. http://aggreen.net/liturgics/C-R_Div_Lit.html
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 09:49:12 AM by welkodox » Logged
Monomakh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Just South of Nowhere
Posts: 9


« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2007, 09:57:30 AM »

"What part of the Liturgical Instruction do you disagree with and why?"

None.  But it depends on what Orthodox one wishes to mirror.  From my point of view ACROD is the only Orthodox we have to worry about and they utilize the same abbreviations we do.  The new music is seen by their hierarch as an improvement and Metropolitan Nicholas is sending his seminarians to Pittsburgh to learn it.   

However, many seem to want to imitate the OCA which follows the Russian Recension and where Prostopinje is all but forgotten in most of the parishes that were formerly or were splits from Greek Catholic parishes. 


"Maybe he doesn't have any common sense?"

Nor pastoral sense for that matter.

Fr. Deacon Lance




First of all, ACROD is not going off on a path of feminized inclusive secular language and we are going off on our own tangent, this flies in the face of the Liturgical Instruction.  But I will say this, it is consistent with our churches history of being disobedient and isolationist.

Second of all, you are correct of how many OCA parishes exist in this country that were former Greek Catholic Churches.  I can personally e-mail to you many many photos I have seen of the cornerstones of OCA churches that say Greek Catholic on them.  But to dismiss them as irrelevant in this is strange.  Should we do the same with our Ukrainian Greek Catholic brethern because they have different chant than us?   Are you saying that if the split with ACROD were remedied or never took place then the Liturgical Instruction regarding Orthodoxy would not be needed?  That's laughable.

I've said on the other board and I'll say it here, this translation moves us further away from not only Orthodoxy but from our own Greek Catholic brethern as well when instead we should be moving towards them.  Why should we be the ones doing the most moving, because in nearly every case it is us who have moved away in the first place.


Monomakh
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 10:05:38 AM by Monomakh » Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2007, 10:05:45 AM »

Quote
Most of those dear people would probably cringe at the thought that they might be, or should be, Orthodox.

But you know what?

They already are.

There can be confusion with the terms.  Normally when someone uses the word "Catholic", they mean someone in communion with the Roman Pontiff who accepts the dogma, councils, etc. of that church.  When someone says "Orthodox" they generally mean someone in communion with the Eastern patriarchates who accepts the dogma, councils, etc. of that church.

The cornerstone on my parish says "XYZ Orthodox Catholic Church" which is of course true.  We are both fully Orthodox and fully Catholic in the real sense, meaning we possess the fullness and rightness of faith.  So I could call myself "Catholic", but I would imagine that would confuse people.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 10:07:00 AM by welkodox » Logged
Monomakh
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction: Just South of Nowhere
Posts: 9


« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2007, 10:24:07 AM »

In my own parish not a single person has left or threatened to leave over the promulgation but at least two have told me they will leave if we try making them Orthodox. 

Father Deacon,

knowing the part of the country you are from (PA) and knowing that there is still unfortunately animosity to this day in Byznantine Churches regarding the ACROD split, I'd be willing to bet that this feeling of not wanting to be made Orthodox is personal rather than Liturgical.  I don't know the people at all you are referring to, but I'd be willing to put a lot of certainty into my above assumption.  And while we're on this topic, the bishop who is the driving force behind this new Liturgy is known to share these sentiments as well.  It's ashame to see our church veer off into this feminized and modernized manner at all, let alone because of personal animosity.

Quote
However, many seem to want to imitate the OCA which follows the Russian Recension and where Prostopinje is all but forgotten in most of the parishes that were formerly or were splits from Greek Catholic parishes. 

Rome must be one of these people who want to imitate the vast majority of our Slavic Orthodox brethern because the Liturgicon they told us to use in 1964 did not coincide with ACROD.  Once again, it followed much more closely to the vast majority of our Slavic Orthodox brethern.  I'm really puzzled why you seem so determined to battle Rome on this subject. Huh


Monomakh
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 11:16:01 AM by Monomakh » Logged
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2007, 12:31:41 PM »

How are they Orthodox?  They are Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic.  Mind you I am not showing disrespect, I was Greek Catholic so I have a fairly good understanding of both sides of the fence.  I still have many many many good friends that are Byzcath, one of them is my spiritual brother. 

To clarify what I meant:

I think we all (well, Papist, you're excused) agree here that Orthodox Christianity is the "best" Christianity: liturgically, doctrinally, morally, socially, culturally.

All of those "Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics" I've known whom I hold up as exemplars of faith and teachers by example were and are in their liturgical-prayer life, their doctrinal belief, their moral lives, their community life, and their cultural lives--fully integrated, the "best" Christians. They lived lives in Christ. In my mind that is Orthodoxy and that is whom I want to emulate.

I'm sure nobody will agree with this, but that's how I see them and that's what "Orthodoxy" is to me. Which bishops and patriarchs they are in communion with matters not a whit to me if they don't have the other stuff right. And these folks did and do have it right.

(The Pittsburgh Uniate hierarchy seems to have a different model now: morally "do as I say, not as I do", liturgically "emulate an abstract arbitrary Orthodoxy but you can't use the word Orthodox", and socially-culturally "if you're something other than generic American, or Hispanic, leave it at home, don't bring it into the church".)
« Last Edit: February 28, 2007, 12:34:16 PM by Lemko Rusyn » Logged
Tags: Modernism inclusive language 
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.155 seconds with 73 queries.