Serge Keleher, Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - I. The Draft Translation: f Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. (Pittsburgh: Stauropegion Press, 2006). 280 pp. Plus Appendix.
Since this volume has been made available to all the priests of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I feel that it is important to also make available to them a review of the book. The sub-title explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation. As a member of the Commission that has drafted the translation, it is even more imperative, therefore, to present a defense of their work.
It should be noted, before beginning, that the October 2004 draft is not the most current. Another draft was issued June 4, 2005, which will modify some of Fr. Keleher’s remarks.
Chapter 1 is an apologia (defense) of the author’s right to critique the translation. I certainly would not deny him that right. He admits (p. 11) that the original Ruthenian Recension (by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Rome, 1941, in Church Slavonic, but not cited in this chapter, he refers to the translation of that text by the Pittsburgh Metropolia in 1964/65)) can be revised, but accurately states the question of whether the Proposed Draft is an appropriate revision (p. 12) One might ask the further question whether his critique meets the principles of constructive or destructive criticism. On p. 10, he quotes Archbishop Quinn, who defines destructive criticism as “divisive, intemperate, competitive, blind to a larger vision, and without reverence for authority.” (P. 10)
Chapter 2 is entitled “The Controversy and its Historical Setting. This chapter contains much valuable information. In regard to the interchange between Bishop Daniel Ivancho and the Oriental Congregation in 1953, the Congregation granted part of what the Bishop asked for, precisely because these particular practices were not latinizations, except for the very troublesome consumation of the gifts during the hymn, “May our mouth be filled... “ This has been corrected in the newest proposal. The Congregation granted him only what he asked for - a temporary dispensation, though no time limit is mandated. In reality, the only really important issue remaining from this is the question of when the Royal Doors should be opened and closed. We will return to this question.
Fr. Keleher then tells the story of Bishop Emil Mihalik. I was a participant in that story. Fr. Keleher sees it as the promulgation of the 1941 Liturgicon, and indeed, that was the goal of Bishop Emil, depending on his advisors, chiefly Fr. Eugene Chromoga and Fr. Victor Herberth. At the time, I was a young priest, recently returned from studies in Rome. This also was my vision. One problem of interpretation ever since, however, is the fact that Bishop Emil did promulgate it in what was then labeled as a “pastoral fashion.” Most of the litanies were made optional, that is, they retained the same status as previous systems. Even in the primitive days, before and after the 1941 Roman recension, priests felt obliged by the law to say all the litanies, only they did them silently. Sometimes, as at the small litanies, the faithful would chant the responses, “Lord, have mercy; Lord, have mercy; To you, O Lord. Amen.” It is difficult for us today to understand the legalistic mentality of those times. Today, if litanies are not said, they are not said, even silently. The net result was that, even if the 1986 promulgation of the Ruthenian recension - and it was seen as such - did not make the recitation of the litanies “facultative,” it nonetheless had the positive effect of making more of the litanies public than Bishop Emil’s 1970 promulgation.
It is at this point that Fr. Keleher begins his attack on the latest efforts to promulgate the Ruthenian recension. On p. 40, he moves from history to speculation. He quotes Fr. Lambert Beauduin to say that one must experience a Liturgy before one can reform it. This, he then claims, is why one must celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon before reforming it. Of course, Lambert Beauduin was not referring to the 1941 Liturgicon, nor probably to any discrete written text. To “experience a Liturgy” would certainly mean to participate in it and in the ways it brings us to God. One could truly experience the Byzantine Divine Liturgy - even the 1941 version of it - without some of the litanies - that is, the prayers, the hymns, the rubrics, the incense, the colors and light, the word of God and the taste of bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. Here I must digress a bit from the review of his book, and I apologize. One of the problems I see from this whole affair is that the claim is being made that nothing else but the literal execution of a certain written text will suffice. This is, then, a textual problem, and one that leads to different conclusions depending on the premises from which you begin. Meditate on this: can you experience a human meal, the organic foodstuffs, the table conversation, the refreshment of the body, without having dessert? Can one come to faith in the resurrection of Christ without reading the Lukan account? One may well truly experience the beauty and the grace of the Ruthenian Byzantine Liturgy without hearing the two small litanies between the antiphons and, indeed, I have seen that happen many times. Yes, there is a problem in what you can omit and what must be there, but we can discern this, for that is why we are human beings inspired by God. We can make these kinds of decisions. The Divine Liturgy is for us, we are not for the Divine Liturgy. We might even be able to fulfill the vocation of the Church to be faithful to our Eastern heritage without saying the two small litanies. We are not slaves of the text to that degree.
Fr. Keleher ends the chapter on history with a long quotation from Fr. Taft.(pages 41-45). The quotation is solid and beautiful. It rings quite true and mentions a number of important Eastern litrurgical practices that must be experienced for it to be true and authentic. In chapter 6, pp. 131-133, Fr. Keleher lists what he likes about the 2004 draft. This list is small, but it touches on some of the points made by Fr. Taft. The basic disagreement remains - I think that the Liturgy as envisioned by the Metropolitan Council of Hierarchs does respond to Fr. Taft’s challenge, finally, and even in details. The problem is that it does not meet Fr. Keleher’s criteria.
Chapter 3 deals with “the process of secrecy.” No one likes to be kept in darkness about a process that is going on, and this has been the case with the deliberations of the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission for about ten years now. Perhaps he is right and there has been too much secrecy. It was the method decided upon in order to encourage the members to greater courage to express their honest opinions. The more cynical might grumble, “to protects their asses.” I did not like working under such secrecy, and more openness might have defused much of the criticism pouring out now. The opinions of the people, though, were not totally ignored. More than half the members of the Commission are pastors, who, it is felt, would be in sympathy with the people’s needs and desires. Though the complaint might be made that this is not adequate, that the people should speak for themselves, nonetheless, it was not therefore completely ignored.
At the same time, the tempest that has been raised did teach me a little about human nature and secrecy. In the Roman Church, liturgical reform is carried on from above, the central authority commissions new books, and then they are promulgated to begin on a fixed date. When this occurs, though, there is usually an uproar, but eventually the Church conforms (well, more or less, which proves there is a process of reception). It has been pointed out by some that this doesn’t happen in the Eastern Church, though the Studite reform of the office, the Niconian reforms and the Moghilan reform might indicate otherwise). In each case, though, after a period of reception, the reform itself is accepted as the normative text. Thus, Rome found it difficult to reform the Tridentine reform (the Vatican reform is still in a period of reception).
At the same time, I have learned that if action is not taken from above, nothing will happen. Liturgy is inherently conservative. If people don’t relate to the Liturgy any longer, they usually don’t call for a reform, they just drift away. If a change is proposed, the rank and file will automatically reject it, almost as a knee-jerk reaction. This was the pattern we have seen in 1965. The Divine Liturgy was translated into English, this was a major reform which changed the liturgical experience of the people decisively for all time. There was an uproar. Eventually, it was accepted, after a fashion, and, now, when the situation is being reviewed, there is another uproar. The point is that if you open the process to all people, nothing will ever be able to be properly addressed.
This is not disrespectful of the people’s position. The Liturgy is for the people, which includes the clergy, who do not cease being a part of the people by their ordination. The reality of the praying Church is that anyone, even with the most rudimentary knowledge of theology, is a part of this praying Church, as St. John Chrysostom so often eloquently witnessed. A problem found in all the story of the Church, but especially today when a business or technological education predominates and very little theological knowledge or formation is given, is that the people do not have a formal knowledge of the Liturgy (while they may well have a very deep experiential knowledge) and are, in truth, ignorant of teleology of the Liturgy or of some of the potential that the Liturgy has to bring them closer to God. If I tell them, “if you hear the presbyteral prayers,” you will understand the Liturgy better, they may say, “what are these ‘presbyteral prayers.’” If they actually hear them, then they may understand better. I have confidence that people will respond to good liturgy sincerely celebrated.
The fact remain that while many people experience the Liturgy in a healthy way, others do not, nor want their experience to be challenged. Some people do not even have the first clue what the Liturgy is supposed to be. Experts are needed - perhaps not so much to lead us into a new land, but to save us from our own folly. I would hold that some liturgical reform is desperately needed. We no longer live in Niconian Russia - we have experienced the rise of technology, the atomic bomb, the holocaust of the Jews, and, indeed, of many peoples, the devastation of World Wars, we cry to God from our hearts. How can this people be reunited with their God? The Byzantine Church has remained aloof from these problems. In Russia and Greece, the major Byzantine territories, the translation of the Liturgy into the vernacular is being resisted - even by the people, who perhaps cry, “do not bring us into contact with these problems, keep it obscure.” We need, however, to experience the mystery of God’s redemption. If the Liturgy is to speak to us, it must be in our language, and it is clear from the very structure of the Liturgy, that when it “goes” into the vernacular, the structure is going to change. This is why you have “pastors” in the church, to help guide the people. Our shepherds have taken into account the needs of the people and have made a very reasoned response to help guide them to God, based on the authentic liturgical experience of our church. They have made the determination that the presbyteral prayers, which especially express the anamnetic aspect of the Liturgy - that is, that we are remembering our Lord Jesus Christ, in our midst, is important and crucial for our age. Fr. Keleher, of course, thinks differently, cf. Chapter 11.
A universal consultation would have precluded any action from the beginning. I feel that a limited consultation might have been profitable, but this was not the path chosen. I can understand from the present reaction why the shepherds are gun-shy. Even so, the process was not elitist or gnostic. When the promulgation is made, the Liturgy will be explained - both to priests and people. I myself have written a book, which has been printed but not yet released, but which has been public in the newspaper articles. There will also be visual aids. My only regret is that this project is moving so slow that it has given some an opportunity ot condemn the Liturgy before it is even given a hearing.
Chapter 4 addresses what is probably the greatest sticking point among conservative member of the Church, the use of “Inclusive Language.” I personally would prefer to table this discussion, not because I’m right or wrong, but because it is utterly impossible to discuss it in these transitional times without extreme - and I mean “extreme” - emotion. I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point. This is not to criticize the Church, perhaps it just takes more time for the real issue to emerge, there has to be some “text” in which the Spirit can write clearly. The proceedings of the Liturgy Commission are confidential, so I speak only of myself, and that this is a controversy which has swirled around me and in which I have not taken a leadership position. The commission are not out and out feminists, that is not the issue.
However, in his book, Fr. Keleher has pointed ten instances of discrete horizontal “inclusive language.” I will speak of these only generally. I would first like to note that the letter from the Oriental Congregation recommended some use of horizontal inclusive language, which, I suppose, shows that Rome is not as monolithic as we would suppose. Some have suggested, of course, that the Oriental Congregation is wrong on this point and should conform itself to other dicasteries, but I would guess that this would mean that the other dicasteries could also be wrong. As mentioned, one cannot get into this without “extreme” emotion.
In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term “lover of mankind,” Philanthropos, “mankind” being labeled as a sexist term. This could actually be easily solved, saying simply “Lover of humankind.” It means exactly the same thing, avoids gender exclusivity, adds one syllable, and is not a “neologism,” since it has been around since the sixteenth century, as the Oxford English Dictionary has pointed out. Of course, it is not possible to propose this without “extreme” emotion, and those opposed to inclusive language generally go ballistic at this suggestion. Why? I think because it is an easy fix. They don’t want an easy fix, but to force “feminists “ to use more circuitous language that can be more easily ridiculed. “Humankind” then is rejected as bowing to the “feminist agenda.” The critics point out that “loving us all,” is ambiguous, and as much as I am in sympathy with the problem, I think fairly that it is a double standard. “Man” can be ambiguous also, but the critics say that it’s always clear from “context.” As clear, I think, from “context,” as “lover of us all.” The divine title philanthropos is particularly a Byzantine problem, and it occurs so frequently. If there is going to be such trouble over the gender problem, I would propose that we simply use “lover of humankind,” and in other cases conform to what has been approved for the Roman Catholic Church in America. It is undoubtedly too late for this suggestion, however.
What should one say about “feminism.” I would certainly hold to a sound theology, which would hold that men and women, as human persons, are equal in dignity and redemption but not in role. In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments. Whenever this happens, there is social displacement, even violence. When America faced the problem of slavery and thus of social realignment in the nineteenth century, it led to one of the most bloody wars in history. This is perhaps the reason for “extreme” emotion. We cannot have a physical war between men and women. In time, I think, things will settle down again. The world has changed, and the “text,” the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed. The Pittsburgh Metropolia, nor the Oriental Congregation, nor for that matter the Holy See, has control over the language used in the world. This is the problem that the Church has not adequately faced. The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church’s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church’s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of “text” in the modern world, ministers on the grass roots level feel the problem, and so inclusive language is used in everyday and liturgical discourse whether the official Church allows it or not. This is true in Orthodoxy as well as Catholicism.
There is in the background another problem that has not been addressed. This is related, but getting off-topic a bit, so I’ll just mention it. As any real pastor knows, the church is dominated by women. What is needed is a masculine spirituality to attract more men. Unfortunately, many proponents of a masculine spirituality think this means putting women down. I think the central spirituality of men is fatherhood, either spiritual or physical. The role of a father is to bring out the best in the potentiality of his children. In regard to physical children, sometimes fathers abuse this by forcing their own image on them. Fathers frequently do not know how to relate to their daughters or their wives, or how to bring out their best potential. I tell my seminarians over and over again, if the church says that the priesthood is a male role, then you must be a spiritual father to the women under your pastoral care. You must bring out their best spiritual potential, not put them down, but men often do not know how to do this. Our culture does not teach this. The challenge to priests and fathers in these days is unbelievably high pressure, so it is no wonder that men sometimes “crack,” and become abusers.
Chapter 5. “The Divine Liturgy of our Holy Father John Chrysostom.” The author first expects full information and responsibility for a text that was not intended for general circulation, and which he has made available on his own cognizance. To expect full responsibility for a text intended only for interior circulation certainly requires a good deal of chutzpah. Information and formation on this new text is being made available (cf. above) to the priests and faithful of the Metropolia. Unfortunately, we do not have a branch office in Dublin. [p. 71, the Exarchate was established in 1924, not 1925.]
Most of chapter 5 consists of quotations from various documents: the commentary on the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches, by Neophytos Edelby; other commentaries by Victor Pospishil and Ignatius Dick; the Decrees on the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Decree on Ecumenism; the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches; the liturgical Instruction of the Oriental Congregation of January 6, 1996, and others. Most of the material is to buttress his thesis that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be faithful to their traditions and should distance themselves from the Orthodox as little as possible. For Keleher, as applied to the Ruthenian Liturgy, this would mean following the 1941 Sluzhebnik in all exactitude, though he does allow for occasional exceptions. One cannot disagree with these documents, and I would reaffirm the principle of fidelity to our Eastern heritage. Since the Eastern Church is mostly Orthodox, that would include a fidelity also to Orthodox principles of Liturgy. This would be a given, and I would probably extol the 1941 Ruthenian Sluzhebnik even more than Keleher as a magnificent work of scholarship, a jewel of Byzantine liturgical history, and an accomplishment which cannot be given enough praise. Indeed, in my priesthood, I have striven to make it my ultimate model, and to eliminate all latinizations from Ruthenian practice. I have not always been successful, and the most serious latinization in my opinion is the use of pre-cut particles rather than the comminution of the ahnec (lamb) for Holy Communion. I do not hold with Fr. Keleher, however, that fidelity to the 1941 Sluzhebnik necessarily includes reciting all the litanies.
The next problem I would address is that of ecumenism. In general, the See of Rome wants us to be as faithful as possible to our Eastern heritage, so that the Orthodox will not be scandalized by latinizations. Again, I have no difficulty in fidelity to Orthodoxy, but since becoming actively involved with the official dialogue (the North American Orthodox Catholic Theological Consultation) since 1983, I have acquired a new sensitivity to our relationships with the Orthodox Churches. On the ecumenical level, the method of uniatism to unite our two churches has been disavowed. This means, certainly, no piecemeal unions with parts of Eastern Churches and no proselytism. It does not mean that the Eastern Churches in union with Rome must cease to exist, nor, and this is important, cease to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of their own faithful. The original vision of Rome saw us as a tool to unity, as a bridge to Orthodoxy, but the “bridge theory” has fallen with the disavowal of uniatism, if, indeed, it could have ever been effective with the bulk of the Orthodox Church. There is, of course, a variety of opinions about the Eastern Catholic Churches among the Orthodox, and all of these opinions are more or less negative. The most negative is that we Eastern Catholics are a betrayal of Orthodoxy, an abomination upon the face of the earth, and that any attempt to look like Orthodox is the tool of proselytism on our part. We should simply become the Roman Catholics that we are. Other more moderate Orthodox are much more realistic. They know that the present-day “Uniates” are not the ones who betrayed Orthodoxy, and they look forward to our return to Orthodoxy. The first group, naturally, would be totally uninterested as to what we do liturgically, its all a sham, Roman Catholicism in Orthodox clothing. The second group are often interested in the liturgical life of our churches, but it would never form a motivation for their reunion with Rome. So this vision, that if we are good and faithful to our Orthodox heritage, we will foster reunion, is completely baseless. To put it in common language, “it ain’t gonna happen.”“
Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband. Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody’s tool. This means, on a practical level, we can act for our own welfare in liturgical matters. Don’t worry, it will neither hurt not harm ecumenism. In fact, it might be the best possible course of action, because at least then the Orthodox will see we have a dignity in our faith, that we are a Church that can make Christian decisions. We also have the advantage of excellent scholarship on liturgical matters, which can be used for our advantage. My conclusion is that the most Orthodox thing we can do is act for our own spiritual welfare. However, what it seems to me is that there are some who want to take away our independence and enslave it to a vacuous and ineffective ecumenical program. By not allowing for our own dignity, they make us the ultimate “uniates,” a self-proclaimed tool to try to win over the Orthodox.
Father Keleher then turns his attention (pages 117-127) to a number of discrete issues: the introduction of the Anaphora of St. James, the public recitation of the Anaphora, pontifical Liturgies, concelebrations, extraordinary ministers of Communion, liturgical and street dress of Eastern clerics. Since little of this has to do with the text of what he calls the “proposed recasting,” and despite the temptation to a liturgiologist to comment at length on each point, I will skip to Chapter 7. His comments on reciting the Anaphora aloud are, of course, relevant, but I will return to that in my comments on chapter 11. I have already mentioned that we disagree on the stage of the process of the “recasting, ” and his positive comments in chapter 6.
Chapter 7 is quite brief, and calls for the restoration, as least, of the full Third Antiphon as found in the textus receptus. The 1941 Sluzhebnik, intended for the use of the priest and deacon, does not include the texts of the Antiphons, so this is a problem for more recent editions intended for people’s and cantor’s use. The disagreement between the author and the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission working draft is obvious, and I have no subtle background to add.
Chapter 8 then turns to a more minute examination of the working draft. Chapter 8 deals with problems of rubrics1 and chapter 9 with problems of text.
In chapter 8, a short philosophical discussion of the lack of need for absolute uniformity is concluded with the observation that Bishop Nicholas (Elko) had a “campaign” against the Ordo celebrationis.2He then turns his attention to some of these details, and I follow his enumeration.
1) deals with the question of the opening and closing of the Royal Doors. In general, the Greek Church opens the Royal Door for the Divine Liturgy, while the Slavs keep them closed except when you have to go in and out of them. In 1953, the Oriental Congregation gave Bishop Daniel (Ivancho) a temporary reprieve from the Slav practice. This is not a question of “latinization,” since the Roman liturgical worship space has no doors between the holy table (altar) and the congregation. Metropolitan Andrei Sheptytsky himself petitioned for a dispensation from this provision, which was granted.3 However, the Liturgy Commission and the Council of Hierarchs has extended this “reprieve,” on the basis that it is a genuine Byzantine usage (albeit Greek) and the “zeitgeist” is more generally for openness. I tend to think that keeping the celebration behind closed doors is more of a clericalization than shutting the doors, though waiting until the Little Entrance to open the doors would not be too obtrusive. I am in agreement with Fr. Peter Galadza on this point, that “the closing (and opening) of the holy doors at the Eucharist is a very late Byzantine innovation, arguably illustrative of liturgical deformation.”4
2) requires no comment.
3) introduces the issue that the working draft had more elaborated rubrics and titles for sections of the Liturgy, as, for example, “Great Synapte.” The titles were added only to indicate more clearly the structure of the Liturgy. Since they have no effect on the celebration whatsoever, and would probably be welcome in the people’s book, I can ascertain no issue here. (Cf. Also 11)The original rubrics were very jejune. I don’t think this was for the cause of more freedom in rubrics, but to keep the books smaller. The Liturgy Commission felt that today the rubrics need to be spelled out in more detail, not to restrict the celebrants, but to help them know what to do. The deacon is, at any rate, going to go to his “usual place.” This just spells it out. This is probably a partial reason why an ordo celebrationis was published in 1944.
4) was dealt with under the antiphons section.
5) the response should be reintroduced. Readers usually respond, “And to your spirit,” anyhow.
6) This incensation honors the gospel, about to be read. In the Liturgies, incensations have tended towards uniformity, always incensing everything, as at the beginning of the service as a sign of purification. This was a conscious decision to focus the incensation on the gospel itself, which are words written in a book. They do not stay in the book, but are proclaimed aloud for the hearing of the people. Therefore, those who hear the word are also censed.
7) to 10) deal with the Great Entrance. The rubrics as written here reflect more common practices today. I will not quibble about these points, but I see no major theological issue here. Certainly, to carry the discos on the head is no longer common practice, though I hear some are trying to restore it. I follow my teachers’ opinion here, that the purpose of this was to balance the diskos, which in Haghia Sophia could be huge. You can still see examples of these very large diskoses in Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, though I have also seen very large diskoses in use in the present-day Russian Church. [The proper term for this is “diskos,” or “discos,” not “diskarion..” The author here seems influenced by the Greek suffix “-ion” indicating a “thing,” such as “poterion,” “adrinking thing,” or epitrachilion,” a “thing around the neck,” or “phelonion,” etc. However, here the word model is rather “asteriskos,” the “little star,” placed over the bread in the “diskos,” which is not an “asteriscarion.” I apologize for going off-topic, but the term bothers me.]
11) -12). The author shows here that he understands the discussion concerning the title of the prayer. He then calls it the “correct” title. I do not want to quibble about this, for it is certainly the traditional title. However, there might be sufficient reason to modify this if it helps the celebrant and/or people understand the intent of the prayer, “bring us to your holy altar, enable us to offer gifts and spiritual sacrifices ... “ A similar comment might be made about the profession of faith. Again, the placement of the title does not affect the celebration in any way, but might help us to see that this is indeed a liturgical unit, that our faith is not simply an intellectual exercise, but a unity in love.
13) The placing of the words, “The doors! The doors!” in brackets was done because it was felt it was an archaism. Many priests omit the words even without brackets. I myself say these words, as a reminder that we now enter the point of the ancient disciplina arcana. However, the Commission felt differently, and even I do not discern a major theological/ecumenical issue here.
14) The commemoration of the various classes of saints and of the Theotokos is a commemoration of the dead. The Theotokos died, though now she is glorified in heaven. The Divine Liturgy is offered for the Theotokos and all saints, for they are saved by virtue of our Lord’s death on the Cross and resurrection, though, from our perspective, this is already an accomplished fact. 5 Incensation is always done for the deceased, as evidenced by the deacon’s continuing the incensation at this point, “and he mentions the names of the departed for whom he wishes to pray.”
15) The aitesis before the Our Father may be prayed in its entirety. This is an option. The author recommends retaining both instances of the aitesis (after the Great Entrance and before the Our Father,) though not making a great point of it, as an opportunity for using different languages. Dual language litanies, however, are quite rare, and if done, there are numerous other ways to accomodate them. Though I do not recommend this, I recently attended a Greek Liturgy where the shorter phrases were repeated in both English and Greek. The first aitesis is suppressed as Fr. Taft recommended.6 At any rate, the question posed is peripheral, since if the Liturgy were to be celebrated in Church Slavonic, there would be no translation issues.
16) Seems to be a very trivial point.
17) criticizes the working draft for placing the rubric after the Oir Father rather than before. Of course, rubrical inversions like this occur, as, for example, the rubric for the deacon to say “Lord, have mercy,” at each incision of the ahnec at the Rite of Preparation, given only after the priest has done the incisions! Here it is the problem of where to place a rubric when there are two possibilities. Maybe it would have been better to place it earlier, but, at any rate, one reads the rubrics before the Liturgy is celebrated. If one celebrates reading the rubrics as you go along, it will be a very long celebration indeed.
18) It is now the common practice in the Pittsburgh Metropolia for the priest and people to say the Prayer before Communion together before the priest partakes. The period of silence alluded to here is not as long as Fr. Keleher makes it out to be. That “the Byzantine Liturgy does not appreciate silent periods,” (page 158) is a generalization. Certainly during the Great Entrance of the Presanctified a silent period is prescribed, and there is rarely a problem at this point of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
19) The deacon does not receive before the priest, but the priest gives the deacon the Holy Body before taking it himself, as he only has two hands.
(20) Seems to be a trivial complaint.
21) In common practice, the particles are pre-cut and there is no comminution. I would like to see the restoration of the distribution of Communion from the ahnec (lamb), in fulfillment of the Holy Apostle Paul’s words, “Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf. (1 Corinthians 10:17)” The author here seems to want to complicate the situation, though we elsewhere get chided for expanding rubrics. The author also seems to want the rubrics for the transfer of the gifts expanded
22), though there are few practical difficulties here. In regard to footnote 98, page 162, most priests leave the spoon in the chalice, and I have never seen it “fly out,” which could as easily happen during the distribution of Communion!
23) The use of variant Ambon Prayers has become very common. What does it accomplish? - a further meditation on the feast or mystery being celebrated. These prayers are certainly found in tradition and have become very popular, not only among Catholic but also the Orthodox. For example, they are found in service books published by the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox diocese of Johnstown, and also by the Holy Theotokos Monastery in North Fort Myers, which cites the Ieraticon of 1997 (Apostolica Diakonia, Athens), pages 138 amd 193 as recommending them.
24) The deacon cannot hold his orarion during the consumation of the gifts. Russian deacons just tie it at the side. This seems a practical solution when Ruthenian deacons wear the longer style oraria.
25) It might be well to eventually restore the antidoron. Certainly, nothing prevents a priest from doing this, and very often bread is dtributed in the Ruthenian Church for mirovanije, which, of course, properly comes from the office.
26) seems to raise the question of whether it is appropriate to sing “eternal memory,” after a Divine Liturgy. In parochial life, it is certainly done frequently, whether or not there is a rubric.
Unfortunately, Fr. Keleher’s conclusions do not follow from his text. That the rubrics do not always follow exactly what is found in Church Slavonic or the Ordo celebrationis is no indication whatsoever that they were not given warranted attention. If they had been rewritten “in a scientific way,” as the author suggests, would he then make the same objection, that the original rubrics were not attended to? In any case, for centuries, we have lived with rubrics that are very sparse, and sometimes even conflicting (the author points out that there is no rubric to close the Royal Doors after the Great Entrance in Niconian and Niconian influenced editions, footnote 2, p. 141), but this has not led to chaos, as he rather casually opines.
Fr. Keleher turns to the texts themselves in chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 9, he affirms, will deal with texts that are simply wrong. Chapter 10 will deal with texts that present problems of translation, acknowledging that “a perfect translation of such material is an unattainable goal,” though one, of course, must try as much as possible for accuracy. (Page 169)
Let us look first at what he considers errors (chapter 9). Again, I follow his numbering.
1) He first raises the question of the word despota in Greek. It is certainly true that despota means, literally, “Master.” Perhaps in the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer, this was missed, as Fr. Keleher points out, and the 1964 translation was reproduced without critique. The change of title for human beings serving in a particular role was deliberately changed, since “Master,” in English, is no longer the ordinary greeting for bishops or priests. Lumped together with the “Master” problem, is the question of what to call the “Holy Table.” Greek usually uses, “è haghia trapeza,” literally, “the holy table,” but sometimes “thysiastèrion,” “place of sacrifice,” as in the prayer of access to the altar (offering). The translation is careful to retain “the holy Table,” in the actual texts of prayers, but not so careful in the rubrics, since “altar” for “holy Table,” and “sanctuary” for “altar” has become common in English. Fr. Keleher may be right in calling for more consistency here, but it cannot be labeled entirely erroneous, since this vocabulary has become so common in English vernacular.
2) This was a conscious decision that “community” would be more inclusive than “village.”
3) The question of the use of “Orthodox” continues to be vexing for some people. I certainly don’t think we should fear the word “orthodox.” I see a problem in us claiming to be “Orthodox,” when we are not in communion with the world-wide “Orthodox Church,” but my take here seems to be idiosyncratic.
4) The question of “ages of ages,” is also sensitive. It is not literal, but it does mean “forever.” In the scientific world, the idea that the universe is cyclical in a series of “ages” is archaic, or at least, controversial. However one deals with this problem and its connection with common language should have placed this phrase among translation problems rather than translation errors. It seems this is an old problem, as the traditional Catholic translation indicates, “as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.” The author’s opinion that it is simply erroneous is his own.
5) This is Fr. Keleher’s opinion. Other scholars believe it does mean “concelebration” in the full technical sense. This translation was commended in the Oriental Congregation review (§ 50). In each Liturgy, the whole Church, including the angels, are truly celebrating together, and Christ is the Church.
6) I hardly think the difference between “mighty” and “strong” is as stark as the author paints. I don’t think even the author should label it “erroneous,” but “less preferable.”
7) The suggestion (“alms”) is intriguing and deserves more consideration. Peter Galadza’s translation is “for those who are kind to us.” I would generally favor more concrete texts over the abstract mercy. The phrase does not occur in the present Greek. I leave the question open, noting only that in a modern congregation the members are more likely to receive mercy or kindness than alms.
8) The question here is how literal do we have to be? “Send down your compassions upon us,” is literal, but not the way an ordinary English speaker would talk today. Likewise in
9), we would probably not say a “place of verdure.” In the process in the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission, the Greek was consulted, but the alternatives, “verdure,” or “refreshment,” were found lacking.
10) The Greek here does mean acts committed in ignorance. The idea is that the priest should know better, while the faithful are “ignorant.” It was a conscious decision of the Commission to make a distinction between these two words, but we felt that something more than acts done simply out of ignorance was meant. The Commission does recognize the existence of “involuntary” sins, and sins done “unknowingly. “Ignorances,” however, is not the usual way of speaking in English. A teacher would be more likely to say, “Johnny, you didn’t know three answers,” than “Johnny, you had three ignorances.”
11) Fr. Keleher asks, “Do the compilers of this draft seriously suggest that the psalmist here is directly prophetic of the Christian Eucharist?” No, certainly not, but the Church often uses psalms as if they were fulfilled in the Christian dispensation. So when the psalmist says, “Exalt the Lord our God and worship at his footstool,” he does not mean the Cross, but the Liturgy uses it this way. (Psalm 98:5, Prokeimenon for the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, September 14) Of course, “the holies” is left indeterminate in Greek. Possible determinations are the Commission or Fr. Keleher’s opinions.
12) It is an exact citation, of course, but a mea culpa is due for not noticing Fr. Taft’s intervention.
13) There is general agreement that this phrase does not mean “offered,” but “set forth,” or “placed before.” The Greek and Slavonic does not have “us.” Fr. Keleher makes the same point in (15), though it must also be admitted that the texts must refer to the visible, material gifts of bread and wine, becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, in the chalice and on the diskos, that are on the Holy Table [lying before us.] After a certain point, absolutely exact translation may become clumsy, “for these precious gifts lying,” won’t do, “for these precious gifts lying “here,” or, as Fr. Keleher suggests, “here present,” but “here” is not in the text either.
14) The “logical” sacrifice. As stated, it is, of course, not good English. I myself would agree that “rational” sacrifice is probably the closest we can get, though “rational,” (and likewise “intellectual” for “noetical,” which does not occur in the Liturgy but is a consistent problem in the Divine Praises) does not have the same range of meaning in English as it does in Greek. Since even the scholarly Bishop Kallistos in undecided on this matter, as Keleher observes (page 184), I would submit that this should be moved to the translation problems chapter.
16) “Rightly dividing,” is certainly odd English, at least today, and “teachings” are “imparted.”
17) The two petitions were joined precisely to show their unity. We have been getting along with it for centuries - but not in the vernacular. Note here also the author’s tendency to trivialize translations he doesn’t like. At any rate, “again and again,” we do not have “errors,” but simply alternate translations.
18) “Let us pray,” in English sounds entirely normal, but “let us beseech” without an object would seem odd. Perhaps the subject of this beseeching was omitted in Greek, since “tou Christou,” (the “judgment-seat of Christ”) would have collided with “tou kyriou,” as “tou Christou tou Kyriou.”
20) The Liturgy Commission did not translate the Lord’s Prayer, but simply left it in the form most people use. Therefore, there is no “error of translation,” here.
21) This again is not a translation problem, but the conscious decision of the Commission to leave the prayer in the form in which people say it. The Prayer before Communion, in all branches of the Byzantine Church, appears in many different forms, probably witnessing to its relatively recent introduction.7 Some have objected that this phrase reflects Roman transsubstantiation theology, but it is certainly difficult to discern anything “un-Orthodox” here. The point has been made, but it seems to be of minimal importance or legalistic.
22) Likewise here, the Commission decided to follow the Greek literally. “Mouth” in the singular is grammatically acceptable, and the distinction between “mouth” and “lips” appears to be of minimal importance. The Commission also decided to retain the common sung form, which the author notes as an “Old Kyivan text” (page195), as well as its inclusion in plain chant books. It is certainly a valid alternate text, and cannot in any way be construed as an “error of translation.” (It might be labeled as an error of not following the 1941 Ruthenian Recension text literally, but, in any case, would be an objection of minimal importance.)
23) One must disagree with the author here. I certainly think that the person of average intelligence would see the connection between the priest/deacon’s exclamation, “Remember forever,” with the people’s response “eternal memory.” His statement, “the intention here is not to ask God to remember someone eternally (...) but to ask God to grant that the memory of this person should be eternal,” is extremely curious. In both cases, we are speaking of the “memory” of God, which is all that counts, and “God remembering,” and the “memory of God,” are the same in the divine reality where being is action. In either case, the person inhabits the Kingdom of heaven by divine action.
To sum up this chapter, the author presents twenty-three cases of translations that he considers “simply erroneous.” (Page 170) A closer analysis of these instances, however, reveals that even if you concede every point to him, then only about half are about translation “errors,” while the rest are what he calls “matters of taste.” (Page 170) The Commission does, obviously, take the contemporary usage of English more into account than Fr. Keleher. (cf. The discussion about “ignorances,” et al.) After reading this whole section, I would be moved to change number 12 as he suggested. At a minimum, this and the correction to “Master” in the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer (1) and the only changes that would be required, and, even here, it is not central to the Liturgy. As indicated in number 1, I would make the liturgical texts and rubrical texts of “Holy Table,” and “altar” consistent. I personally would engage in further discussion about numbers 7, 10 and 14, the last being the most substantive theologically. Finding, in general, such minor problems of translation, mostly “matters of taste,” reaffirms the value of the translation and in no way leads to the harsh conclusion he makes that “the 12 October 2004 draft cannot be considered accurate, let alone definitive.” The Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, in contrast, said “those who submitted this text, prepared with great care and in proper form, are to be warmly commended for such a superb piece of work.” (Rome, March 31, 2001, Prot. No. 99/2001.
Fr. Serge entitles chapter 10, “Some Questionable Translations.” It would seem that the distinction he is making is that while chapter 9 dealt with simple errors, chapter 10 deals with translations that are questionable. I was unable to discern that much difference between the matters raised, and he comes to a similar conclusion (page 239), there should be a “careful and thorough review before allowing it to come into use.” The implication (“careful review”) implies that the cases presented reflect a certain carelessness.
What, then, of these thirty-two points. I again follow his numbering.
1) has been rendered a moot point, since the June 2005 draft returned to “God-loving.”
3) Modern warfare is not the same as the Tzar and his armies.
4) I myself would favor “righteous,” but the objection seems of minor importance.
5) Though the terminology in the East is problematical, “priests” may be either “celebrants” or “con-celebrants.” The rubrics were written to clarify which role is meant. The principal celebrant is the “presider,” and hence gives all the blessings. This is not mentioned in the Ordo Celebrationis, but it was not an issue at the time. The Ordo Celebrationis seems to be concerned with which ekphoneses the principal celebrants says, and that the con-celebrating priests say all the presbyteral prayers (sotto voce, though in 1941 this would not have been an issue). At any rate, this is more a question of rubrics than translation. The celebration of the Byzantine Liturgy presumes unity: one holy table, one ahnec (Lamb), one distributor of the Eucharist, because one is the Lord, Jesus Christ. Therefore, there is one presider.
6) The author does not state his preference. I would prefer “house,” which is more ancient terminology.
7) Is Fr. Keleher here advocating a return to archaic English? This would change the whole nature of his protest. In any case, the Prayer of the Cherubicon is certainly a private prayer of the priest, not for the hearing of the congregation.
8) The author gets sarcastic in this observation, but the Commission does know that “shall” is still in the English language, but felt “will” to be more appropriate here.
9) But certainly the place where God dwells is always “holy of holies.”
10) The Commission follows the opinion that “orthoi” is equivalent to a call for attentiveness. It is found also in the 1965 translation.
11) The author’s preference for “ages” has been noted.
13) This is not really a translation issue, since neither the word “homily,” nor the word “sermon” appears in the original text. The author simply expresses his preference for the word “sermon” and sarcastically asks if the Commission knows the difference. I believe “homilies” to be a quasi-essential part of the Liturgy (though certainly not demanded on absolutely every occasion). There is no rubric about them, since they are the last part of the Liturgy to remain spontaneous. I would hold that the Decree on the Liturgy of the Vatican II Council is equally applicable to the Eastern Church, “By means of the homily (Latin, homilia) the mysteries of the faith and the guiding principles of the Chrstian life are expounded from the sacred texts during the course of the liturgical year. The homily, therefore, is to be highly esteemed as part of the liturgy itself.” (Sacrosanctum concilium 52)
14) There is no necessity to be afraid of the word “ministry,” simply because it is used frequently by Protestants.
15) Fr. Keleher’s counter-proposal is certainly correct. However, that does not make the draft text incorrect. The word leitourgein, which one is tempted to translate “liturgize,” is sometimes difficult to put into contemporary English. Likewise, the Commission did not feel it necessary to avoid all words which can be misconstrued in the vernacular. I know one educated gentleman who wanted to ban the word “love” from the Liturgy.
16) Words provided for “holy” have been discussed.
17) The meaning can be ambiguous, but Fr. Serge offers no compelling rationale for “Slave,” or “servant.”
18) This actually follows the opinion of Louis Ligier, S.J., of the Oriental Institute, who wrote, "Our formula however is distinguished by the use of the accusative: therefore it is to be interpreted as an adverbial locution. Then, "all" is not matter or a reason for praise, but the collateral circumstances in which God is to be praised. The prepositions kata and dia are to be given a temporal and local meaning which they admit with the accusative. A. Couturier translates them into French as "en tout temps et partout.” Then the Byzantine formula corresponds to the Latin formula of the Preface: "nos tibi semper et ubique gratias agere." (Magnae Orationis Eucharisticae, Rome 1964)
19) This has been an academic ping pong ball. Fr. Mateos held for “purification of the soul,”8 but as Fr. Keleher notes, “the scholarly pendulum began to swing back to the textus receptus.” (Page 214) The Commission followed Fr. Taft’s opinion, “it is preferable to adhere to the reading of the textus receptus.”9 The publication of the Old Russian Liturgicon is, of course, certainly of great interest, but it is subsequent not only to the Commission’s work, but also the review by Rome. It could be changed in the final draft, of course, but perhaps, as Fr. Keleher admits, “this does not necessarily mean that the problem is now definitely solved.” (Page 216) Perhaps here we are, in fact, dealing with two alternate texts and either reading may be chosen until the problem is definitely solved.
20) We usually do not say “all-laudable,” or “all-praised” in contemporary English, and the Commision found “illustrious” a reasonable alternative.
21) Fr. Serge does admit the translation is defensible. The rest is a matter of taste.
22) and 23) These objections seem of minor importance.
24) The very long discussion of the Prayer before the Our Father does contain some very interesting points. As to whether the draft text is as clumsy as he says would seem to be to be a matter of taste. Certainly the introduction of the words”may they bring about,” in an attempt to make two distinct English sentences can be discussed. For me, Fr. Serge’s discussion shows how difficult it is sometimes to follow him, for on page 222, he says that the word parrésia is rendered “filial Confidence,” by Father Taft and adds, “is there sufficient reason to disagree with him?” Then, in footnote 147, where he consistently holds that the meaning is correct, he adds, “but do most people today understand the word ‘filial.” My guess would be that there is sufficient reason for disagreeing with the word “filial” (the people will not understand it”), but, if the Liturgy Commission had used it, what would have been the response? [Interestingly, Fr. Serge puts these two phrases together, word for word, in his critique of the introduction to the Our Father (page228)] Moreover, there is a philosophical problem here, in other places Fr. Serge argues for a hieratic type English, one not perfectly contemporary, yet here excludes “filial” because the people will not understand it. I don’t want to quibble over words, but sometimes it is difficult to follow all these permutations.
25) There is much repetition in these sections. The question of the title “Master,” has been mentioned above, and this should be corrected. The problem of “filial” confidence was discussed immediately above. Since the Lord’s Prayer follows the traditional English (archaic) translation, which the Commission retained because it has been memorized and used by the faithful, Fr. Serge recommends translating “you” as “thee.” The Lord’s Prayer, however, is the only instance where archaic English has been retained, precisely for the sake of the faithful. Since he then proposes in (26) to correct the text of the Our Father, why not correct it into contemporary English? Therefore, my recommendation would be the opposite of his.
27-30) The observations here are truly minor and no real error in the draft copy is pointed out. However, as I observed, it is sometimes difficult to follow Fr. Serge, in chapter 9, point 22, he observes that the word “pure,” which he admits is found in Old Kyivan texts, should be omitted if we want to be faithful to the Ruthenian recension (pages 194-195), but here it seems we are criticized (albeit mildly) for not following the Old Kyivan tradition (pages 234-235).
31) The author agrees that the translation is “defensible,” but he prefers another rendition.
32) Fr. Serge admits this may have been inspired by some scriptural renderings, but wants to retain the usual translation. His reasoning is not convincing. The passage is from James 1:17. Here he claims that this wording is not found in the New American Bible (Revised New Testament), which in fact reads, “all good giving (and every perfect gift).”
33) It is difficult to understand what he is asking here. He seems to be saying, “this is a question, not a criticism,” but goes on to make a criticism anyhow, even though he admits that enapetheto can mean “store up.”He sums up his evidence as a point for shelving the October draft until all these “questionable translations” are adopted. As above for chapter 9, the conclusion goes far beyond the gravity of the instances brought forth, many based simply on his personal preference, and which were discussed over a period of years by the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission.
In chapter 11, the author presents his case for continuing to recite the anaphora quietly, or, at least, for not mandating it. I would agree that this is the central issue of the whole Liturgy today. In my younger days as a Liturgy student (in the late 60's and early 70's), I did not see this as a major issue. I only began to say parts of the Anaphora aloud in my second pastoral assignment in Taylor, Michigan, in the mid-70's. In the thirty years subsequent, I have come to believe that it is central to our understanding of the Liturgy and the most important decision we can make about the future of the Liturgy. I also acknowledge what he says on page 258, that people often recite it rather than chant it. I have come to the conclusion that we should chant it.
To mandate this is a return to early practice. We do not have much evidence, it is true, about how the early liturgy was celebrated, probably because people did not feel obliged to comment on what was obvious. In the very early stages, the anaphora was ex temporaneous (cf. Alan Bouley, From Freedom to Formula), probably based on a basic outline (the Syrian Anaphora of the 12 Apostles, the model for the later Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom, may have been such an outline) upon which the presider built his prayer. It is hard to imagine that this was not done for the hearing of the congregation (unless he preached to himself also). Bouley observes,
“To a very great extent it was in their worship gatherings and in their celebration of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper that Christians came gradually to a deeper understanding of the meaning of Jesus, of his promised Spirit and of themselves as the people of the new dispensation. Prayer, like preaching and instruction, not only led to new insights, but it was also the vehicle of their expression.”10
It seems to me that what often happens is you decide what you want the modern practice to be, and then read this back into antiquity. It is an ancient human fault.
The author is correct to note (page 250) that there is no rubric to say the prayers quietly, except in Greek editions and in Mohyla’s editions. The Greeks certainly are more open to correcting rubrics (Trembelas points out that these rubrics begin appearing in the 16-17th centuries) than the Slavs, and Mohyla was a “reformer,” and elaborated rubrics. Following the traditional rubrics exactly, there is no reason why the priest could not say most prayers aloud, for the hearing of the people. The bishops, therefore, do not have to change rubrics to restore this practice. The Liturgical Instruction was open to the idea, calling for studies to examine the practice. Fr. Keleher gives a minimalistic interpretation to this (page 252), but, again, it is a case of what you want, and then reading back into the documents. Since the issue is, in fact, controversial among the Orthodox, it is totally inconceivable that Rome would take a stronger stand on this now. He remarks that only a small minority of Orthodox say the anaphora aloud (page 248), but the largest by far of the Orthodox Churches are the Greek and the Russian, and since they have rejected the idea of the Liturgy in the vernacular, it is hardly surprising that the question of the anaphora aloud would simply be a non-issue. This has been my contention - the reason the anaphora has been silent in both the Latin and Byzantine Churches for many centuries is that the Liturgy has been offered in classic languages that the congregation would not understand. The question of its public recitation would be simply a non-issue. In the second half of the twentieth century, the Liturgy has begun to be celebrated in the vernacular, and is it any surprise that the question has resurfaced? I refer the reader to my article, “The Public Recitation of the Presbyteral Prayers,” (Eastern Churches Journal 8, 2 (Summer 2001), 97-106, and my translation of Panagiotas Trembelas’ article from 1955, “The Hearing of the Eucharistic Anaphora by the People,” in the same issue, pages 81-96.
In fact, it resurfaced long before the vernacular, probably because the anaphora is the heart of the Liturgy. Trembelas pointed out that the kollyvades (granted, not the mainstream) on Mt. Athos said the anaphora aloud in the eighteenth century. Fr. Keleher attempts to connect the practice of saying the anaphora aloud with the Renovationist Church in Russia (pages 247-248), thus giving it a kind of Soviet-sponsored coloring. Mojzes, in his recent book Il movimento liturgico nelle chiese bizantine (Rome 2005, 112-123) describes the movement towards the public recitation of the Anaphora in the Russian Church from 1905, as preparation for the Synod of 1917. Bishops Nazarius of Nižnij-Novgorod and Sergius of Finland supported the proposal, along with theologians A, P. Golibtsov and V.I. Eksemplarskij (a wonderful name!) and others. He quotes Tikhon, the future Patriarch, on page 112, “it is not undesirable to read some of the prayers aloud.” Fr. Keleher then quotes the same Patriarch on page 248 an a firm opponent of the practice, but, of course, by that time, his experience would have been altered by the Renovationist Church. This is a questions that occurs over and over again - the negative experience of the Renovationist Church may certainly have been due to other factors than the recitation of the Anaphora, but all of this is lumped into one jumble. By the same token, Fr. Serge, noting that the Roman Church has been reading anaphoras aloud since 1970, cries out:
“Has understanding notably increased? Has reverence grown?” Can a lack that has existed for centuries be amended in one generation? I think not, and we have to be patient with our commitment to this restoration. Fr. Serge seems to lump together all the liturgical experiences of the Western Church and generalizes it to cover each specific practice. These positive and negative threads have to be somehow separated.
He is correct on one point. It is a matter of liturgical spirituality. Here he takes a more conservative stance - things should continue to be the way they have been for centuries. My position, also from pastoral experience, is different. The role of the deacon in the Liturgy is to offer our petitions to the Lord. And this is important, for we must lay all our needs to God, who alone provides for our lives. The role of the people is to sing hymns, and the hymns we sing glorify God and remind us of the unity of our celebration with the angelic Liturgy in heaven. But the role of the priest is to do (liturgical actio) what our Lord commanded, “Do this in memory of me,” What the priest says is what the people should come to know, for it is the memory of the great deeds of salvation that God has done for us. It is the sacrifice, and the redemption and the deification. This is the core of what the Liturgy is about and why you need a priest to celebrate it. I would hold with the author of the Protheoria in the eleventh century, commenting on the quiet recitation of the anaphora by the bishop, “the people ask what the aim of this practice is, adding that to know the prayers this way is like trying to know a garment from touching the fringes.” This is what is needed today, not the proof-textism of Fr. Serge, “a time to keep silence.”
Part 3 is Fr. Serge’s conclusion to his book. Chapter 12, entitled “Some Unanswered Questions,” returns to the methodology of chapters 8, 9 and 10, namely, a catalog of what he finds wrong with the October draft text. In dealing with a liturgical translation, I have discovered how difficult consistency and continuity can be at times, but I believe we have navigated all the more important problems. Omission of a mention of the sponge may be an oversight, but it is no longer an issue among the clergy of the Metropolia, most of whom use it. The rubrics for the placing of the particles into the chalice simply follow the Ruthenian Recension (page 43 in the 1965 translation), which also makes no distinction between the particles. (Cf. Ordo Celebrationis 161, where the deacon sanctum discum supra sanctam calicem diligenter detergit (Latin, “wipes off”), translated by Fr. Serge into English as “absterges”). In fact, if one follows the IELC translation, then the portions of the ahnec (Lamb) NI and KA will be properly divided for Communion to the faithful and another latinization will have been eliminated. The reason for the duplication of the second prayer of the faithful is that it is to be said aloud if there are catechumens, and the litany of the catechumens is chanted. Otherwise, it is said privately. This arrangement is more clear in the June 2005 draft. I would like to see the restoration of the antidoron (page 266).
Much is made of the litanies. The litanies are the primary deacon’s role in the Liturgy, the presenting of our needs to God. The primary Litany, called by the Roman Church, the prayer of the faithful, is today the Great Synapte, the Litany of Peace, which in the Byzantine Church has migrated to the beginning of the Liturgy and has been replaced, more or less, though not in the exact same place, since it would have been said after the dismissal of the catechumens, by the Ectenes after the Gospel. Both these litanies have been retained, as well as the Litany of the Angel of Peace (the aitesis), though some of its petitions have been made optional, as Fr. Serge pointed out. The remaining litanies, the two small synaptes between the antiphons, the petitions before the prayers of the faithful and the litany of Thanksgiving have been reduced, because they are, in fact, invitations of the deacon to prayer that were expanded when the prayers became silent. Since the prayers of the first and second antiphons and the prayers of the faithful are said quietly, their diaconal invitations have been omitted11. For prayers that are retained aloud (the second prayer of the faithful, when there are catechumens, the prayer of access to the holy table, i.e., prayer of offering, the prayer before the Our Father and the Prayer of Thanksgiving, the diaconal invitation is retained. The omission of the Litany after the Great Entrance follows Fr. Taft’s opinion (The Great Entrance 428, “this litany should be suppressed completely”).
Two other points, however, point to a certain inconsistency in Fr. Keleher’s critique. He laments that the petition for the Pope is separated from that of the other bishops. This is a point for discussion, certainly. Fr. Peter Galadza points to it as the one “Latinism” introduced by Fr. Cyril Korolevsky into the Recension.12 I would support combining the petitions, but it is not a major issue. The inconsistency is that in footnote 5 on page 264, he offers as support for the conflation the permission of Rome granted to Bishop Daniel Ivancho. However, above on page 25 he minimizes this dispensation, noting that it was given only on a temporary basis. The other issue is the opening of the antimension. This clarifies the rubric about opening the “iliton,” found in the Recension according to “the overwhelming majority practice of Eastern Orthodoxy.” (Page 264) Fr. Serge justifies this from older practice and from the usage of the Old Ritualists. The inconsistency here is simply that there are many variant old practices and many variations in the Old Ritualist Liturgicons. We need some sort of criteria on how to apply them to present practice. This may indeed be nit-picking, but the author has challenged the Commission to publish “clearly-stated principles and criteria” for translation, while at the same time, his book has the feel of find everything wrong with this “new” liturgy for whatever reason. I think in fairness he could have found more than two pages (131-133) of “notable improvements.”
The final chapter (13 - “What Now?) is his judgment on the process, which he sees as too hurried and more patience is needed, but as I read his words and study his principles, which sound beautiful, I also realize there is a problem with what he proposes.
I think there is little doubt any more that one of the very first goals of any liturgical work today for the Eastern Church has to include the weeding out of Western introductions, not necessarily because they are bad in themselves, but because they distort the integrity of the Byzantine experience of Liturgy. At the same time, it should be obvious that as Christians, we will have many values in common with the West, and so, while we might want to say the Creed without the “filioque,” we will read from the Epistles and Gospels at the Liturgy, and we will offer a Eucharistic Prayer with many common elements. We may even say the prayer aloud, which was suggested by Eastern theologians decades before it became common Roman practice.
However, the Eastern Church in union with Rome was certainly too much influenced by a mentality that minimalized the integrity of the Eastern tradition and strove to make the Liturgy look as Western as possible. A certain campaign of “latinization” took root in the church from a generation or two after the union of Brest until the Synod of Lviv in 1905 and the episcopate of Kyr Andrei Sheptytsky. In the twentieth century, there was a distinct movement toward the recovery of the Eastern tradition (though in all times there were people seeking the truth of tradition) culminating in the Ruthenian recension of 1941 (extended through other liturgical books until the Archieraticon of 1973), the Vatican II decree on Eastern Catholic Churches in 1965 and the Liturgical Instructioin of January 6, 1996. These have been the voice of the universal Church to the particular Churches of Eastern Catholicism: be faithful to your traditions.
This must be endorsed by every Eastern Catholic.
This is why I say that the Ruthenian Recension of 1941 was the best work that could have been done for our churches at the time. It presented to the Eastern Catholic Slav Churches a model rite freed of all “latinizations” (well, almost all, anyway) and given by the same authority that these churches had inappropriately imitated out of a feeling of cultural inferiority. It was grasped at the time by priests in the Pittsburgh Exarchate, later the Pittsburgh Metropolia, as a wondrous gift to purify and repristinize the liturgical of the Eastern Catholic Church. Unfortunately, it encountered opposition at the highest level, which nonetheless crumbled beginning with the Parma Convocation of 1970 and ending with the constitution of a new Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission by Metropolitan Judson shortly after the beginning of his episcopal service in 1995. This has been marked by the slow and systematic elimination of all “latinizations,” and the substantial liturgical reforms of communion to infants and baptism by immersion. Yes, there have been defects, but not so much as to characterize Fr. Serge’s dour judgement of the “unfortunate history of liturgical development.” (Page 267)
What I am about to say might be misinterpreted by some, but I certainly do not want to down-play what is certainly one of the greatest liturgical achievements of the past century, the virtual creation of a Ruthenian recension devoid of latinization that could serve as a model for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in a renewed Eastern Catholic Church. When Korolevskij began his project of producing an edition of the pure Ruthenian rite, he was faced by the reality that this recension had been modified for decades, even centuries by latinizing influences. He kept the Liturgicon of Benedict XIV (1724) as the legal foundation for the resoration of the rite, and compared manuscripts and printed editions to come up with a pure Slav version. The rite could not be restored exactly as it had been before the Union of Brest, but he had faith that he could come close. For this reason, he frequently utilized Russian books, as he explained, “It was also very true, as Archbishop Joseph Sembratovych... and Father Ivan Martinov were obliged to recognize later, that the Trebnik of the Russians represented the text of the Euchologion of Benedict XIV much more faithfully than the Ruthenian Trebniks, for the simple reason that the Russian Trebnik was nothing other than a reproduction of that published in Moscow in 1658 by the Patriarch Nicon, which depended in its turn on the Venetian edition of Giovanni Pietro Pinelli in 1638.” (Votum, p. 34) Likewise, publicly in his Métropolit André Szeptyckyj 1865-1944 (Rone 1964), Korolevskij stated , “In these different editions, an attempt was made to compare the different versions of the text and to respect the rendering of the Ruthenians every time theur tradition was unanimous and constant: otherwise it was the text of Moscow which prevailed.” (p. 347)
What I do intend to accomplish here is to show that the Ruthenian Recension, conceived of as the books put together as a model for the Ruthenian Church - Ukraininan, Carpatho-Russian, Slovak, if you will, and other ethnic groups - is an artifact, a composition from different sources, including the Russian books. It reflects accurately the Divine Liturgy as it should be celebrated among the ethnic groups listed above, but which was actually not in use, because from very soon after the Union, the rite was corrupted was the introduction of inappropriate “latinizations.” The Ruthenian Liturgy, if I may use that term, however, is not the books, but the Liturgy that is celebrated from these books, just as the Gospel is not a number of pages in a book, but the words of God as heard and appropriated by the people. In the beginning there was some resistence to what essentially was the work of Cyril Korolevskij, though his work certainly reflected the authentic tradition. In time, though, it did become the standard for the Liturgy in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. The Liturgy Commission does its work with the Ruthenian recension as the normative text always and at all times. What has happened in history is that the text was issued to, but not promulgated by, the bishops of the Metropolia to their clergy and faithful. The Older norms were to be followed until the bishops said to use the 1941 recension. The 1965 translation literally reproduced in English the 1941 text, but it was made clear that the form of celebration was to be the 1905 Lviv Sluzhebnik. Fr. Serge praises Bishop Emil (Mihalik) of Parma for “promulgating” the recension (page 37). Of course, it was a promulgation according to pastoral usages, omitting most of the litanies et cet. At the same time, the Liturgicon of the Eparchy of Parma in 1986, later accepted by the Eparchy if Van Nuys, and then by Passaic when Bishop Andrew was transferred there in 1996 is the same project, now containing even more of the litanic material. This is also the goal of the whole Metropolia, initiated by Archbishop Judson, and carried out by the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission. However, the same project, highly praised in the form Bishop Emil did it, is just as strongly condemned in the form Bishop Andrew did it, and as Archbishop Judson intended to do. Why? Because Bishop Mihalik’s letter did not touch the 1965 Liturgicon, but was a pastoral guide to how it may be celebrated. The subsequent promulgations included a Liturgicon with the revised text in it. The bottom line was that, before, any priest who really wanted to serve the full text could, though few did. On the other hand, in the past publishing a “full text” and then issuing pastoral provisions has led to a lot of liturgical mischief.
Fr. Serge does fall back upon the “bridge theory” of ecumenism: “The honor of the Catholic Church is involved. Rome urges Greek-Catholics to be conscious of the liturgical and spiritual treasures which Greek-Catholics hold in common with the Eastern Orthodox. If this draft were to be adopted, it would give substance to the accusation that such pious statements from Rome are simply window-dressing and that in reality Rome wants a revisionist liturgy to drive a further wedge between the Greek-Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox.” (Page 267) This statement is a bit of hyperbole. First, it is hardly a “revisionist” Liturgy, and second, it does nothing that Orthodox Churches are not doing anyhow. It just that now it is being put into a Liturgicon intended for the use of four eparchies of the Church. What Fr. Serge’s opinion does is discourage “organic development.” Metropolitan Andrij Sheptytsky and Cyril Korolevsky hoped that by celebrating a “pure Byzantine Liturgy,” the orthodox would be more attracted to the Catholic Church. As ecumenism has developed, this hardly seems possible, since the issues of the broken communion are much deeper than liturgical practice. Of course, we must work for the restoration of Communion, but on a realistic level. Any liturgical movement now among Greek Catholics is, by its very nature, I firmly believe, provisional. If reunion occurs, there will have to be a reintegration of the Eastern Catholic Church into the Orthodox structure. I daresay that then perhaps the organic development and the pastoral ministry adopted by the Eastern Catholics will be accepted into the Orthodox Church. We must not underestimate the Ruthenians. They had the courage and foresight to make the great move from Church Slavonic to English at a time when it was a minority position, and I think now they have the courage to restore not only a genuinely Eastern Liturgy, but one that, in the words of a knowledgeable Orthodox priest-observor, “brings out the best potential of the Byzantine Liturgy.”
Many of the suggestions in Fr. Keleher’s final chapter are admirable, and some are under active consideration and even in process by the Ruthenian Church. Education is certainly important, but the program of the presentation of the liturgical work to the people whom the pastors serve is still in its early stages. There is patience! The liturgical work has been forty years in coming, it has not just begun, and the work of the Liturgy Commission continues at a deliberate pace. There has been much progress in a thicket of varying opinions that are sometimes difficult to reconcile and balance. One observation made by Fr. Keleher, however, is quite unfair. On page 278, he writes, “Especially in difficult and confusing times, most people prefer stability, and in particular most people want stability and reassurance in their Church life. There is joy and comfort in the year-after-year observance of the feasts and fasts: Holy Supper this Christmas, the Great Blessing of Waters this Theophany, the services and Divine Liturgy for the dead on the appointed Saturdays, Divine Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts this Lent, the Epitaphios this Good Friday, the triumphant procession and Resurrection Orthros this Pascha - few people seriously want new services every year for the familiar feast days.” Most certainly neither the Council of Hierarchs, nor the Liturgy Commission, nor the clergy nor the people of the Ruthenian Church have ever considered in any way dropping these services. The only point can be an attempt to somehow paint the supporters of the October 2004 draft as Judases to the Byzantine tradition, which they most assuredly are not.