What’s RDL?OK … gotcha! Been there.
At least the so-called “RDL” is (at least as far as I’ve heard, anyway) recognizable as Byzantine. The Novus Ordo-inspired neo-Maronite services are a barely recognizable shell of what they should be. (Very much like the Novus Ordo from which they take their inspiration. Gee, I wonder why?)
This is not the place for a detailed discussion of history and ecclesiastical development, but let’s just say that (a) geography has little (if any) bearing and (b) although traditions are essentially shared, the Maronites were never exactly a “branch” of the SOC in the first place.
That’s a start. Wouldst that I could say even that much about the Maronites.
At face value, this statement is not just wild hyperbole, it is absurd. What on earth do you really mean?
I suspect that for most Christians “persecution” conjures thoughts of Diocletion, Tamerlane, Stalin, and the like. So I think “persecution” is ridiculous. Why the chip on your shoulder?
do the two churches (SOC and MC) continue to have anything in common? do they see themselves as related or connected in any way?
To be clear, “standardized” is crucial to this sentence. But, what precisely does it mean? It is certainly not true that the RDL is the most abbreviated DL in use. Moreover, while it does abbreviate the office of antiphons and a number of the smaller litanies, it calls for the separate, aloud recitation of many prayers that had been recited quietly by the priest while the people were singing. There is abbreviation and there is augmentation.
Yes there are people who get apoplectic about “brothers and sisters” replacing “brethren”,mand having “children of God”, as in KJV and Douay-Rheims, versus “sons of God”, as in modern translations, for the beatitudes. And there are those who don’t like “man”, referring to human beings, being replaced by unambiguously gender neutral language. That, for the record, is the extent of what you call theologically troublesome inclusive language. Sorry, I don’t see the theological trouble. I would be delighted to have an explanation of your strong characterization. And any other aspects of the RDL being “quasi-modernist in the heretical sense.”
Yes. As I mentioned either, the tradition is shared.
Related yes (see above). Connected? No.
While I’ve no personal familiarity with the Ruthenian RDL, what is described as “augmentation” sounds for all the world like Novus Ordo-izing. What this appears to do is eliminate (or at least reduce) the congregational parts while eliminating (or at least reducing) the soto-voce prayers of the priest. That last is a hallmark of the Novus Ordo. Most unfortunately, I know the syndrome all too well.
The issue of “inclusive language” has inherent problems, and is another hallmark of the Novus Ordo, albeit only in its English-language form. Funny, but after reading Aramis’ comments, I have a feeling there’s even more to it than just the “inclusive language” thing.Aramis;6535489:
Yes there are people who get apoplectic about “brothers and sisters” replacing “brethren”,mand having “children of God”, as in KJV and Douay-Rheims, versus “sons of God”, as in modern translations, for the beatitudes. And there are those who don’t like “man”, referring to human beings, being replaced by unambiguously gender neutral language. That, for the record, is the extent of what you call theologically troublesome inclusive language. Sorry, I don’t see the theological trouble. I would be delighted to have an explanation of your strong characterization. And any other aspects of the RDL being “quasi-modernist in the heretical sense.”
There is no Gregorian chant in the music of the RDL. None. In fact, the music is very faithful, some say faithful to a fault, to Cerkovnoje Prostopinije (Church Plainchant) of Father John Bokšai and Cantor Joseph Malinič, Uzhhorod 1906.
The only one that comes to mind is the Galacian setting of Only Begotten. I agree, and suspect that this setting sees little use. I have, however, heard it sung in the seminary chapel in Uzzhorod courtesy of the ECP website.
The differences with the old setting are many but, for the most part, slight. (The selection of one of two common variants for " rejoice O pure…" , “your son…”, and “let all…” is not slight, but the music actually accommodates both variants.) Such changes are very difficult to people who cannot read music. Inherently, however, the music is settings are not a problem. I think that congregations “struck dumb”, after all this time, need better leadership.
.
It may be “de latinized” in externals but it is the Latin minimalist mindset that it comes from. A far bigger Latinization as far as I’m concerned. Until we start thinking as Byzantines we can never really be part of our own tradition or spirituality. We need to learn to think with our heart/nous and not our mind/intellect Archimandrite Meletios Webber from St. John of Shanghai Monastery has a great book Bread and Water, Wine and Oil, that deals well with this…
I don’t think that " Novus Ordo-izing" has an real meaning - it’s just a smear - so I cannot argue this point. I can tell you that this “augmentation” is common in some Orthodox jurisdictions, and its consideration long precedes the Novus Ordo. Your comment about what it “appears to do” is disengaged from reality, in particular, when put in the context of the typical usage that the RDL replaced.
Inclusive language also has a range of meanings, so it helps to take the time to be specific. Does “children of God” have Inherent problems in the Beatitudes? How did these inherent problems manifest themselves for the centuries in which that was in effect the only translation?
Inclusive language also has a range of meanings, so it helps to take the time to be specific. Does “children of God” have Inherent problems in the Beatitudes? How did these inherent problems manifest themselves for the centuries in which that was in effect the only translation?
This may be your assumption, but it is just that. In fact, the RDL added to the office of antiphons and the litanies as typically taken in the BCC. So in reality if thhere were a “Latin minimalist mindset” at work, the RDL represent a step away from it. Some think that not enough of a step was taken, but there is no question about the step and its direction. Your assumption is not informed by actual facts.
.
Well it’s always great to hear from people about what my tradition was, is, and shall be. I especially loved hearing of this grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, and now from relatives in the old country. From them, I think I have a very clear idea of what it means to think as a Byzantine Catholic. Interestingly, in terms of developing my heart versus mind, I don’t recall a suggestion to read a book.
You can take it as a “smear” if that’s what makes you happy, but it most certainly does have a “real meaning:” it’s in the principles behind it.
Although I do have a familiarity with the Byzantine liturgy in general, I clearly stated earlier that I’ve no personal familiarity with the Ruthenian RDL, so I think the above remark is rather out of place.
Which Orthodox jurisdictions do this? I have only heard the priests private prayers taken aloud in the Ruthenian church.
As just coming from the LCMS I can say that I certainly have appreciated the richness and fullness of the Eastern Christian lung of the Church. I just wish we could get the Orthodox Church to return in full, what an inspiring day that would be.
This sort of language isn’t appropriate on this forumI’m glad your happy as a latinized Uniate.
.To be clear, there are some prayers that are particular prayers of the priest; they are not taken aloud in the BCC or any Byzantine church. Prayers, such as the anaphora, however, have never been properly termed “private”.
