FOR RUTHENIANS regarding RDL

I have recently had cause to discuss the RDL in another Forum and I wanted to take a poll regarding the view of my fellow Easterns and Orientals (or interested Latins) on the matter.

For preliminaries, as many of you know, I am an advocate of the High Petrine view of the Church, where the head bishop is just as necessary as the body of the rest of the bishops, and vice versa, by virtue of divine/apostolic establishment, and not merely canonical establishment. I reject the Absolutist Petrine view of some Catholics which denies the necessity of the body in favor of the head, and I also just as readily reject the Low Petrine view prevalent in the EOC which denies the necessity of the head in favor of the body.

The situation with the RDL is very interesting. According to the most ancient canon laws, only bishops are permitted to appeal to the Pope, and not lower orders or lay persons. This is because the lower orders and lay persons are under the direct authority of their bishop, not the Pope. It is obvious, this preserves the prerogative of the bishops.

I’ve just found out that for the last two years, laypersons and priests have been appealing to the Pope to overturn the decision of the Synods. Apparently, the Pope has not been listening. The fact is, the Pope is not canonically authorized to accept such appeals from the lower clergy and laypersons. Only a bishop can make such an appeal, Unfortunately, all the Ruthenian bishops approve the RDL.

So what is the Ruthenian Catholic to do? The Pope is simply acting within his divine and canonical mandates. Or is he? Much as I hate to admit it, It seems the only recourse would be to admit the Absolutist Petrine view (the Pope overrules the Synod).

The poll selections cover the possible solutions to the situations. I would appreciate your input.

BTW, you may vote for more than one option.

Blessings,
Marduk

Maybe it’s me today, but I have to ask if you wouldn’t mind clarifying something: just what “RDL” stands for?

I believe its the Revised Divine Liturgy. The Ruthenian Church has come out with their own translation and books.

One thing about the poll though. It should only allow a user to pick one, this poll is setup so that someone could pick each option.

I voted for the second to last one. The bishops are the authority and it is their job. Some of us may not like their decision but that does not change the fact that it is their decision to make.

The only time I think the pope can and should act with out a bishops appeal is when the synod is promoting obvious heresy or something so wrong that the pope has to step in.

On a side note, I do not think a bishop would requrie a motu proprio from the pope if he decided that he did not wish to use the RDL.

Thanks. One question down.

Does this matter concern the Ruthenians as a whole or is this limited to the US?

There’s an entire subforum at Byzcath.org on this. Here’s a piece in the Wanderer by James Likoudis (Orthodox convert to RCC) on a book by Fr. Serge Kelleher on the RDL. There’s also a choice quote from OCA cleric Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck.

byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/328328/Article%20Reviewing%20Fr.%20Serge’s%20

This only concerns Ruthenians in the USA and only the use of the English language version of the Divine Liturgy…

It also has a spelling mistake. It should be RDL and not RDF:D

Mr. Likoudis’s article strikes me as being incoherent.

Just what does the Western tradition of the Canon recited vox mystica (NOT silently, btw) in the West have to do with Byzantine liturgical praxis?

The practice of reciting, or even chanting, the Anaphora out loud is becoming the practice even in Orthodox Churches. No less a modern light than the late Abp. Paul of Karelia ordered this to be done in the Finnish Orthodox Church.

Thanks. :slight_smile:

Wait for a bishop to appeal to the Pope to issue a motu proprio granting an exception from the RDL for his diocese

:confused: The Metropolia-wide of implementation of the RDL is by the choice of all of its Bishops. AFAIK, if a Bishop wants to use a different, approved edition of the liturgy there is nothing stopping him. There is no reason for a Bishop to appeal to the Pope for a motu proprio.

By law, the responsibility for our liturgy lies with our Bishops, not Rome, although Rome does examine liturgical editions before their promulgation. This examination was done for the RDL. Apart from situations involving heresy, the idea that the Pope would intervene to micromanage the liturgical affairs of a sui juris church make little sense ecclesiastically or ecumenically.

The discussions over at byzcath extend back five years or more. The “choice quote”, btw, appears to be directed at the Roman Catholic liturgy.

Dear brother Byzcath

There are some choices that do not necessarily contradict other choices, so I wanted to offer that option.

[quote=]On a side note, I do not think a bishop would requrie a motu proprio from the pope if he decided that he did not wish to use the RDL.
[/quote]

But can one bishop alone override the authority of his Synod? ISTM that position is a recipe for schism.

This would be an instance where the Pope’s universal authority (without trampling on the rights of all the bishops involved) can be used to defend and uphold the authority of a brother bishop in his own particular diocese.

Blessings,
Marduk

Oh. Sorry. I was corresponding to an Orthodox who referred to it as RDL. I guess RDF and RDL are both valid ways to refer to the matter?

Blessings

Dear brother dvdjs,

I didn’t know that a particular bishop can override the decisions of his Synod. I suppose if there was a specific clause in the implementation that permitted that, it would be as you say. Is there?

If any one bishop can just disregard the ruling of a Synod, it begs the question - what is the purpose for a Synod? It’s similar to the situation where the Pope has a monarchial authority to do as he pleases, except in this case, every bishop is his own pope and does not need to work collegially with the rest of his brother bishops. ISTM such a position is a recipe for schism?

Blessings

For those who stated that a local bishop does not need a motu proprio in order to be able to not use the RDL in his diocese, Canon 1538 (intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P16R.HTM#12) would be the relevant authority (unless someone else can provide another).

But according to the general canon, the dispensation can only be granted if the enacting authority did not make a reservation. ISTM that a local Synod, being the supreme authority in a local Eastern/Oriental Church, automatically reserves power to itself when making a decision for the entire sui juris Church. In fact, the positive vote of every bishop in a decision of that Synod is a positive decree that power is being reserved by the Synod as a collegial body. That is why I asked earlier if the Synod made a specific provision for particular bishops to be able to override the Synodal decree for the good of his own diocese. Otherwise, a motu proprio would be the only recourse.

Blessings,
Marduk

After thinking about it, I guess one can validly interpret the reservation clause in the Canon as an EXPLICIT reservation, instead of an automatic one. As an Oriental, I would interpret the reservation as automatic. But, with my admittedly limited understanding of Eastern ecclesiological principles, an interpretation of EXPLICIT reservation would be just as valid.

So its possible that a local bishop does not need a motu proprio.

Blessings

My understanding is pretty much the same as that of dvdjs:

…if a Bishop wants to use a different, approved edition of the liturgy there is nothing stopping him. There is no reason for a Bishop to appeal to the Pope for a motu proprio.

The key there is “approved edition” which precludes an individual bishop from coming up with his own, but not from using one that had prior approval.

That’s a good point. I didn’t notice that nuance before.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’ve marked three items…

  1. The bishops validly imposed this upon the Metropolitan Church. They can, if they later choose to, change it further.

  2. If a bishop is enthroned who is unwilling to use it, he can appeal to the synod, and if voted against, can then appeal to Rome.

  3. We can and should, politely, and as a group, state our issues with it to the Metropolitan, and failing to be heard, appeal to the Sacred Congregation of the Eastern Churches and/or the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. Those congregations ARE allowed to hear issues from the faithful…

and for me, I’ve no major issues with the RDL… only with the pewbook itself, and the lack of consistency in enforcement. I don’t even mind the new music, tho occasionally I wonder what the guys at the MCI were thinking with specific melismas.

I agree with everything you said, brother.

[quote=]and for me, I’ve no major issues with the RDL… only with the pewbook itself, and the lack of consistency in enforcement. I don’t even mind the new music, tho occasionally I wonder what the guys at the MCI were thinking with specific melismas.
[/quote]

Wow! Your holy obedience to your bishop humbles me.

Blessings,
Marduk

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.