www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Rank Importance of Liturgical Translation Choices

Dan L,

Just curious, why not use the lance, which is called for in the sluzhebnik? They make them with a knife quality blade that can be sharpened.

T

Lamenting my ignorance, I must admit that I don't know what a Cutco knife is. The priest here uses a reasonably small, sharp knife to cut the actual Lamb, and then uses a lance to cut the other particles. No problem seems to have occurred. Good lances can be obtained easily and inexpensively from Athens.

Glad to see the poll continues to go well.

Incognitus

Do any here have recommendations for the type of prosphora stamp that would be appropriate for the Ruthenian Church? I've seen different ones which are said to be Greek and others said to be Russian. Any links to where these could be purchased?

I came across this interesting link which explains bread stamp physics from the prosphora.org site:

Bread Stamp Physics [prosphora.org]

That prosphora site has lovely prosphora seals - and lots of recipes. As to what style seal might be nice, I'd say the simpler the better for those who are not already accustomed to using real prosphora. Just the plain ICXC square. But if the priest prefers a more elaborate seal, fine.

Incognitus

Nec,

Father George Aquaro, who owns the prosphora.org site crafts a variety of beautiful prosphora stamps, including both Byzantine and Russian styles, which he offers for sale at the site.
See: Prosphora Stamps Central [prosphora.org]

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

I'd missed that page. Thank you for sharing it. Some beautiful stamps!

Nec

I'm still curious to know what Cutco knives are.

Incognitus

See CUTCO Cutlery [cutco.com] .

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Dear Kobzar - You're too sharp for me, though I'll try to get the point.

Incognitus

I was thinking about the survey results so far and was struck by the thought that many of those who responded are not afraid of liturgical change. Rather, by the way they are voting they would seem to want liturgical change.

So far, the vast majority want:

1)A translation of the complete Divine Liturgy. As has been noted, there are very few places that celebrate the entire Liturgy with all the litanies and antiphons. Having a complete translation could allow for that to happen if a parish desired to do fuller liturgies.

2)Restoration of the word "orthodox" in the Liturgy. That would seem to be controversial but it doesn't appear to be from our voters so far. (Much less controversial than replacing "mankind.")

3)Restoration of prophora traditions. Again, few parishes do this.

4)Doing away with precut pieces at proskomide. This would be a MAJOR change that so far is widely supported.

5)Working together with other Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions for a common translation of the Liturgy is also widely supported. This would be entirely new and would open up the possibility of changes for not only our Church but the others as well.

Of course, this poll is not scientific nor can it be viewed as anything other than the views of 48 posters here. (There is still time to vote if you haven't already.) But, I think it does show that of active posters here who vote in polls there is not a knee-jerk reaction against liturgical change.

Nec

Dear Nec Aliter,
Glad to see you back. And the poll results - so far - are certainly both interesting and encouraging.
If those who oppose the majority views you've mentioned can't be bothered to vote in the poll, one can only wonder just how strong their opposition thinking is.

Incognitus

Thank you, Incognitus.

I was thinking about the concept of getting all the English-speaking Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions together to do a common translation of the Divine Liturgy.

What would that entail? For example, in the USA we are talking about Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Melchite, Romanian and Russian Catholic parishes, right? What sort of difference of usages are there? How could that be dealt with? Any ideas?

Nec

The differences between the Ruthenian recension (used by Ruthenians, Ukrainians, Hungarians, Slovaks and some Romanians), the Russian recension, and the Melkite recension (actually part of the Greek recension) are fairly small. They could be accommodated in a single Liturgicon with appropriate rubrics. But even here there must be common agreement among all Churches before preparing such an edition.

It is my understanding that both Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown (Carpatho-Russian Orthodox) and Archbishop Vesvelod of Chicago (Ukrainian Orthodox) have spoken publicly and positively at the Orientale Lumen Conferences in the past few years about the need and desire for a common translation. I know of at least one Johnstown priest who uses the 1964 Byzantine Seminary Press edition of the Liturgicon (and he tells me that it is fairly common). It is odd to think that the 1964 Liturgicon containing the full Ruthenian Liturgy will be banned by the Byzantine-Ruthenian Catholics but will still be used by the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox!

Glad to see the vote holding up so nicely. To the Administrator's comment that it would be odd to see the 1964 Ruthenian translation "outlawed" it its own jurisdiction but still used in Johnstown . . . well, in theory the 1905 Slavonic service-book was ruled out back in 1941, but remained in use in Johnstown until they stopped using Church-Slavonic.

That, of course, was theory. The same book also remained in use in the Pittsburgh-Passaic circle for a few decades too. Perhaps a similar fate could . . . but, I suppose, I shouldn't say that, lest I be accused of rabble-rousing (who? me?).

Incognitus

I would think it would be harder to get Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox together than just Byzantine Catholics (though that might still be a challenge!)

Perhaps if the various Byzantine Catholic jurisdictions could get together and agree on a common translation keeping in mind the points from the Liturgical Instruction that would be a first step.

Has there been an attempt for a common English translation for Orthodox? If so, how was that received?

Nec