|
1 members (Erik Jedvardsson),
1,165
guests, and
84
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Glory to God! It is not every day that one sees a direct intervention from the heavenly Kingdom in such discourse. But the Saints have used other methods of communication, so it is not for me to complain if one of them chooses to express himself on the Internet - and Blessed Theodore, after all, seems to have been responsible for a substantial reprint and distribution of the 1941 Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in the Eparchy of Mukachiv.
On another matter: Father David articulates what he considers a strong need for the Liturgy to stress that God saves both men and women. Why, then, does και παντων και πασων [and all men and women] become "And remember all your people" in the final version of October 2004, page 28, line 18?
[
Serge Keleher
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 106
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 106 |
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Is there any complete text (with rubrics, etc.) online of this new translation?
--Mark Therrien
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 564 |
Fr. David says that the liturgy has been revised since the October 2004 version. I have been told that I must accept this liturgy because it is approved by Rome. But which version has been approved? What exactly was approved? If the version is to-be-accepted because of this approval, how could it be changed?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Why, then, does και παντων και πασων [and all men and women] become "And remember all your people" in the final version of October 2004, page 28, line 18? Oh, is that what the Greek says? The GOA renders it "And all Your people". I have a ROCA text with "And each and every one". The OCA has it "And all mankind". A poster some years ago opined that our 1965 translation "And remember all your people" was an example of gender-neutral inclusive language - because it should be something like "mankind".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Father Serge,
Glory to Jesus Christ!
After receiving your book for the meager price of a few chocolates (I must tell you that I believe I got the sweeter end of the deal :p ) I eagerly "consumed" its contents in less than 24 hours. Granted, this will probably be the first of several readings for me (especially the parts pertaining to the actual contents of the translation, since I lack a command of liturgical languages). But I have to say that I believe that your labors here constitute a true GIFT for all who are interested in the future of Byzantine/Orthodox Catholicism in the English-speaking world - far beyond just the Metropolia of Pittsburgh!
I would even go so far as to say that your work potentially represents the beginnings of an Orthodox Catholic manifesto for all those who are eager for a return to orthodoxia and orthodopraxis within our respective Greek-Catholic jurisdictions. You certainly touch upon issues that pertain to our survival as a Church, and while the principles that form the basis of this work are drawn from conciliar, magisterial and scholarly sources readily available to all, your work makes it tragically clear that they have not as of yet been embraced by all.
The level of secrecy surrounding the translation work (a fact that, thankfully, Father David now also laments) has undermined what could have been a very fruitful dialogue, not only between the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches of the English-speaking, but between also the laity (those of us who intone the "Amen!" within the worship) and the hierarchy. As you mention in your book, this contravenes both precedent and good pastoral practice, and can actually cause those of us who would otherwise be receptive to change to question motives and loyalties. Already we have seen such comments on this forum, with some threatening to leave as a result.
Unwarranted secrecy poisons natural relations in both organizational and family systems. It is partly based on a principle of physics - nature abhors a vaccuum. Where secrecy abounds, people will naturally fill the void with wild speculations and anxieties. What would have been initially experienced as "organic" change becomes "shock" change - unsettling and potentially destructive in any context/system. Our Metropolia's history is full of tragic separations and shocks to our family system - we do not need to be unsettled anymore than we already are - we need to be strengthened. Authentic leadership often involves the management of the process of change and care for those who are most affected by it. The recent history in the Eparchy of Passaic demonstrates the destructive power of such "shock change" with the mishandling of parish closings in CT and FL. When the shepherd strikes the sheep, the flock will scatter. To whom shall they go?
Were this liturgy to be simply "dropped" down from on high one Sunday morning, I fear it would create a similar reaction in the sense that we would probably lose members. I am sure that plans were in place for a gradual implementation of the changes (sans a security detail), but even then the content of the changes appears to be of the greatest concern, not their implementation.
Coming back to the topic of secrecy, based upon your critique, it appears that secrecy in this instance has created a lackluster - even deficient - product in an ecclesial and scholarly vaccuum. Your book has "opened wide" the doors to open dialogue - one that should have started long ago. My hope is that the liturgical commission suspends the promulgation of the liturgy and in all humility, examines your critique, which is both gracious and compelling. The end result will hopefully not be a thorough defense of the commission's work, but rather its refinement.
In addition, I hope that this text is read by anyone and everyone who has an interest in the future of the Byzantine Church.
Many years!
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,760 Likes: 29 |
Healthy discussion need not include lack of charity. Some of the comments from posters on both sides of the issue of liturgical reform have been based more in emotion than in logic. I lament the wandering away from the absolute rule of charity and ask posters to stick to a discussion of the issues (passion and discourtesy are not the same thing).
Father David has noted that he is not the originator of the use of inclusive language. Father Serge has noted that it really doesn�t matter whose idea it was. Father Serge has a good point. I will take it a step further. It really does not matter who thought up any of the changes. Each proposed revision can be examined upon merit, together with the larger question of whether it is legitimate for the Ruthenian Church to act solo to revise the Divine Liturgy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Dear Gordo,
The chocolates are delicious; please accept my thanks. And unlike the book, I have not yet consumed them all! But happy further readings.
My own beloved Bishop has not yet confirmed whether his copy has arrived in the post - but then I've not heard from him since early in the week and he may not be at home base.
By coincidence, I was impressed this evening at watching a televised session of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops - it is not that many years since they held their meetings in strictest secrecy. Our exalted commissions could profit from their example.
This reminds me, to a degree, of the trauma over the celibacy issue that began in the late nineteen-twenties. Bishop Basil Takach made the mistake of trying to keep things secret - with the result, of course, that everyone and his maiden aunt knew what was happening and several of the Carpatho-Russian newspapers took gleeful pleasure in publishing the "secret" documents. Had he followed a different policy, he could certainly have eased the trauma - and, who knows, he might even have succeeded in reversing the unwelcome decision. As I have written elsewhere, the "triumph of celibacy" was obtained at an outrageously high price, and turned out to be ephemeral anyway. But the pain and bitterness are still with us.
Many unanswered questions remain, so there is lots more work to be done. If my book has succeeded in breaking the ice and opening an informed discussion, that is a worth-while accomplishment. If it has done more . . . well, we must wait and see.
So far, I fear, the commission has shown no interest in having a dialogue with its critics. Father David, to be fair, has at least attempted to respond to criticisms, which is more than his colleagues have done.
I fully appreciate and share your hope that my book will be "read by anyone and everyone who has an interest in the future of the Byzantine Church."
Many years to you too!
Fr Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by djs: Why, then, does και παντων και πασων [and all men and women] become "And remember all your people" in the final version of October 2004, page 28, line 18? Dear DJS, I am beginning to suspect that you have your own private copy of the new liturgy because you are related to the printer or are Bishop Pataki's nephew or some such thing. Uncle David maybe? :p You are working entirely too hard and making no headway and besides you are beginning to repeat Father David which isn't what I'd call an "advance" of the polyologue. Did I say that? :rolleyes: Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Dear Eli:
This is probably better for PM, but since you raise it here, FYI: I am no one in particular. I have no connections to and in fact have not even met anyone that Cathy listed as being in the IELC. I care about my church, that's all.
And as Alice knows, I have no Greek, apart from he little she explained to me here. So I am intrigued to hear a suggestion that the phrase is idomatically "men and women". Who renders it this way in the liturgy?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
djs,
Yes, και παντων και πασων means and all men and women. Check the 1965 red book again (p. 36, last line on the page); you have a surprise coming.
Then read Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, Vol. 39 (1998), Nos. 2-4, pp. 342-343.
Serge Keleher
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Thanks, Father. "Also all men and all women."
I don't think that this translation ever made it to the grey pew book of about that time; or the later green, black, or red books. And my old Heavenly Manna has "And us all and all things". I suppose the rest of the story will be found in the cited article.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Originally posted by Blessed Theodore:
[b]Father David wrote: 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)
Father Serge�s comments are uniting, temperate, collaborative, open to a larger vision for all our Churches and respectful for authority.
Father David�s comments are the ones that are divisive, intemperate, completive and blind to the larger vision. They are certainly without reverence to Vatican authority.
Father David wrote: It is at this point that Fr. Keleher begins his attack on the latest efforts to promulgate the Ruthenian recension.
There is no �latest effort to promulgate the Ruthenian recension�. The revision will not promulgate the Ruthenian recension. It will only promulgate Father David�s agenda for �progress� in the Liturgy. He picked this up at Notre Dame when it was at is most wacky.
Father David wrote: This, he then claims, is why one must celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon before reforming it.
A very good claim, too! How can you revise something you don�t know?
Father David wrote: 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.
Father David�s premise is wrong. It is not merely a �textual problem.� It�s clear that he does not understand the Ruthenian recension or even the Liturgy itself if he reduces it mere text.
Father David wrote: 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 Metropolitan Council of Hierarchs does not envision what Father David proposes. If they did it would have been promulgated years ago. Bishop Andrew Pataki is the only bishop who actually supports the Reform. Anyone who asks Metropolitan Basil or Bishop William why they are considering promulgating the Liturgy are not told �because it is our vision for the Church�. They are told �because Father David has worked so hard for so long.� Bishop John has been giving parish after parish a blessing to return to the red book.
Note that there has not been one hierarchical pastoral letter on the need to reform the Divine Liturgy.
Father David wrote: 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.
Sure they were ignored. Even the clergy were ignored. The priests of Pittsburgh, Parma and Van Nuys saw the revisions for the very first time when the �final version of October 2004� was given to them in May of 2005. The priests of Passaic have still not been given a copy of this and had to obtain their copies from priests in other eparchies. Father David should not pretend otherwise.
Father David wrote: 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.
What is needed is not reform. What is needed is to finally implement the Ordo and the 1942 Liturgy.
If Father David wants to see people running away he should visit parishes that follow his reforms.
Father David wrote: 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.
Again, Father David should visit parishes that follow his reforms. They are quickly becoming empty.
The idea that the liturgy is a place primarily for getting people to understand rather than to worship is wrong.
Father David wrote: 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.
We�ve had the vernacular now for over 40 years. No one is arguing against it. The use of the vernacular does not mean that the structure of the Liturgy is going to change.
Father David wrote: 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.
No. One shepherd has been bullying the other three to give in to your reforms. That is the entire extent of it.
Father David wrote: 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.
Father David has been extremely emotional in his demand for inclusive language. He�s been using it for at least 20 years (assuming approbation where there was none). Doe he really expect to �table this discussion� and then have us accept his efforts to force inclusive language? The priests and people are really not that dumb.
Father David wrote: I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point.
Translation: �I don�t agree with Liturgiam Authenticam so I�m going to pretend that it does not exist and say I�m waiting for the Church to grow into my position.�
Father David wrote: 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.
Can Father David prove this? Until he shows us the letter it is merely his speculation.
It is likely that if is true the recommendation came before the definitive Liturgiam Authenticam was promulgated. It is also likely it came from Taft, who openly disagrees with the Vatican on the use of inclusive language.
Father David wrote: In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often.
We do say this often! This is what the term �lover of mankind� means. Perhaps Father David needs to take English 101?
Father David wrote: �Man� can be ambiguous also, but the critics say that it�s always clear from �context.�
Rome has said that �man� is the most inclusive term in the English language for anthropos. Father David is wrong.
Father David wrote: 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.
False. Ministers on the grass roots are more and more returning to authentic liturgy and translations. The liberalism of the 1970s and 1980s has been soundly rejected. Father David should not impose it on our church. The Church has moved on from that failed experiment. Father David should not remain stuck in the 1970s.
Father David wrote: 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.
The absence of supportive documentation from these documents in Father David�s writings is notable.
The thesis that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be as faithful to our traditions as is possible is not merely Father Serge�s opinion. It is a continuing directive from Rome. One that Father David appears to reject.
Father David wrote: 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.
Yes, the revised Liturgy is most certainly a betrayal of Orthodoxy. It is the product of a Roman Catholic mind. The Orthodox are right to hold us in contempt when we do such injustice to the Liturgy.
One could go on and on. More later. [/b] This is one of the most incredibly open, clear and accurate pieces of writing that I have ever seen on this Forum about this Church, or in this Church about this Church in a decade. The only biting question I have is why now? Why not six years ago? Why not two years ago? Why not last year? Why not in time to save ALL those parishes, all those people, all those priests? Why now? I could weep. Eli
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Then again, perhaps we would not agree on wheat vs. chaff.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Father David, Glory to Jesus Christ! Let me say to begin with that I have very much enjoyed your articles over the years on the Divine Liturgy. Your catechetical works on the content of our worship have been very inspiring to me personally. I have just two brief comments regarding your defense of the commission's work. First of all, you mention several times the intensity of the emotion that accompanies the debate on inclusive language. To be sure, emotions can become heated in a debate over inclusive language. I would only stress that this happens on both sides of the issue, not only on the part of the more "conservative" leaning members of the Church. It is a difficult debate, and one that can be politically charged, since its proponents often make a deliberate link between inclusive language and the emancipation of women from a "patriarchal" church and society. Secondly, my issue with the use of inclusive language - and in a particular way, the translation of "anthropos" to words such as "humankind" and phrases such as "lover of us all", is the gap such translations create between our liturgical way of worshipping and the Sacred Scriptures. One of the guidelines for Biblical translation identified by then Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger (as cited by Father Serge on pp. 54-55) is: Thus the word man in English should as a rule translate adam and anthropos since there is no one synonym which effectively conveys the play between the individual, the collectivity and the unity of the human family so important, for example, to expression of Christian doctrine and anthropology. Cardinal Ratzinger's point is that within biblical narratives, the name of an individual can often convey more than just a particular individual or historical figure. There can be - and often is - a dual identity implied: the individual and his descendants or posterity. We see this time again throughout the Old Testament, where the names of biblical figures represent both the individual, a specific office and/or a family line. Israel, for instance, was the name given by YHWH to Jacob, son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. Very early on, Israel became identified as the family name for his descendants (male and female), and the nation (male and female) and ultimately its universal and spiritual manifestation as the catholic ecclesia ("the Israel of God" to use a phrase of St. Paul - certainly male and female!). Interestingly enough, Israel is also treated in Scriptures as both son and bride, indicating a very inclusive approach to his name. The same holds true for "Adam". According to the principles of narrative analysis, Adam is to be regarded as an individual male created by God in His image and likeness a the beginning of creation. Adam ("man") also is a collective term for the whole of humanity, redeemed now through Jesus Christ the "New Adam". To say that God is the "lover of humankind" detracts from an explicit connection to Adam as an individual - our first father, if you will, as revealed in the sacred text. I believe that "God the lover of man (adam/anthropos)" comes the closest to conveying the Scriptural meaning/connection, since "adam/man/anthropos" already implies a collective sense. I would have to say that "mankind" only comes slightly closer and that the phrase "lover of us all" is as bland and as nondescript as one could possibly be. If the language of revelation is to be the normative language for both theology and worship (with the Eastern approach treating the two as virtually identical), I would argue for as close an explicit connection as possible in the work of translating the liturgical texts. To Father Serge's point, a suitable translation of Sacred Scripture should be foundational to any effort at liturgical translation. Your thoughts? God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
