www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Serge Keleher: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - 1

Dear Fr. David,

No one here wants to "petras-bait". At least, I don't. All I, personally, want is some sort of argument as to why these changes are being made. As I read the forum, the "whys" are never forthcoming.

I asked you a question on the forum a few months ago, which perhaps you missed, but which has never been answered:

Why does the commision think "For us and for our salvation" is better and a more accurate rendering of the creed than "For us men and for our salvation" or "for us humans and for our salvation?"

The failure to answer this question and many others like it, not just about inclusive language, leads to a lack of credibility. I, for my part, am ready to be convinced that I am wrong, and that "for us and for our salvation" is better; no one has attempted to convince me of this. Since no-one gives reasons for the changes, and there must in fact be reasons for the changes, one tends to leap to conclusions for what the unstated reasons are. Thus the conviction of many that "feminist ideology" and not Christian theology is driving this.

If I am wrong, tell me why not. How does "propter nos homines" or "hemas tous anthropous" benefit by failing to translate "anthropous?" Note that this is not an issue of inclusive language; I am perfectly willing to accept "for us humans." But "for us?"

Teach me. Why am I wrong on this?

Slight tangent - but not, I hope, of no importance:

The "Ruthenian Recension" is a term which refers to a specific set of liturgical books published by the Oriental Congregation (which is a department of the Holy See in Rome) from 1941 until 1975 (so far), including:

The Liturgicon - available as a complete book, or as a series of offprints:

Vespers and Orthros
The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom
The Divine Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great
The Divine Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts
and a few supplements

The Gospel Book (available in complete and abridged form, in large size or small size)

The Epistle Book (like the Gospel Book)

The Book of Hours (large edition and pocket edition)

The Small Trebnyk ("Book of Needs")

The Book of Molebens (this has never been translated into English)

The Archieraticon (the book used by the Bishop in holding the Divine liturgy and certain other services, such as ordinations, the consecrations of churches and antimensia, and so on - this has never been translated into English)

The "Ordo Celebrationis" - directions for how to serve Vespers, Orthros and the Divine Liturgy

Except for the Archieraticon, these books were all produced by a commission set up in the late nineteen-thirties by Pope Pius XI and the Oriental Congregation, because the "Ruthenian" bishops themselves could not agree and requested the Holy See to produce a definitive set of books. They were definitely not intended as something "optional". The prime mover in this commission was Father Cyril Korolevsky, of holy memory.

"Ruthenian" in this context includes Ukrainians (the large majority of this category), Greek-Catholics originating on the southern slopes of the Carpathian Mountains, Slovak Greek-Catholics. "Ruthenian" is a complicated term to begin with and to add to the confusion, Ukrainians generally do not care to have this word applied to themselves, even though they use these service books. Because of this confusion, there are those in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia of Pittsburgh who have the impression that the "Ruthenian Recension" applies to them exclusively.

The proposed recasting of the Divine Liturgy which my book discusses is NOT the Ruthenian Recension, and calling it that will only add further confusion.

Discussing how these books were developed, and on what basis, is an endeavor that I am willing and prepared to engage in - but is a separate matter to the discussion of the proposed recasting.

Neither in theory nor in practice is there anything to inhibit, let alone prevent, the translation of these books into any language one pleases. Some of them can be found in English; some can be found in Ukrainian. There is at least one edition of the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in Hungarian. Most recently, the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been published in Slovak. There may - I don't know - be the Ruthenian Recension Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom published in Spanish.

All this and much more can be addressed at the planned conference - and should be.

Serge Keleher

Father Serge,

Thanks for a scholarly work of art!

May our bishops (who may or may not love God but are definitely loved by Him) look kindly on your gift to us by directing our liturgical commission to publicly review and respond to your brilliant scholarship.

Nick

Dear Nicholas,
My thanks to you for your evident appreciation of my work. I'm very pleased that you find it worth-while.

With every blessing,

Fr Serge

Eli,

Thank you.

Many of us have been asking the bishops for the past 20 years not to reform the liturgy. Seeing the text of the reformed liturgy was the last straw.

Blessed Theodore

This is a double posting. I posted the first one in the wrong place.

Fr. Keleher has sent his book to most of the priests in the Metropolia. This is what prompted me to write a response, since there is certainly another side to this story. It took me a few days to go over chapters 9 and 10, which were more detailed than the first 8. I will be adding these two chapters in my next post. I hope to conclude my review of his book soon with paragraphs on the Public Recitation of the Anaphora.and conclusions.

My review of his response speaks for itself. I feel that our Commission deserves this defense. I must say though that some of the acrimony on the web site has been disedifying to me, and I regret being dragged into a defensive position. After this, I hope to be able to make a more positive statement about the liturgy.

Fr. Dave

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, �� haghia trapeza,� literally, �the holy table,� but sometimes �thysiast�rion,� �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. 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,� 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.� 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 parr�sia 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.

Are you telling us that Father Keleher has made a gift of his book to MOST of the priests in our Metropolia?

That is multiple thousands of dollars at 20 or 25 dollars per book, Father David.

Somehow that assertion seems radically improbable to me.

Eli

Credit belongs where credit is due - and in this instance I cannot take the credit for presenting each priest of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia in the USA with a copy of my book. I simply did not and do not have the money that such a generous act would have cost.

But I do thank Father David and others who have kindly responded to what I have written.

Serge Keleher

As far as us "claiming to be 'Orthodox' when we are not in communion with the world-wide “Orthodox Church,” , Bishop of Parma Robert Moskal of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church views this entirely differently and I would call his assessment correct.

I have provided a paragraph of his writing that talks directly to this and how Patriarch Joseph Slipyi disagrees with your assessment as well and the I have also included his complete write up on this column so that all can see the entire context of the article:

"The late Patriarch Joseph Slipyi firmly stood on the ground that we must not abandon the use of this word [Orthodox] at all costs, because it leads to a correct understanding of our very identity. We can understand that with the gradual estrangement of Eastern Christians from Western Christians, that some misunderstanding can easily arise especially since the term "Orthodox" has shifted in popular parlance from describing The Faith to describing the Church. Nonetheless, we strive to overcome misunderstandings and continue to use the word Orthodox properly, especially in our own day and age to overcome the difficulties of the past and pray for the unity of all the true -- believers in the One Church of Jesus Christ."

And now the whole article:

"Dear Bishop Robert,

Why do we pray for “orthodox Christians” in our Liturgy?

Curious

Dear Curious,

During the Divine Liturgy we pray for everyone. Your question undoubtedly is prompted because of some people's understanding or perception of the term "Orthodox". The English term is derived from the Greek Orthododokeo which means to teach rightly. In a passive sense, it is applied to those who had been "rightly taught", hence "true believing". It seems to me that when this Greek term was translated into Church-Slavonic (or ancient Bulgarian), the translator misinterpreted the second half of the verb Dokeo (to teach-Doksia participle) and confused it with the Greek word (to glorify) -- Doksia (glory), so that many have come to understand the word "Orthodox" as meaning "true -- worshipers" or those "rightly glorifying God". Hence, the word: Pravoslavnyj.
Curious, are you confused by now? Who wouldn't be! Be as it may, the word "Orthodox" has been used throughout the history of the church to describe the Faith of the Church. It appears in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, as well as in the Liturgies of both the Eastern and Western Churches. In the old Latin text of the Roman Catholic Mass, the people prayed "pro orthoxis fidelibus" i.e. for "Orthodox Christians", meaning the faithful who professed the accurate teachings of the Faith. However, since the word "Orthodox" originated in the Eastern Church(es), it was and has been widely used. For us to deny that our Faith is Orthodox, would be negating or re-writing the history of the Church and the terminology which the Church has used and uses.

In modern day Ukraine, many people, not wanting to be confused with the Orthodox Church, especially the Russian Church, argue against the use of the word "Orthodox". The late Patriarch Joseph Slipyi firmly stood on the ground that we must not abandon the use of this word at all costs, because it leads to a correct understanding of our very identity. We can understand that with the gradual estrangement of Eastern Christians from Western Christians, that some misunderstanding can easily arise especially since the term "Orthodox" has shifted in popular parlance from describing The Faith to describing the Church. Nonetheless, we strive to overcome misunderstandings and continue to use the word Orthodox properly, especially in our own day and age to overcome the difficulties of the past and pray for the unity of all the true -- believers in the One Church of Jesus Christ. The communion, in the love of Christ, of all "Orthodox churches" in the Universal Church is the one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church of Jesus Christ, who is the Head of the Church. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, has underscored many times that we are "Orthodox in Faith, and Catholic in the bonds of love."

Yours In Christ,

+Bishop Robert

Great Fast 2004"

Ahhh...so then you have not "sent" your book to most of the priests in the Metropolia at all as Father David said.

For Father David's statement to be true in any real sense would actually mean that most-many of the priests in the Metropolia have purchased your book from the distributor of the book.

Apparently, something was lost in translation!

Eli

I said that I (me, moi, mise, me fein, myself . . . from аз to Я for the slavists among us) did not send out the book to the Byz-Ruth Metropolia priests. I added that the reason why I did no such thing was that I had and have no such money. I am aware of a bulk order in something resembling the appropriate numbers and (although I'm not handling the finances) I would take it for granted that such a bulk order warrants a serious discount.

Assuming that this is what happened, we should all be thankful to the benefactor, even though that benefactor is not the undersigned!

Serge Keleher

P.S. - Further to Bishop Robert's comments on the word Orthodox: this term still occurs in the present Roman Mass in Latin: in the opening of the first Eucharistic Prayer, the priest prays "pro omnibus orthodoxis".

So, we are left with two questions: Do all of the priests in the Metropolia have Father Serge's book or not? If they do, how do with thank the anonymous benefactor?

If every priest has one and if every priest has a copy of the proposed translation it should be easy to have a conference with educated laity provided that: 1. Every priest makes both the new translation and Father's book available to the laity; and 2. Every Church comes with representatives of that Church.

CDL

I know several who, at this moment, do not have a copy, nor are they aware of any mass mailing. There is most likely a hierarchy within the ranks. That would not be unusual. So I would not presume at all!!

Eli

Clearly "something resembling."

Well here's a toast to the forgotten few.

Eli