I thank Father David for his post here on the Forum. I am very glad to find an explanation for some of the changes to the Liturgy and the translation issues. I continue, however, to have major problems with the philosophy towards Liturgy (both revision and translation) that Father David seems to be expressing.
My comments will follow the number used by Father David (which is taken from the numbering in Father Serge�s book). I highly recommend to all those interested in Liturgy to obtain copies of both Father Serge�s book and Father David�s book (when the latter becomes available).
Father David wrote:
1A) [Father Serge] 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.
There are several issues here.
1A: The change from �Master� to �Reverend Father� (or �Reverend Bishop�) is a change. We simply do not � as a
sui iuris Church � have the authority to change what is the property of the whole. If this is truly a desired change we must work among all the Byzantine Churches to accomplish it. We must respect the entire Church and not do our own thing with the Liturgy. [The whole idea of �pastoral adjustments� (or whatever one wishes to call them) is nothing more than an excuse to justify someone�s personal preference in Liturgy.]
Father David asserts that it is clear that the literal translation of �despota� is �Master�. If there is a word that is a clear, acceptable, literal translation, why reject it for something less precise?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the use of the term �Master� in this situation. When the deacon kisses the hand of the bishop or priest he is kissing the hand of Christ. But I know that in some places the kissing of the hand of the priest is not done because it is considered �un-American�. That seems to be the reasoning used by Father David. I believe the retention of the traditional terminology here can be a very good method of catechesis to clergy and people about the special way Christ is present among us in the person of the bishop and priest.
I am always interested to know more about the Liturgy. I hope both Father David and Father Serge can provide us with some references to liturgical historians who discuss this issue.
Father David wrote:
1B)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.
1B) I agree with Father David that the terminology �altar� has become so common in English but the terminology should be consistent. Again, what is needed in translation is literal faithfulness.
Father David wrote:
2) This was a conscious decision that �community� would be more inclusive than �village.�
If the original text uses �village� then the translation should use �village�. It is not the role of a liturgical commission or local council of hierarchs to make changes to the Liturgy. If it is felt that part of the Liturgy needs to change than such change should be proposed to the entire Church and the entire Church must agree with it (at the recension level or higher as appropriate). I cannot stress this principle of respect for the entire Church enough.
Father David wrote:
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.
I agree with Father David that there are still some who are troubled by the term �Orthodox�. The answer here is to produce liturgical books that correctly use the term �Orthodox� and educate the clergy and the people. If there is an occasional priest who refuses to the use the term �Orthodox� is it really a problem if he continues to use �of the true faith� until he retires? My guess is that there will be almost no objection from the laity and that the number of priests who refuse to use the term will be fairly small after the first few years.
I see absolutely no issue whatsoever in our using the term �Orthodox� when we are not currently in world-wide communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. Pope John Paul the Great often instructed to witness Orthodoxy as best as is possible while maintaining communion with Rome. Denying our Orthodox roots with alternate translations of the term �Orthodox� is not an acceptable witness. I agree with Father David�s earlier comments that we are not a bridge to reunion of East and West. It is very possible that the Lord is setting before us the task of truly being Orthodox within the Roman Communion.
Father David wrote:
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.
I agree with Father David that this probably should be labeled as a translation issue rather than an error. I have conflicting thoughts on this. �Forever� has now been used for 40 years. There is really no pressing need to change it for accuracy. And it is found among other Byzantine Christians (both Catholic and Orthodox). Yet clearly �ages of ages� is the most common standard across Orthodoxy. And we are called to follow their witness. I see the Melkites have more or less transitioned from �forever and ever� to �ages of ages� without incident.
Father David wrote:
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.
I�d like to see a survey of Orthodox translations on this phrase. Is the 1964/1965
�make this our entrance to be an entrance of holy angels serving together with us� actually incorrect? This seems like change for change�s sake. The bar for changing a translation that is already correct should be very high. This change does not seem justified.
Father David wrote:
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.�
I agree with Father David. In a fresh translation �strong� would be more accurate. But we have used �Holy and Mighty� for 40 years and it is well known. More annoying is the use of the term �and� which makes �Mighty� (and later �Immortal�) into adjectives, giving us
�Holy [Noun], Holy and [Adjective], Holy and [Adjective] instead of
�Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal� (in which �God�, �Mighty� and �Immortal� are all nouns and are modified by the adjective �holy�).
I would make no change. At some point in the coming generations there will be a common Orthodox translation of our Liturgical texts. That will be the proper time to change this.
Father David wrote:
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.
An interesting discussion! I would like to learn more about this. If one looks at the gather Church as the one receiving alms there might be a real theological perspective here. A tracing of this petition through history seems warranted.
Father David wrote:
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.
I think we need to be as literal as is possible. Since the noun used in the LXX means (as Father Serge notes)
�compassionate feelings, mercies� and
�send down Your compassions upon us� is awkward in English perhaps something like either
�send down Your mercies upon us� or
�shower us with your compassion� be acceptable? The first,
�send down Your mercies upon us� would only be a slight change to the 1964/1965
�send down Your benefits upon us�. Father David wrote:
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.
I agree that the word �verdure� is not much used in English. How have other translators handled this? It seems that for the moment the 1964/1965 translation should be retained here since it actually does refer to �a place of refreshment�.
It�s off topic but one of the online searches I did on �verdure� suggested something like �a newly green condition�. It made me think of Pentecost and �a place of refreshment, newly green�.
Father David wrote:
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.�
What is the intention of the petition here? Does the original Slavonic carry a distinction between transgressions committed out of ignorance and those committed with full knowledge? If yes, is it correct to blur this distinction? What do past liturgists say on this issue?
Father David wrote:
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.
In what way was the text in 1964/1965 edition considered inaccurate? Why was it deemed necessary to make this change? I agree with Father Serge that either the original or some of the alternatives he lists would be better and avoid what does seem to be a prophetic connotation with
�Lift up your hands to the holy gifts�. Father David wrote:
12) It is an exact citation, of course, but a mea culpa is due for not noticing Fr. Taft�s intervention.
This is something easily corrected.
Father David wrote:
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.
It seems that if extra words really need to be added for correct English rendering then these extra words should be kept to a minimum. The use of the term �us� seems to draw attention from the matter at hand and refocus the activity upon �us�. It really does seem that one of the alternatives from other translations would be better. But I don�t see any of the alternatives as so compelling as to replace the current �lying before us�.
Father David wrote:
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.
�Spiritual and unbloody sacrifice� is obviously neither �logical sacrifice� nor �rational sacrifice�.
Father David wrote:
16) �Rightly dividing,� is certainly odd English, at least today, and �teachings� are �imparted.�
In what way is �faithfully impart� more accurate then �faithfully dispense� (which is what the 1965 translation used)? There seems to be no real justification for the change.
Father David wrote:
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.
An individual
suri iuris Church does not have the right to modify the property it holds in common with other Byzantines.
The only change needed was that from �let us pray to the Lord� to �let us pray�.
Father David wrote:
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.�
I agree with Father David that it might sound odd but I�m not sure adding words is the correct response. We really cannot assume a subject for the beseeching where none is given.
Father David wrote:
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.
Different rules apply to making a change in a well known translation than in making a fresh translation. When the text already exists in English, is very well known and commonly accepted, and is reasonably accurate the bar to justify change is much higher. [Which is why I think that many of the changes to the texts are simply unwarranted.]
Father David wrote:
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 transubstantiation 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.
The deciding point here should be whatever is in the official Ruthenian edition. Dropping something is always much easier than changing or adding something.
Father David wrote:
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.)
The deciding factor here is the Slavonic text of the official book. Apparently it properly translates as �lips�. If, as Father David notes, both are legitimate and the distinction is of minimal importance what justification is there to make a change at all? If literal accuracy is not important elsewhere why is it so necessary here?
Father David wrote:
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.
I don�t see the offered translation as incorrect but it does not seem the best. If we are saying the same thing then the words should be the same, or as close as is possible. Most people certainly would see the connection but it is always best to be accurate, not to mention word flow. �Grant him eternal memory� does appear to be more accurate and offers a more natural word flow.
For Chapter 10:
Father David wrote:
1) has been rendered a moot point, since the June 2005 draft returned to �God-loving.�
Excellent!
Father David wrote:
3) Modern warfare is not the same as the Tzar and his armies.
The petition seems to be one for those who protect us. �All those in the service of our country� changes the nature of this petition from those who protect us to all government workers. There is absolutely no theological reason not to pray for our �armed forces�.
Father David wrote:
4) I myself would favor �righteous,� but the objection seems of minor importance.
�Just� and �righteous� do carry different meanings. Whichever one is more accurate and literal should be employed.
Father David wrote:
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.
The rubrics should exactly match the official Ruthenian edition. Liturgical directives (how to serve) in addition to that provided in the Liturgicon and
Ordo most properly belong in a pastoral directive.
The use of terminology such as �presider� sounds very 1960s Roman Catholic. The Romans are abandoning such usage in their striving to be more accurate. Why should anyone wish to introduce a model that they are rejecting?
Father David wrote:
6) The author does not state his preference. I would prefer �house,� which is more ancient terminology.
I agree. �House� provides much more clarity than �church� in this petition.
Father David wrote:
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.
I don�t see any advocating of a return to Elizabethan English in what Father Serge wrote. He seems to be noting that the commission did remove the �You, who� (yoo-hoos) from the translation but sometimes at the expense of accuracy. I hope that Father Serge offers us a further analysis of each of these issues.
Father David wrote:
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.
This seems like change for change sake. In what way is �will� a more accurate translation than �shall�?
It used to be:
I shall
You will
He she or it will
We shall
You pl. will
He she or it will.
But this is now obsolete? Since when?
I think that
I will
You shall etc. conveyed greater intention.
Father David wrote:
9) But certainly the place where God dwells is always �holy of holies.�
What is the literal meaning here? Does �Blessed is the entrance� mean an entrance into the Holy Place or the Holy of Holies that is within the Holy Place?
Father David wrote:
10) The Commission follows the opinion that �orthoi� is equivalent to a call for attentiveness. It is found also in the 1965 translation.
Father Serge makes a good point about a literal translation of �orthoi� being �arise�. The question that remains to be answered is whether the �Be attentive!� translation we�ve been using for 40 years is so unacceptable that it needs to be changed.
Father David wrote:
13) This is not really a translation issue, since neither the word �homily,� nor the word �sermon� appears in the original text.[b]
If neither word appears in the original text then they should not appear in any translation.
Father David wrote:
[b]14) There is no necessity to be afraid of the word �ministry,� simply because it is used frequently by Protestants.
Father David wrote:
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.
Ministry does not appear to be the best choice here but neither does it seem to be incorrect. Since the 1965 edition uses the term �ministry� there does not seem to be a pressing need to change it. But �serving� and �ministering� are not quite the same thing. �Serving� is the literal translation from the Greek. What is the literal translation from the Slavonic?
Father David wrote:
16) Words provided for �holy� have been discussed.
What is the Slavonic saying? Is it referring to God dwelling in the �Holy Place� or the �Holy of Holies� (within the holy place)?
Father David wrote:
17) The meaning can be ambiguous, but Fr. Serge offers no compelling rationale for �Slave,� or �servant.�
I agree with Father David that Father Serge�s explanation is undeveloped here. Perhaps Father Serge can explain it further?
Father David wrote:
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)
So where does the �always and everywhere� come from? This seems to be assuming something not in the original Slavonic.
It seems that the best rendering is
�Offering you your own, from your own, in behalf of all and for all�. Father David wrote:
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.
It seems that there is no reason to change the text of the 1964/1965 edition until this issue is solved.
Father David wrote:
20) We usually do not say �all-laudable,� or �all-praised� in contemporary English, and the Commision found �illustrious� a reasonable alternative.[b]
If �illustrious� is not accurate and �all-laudable� or �all-praised� are not acceptable in contemporary English why not �praiseworthy� or �highly praised�?
Father David wrote:
[b]21) Fr. Serge does admit the translation is defensible. The rest is a matter of taste.
There really does not seem to be any justification for changing from
�all others in holy orders� to simply
�holy orders�. Father David wrote:
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.
Father David does not seem to comment on the elegance of Father Serge�s offering:
We entrust our whole life and hope to You, Master and Lover of mankind.
we implore You,
we pray You,
and we entreat You:
make us worthy to receive Your heavenly and dread mysteries
from this holy and spiritual table
with a pure conscience,
for the forgiveness of offenses,
for the communion of the Holy Spirit,
for the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom,
for filial confidence to approach You,
but not for judgment or condemnation. Father David wrote:
31) The author agrees that the translation is �defensible,� but he prefers another rendition.
Yes, Father Serge does agree that the translation is defensible. But he also offers a good bit of information to reflect upon that the offered translation may not be the most optimal or elegant.
�Holy Gifts for the Holy� is very appealing.
Father David wrote:
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).�
James 1:17 in the NAB (edition at the USCCB website) is:
�all good giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no alteration or shadow caused by change.� The footnote is:
�All good giving and every perfect gift may be a proverb written in hexameter. Father of lights: God is here called the Father of the heavenly luminaries, i.e., the stars, sun, and moon that he created (Genesis 1:14-18). Unlike orbs moving from nadir to zenith, he never changes or diminishes in brightness.�Father David offers no real reason to support a change from the existing text.
Father David wrote:
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.�
What was the reason for the change? Why was the �store up� considered more accurate than the text used in the 1964/1965 translation (which is rather inelegant).
Father David wrote:
[Father Serge] 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.
In some cases Father David is correct. But one can just as easily note that most of the changes in the October 2004 Final Draft of the Revised Liturgy are even more so the personal preference of Father David and the other members of the commission. So far nothing I have read in this exchange of ideas suggests that there are serious issues with the current translation that justifies adopting the Revised Liturgy. It should be placed on hold until it can be made to literally conform to the 1942 official edition. None of the words and translation issues highlighted here in the discussion between Father David and Father Serge suggest that there are grave errors, heterodox theology, or unworkable phrases in the present translation. So my question is, why the expense, the trouble, the acrimony over insisting upon a new translation? It seems to me that it is not about the words at all. Because none of these changes are dramatic or significant in themselves. Why is the commission pushing a new translation? It does not seem to me that a new translation is warranted. My only possible conclusion is that the real driving force behind the urgency of a new translation is the not in the selection of words or phrases as highlighted here. The real drive, the real reason for a new Liturgicon is to introduce a reordering of the text with omitted litanies, changed rubrics (mandating the silent prayers be prayed aloud) and inclusive language. It�s not about a translation at all. It seems that the real reason for a new Liturgicon is the agenda of the committee. Except for a few words, where simple editing changes could be made in a new edition of the present Liturgicon, there is no reason whatsoever for all this trouble.
Father David has addressed the issue of preferred words and phrases in the new translation in this post. But I don�t think that these preferred words and translations are really the issues. Father David, or better the whole committee and hierarchs, have to address the real reason for pushing this Liturgicon. Why it feels that, as a Church, right now we need to introduce inclusive language, omitted litanies, and reordered rubrics in our Liturgicon. Father David and the others need to address these other questions. It�s obviously not about the words.
