Another wisely chosen, pastoral restoration of liturgical practice is of a different nature: It concerns pruning an elaboration that had developed within the Byzantine rite. Over time the congregation=s singing of To You, O Lord, at the end of the Anaphora had become elaborated and in fact covered the celebrant=s prayer. The return recently to a shorter musical setting for that phrase allows the faithful to hear the celebrant=s words in the prayer.
This has been a matter of debate on these forums. Silent anaphora or aloud? I agree with Tkacs on this one.
� the verbal changes from man and mankind to humanity will fail to have the desired effect. Unfortunately, however, these changes will certainly have � unintended and unwanted effects: Those of the faithful, both men and women, who already understand that mankind and man have a generic and inclusive meaning, will to varying degrees be alienated.
I agree.
The authority of Genesis for the doctrine of the spiritual equality of the sexes is reaffirmed in the New Catechism:
Which New Catechism?
Liturgiam Authenticam. Happily, the Church has provided a clear instruction on the renewal and preservation of Liturgiam Authenticam, the authentic worship of the Church. This Vatican document issued four years ago treats the Roman Liturgy primarily, yet also concerns the Eastern rites and cites the authority of the Septuagint.
I always suspect documents that are primarily aimed at the Latin Liturgy, but include some things to nibble on for Easterners. Why do we always have to wait until the Vatican to publish a document to feel like we can arm ourselves?
Strikingly, Liturgiam Authenticam returns again and again to the importance of the faithful, maintaining that, for the sake of the faithful, the liturgy ought to be free of unneeded changes. Great respect is shown for the active faith and intelligence of the laity.
I really would consider Tkacs� article to be considered �scholarly� if she only studied what happened to our liturgical tradition BEFORE the 1970s. Where DID �Christians of the true faith� come from? Or the Filioque? Or �Supreme Ecumenical Pontiff? What about all our traditions, especially vespers and matins? Or the demise of the free-standing vesper service in its own right, not a mere appendage to the �Mass�? Who put in our funeral service �in case Divine Liturgy is to be celebrated�? or �Blessed is the one� in the Basilian vesper text?
I strongly urge that the faithful do in fact recognize this style in the English version of the Byzantine Catholic Liturgy in use since at least the 1970s.
Why?
Regrettably, in the musical materials of March 25, 2005, it is as if the role of the faithful has been deemed of little importance. For instance, where the cantors are to set the musical line so that the faithful can then sing a proper hymn in that tone readily, instead the cantor lines are now different from what the faithful sing.
There is a difference between the stich or Psalm tone chant and the sticheron melody. Any cantor who regularly chants vespers knows that. Tkacs should familiarize herself with our Plainchant. The 1906 B/M will give the cantor�s parts separately. Even Sister Joan Roccasalvo gives a little cheat sheet on page s 144 and 145 of her chant study, �The Plainchant Tradition of Southwestern Rus�� (1986). What the cantor or Psalmist intones between stichera IS of a different melody even though of the same tone. During vespers, my wife chants these Psalm melodies. Everyone then follows the cantor and/or schola chanting the stichera melodies.
Also, one rubric shows a surprising ignorance of Byzantine liturgy.
Which one?
Within Psalm 103, verse 4 is particularly curious, because the translation of just this verse seems to have been imported into a different translation of the Psalm as a whole. The verse on March 25, 2005, reads: You make your spirits angels and your ministers a flaming fire. The first half is obscure and the second half sounds risky for the clergy. However, the root meaning of angel as messenger seems meant here, as it has been understood to be meant for ages. And spirit famously has many meanings, including breath or, as here, wind. One has to reorder each pair of terms to make the meaning clear in English, because English is not nearly as inflected as Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Slavonic : You make the winds your messengers and flaming fires your attendants. That is clear, true, and poetic. That is the translation that has already been in use, for decades.
If the author would only consider the Septuagint (LXX) translation.
Let�s compare:
Translation �is use for decades�:
�You make the winds your messengers and flaming fires your attendants.�
March 25, 2005 verse:
�You make your spirits angels and your ministers a flaming fire.�
LXX (Sir Lancelot Brenton, 1851/1999):
�Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire.�
Tanakh (Jewish Publication Society, 2000)
�He makes the winds His messengers, fiery flames His servants.�
DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls):
� who makes the winds his messengers, flaming fire his ministers.�
The �translation is use for decades� (1970s) agrees with the DDS and Jewish Tanakh, but NOT the Septuagint (LXX). The March 25, 2005 translation is more faithful to the Septuagint, which is the text we should be using, no? The first half is not obscure. And what does Dr. Tkacs mean by the second half sounding �risky for the clergy� ? When the flames/tongues of fire rested on the Apostles on Pentecost, it wasn�t a matter of risk.
Years ago, when my husband was a child, worshiping with his Baba and Gigi in Thunder Bay, Ontario, he called the feast of the Thee Holy Hierarchs the feast of the Three Holy Head Guys. That helped him to hold an initial idea of these saints, but it would have been woefully wrong if the Church had institutionalized a child=s nomenclature.
And why CAN�T we call the Sunday of the Myrr-Bearing Women the Sunday of the Spice Girls? My New Testament professor liked that one.
Some traditional theological language has removed in the 2005 translation. To chose one of several possible examples, Pure has been replaced by the word Clean. This example is apt, for it involves a term resonant in Byzantine tradition, in every liturgy, in the calendar (Pure Monday), as well as in the hymnody of March 25, 2005. I gther that the official reason for using Clean instead of Pure is to make the texts understandable to children. This, at any rate, was the rationale offered earlier for revising The Encounter to The Meeting. The word Pure is not a synonym for Clean. In Greek and in Slavonic, the words for pure resonate throughout. In our paschal katabasia Mary is Pure (�istaja), in the hymns of Joseph of Arimthea the linen used to wrap Christ=s body is Pure (�istoju), and in every Divine Liturgy we thank God for having received the Most pure (pre�istych) ... mysteries of Christ. This language has to do with acknowledging the holiness of God, of the saints, and of the sacraments. Further, the diction Pure acknowledges that we are called to holiness. The language is a reminder of theosis. Clean rther suggests aspiring only to I�m O.K., you�re O.K.
I believe it was the Douay-Reims that uses �clean� in place of �pure.� No one accused the translators of the DR as not acknowledging holiness. I have seen the word �pure� used in regards to one�s heart, whereas �clean� refers to things we do with our hands. Please refer to Psalm 23:3-4 (LXX):
�Who should go up to the mountain of the Lord, and who shall stand in his Holy place? He that is innocent in his hands and pure in his heart; who has not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbor.
We see the preference of the word �innocent� in Sir Brenton�s LXX version, but the word �clean� is used in the Tanakh,
Then there is:
�He whose hands are clean, whose heart is pure� (The Jerusalem Bible)
�The man with clean hands and pure heart� (The Abbey Psalter)
�The clean of hand and pure of heart� NAB � the singular is used for hands because it refers to the entire class of worshippers (footnote given).
�He who has clean hands and a pure heart� NIV
�He who has clean hands and a pure heart; who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood, and has not sworn deceitfully.� WEB
�He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; Who hath not lifted up his soul unto falsehood, And hath not sworn deceitfully.� ASV
�He who has clean hands and a true heart; whose desire has not gone out to foolish things, who has not taken a false oath.� BBE
�He that hath blameless hands and a pure heart; who lifteth not up his soul unto vanity, nor sweareth deceitfully:� DBY
�He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.� KJV
�He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.� WBS
�He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn deceitfully.� JPS
�The clean of hands, and pure of heart, Who hath not lifted up to vanity his soul, Nor hath sworn to deceit.� YLT
�Clean� and �Pure� are two biblical terms.
-------
Interesting enough, the Creation Institute Research folks (I have no affiliation with these folks) has one of the best explanations of �clean� versus �pure� and their Greek meanings:
Standing with Clean Hands
Let's take the qualifications one at a time. What are "clean hands"? When we look at the New Testament to find "clean," the first usage we see of this term is in Matthew 8:2: "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." This word in the Greek is "katharizo" (katharidzo), from the word "katharos." The Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek) uses the term "katharos" in Psalm 24, speaking of "clean" hands. The source of Biblical "cleanliness" is Jesus Christ. The same Hebrew word translated clean in Psalm 24 is also translated "innocent" elsewhere in Scripture. The majority of the uses of "innocent" are used in the context of "innocent blood." The following account in the New Testament gives us this perspective: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood..." Matthew 27:3,4
It would be safe to say that Jesus again is the only One who fulfills the requirement of innocence. In fact, the whole concept of "clean" in this verse is that of being blameless, guiltless, or without sin. After Jesus knelt and drew on the ground next to the woman who was taken in adultery, he said to her accusers, "...he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). Every man left without throwing a stone. In contrast, it is said of Jesus: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).
Standing with a Pure Heart
What about the fact that only the one with a pure heart will stand in God's presence? Jesus said in Matthew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God," and then He also says in John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." When Matthew spoke of the "pure in heart" -- the word He used for "pure" in the original Greek is the same word "katharos" translated "clean" when the lepers asked Jesus to make them "clean." In order to stand in God's presence, the heart must be as pure as the hands are clean.
The entire article can be found at:
http://www.icr.org/ So, I don�t see how using �clean� is a childish word. It is a biblical word. �Clean� refers to what people see; �pure� refers to what God sees.
Prayers before the Lamp-Lighting Psalms. The changes in the prayers before the lamp-lighting psalms are on the whole disappointing. Some changes alter the ecclesiology, others obscure the theology.
I am disappointed that Dr. Catherine did not quote these prayers so we can see for ourselves. I cantored the March 25, 2005 service, but will have to find where I placed the text.
In the March 25, 2005, liturgy this is replaced by our holy father, N, the pope of Rome. The term ecumenical is used of patriarchs, and thus the prior wording recognizes the pope as having the status of a patriarch. In fact, according to Eastern Catholic belief, he does have this status, and the phrase is distinctively Eastern. Because we are Eastern as well as Catholic, we ought to retain the previous wording.
Many of our earlier liturgy books use other terms that are neither �Ecumenical� or �Holy Father.� The late Professor Nicholas Kalvin gave me one of his liturgy books, which states, �Svjatijsaho vselenskaho Archiereja (Imjarek) Papu Rimshkaho� during the Great Entrance, but nothing close for the Great Litany. (Uzhorod, 1924)
If we would really be Eastern, we wouldn�t have to mention the Holy Father�s name at all. Wouldn�t that be the responsibility of our bishops, who are in communion with him?
In Byzantine chant, as also in Gregorian chant, often the musical line echoes the meaning of the words. This is true in the next stichera for Great and Holy Friday. In the 1976 version, the music rose with the words raised upon the cross. Unfortunately, in the 2005 words, the music descends with the words lifted up on the wood.
The word �wood� can refer to the �wood� used as the means of sacrifice in Genesis 22:1-9, where Isaac is a type of Christ. �Wood� refers to sacrifice; the sacrifice of Abraham�s only son, who is innocent, a lamb (v. 7).
�And Abraam said, God will provide himself a sheep for a whole-burnt-offering, my son. And both having gone together, came to the place which God spoke of to him and there Abraam built the altar and laid the wood on it, and having bound the feet of Isaac his son together, he laid him on the altar UPON THE WOOD.� (Gen 22:8,9 LXX)
In my parish-temple, there is an icon of Abraham�s sacrifice of Isaac on the wood inside the altar. Very biblical. Very liturgical. The interplay between the use of the word �wood� and its relationship to sacrifice, altar, and worship is keen if not beautiful. The �wood� was placed on the altar.
We understand that Jesus was sacrificed on a �cross� which was an instrument of torture/capital punishment by the Romans, but the �wood� has a longer tradition in sacrificial theology. BOTH play an important role in our Byzantine theology, but the type found in Abraham�s �wood� is deep. As I just noted above, Isaac was innocent and Abraham�s only-son.
The prokimenon of Great and Holy Friday was presented in a poor translation. The old translation had a strong text, and the old music aptly emphasized the words pit and death. The new translation seems, oddly, to avoid the word death and repeats three times depths ... depths ... depths. (Please say the word depths aloud and consider the awkwardness of singing it three times. Now try the words pit and death.) The prior translation was better, and by far more singable.
The old version, �You have plunged me into the bottom of the darkness and the shadow of death,� is definitely from the book of Job. But in the Hebrew scriptures, �darkness� (choshek) can refer to misery, destruction, and even death. �Deep� (thown) can refer to the abyss. In Job 28:14, the �deep� or �depth� can even speak. In Genesis 1 we read, �darkness (was) upon the face of the deep.� If we fall into the deep it can also refer to our falling into sin and death. What we can end up doing (the Fall all over again) can be prevented by our Lord�s salvific act (as depicted in our traditional paschal icon where Jesus Christ is shown holding Adam and Eve�s hands/arms, bringing them out of the abyss/deep. Refer to the Gospel of Nicodemus:
�Now when we were set together with all our fathers in the deep, in obscurity of darkness, on a sudden there came a golden heat of the sun and a purple and royal light shining upon us.�
�And as David spake thus unto Hell, the Lord of majesty appeared in the form of a man and lightened the eternal darkness and brake the bonds that could not be loosed: and the succour of his everlasting might visited us that sat in the deep darkness of our transgressions and in the shadow of death of our sins.�
�Bottomless pit� and �abyss� and �depths/deep� all refer to the same thing.
To be or not to be. Dropping be from Glory be to you, O God, is a case in point. True, forms of to be can be omitted in statements in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and many other languages, and in fact some liturgical phrases literally do not have a form of to be in the original language. But for a translation to include the word be is not incorrect. Indeed, it makes better English than the omission.
If the Greek, Latin, Hebrew and other languages don�t have it, then where did it come from? It is no greater English than for us to sing, �We be glorify you God!� We be, I be, you be � why not just, �We glorify you God!� or �We give you glory� ? I think a history of where the �be� entered into our English translation is needed.
However, dropping be now introduces a repeatedly distracting, minor, inessential change in long accustomed practice, and it forces changing the way a great many passages in the liturgy are sung.
I�ve been doing it for some time and it never registered on the radar. Even the girls in our parish schola picked up on the change and adjusted quickly. So, what�s the problem?
It is, of course, fashionable among some contemporary Roman Catholics to jostle liturgical language in this way. But surely American fashions in the Roman Rite are not normative for the Byzantine Catholic Church. Moreover, one must set in context the recent removal of forms of the verb to be in the Roman Rite, as in the proclamation, The Word of the Lord, after the Gospel is read. For a few decades, the American English version of the Roman Rite has used language so mundane that the mass can be difficult to recognize as a liturgy.
This is a personal commentary, not a scholarly treatment. If removing the word �be� makes the liturgy so unintelligible and/or unrecognizable, then I have concerns about that person.
Blessedly, the Byzantine Rite has not been so impoverished and therefore there is no need artificially to remove forms of to be to show that it is liturgy.
Then why was it included in the first place?
Sometimes a typological comparison is being made, for instance, between the wood of Isaac=s sacrifice and the wood of Christ=s Cross, or the wood of Noah=s ark and the wood of the Cross. Otherwise the word Cross is more readily understood.
Readily understood by whom? Dr. Catherine states earlier about he intelligence of the laity, but makes an exception to use the �more readily understood� term rather than the deeper theological one. I know what �cross� means in Christian theology, but I also appreciate the word �wood,� which refers to that typological comparison. Byzantine tradition is heavy with typological use. Ever read closely the burial service for the Theotokos?
Please do not abandon venerable, generic references to Mankind in favor of Lover of humanity, do not change the clear, powerful monosyllables of God with man into God with humanity. As an Orthodox scholar has put it, such modern revisions ultimately privilege ideology over the Incarnation.
I agree on this one.
It was sad to see no Slavonic included, even as an option.
I believe it was an ENGLISH translation.
The solitary exception is that the correct Slavonic musical terms (Samohlasen, etc.) are included in the 2005 materials. Retaining these traditional designations is most welcome. But it does further suggest the mistaken idea that music is more important, or at any rate more sophisticated, than anything else in the liturgy.
I disagree. All our old cantor books (pre-1970s) included musical terms for what tone to us. Samohlasen, podoben, bolhar � THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT, DR. CATHERINE!!! The 1970s gave us that dastardly clause: �Texts are edited to sing to Samohlasen melodies� (cf. The Office of Vespers, Uniontown, 1982/87). This was, indeed, a dumbing down of our tradition. We just gave up on trying to sing the proper tone by �editing� the text to fit another tone selection. It is not a matter of sophistication unless one considers singing willy-nilly. Take a look at our older cantor books like the sbornik to get the feel of how our liturgical texts USED TO give the proper tones. Unfortunately, the 1970 black notebook �Byzantine Chant� mixes up the Our Father tones and doesn�t even call out their Tone Number. What were we trying to hide?
Over and over again changes seem to have been introduced in the music for the sake of making the music different. This itself is not an authentic Byzantine approach to the music.
Actually, the melodies given in the March 25, 2005 service reflect a good transliteration of our Plainchant. Several of the old-timers noted how we did things the old way for a change.
God bless,
Joe Thur
). This is unfortunate because it is likely to undercut some of the good points she makes. 
