www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Question #1 on New Translation of Liturgy

What's the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"? There is some truth in regards to recension rubrics.

I guess that's why the "suppressed" paschal rubrics have been implemented, to resemble the Greek usage vs. Ruthenian-Slavonic usage? ...if it ain't broke....

Christos Voskrese! (old Slavic usage ;))

Ungcsertezs

Thanks for your info ByzKat.

I recall even many decades ago, we would sing through the responses without waiting for the intonation - just as scored, for example in Sokol. I have heard a similar effect in Orthodox churches (and not just in the US) with the priest and choir chanting simultaneously.

Does anyone know when, where, and why such practices arose?

UC: Did you do typical psalms rather than paschal antiphons in Windber?

On Pascha Sunday, the 1st and 2nd Antiphons, then Fr. Daniel takes the Paschal Tropar w/ verses for 3rd Antiphon, as in the Levkulic book.

I was referring more to the "suppressed" Archeparchial request not to sing the Paschal Tropar on the 2nd thru 6th Paschal Sundays. Thank God there are pastors who still insist on celebrating Pascha fully through the Feast of Ascension. It just isn't a Paschal Sunday if you don't sing "Christ is Risen" throughout the Divine Liturgy as is the Ruthenian Recension tradition.

Christos Voskrese! Voistinnu Voskrese!

Ungcsertezs

I see. But this is not just a "Greek" thing. I don't think you'll find this practice in the OCA, for example. Maybe this change to go back to a common, orthodox tradition. In any case, I too am glad for pastors with some pastoral sensitivity.

That's as may be. But there are two places in our translation of the the Divine Liturgy where my Orthodox friends consistently cringe, and one where they chuckle:

1. In the Creed, we say "of one substance with the Father", and quite a number of Orthodox theologians have SERIOUSLY questioned this phrase. Archbishop Raya and the Carpatho-Russians only half-translate the Latin and say "consubstantial"; OCA and old-Calendar Greeks say "one in essence" or "of one essence". Sure enough, the Creed being used at our seminary has "essence" rather than "substance".

2. My Orthodox friends also object to "Mother of God" for "Bohoroditsa" or "Theotokos", saying that "mother of" and "bearer of" are theologically distinct, and that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon called the Most Pure Virgin the "Bearer (or Birth-giver) of God". This was a major issue at the joint Stamford conference on translation, some years ago, where the concensus was to use "Theotokos" rather than the somewhat infelicitous "Birthgiver of God". Sure enough, in the new text - "Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us!"

3. Finally, a practical matter - at my home parish in West Virginia, many families had siblings or cousins at the Carpatho-Russian parish across the river. Whenever people went back and forth, they'd lose track of whether to sing "God grant him/her/them many BLESSED years" (over there) or "God grant ... many HAPPY years." (over at our parish. I heard people switch in mid-word and wish some grandmother many "bleppy" years...) Sure enough, in the proposed translation, we wish "many blessed years!"

I would bet that, if they are promulgated, I will hear about all three of these as "giving in to the Orthodox", or "needless changes." I would not complain bitterly if the changes WEREN'T made. But I'd submit that all three of these are changes which bring us closer to the Orthodox tradition in English, and (at least in the first two places) remove long-standing Orthodox complaints.

I have also heard that there is catechetical material already in preparation, explaining the proposed changes, that will be promulgated along with any new text of the Divine Liturgy.

Yours in the risen Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

Djs,

Then maybe its a Greek/ Moscovite recension vs. Ruthenian recension.

I would rather stay with the translation approved by Rome back in the 1940's for use by the Byzantine Catholic Rusin Exarchate and the Byzantine Catholic-Ukrainian jurisdictions, sans filioque of coarse!

Ungcsertezs

Dear Jeff,

Another edition of the Liturgy, changing substance to essence would not cause any objection, that I can see and agree with.

I do object to translating english to greek into our Liturgy. How is this progress?

"Mother of God" is an acceptable english translation of Theotokos, at least according to Bishop Kallistos Ware, who knows more about greek and english than I ever will. What is an American visitor to our Church going to think? If we pray to and invoke the Mother of God, he will know exactly who we are praying to. If we introduce foreign words into an otherwise english sentence, people will think we're praying in code-words, that only the initiates know. Sounds gnostic to me. English is a fine language, and can express the faith completely. There is nothing inadequate about it. This is not an improvement.

It is only change, for change's sake. 'Substance' to 'essence' could be changed in future editions of the Liturgy without causing disruption. Making a chopped liver sandwich out of the first part of the liturgy is a great disruption. It is regretable and unjustifiable.

The Archbishop is our leader, and he is the one who is claiming that he has the authority to revise the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

He must take the lead here, and explain these changes in the Liturgy, and help us to understand why these changes are really necessary.

Nick

I will attempt to answer some of the questions although I am quite sure some will not like them.

I believe the abbreviations that occur, one verse antiphons and litanies not used or shortened are to accomodate the taking of the Anaphora aloud and keeping the Liturgy at the same length people are used to. And please I do not wish to argue about whether the Anaphora should be taken aloud or silent or whether it should be mandated or the choice of the priest.

Now there are dozens of objections that can be made, but the bottom line is this: The bihops are aware of the objections, they do read this forum on occasion, and have made their decision and Rome has approved it. The flip side to that is if a priest wants to take all the antiphons and litanies nothing is stopping him. A pew book is a pew book, it is not meant to be a Liturgicon, Epistle, Gospel, Octoechos, Menaion, Triodion, Pentecostarion, Irmilogion outlining every rubric or hymnodic possibilty.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Lance,

Thanks very much for suggesting what I've suspected, anyway. The people's (and deacon's) parts are being shortened, so that the priest's prayers can be taken aloud. A very pastoral approach to the liturgy, no doubt.

Interestingly, I was talking with someone this week (associated with the seminary in Pittsburgh) who told me that Rome does not approve of these changes to the Liturgy, in fact, Rome thinks that the abbreviations and revisions are very regretable. I take great comfort from this, and it gives me hope.

Nick

Nick,

"I went to Uniontown, and I heard the shortcuts. I used to go every year, but I haven't been the last couple of years. The reason I haven't gone for the last three years, is because they won't let me sing my antiphons. If they don't want me to sing, they don't want me either."

That is quite silly reasoning to deprive yourself of the spiritual benefit of the Otpust. You go to receive Christ and His blessings and would deny yourself that over a couple verses? They have taken away some of the deacon's litanies and shortened others, should I refuse to serve? How silly does that sound? I know change is hard, but we must move forward prayerfully.

Fr. Deacon Lance

You're right of course, and in many ways, I did miss the pilgrimage, especially last September for some reason.

The heart of the matter, is to really believe that this is a move "forward". What if it is not?

Nick

Nicholas,

I think one must keep in mind this is a compromise. There are some who want to use the official liturgicon front to back no omissions. There are others who use the blue pew book with every abbreviation allowed. Really those used to the blue book will be the most affected. Those used to a longer Liturgy will probably still get it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Those who abbreviate, will continue to do so, leaving out whatever they want, I'm sure. Those who want to sing the antiphons, will find they are not printed in the book. How is it that they will be "the most affected"?