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

Nicholas,

I would not be so quick to judge. I think there are many who follow the blue book because it is currently the official book and will use the new book because the bishops promulagte it. I am sure handouts will be made available in those parishes that want to sing all the verses.

Fr. Deacon Lance

To be honest, I wish the Liturgy was longer.

I think ByzKat's examples are interesting at a number of levels.

First, in previous discussion on this subject there was a sense by some of a VaticanII-like modernization impulse at work. But the examples of ByzKat show the obvious: that change is not necessarily "modernization".

Second, I can offer opinions on:

Substance/essence. This is a case of liturgists confusing words of vernacular English with theological jargon. :rolleyes:

Mother of God/Theotokos. God-bearer and perhaps Mother of God don't go far enough now - especially in our modern and Protestant culture. Is she a mere vessel - a surrogate-mother? A step-mother or nanny - a bearer like Christopher? There is a new phrase in English, which can express ideas so well, that I would give as a modest proposal: Biological-Mother of God.

Many happy/blessed years - How about "Many, many years", which conforms with other languages.

Finally, having offered my opinions I will hasten to add that I will accept the wisdom of Hierarchs; there is no reason offered by anyone to suggest that a lack of wisdom on their part.

"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."

There are only so many of us "associated with the seminary in Pittsburgh," and I am going to go out on a limb here and say that none of them would claim something contrary to the truth. The revised Liturgy was, in fact, approved by Rome. Whoever told you otherwise is either completely mistaken and speaking in ignorance, or is telling an untruth. I sincerely hope it is the former.

I repeat: the new translation of the Liturgy was approved by Rome and sent back to the Council of Hierarchs.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Well, clearly, one of you is. I heard that the language of the letter was clearly one of "regret" (quoting the letter from Rome). Which is the opposite of "approval".

If Rome has approved of the revision of the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and abbreviations in the Liturgicon (which I doubt), the obvious solution is to publish the letter, in which Rome approves of this abbreviated and revised Liturgy. That will certainly settle the matter.

Until then, one can't claim (as Deacon Lance has in this thread) that Rome has approved of it. That is merely hearsay.

If the past is prelude to the future, then this idea is most implausible.

There will always be folks who will pick up on one phrase or another to cling to their position and say: but here is what was really meant. Or just not accept what is not to their liking.

In any case, no "approval" (or condemnation for that matter) from Rome, has any force until the matter is published.

As Thomas said to Jesus, "Unless I see the wounds....'

Sometimes we just have to wait to find out the whole truth. I do believe that Rome had approved the revised Liturgy earlier this year.

Given the animosity regarding the changes, I can well see why the promulgation and usage timelines are moving so slowly. People tend to be wary of change. Life is about change.

just my insignificant observations of this topic.

Steve

From the CCEO:

It appears that any Roman review would be in the form of recommendations and not necessarily approval of liturgical texts and translations. Now given the expertise, compentancy, and qualifications of those in Rome who review the texts, the Metropolitan together with the Council of Hierarchs would certainly take the recommendations under close advisement, even though they would not be obligated to do so.

These discussions are going to be interesting to observe from my side of the street.

james

When Bishop Pataki came to Passaic he banned parishes from singing more than one verse of the antiphons. He also banned the litany before the Our Father and the one after Communion. So we�ve already had some of this dumb new liturgy for 7 or 8 years. Holy Week this year was the last straw. Good Friday was a disaster. The Vespers and Saint Basil Divine Liturgy and Resurrection Matins went nonstop for 3 � hours long last year so we didn�t even attempt going this year and went on Easter Sunday instead. Nobody wants to go to our church anymore even me. There has got to be something we can do to stop this distruction of our church. Who can we complain to? We talk about this every week at church. If we sent letters to Rome would Rome do anything? Can we get a special indult to keep the real liturgy like the Latin Mass people have? We have lost so many people since Bishop Pataki mandated the new liturgy. Why don�t the bishops care? Who do we call or write to? What can we do? I can�t believe that Rome is allowing this.

Yes, the report that the Oriental Congregation �regrets� the liturgical abbreviations and revisions is simply false. I do not have the right to release the text, but the only regret of the Congregation is that there cannot be one common English text. This would certainly be the ideal, as all would agree, but to demand it would delay any progress indefinitely. Yes, I emphasize this, the new text is progress. It is in conformity with the Byzantine tradition, and when promulgated by the Metropolitan, will officially finally end the long period of liturgical reluctance to return to our �ancestral traditions� in most of our parishes. This was the goal of the late Archbishop Judson, and it is a worthy goal. It could not be accomplished by the promulgation of the 1965 text, which I will explain shortly. Though I, as an individual person, do not have the right to release the text of the March 31, 2001 approval of the new Liturgy translation (not a new Liturgy), I will quote one sentence, �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.�
I know on this forum there are many who are fighting this with tooth and nail. However, much of the problem is, like the Vatican II Council, not with what the new translation has accomplished, but with the way it is implemented on the grass roots level. Not everything that happens everywhere can be controlled.
The 1965 translation needed correction. Just a few examples:
1) in the rite of preparation, the Great Martyr George was translated as �Gregory� and the Holy Martyr Theodore the Recruit was translated as �Theodore of Tyre.�
2) the deacon began the Liturgy, �It is time to sacrifice to the Lord..� This is simply wrong, the deacon�s invitation is from Psalm 118:126, �It is time for the Lord to act.�
3) �Ecumenical� is an honorific that applies only to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Pope is the �holy Father, the Pope of Rome.�
4) People often made fun of the petition for �seasonable weather.� Are we praying for blizzards in winter and heat waves in summer. The Greek word means �favorable,� or �mild.�
5) �Peace be with you,� was corrected to �Peace be to you.� The older translators were probably influenced by the Latin, �Dominus vobiscum.�
6) The second part of the Cherubic Hymn was corrected, �That we may welcome ... � actually means �That we mat receive ...� The Greek word for �receive� in Communion is used here.
7) The response �The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise,� was corrected to �Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.� For a detailed explanation, read: Robert Taft, �Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradtiion,�, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 49 (1983), 340-365.
There are others I can think of, but this is enough for now. Most of the revisions wre purely stylistic, and affected only the priest's prayers. Do we need another translation? I think, yes, until we get it right.
Many complaints revolve around the Antiphons. The impression given on the Forum is that everywhere in the American Greek Catholic world the �full� antiphons are being sung, and the bishops are ruthlessly reducing them to one verse (well, one verse plus the �Glory to the Father ... �) This is simply false. Almost all parishes reduced it to one verse in the course of the last two or three generations. Nor are we the only Church to reduce the antiphons, the Greek Orthodox often just sing the refrains, and I�ve seen (or heard!) this done in Russian churches also. The reality is that the great majority of parishes in the Pittsburgh archeparchy will have to restore the Third Antiphon. Most of the parishes in Parma, Van Nuys and Passaic follow almost exactly the �new translation� already. I�m not for chopping the Liturgy, but I will defend what the bishops mandated as a pastoral decision for the here and now. As I�ve said before, the real reality is that the antiphons were chopped many centuries ago from the full psalm to three verses, probably when processions from church to church were no longer made. I will say personally that if someone can come up with a reasonable solution for singing the �full� ( = 3 verses + Glory) Antiphons without sacrificing other parts of the Liturgy, I would support it. I have become aware that even some places that claim to sing the full antiphons, don�t, and as I�ve pointed out, revisions and abbreviations of the antiphons are absolutely rife in the Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox world. I don�t say this in justification of any system, but only to point out that, in fact, the antiphons are perceived by many as a liturgical problem.
To conclude, the �new translation� is a giant step forward, and I can probably imagine (though I�ll be dead by then) the Byzantine Forum in 2045 defending it against yet another revision.

I believe it would be wrong if Rome would allow
seperate "sui juris" churches to create numerous translations of the Divine Liturgy when they are
of the same Particular Church liturgical tradition. I could see a slight difference in rubrics from the Ruthenian recension vs. the Great Russian, Melkite, Romanian recension, I could live with that reality. To fractionalize a particular church recension/translation is just as sad as having duplicate, overlapping ethnic jurisdictions.

Should not the liturgical translation be done at a higher level, such as by the entire Eastern Catholic Heirarchs in America and done along the lines of each liturgical tradition (one for the Ruthenian/Ukrainian recension, one for Melkite recension, etc.)?

It is sad that Eastern Catholic and Orthodox churches can't have common translations, but to have multiple "sui juris" Byzantine Catholic translations is even more ridiculous!

Ungcsertezs

It appears that any Roman review would be in the form of recommendations and not necessarily approval of liturgical texts and translations. Now given the expertise, compentancy, and qualifications of those in Rome who review the texts, the Metropolitan together with the Council of Hierarchs would certainly take the recommendations under close advisement, even though they would not be obligated to do so. [/QUOTE]

Dear Father Deacon John,

Right on! You make the point perfectly. It is pointless to say that Rome "approved" the new liturgy, because they read this law and followed it. Rome was not asked for, and did not give "approval". So it cannot be justified or commended by saying "It has Rome's approval". It does not, and saying that is misleading.

It is only on the authority of the Metropolitan Archbishop, that this revised Liturgy will be authorized.

Nick