www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Chanting psalms during communion

Fr. Deacon Lance:

The psalms that have been retrofitted are those that are used in the Divine Liturgy. I just looked at the Liturgikon, and Psalm 50 is not given in text, only in rubric.

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

If you are going to use the Grail Psalms stick with the original translation. The texts that are being published by the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commision are of very poor quality. Their attempt to rewrite the Grail Psalms with whatever their liberal idea of what the Septuagint means is unacceptable for public worship. Need proof? Look at the already published translation of the troparion for the feast of the Annunciation where they have purposely changed "today is the prelude (beginning) of our salvation" to "today is the summit of our salvation." The Resurrection is no longer the summit of our salvation. The Annunciation is now the summit of our salvation. This is a major change in theology. Where is the explaination? There is none. They do not even realize they have screwed it up! Need more proof? Just look at any of the new and "improved" texts. If the theology is not screwed up the sentence structrue is not grammatical.

Glory to Jesus Christ, and his blessings on all those ending the time of the Pentecostarion, whether this week or next!

John,

I'll bite. The troparion of the Annunciation, of course, is not from the Septuagint. So let's look at an actual example.

For Psalm 103, verse 4, the Grail Psalter has

you make the winds your messengers
and flashing fire your servants.

On the other hand, the Brenton translation of LXX is:

Who makes his angels spirits,
and his ministers a flaming fire.

The Old Rite Prayer Book has

Who maketh his angels spirits
and His ministers a flame of fire

On the other hand, the IELC somehow took it into their heads to say

You make your angels spirits
and your ministers a flaming fire.

So tell me - where is this "liberal idea of the Septuagint", or did it just seem like a good accusation to make? On the other hand, the Brenton translation of the LXX here is NOT good grammer, since not only is the verse a sentence fragment, but switches from second to third person with no inserted subject.

I certainly have issues with some of the choices the IELC made; it's not my call to make. I do notice that there are some six occurrences of "man", "he" and "his", referring to a human being in general, which the "liberal translators" with their supposed "feminist agenda" kept as they were in the 1963 Grail - restoring them from the inclusived language the Sisters used, some 25 years ago.

So, we're talking about the Grail Psalter, which is well known and widely accepted. We're still waiting for a GOOD modern language LXX to which the rights for publication could be acquired. What are these "rewrites" of the Grail which are "unacceptable for public worship"?

Yours in puzzlement, but yet a brother in Christ -
Jeff

Out of the mouths of babes and infants....

Chuckle! I was on a shuttle bus from the air terminal to the plane the other day when a little boy pointed and called out: "Mommy! Look at the baggage man. Is she pretty!" Everyone turned to look and, indeed, the baggage man turned out to be a very attractive young woman. After a few minutes I thought that if we accept the philosophy of the liturgical revisionists who are trying to force gender neutral language upon the Church then maybe someone on that bus should have stood to yell "Heresy!" at the child or at least demand that his mother teach him that the term "baggage man" was offensive to a small segment of our society somewhere. Or maybe I should have expected confusion, as if the people who heard the term "baggage man" applied to a woman were not capable of figuring out who the child was referring to. But no! No one complained. Everyone understood what the child meant.

--

On the issue of the Septuagint, I can understand and, in theory, support the adaptation of particular psalm verses when used apart from the full psalm. Bishop Kallistos and Mother Mary followed this procedure in their translations (for them, full psalms were from the Authorized Version but psalm excerpts for prokimney and etc. were corrected to the LXX where necessary � I have been advocating this example for at least 20 years). One must be very careful in altering the text of the Grail because one can very easily alter the flow. Whatever is changed should have the exact same number of syllables as the original Grail. Otherwise you change the whole flow of the psalm.

And then there is the issue that the whole of the OT should be from the LXX, and not just psalm excerpts. Maybe someday a full translation will be available.

Jeff has assured us that the commission has not used inclusive language in their updates to the psalms. This is surprising given the bishops seem to oppose the Vatican�s directives against inclusive language in their proposed texts of the Revised Divine Liturgy. I have not seen many of the Revised Troparia and other changeable texts, but I have been told that they are far worse (with regard to inclusive language). It very much looks like a protracted effort by the faithful will be necessary to restore both authentic Liturgy and quality American English if the revised texts are ever promulgated. Of course, many of us faithful are praying fervently that the Holy Spirit will descend upon our bishops and that they will reject all of the revisions. What we need are complete editions of all of our liturgical books in good, American English (free from the political agendas of the secular feminists). Where we have a 40 year history of a particular translation (like the texts of the Divine Liturgy and troparia) we ought to change only what is incorrect.

For now I advise cantors to stick to the existing texts, in whatever musical settings they find useful.

Best wishes to all.

A short response to - yet again - the crusade against liturgical change.

The idea that retrofitting psalms to the LXX in part or in whole is a �liberal idea� is amusing. The �liberal idea� is that the Psalms are Hebrew scripture and that the LXX corrupts the Hebrew ideas. The reason, however, that some verses were �retrofitted� - a more conservative stance - is because Byzantine Liturgy uses the LXX and where there is a substantial discrepancy between the Hebrew meaning and the LXX meaning, we follow the LXX, to be consistent with the literal meaning of the liturgical texts. [I will not enter into the problem of the inspiration of Scripture - Hebrew or Greek??? - but will note that in some cases, the Septuagint may reflect a more ancient reading.]

In the Troparion of the Annunciation, the word for what most translate as �beginning� is the Greek �kephalion,� which means the �head,� the �summit,� the �top,� not necessarily in the temporal sense as �beginning.� We may be influenced here by our theological ideas that the Annunciation was the first moment of the incarnation. At any rate, an argument could be made that the incarnation is the point of salvation - which includes its climax, the resurrection, since Christ could not rise if he were not a man - and the annunciation is the day on which our salvation through incarnation becomes a reality - eternity and temporality are united. At any rate, it would be vain to seek in the vast mass of liturgical texts - triodion, pentecostarion, octoechos - to find one consistent theology that you can only call the resurrection and nothing else the �summit� of salvation. On any given day, the liturgical texts will be super-effusive in their praise and glorification. One might say that here the IELC is actually being more �literal.�

In fact, it gets so wearisome that terms like �liberal,� or �conservative,� or �feminist� or �revisionist� are thrown around like so much mud with very little relation to the issues involved. Does one think - seriously - that the 1965 translators were not �revisionists� while the 2006 translators are? Does one think - seriously - that the 1965 translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit, while the 2006 were not, as the administrator seems to think?? [Administrator - �Of course, many of us faithful are praying fervently that the Holy Spirit will descend upon our bishops and that they will reject all of the revisions.�] I hardly think the anti-IELC crusade is the work of the Spirit. Outside of the one good paragraph �On the issue of the Septuagint .... � which I don�t agree with completely but makes a good point, the only thing I got out of the last post is that we should have little boys translate the Liturgy.

I thank Father David for his post.

I cannot speak to clarify other�s posts on this thread but it seems to me that the issue raised is not one of using the LXX as being conservative and the Hebrew as liberal but rather of utilizing a translation style based upon gender neutral inclusive language. Inclusive language is certainly a very liberal agenda in our society and anyone who embraces it really cannot pretend it is not being forced upon us be secular feminists. Liturgiam Authenticam speaks to this and we should not reject its wisdom.

As noted above, I support the use of the LXX. In whole someday but, for now, at least where it is possible. I subordinate all of this to the pastoral need of only changing what is absolutely necessary. It is wrong to force people to make changes to the texts they have prayed for the past 40 years unless it is absolutely necessary. We see respect for the people in the Church�s ongoing decision to leave alone the text of the Lord�s Prayer and the very current debate by the Latin bishops over whether to leave some of the poorer translations of the Roman Mass alone simply because they are so well known and changing them would do violence to the spiritual lives of the faithful. For pastoral reasons different rules must be employed for updating well known translations then for creating translations where none had existed previously (or had at least not been well known).

This is a very good explanation. I hope that when the minutes of the translation committee are published they contain similarly good explanations of all the changes to the texts. As I have stated numerous times, there is much good work by the commission hiding behind the intentional revisions and faulty inclusive language. It would not be a huge effort to return the rubrics back to those of the (1942) recension and remove the offensive gender neutral inclusive language.

No one can argue with the fact that the proposed Revised Liturgy is less faithful to the Ruthenian Recension of the 1942 Sluzhebnik published by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches than the 1964/65 edition.

I am unaware of any anti-IELC crusade. The �crusade� (if such a term must be used) I associate myself is one towards authenticity, one towards an embracement of the fullness of the Ruthenian Recension as documented in the Roman edition of our liturgical books beginning in 1942.

Our liturgical heritage needs to be claimed, embraced and celebrated. It does not need to be filtered by any individual�s personal preferences in Liturgy.

Ah yes, the 1965 edition, with "High Liturgy only" omissions like no small entrance or troparia, no prokimenon, no alleluia, no litany of supplication for weekdays. :rolleyes: While faithful to 1942, could things have been improved even then? There were some translation problems in the 1965 edition, too.

By comparison, there has been orders of magnitude more input on the IELC Revised Liturgy, than was given the 1965 translation.

Wandering BACK to the original discussion subject, how many parishes regularly chant the psalms (any) during communion? As I recall, in my younger years, we never chanted the psalms during communion at my parish. These days, I find it more common in the various parishes I have visited.

Steve

P.S.
ISTM IMHO at least, AFAIK, HTM is Holy Transfiguration Monastery, since I didn't see it spelled out at first reference?

The reference to the 1964/65 edition is to the altar Liturgicon, which faithfully transmits the 1942 Sluzhebnik into English. The 1942 Sluzhebnik is the official book for the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and presents the Divine Liturgy in full. It is most certainly not the �Gray Book� Steve seems to be referring to (an edition of the Divine Liturgy with music). The official Liturgicon does not contain any provisions for skipping entrances, troparia or litanies.

True, the altar liturgikon does not refer to skipping these areas, though I have recordings of weekday liturgies where those "High Liturgy Only" items are skipped. I was under the impression that in the Byzantine Churches there was no "high" or "low" liturgy.

How then did this come to be in the gray and green books if there is no rubric for that practice specified in the liturgicon? It would seem to have entered the mainstream by it's publication, and use in the 1965 (Divine Liturgy with music) book. (Good subject for a NEW thread)

However, I will keep this reply simple here as we are diverging from the original path of this thread, "Chanting Psalms During Communion".

Steve

When I've been designated to read the epistle I often have a bible thrust into my hands with the injunction "read some psalm" and pointing at a particular place, from which I read till gestured to stop. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the choice; I've had everything from psalm 81, to ps 109. Is there a correct order for which are to be read? Additionally, I have heard psalms read in a Jordanville parish here (I am Byz Cath, Russian).

Ned

There are specific psalms appointed to be chanted at almost all the services (Vespers, Compline, Midnight Office, Matins, the Hours, Typika). In addition, following monastic practice, we take groups of psalms in numerical order at Vespers and Matins, though these parts of the service are often omitted in parishes. The singing of "Blessed is the man" at Vespers on Saturday evening is actually an abbreviated reading of the very start of the Psalter.

In addition, whole psalms are sometimes chanted during Holy Communion (as discussed in this thread), and the whole psalter may be read overnight as part of the funeral services.

Finally, in some places, the psalms may be read to provide "cover" for the priest to hear confessions , etc.; in other places, the First Hour (which also had psalms!) does the same service.

A lot depends on which service you are at when you are asked to take a psalm!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Just looked up главизна in Church-Slavonic: it is indeed derived from κεφαλισ and means "beginning" or "foundation" (it can also mean a pen, but that is not in question here). That makes the opening phrase of the Troparion of the Annunciation a bit tricky, which may explain the use of "today is the prelude . . ." What further light can our forum-mates shed on this one?

Incognitus

In any case I think the point vividly made by John Damascene's tirade about changes in theology and Fr. David's reasoned response is that many, perhaps most, of the people complaining have no idea what they are talking about. They have no proficiency in Greek, and therefore no position to criticize any of the textual changes based on comparison to the Greek.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My friends here know that translation is not just a matter of looking words up in the dictionary, there are too many meanings to choose from! So, you look at the context.

In context, the meaning of the sentence is clearer. "Today" is the first word, and so we're talking about a point in time.

So the "head" or "summit" in that context, is the "head-point-in-time" of our Salvation, o.k.

There was nothing wrong with the old translation, which is valid, and makes sense in context.

Father Deacon, does this also constitute a "tirade" merely because I prefer the old version?

Nick

It is fine to prefer the old version, what is not fine is to accuse those who correct the text and translate the Greek properly to be accused of trying to change the theology of the Church.

And the method you describe: "looking at the context" is a tool of the much decried Dynamic translation method. Literal transaltion, on the otherhand, is word for word. Kephalion is a place word not a time word. It means summit or head as in autocephalous. αρχή is the time word for beginning or start.

The old translation is fine but not a completely correct translation. The new translation is better in that it faithfully transmits the Greek word κεφαλισ as summit, rather than beginning which would be αρχή.

Fr. Deacon Lance