I thank Father David for his post.
Father David wrote:
If not an anti-IELC Crusade, there is definitely an anti-IELC Liturgy translation crusade, seeming for two reasons, either the use of some horizontal inclusive language or the fact that the ordo is not exactly like the 1942 Ruthenian recension.
The fact that the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy is not exactly like the 1942 Ruthenian recension edition is certainly more then enough reason to reject the Revision. The 1942 Sluzhebnik is the Liturgy Book common to all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension. We need to keep this commonality together with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox). Changes that are deemed necessary (to correct mistakes in the official Slavonic edition, etc.) should be accomplished by all these Churches working together.
While
�Liturgiam Authenticam� is not a document directed to the Eastern Catholic Church it does wisely observe in section 4 that:
�The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its deliberations and decrees assigned a singular importance to the liturgical rites, the ecclesiastical traditions, and the discipline of Christian life proper to those particular Churches, especially of the East, which are distinguished by their venerable antiquity, manifesting in various ways the tradition received through the Fathers from the Apostles. The Council asked that the traditions of each of these particular Churches be preserved whole and intact.� The
Liturgical Instruction (which does apply directly to us) states:
�In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.� Clearly our Liturgicon should be � if not common to � near identical to those used by the Orthodox Churches of the Ruthenian recension and, as appropriate, to the larger Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox).
Horizontal inclusive language is unwise and unnecessary. But changing �who for us men and for our salvation� to �who for us and our salvation� and �lover of mankind� to �loves us all� are not examples of horizontal inclusive language. They are examples of inaccurate renderings.
Liturgiam Authenticam is quite correct in stating:
�When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation.� (Section 30) �Who for us and our salvation� and �loves us all� simply do not maintain the property of the language of the original text.
Further, in his �Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal� from 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, emeritus prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was quite clear in stating:
��the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term �men� has effects that are theologically grave. This text ��For us and for our salvation�-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The �us� thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.�The Latins have experimented with such language and have found it wanting. They are now calling for translation committees to be authentic and faithful to the original texts. Let�s learn from their experience and skip the whole experiment with secular gender neutral language.
Father David wrote:
Of course, as is obvious, there are parts that are omitted for parochial use. This is not a translation problem but a question of liturgical policy. Even here, I would argue that the proposed format is respectful of the Ruthenian recension and the dicastery that originally promulgated said recension agrees. The IELC is conservative, but it is not literally fundamentalist. The result of this is that those opposed to the proposed IELC translation must resort to a literal adherence to the 1942 Recension/1965 translation in order to block the project.
I agree that the rubrical changes are not a translation problem. They are, however, a change in the Divine Liturgy which we share with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension.
A literal adherence to the 1942 Sluzhebnik is exactly what many Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics (priests and laymen) have been praying for. It was denied to us in past generations and it is sad that attempts are being made to deny it to us today. Father David seems to speak of the 1942 Sluzhebnik as if it were contemptible.
Father David wrote:
This is then dressed up in the claim that this is alone the tradition, but I would dispute that. There is a deeper tradition. The 1942 recension has now been translated into the vernacular. This puts pressure to restore the presbyteral prayers. I think the greater tradition is to restore these prayers which give the core meaning of the Divine Liturgy, that is, the remembrance of the Lord�s Supper - �Do this in remembrance of me.� The prayers give the theology of Christ�s salvation. The other parts are beautiful and necessary, the peoples hymns of glorification and the deacons petitions for needs - but the Liturgy is still incomplete without the presbyteral prayers. So certainly I can argue - whether you accept the arguments or not is irrelevant - that my position is more authentic and traditional.
If it is commonly believed that the 1942 Sluzhebnik does not reflect a �deeper tradition� the proper response is to address this in the larger Church, at the very least to accomplish change at the Ruthenian recension level.
The translation of the 1942 recension into the vernacular has no bearing on the idea that the presbyteral prayers should be prayed aloud. There is certainly no consensus across the Byzantine Church that such a practice must be mandated as more reflective of a �deeper tradition.� As I have noted numerous times in these discussions, why mandate where liberty will serve? If it is the will of the Spirit that the presbyteral prayers be prayed aloud then give the priests the freedom to pray these prayers either quietly or aloud. Surely the Spirit will lead. If, in a generation or so, the custom has become widespread and accepted across all of Byzantium then it can be documented in the liturgical books as an organic development. In the meantime the Liturgy is certainly not incomplete when the priests follow the traditional custom of praying these prayers quietly. What is this hurry to distance ourselves from even our fellow Churches of the Ruthenian recension?
Father David wrote:
Personally, I do favor a certain modicum of horizontal inclusivity, for practical reasons - God does save both men and women and we should occasionally say that. One problem is that, in English, �man� and �mankind� can indeed be ambiguous. The Administrator told the story of the little boy and the female baggage �man,� but the story was totally banal unless you admit that there is a certain ambiguity, and then it becomes amusing.
My story may or may not have been a banal but it certainly does show that even a four year old child understands that a �baggage man� can be either a man or a women. Father David�s belief that the liturgy�s many references to God saving men does not really apply to women and needs to be revised to specifically say this suggests that he has bought into the claims of the secular feminists. Certainly replacing �for us men� with �for us� and �mankind� with �us all� introduces ambiguity where there was clarity. We do not have a rush of women and children crying that they are not saved. Even if we did the directives of Rome are clear that the proper response is one of education, not changing the texts.
Father David wrote:
Finally, the Administrator makes a statement without a shred of supporting evidence - �it does not need to be filtered by any individual�s personal preferences in Liturgy.� I apologize for what I am about to say, but this is simply mud-slinging and nothing else. Forgive me for shouting - THE IELC PROPOSAL IS NOT SOMEONE�S INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. It was initiated by the Archbishop of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it was carried out by a committee of experts and pastors, it has been accepted by the Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it has been approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, IT IS NOT SOMEONE�S INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.
Father David is either being modest or disingenuous. He alone is originator of almost all of the rubrical changes. I have no doubt that some were readily received and embraced by the commission while others were accepted only after much persuasion on Father David�s part. I am friendly with several members of the commission and have often discussed the work with them during the past decade in which it was in preparation. It is certainly clear that Father David was and is the leading member of the commission. Father David�s crusade (to use his term) to mandate the priest to pray the presbyteral prayers aloud and to remove litanies predates the current effort to produce a new edition of the Liturgicon. We see this in his years of writing in our eparchial newspapers but most especially in publications like the 1986/1987 edition of the �The Divine Liturgy of Our Father Saint John Chrysostom� published by the Eparchy of Parma and other liturgical books in which he took the lead in preparing. Already in the people�s edition we see some of the Prayers of the Anaphora other presbyteral prayers presented to be taken aloud (if not in specific rubric then in the way the page is arranged). We also see both truncated and missing litanies. Many, many of our clergy and laymen refer to the proposed Revised Liturgy as either the �Petras Liturgy� or the �Petras/Pataki Liturgy�. They do this with great legitimacy.
Father David may rightly claim that in the end there was/is a consensus among the commission members. I do not think he can correctly claim that he was not the original author of many of the changes. Had he not been part of the commission I have no doubt that the commission would have produced a new Liturgicon that would contain minimal updates to the 1964/1965 edition and that there would have been no rubrical changes (I believe that was the original charge from Metropolitan Judson). Of course, Father David is the most talented individual in our Church (with regard to Liturgy) and rightly belongs as the lead on the liturgical commission. I disagree with the direction he wishes to set for our Church regarding Liturgy. But even in intellectual disagreement I recognize and thank him for his work.
I maintain my position that most of the translation work the commission has done is quite good but that it is hiding behind the changed rubrics and inclusive language. It would not be a great effort to produce a new edition of our Liturgicon that is literally faithful to the 1942 Sluzhebnik (even to the detailed level of page layout) while keeping close to a well known and accepted text. If changes to the Ruthenian recension are warranted they should be accomplished together with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension. Prominent Orthodox hierarchs from two different jurisdictions who are part of the Ruthenian recension have publicly spoken of the desire for a common translation. What a witness that would be! Perhaps the time is here for Metropolitan Basil to speak to them about creating a commission to produce these common texts?
Admin
