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

Nick

Ned - at what point of the Liturgy are you referring to? Alleluia? Communion? After Liturgy? That might make the answer quite simple as before or after Liturgy you could read the Little Hours, Prayers before or after Communion, etc. The cycle of Kathismata (the twenty divisions of the Psalter) runs in its entirety once over the course of a week, twice during the Great Fast between Matins and Vespers (and the Little Hours during the Great Fast).
FDD

As Steve has noted, this thread has gotten off the track.

However, some observations seem to require a response, so I will respond here, and start a new thread if the discussion needs to be continued.

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 Administrator wrote:

�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 1964/64 edition.�

In fact, one can argue. The proposed translation is probably more faithful to the original texts (Greek/Slavonic) than the 1965 translation. There is a definite misperception here among some in the Forum. In all cases, the IELC always has the 1942 text + the other texts, e.g. the 1950 Trebnik, and the 1973 Archieraticon as the norm. We translate from the Greek original, always comparing it with the Slavonic, and the IELC tends to be conservative, preferring the more literal meaning.

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.

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.

Lest one make a case, I will state that what the Oriental Congregation did for the Ruthenian recension was the best that they could do, and we should be very grateful for this service to our Church. However, it should be clear that this is a service ONLY for that minority of the Eastern Church united with Rome, and served by the Oriental Congregation. The 1942 recension has no standing whatsoever in regard to the larger Orthodox Byzantine Church. Traditional Orthodox would probably consider it an abomination, not in regard to the quality of the work, but as a proselytizing tool by the Roman Catholic Church. More moderate Orthodox would appreciate the work done in it and the quality of the tradition expressed, but then they would not be literal fundamentalists in regard to liturgy. You must be aware that the vast majority of Orthodox Churches do make some parochial adaptations. The process of liturgical reform in the Greek and Russian Churches is fascinatingly described in Father Marcel Mojzes� new book, which I just finished reading, Il Movimento Liturgico nelle Chiese bizantine.

As a duty, I will discuss translations that include some horizontal inclusivity, because it is a part of the IELC work. However, I refuse to be drawn into a larger discussion of �feminism,� its �agenda� and other sociological issues. This definitely has crusade elements, whether you are pro or con.

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.

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. I think an apology is due here.

With all due respect, the fact that you are identifying certain language as "horizontally inclusive" means that you have in fact been drawn into the larger discussion of feminism and its agenda whether you acknowledge it or not. The reason "men" could be used in the Creed is because it includes all men without regard to sex or age. Those who find a problem with this fact think either "men" only means adult males, or are offended that it can mean men, women and children. That the term "men" is ambiguous allows for the richness in the expression, "who for us men and our salvation...became man."

Why many, like myself, find offense that the Church is welcoming this language into the liturgy is because it (and the agenda which it represents) is often shoved in our faces by those who reject Christ. While I understand that the Committee or heirarchs are not intending to do that, nonetheless, the feminist battle is raging in the secular world and the Ruthenian mistranslation (wittingly or unwittingly) will have become (as one Patristic scholar has stated) a trophy for feminism. It is discouraging.

If it were not for that battle, there would be no reason to make these mistranslations. Moreover, that the Congregation for Oriental Churches has approved the mistranslation is disappointing when they have not expressed to the faithful why in our liturgy this is acceptable but in the Roman liturgy it is not. The reasons given in LA not to make these mistranslations are universal and make perfectly good sense. Perhaps the Congregation has been influenced by the academic world or is getting misinformation about the desires of the faithful? Perhaps the Holy See is permitting us to make our own mistakes? I don't know.

But the mistranslation of the Creed is indeed a concession to the feminist agenda; it does not clarify anything; and I believe it does not bring us any closer to Christ nor will it attract others to Him.


lm

Dear Father David,

I think the drive to revise the Divine Liturgy, imposing new, abbreviated and re-organized texts, invented rubrics, together with introducing exclusive "inclusive" language, not to mention a foreign interpretation of the chant, speaks of an "agenda" and has definite crusade elements.

It may or may not be the work of one individual, but is clearly not supported by the rank and file. It is the project of a clerical elite.

If only the time, energy and money spent on this project were spent on something important.

Nick

Hmmm. Father David writes that putting the Divine Liturgy into the vernacular increases the pressure to restore the presbyteral prayers. But they've been there all along (we trust), and have been available in English ever since John Glen King's translation appeared. They are not hidden texts which for some reason we need to find and restore (as one might say of the Divine Liturgy of Saint James, for instance). What Father David is probably referring to is the minority practice of reciting some or all of the presbyteral prayers aloud - which we have discussed already.

Father also writes that the Oriental Congregation agrees that the projected new translation/recasting of the Divine Liturgy is faithful to the 1941 "Ruthenian Recension". Before one could respond or comment, it would be necessary to know exactly what the Oriental Congregation has written; Curialese is often a language unto itself and the interpretation of anything written in that lingo is an arcane art.

Father David also writes, most emphatically, that the proposed translation/recasting (a combination of words which he did not use and would take exception to) is not the personal project of any one individual, but rather the work of a body - the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission - entrusted with this task by the hierarchs. When he writes this twice in the same brief paragraph, with capital letters, the reader may reasonably conclude that his protest is so strong as to arouse suspicion.

The "IELC" is almost the same as "ICEL". That in itself is nothing more than a coincidence. But ICEL had and its defenders still have a habit of trying to shift responsibility from pillar to post, so that nobody can be called to account for what ICEL has done. Patient research leads to the conclusion that translations do not, as a rule, make themselves, nor do translations emerge from computers. People do translations. It is often possible (not always, often), again with time and patience, to determine who actually had the inspiration to take this or that decision.

Finally, Father David writes that those who have reservations about the proposed translation/recasting (and again, this combination of words is mine, not Father David's, and he would repudiate it) are immobilists embarked upon one or more crusades in connection with the matter. He may or may not be right about particular people but if so, I have not met them.

My own position can be stated with simplicity. I favor accurate translation of liturgical texts over free translation of those texts. I oppose unilateral liturgical change by one Greek-Catholic jurisdiction because such a unilateral step risks widening the gap between Greek-Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and because, in the case of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, there has been no serious attempt to introduce and teach the complete Divine Liturgy in its present form.

That will have to do for the moment - it's late and I'm stealing this time from something else I'm writing.

Incognitus

Hmmm. Not at all. Readers who have been following all of these threads will recall that the idea that this work is about "personal preferences" has long been a talking point of those who cast the work in a negative light. Fr. David has responded to this curious charge numerous times. But these threads have largely ceased to involve dialogue. His frustration is very easy to understand.

Dear Im, I see this differently. If there is a battle it is a battle over English language usage. It is not, inherently, a religious battle. And I would say to you that that battle, for better or worse has ended - not at the level of the playground or prisonyard - but at the level of formal writing. Style manuals for those teaching writing, and for those editing writing are clear on this point. And I don't honestly understand why people have strong feelings on this narrow point.

For translations the situation is of course more complex. But the I think the default idea is that translations should be rendered in good, clear, formal English, unless there are compelling reasons to depart from those conventions. However, the idea that the compelling reason - rather than being a matter of good English or theology - is rooted in opposition to feminists shoving things in our faces - that is the moment when the politics are brought into the church.

I confess, I am as behind in the times as is Rome in Liturgiam Authenticam. Time to evangelize and instruct all those writers of manuals about the faith and good English all at the same time. Stick to "for us men and for our salvation....was made man." It's good English; it's good theology; and, it has the added benefit that it will drive the feminists crazy (which in their case, might actually bring them to their senses).

Diak,

the pointing to variable psalms is during communion; the priests communion that is. I've been asked to read them from the choir, so it's not anything to do with the absence of Deacons. The reading of psalms at communion was during the people's communion.

I read the hours myself at home, and I'm not concerned with the psalm sequence there. Although I have both the Old Rite and current Russian usages, and in the old rite there seem to be differences in the Bogoroditsen and the hymns to be recited on days other than feast days. Am I understanding the rubrics right? Also, the old rite don't repeat the prayers Presvyataya Troitse, the Our Father etc..is that right?

Ned

Father David's frustration could also be easily resolved. One assumes that since the IELC would of necessity hold its plenary meetings on a fairly infrequent basis, the several members of this commission would write their contributions to the discussion on the various questions put before the commission.

On that assumption, it should be possible for the commission itself to compile an anthology of these papers, invite the several authors to review their contributions for publication, and then publish the anthology, That would demonstrate quite clearly, for all those interested, to what extent the work of the commission is collective. It would also be a worth-while contribution to the study of the Byzantine liturgy.

The only possible objection is that some people might consider this a violation of "confidentiality". But this was not and is not a discussion of industrial secrets, or of anyone's occult sins, or anything else that would be a legitimate cause of embarrassment.

Again, this would be a serious contribution to our knowledge of the liturgy. If, for example, in translating liturgical texts the translators have made efforts to trace words and phrases in their patristic appearances, that work is of considerable importance, far beyond its immediate significance for one particular translation.

Incognitus

Fr. I,

You know better. Fr. David has no power to release the work of the Commission, the letters from the Congregation or anything else. Fr. David participates here by choice, using his real name and gets largely grief for it, being made the sacapegoat for every unliked change in transaltion or rubric. But since you seem to be a priest in the know, I invite you to call or write Bishop Andrew, the episcopal chair of the IELC, and demand all the things you wish to review and critique. Just remember to use your real name.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,
I would dearly love to accept your suggestion. Unfortunately commiting suicide is a sin, besides being rather counter-productive.
Thanks for the information, by the way; I did not know that Bishop Andrew was the episcopal chairman (a bishop is necessarily male) of the commission. That already contributes to an understanding of the process.

Thanks also for the compliment, but I fear that it's not entirely deserved - regardless of my hierarchal rank (I'm really the Metropolitan of Luna City, Exarch of the Moon, Patriarch of the Planets and the Spaces Between - all of which helps to explain why I seem like a spaced-out loonie!), I genuinely don't know how that commission reaches decisions - in fact, now that I think of it, I'm not at all sure who the members are. But this I do know: such secrecy serves no good purpose; people have a right to know who makes the decisions that directly affect their lives.

Incognitus

Father Deacon,

Then neither can he say it has the approval of the Congregation, bishops, committee, etc.

If Rome has communicated this information to him in a private letter, then it is a private matter between him and the Congregation, and no one can claim Rome's approval.

There is a public letter "Liturgiam Authenticam" published and available, which clearly disapproves of free translations, inclusive languagne, and re-organizing the approved texts in the name of "translation".

A private letter remains private, and is irrelevant to public discussion until it is published.

I'm growing frustrated with claims like "Rome approved" and "the Council of Hierarchs authorized" when there is no shred of evidence for this.

You have to accept the principle in law, that Rome's action takes effect from the date that the letter is published. Until it is, I maintain that Rome did not approve of the revised Liturgy, because it is contrary to what Rome has spoken in PUBLISHED letters, that DO carry authority.

Forgive me for shouting, but frustration is not something exclusively borne by Fr. David.

Nick

Perhaps this thread should be renamed: "Discuss which translation of the Psalms do you use for communion in your church?"

How about frustration over hijacked threads. This Forum (Byzcath.org)seems to excel in wandering on hijacked threads rather than starting new ones. It seems our moderators have abdicated moderation here. The original question has been duly answered by some until the thread wandered into a sore subject regarding translations.

Perhaps there could/should be a seperate forum for discussion of translation/rubrics ONLY since it is, and will remain, a contentious issue for many? This way, rather than hijacking threads to vent frustrations over liturgical decisions VERY few of us have ever had any real input on anyway, we can focus on the questions posed in various threads.

back to lurking,

Steve