www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Contacting the Congregation for the Oriental Churches

Several posts ago, someone asked "Has there been an example in the recent or not so recent past when [the Oriental Congregation has] overruled a Rite of the Catholic church".

Yes: The Eparchy of Preshov published an unbelievably horrid Liturgicon - I have one on my shelf. It took several years and many insistent protests, but the approval was withdrawn and now the Eparchy of Preshov has published a reasonably respectable Slovak translation of the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgy.

The squeaky wheel gets oil!

Incognitus

Dear David,

You did make your point earlier. We all saw it took note, understood Cathy's frustrations and let it -all- go on a wing and a prayer.

What you do here is essentially badgering. Carrying a fraternal correction out a bit too far, at least far enough so that it, in itself begins to look more self-serving than in the service of the good.

If I didn't know better I'd almost be getting the feeling that you won't rest till she crawls in abject mortification or till the rest of us turn on her to your satisfaction.

That kind of badgering and agitation happens far too often in the kind of public medium. It's as though one shark draws the blood while the rest steadily circle to feed. Is that the kind of thing you want to set up here? I didn't think so. Not a good Carmelite.

So it is best sometimes to just say your piece and then take a breather. Like me, here. :rolleyes:

Eli

Dear Father,

This is quite good news!! The only really nasty situation that I was thinking of after the books had been to the printer was the Canadian Lectionary that all of our progressive US pastors raced out and ordered as soon as it was banned in all places but Canada, and all because to redo the Lectionaries would have been an undue hardship financially.

Of course that was not the purview of the Oriental Congregation so maybe they are wiser and less succeptible to episcopal whining I didn't say that. Really I didn't. It was my evil twin.

Eli

This is a good starting point, but its application to the issue at hand is not so clear: what literal substitution "is possible" given the need for grammatical correctness, readability, and clarity. As I've mentioned before, no one would translate "Comment vous appelez vous?" as "How do you call yourself." On the other hand, if someone were to translate Proust into Western PA, and usher in the flood of memories with a bite into a "gob" - that is a very free paraphrase - albeit a nice, equivalent one. The latter issue is like that which was written about "hyssop"; the former is what is relevant to the "for whom" issue which involves question about grammar, usage, and even clarity.

This suggestion emerged in discussion of an article of Fr. Mankowski (?), and came up again with your mouths of babes anecdote. I've re-read the comments of Bishop Trautman quoted in previous discussion here, as well as others quoted on the net. I cannot find what you are attributing to him. This idea of "can't understand" is a straw man, but a popular one, as many have wasted bandwidth in posting to knock it down. What I've read from the Bishop is not that the constructions in question cannot be understood, but that it can be misunderstood. There is a world of difference.
This issue pertains to the idea clarity in writing - why write ambiguous sentences rather than unambiguous, clear ones? There can be good reasons for opting for an ambiguous construction, but the reasons really ought to be compelling, or the passage re-written.

I chanted "Lover of Man" from OCA texts for the all-night vigil of Pentecost. I think that your discussion of the merits of "mankind" versus "man" is perhaps interesting, but your choice here is at odds with Liturgiam Authenticam; why do you recommend a choice at odds with Rome?

After so many threads, that introduction is not surprising, and I didn't suggest that it was. It's still discouraging, however, to see people interjecting their secular politics into the discussion rather than sticking to objective merits.

I disagree and would suggest that if we are going to the expense of printing new books, let's do as much as we can in correcting texts, and improving, where possible, translations and music.

I would say it is not discouraging at all - I see any semblance of open dialogue, even if in disagreement and encroaching on tangents on this issue, as actually encouraging rather than a fait accompli with hung heads - that is discouraging.

I do agree with your observations here - I also chanted from the OCA texts at the Vigil of Pentecost and it worked very well.
FDD

There are two distinct translation methods for Scripture, and they can be extended to translations of liturgical texts. Both methods attempt to be grammatically correct, readable and clear, so that is not the issue here.

In addition to grammatical correctness, readability and clarity the �Essentially Literal� or �Word for Word� method strives to be faithful to the words of the original text. It lets the translation give the original structure, meaning and context (including the nuance and understanding of idiom and shades of understanding).

The �Dynamic Equivalent� or �Thought for Thought� attempts to represent the original meaning in contemporary understanding. �Dynamic Equivalent� very often means paraphrase. One need not paraphrase in order to provide a faithful translation of the original.

The difference between the two can be summed up with �this is what was said� compared to �this is what they meant�.

An example of translations of 2 Cor 5:7 suffices to demonstrate:

YOUNG�s LITERAL TRANSLATION: For through faith we walk, not through sight.

RSV: For we walk by faith, not by sight.

MESSAGE BIBLE: It�s what we trust in but don�t yet see that keeps us going.

The Message Bible is certainly an extreme example (it purposely uses simplified contemporary language). Yet anyone can easily see that the Message Bible is lacking, as its paraphrase simply does not convey the original context and meaning. It can never pretend to be a serious presentation of the Holy Scriptures.

Fr. Richard Neuhaus in the January 2006 edition of First Things magazine noted something similar about the Revised Amended Revised New American Bible�s translation of part of the Parable of the Prodigal Son: �[T]he RSV, following the English-language tradition and the Greek text, says �he came to himself.� NAB says �he came to his senses.� No, he didn�t just become more sensible. He came to himself; he returned to who he truly was, the beloved son of the loving father.� The words �he came to himself� carries with it shades of the original context that are easily understood, shades that �he came to his senses� cannot convey.

As I have often noted, no translation can be perfect and most every translation needs balance. But there is a difference in goal that really affects the outcome. The Church is on record as favoring word for word literacy over the dynamic method.

You might try a web search. There is much material on the web about Bishop Trautman�s push for gender neutral language. He routinely claims as one of the major reasons for the need for reforming English is that young women do not understand that the term �man� is inclusive. It matters not whether one believes that young women can�t understand the term �man� when used in a sentence or whether some in today�s society find the term to be easily misunderstood. The answer to the issue (where it exists) is education, not forcibly changing the language.

Yes, I have been advocating clarity all along. No one has advocated otherwise. I�m not sure why you brig this up.

Where clarity exists in the original text it should be given in the translation.

If, however, the original text is ambiguous then the translators should render an ambiguous translation. They should not �read into� the text any meaning not found there or present it in a different context to the original.

Changing a text that is clear (like �lover of mankind�) to something that adopts the secular politics of the feminists (like �loves us all�) does not render the original more clearly. It introduces confusion where there was originally clarity.

In what way is my stated preference at odds with LA?

I noted that I had not seen a serious presentation of the merits of �lover of man� but that I believe that �lover of mankind� is more obviously inclusive of all men than is �lover of man�. Obviously you�ve seen an authoritative discussion of this in a Church source? You�ve moved very quickly from �ISTM� to an accusation that I am at odds with Rome.

Please explain and cite the relevant passage from LA to support that �lover of man� is more accurate than �lover of mankind�. If the Church has spoken to this I would like to learn from it.

Or were you speaking to my main comment, that �loves us all� is theologically inaccurate? Are you suggesting that the Church has stated �loves us all� is theologically more accurate and clearer than �lover of mankind� when defining one of the aspects of Christ?

Either way you need to clarify and provide the relevant documentation for your claims.

I�d especially like to understand your claim with respect to section 30:

30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the "inclusive" sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. 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. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

Gender inclusive language originated in the secular world, a world that LA teaches us not to embrace. Pretending that there is not a push from secular feminists to influence language and culture is not at all objective. The idea that one must embrace gender neutral language in order to provide grammatical correctness, readability, and clarity is a highly subjective one, one born of secular politics. A suggestion that you, djs, are approaching this discussion objectively while others (especially me) are approaching it subjectively is disingenuous. You are perhaps one of the most subjective posters on the Forum.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

There are some obviously mistakes in the current text of the Liturgy (for example, where a different saint was named in English from that given in the original Slavonic text).

Most everything else is subjective. �One in essence� is commonly agreed to be more accurate than �one in substance�. Other changes are less clearly improvements to the original translation. Oftentimes they seem more like change for the sake of change. Overall the text of the 1964/65 Liturgicon gets high marks for clarity, readability and grammatical correctness (the rubrics are sometimes less clear). I would really like to see the commission present a side by side comparison of the old and revised texts with an explanation of what was wrong with the old and why the new is better.

�Improving translations� and music is totally subjective. Those who advocate change must first demonstrate that such change is good and then demonstrate that it is pastoral. Here the pastoral dimension is paramount.

One person�s subjective idea of perfection is very often the enemy of something long demonstrated to be excellent.

Dear Administrator:

"Man" expresses this interplay - it has both individual and generic meanings. "Mankind" has only the generic meaning, not the individual. ISTM that L.A. thus instructs against "mankind" and for "man".

Of course, my interpretation of what LA says is, like that of the many posting here, is of no real significance. If the translations are, ultimatley, accepted or rejected by Rome, that will prove or disprove their adherence to the instructions of Rome.

I agree absolutely that the phrase "loves us all" at the end of the liturgy is not good grammar. Pronouns in English should follow an antecedent noun, to which they are unambiguously linked.

But the point of clarity extends beyond indefinite antecedents. It includes the amibguity of inclusive/exclusive meanings. Where such ambiguity is used to express the interplay noted above, then of course it should be, as much as possible, retained in a translation; but if this interplay is not intended, then, in the interest of clarity, the ambiguity should be avoided.


Dear FDD:
But FDD, those are clearly not the only alternatives. It is possible, to advocate for good language without these tangential issues, which, as I've said before, are likely to be counterproductive. It has been suggested, previously, that our Bishops are trying to cater to the demands of the secular feminists. I would hazzard a guess that our Bishops don't see themselves this way, and thus will not attach very much credibility to those who make such suggestions. It has also been stated that those involved in promulgating the new books are motivated by pride, and are either insane or in league with the evil one. Not exactly from the pages of "how to ... influence people". The tone of the discussion is discouraging.

Dear Administrator:
I agree with the first and last sentence. I think that those with authority from God are responsible before God for their conclusions as to what changes should or should not be made. The idea that this has to be "demonstrated" is problematic, and has no basis. Any such conclusion is at best a conjecture that can only be demonstrated after the fact. Moreover, there will always be some for who the demonstrations is deemed inadequate. What are the criteria and norms, then, of "demonstrated"?


(ps, I did search on Bishop Trautman, as I noted above; maybe you or others can find the quotes you have in mind.)

djs,

You wrote:

I agree that the Bishops do not see themselves as catering to the demands of the secular feminists. They may be catering to the feminists within the Church or perhaps may, through the advice of the experts, believe that there is a trend towards this type of language. The issue is, what is the source of this trend? Is it from an authentic Catholic source or is it of the world? If it is of the world, ought we to bend the Creed (and other texts) to fit what the world is doing?

I quote John Paul II to the Bishops of the United States (California, Neveda, and Hawaii) on ad limina visit in 1993

"You are presently involved in a revision of some liturgical texts...One of your responsibilities in this regard, as stewards of the grace of the supreme priesthood (cf Lumen Gentium, 26), is to make available exact and appropriate translations of the official liturgical books so that, they may be an instrument and guarantee of a genuine sharing in the mystery of Christ and the Church: Lex orandi, lex credendi.

The arduous task of translation must guard the full doctrinal integrity and, according to the genius of each language, the beauty of the original texts...When the faithful gather to celebrate the work of our redemption, the language of their prayer --- free from from doctrinal ambiguity and idealogical influence -- should foster the dignity and beauty of the celebration itself while faithfully expressing the Church's faith and unity."

The translations which we are about to begin using are in accord with the opinion of the "Reverend Professor Robert Taft, S.J., of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (himself an Eastern Catholic) [who] dealt with translation problems with respect to liturgy, language, and ideology. He made known his dislike of �sacral,� �numinous,� or �archaic� liturgical English (as confusing obfuscation with mystery). He endorsed �horizontally� inclusive language, on the grounds that liturgical translations are for �people of today� and should be in an idiom and style most readily comprehensible to them."

See the 1998 article, East Meets English in Touchstone magazine:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r

The arguments made by Fr. Taft are similar to the arguments made by Bishop Trautman. Fr. Taft's expertise [or Bishop Trautman's] expertise, however, does not extend to linguistics. His comments should have carried no more weight than my own. In fact, they should have carried less weight. I think I have more contact with the "people of today" (I'm one of them) than he does. I live in the world. He has lived in academic circles. Fr. Taft's views have been formed predominatantly within the university setting which has been devoted to the use of horizontal inclusive language and the feminist influence. The academic world is not reflective of "the people."

In any event, I do think we, "the people" have a duty to speak our mind that we don't want this fluffed over language in the ancient liturgy. For one thing, the entire matter is bad instruction (lex orandi, lex credendi) for my children (I have nine). One of the reasons for putting "for us men and our salvation" in the Creed was to combat Origen's heresy that even the demons would be saved. It is now ambiguous who "for us" is referring to.

If Rome does nothing, so be it. But as I understand the issue from Rome, they've been told that "we the people" want horizontal inclusive language. I did not formally return to the Church of my mother for these innovations.

My wife, prior to our changing rites, asked Bishop George, if she was going to find the same problems in the Byzantine Church as in the Roman Church. He said, "Let me say that the Roman Bishops are concerned with political, no, social issues; we're interested in having a beautiful liturgy and the social issues will take care of themselves." I believe that he meant that the we the laity would be spiritually fed to do the Catholic social work in the world.

Many of the Ruthenian Churches here in the Western United States are filled with Roman Catholics who have adapted to and come to love the Eastern Church. Many of these, however, have not formally changed rites. One of the concerns here is what will happen as the Latin indult becomes more available. I suspect that when the new translations are put into use, there will be many Latin Catholics who might otherwise continue within our Church, who will certainly not change ritual Churches and who will drift away to the indult Mass. I also suspect that this issue will drive away some vocations. Why become a priest in a Church that is willing to bend to the world on these issues? The places where vocations are flourishing are not bending to the world.

Rome at least ought to hear from me and any others who think that what is about to be done is at best silly and possibly destructive of the faith.

I have only received one response from this site of those who would like to join my letter. Once I have finished it, I will make it available to you for comment so that you know what you would be affixing your name to.

Thank you.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Here is another comment from Fr. Taft as reported in the article in Touchstone:

"On the issue of gender-inclusive language, he [Fr. Taft] ended with the statement that it is because it gives power to the disenfranchised that it is feared and resisted by the clergy."

That comment suggests that the Politics of Prayer (I recommend the book from Ignatius Press) entered into the discussion of the translation very early on. That accusation was made against the clergy who opposed "gender-inclusive language" and suggested that if they resisted the poltically correct langauge, they were the very voices of oppression. And that comment came from the world's foremost expert on the Divine Liturgy.

Im: Of course the "source" is not the Catholic church; the church naturally has nothing to do with determining usage in vernacular English. But the church has decided to use vernacular language in the liturgy. This use does not imply any bending of Creed, but it does mean that there will be challenges in arriving at good translations, and even disagreements. I think we agree that such disagreements need not be taken as acts of bad faith/morals. And I would suggest that it is incumbent upon to avoid such conjectures.

I have linked/quoted this remark of Fr. Taft on previous threads. You may remember that I criticized it. But I've gotten some education on these threads. Btw isn't Fr. Taft the one in Rome who would be signing off on our liturgical text?

I believe that it would be Cardinal Daoud to whom I would send the letter. The issue would be whether Fr. Taft would be involved in any decision to approve or disapprove of the translation.

I don't think we can ignore the fact that Fr. Taft made the issue political from at least 1998. I really do believe that if it weren't at heart a political issue, the current translation, "for us men and our salvation" would not have been tampered with. I really don't know anyone or even heard of anyone (male or female, young or old) who doesn't know that men in that context means, "men, women and children". In any event, there is a disregard for Rome's express wish about proper translations. This is particularly disturbing because it is in the Creed.

In fact one might now conclude, that men did only mean men, since it is now being removed.

Dear LM,

I already sent my letter. I got a response saying that they were taking my argument under advisement.

One can hope.

Karl--er--Pseudo-Athanasius.

Not so fast. Is it he that "made the issue political" or was he just recognizing the politicization of the issue including the backlash?

lm, I suspect many either have or are going to write independently (present company included), seeing the post of Karl above. Don't take a lack of response as a lack of interest - some if not many of us want to forge our own responses in a more private way to make sure the arguments are coherent, charitable, and the words our own.
FDD

This rendering, "for us" is another example of a personal pronoun with no antecedent nearby; the phrase admits problems in clarity because of this poor construction. The case against this translation thus made is stronger than one made on the basis of anti-feminist politics, I think.


Im, the "innovation" here is the liturgy in the vernacular. For some, perhaps, looking through a Latin prism, this idea is an aberration tracable to VCII and solved, for example, by a Latin Mass. But I think people know our history better.

With the use of the vernacular comes problems in translation. But there has been no indication whatsoever of bending faith, dogma, doctrine, morals to the world. There has only been, in this context, the inevitable difficulties in making the best translations using the languages of the world. Why do you, IM, choose to characterize what is happening as "bending to the world"? Are you suggesting that anyone involved in this process wants anything other than a beautiful liturgy?

The issue of the perceived connection between what our church is doing and the post VCII history of the Latins I think needs further comment. Some, who again perhpas view things through a Latin prism, may see this undertaking as following the trends of the Latin church (NO, 15 years later - as one poster remarked).

I think that perspective ignores the history of the Eastern Churches. I link again to the article [jacwell.org] of Schmeemann, in which just about every aspect of what we are doing - litanies, antiphons, secret prayers, contermporary vernacular - is traced back to the early 1900's in Russia. It is a negation of the history of the Eastern churches to view these developments as derivative from the Latin church.