www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Rundown on what's wrong in the Liturgy...

Can anyone provide a short digest (list) of what is wrong with this new "translation." What parts are omitted, words changed, etc...what has been retained?

Can anyone here supply this?

1. The Creed should have "for us men and for our salvation" rather than "for us and for our salvation." While the theological intent may be the same, the expression "for us and" is ambiguous, and gives the _appearance_ that this is ideological rather than a translation issue.

2. "Lover of Mankind" should have been translated in a way that includes both the personal and collective, as the Greek and Slavonic do - and "Lover of us all" does that, but has the same problem as #1. It is less clear, and is open to the change of ideological bias. (NOTE: knowing some of the translators, I honestly think they viewed this as a translation issue, and had no particular "agenda." But the RESULT is unfortunate.) Other possibilities include "Lover of man" (which sounds quite abrupt in English), "Lover of men" (I have a homosexual debating-opponent who would LOVE to see our Lord with that title!), "Man-befriending God" (which could be confused with "Man, befriending God"). Given all of these, it might have been best to retain "Lover of Mankind", with the understanding that ist is not a very good translation.

3. The address "Brothers and sisters" is used before epistle readings that have no other formal address, rather than "Brethren" or "Brothers". I have no particular problem with this either way, since it is in essence an ecclesiastical gloss when reading, but some do.

To my knowledge, these are the only "inclusive language" issues in the new translation. Certainly, the tone of the language in the new translation is not particularly "dumbed down", nor are terms like "He", "His", "Father" or "Son" omitted. The actual fraction of the text that changed is not that large, and no prayers were re-written as happened in the Roman Rite.

4. I have heard some complaints about language that was "too Orthodox" ("essense", "mercy, peace" rather than "the offering of peace", "Theotokos"), but I certainly have no problem with it.

5. My only other issue with the translation is the use of lower-case letters for pronominal forms referring to deity ("he" rather than "He", etc.) Admittedly, this is an orthographic preference, but I did prefer the older style.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. Since the title seems to have been more general, I will add the following non-translation issues (all of which are my own opinions, but many seem to share them):

6. It would have been better to include the optional antiphon verses and litanies.

7. It would have been better to allow and perhaps recommend that the Anaphora (eucharistic prayer) be taken aloud, while permitting it to be said silently as was formerly the case.

8. Where local practice (e.g. with the Royal Doors) conflicted with the Ordo and the 1996 Liturgical Instruction, it would have been better to instruct priests to follow the norms of the official books, rather than standardizing on local custom. Doing the latter makes it harder in the future to correct more obvious problems (such as the use of pre-cut particles), since priests can simply claim privilege of local custom.

9. While it is good that the new books completely omit instructions to kneel and indicate where the proper posture is to stand, it would have been better to indicate that standing is proper _on Sundays and days of Pascha_, preserving the ancient distinction.

The last is not a problem, but an opportunity missed due to timing:

10. The Psalms were standardized on the Grail Psalter before the new translation of the Septuagint from the Holy Myrrhbearers was completed; had that translation been available five years earlier, and if permission to use it could have been obtained, this VERY clear translation might have been a better alternative to the Grail (which is usable, and certainly better than some I have heard in church, but not ideal).

Father Keleher has written a whole book on the problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy. Go to this link and order it. Get copies for your parish bookstore.

Jeff routinely understates the problems with the Revised Liturgy because he had a hand in creating the music.

It is time for the people to act to save this Church from this non-orthodox and feminist liturgy. Write letters today!

Dear DJ,

For the record, I had nothing to do with the music for the Divine Liturgy until it had already been completed by the Music Commission and was being taught at the Metropolitan Cantor School; nor was I one of the cantors who received draft copies in the 1990's.

I did ask several times over the past year, and no one answered: ARE there any other "inclusive language" translation issues besides the two I mentioned above?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Draft copies were not distributed to cantors for review in the 1990s. Quit trying to spin that. Mr. Thompson did not "move in" to the seminary and chief liturgical musician positions until after Metropoltian Judson died in April 2001. There was a small group of hand-picked priests and cantors who did review the music. They were chosen because it was thought they would offer favorable opinions. Almost all of them objected strongly. Their objections were almost totally ignored.

Do not believe the propaganda regarding the changes to the Liturgy. Get a copy of Father Serge Keleher's book and read it. Our bishops are killing our Church.

Dostojno Jest

Jeff,

What I have made bold above, is a strange statement. I can't quite put my finger on it, but to say that one can leave out a word in "translation" but nevertheless, the intent is the same seems very dubious. It is words which show what our intent is, which is probably the reason why the Fathers of the Council attached anathemas to those who would alter the Creed.

The word that was not translated reveals not the intent which you speak of, but some other intent. My suspicions which I have set forth in the other thread, and backed up by evidence, is that the intent which is expressed by the new Creed is a step toward's women's ordination, which as Catholics we simply cannot consider as a real possibility.

I have found others, but I have not made a list. The great doxology, "Glory to God in highest, is now, "and peace to his people on earth." So there is another mistranslation. I will now keep tabs, on the others I find.

In Christ,
lm

lm,

If it were truly directed toward the ordination of women to the priesthood (and please let's be clear; for US, "ordination of women" is ambiguous), then the operative word to change is not "men", but "man". The former refers to the ecclesia, without distinction; the latter to Our Lord. If the translators had said, "and became a human being", THAT would be been consonant with advocacy of presbyteral ordination of women.

It seems much more likely to me that "for us and" comes from a desire not to place unnecessary barriers to spreading the Gospel is a world where such language is non-standard (even a priest posting here to vehemently oppose the new translation used such language in his post!); while this desire is laudable - did not Saint Paul indicate as much? - the word substantive "men" should have been retained, rather than either being omitted, or replaced with an adjectival-sounding "human beings" or "humans", or the theological incorrect "people".

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Dear Jeff,

Why do I cringe every time I read (hear) "who loves us all"?

However, where the inclusive language is most consistenrly offensive and contrived, is in the text of the troparia and kontakia. These hymns are distorted in order to make them gender neutral, it is astonishing. I refer you to the website of the Cantor Institute, where these texts are available. A read through just a few of them will give more than enough examples of agenda driven translation.

This year, did you celebrate the Sunday of the Ancestors, or of the Forefathers?

Nick

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that we might have female deacons in the same sense as male deacons, you're incorrect. Canon law for the Orietnal churches forbids it. It's a red herring which is used by the St. Nina group to promote women's ordination to the priesthood.

Pax,

lm

I believe I misunderstood your distinction. I apologize.



I do note that Fr. David, in his response to Fr. Serge, indicated that what you propose above would be a better translation but he knew that there would be an outcry against it. So there are concerns.

I will grant you then, that it appears that the translators were not unanimous in their decision--which is hopeful--if we speak up. But we still have the problem that the Creed was changed to "become all things to all men?"

Nick,

I would actually be interested (probably in a separate thread or in a private message) to see which troparia and kontakia you are referring to. As I mentioned above, the translation of celovikolubce is one of the two "inclusive language" issues I've seen, and I have not yet heard of a third, which is why I asked.

Well, rather than following those arch-feminists Father Lev Gillet and Archbishop Joseph Raya, and celebrating the Second Sunday before the Nativity as the Sunday of the Ancestors, I followed the Typikon for our metropolia and celebrated the Sunday of the Forefathers - which is also what it is called in the new books. Now, the FOLLOWING Sunday, called either the Sunday of the Fathers (inviting confusion with the preceding Sunday, as many over the years have noticed) or the Sunday of the Geneology, and which Father Lev says is a continuation of the previous week's theme - THAT Sunday is referred to in the new books as the Sunday of the Ancestors. It's admittedly inconsistent, but that Sunday certainly commemorates the ancestors of Christ, so I didn't feel a need to shriek in horror at the idea that the Gospel mentions our Lord's female ancestors along with his male ones

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff, I find the dismissal troubling beyond the "for he loves us all." It begins as it currently is translated: and then finishes:
While it sounds harmless enough, it unfortunately smacks too much to me of the current trend in many mainline protestant services where the use of "he/him/his" is greatly diminished by repeatedly replacing the offending male pronoun for God with the word "God" or "Christ."

An example of this was recently heard at a Christmas celebration at a local Congregational/UCC Church where my son was hired to play: "God so loved the world that God gave God's only begotten Son..." Get the drift?

John K

lm,

And that appears to be precisely why it was NOT used. I said it was CONSISTENT with advocacy for women's ordination - making its use controversial, and thus undesirable. But by itself, it is not proof of such advocacy (consistency and implication are two different things). And it is not at all incorrect to say that the Son became a human being. The problem is that "man" includes a number of connotations, and any translation ought to catch as many of these as possible, except where they would lead the hearer into error.

Yours cordially in Christ,
Jeff