0 members (),
722
guests, and
81
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
Based on the Forward in the 2006 liturgicon I have to wonder, what is the present status of the recension books. We may presume they are the norm but there is a shift in emphasis indicated from Slavonic first and Greek last (1965) to Greek first (2006). 1965 Liturgicon Preface The Rite of the Sacred and Divine Liturgy, presented here, is a faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition of "Čin Svja�čennyja i Bo�estvennyja Liturgii" published by the authority of the Holy Apostolic See of Rome, and printed by the Grotta-Ferrata Press, Rome, 1942.
Where the English lacks a concise and literal equivalent of the Slavonic, paraphrasing has been employed, and where the natural order of the English language demands it, words have been transposed. In order to capture the various shades of meaning, which the Slavonic lacks, this translation has been compared with the official Greek version published at Rome in 1950. 2006 Liturgicon Forward The text has been translated from the Greek original as found in the Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), compared with the Church Slavonic of the Slu�ebnik (Rome, 1942) and the English translation of the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission of Pittsburgh and Passaic (1965), which was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Prot. No. 380/62, on December 10, 1964. ... The rubrics are founded on a careful historical study of the development of the Liturgy as revealed by manuscript evidence and modern liturgical scholarship. Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected and the final product is guided by considerations of pastoral prudence in the specific situation of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in the United States of America. Also, what are instances of "modern liturgical scholarship" that influenced the RDL? What "Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected"; what are examples of practices that were deemed not to be authentic? Dn. Anthony
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
the final product is guided by considerations of pastoral prudence in the specific situation of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in the United States of America. RDL The idea that the choice of liturgical forms must be made from the "pastoral" point of view suggests the presence of this same anthropocentric error. Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women, Cardinal Ratzinger (Now the Chief Shepherd) Cardinal Ratzinger explicitly said men and women when he indicated that there was an anthropocentric error! data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dcf02/dcf021dbde516b34f8cf7458572ec1c72e4a393a" alt="biggrin biggrin" And these comments (presumably not originally written in Greek) expressed rather pastorally his displeasure for such pastoral concerns. What a great shepherd we have!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Based on the Forward in the 2006 liturgicon I have to wonder, what is the present status of the recension books. We may presume they are the norm but there is a shift in emphasis indicated from Slavonic first and Greek last (1965) to Greek first (2006). 1965 Liturgicon Preface The Rite of the Sacred and Divine Liturgy, presented here, is a faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition of "Čin Svja�čennyja i Bo�estvennyja Liturgii" published by the authority of the Holy Apostolic See of Rome, and printed by the Grotta-Ferrata Press, Rome, 1942.
Where the English lacks a concise and literal equivalent of the Slavonic, paraphrasing has been employed, and where the natural order of the English language demands it, words have been transposed. In order to capture the various shades of meaning, which the Slavonic lacks, this translation has been compared with the official Greek version published at Rome in 1950. 2006 Liturgicon Forward The text has been translated from the Greek original as found in the Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), compared with the Church Slavonic of the Slu�ebnik (Rome, 1942) and the English translation of the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission of Pittsburgh and Passaic (1965), which was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Prot. No. 380/62, on December 10, 1964. ... The rubrics are founded on a careful historical study of the development of the Liturgy as revealed by manuscript evidence and modern liturgical scholarship. Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected and the final product is guided by considerations of pastoral prudence in the specific situation of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in the United States of America. Also, what are instances of "modern liturgical scholarship" that influenced the RDL? What "Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected"; what are examples of practices that were deemed not to be authentic? Dn. Anthony This is certainly a legitimate and worthwhile request, but keeping in mind that the Ruthenian Recension is in Slavonic, I am concerned about the bypassing of the Recension and the Slavonic in favor of the Greek in the RDL* -- no, not always but all too often and when it seems to me not necessary or even warranted. The Nikonian reform and the biblical Textus Receptus are prime examples why "original Greek" is not automatically "right" or to be preferred. Our liturgical expression is filtered through the Slavonic and exhibits a legitimate Slav ethos that is our heritage (regardless of our biological ethnic background). If we do not preserve it who will?
This is a bit off topic; may I suggest that replies if any be posted to the thread below.
Dn. Anthony I'm moving this up. I am a bit surprised that this discussion has gotten so little play. Mary
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
I could be wrong, but I think this new RDL promulgation makes the Rescension (Ordo Celebrationis), and the Rome-issued Sluzhebnik illicit for us. One could say we have a "new rite". Hope I'm wrong.
Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
That is probably right, Deacon Robert. Our UGCC Synod has made the Ordo and the books from Rome (in various English or Ukrainian translations) mandatory and normative by Synodal acta.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
I could be wrong, but I think this new RDL promulgation makes the Rescension (Ordo Celebrationis), and the Rome-issued Sluzhebnik illicit for us. One could say we have a "new rite". Hope I'm wrong. I thought that even after June 29 if the liturgy is in Slavonic it is to be as in the Sluzhebnik, if in English according to the "new rite". If so the problem is then that, to function as indicated in each (rubrics), one needs to be a schizodeacon.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
I could be wrong, but I think this new RDL promulgation makes the Rescension (Ordo Celebrationis), and the Rome-issued Sluzhebnik illicit for us. One could say we have a "new rite". Hope I'm wrong. I thought that even after June 29 if the liturgy is in Slavonic it is to be as in the Sluzhebnik, if in English according to the "new rite". If so the problem is then that, to function as indicated in each (rubrics), one needs to be a schizodeacon. (1.) In Slavonic, do we run with the full text of the Sluzhebnik, or a butchered version? (2.)Do we now have to get a bi-ritual faculty? data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e3877/e3877ed6df76a2e10dddb07767a2ae4af077d9ec" alt="grin grin" Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,384 Likes: 31 |
(1.) In Slavonic, do we run with the full text of the Sluzhebnik, or a butchered version? I believe the general order, in this and similar cases, is that we follow whoever is the ranking typicon.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560 |
Ok, I'm really enjoying this discussion of somethint that is near and dear to me-my religion and how I express my love for God and how I give thanks to my savior. But my problem is I have no idea of what some of your words mean. Is it possible to phrase things in such a way that the members of the Forum who don't have a theological background can understand it? Without running to a dictionary every other sentence? Please?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 Likes: 1 |
Ok, I'm really enjoying this discussion of somethint that is near and dear to me-my religion and how I express my love for God and how I give thanks to my savior. But my problem is I have no idea of what some of your words mean. Is it possible to phrase things in such a way that the members of the Forum who don't have a theological background can understand it? Without running to a dictionary every other sentence? Please? Hope this helps. (1.) Sluzhebnik is the Slavonic word for Liturgicon. This is the book used by deacons and priests which contains the text of prayers, and rubrics, of the Divine Liturgy. (2.) The Rescension (Ordo Celebrationis) is a book used primarily by clergy which gives the rubrics (where to go, what to do, what prayers to take, and when to take them; delineations of actions by celebrants, concelebrants, first deacon, second deacon, etc. )for Vespers, Matins, Presanctified Liturgy, and the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. In Christ, Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560 |
Thank you very much. It helps make sense of what is going on. I take an active interest in my church and feel very strongly about it. But if I can't understand what's being said, I can't be a part of the solution. Thanks again.
S'nami Boh!
|
|
|
|
|