www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy A comparison

Ray,

Is this what you're after?

Boss, we're in your hands; it's up to you � make it cool for us to join in on this special stuff. Through it let us be found innocent, let us all get along, let us into that special place of yours, let us stick with you, and don't let no one come down too hard on us.

This has been discussed before but I will note again that there are many (including me) who hold that the promulgations in Parma in 1986, Passaic in 1996 and Van Nuys a few years ago were NOT promulgations of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension. Simply put, any promulgation that prohibits the full celebration of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension according to the official liturgical books published by Rome does not qualify as a promulgation of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy! While there were certainly a few restorations, most of the changes were those borne of the 1970s Latin Reforms that we have already discussed. [And we see that the Pittsburgh Reform of 2007 actually prohibits the full celebration of the official Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension!]

Regarding the comments of Metropolitan Judson, he did not want a �true reform�. He simply wanted some uniformity across the Archdiocese.

Regarding the quote from the Liturgical Instruction, it ignores the prerequisites to such reform. The Instruction is quite clear in requiring full restoration BEFORE reform.

Dear Deacon Anthony,

I do not hesitate to speak here, without written documentation, because I have some personal experiences that mirror the personal experiences of some of our clergy, with Metropolitan Judson.

My experience with Metropolitan Judson came early in my entry into the Church, before my official entry in fact, and I had chance to ask him about the differences in the divine liturgy that I experienced between Pittsburgh and Passaic. He told me then that those differences would eventually be worked out and regularized, because he was convening a liturgical commission that would undertake a study of our liturgical history, and work with the clergy and people in the entire Metropolia to try to determine whether or not we needed a different translation from the one provided to us from Rome. It was also from Metropolitan Judson that I received a kinder gentler picture of Bishop Elko, for what that is worth.

So I do not believe that Metropolitan Judson intended or even envisioned the possibility of the current RDL. Certainly he intended more participation of the clergy in the process and he intended that what was ignored was to be restored or, at the very least, considered in the "making" of anything new.

In his understanding and vision, as he conveyed it to me in conversation, the commission was to be exploratory!!!

In fact I will go so far today to say that crediting the Ruined Divine Liturgy to the memory of the late Metropolitan is a terribly cheap shot at a very holy man who did not intend us to have what has been shoved down our throats. He, at very least, had a full and theologically rich vision of eastern Eucharistic theology and in those discussions with him I learned many things about my adopted home.

He also intended there to be far more interaction among the priests of the Metropolia concerning any changes in the liturgy. That was very clear in our discussions, because one of my concerns coming in to the Church was the observable condition of many of our priests...their marginalization, some of it self-imposed, some of it enforced. I had no idea what I was seeing back then, but it looked bad even from a distance. It did not make the late Metropolitan happy either, though he seemed at something of a loss as to what to do quickly enough to turn things around. He spoke of the liturgy as a way to bring many things into line.

I am absolutely certian that I do not stand alone in this memory of our late Archbishop Judson, and I will not stand by and watch others foul his memory by crediting him with the current liturgical hodge-podge that now possesses us.

Mary

John,

excellent post.

even if I were to agree (which I don't) that the above mentioned, Passaic, Parma, and Van Nuys were promulgations of the Ruthenian Rescension, one would have to question on what grounds Pittsburgh was on?

Monomakh

This is almost exactly the usage of the Antiochians as well.

Glory to Jesus Christ!


Like many on the Forum, I find the use of inclusive language in the revised translation to be deeply troubling. And I am not entirely impressed, given the amount of time invested in the process, with some of the translations, for a variety of reasons.

That said, I am hoping Recluse can explain his issues with the translation of this particular prayer. How is the RDL translation of this prayer deficient? What specifically makes it deficient? What makes the economy of language it employs ugly, i.e., "neutralized, modernized, and generic"? Does the language somehow confuse rather than teach the listener/reader? Is it somehow untruthful?

I do hope it is more than just a matter of "feeling" wrong or incomplete -- if one is going to criticize, such criticism ought to be built upon more than just "I don't like it."

I see that Fr. Serge takes the translators to task for rendering the second clause of the prayer as a complete sentence, introducing "May they bring about..." I don't have the Greek in front of me, but I assume it is an eis to + accusative construction, expressing a result or consequence. In which case, I dare say, the added words do help to communicate the meaning of the prayer -- better than "unto."

In Christ,
Theophilos

LOL!

Ray S,

on a serious note, do you think that the Our Father is a prayer that needs to be updated into modern English? The OCA for example have done this:

i.e.: hallowed be your name, your kingdom come....



Monomakh

Believe it or not, as I study the RDL, that's the very word that keeps entering my mind: "hodge-podge."

Go right ahead. Everyone is free to use my translation, except if they are in Holy Orders!

As for a replacement for "Amen" I would have suggested "Dude" or "Word", but those are a bit dated.

Can we get Fr Serge to pick up the Guinness next time he's in that neighbourhood?

To all:

The sarcasm is way beyond the point of being funny and very much crosses the line into unchairty. Please limit your posts to solid argument. I really do not wish to put every post in a queue for approval.

Admin

For me the mitigating fact regarding the promulgations in Parma, Passaic and Van Nuys is that they were, as the Passaic liturgicon puts it, "for provisional use in the churches of the Eparchy." There was still the 1965 liturgicon which, I presume, still had stature throughout the Metropolia. Of that 1965 liturgicon Fr. David himself writes in the quote: "Actually a faithful translation of the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgicon was made by Bishop Elko, but ..."

My purpose in presenting the two quotes was to show the disconnect between the original intent of Rome and what transpired. The key element is the "faithful" and complete "translation of the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgicon,"[1] that is, the 1965 liturgicon [2]. Since that 1965 liturgicon is now superseded by the RDL, which is not a complete or faithful translation (nor does it, I believe, aspire or intend to be [3]) of the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgicon, it seems that the unavoidable conclusion is that our link to the liturgy as given in the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgicon is broken and presumably lost. From June 29, 2007 on it is not permitted to celebrate the complete and "faithful translation of the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgicon." Rather, in a sense, another variation of "low mass" will become the norm for the Metropolia.

Dn. Anthony

[1] http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgy_Study/IELC/Chrysostom%20Liturgy.alt.pdf
[2] http://www.patronagechurch.com/Litu...ish/index%20English%20-%20Chrsyostom.htm
[3]See the Forward: http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgicon_2006/Chrysostom/Liturgy.htm
also: https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/237147/page/1#Post237147

Here is the response I got back from my family member who is a well respect expert in ancient Greek.

... did not mean to post

Ray, with all due respect to your relative, the response is troubling.

the phrase is redundant
So he agrees that the proper translation includes man or mankind, but says it is redundant with us. Catholic scholars have said the word us alone leads to a misunderstanding of people believing it is exclusive to those present and not all humanity. Catholic theologians say it isn't redundant but is a needed clarifier, the fathers agreed it was a needed clarifier, and this guy says it "might" be more economically rendered another way?

might more economically rendered
He went from translating to editing. He decided to economize the text to get him to the translation of "for our salvation."
1. Given the confusion over us/our, wouldn't it be more direct and less confusing to say, "for mankind's salvation"? That is, if the only concern is redundancy.
2. Since when has redundancy been a translational issue? Either it is there or it isn't.

It maybe that something vital is sacrificed
He acknowledges that he may be "sacrificing" a vital tenet of the faith in the most important statement of the faith we have by deleting the word men.

it is hard to know what it is
He then says he doesn't know what he has just deleted, that he deleted it only for economy, and that it was a sacrifice for time's sake, and that it might have been something vital that he cut out.

How long does it take to say the word men? A fraction of a second. Does it really seem like a well-thought out plan to cut a word that takes a fraction of a second to say for economy's sake when it might be something vital, the editor isn't sure of its reason, theologians have argued that its removal causes great confusion to the point of heresy, and the Fathers of the Church deliberately inserted it? That doesn't seem like a wise plan to me.