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

And, as John has pointed out, there is a strong and steady press or tendency in the Greek Church now to regularize the usage to conform to the more exact translation, just as there has been a change in the Vatican's willingness to allow looser variants of that particular phrase and other instances of horizontal inclusive language.

You might have noticed that when a hierarch puts pressure on another hierarch's bright idea, the hierarch with the bright idea either pushes back, or ignores the press. That does not mean that the bright episcopal brainstorm is going to be a permanent fixture in the Church.

An with respect to your last statement, the horizontal inclusive language in this latest liturgical experiment is a symptom of the much larger issue of weakened Eucharistic theology that is evident not only in the translation, but also in the explanations for choices that have been made...and THAT my friend, is more than sufficient reason to find another home, even if only in the short run.

I do not doubt your good intentions, Father Deacon but I must say that I am surprised and disappointed each time I see you defending what has been done.

Mary

Dear Administrator:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Just a clarification:

The only person in this thread who referred to the RDL as the "Restored" Divine Liturgy was Fr. David. I agree that this is inaccurate. What I object to -- but which, given your silence, you apparently think is acceptable -- is the use of pejorative modifiers by certain posters in place of "revised": "ruined," "revolting," "repulsive." Such language is childish, unhelpful, and unChristian.

Can someone post the Greek of the prayer that is putatively under discussion in this thread? Thanks.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

As I have noted frequently in these threads, the pervasive and invasive use of horizontal inclusive language in the RDL is a symptom of a much larger issue. Its existance is apparent both from the translation itself, and from the catechesis offered, formally and informally, by Father David Petras.

That issue is the conscious and purposeful weakening of Eucharistic theology on the part of those who have destroyed, dismantled and left in ruin, the stronger, more ancient, truly more inclusive Eucharistic theology, of the public work of the Church.

So you may characterize as childish, if you wish, the observation that the new Byzantine order is truly and theologically the Ruined Divine Liturgy, but I see it as a most sobering matter, the discussion of which should be taken with far more seriousness than many have done thus far.

We are hampered in some fashion by the fact that our own clergy are restricted in what and how much they may say publicly, and their support is sorely missed. But there are other clergy from this jurisdiction, in the person of some of our deacons, who do see the difficulties and are willing to speak up and speak out, thank God.

Perhaps you should review some of the other messages in this Forum in order to identify for yourself the multiple problems with this theologically mutilated and maimed liturgy.

The prayer you are asking about is the Creed and there are several places in the more recent discussions, where the Greek is offered for examination and comparison.

I am not sure why you didn't look more thoroughly first, before commenting.

Mary

Σοὶ παρακατιθέμεθα τὴν ζωὴν ἡμῶν ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα, Δέσποτα φιλάνθρωπε, καὶ παρακαλοῦμέν σε καὶ δεόμεθα καὶ ἱκετεύομεν· καταξίωσον ἡμᾶς μεταλαβεῖν τῶν ἐπουρανίων σου καὶ φρικτῶν μυστηρίων ταύτης τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ πνευματικῆς Τραπέζης, μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εἰς συγχώρησιν πλημμελημάτων, εἰς Πνεύματος Ἁγίου κοινωνίαν, εἰς βασιλείας οὐρανῶν κληρονομίαν, εἰς παρρησίαν τὴν πρὸς σέ, μὴ εἰς κρῖμα ἢ εἰς κατάκριμα. ( source [myriobiblos.gr] )

I agree, Theophilos.

Theophilos and Wondering,

Is this as childish, unhelpful and unchristian as those Revisionists who believe women are too stupid to understand that �who for us men� includes them?

Why or why not?

1 Th 5:21

Not only women! I have been contemplating some of the revisions for quite some time now. And I have come to a realization. The reformers are telling me that I cannot properly understand the meaning of the words "man", "men" and "mankind". They are telling me that I cannot understand the meaning of the words "shall", or "unto". They are telling me that I cannot understand the English language of which I was raised. And so it is explained to me that the Liturgy must be rewritten in the "vernacular"!

It has nothing to do with the vernacular! The Liturgy was dumbed down. The Ruthenian Catholic people are not an uneducated an ignorant people. It is insulting! I am now forced to chant a Liturgy geared more to an grade schooler.

Betrayal and insult. That is what the reformers have offered to me. And so ["ruined" Divine Liturgy ]is quite applicable to me. To say that it is "restored" has added more insult to a terrible injury.

God help us!

Recluse

Theophilos,

When I first read the original post I laughed and thought it was good satire (good satire is always based upon the truth). But you are correct and I am wrong, the comment crosses the line into uncharity. I accept your correction, and thank you for it.

Admin

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake./ Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets. (Luke 6:22-23)

Father Deacon Lance,

My contacts among the Orthodox clergy in the United Kingdom tell me that the book is used only in one parish � Manchester. No other parish of any jurisdiction (Catholic or Orthodox) uses the book (including Metropolitan Kallistos in the parish at Oxford). Manchester is the parish of the main translator. They also tell me that the circumstances of the approval (which are similar to ours). The translators were talented men and worked hard. There was good work mixed with problematic work. Yet so as not to give offense to those who worked hard an approval was given. In this case it was known that the translation would not gain widespread acceptance.

Then there is the fact that the translation is dated 1995. That is near the end of the silliness that was rampant in many Churches (and in Roman Catholicism we see that it was the beginning of the end of the �style� of the paraphrased and politically correct translations offered by ICEL (before it was reorganized to ensure accuracy and authenticity)). That the problems existed in Churches from Orthodoxy to Episcopal does not make the omission of the word �man� from the Creed (and other places) acceptable.

There is a parallel in both cases (England 1995 and Pittsburgh 2007). Some good work lies behind the work that makes the whole so objectionable that it cannot be tolerated. The Ecumenical Patriarchate should have insisted on the corrections then just as our bishops should have insisted on the corrections now. That someone worked very hard on a project is admirable, but it is the quality of the product by which it should be judged.

I pray that Rome will respond favorably to those of us who have asked her to rescind the RDL. If not, those of us who cannot tolerate the Revised Divine Liturgy (and form the �loyal opposition�) can always wait in another Byzantine Catholic Church until a new set of bishops puts things aright. Ironically, the Divine Liturgy at my local Melkite parish is far closer to the official Ruthenian recension (and the Liturgy as taken in the Ruthenian eparchies in Europe) then is the Revised Divine Liturgy promulgated by the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs.

John

I believe they are equally childish, unhelpful, and unChristian.

Pace Elijahmaria and others, the disparaging descriptions of the Revised Divine Liturgy do not contribute to a serious discussion of the issues at hand. Quite the contrary, it causes hard feelings and hinders dialogue. Certainly, Christians ought to be able to maintain a certain decorum among themselves when disagreeing, even about the most imnportant things.

I am deeply troubled by inclusive langauge, whether horizontal, vertical or diagonal, because it (1) suggests that certain non-Christian ideologies or worldviews have successfully imposed themselves upon the Church, and, more important, (2) represents a denial of (or, at least, a worrisome discomfort with) the scriptural norm of male headship.

By all means, we should loudly and passionately voice our displeasure with the RDL -- but can't we do so in a manner that is befitting our common life in Christ?

In Christ,
Theophilos

Glory to Jesus Christ!

1. It is perhaps true that I am not as well-versed in matters theological and liturgical as you, but I do not see the RDL as having caused the kind or degree of harm you claim it has or will. I've read your many posts as well as those of Fr. David and others. I am simply not convinced that the RDL represents "the conscious and purposeful weakening of Eucharistic theology."

2. This thread is not about the Creed (not originally, anyway); it concerns the prayer after the epiklesis and before the Lord's Prayer.

3. Your quoting of Luke 6.22-23 strikes me as odd, since the passages can be interpreted in a way that I don't believe you intended. Who, precisely, is doing the reviling?

En te tou Christou agape,
Theophilos

The Christ spoke many harsh words over time. Said many sayings that were more offensive than not. They crucified him for his hubris and is "uncharity."

To say flatly that the liturgical commission of the Byzantine Metropolia of Pittsburgh has maimed and ruined our liturgy is, in fact, demonstrable.

To say that one of the primary architects of the new Byzantine order has reordered the entire foundation of our ancient Eucharistic theology is also demonstrable, in this forum and in other catechetical venues in the Metropolia.

To say that some of the musical settings are not at all restorations as much as they are malformations is not an exaggeration.

That our Church would do this at the very time that all others are shoring up the sides of their loose liturgical habits and hopping down off their modernist hobby-horses, should be a clear sign to all that we are among those shepherds have not eyes to see nor ears to hears.

If I want to ruin my life in this Church that is my choice. I think it is a worthy cause, among others.

This Church is in very very serious trouble.

Apparently you think it is quite all right.

Ten years ago was the time for quiet discussion.

Those days are gone.

Mary

Bravo! This is an accurate statement. And so getting back on topic...the prayer after the epiklesis, before the Lord's prayer, uses the imposition of language according to the worldview with the phrase, "who love us all".

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


* https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/237147/page/1#Post237147