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

Тεбѣ прεдлагаεмъ животъ нашъ вεсь и надεжду, Владыко чεловѣколюбчε, и просимъ и молимъ, и милися дѣεмъ: сподоби насъ причаститися нεбεсныхъ Твоихъ и страшныхъ таинъ, сεя свящεнныя и духовныя трапεзы, съ чистою совѣстїю, во ωставлεнїε грѣхωвъ, въ прощεнїε согрѣшεнїй, во общεнїε Духа святагω, въ наслѣдїε царствїя нεбεснагω, въ дεрзновεнїε єжε къ Тεбѣ, нε въ судъ, или во ωсуждεнїε.

� ЛЇТУРГЇКОНЪ сїεсть СЛУЖЄБНИКЪ, Римъ, Въ фωтолїθографїи Г.Д.Ц. ≠ацив

I cannot read any of this.

Try changing the "code page" setting in your browser to Unicode (UTF-8).

If you still have problems try to describe what you see on the screen and we'll take it from there.

After raising the issue of the Slavonic I should have also provided the text. Thank you for doing so. Here are image files of the text in question.

Slavonic (Ruthenian Recension, starting at the bottom of p 258)
http://www.patronagechurch.com/Sluzebnik/htm/259.htm

Greek (Rome, 1950)
http://www.patronagechurch.com/DL-Chrysostom-Rome_1950/htm/55.htm

Elijahmaria:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I never said (nor do I believe) that the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church is "quite all right." You seem to have a nasty little habit of imputing to others statements and ideas that they have not articulated or otherwise claimed as their own.

As for your assertion that the problems with the RDL are "demonstrable," you haven't proved your case. The retention of the original Greek word "anaphora" and Fr. David's forgivably incomplete explanation for its use together constitute a purposefully deceptive altering of the Church's Eucharistic theology? Give me a break.

ajk:

I asked for the Greek because I didn't have it in front of me, and was too lazy to search for myself. I have the Slavonic in my prayerbook.

I asked because I wanted to confirm that the "unto" / "for" in the prior translation of the prayer in question was an attempt to render the Greek εἰς + accusative construction, denoting purpose / result (equivalent to OCS въ / во, I presume -- my Slavonic is quite weak compared to my Greek). I am thankful to the person who posted the Greek.

As such, and as I suggested earlier, I don't think the introduction of the words "May they bring about" by the translators is entirely inappropriate. I think it clarifies the meaning for those listening, much better than "unto" and marginally better than "for."

Recluse:

Yes, I am dismayed by the introduction of "lover of us all" as a translation of φιλάνθρωπε / чεловѣколюбчε. However, aside from that change and the word "awesome" (see above), and assuming that the prayer is chanted properly, I don't have any issues with the translation. It seems appropriately solemn and didactic. I don't follow the argument that the older the English used is, the closer we are to the mind of the Fathers.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I would love to give you a break if I could.

The fact of the matter is that the catechesis offered here is not at all incomplete. There is even more of it, and it is quite the same, in a document on Father's website.

Father David's teaching is not the same teaching as the ancient teaching that has been documented here in this forum spanning the centuries between St. John Chrysostom and John Paul II.

It is greatly weakened in fact. It is whole in its printed form, and it is still weak.

When Father was challenged by a brother priest concerning the weakness of the intent for the text in question, he had no reply but to say that one opinion was as good as another and walked away from the discussion.

I am not impressed by that little display at all. You might have guessed by now.

There are others here who do have more experience and formal learning than I do who also agree with me.

It's always nice to have an astute companion on a journey, don't you think?

In Christ's peace,

Mary

But you do have issues! You just said so! You are dismayed by the inclusive language and the usage of the word "awesome".

These are the issues I have also--with the addition of being disturbed by the phrase "may they bring about"--that is very awkward sounding to my ear.

Perhaps I have not written with enough clarity. I am not automatically in favor of something because it is older English and hence closer to the mind of the Fathers. I am opposed to wording that has been intentionally changed due to the influence of the so-called secular "vernacular". There is nothing absurd about the older English. It is more reverent (see writings of Archbishop Joseph Raya) and is understood by most. Those who may have a problem with it could be catechized quite easily.

I cannot defend a dumbed-down politically correct translation that insults the intellect of all educated Ruthenian Catholics.

Recluse:

Yes, I do have some issues with the prayer -- which I do recall admitting from the beginning.

Where I disagree with you is that this prayer is somehow symptomatic of larger problems with the RDL (whatever they may be). It isn't. This prayer is a mostly accurate and poignant translation of the Greek original and Slavonic translation. The list of actions with which the prayer concludes, when chanted by a capable priest, even has a certain pedagogic beauty.

Of course, one can find problems with any translation: Why was this word chosen rather than that? Isn't this phrase more poetical than that one? Etc., etc. The reason I originally asked you to clarify your displeasure is that I wanted to know what, aside from the inclusive language, made the prayer so objectionable to you.

Perhaps, as an exercise, we (you and I and anyone else who is interested) might attempt to re-translate the prayer from the Greek and Slavonic. It might be instructive for all of us.

I'm game if you are, but, again, my Church Slavonic is pretty weak. I can handle the Greek just fine.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Elijahmaria:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Suffice to say, once again, I am not convinced by those who have argued that the RDL represents some kind of insidious transvaluation of Eastern Christian eucharistic theology. The oppositions that you and a few others seem to be insisting upon -- between participation in the divine nature and education, or between liturgy as being for God and liturgy as being for man -- are simply false. They're not "either-or," but "both-and," propositions / ideas / practices. Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend?

Despite his prodigious intellect, Cardinal Ratzinger is not the final authority with respect to the Byzantine liturgy or Orthodox theology.

One further point:


This is hearsay. We have no idea whether this is true, and I would be careful about posting such information on a public message board.

In Christ,
Theophilos

This critique does not belong to my pointed messages on the subject of Anaphora.

In fact I am not insisting on an opposition at all, though, for sake of argument, since there is no other substantive argument, I have been falsely accused of oppositional thinking on the subject.

Fortunately there are those reading who can see what I am doing and agree, as well as understand.

There is no either/or that I am arguing. I am arguing that there has been a wholesale re-alignment of the foundation of the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and it is evident from the explicit denial of that which was in place prior to the new Byzantine order. You have noticed that there's been such a denial here meaning that the real oppositional thinking belongs to the architects of the new order.








There were a multitude of witnesses and it was such a startling response that the news flew like seeds on the wind.

I have no fear of the truth, kind sir. In fact I rather prefer it to "Peace, Peace!!..." where there is no peace.

In Christ,

Mary

I prefer the ancient saying "they make a desert and call it peace"!

With or without the scorpions?

M.

PS: Was being obtuse. The reply I was thinking of was 'no virtue without temptation.'

PPS: Sometimes the Pauline mass in the Latin rite has been called a desert experience. I don't think that is necessarily a derogatory comment.

I have been asked to make a correction in my assertion here so that it better reflects the reality.

The priest who challenged Father David on the use of "Anaphora" did so during presbyteral days for the Passaic diocese.

Father David's response was "My opinion is just as good as yours." He delivered this sterling rejoinder and immediately walked away from the podium, thereby shutting off any possibility for discussion.

So this is not just Mary Lanser's pet peeve. This is a serious change in the foundational theology of the liturgy and many of our priests are not happy with the refusal to open it up for discussion.

I think that the laity need to understand that.

Mary

You are setting up a straw man only to knock him down.

What attracts people to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy is that its focus is not on the human participants but upon God, and worshipping him. The revision in the Ruthenian Church alters that focus by making the instructive elements of the text the primary criterion of the liturgical form. The higher form of catechesis that comes through prayer; through spending time in the presence of the Father, is replaced with the secondary form of catechesis, like that which occurs in a classroom. People are attracted to the Divine Light, even if they cannot describe it. They are far less attracted to a classroom.

One must understand the difference between the higher form of catechesis (time spent in the presence of the Father) and the lower form of catechesis (instruction and book learning). If you need an example consider the grandmother who never graduated high school but whose life of prayer has meant that her presence exudes a relationship with Jesus Christ. Contrast it with the college instructor who can accurately quote the history of the Church but may not really know Jesus at all.

No one here has claimed it is �either-or� so your criticism is a false one. The issue is one of focus. Is the focus on God or is it on instructing man? You cannot add the focus of instructing man without blurring the focus of worshiping God. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has observed and written that are major problems with the change in focus in the Novus Ordo Mass. He has even gone so far as to state that the praying of the Anaphora in silence might be best. We should not be imitating the problems they are now working to fix.

As Pope Benedict XVI, Cardinal Ratzinger is most certainly the final authority with respect to the Byzantine liturgy or Orthodox theology for those of us in Catholic communion. I hope he acts upon the letters he has received. We also know that no Orthodox Church is making such drastic changes to the Liturgy, and in the few places where there has been experimentation there have been riots. One cannot legitimately claim that the RDL brings us closer to either established Orthodox Liturgy or established Orthodox theology than does the official Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension.

Dear John,

The commission has done something even more strange than just this straightforward substitution.

If you read Father David's catechesis, you'll see that he freights the eastern understanding of "holy oblation" with the very specific, and in this case narrow, imagery and reality of the Cross, and proceeds to disarm the notion that we are just there to follow in the bloody footprints of Christ.

Even the Latin Church has never formally defined "sacrifice" so narrowly. Local habits and practices and catechesis have leaned the emphasis in that direction but that is not the issue here.

The issue is that Father David argues against a Latin habit to try to demonstrate that the east has no real theology of oblation, aside from the narrow definition of sacrifice.

That is clearly not true.

Any notion of the eastern understanding of oblation is strangely missing in Father David's catechesis.

That is the way out. Raise the devotional habits of the Latin rite as the norm, and then knock that down and raise up a prayer prayed prayerfully.

What stops that dead in its tracks is a real and full understanding of the eastern Eucharistic theology of "oblation"...That is why the issue has become so confused.

The real catechesis that is eastern has been ignored and spoken of as though it never existed, and when our clergy try to discuss it in the ancient eastern terms of life, death, resurrection, ascension and returning in glory, they are summarily shut down.

Mary