www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Why wasn't The Our Father changed

So, I pose the question again as an individual topic from the, "I guess they are right again" subject.

Here is a perplexing question for the RDL scholars:

With all of the other ridiculous changes, why weren't the words to the Our Father then changed to reflect the changes in the other portions of the RDL?

Shouldn't it be this way as the English Language Liturgical Consultation has it? I mean everything else has been changed, why not this? If we are going for translational accuracy, this should be it, correct? Is it because this version has been the traditional edition that doesn't get changed. Is there a double-standard here with what does or does not get translated?

Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come, your will be done,
on earth as in Heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil.

I say they should revisit the RDL to include this change as well! Might as well go for the trifecta, right?

As I see it, either change the entire manuscript to have content and style consistentcy, or don't change any of it at all! So now we have changes to reflect the re-translation, but not in other places, sounds like a double-standard to me.

Same theory applies to the changed prostopinije as well, that would certainly make the trifecta complete.

Are you making a serious proposal?

If he's not, I am :-)

I agree -- why keep the older language when we are changing everything else?

Why not? Does it sound strange, does it sound not quite right and displaced? ...well, that is my point here, and has been through my various posts on my displeasure with the RDL.

The other changes that were made are serious, aren't they?

In my view, and the view of the many others that do not care for the RDL, isn't it pretty serious? Faithful are leaving because of it, right? That seems serious.

In all reality, no it won't be considered as a serious proposal. I expect that most of those that are for the changes, as well as those who orchestrated the changes will just laugh at it. I think it is a really valid question though.

Look at it as we who grew up with the Slavonic Liturgy and traditional Rusyn Prostopinije look at it. I am a serious proponent of Rusyn culture, I have seen first hand through my research how changes have and still are destroying Rusyn culture in the homeland.

The Liturgy was one way of preserving that Rusyn culture (as well as the original way), but not any more. Something that we love, cherish, desire and still want has been ripped away from us for the sake of change.

So, to answer your question, yes, I am making a serious proposal.

... and why not change "brethren" to "brethren and sisters" before the reader intones the epistle?

No - he/she can intone "Peee-ple..."

"Our Parent, who resides somewhere else, special is your name...."

No! No! No!

It's "all of us"! Get with the Reformation you all!

Please, I don't think we need to give the RDL folks any more rope to hang themselves with! I can barely stomach the new wording, and have one foot already out the door....another would just send me over the edge.

JohnS.:

"Brethren" is an older English word that is inclusive for all relatives, whether male or female. We have no equivalent in modern English and that's why it need to be "brothers and sisters."

In Christ,

BOB

Rusyn31:

Thre was an extensive discussion of the translation of the Our Father done on this forum some years ago and the comparisons were made to the text in Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Armenian, Syriac, etc. You can find it if you search back over the past five years.

We've got this version that has been in use in the English-speaking world for a long time. It predates the Reformation and so the problem with changing it today is that by doing so we isolate ourselves from the broad bulk of the English-speaking world and people. In ecumenical settings--which we seem to have many of these days--it would definitely paint us as something odd and cause some confusion. And it's not the intention of the Church to be seen as odd, but rather open and available to evangelize. Thus, the Our Father as we have it is a bridge to those who are not part of our own particular Church. And, even if the translation could be improved, it is what it is. I should add that the Lutheran Church has a modern version as an optin in their Service Book, but it is probalby more ignored than used.

In St. Matthew's Gospel, the Latin Vulgate has the addition of a word that indicates the Eucharist in the "Give us this day our (supersubstantial) daily bread . . .," for example. But we have used the version found in St. Luke's Gospel that does not add this word both liturgically and in training people in the practice of the Faith. Then there is the discussion of the "Et ne . . ." construction. In a very old Latin grammar that I have there is a mention of this obscure grammatical construction that would suggest that this sentence was mistranslated centuries ago and should be rendered:

"And in order that You not (allow) us to be put to the final test, deliver us from the Evil (One)." A bit more wordy, but closer to the original Latin than the literal rendering we have had for centuries in English.

In Christ,

BOB

I guess following the Vatican directives to teach people the theology behind 'brethren' is out? Given the hatred expressed towards the Vatican teaching on language by some on this forum I guess we should not be surprised.

Because it's too wordy for "out the door in an hour" liturgy.

The appropriate inclusive expression is :

"Y'ALL"



PS: I occasionally use the term "brethren and cisterns", but not in Church!

I think in the case of many (western Pa.) Ruthenian churches, that would be

"Y'uns"

1 Th 5:21:

Before you get angry about the word "brethren," please understand that it has not been in common usage in English for the better part of the 20th century or longer. It is considered archaic and before the feminist movement insisted on using two words, we used the single "brothers" as the modern substitute for "brethren."

BOB