www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I guess they are right again

1Th5:21

You ignored this post the first time around do you care to respond to it now. How do you square your complaints against the RDL with the fact that Rome keeps approving the use of some forms of horizontal inclusive language which you keep claiming it forbids?

Rome approved a Corrected Revised NAB Lectionary for the the American Latin Church which did not remove all the horizontal inclusive language. It approved a corrected NRSV lectionary for the Canadian Latin Church that did not remove all the horizontal inclusive language. It allows brethren to be substituted by brothers and sisters in English Missals and Lectionaries when addressing a mixed group.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Rome's approval of the "Corrected Revised NAB Lectionary" is one of concession. Are you aware that they have forbidden the USCCCB from publishing a Bible with this text? That should speak volumes.

My question to Father John Mack still stands. Does he support the theology of Rome with regard to liturgical translations? What he has written here so far indicates he rejects Catholic theology.

I completely support the work of my Bishops who have promulgated a Liturgical text with the full approval of Rome. I cannot thus be accused of not supporting Rome when I defend a Liturgical text that is approved by her. Deacon Lance has mentioned other examples of texts approved by her. You claim that these are "exceptions."

Yet, if the issue was as clear as you want it to be, and if the horizontal inclusive language was so thoroughly rejected by Rome as you claim that it is, Rome would not approve these texts.

Quite obviously, then there is "interpretation" going on -- and as we all know from our discussions about the Bible and tradition, good people can disagree on the exact meanings of phrases.

I would argue that one has to take Rome's position on these issues within a much larger context that includes many variables, etc. I accept everything that Rome has accepted and defined.

Once again, in defending the liturgical text approved by Rome, how could I be contradicting the teaching of Rome?

"Are you aware that they have forbidden the USCCCB from publishing a Bible with this text?"

Where did you get this information? It is the USCCCB that refuses to print a Corrected RNAB Bible precisley because it has the Roman corrections not all of them wanted.

The real point is Rome does indeed approve of limited use of horizontal inclusive language as proven by their various approvals of texts that include it despite the constant protestations here otherwise.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Stark & Finke and Greeley are great sources. Also see D'Antonio, Davidson, Hoge, & Gautier's American Catholics Today.
D'Antonio and Hoge are sociologists who have done extensive research on Catholic attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

I think it is appropriate to note that there are differences between what is allowed and what is desired. We can see a dramatic shift in Rome's attitude with the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam. Prior to it there was a lot of leeway for so-called "inclusive language". After that they severely restricted it in favor of accuracy. The approval the bishops rely on is dated 2001, just months before LA was approved. But there is something fishy about the whole thing since I sincerely doubt that anyone in Rome approved the addition of words to Scripture (as in the Communion Hymn from Psalm 111[112]:6 where the word "woman" is added to the words of Scripture while being listed as a quote from Scripture). Plus, in the six years following there was plenty of time to fix the texts to be more accurate and in conformance with LA. And not to mention the changes since the last draft which are said to not need re-approval since they are in the "spirit" of the original approval. I am more and more convinced that it was presented to Rome as a minor update to translation (rather then the radical revision it really is) and that non-English speaking staffers simply handed it off to Father Taft (who supports the idea of revision, has openly spoken against Liturgiam Authenticam, and is very much a maverick), and that when it gets a real review it will be either rejected outright or there will be major revisions ordered.

I thank Father Deacon for the information on the CRNAB. I knew it was not being published but wasn't sure why. It is interesting to find (and very telling) that the bishops won't publish it because they disagree with Rome. They were pretty open at their refusal to allow other translations because of the royalty issue (they own the copyright for the various versions of the NAB and when you can force people to use it you can make millions). But to find that they are really deferring more income because they disagree with Rome is very interesting.

I read somewhere that there is a growing movement to seek approval for the use of the RSV-CE and RSV-CE2 Lectionaries as alternatives to the CRNAB (for the Latin Rite). I pray that Rome overrides the USCCB and grants blanket permission. Some will remember that I am a fan of the English Standard Version (ESV). It's been brought to my attention that it uses some gender-neutral language so I have gone back to the RSV-CE for my personal study and am now looking over the RSV-CE2. It is published by Ignatius Press and simply removes archaic Elizabethan language while preserving accuracy (I call it "un-thou-hast-est"). But at this point I would prefer the Elizabethan English of the common OCA translation to the horror of the RDL gender-neutral language.

Regarding the liturgical revision, I have every confidence that Rome will respond favorably to the appeals, and that the Ruthenian bishops in America will be directed to allow any priest to celebrate the full, offiial Ruthenian recension.

"We can see a dramatic shift in Rome's attitude with the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam. Prior to it there was a lot of leeway for so-called 'inclusive language'. After that they severely restricted it in favor of accuracy."

But the Canadian Corrected NRSV Lectionary was approved only months ago long after LA and Pope Benedict's cleaning house.

I don't have a lot of details on the Canadian Corrected NRSV. I've read a few reviews on the NRSV itself written by Evangelical Protestant Biblical scholars who reject it because of the use of gender-neutral language but also state that if it did not embrace that secular feminist language it would be a very worthy translation. I think Father Richard John Neuhaus also states something similar.

My understanding (from print articles I have read) is that the "corrections" in the Canadian Corrected NRSV removed most of the gender neutral language to bring it into closer conformance with Liturgiam Authenticam. Given that it was an 18 year battle with Rome trying to get Canada to comply I would expect that it is not perfect, and that recognition does not necessarily equate enthusiastic recommendation. One of the odd things to come from this is that I have also read that the National Council of Churches (USA) owns the copyright for the NRSV and is not giving permission for the Canadian bishops to publish the CC-NRSV as a full Bible because it no longer has 'inclusive language'.

I hope others have a fuller story and can provide the links (with corrections, if necessary).

As a side note, I have read that the RSV-CE2 (the Ignatius Press edition update to the RSV Catholic edition) required no changes before receiving Vatican approval as a Lectionary for the Roman Mass. As I noted earlier, I am just now beginning to use it alongside my RSV and ESV but it seems to have all the prayerful and poetic elegance of these editions.

At my Melkite parish both the Gospel and Lectionary are RSV. There is an elegance in that translation that simply is not found in the NAB used in the Ruthenian Epistle and Gospel books, or in the AR-NAB used in the Latin Church.

Thanks for the welcome...
A lot of what I am hearing in the new Liturgy is reminiscent of what I heard growing up -- for example, "Holy, holy, holy" (B or C, I do not have my book with me at present) or the "Blessed be the name..." variables.
I also find the music a challenge -- I am not able to sight read music, so I have to work to listen,(to the cd) or bang it out on the piano, then try to sing it on Sunday. So far, we are doing "OK" here in Florida.
As far as the language -- having minored in English, taught it for about five years, added to my 8 years of Latin, and One semester of Greek, I think the Liturgy has a lot to say to all of us.
As I stated, the Liturgy is the work of the people. It is living and growing, and it has developed and will continue to evolve and fit the people who participate in it.

John,

The RSV-CE2 is already available in Ordinary Roman Rite Lectionary format and was approved by the Antilles Bishop's Conference, which in turn means Rome has approved it. So really all the bishops have to do is use the text for a Gospel and Epistle book if they want.

The Melkites no longer use Archbishop Raya's Gospel and Epistle Book?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Was the "new" Liturgy done with an agenda? Probably -- 40 years worth of "agenda" from faithful asking for a unified Liturgy.
In secrecy? We knew it was in the works (here in Florida) for at least five years. I do not have the theological or musical background necessary to follow every step of the work, but I can appreciate tha fact that it was done.
Now, let's all work with it and make it our own -- add the folk harmonies from the "good olde days" and fine tune what we have to work with!

Actually, I have witnessed parishes using the RDL texts, but not neccessarily the written music.

U-C

As I understand there is a wide variety in use. The Melkite mission that borrows our UGCC parish in Lincoln, Nebraska for their monthly Divine Liturgy uses either the Fan Noli Epistle lectionary or the RSV Apostolos from Holy Cross, as we have both books available for English readings. They also use our altar Gospel which is RSV and are pleased with that translation.

I believe the Apostolos may be replacing Raya in some places - don't know if that is a preference or the old books are falling apart.

Father Deacon,

Yes, I am aware of the Antilles Conference approval of the RSV-CE2 Lectionary. A friend of mine who is an RC pastor has a copy of it and loves it. My understanding is that the USCCB has refused to allow it as an alternative to the AR-NAB for the USA because of the loss of royalties.

I don't know the story on why my local Melkite parish uses RSV-based Epistle and Gospel books. I can only add that the translation of the Divine Liturgy used by the pastor appears to be the OCA one, while the two assisting priests each use the Raya translation.

John

If that was the true agenda, the Ruthenian recension would have been adopted. No my friend, the agenda for the RDL was motivated by other factors--and I think you are aware of those factors.
Again, I think you know what I mean by secrecy. No lay participation in the revisions. No clergy participation. No work shops or conferences, etc. The revision was made...and forced down the throat.

I still grieve for my Ruthenian brethren who continue to suffer.