|
0 members (),
722
guests, and
81
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,506
Posts417,454
Members6,150
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
it�s done, stop fighting it. I�ve been studying Eastern Christianity for awhile and your churches have always �fought it� whatever �it� is. Mark of Ephesus �fought it� though �it� was considered a done deal. I don�t understand why some priests and churches refuse to use the new books. Who do they think they are? Members of your church who are intelligent human beings, not obedient peasants, who have to use it and who have rejected it on solid grounds. Do you accept changing Scripture? Our new green books are for the most part very good. It gives us choices so that the Liturgy doesn�t get stale and mundane. My aunt tells me that there are many melodies not in the books, hence the reason for chucking it. Every hymn book is reflection of a few experts and their favorites Just a few minutes, just a quick song or two, and reassurance that there is not that much different, do not fear the changes. We picked out the version, whether A, B, C, etc. that sounded most like the melodies we had always sung and went with them. We made bookmarks and put one in each book, to remind people which version will be sung on a usual basis. Our bulletin points out the pages to go to or put a ribbon on, and on days when there are too many page turns, we print out the handout sheet prepared by MCI. It works for us. When there are new people or visitors in church, someone nearby always helps them, keeping them on the right page. This is different than� Most of our ancestors were illiterate, and could not read music, but loved their faith. They learned the music by hearing it. Might have your illiterate ancestors been more attuned to actually worshipping God than trying to be expert missal thumpers? Our Christian community almost fell into missal thumping worship. Handouts to print can become expensive if you hhave already paid handsomely for new hymn book with the music already in them. That you have to do this demonstrates failure. At our church, many of us had our own way to sing certain things, having brought them from our old parishes. Now, with the new books and a positive attitude, we have united, sing the same melody and words, and truly enjoy the liturgy. If any participating priest or cantor visits from another church, he will feel right at home. And I think that was one of the goals of the powers that be�.to unify the singing and prayers, so that no matter where you go, it will always be the same. English or Old Slavonic language? Mukachevo or Presov melody dialect? Hard melodies or easy ones? Publisher�s favorites or worshippers� unpublished hymns? It seems that your church is now beginning to realize that *unity* is not easy as first mandated. *Feel right at home*? Whose home? My aunt has been at *home* for many decades. Now, she feels like a foreigner in her own community. Yes. I have made a few plugs for my church ccommunity, but she hasn't responded positively. In the end, God is not going to care what melody you sang, what verses you used, or even if you sang on key. He�s going to look at the fact that you were in church and how you lived your life. Could this attitude also been applied to the Gnostics and Arians who, I am sure, had many nice people? Your church �fought it� tooth-and-nail. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
I would hope that more attention is paid to the theology of the Liturgy. Dear Father David, Please provide a theological commnentary on the *children of God* which is in your Beatitudes. I am familiar with the deep and rich theological tradition of "sons of God* but not the *children of God* your church published. I have studied the ancient manuscripts and none of the texts have *children*. Why the change? You imply that the writers on these forums are mere rubricists who can't go any deeper. This is a real disdain for those who take seriously the meaning of liturgy (WORK of the people). How can you hold such contempt for the worshippers? Worship seems to imply WORK, not just nose bleed section theology. Your music ministers have to WORK to make liturgy happen. It isn't alwasy about the priest. I thought that Byzantines believed in using all their senses during worship, not just participate in cerebrial worship. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299 |
Me too. The lost little ones are always in your heart and soul.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
Dear Ed,
Thanks for your post, of which I agree heartily. I think what I miss most of our beloved Ruthenian Recension is the rhythm of prayer we were able to slip into. After six months, I am not able to find that rhythm with this Revised, made-up,chopped-up Liturgy. There are so many flat parts to the Liturgy,whether it be wording or music that no amount of practice will fix. It's just a bad translation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
Byzantine Christians are not missal thumpers, nor should they be. Missals and pews are so foreign to their worship. Throw out those Protestant innovations and hire (and pay) good singers. If the illiterates of yore knew their worship well, what is holding youns back in todays' age of high tech?
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
Ed-
the 1964 English translation reads:
"For our civil authorities and all our armed forces, let us pray to the Lord."
2007 translation:
"For our government and for all in the service of our country, let us pray to the Lord." (thank you Fr Serge for pointing out my sloppy typo.)
English translation of Greek or C-S:
"For the Emperor/King and all our armed forces, let us pray to the Lord."
I do not perceive the redundancy... "Government" includes all branches of government-executive, legislative, and judicial- not just Emperor/King (although at one time the Emperor/king did embody the sole governing power.) "Civil authorities" denotes the non-military power of the State that enforces law and order (eg, police, state troopers, FBI). The term "for all in the service of our country," is more (dare I use the word) inclusive. In addition to the military, we should include in our prayer the state troopers, police officers, firefighters, DEA etc. Do we add petitions or adapt those in existence to reflect our particular situation? I don't see this as any disdain for the military. Adaptation has a precedence. We pray "for those who travel by sea, air, and land,.." I doubt air travel was contemplated by the Church before the 20th Century.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
Dear Deacon John,
It is obvious that a special and more specific intention for the *armed forces* was not desired. Why not government, those who serve the country, AND the armed forces? The anti-military position is even taken by your church leaders.
So far, no one, including Father David Petras, has taken liberty to defend the choice for *children* of God in the Beatitudes, purposely changing the content of Scriptures for ideology, not theology. He has yet to reply with a theological explanation of why the change in Scripture. Do you think the debunking of *sons* of God is from the same vein as ridding of the *armed forces*? I believe it is the last gasp of the Sixties trying to *change* the world.
Still, your perception doesn't explain why your church got rid of the special intention for the *armed forces*. I presented my theory above.
Ed Hashinsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
Dear Deacon John or Father David,
Since we are now dealing with the theology of the Liturgy, what is the theology behind taking out the word mankind and replacing it with inclusive language. Please, let's just stick to theology. I truly want to understand why these words were theologically incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1 |
Dear Deacon John or Father David,
Since we are now dealing with the theology of the Liturgy, what is the theology behind taking out the word mankind and replacing it with inclusive language. Please, let's just stick to theology. I truly want to understand why these words were theologically incorrect. Maybe one of the Uniontown sisters can chime in here?  The Otpust is riddled with inclusive language. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 299 |
The sisters of Holy Theophany monastery would never want that inclusive language. Is it any surprise that no one wants to join the order?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 402 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 402 Likes: 1 |
"So far, no one, including Father David Petras, has taken liberty to defend the choice for *children* of God in the Beatitudes, purposely changing the content of Scriptures for ideology, not theology. He has yet to reply with a theological explanation of why the change in Scripture. Do you think the debunking of *sons* of God is from the same vein as ridding of the *armed forces*? I believe it is the last gasp of the Sixties trying to *change* the world."
Mr. Ed Hash:
If you will check out the "Foreward" to "The Divine Liturgies of Our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great," you will see that it states that "in general, translations of bibical quotes and allusions have been guided by The New American Bible (1970-1991)..."
So, if you look at the version of The New American Bible (revised in 1986) of the Beatitudes (St. Matthew 5:1-12), you will find an identical text to that given in "The Divine Liturgies" book published by the Byzantine Catholic Church. The N.A.B. is the official translation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
The sisters of Holy Theophany monastery would never want that inclusive language. Is it any surprise that no one wants to join the order? Is this the same group of sisters who re-affiliated themselves with another church? Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
Mr. Ed Hash:
If you will check out the "Foreward" to "The Divine Liturgies of Our Holy Fathers John Chrysostom and Basil the Great," you will see that it states that "in general, translations of bibical quotes and allusions have been guided by The New American Bible (1970-1991)..."
So, if you look at the version of The New American Bible (revised in 1986) of the Beatitudes (St. Matthew 5:1-12), you will find an identical text to that given in "The Divine Liturgies" book published by the Byzantine Catholic Church. The N.A.B. is the official translation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA I have a copy of the New American Bible and my text has: "Blest too the peacemakers; they shall be called sons of God." My copy is from 1983. They must have altered it in 1986. What ancient manuscript has *children* of God? Please point it out. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
The Catholic bishops might have adopted inclusive language in 1986, but the ancient manuscripts do NOT have *children*, namely...
Codex Vaticanus (4th C)
Codex Sinaiticus (4th C)
Codex Ephraem Rescriptus (5th C)
Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (5th/6th C)
I believe these are good sources. These are not translations; these are what contemporary translations are based on.
The 1986 text you speak about was the second version of the NAB which adopted inclusive language for the New Testament. So this goes with what was adopted by your church for worship too.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
The N.A.B. is the official translation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Which one? 1970? 1986? 1991? 2000? The late Pope John Paul II rejected the 1991 version in 1994 because of inclusive language. What part of his rejection did you not understand? Do you accept what the Pope rejected? Why is the *sons of God* theology so hard to digest in the Byzantine Catholic Church? Is feminism so predominant that one can no longer appreciate ancient understandings of son-ship? I would like to know from you the *theology* of sonship rightfully understood from Matthew's Beatitudes in 5:9, not what bishops intended with a translation of their biblical text or one's worship. I want to know the theology as the author might have meant it. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
