www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy One year Anniversary of RDL is approaching...

While it has been mentioned that the Liturgy for the Ruthenians existed before the Ruthenian Recension, that is what is now normative. Anything which does not conform to the Ruthenian Recension, is an aberration. However, unity with Rome is a characteristic mark of our little Church. If we do not take that seriously with respect to our Liturgy, there is really no reason for us to exist as an autonomous Church other than perhaps to maintain some cultural attachment to our ancestral heritage.

As to the translation itself, one must ask the question, "What experts examined the 'development" of the English language?" It is indeed the secular trend to refuse to use words like men and mankind. The issues is whether this is a true organic development of the language. An expert in this area, Fr. Mankowski, argues quite forcefully that it is not. While we can make a distinction between horizontal and vertical language, is such a distinction valid? Is it valid for the East, which tends not to see a clear distinction between the natural and supernatural order, in the same manner of the West?

The larger overall question is, "Should we allow the secular order to define the liturgical translation?" Even more broadly, "Should we allow the secular order to define us at all- in our actions, in our moral life or in the language which we use?"

St. Paul answers this question quite clearly. "Do not conform yourselves to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind."

The Administrator quotes Father David as follows:


Well, the Churches which were expected to receive and observe the Ruthenian Recension certainly did not come into existence in 1942, and nobody is claiming the contrary.

But the very expression "Ruthenian Recension" was unheard-of prior to the process - begun in the nineteen-thirties - which resulted in the publications so categorized by the Holy See. In terms of published service-books, the Ruthenian Recension really did not exist until the early nineteen-forties, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise. This is not a matter of "fundamental literalism", it is a matter of accuracy.

Father David certainly does not accuse me of ignoring authentic sources prior to 1942 - he knows full well that I was the prime mover in the publication of the 1639 Kyiv Leitourgiarion of St Peter (Mohyla), and he may be aware that I am heavily involved in producing a facsimile edition of a manuscript Archieraticon from L'viv, produced in 1632 and used by St Peter (Mohyla) as well as others.

But perhaps I should clarify a point. I fully agree with and believe the principle that the "Ruthenian" tradition does not live behind a sort of Great Wall of Ruthenia; it is simply one variant (among many) of the liturgical tradition which originates in Constantinople, and especially in the diaspora, there is no particular reason to attempt to prevent these variations from cross-fertilizing one another. Again, that is hardly a position of fundamentalist literalism.

Others as well as myself have the impression that at least some of the supporters of the Pittsburgh revised version of the "Ruthenian Recension" is yet another attempt to invent a "Byzantine-Ruthenian" liturgical usage which will barricade any Church which uses it against possible influence from other Greek-Catholics, let alone other Orthodox. But who, then, is the fundamentalist literalist?

Fr. Serge

Is this Pauline rule the one followed in the liturgical translation this entire forum is about?

The Greek makes a distinction between *sons* and *children*. Children of God is given in the Bible but NOT in the Beatitudes. Peacemakers are *sons* of God. Peacemakers inherit sonship, a status that is special. This theology is lost when translators substitute *children* in its place just to be egalitarian. It is not about being equal amongst men; it is about being adopted as *sons* of God - partakers of the divine nature. The doctrine of Theosis doesn't stand a chance when sonship is debunked in favor of feminist ideas of egalitarianism and 60-ish notions of let's get along - just so *let's get along* means following liberal social agendas. I question what is meant by *unity* with Rome when those in unity with Rome don't even listen to their own Pope! It is lip service Catholicism with a touch of embarassment Orthodoxy. Even the word *Orthodox* wasn't re-instated in the Byzantine Catholic race to restoration. This is not a restoration, but a reformation. When the ideas of reform justify adulterating Scripture, one's church gets into trouble. From my talks with my lovely aunt, it seems that there are lobbyists who have infiltrated the thinking and decision-making circles with an agenda to be executed. What better time to DO IT then now. Every church community is seeing the Sixties generation having their last few years of leadership. The lobbyists and their agendas have so little time left before true reform occurs and there is a call to orthodoxy. It's scramble time now to get a big foothold in your church's door where it will become more difficult to get rid of. What voices are out there that can rally the spiritual troops to true reform and orthodoxy? Our Lord's voice is all that is left in the Wilderness. This unfortunate circumstance is not something that is monopolized only by Byzantine Catholics. Feminist and ef-feminist Christianity has made men into a-religionists. GOLF (Gentlemen Only, Ladies Forbidden) becomes their new church. Fishing bring better peace and harmony with God's nature. How many more sermons of fluff and ilk?

OK. I got way off tangent. But my reason is because I see this happening in other Christian communities too. One of my Lutheran friends is experiencing something similar. So now I get phone calls from him. Why me, Lord?

Ed

I believe the armed forces are specially mentioned three times during our liturgy. Once in the litany of peace, once in the great entrance and once during the silent prayers said by the priest. I can't imagine why they would be removed, nor do I understand the issue with silent prayers. I will be the first to admit there is much I don't understand though.

[/quote]

I always said that "Adeste Fideles" was really a Ruthenian tune co-opted by the English!

Honestly though, I did not look at the propers on the MCI website as I was not attending my Greek Catholic church on that day. If it was so necessary to have a para-liturgical hymn to sing, couldn't it have been a Ruthenian carol re-written with Theophany oriented words???

I second, "Give me a break!"

John K

I always said that "Adeste Fideles" was really a Ruthenian tune co-opted by the English!

Honestly though, I did not look at the propers on the MCI website as I was not attending my Greek Catholic church on that day. If it was so necessary to have a para-liturgical hymn to sing, couldn't it have been a Ruthenian carol re-written with Theophany oriented words???

I second, "Give me a break!"

John K [/quote]

...unless you're Starij Kalendarist'and you are still singing:

Prijdite vsi virnii, veselo praznujme,
Prijdite, prijdite v Viflejem.
Uvidim Carja, Anhelov Rozdenno,
Prijdite poklonimsja(3) Hospodevi.
(parish carol hand-out c.1940)

Christos Razhdajet'sja!

Ung

Ung--

We sing "O Come all Ye Faithful" and "Silent Night" in my parish on Christmas Eve in both English and Slavonic, during caroling before the Liturgy. But that's the only time that I can think of that we sing or have sung any Western hymns, songs, or carols.

I still would like to know what gives. Was this approved by the hierarchs?

John K

Inclusiveness by using less precise terminology seems to be part of the translation guide for the Revised Divine Liturgy. We have the very inclusive and exacting �man� and �mankind� replaced with the ambiguous and potentially exclusive �us� and �all of us�. And here we have a more exacting parallel to the Slavonic and Greek texts replaced with a more ambiguous and potentially exclusive phrase from the RDL above. If the military are included then say so. Father Deacon John notes correctly that the police, firemen, FBI and others were already included in the term "civil authorities". There was no need to change the petition as it was already inclusive. [The parallel here would have been if "for those who travel by sea and land" were changed to "for those who travel" (omitting the specific methods of travel rather then adding "air").]

Rewording the petition to make a point and considering the context of the Vatican II document we can see how appropriate it is to pray for our armed forces by name:

For our armed forces, the agents of our security and freedom, that they may serve our country with honor, and that they may make a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy!

An astute observation. I have given copies of the new RDL to some local Orthodox clergy with whom I'm friendly. The reaction was not particularly good. One priest made a comment to the effect of: "why are we so concerned with gender"? It's as if those 1996 liturgical prescriptions promulgated by the Congregation for Eastern Churches are something which can be ignored (i.e., the part which says that Catholic Eastern Churches should do nothing liturgically which will alienate their sister Eastern Churches which are not in full communion with the Church of Rome). Just my "two cents".

Dn. Robert

Amen! I'll go one step further:

To alienate from Sister Churches that are IN communion with Rome!

God bless,

Gordo

That is true! The Melkites I know think this is awful! It is making all the Greek Catholics look stupid!

Just to throw in my 2 cents... For He is gracious and loves US ALL.... This sounds like something from a bad new mass. Ugh!

I'm from the South... we say "And loves us, Y'all!"

Gordo

Maybe they could put that in the new book to be sensitive to the southern folks! Why should they only be sensitive to feminists...I mean women!

Yes - pretty soon every social identity group will be making demands...

I do not understand this comment. Are you saying that the Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholics should seek the evaluation from someone who is outside your Church such as "other Eastern Catholics", "Roman Catholics", or "protestants"?!?