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

It all depends on the speed of the priest and the singing. Several parishes I know that celebrated the full Red Book [Ruthenian] Divine Liturgy on Sundays did so in about 65 minutes (omitting nothing), plus whatever length the homily was. No one was rushed, the singing was joyfully paced, and the Communion was done correctly (and on average 130 people took Communion each week).

The implementation of the RDL was a huge stress and a heartbreak for me. After the first Liturgy in which the RDL was used, I walked out and never looked back. I could have handled the new muzak, but it was the high-handed chopping and hacking of the text (especially the Litanies) which drove me mad.

The following Sunday, I checked in with the neighborhood OCA church, and found a home. After a forty day period of spiritual preparation, the Priest chrismated me. Nine of my former parish brothers and sisters have also come along. What most of us like best liturgically is that the full Liturgy is served all the time (e.g. the Third Litany, the Beatitudes, is never "suppressed.")

Another thing we all like, and frequently talk about, is that the great bugaboo of Papalism and control by the Vatican establishment is not hanging over us as a black cloud. And we get about as much Church Slavonic in the OCA as we did in the Ruthenian Church (a little bit every Sunday.)

In my initial hurt and frustration, I wrote the Metropolitan and the Passaic Eparch, and several others who were in on the formulation of the RDL, suggesting they resign their offices in disgrace. Perhaps I should now write and thank them for pushing me out the door.

The ones for whom I feel deeply are the faithful Priests who have labored two and three and even four decades, having offered the sacrifice of celibacy and economic hardship for the service of the Ruthenian Church. Now they must approach the end of their careers watching the Church they have served take an accelerated nosedive to oblivion. (You can't argue with the numbers...)

Ten years ago, my prescient old Priest told me that the "Byzantine Church" in America would be gone in 20 to 30 years. The immediate problem, as he had it figured, was the total lack of vocations due to the celibacy requirement and the demoralizing leadership situation in our Eparchy. It seemed pretty obvious to him that the coming spin-down and unwinding would result in the Papacy "regularizing" the Byzantine Church. In God's mercy, this dear old Priest was taken to Abraham's Bosom eight months before the RDL hit.

I will forever be thankful to have had a part in the Byzantine Ruthenian Church. It was magnificent while it lasted. May God now bless her in her present travail.

-- kyrill

John,

Your plan is very thoughtful and well proposed and is a good starting point.

Maybe the root of problem is that Ecclesiastical Offices and Commissions are very poor at "project management." Even the corporate world often fails in these undertakings. For those who do not know what project management is, it is the formulation, execution, and continuous monitoring of a project, be it a Liturgical change complete with publications and training, the building of a nuclear power plant, or a corporate change in software.

Regarding the execution of the RDL, the Metropolia actually broke new ground. The MCI website, the "It is Time for the Lord to Act" DVD and the Schola Cantorum DVD with the new music was very well done; the work at the parish level perhaps was lacking (especially coordination with the cantors.) The weakest point in the opinion of the RDL forum posters was the content of probably 65-75% of the changes.
Before your proposal could be successful the Metropolia will need to get much better at its project management, otherwise we will find that each parish will be at a different stage, and some will not even participate.

One of the other just criticisms was that there was not a partnership with the Ukrainians and the the ACROD. So now you have to increase your project management skills across three Churches.

'Tis certainly a colossal undertaking. I certainly would not want to be a Bishop. But then... with God all things are possible.

Your brother,
Fr. Deacon Paul

I stand corrected (that is why I used the term "possibly the only"...) that an "Alive in Christ" camp was conducted this year at the Mariapoch shrine by the Eparchy of Parma; prayers for its continued success. I didn't see anything mentioned on the Eparchial site of Van Nuys, but another is mentioned on the Archeparchial site. Prayers for its success as well.

I will stand by my suggestion to contact the founders of the Gallup outreach and the quite succesful camp they started (and later closed).

The last time I served the entire (including all of the little litanies, the litany of the catechumens, little litanies at the prayers of the faithful, etc.) according to the 1964 Liturgikon in a BCC parish it took about 80 minutes including the homily. I would hope we would be able to give the Lord an hour and a half on Sunday. If you added Psalm 33 and the Prayers after Communion it was right at about an hour and a half.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting immediately mandating a full celebration across the board of the 1964 (we've seen the effect of mandates); rather the ability to have access to a fuller liturgical celebration according to the Ruthenian Rescension than what is indeed mandated in the RDL would be a great start for many (along with resolution of music and language issues).

If I was in the BCC I would be all over your plan, John. Excellent work.
FDRLB

My experience is almost identical to yours--except I gave the RDL six months. It was a painful time in my life, but the Lord turned it into a great blessing!

S'nami Boh

I keep asking about the status of the Ruthenian Recension because there is no sense in pointing to it in the form of its Slavonic texts (Rome, 1942 etc.) or English translation (for the most part, the 1965 liturgicon, the "red book") if it is no longer relevant or does not have the status as the text of the liturgy proper to the Ruthenian churches. So, I ask of RDL supporters or those who understand its motivation and objectives: Is there acknowledged to be such a thing as "the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy" that needs to be restored, and if so, what is it?

Along the same lines I ask of the RDL supporters/apologists: What was gained or accomplished by the RDL that was not present before in the form of the Recension texts and the (for the most part) complete and faithful translation in English in the form of the 1965 liturgicon?

Putting it yet another way: As I trace the history of our asking Rome to research and restore our liturgical patrimony, to Tisserant's letter presenting the Recension texts, to Bishop Ivancho's efforts, to the 1965 liturgicon, I see consistency and continuity regarding the integrity of the text and rubrics set forth as the "authentic" Recension. Try as I might, I'm having great difficulty in seeing the RDL as a faithful representative of that tradition.

A note to the Administrator:

In the Liturgical Restoration Plan, you mention that "only what is wrong is to be changed." Who is to decide "only what is wrong?"

I thank Father David for his post.

The question is not �who is to decide �only what is wrong�� but �what is to decide �only what is wrong��. The �what� is provided in objective standards, like those laid down in �Liturgiam Authenticam�:

The �what is to decide� are the principles of �rendering the original texts faithfully accurately into the vernacular language� translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.�

To this I have added only a call for pastoral sensitivity, meaning that a translation that has been long memorized that is perfectly good but could possibly be made more exact be left alone.

The objective standard that should be used by the Ruthenian Catholic Church is:

1. Completeness � Every word in the official Church Slavonic edition should be in the English edition. This is inclusive of liturgical texts and rubrics, forwards and indexes. Nothing should be added that is not a translation of the original Church Slavonic texts, except the approval and printing information.

2. Accuracy � Translations should �[render] the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language� translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.�

3. Pastoral Sensitivity � If the existing translation is memorized and is an acceptable translation, don�t change it.

There are numerous specific examples to explain how these principles are applied that could be offered but I will offer here only three for the sake of brevity:

1. In the Preparation �Gregory� was corrected to �George�. This is an example of correcting something inaccurate.

2. In the opening the deacon says �Blahoslovi Vladyko�. This was translated in the 1964 as �Master, Give the blessing�. The RDL gives �Reverend Father, give the blessing�. "Vladyko" does not translate as �Reverend Father�. This is an example of where the 1964 was correct and the 2007 RDL incorrect.

3. The English text of the Lord�s Prayer was not changed even though it could be more exact. This respects what is long known and memorized.

Note the example we see in the Orthodox Churches. The OCA just released an update to its translation of the Liturgy. My copy was �borrowed� almost as soon as I received it (so I cannot compare old and new right now) but a note in the front made clear that the new edition is almost identical to the old and only corrects a small number of mistakes. The Greek Archdiocese is in the middle of preparing exactingly accurate translations of its liturgical texts, and we see a deliberate progression towards restoring the full Liturgy.

If we also look at the Roman Catholic Church we see that they rejected much of the translation work of the 1990s and first years of this century because it was not literal and exact enough. They are now preparing new translations that are more literally faithful to the Latin normative texts.

Here is the very short summary for those readers who skipped to the end: "Start with the title page and translate every bloody word. Don't omit anything. Translate accurately (as literally accurate as is possible balanced only with elegance and pastoral sensitivity for what is memorized). When you get to the end stop. Don't add anything."

I am frequently accused on this Forum of not answering questions.

The question here remains "who" interprets or determines "what." We agree on the "what." I too favor faithful translations. However:
1) Liturgical texts are living language, designed for a worshipping community today.
2) Your answer about "what" makes a presumption that the written text of the 1941 Recension precedes all other considerations. In the 16th - 17th - 18th - 19th and up to the 20th century even there was a cultural presumption that the West was superior to the East. This caused tremendous damage to the Church. Presumptions can cause such damage. I do not share your presumption, but there is no way to argue about presumptions - that's why they are called "presumptions."
I would say that the answer to "who" is the legitimate authority of the Church. I await your answer.
3) Even your example about the translation of "Evlogeson, despota," (the Greek text gives lower case) is not as clear as you would wish. You say it "correctly" says "Master," but this is just a dictionary definition. (Yhe dictionary also gives "lord" as a translation of "despotes," and also explains it as the "normal form of address to bishops.") The word "Master" has a different range of meaning than the Greek "despotes." "Master" in English can mean a minor boy. Why not translate it completely accurately, "Despot, give the blessing." Of course, we will laugh and laugh and say "obviously" "despot" in English has acquired a different meaning than "despotes" in Greek. Obivously. Words do that. If you make a "romantic" presumption, then you might say that "Master" refers to the Christ role of the bishop (priest). But Christ was also called "Lord, (Kurios)" and "Rabbi." I submit that the Greeks said "despota" because that was the ordinary polite term, and that the most equivalent, accurate and literal translation would be "Sir, bless." However, then we can argue about elegance "unto ages of ages." "Father" has become an ordinary polite address for priests today, but "Father" was not used in general for secular priests until quite late. Today, people who have trouble with the Catholic culture will call me "sir," in politeness, but Catholics (and Orthodox) today would use "Father."

Thank you, Father David. May God bless and protect you, give you happiness, and a continuing fruitful ministry.

-Pustinik
------------------
"Acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands around you will be saved." �St. Serafim of Sarov

etc.


Two points:

(1) An actual dictionary definition of master:

link [merriam-webster.com]

I submit that the English term "Master" fits well the intended purpose on the basis of dictionary English and that the (archaic) meaning is little used and is hardly a source of confusion or a convincing reason for not using "master" according to its primary meanings.

(2) If I am to believe all the arguments and reasoning against the translation of vladyko/despota as master (as in the above quote and its fuller context) when addressed to the priest, then why does the RDL translation -- its translators or promulgators -- have no problem at all in consistently translating the same designation vladyko/despota when it is used as an address for God, as "Master"?

One brings up an obscure meaning of master ("a minor boy") as a translation of vladyko/despota against using it as an address for the priest despite its primary meanings, yet does not have a problem with using it, master, as a translation of the same term, vladyko/despota, as an address for God, which isn't even in the realm of a common dictionary appellation. Yet somehow the latter is clear and acceptable and the former not???

I find it hard to accept this as a reasonable, scholarly basis for explaining the inconsistent translation of this term, vladyko/despota, as in the RDL. Surely there must be something better and more substantial as a basis for the RDL usages.

The use of "Master" in the prayer texts of the Liturgy as opposed to titles for priests deserves more time than I can give at the present. I would hold that there is a difference of context and of resonances in Scripture translation here.
I was using the equivalents of "despotes" as found in a Greek-English dictionary. Deacon Anthony's use of an English dictionary for the meaning of "Master," seems to me to support my idea that the "range of meaning" of the Englsih word "Master" is quite different than the Greek word "despotes," though they may intersect on some points. At any rate, we do not usually call our priests, "Master," but we call them "Father."
But call them anything you wish. I hold with my dear departed mother, who said, "Call me anything you want, but don't call me late for dinner."

The Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon has listed first: "master, lord" for despotes noting explicitly the vocative form despota. link [perseus.tufts.edu]

For despota itself, William J. Slater, Lexicon to Pindar link [perseus.tufts.edu] : "1. master, lord"

The RDL choice of honorifics-by-choice instead of translation-of-text is to me a clear instance of blatant eisegesis.

Things are different within the context of the liturgy itself. I can't recall an instance where I have ever consistently kissed a man's hand or walked around wearing a stole or preceded a request to be attentive with the word "Wisdom" or ...


Blithely said and would that it were possible -- that issue of obedience (the sole text of the 2007 liturgicon).

Apart from the sheer wordiness of the chosen honorifics and poor judgment regarding respect for the received texts, there is to me the more important aspect of a capricious altering of the intent of an important rhetorical aspect of the liturgy, which goes to its integrity. Consider, as I have posted previously link :

And the reply:


I can only comment again regarding the Chrysostom Liturgy: "What surprised me is that he [Fr. David] agrees with my analysis about reserving the use of the direct address of "Father." Why then should we use it in the translation so (seemingly) indiscriminately?"

Should we not want to be diligent here and respect the text and its structure, especially when the solution, the perfectly acceptable understanding of "master" in both the source and receptor languages, should be a no-brainer? I have to wonder why translators would need to create an issue where none need exist. Who really objects to translating despota/vladyko as "Master"?

I believe that this is a just criticism. Father David has been asked some very important questions. His failure to respond to these questions gives credence that the revisions he supports are not defensible and are, indeed, mostly nothing more than personal preference. He has been asked numerous times to delineate exactly what is so flawed about the official 1942 Ruthenian recension that it cannot be allowed to serve as the normative standard for the Ruthenian Church in America. He has yet to answer this (and other) questions.

One look at the RDL indicates that some of the text is not a translation (faithful or otherwise) of the official Church Slavonic text normative for the Ruthenian recension. We have already discussed that �Reverend Father� is not a translation for �Vladyko� but rather an entirely different text altogether. So we have right off a case that is not a �faithful translation� that Father David states he favors. There are other cases that could be listed. Using the RDL changed texts and rubrics (changed from the official 1942 edition) as evidence I suggest that Father David (and/or the Commission) disagrees with the �what� as well. He has openly rejected �Liturgiam Authenticam,� which calls for literal accuracy and completeness in translation. While he can rightly argue that the specifics of LA are those from the Latin Church�s Liturgy the principles given (accuracy and completeness in translation free from agendas) are surely universal.

Liturgical texts are not a �living language,� and they are not �designed for a worshipping community today.� Instead, as wisely stated in Liturgiam Authenticam, #19, �they express truths that transcend the limits of time and space. Indeed, by means of these words God speaks continually with the Spouse of his beloved Son, the Holy Spirit leads the Christian faithful into all truth and causes the word of Christ to dwell abundantly within them, and the Church perpetuates and transmits all that she herself is and all that she believes, even as she offers the prayers of all the faithful to God, through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit.� It is not right to simply change the texts to conform to the desires of each generation."

We see further in LA, Section #20: �In order that such a rich patrimony may be preserved and passed on through the centuries, it is to be kept in mind from the beginning that the translation of the liturgical texts � is not so much a work of creative innovation as it is of rendering the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language. While it is permissible to arrange the wording, the syntax and the style in such a way as to prepare a flowing vernacular text suitable to the rhythm of popular prayer, the original text, insofar as possible, must be translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses. Any adaptation to the characteristics or the nature of the various vernacular languages is to be sober and discreet.� It is very clear that the Church calls for a full and accurate translation of the official texts into (for us in America) standard vernacular English. Standard vernacular English does not include politically correct forms, as we find with the political agenda of gender neutral language. LA is specific on this point (see sections 30 & 31).

Yes, the 1941/1942 official Church Slavonic text is the normative text for the Ruthenian recension. There is no question here. Previous generations of Ruthenians requested that Rome prepare these official texts. Rome has been directing us to use them (as they are given) ever since, with each succeeding generation of bishops refusing to do so. One might argue that there are problems with part or all of the Ruthenian recension, but as it is normative for the entire Ruthenian recension anyone who wishes to change it needs to follow the directives given in the Liturgical Instruction to accomplish that change. I�ve referenced them more specifically in other posts, but section 21 is very specific that we are to work together with other Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox) to accomplish any desired change. A logical application of these directives would be that change to elements unique to the Ruthenian recension should be changed by all the members of the Ruthenian recension working together, paying close attention to what is happening in the larger Byzantine Church. Changes to elements common to all Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) should be changed by all Byzantines, working together. �In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.� (from section #21) The goal here is that someday when full communion is established between East and West we will already be liturgically and spiritually identical to not just our fellow Byzantine Catholics but also our Orthodox brothers.

If this includes all appeals including those to the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, then I can agree. In �Summorum Pontificum� Pope Benedict guaranteed the right of the Latin Catholic faithful to an extraordinary form of the Roman Mass. I have no doubt that he will also guarantee the right of the priests and lay faithful of the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America to the complete and official texts and rubrics normative to the Ruthenian recension as promulgated at Rome (1942 for the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, and the other official books as well).

Pope Benedict XVI was quite clear in the opening of �Summorum Pontificum�:
A very direct application of this principle is easy to make. The Ruthenian Catholic Church in America �must concur with the universal [Byzantine and Byzantine-Ruthenian] Church, not only as regards the doctrine of the faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards the usages universally accepted by uninterrupted apostolic tradition, which must be observed not only to avoid errors but also to transmit the integrity of the faith, because the Church's law of prayer corresponds to her law of faith.'�

Translate the term �Vladyko� literally and precisely from the Slavonic, not the Greek. As you have pointed out, the English term �despot� does not carry the same meaning as �despotes� in Greek. Technically, if it were a literally accurate translation of "Vladyko" there would be nothing wrong with using it, but it would require much education. The translation given in the 1964 is �Master� is a correct and acceptable translation. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this term. The term is employed in the majority of translations of Byzantine Liturgicons (Catholic and Orthodox) translated into English. There was no need to change it. �Reverend Father� is unacceptable because it is not a translation but rather a revision. Using it violates the objective standard of literal translation.

Liturgiam Authenticam addresses this quite well:
Translations should �[render] the original texts faithfully and accurately into the vernacular language� translated integrally and in the most exact manner, without omissions or additions in terms of their content, and without paraphrases or glosses.� The use of �Reverend Father� for �Vladyko� violates any objective rule of translation.

Now if Father David were to complain that �Master� is not in ordinary use I will point out again that all changes should be done across the entire Byzantine Church. But before that I would recommend again the passages in LA that speak to educating the faithful to raise them up so that they can understand the texts of the Divine Liturgy rather than revise the Divine Liturgy to accommodate street vernacular (the latter to include politically correct language).