www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Is Theodore of Tyre also "the Recruit"?

Why doesn’t the liturgical commission just publish its documented research showing why each change it made was absolutely necessary? Inquiring faithful have a right to know. Why are they keeping this information from the faithful?

I agree with Father David. We need another translation. The 2007 is inaccurate. It has intentional changes to texts. It has intentional changes to the rubrics. It has numerous mistranslations. It has omitted words. It has omitted large selections of the Divine Liturgy. Do we need another translation? I think, yes, until we get it right.

... should, at the very least, receive adequate and thorough answers.

I've asked (directly and indirectly) about this several times. Here are two instances.

A member of the IELC was explaining the translation change from "God loving bishop" to "whom God loves" and back to "God loving bishop." Previously he had vigorously defended and given a detailed rationale for "whom God loves"; I sensed he still thought that his rationale made better sense. He noted, however, that the bishops/IELC had commissioned an Orthodox scholar to research the issue; the findings gave rise to the final form. As something that would be of interest to scholars in general I asked if the research was available. He misunderstood the scope of my request and seemed stunned that I was inquiring into the inner sanctum, the deliberations of the bishops/IELC. I explained that I was only asking about the independent research and findings of the scholar being made available. He answered, correctly, that the decision to make the study available was in the hands of the bishops.

That is my recollection.

The other is about as good a short answer as there is. It has the merit of not being just my recollection; it is a direct quote of my bishop, William, from a letter to me of 29 May 2008:And twelve years is one good chunk of time to get it together!

The Recension text Služebnik has “Theodora Tirona”. I hope someone can more clearly unpack both the Slavonic and the Greek on this to see what the most literal translation might be. To recap, the 1964 gives “Theodore of Tyre” as does Raya BDW, the OCA (2003 Dallas edition), and Hapgood. ROCOR gives “Theodore the Tyro”. The 2008 OCA text gives "Theodore the Recruit". Articles like “of” and “the” make a huge difference in meaning. I hope the results of a scholarly review might be considered by those who will prepare the next edition of the Liturgicion (which I pray fervently is only months away!)

It is because I have faith that I stand for what is proper and just. The RDL is neither and we – as Catholic faithful – have the right of appeal and of having our voices heard in Rome.

The Liturgical Commission worked with the intention to revise the Divine Liturgy. That was wrong. Very talented, good men made a major mistake that needs to be corrected. The Liturgical Commission should now be directed to prepare a new edition. Start with the 1964 (since it is mostly memorized by the faithful) and correct only what is incorrect using the 1942 normative Ruthenian edition as the single standard from which to prepare a new edition that is as literally faithful as is possible (and in full conformance with both the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam).

Well said, John.

Bishop William states that the RDL was the fruit of debate and scholarship; that the liturgical commission reviewed and approved it; and, that it was approved by Rome. He also states that one must "have faith."

What he doesn't say is that it is a true rendering of the Divine Liturgy. How could he?

And how could any Bishop ask us to have faith in a Creed from which a word has been dropped without the approval of an Ecumenical Council or approval of the Pope himself?

As to Rome's approval, well, that was Fr. Taft. I know that he is a liturgical scholar but do his credentials extend to matters theological?

Cardinal Newman, in one of his sermons, states:



http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume2/sermon22.html

Thank you for the compliment. Taking your words to heart I have reviewed all the posts in this thread, especially my own, and can honestly say, unmasked, that I stand behind what I have written and actually, a fortiori. My stand is to give all the designations a fair hearing; if there is intransigence, I see it in a "the recruit only" position?

I would agree that our "carrying on really should be better researched. " As to the "one" scholarly link -- which is one more than has been provided to the contrary -- perhaps you didn't understand. The link, the reference, is in the source:


That is, (Nilles, Kal. man., I, 105) is the reference; Nilles is the author, then the publication and location. The link to Nilles is provided in the source and gives in part: Nikolaus Nilles [newadvent.org]

I did check the Slavonic and provided links in the first post; if you have other Slavonic links or reference, please share them. I did also check the Greek of the Rome:1950 liturgicon that was the primary source for the RDL but didn't mention it for the obvious reason; see link [patronagechurch.com] . If you have other links or references for the Greek please share them.

I also found this which makes me reappraise my hitherto neutral position on what is the correct or the best rendering. link [nationmaster.com]

This is important because it establishes the connection with the city of Tyre. If this is accurate and if the Nilles explanation is correct, then the "of Trye" designation is well supported. On the basis of the facts produced in this thread, it is much better supported than the rendering "the recruit."

But all the facts are not in. More research is needed and checking out "Kalendarium manuale utriusque Ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis" (2 vols., 2nd ed., Innsbruck, 1896) tonight from my county library isn't going to happen. The RDL committee, however, in its twelve years of study should have documentation for its choice of "the recruit" as correcting the previous "of Tyre." If only we knew what it was.

Fr. Deacon,

I suppose if you want to argue that "of Tyre" is as acceptable as "Recruit" you would be supported by common usage as we have ample eveidence of both usages.

The pragmatic side of me says that if you have two great matyr Theodores who were Roman soldiers and one is designated the general it makes sense that the other was designated by his rank, which in this case was recruit.

It is interesting the the Greek Liturgicon has only Theodore.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The irony here is that my initial position was even less demanding regarding an allowance for the "of Tyre" reading; it encountered some unyielding rejection.

Based on what has appeared in this thread to date, to me the evidence favoring "of Tyre" is very strong: "of Tyre" is more acceptable than "Recruit." That could change in an instant, however, with documentation supporting the RDL reading.

Once again, I have no problem with this view of the two Theodores since I see the terms as designations. The Geek Liturgicon from Rome is probably a more pristine version, stripped of embellishments and conflations that work their way into the text. Consider:Demetrios Constantelos
"Four Major Aspects of the Church's Faith and Experience"
From: Understanding the Greek Orthodox Church, Hellenic College Press, Brookline, Massachusetts 1998. link [myriobiblos.gr]

Designations are murky in themselves and the demands of idiom and inflection in the host and receptor languages can have an impact. A Holy Cross Greek parallel has e.g. (of) Nicholas of Myra for the Greek Nikolaou tou en Murois (of Nikolas the in Mura) mimicked in the article-lacking Slavonic as Nilolaa iže vo Murich (ch=x; see bottom page 178 [patronagechurch.com] ). One then finds in the (Holy Cross) proskomedia Theodōrōn Tērōnos rendered Theodore of Tyron and then listed in the book's Synaxarion as Theodōrou megalomarturos, Theodore the great martyr.

Even the "of" vs. "the" can be slippery. A search of the internet will affirm the ussages John of Damascus, John Damascene, and John the Damascene.

One also finds the idiom of the receptor language subtly modifying the literal, e.g. "St John Chrysostom' (c.347-407) the Golden Tongued" instead of the literal Golden-mouthed.

So one can safely say, for instance, the Tironian Theodore and then have to ask how is he called or known in acceptable English usage that doesn't violate or confound the original intent.

Consequently, the quite unwarranted dogmatic pronouncements in this thread against "of Tyre" should a reminder of caution for us all (and not meaning here for all Mankind).

Now here's a real hoot: the "Kalendarium manuale utriusque Ecclesiae orientalis et occidentalis" is available online as a pdf! It turns out the often disparaged old Catholic Encyclopedia has provided a very interesting reference. [It was a real bonus to find out about Fr. Nilles, a remarkable man and quite a scholar, and who, though he taught in Austria, had strong links to the early American Catholic church and the Baltimore councils.]

Anyway, here is the link [books.google.com] to the page reference for Theodore of Tyre as given above (but see also p 97 for interesting details on the other Theodore, especially in relation to the Apostol entry; see first post this thread). The support for the "of Tyre" reading seems quite clear with referenced consonant sources provided. Nevertheless, over 100 years have transpired. We've been at this for only four days. In the twelve years -- TWELVE YEARS -- of research and debate leading to the RDL surely something must be available warranting, explaining:

link for full context

This is definitely a minor issue not worth the time. Certainly we would not spend 12 years of research on one saint mentioned in the rite of preparation. However, I rather think Nilles is not reliable on this point. "Tirona" simply means recruit (A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, 1394). In 1962 F. Halkin published "The Life of Theodore the Recruit" in Analecta Bollandia LXXX (1962), pp. 308-324. For a more recent article, see "Theodora ad Amasea" in Bibliotheca Sanctorum XII, 238-242, which also emphasizes his military career. I would think that the reason Theodore is mentioned in the Rite of Preparation is precisely because he represented a very large social group in the Byzantine Empire, the soldiers.

I find the condescension of the very opening line appalling. This is so especially since it comes from the originator of the issue. There was time to make the change to a text and make a claim; there should be time to answer questions and explain or defend the claim as necessary. To put this in perspective, my time has worth also, such as the time I spent responding to a PM topic that you, Fr. David, initiated and sent to me, in which you will find, since you did not read it though it is dated 7/12/08, almost verbatim the question in my initial post. That simple question remains unanswered.

Stating "12 years of research on one saint" etc. as if something posted is invention. The unreliability of Nilles' statement, as it stands, is your unsupported opinion. The "Tirona" from Lampe demonstrates that you can find the word in the dictionary that you're looking for; see if Lampe has the word for Tyre.

The recent references are something I requested; thank you for providing them. I hope to look them up but since I don't live or work in the same building as a theological library it will take some time. Since specifics or quotes pertinent to the issues have not been provided, I hope I'll not be wasting my time with studies peripheral or neutral to the issue; for instance his "military career" figures into both designations.

Choosing a translation or inclusion or exclusion of liturgical text based on presumed social pressures -- "he represented a very large social group" -- is conjecture. It may be so. If so, I hope it worked to the good in its day; in my opinion in has not served us well in the present circumstance. For whatever importance a designation holds, as has been pointed out, there is none at all for Theodore in the text of the prokomedia of the Rome:1950 liturgicon that is give as the primary source for the RDL translation.

---------------------------------------------

The "of Tyre" vs. "the Recruit" designations, which for me even initially (read the thread title) seemed of the old "less filling, tastes great" variety, apparently are more controversial. My determination is that all "sides" get a fair hearing, and my judgment, with which others my differ of course, is that based on the actual facts presented so far, and not just what is alluded or pronounced, I don't see anything indicating a preference for "the Recruit." If there is such a preference, then explain it; otherwise, don't make it out to be more than it is.

Finally, this is an RDL translation topic, initially raised by an RDL proponent, to show the need for a new translation that is the RDL. To ask questions of those who produced it, to request their findings, even to disagree with their position on the basis of merit and facts, should not be considered unheard-of, ignored, or treated with disdain. The liturgy is everyones business in which we all can have a concern. If even the modest demands of inquiry that I have noted here were required and met before changes and revisions were made to liturgical texts, I think we as a church would be better for it.

The difficulty of posting on this Forum is that issues quickly become "ad hominem." For example, you find my response "condescending" and "appalling." I am only trying to defend our work after a long thread where in posts by "John Damascene," by "IM" and by the Administrator challenge the validity of our work, and also a post where you challenge: "The RDL committee, however, in its twelve years of study should have documentation for its choice of "the recruit" as correcting the previous "of Tyre." If only we knew what it was."
It is a minor point, but seems to have been seized upon as yet another reason to discredit the work of the IELC. Yes, I (not the IELC) brought up this correction, and I believe it is a correction that is simple and obvious, not requiring extensive hagiographical documentation. I do not think this discussion invalidates the 2007 translation, and has at least one good effect, that we learn more about Theodore the Recruit.

I can understand that Father David is sensitive to all questions about his work, and that of the commission. But it is very wrong indeed for him to equate all questions to be the equivalent of an ad hominem attack. Asking questions and holding the view that the Divine Liturgy needs to be translated accurately and completely (following the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam) is not an ad hominem. A proper response is not to accuse the questioner of having nasty personal motives but rather to answer the questions and to provide the scholarship to support one’s answers. I am glad that Father David provides some references in this thread, but it is the exception as most of his posts contain no scholarship to support the positions he advances while those who support accurate and complete translations have offered ample scholarly references (and anyone who wishes to verify this can read the archives).

Father David considers the matter of translation under debate in this thread to be “a minor point”. He should consider that there are no minor points in liturgical translation. Every word from the first page to the last page deserves careful attention so that it is translated accurately and completely, and free from political agendas.

“Theodora Tirona” needs to be translated accurately. It is very reasonable for people to expect that the translators provide ample scholarship to support that their translation is literally accurate, and explain their translation in light of the existing translation (why it is so inaccurate it cannot be kept), and of other translations that are in common usage.

No. I found in the opening line (sentence) condescension and it, the condescension appalling, not your response. It is not "ad hominem"; I like you, I didn't like the opening remark. I would rather speak to the issues and leave this behind.

I know only too well how long this thread has been. We are free to post and respond or not as we see fit. And there are issues with the RDL that are a concern to a number of us; we express our concerns differently; take your choice but I hope they will be addressed. I would like to have mine addressed.

Please read the thread -- this resulted from an unwarranted disparagement of the "of Tyre" designation. I did not intend to be presumptuous but it is a legitimate point so I'll rephrase it as a question: Does the RDL committee have documentation for its choice of "the recruit" as correcting the previous "of Tyre"?

Delving into the fine points of this “minor point” was hardly “seized upon” by me. I was, in a sense, forced into it by the lines of inquire of those eulogizing “the Recruit” and bashing “of Tyre” – read the thread. I only want that, no matter how minor it may be or seem, the actual nature of the change in translation/rendering from what it was, which happens to be "of Tyre" to what it is now, which happens to be "the Recruit" be accurately stated, based on facts if required; and that I should not be served baloney and told that it's steak.

This discussion has become one of methodology. I didn't intend for this but it is good that it happened. A translation invalidates itself in a sense by false arguments and claims.

Summing up, from my perspective, on the basis of what has been presented explicitly (not just references) in this thread, the following cannot stand as is:

link for full context


--------------------------------------


I’ve mentioned methodology and want to explore that further. I will start a thread to explore another point that Fr. David has mentioned:

From Liturgical Reform in the Byzantine Church, Presentation to Catechists, Saturday, August 12, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, link [davidpetras.com] on his website link [davidpetras.com]:

And link:


Unlike the present topic, this is a prominent item in the liturgy and I think we would all agree (?) that the 1965 liturgicon needed to be modified and improved here. The inquiry would be into the RDL rendering relative to the sources on which it was based and other relevant sources (if any). I invite all, especially those who had an interest here, to check it out and hopefully participate.