www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Is "always and everywhere" in the RDL a good translation?

This is a rather novel translation. In responding to a critique of this rendering, Fr. David Petras wrote a specific and straightforward explanation, link [davidpetras.com]:



That was in response to this critique, Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - 1 - The Draft Translation: A Response to the Proposed Recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Serge Keleher, pages 209-210 link



There’s a whole lot to be considered about the context, meaning and translation of o vs’ich i za vsja - - kata panta kai dia panta, but really here, at this point, what’s the point. This is a very speculative (though not implausible) explanation advance by Ligier that now as a translation has become an expression in our liturgy. Is this proper, is this the way changes and presumed improvements are to be made? Has our liturgy – should the liturgy – be a proving ground for untested and isolated scholarly speculation. Scholars properly do so, that’s how insights are gained, even at times if the theory is not correct. But that does not justify a hasty acceptance of such an uncommon wording which then gets placed in a central text of a Church’s worship.

It seems that this is what was done here in the RDL. Are there further studies supporting - - or otherwise - - Ligier’s explanation? But more so, how accepted is the translation as implemented, “always and everywhere” for kata panta kai dia panta - o vs’ich i za vsja?

The onus for this translation issue, to me, is on those who have advanced and confirmed this translation, the responsible authorities, to now be responsible and to make their case: to do what responsibility demands, to explain, to inform, to teach; to do so authoritatively. I would want to know, in detail, how this translation was scrutinized, evaluated and justified; what were the alternatives and why were they rejected, etc.? What does it provide in clarity and accuracy that is lacking in the customary translations?

This translation does appear in New Skete's The Divine Liturgy published in 1987. I would assume this is still their usage. In the introduction they state:

"The celebration of the divne liturgy envisioned by this book finds its principles, for the most part, in the research that was and still is being done in the field of Byzantine worshipover the last fifty to one hundred years, especially by scholars associated with the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome. It is therefore, their findings and conclusions that have formed the basis of our liturgical usages since the foundation of New Skete in 1966"(Page xiii).

They conclude the intro thanking the priests: Fr. Juan Mateos, Fr. Robert F. Taft, and Fr. Miguel Arranz of the Society of Jesus and the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome; as well as Fr. Alkiviadis Calivas dean of Holy Cross School of Theology in Brookline, MA; Fr. Paul Harrilchak, pastor of Holy Trinity Orthodox Church, Reston, VA; and Fr. Alexander Schmemann, dean of St Vladimir's School of Theology, Crestwood, NY of blessed memory.

The New Skete Liturgicon and the 07 Liturgicon share other similarities as well.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This, deserving of its own thread, would be a benefit to the RDL Forum.

These are very respected scholars and scholarship certainly has its place. The RDL Foreword makes no reference of any such dependence let alone an extensive dependence.

Surprisingly, Fr. Ligier, who is referenced for this translation by Fr. David, is not mentioned among those thanked in the New Skete into.

The question of the depth of research, thoroughness, extent of corroboration and justification for implementation in the liturgy remains. It is a question. Is there an answer? An official translation of the Liturgy should not be a vehicle for publishing or advancing untested scholarly opinion.

Foreword or no I think it can be assumed that all the research of the Pontifical Oriental Institute was available to the Litrugical Commission and given the similarities of the Liturgicons it appears it was used.

I presumed so; my question is what was done with it.


Again, please say more about the "similarities of the Liturgicons". I would not have expected there to be a New Skete - Ruthenian Recension connection.

Why not? They were Catholic from 66 to 79 and after that they still relied on Pontifical Oriental Institute. They completely redid their Horologion, republishing it in 1988, correcting it along the lines of Archimandrite Taft's recommendations and he is the one who reviewed the RDL.

The things that stand out are: the elimination of the Little Litanies, elimination of the Litany of Supplication after the Great Entrance, reduction of the Litany before the Our Father to three petitions (actually New Skete has four, they kept the second and third petitions seperate), the Litany of Thanksgiving to one petition, Presbyteral prayers aloud, and certain translational preferences.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Actually, about one year ago, I established electronic contact with Brother Stavros of New Skete on this issue. I inquired as to whether this formula ("always and everywhere") was still in use at their community. He responded that it was not because it was found to be problematic. He did not elaborate. He had indicated that he would send me more information. Unfortunately, I have not heard anything else from him. This might be something to follow up on. It might be good to find out why this became problematic.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I think another important thing to keep in mind is that New Skete, both while Greek Catholic and OCA-Orthodox, has always been given more leeway for liturgical experimentation, which is not something which one would ordinarily see in diocesan/parish situations. So, for a community such as this to drop a usage because of its "problematic" nature, should provoke an attitude of caution on the part of ecclesiatical jurisdictions who may contemplate adopting such a usage. I can only imagine that the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission would have explored New Skete's rationale for dropping "always and everywhere" before endorsing it for use in the Metropolia. I would honestly like to have the benefit of some assurance on this matter.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

What was avant-garde in the 1970s was shown to be bad theology in the 1980s.

So of course twenty years later we adopt bad theology in the RDL.

BT,

We are discussing specifically "always and everywhere" as a correct translation. Theologically it is sound. We do offer Christ to the Father always and everywhere, the question is if it is a proper rendering of the Greek/Slavonic.

Fr. Deacon Lance

To me avant-garde characterizes it quite well; as I also noted, however, it is not implausible and consequently, not theologically incorrect:


I believe the question about why and how this was selected as the proper translation remains valid. Is it really such a big deal that we ask to be informed?

Fr. Deacon Anthony,

Not at all. But I wanted to steer the thread back to the question at hand.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Yes, thank you for the course refinement. My last question was of a rhetorical nature but also directed, though not to you. I did not intend for it to come across that way.

Deacon Anthony

It doesn't sound right to me.