The following excerpts are from two recent columns on
The Byzantine Liturgy by Archpriest David Petras, SEOD. Fr. David is an architect, probably the chief one, of the RDL and certainly its most active defender. The article of Sunday, October 10, 2010 is entitled
The Ruthenian Recension
The Legacy of Metropolitan Andrew Sheptyts'kyi
It says in part, regarding the Recension:
... Therefore, here we see a deliberate reform, an attempt to return to authentic tradition. The Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom was published in 1940, and Saint Basil the Great in 1941. On September 10, 1941 the Congregation wrote a circular letter to all of the bishops announcing the edition and mandating its use. When Metropolitan Sheptyts'kyi received a copy of the new edition, he said, "Now you can let your servant go in peace. I can now die because all questions of our liturgy are finally settled, and rule, order, and uniformity will be introduced into our church." The full three liturgies, as well as the liturgical propers and the office was published in 1942.
Note, the Recension is the “return to authentic tradition”; and quoting Metropolitan Sheptyts'kyi: ‘.... “all questions of our liturgy are finally settled, and rule, order, and uniformity will be introduced into our church.”’
Along with other liturgical books published from that time until as late as 1973 this is what is now called the "Ruthenian Recension." These books are considered the model for the form of the Liturgy of the Byzantine Slav Churches united with Rome. "Recension" is not a word that we use everyday, but it is borrowed from the Latin word "recensio." The dictionary defines it as "a revision of a text, based on a critical examination of sources." This describes accurately the work of Father Cyril Korolevsky and his Commission in Rome. To know about this recension is essential for an understanding of our liturgical tradition and how our worship of God, who saves us through his Cross and Resurrection, has come to be the way it is today.
So this Recension is “considered the model for the form of the Liturgy of the Byzantine Slav Churches united with Rome... To know about this recension is essential for an understanding of our liturgical tradition.” Well said.
The latest installment of October 17, 2010 is headed “the liturgy in English.”
In it he notes:
However, due to the pressures of American culture, and close proximity to Roman Catholic Churches, many felt a need to “shorten” the Liturgy. This mostly took place through the reduction of litanies, which the priest took sotto voce at the Holy Table, while the people sang hymns. The antiphons were also reduced, ...In my last article, I traced the development of what has come to be called the “Ruthenian recension,” which opposed this tendency.
It was the project of the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches in Rome - which established a committee under the direction of Fr. Cyril Korolevsky - to examine and reform the Catholic liturgical books to conform to their authentic traditions.
“Ruthenian recension,” which “opposed this tendency” i.e. the “tendency” being the “reduction of litanies,... The antiphons were also reduced ...”
What is found in the RDL? “reduction of litanies,... The antiphons were also reduced ...”
And the “Ruthenian Recension: the “ reform the Catholic liturgical books to conform to their authentic traditions.”
In the Byzantine tradition, the most famous canonist, Theodore Balsamon, who lived in the twelfth century, formulated the principle regarding the liturgical languages in the Eastern Church, “Those who are wholly orthodox, but who are altogether ignorant of the Greek tongue, shall celebrate in their own language, provided only that they have exact versions of their customary prayers, ...
Note: “... provided only that they have exact versions of their customary prayers, ...”
The RDL is a translation embarrassment. Rather than striving to be an “exact” version it is the translation equivalent of what eisegesis is to exegesis in scriptural interpretation: it reads into the text by way of translation what IT wants the text to say rather than leading forth from the text what are “exact versions of their customary prayers.”
Bishop Elko set up a liturgical commission to make a standard translation. This Commission felt that the Liturgy should be in contemporary, modern English. This task was completed in 1964, and, since the translators had no particular competence in Greek, was a literal translation from Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension text of the Oriental Congregation of 1942.
The remark “competence in Greek” is not only misleading but a cheap shot. There is no Greek version per se of the Ruthenian Recension, which is in Slavonic. One can certainly find much but not all of the corresponding Greek in, for instance, the Rome-1950 version; but one only has to see the totally unnecessary deviations that arise in the RDL as a result -- and these are well documented in this forum -- when the Greek text displaces the Slavonic.
Bishop Elko did this because he thought that Rome would not approve of any deviations from their official text, but he promulgated it for parishes with many shortenings and pastoral adaptations, conforming to the 1905 Služebnik and many of the abbreviations in common use in the parishes.
Bishop Elso’s approach: “deviations from their official text, ... promulgated it for parishes with many shortenings and pastoral adaptations, ...and many of the abbreviations ...”
What is the RDL? Though of different form, nevertheless, “deviations from their official text, ... promulgated it for parishes with many shortenings and pastoral adaptations, ...and many of the abbreviations ...”
In 1965, the Sacred Oriental Congregation approved an English translation of the Divine Liturgy.
And a good ending to that date from which I and others expected more, not less.
So is this double-talk? The content of the articles does not add up for me. I agree with what Fr. David writes now, 2010, about the importance and direction of the reforms from the 1930's to the 1960's (except for the “Greek” comment). Given that, how is one to account for the RDL of 2006/7?
The words are all there but they don’t add up, the conclusion in the form of the RDL is wrong. After reading all that Fr. David has written in these articles, I cannot but conclude that with the RDL the Ruthenian church has lost its course, certainly its liturgical course. Here was an opportunity to have the past struggles and justified praises of the Recension, as documented above, become a defining moment for a church beset by problems. And it would have been a well-deserved and triumphal moment considering the sufferings and sacrifices of the past. Instead, it is yet another compromise for the already over-compromised. Let us strive, with the greatest zeal, to be adequate. Let us live up to our (unofficial) motto,
The Light under the Basket.
