www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy Liturgical Translations Differences Ukrainian Divine Liturgy and Revised Divine Liturgy

Interesting. The more I hear your explanation, the more I see your point. I took the original question to be simply about the wording and I still think that the wording is what he was asking about, but there is much more to it than simply the words used in the translation.

Exactly. "Singeability" relative to a certain chant tradition (Kyivan and Galician in the UGCC) also has to play into the equation in any translation work. That itself can cause some shifting of phrases, changing words or word order somewhat, etc.

I'm a deacon who likes to take as little as possible from the pew book, and those little differences in translation drive you crazy when you trying to put one specific version to memory to serve the Liturgy.

That is also why the "same translation" business for all English-speaking Greek Catholics is a fable. You can't expect a translation set for Byzantine-Arab chant like the Melkites to work for Prostopinje, etc. Even the "Carpathian Chant" settings for certain parts in the Anthology are not exactly like the MCI music. But those certainly aren't the only concerns regarding changes of text like "inclusive language", additional abbreviations, etc.

This is not surprising. Father Petras has written that all the Byzantine / Greek Catholic Churches have plans to adopt the rubrics of the Revised Divine Liturgy. It looks like the UGCC in Australia went whole hog.

I have a copy of the Ukrainian Anthology. The music is OK but not fantastic. But it certainly is better than the mandated RDL music. Odd, since the same individual was hired to do both.

I wish Metropolitan William would praise the good intentions of the RDL in a letter that bans it. But it is unlikely since he is a self-described "progressive" who talks about "making progress" with the liturgy and "bringing it into the 21st century." But don't hold your breath. They spent million$ on it and don't have money to pay for another translation andd new musicians. Even if they did do another translation and music it would take 10 years to get it done. No one will be left by then.

Where did he write this? This will be news to the hierarchy of the UGCC. Even at recent clergy conferences it has been made clear that the 1988 Synodal text is still normative, and absolutely no one from the Bishop to the Patriarch has mentioned doing away with the Synodal Liturgikon. When the Patriarch was here last fall he made it clear he wants the English text in the Anthology and Liturgikon to be normative in English, as his predecessor Patriarch Lubomyr also decreed. The RDL is not being used in any Eparchy of the UGCC as an official text.


Are you a cantor and have sung these liturgically? Used any of the older hymnals before it? I have, and the work of Frs. Peter and Roman Galadza along with the others in compiling the Anthology is a great step forward in English settings of the Liturgy for our particular tradition, which has not known a similar consistency as the Levkulic settings in the BCCA.

The book we use for the English Liturgy is "THE DIVINE WORSHIP An Anthology for Worship". Metropolitan Andrey Sheptytsky Inst. Ottawa 2004.

Ths is the book as far as I am aware used all over the Melbourne Eparchy.

Diak,

Back when he posted here Father Petras wrote that he had presented the RDL to meetings of Greek/Byzantine Catholic bishops. He says similar things on his website. He said that is received very well and that others would be adopting it. The rubrical changes were pretty much mandated by Father Taft so it makes sense that the UGCC would eventually adopt it. Don't get me wrong. I really dislike the RDL. But I like the people at my parish. It's lost a lot of people since the RDL mandate. I'm not sure how many years it has left.

I'm not a cantor in the UGCC but visit UGCC parishes. The music could be set better. A lot of the accents are strange but if you are used to it you're not going to notice it. J. Michael Thompson did most of the work on the Anthology, although the Fathers Galazda and others helped. That was his main reason that Bishop Andrew and the Council of Hierarchs hired him to write the music for the RDL. That and and the strong recommendations by the priests at the seminary who are all close friends with him.

Jason

Pavel - that is consistent with what Fr. Olexander also told me, namely the 1988 Synodal English translation is in use which is contained in the Anthology. That is, when English is actually used.

It appears you are misinformed. First of all I really don't know of what "rubrical changes were pretty much mandated by Father Taft" you are referring to. Fr. Taft, while a great liturgiologist and liturgical historian, is not a bishop and has no authority to promulgate any text for a particular Church. Secondly, I have yet to see any document referencing other particular Churches are going to adopt the RDL.


I think you actually have it the other way around. As I understand there was a commission of five cantors - Frs. Peter and Roman Galadza, Fr. John Sianchuk, and Joseph Roll, all noted UGCC cantors, musicologists and liturgists. Professor Thompson was the fifth and essentially acted as adjudicator when there was some disagreement between the other four and was not the primary person setting the melodies or doing the editing. Fr. Peter Galadza was the chief editor.

A couple of other questions. The RDL uses the NAB for the Bible translation. Does the UGCC use the RSVCE or NAB?. Also is the "Divine Liturgy An Anthology of Worship" a good book to get if you go to a UGCC in the US. It is rather expensive. The only copies of the Divine Liturgies I have are from the Jordanville prayer book and the Holy Transfiguration prayer book.

Could you kindly substantiate this with direct quotes from His Eminence, especially since this it is alleged to be a "self-description" (as progressive)?


million$? how'd you arrive at that figure?

Ummmm... have you ever had a conversation with Bishop William? If not, ask anyone who has. He doesn't hide it.

As to the $$, do the math. 10 years in the making. 2 or 3 week long meetings a year with about 8 or 9 people (food, flights, hotels). Then add the cost of the music (they paid by the note) and the printing and videos.

Thanks Curious...my thoughts exactly.

I'm confused. Is the term "Revised DL" used in two senses? One, for rubrics that differ from the "full" DL for want of a better word (i.e., having a reduced number of antiphons of shorter length, omitting the litany of the catechumens etc.) and one for a particular English translation used in the US. The Ukrainian priest who told me that we use the "revised divine liturgy" in Australia celebrates in Ukrainian and told me the Sluzhebnik for the revised DL is the same but you leave bits out.

The Gospel excerpts in the Anthology for the Resurrectional Gospels at Sunday Matins are RSV. As far as a liturgical lectionary goes in English, it is up to the priest to use a standard lectionary for the Gospel and Apostol. The only "standard" translations are the Rome Slavonic, the Rome Ukrainian (Patriarch +Josyp's) and the subsequent Svichado reprint of Patriarch +Josyp's. For English I've seen various things such as the NAB Ruthenian books in a few places, the Holy Cross Apostol, Bishop +Fan Noli's books for either the Apostol or Gospel or both, and RSV Gospel lectionaries such as the Antiochian book (which is the one we use) and Archbishop +Joseph Raya's books in use.

Yes, the Anthology is expensive, but not as much as some (like the Mega Horologion, etc.). You get what you pay for, and it has many other features besides just the Divine Liturgy and Propers such as the preparation for Holy Communion, Resurrectional Gospels for Matins, Little Hours, etc.

Yes, there can be some confusion. The RDL as spoken of here is the new 2006 English translation in use in the BCCA, and currently mandated by those hierarchs as the only acceptable English translation in that particular Church according to the promulgation letters.

What you are referring to are really "pastoral provisions" to omit some material from the Sluzhebnik such as the litany for the catechumens when there are no catechumens, etc.