www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Proposed Text of the Byzantine Liturgy

Father David,

to underscore your point, if the Deacon's opening dialogue, "Master, give the blessing" does refer to God the Father, I find it very presumptous that the priest (bishop or presbyter) would assume to speak for God the Father. Now much has been said about the priest's being alter Christusor acting in persona Christi but no one has ever suggested the priest is alter Patris or acts in persona Patri (please forgive if my Latin is incorrect).

St. Ignatius of Antioch describes the bishop as "a type of the Father." [St. Ignatius, Trallians, no. 3; see also, Magnesians, no. 6]

I am aware of the Ignatian citations, but isn't the phrase "a type of" a great deal different than " alter " or " in persona " as it is understood theologically? Ignatius did not include the presbyter "as a type of the Father."

Father David, Christ is Risen!
I'm as certain as I am of anything, that "Master" refers to the priest (whether as the bishop's deputy, or as an anachronism). Consider in the vesting and preparation of the gifts, "Bless, master, the sticharion with the orarion" or "Pierce, master", or "Bless, master, the holy union". Clearly (to me, at least) the deacon is not addressing God the Father!

The priest is always addressed as "master" by the deacon at the Holy Liturgy; elsewhere, it is generally "father", but in a cathedral or in a bishop's presence, it is "master". Therefore, it is an open question, or so I've been taught, as to whether "master" refers to the bishop with whose blessing a presbyter is serving, or to the priest directly.

It should be noted that our rite is full of phrases and words used very inconsistently; in one place and time, a pair of Greek synonyms would develop a formal, consistent usage, while in another place or time, another, contradictory formal, consistent usage would be developed.

"Heiromonk" versus "hierodeacon" is an excellent example of this: The word "sacred" ("heiro", as transliterated out of Greek) generally applies to the priesthood, and the most common word for "priest" in Greek (and in Slavonic, and in Latin) is derived from "sacred". But, monasticism also was described as "sacred" elsewhere; so, a "heiromonk" is a priest-monk and a "hierodeacon" is a monk-deacon.

Likewise, perhaps, with "master" referring to a priest. In colloquial Greek today, some lay people call any cleric "master": I've even been called "despota" on the streets. And even in correct usage, archimandrites and elders are called "despota".

These are my thoughts, I think,
Photius, Reader

My understanding is that a 'type' is an impression or image of something, and that St. Ignatius is saying that the bishop is a manifestation of God the Father to his diocese. As far as your second comment is concerned, yes, the bishop is a type of the Father, and the presbyter is not; instead, he is a type of the apostles, and the deacon is a type of Jesus Christ, at least that is the way St. Ignatius speaks about it.

If Father David admits that he cannot prove his claims he really should not be attempting to revise the Liturgy. The Orthodox Church is not contemplating changing the text of the Liturgy. Why should we?

There seems to be a prevailing notion that these changes to the liturgy are some personal covert operation being done by a few individuals.

Nicholas wrote:
Fr David is not the only one working on this. He is the only one responding to the questions posed in this thread. For this he is attacked for being honest about what he writes.

just my observation

Steve

It�s not a perception. It is a fact. I have already acknowledged Father David's love for our Church. I believe that his opinion is wrong. I believe that his agenda of revision is supported by only a small number of our clergy. I am willing to be corrected if someone can provide evidence that the clergy overwhelmingly support his revision.

I credit Father David for answering questions here. The discussions here are more open than those allowed at the clergy meetings. But even here on the forum those who disagree with his opinion are accused of attacking him.

A high percentage of the members of the liturgical commission studied Liturgy under Father David at our seminary. Is it any wonder that they agree with him on everything?

Nicholas you stated: "I believe that his agenda of revision is supported by only a small number of our clergy." You make it appear as though it is Fr David's agenda that others are following. You make pronouncements of such as though you know the facts while you lament not knowing the facts. Other than Fr. David do you know who else has been part of this effort?

Steve

Personally, I don't agree with all the changes either. I am a cradle byzantine, from a long line of cantors. In the end my opinion counts nil. I must make the personal decision whether to keep with the BCC or move on. I feel in the long run these changes may prove to be the right direction. Ideally these changes would be promulgated as the MINIMUMS for proper worship with proper allowance for expansion. In 40 years, no doubt there will be another commission analyzing the translation and perhaps the musical settings. For now, remember why we go to church.

To pray...for peace from on high, for our souls... the departed...again and again in PEACE....

Dear Nicholas, Christ is Risen!
Thanx ... I haven't had such a good laugh in years! Now that I've recovered and am no longer rolling on the floor, please let me note that I just turned 47 years old and my jurisdiction is in its fifth (5th) version of the "Our Father" in my lifetime. The last time I had an opportunity to read in church in English (probably 10 years ago, so maybe there's a sixth version by now), I used version number 4 both out of intentional disobedience and because I like it better, anyways.

Photius, Reader

Dear Photius,

Do any of those versions omit 5 deacon's litanies, or introduce inclusive language?

I wonder if that is where our Archbishop is leading this Church? Some using this translation, others using that one?

Nick

I believe I asked this before in more general terms, and was pointed to a three-year-old thread that even at the time was noted as being incomplete.

Nick, exactly which five litanies do you believe are omitted in the proposed new translation of the Divine Liturgy?

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

None of the versions of the "Our Father" has any deacon's litanies.

No, no inclusive language in any of them.

Photius

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Here's a modest - and seriously intended - proposal:

The Pittsburgh Metropolia (including the suffragan eparchies of Parma, Passaic and Van Nuys) includes a good number of people who have a legitimate claim to education, to competence in the English language, and to a strong desire to be faithful to God and the Church. Moreover, what the Pittsburgh Metropolia does inevitably has an effect on others, particularly since the Pittsburgh Metropolia is the largest of the Greek-Catholic jurisdictions using English as the principal liturgical language.

So my suggestion is this: it would be pastorally wise and sensible for the Pittsburgh Metropolia to publish the proposed new translation in a study edition (I would hope with footnotes to sources for various points - including biblical and patristic references), with an article explaining the philosophy and criteria underlying the proposed new translation, and a request for active written responses on a reasonable level of scholarship.

This could be done in booklet form or on the internet, but in either case there should be provision for active exchanges of data, comments and opinions. Ideally I would like to see an ongoing periodical for a good length of time, to provide for a serious and continuing discussion, but it would be less expensive and perhaps easier to do this over the internet.

Such an approach would be of significant openness and honesty, thus vitiating any claim or perception that this proposed new translation or edition is being put through behind people's backs. Moreover, such a process of wide consultation and discussion will seriously increase the possibility that the eventual publication for use in Church will be met with acceptance instead of either grim rejection or half-hearted acquiescence.

If, as one posting has just indicated, even the clergy at conferences called for the purpose of presenting the proposed new translation are experiencing serious attempts to inhibit questions, then I fear for the proposed new translation and for the Church coerced into using it. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

It's been said to me that a compelling argument for insisting on pushing this proposed new translation through is that it has cost considerable time and money to produce this edition, and that if it is not mandated for use all that time and money will be wasted - strikes me as a process of throwing good money after bad, and reminds me of the argument during the Johnson administration that since X number of US soldiers had already been killed in Vietnam it was therefore necessary to send still more thousands of soldiers to Vietnam.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

I would certainly add my name to such a proposal - not least because I think some of the proposed changes DO make sense, and much of the rumors circulating are overblown. But since it should really come from our pastors - do we have priests in good standing across the Archeparchy who would be willing to sign (with real names ) a proposal for a "request for comment" period?

I think one of the key issues is the one you mentioned in the thread over in the ByzanTeen forum: we have been using a "translation of a translation" for generations. If some of the translation choices come from the fact that the Liturgical Commission is preferring the original Greek reading to the Slavonic, that should be made very clear.

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski
who has celebrated Pascha twice, and thus wishes the blessings of the season, to whichever season you are in