www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Unanswered Questions Regarding New Translation of The Divine Liturgy

There has been some good discussion in regards to the New Translation of the Divine Liturgy.

However I had posted these questions in a different thread and in nearly two hundred posts and counting no one took a real crack at answering these.

So here it goes again:

Since it is the Metropolitan who ultimately has to promulgate the new translation, has anyone written him and asked him why the new translation does not keep the entire Rescension? If yes what were his replies?

When will the Metropolitan explain why the entire Rescension is not being published?

Has anyone discussed the ecumenical ramifications of the changes?

What do other Orthodox Churches think of the entire Rescension not being published?

Do the Greek Catholics help or hinder unity by publishing this new translation?

Pope Benedict has more than once in the last two weeks spoken about unity with the Orthodox. Is his hope for unity being fostered with this new translation?

Michael Cerularius

What exaclty does you mean by "the entire recension is not being published"? Does this mean only the Liturgy, only a pew book? Texts, but no Ordo? Do you actually know what, exactly, is being published? Anyone who doesn't know the answers to these questions would have a tough time taking a crack at answering them.


Again, who can speak for "anyone"? You should have noted however that the broad outlines of the proposed liturgical changes are mirrored in the discussions by Schmemann and in the trends in the OCA. You should have noted the ecumenical conference on the East meeting English and the ongoing independent rewriting of the EO texts. You should have also noticed that within the Eastern Orthodoxy such issues as an audible anaphora, abbreviated antiphons, or variations on how litanies are taken are not a barrier to communion. Neither, btw, are pews, kneeling on Sunday, date of Pascha, Western-style decoration, etc. The impediment, MC, is our communion with Rome.

djs wrote:

"You should have noted however that the broad outlines of the proposed liturgical changes are mirrored in the discussions by Schmemann * and in the trends in the OCA."

*MC added the bold.

It's fascinating that you referenced Schmemann. I had to search my hard drive high and low but I found a quote about him where a traditionalist Orthodox remarked the following:

"... I pointed out that I have always had profound misgivings about Schmemann's renovationist approach to liturgical scholarship, arguing, for example, that he not only fails to discover pastoral and spiritual reasons for the development of liturgical rubrics, but likewise virtually never attributes liturgical change to the action of the Holy Spirit. Here, again, we have clear evidence of the better thinking that we sometimes find in Father Alexander, as well as evidence of his shortcomings and deviation from the Patristic consensus."

If that doesn't sound familiar to what we have been discussing here about reasons for Liturgical change then I don't know what does.


Michael Cerularius

I believe what is meant, is that the whole text of the Liturgy UNEDITED, without revisions alterations or abbreviations, as it appears in the normative slavonic books from Rome, should be faithfully, accurately, and beautifully translated into prayerful english.

Dear MC,

Maybe it is.

Certainly within the portion of Orthodox writings that are posted on the web you will find no shortage of bitter polemic and infighting.
And I suppose we are not immune from this defect. But who is the author of the quoted passage? Does he speak for Orthodoxy?
And do you have any indication that cares int he slightest about our liturgy? That, after all, is what you asked about here.

My post regarding Schmemann and your bringing him up was not made as a 'checkmate' statement towards you!

I just remembered reading about him and found it interesting that a Traditionalist Orthodox had written a statement about him which could be similar to the different perspectives that you and I share.

No the writer does not speak for all of Orthodoxy, ( with some of the divisions that they have I can't see how anyone does).

I can find out who wrote it, but I'll have to dig for it.


Michael Cerularius

It was not taken as such.

Michael,

I think you are asking the right questions. It is not so much a question of arguing over this and that word, and comparing it to any number of greek and/or slavonic versions.

It is not even about questioning the brief given to this committee, and facing the problems that come from translation by committee, and understanding the difficulties that this committee has had to deal with.

The preface to the 1964 book contains a powerful sentence:

"The Rite of the Sacred and Divine Liturgy, presented here, is a faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition of "Cin Svjascennyja i Bozestvennyja Liturgii", published by the authority of the Holy Apostolic See of Rome, and printed by the Grotta-Ferrata Press, Rome, 1942."

This is a sentence the new "preface" will not be able to contain, because whatever the revised Liturgy text is, it is not "a faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition" given by Rome.

I think this revision of the liturgy, which contains a certain agenda and is promoting a particular point of view, has exposed and highlighted a potential crisis.

Maybe there is a 'crack' in the unity of the Byzantine Catholic Church, with different people having different views of its future?

On the one hand, one wants to pattern our future on the reforms of the Latin liturgy after Vat II, and liberally follow the latest trends and western attitudes, anxious to herald 'progress'! On the other hand, another wants to faithfully follow a model of Church which is conservative, and wants to take an eastern, orthodox, and preservationist approach to the heritage, handing on exactly what has been received.

Maybe there is only a crack in this unity now, but this proposed revision of the liturgy is like a stick of dynamite in this crack. Mandating this revision is going to blow wide open, and fully expose, just how fragile this unity is.

Back in the 60's (I was not there), they knew that only a "faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition" would be acceptable, and would be a book that might unite the Church.

Now, we can argue, that maybe there are a few mistakes in the '64 translation, and it is not as faithful as we might like. I agree, and I can point out a few improvements to make the translation of the "text and rubrics" even more "faithful".

But only a "faithful translation of the text and rubrics" will unite the Church.

You think there should be shorter psalms, I say longer psalms. You say less litanies, I say more litanies. You say improve the text by introducing inclusive language, I say scrupulously translate exactly what is there, and your improvements are to me a corruption of the text.

What is the solution? How to resolve the problem?

Clearly! Only a "faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition" will be something that serve the unity of the Church.

Every bishop and pastor has scope. "Today we will take fewer verses of the psalm." "Today, I wish to take some prayer aloud, for a pastoral reason." "Today, I wish to omit (include) this or that litany that is usually inluded (or left out)." The pastor, directed by his bishop, certainly has discretion to do this, no argument.

But, to revise the Divine Liturgy is a terrible mistake. The only text that will work, is one that is a "faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition."

It should contain exactly the same number of psalm verses, exactly the same prayers, exactly the same number of litanies, in exactly the same order, carefully preserving and mirroring the slavonic in accurate, faithful, and prayerful english. The rubrics must be carefully and accurately translated, not added to, or explained, or improved upon, or changed, or updated, or developed, or altered in any way.

I would like to talk to someone involved in that pioneer translation in 1964, but I think they knew then, that only a full and faithful translation would unite the church. Any revision, would divide.

The 'winds of change' are blowing, and conservatives are bold, reading the instructions on translation, the views of the Pope, and accounts of the struggles re-translating the latin missal. Conservatives have a lot of ammunition.

I think it is usually better not to fight the war, as we find out only too painfully, there are usually no winners in a war, everyone suffers. But for a conservative, this proposed revision of the liturgy is a declaration of war.

It is painful to think that some believe that this is an important war, and one worth fighting.

I still think, in the end, the only text that can unite the Byzantine Catholic Church, is one that is a "faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition", Rome 1942. If we can make it more faithful, or correct a few mistakes in the '64 translation, good. But a revision, no.... inclusive language, no.... editing, shortening, re-writing, re-organizing, no!

Nick

Oddly enough, we have Bishop Nicholas Elko to thank for the production of what was at least an attempt at a faithful and accurate translation in 1964. He wanted to have the Divine Liturgy in English before the close of Vatican II, in order for him to be able to celebrate the Liturgy in English for the Council Fathers in the aula. While he disliked the "Ruthenian Recension" produced in the early 1940s by Rome, he also knew that the Holy See would not permit him to celebrate the Liturgy unless he had an English text made that would present the "Ruthenian Recension" text faithfully and accurately.

The result was that the two bishops authorized the publication of the book - with the tacit understanding that nobody in the then eparchies of Pittsburgh and Passaic was supposed to serve according to this book!

Incognitus

Actually, wasn't it Bishop Daniel Ivancho who asked for a "dispensation" from serving the Divine Liturgy as approved by Rome in 1942?

Ungcsertezs

Bishop Daniel asked for a specific set of dispensations, to hold good only temporarily (an undefined term but the canon lawyers would probably say it does not mean longer than three decades). The object of the dispensations was to enable the renovated Liturgy to resemble the unrenovated version. The correspondence has been published in English translation.

Incognitus

Ah, it seems, 'those were the days'. "faithfully and accurately" seems to be the buzz words in the new instructions from Rome, maybe 'happy days are here again'?

One thing I'm curious about is whether the loyalty is really to the Ruthenian Recension, in the form of the official Roman traditions, or to the "old Slavonic High Mass", in those cases where they conflict.

(1) If our hierarchs suppressed the third pre-Communion prayer, "Oh Lord, I also believe and profess that this which I am about to receive...", which was in the 1891 L'viv Sluzhebnik, would our people write angry letters to Rome in protest? Or would it be sufficient to point out that the pre-Communion prayers were shorter in the official books, and that Bishop Ivancho asked in 1953 for "temporary" permission to use the longer form?

(2) I have heard from cantors who insist that it is absolutely a part of our Rite to sing "May our lips be filled..." slowly, or many times - that any change here on liturgical principles is a deliberate tampering. Would our cantors change their minds, and our priests who consume the Gifts at this point change their habits, if it were pointed out that the official liturgical books for our recension have the priest put the vessels aside during this hymn and consume them after the dismissal?

The situation is made more difficult because there are no copies of the Roman books to be had, as far as I can tell, since all existing copies were sent off to Eastern Europe as the Church became free again. But my fear is that "the way we did it in 1953" is more important to many of our priests and cantors that anything liturgical experts then, or now, may have said or say; and that simply promulgating the official editions of texts, and unabbreviated Slavonic melodies in music would be AT LEAST as disruptive as the planned new liturgical books would be.

So, Nicholas, Kapusta and others: if the bishops promulgated the 1944 Ordo and texts today, would you be completely willing to accept them, even if they were different in many ways from the old Slavonic High Mass? Would your priest acquiesce easily if told he had to start kissing the icons of our Lord and the Theotokos at the start of each liturgy? Would people cross themselves, if told to, instead of striking the breast during the pre-Communion prayers?

I'm hoping the answer is yes.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear ByzKat,

I do not intend to diminish the value your post, it certainly should provide ample food for thought and it is, in my opinion and with one exception, excellent. However, the above isolated matter is not on par with the other matters you discuss as this is not regulated AFAIK in the service books. It is a matter of customs, personal piety. The books do not say when the faithful corss themselves or strike their breasts.

T

Of course not - but attend. Fifty years after our bishop asked for, and was denied, permission for the PRIEST to strike his breast thrice rather than bow at "O God, be merciful to me, a sinner", etc., I still see priests doing this in some places - a fairly obvious borrowing from the Tridentine practice at the Confiteor. I have had trained, "old school" cantors insist that this is our Rite, and that a bow at this point is WRONG. The people's devotional actions may vary widely, but if they are in imitation of our priests', then they should be in accord with our own Rite - hence my question about the places where our old practice differed from the official books.

Jeff