www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Question # 3 on New Translation of Liturgy

Dear Joe,

I think I agree with you about Vespers and Matins (I love these services.)

But why can't we have both? The whole Liturgy, and Vespers and Matins?

Is it a contradiction to push for a fuller liturgical life, while at the same time accepting abbreviations to the Liturgy?

But I would agree with another friend on the forum, who says the Archbishop has some real and urgent challenges right now, that will not wait. So he needs to choose his battlefield, and start the charge!

It is just interesting that he has chosen the revision of the Liturgy (cutting litanies, inclusive language etc. etc.), as a priority of his administration.

They were, traditionally, ordained as readers, were they not?

Photius

In choosing battlefields remember that wars are fought for many reasons. They can be for aggresssion, defense against an enemy, territorial expansion, and also to distract the populace from other problems.

With all due respect, I think that the main question is not being addressed. Is the new translation that is being discussed going to be a barrier to the ecumenical dialog that is going on between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox?
Fr.David, you work closely with the Council of Hierarchs. Have our Ruthenian Bishops decided to abandon the possiblity of reunion with our Orthodox brothers.
Praying unceasingly for the reunion of the Body of Christ,the Church.
McPhelan

Dear Friends,

Is it just me or is there a false assumption being made about liturgical translations here?

Are we not injecting something that the Orthodox have always found objectionable in our approach to them in the ecumenical realm?

That being that if we become as similar to them in outward forms, then this will somehow facilitate unity with them in a more fast-paced way?

Do the Orthodox even care about our liturgical translations and traditions?

Do the Orthodox not have local variants throughout Eastern Europe, even when of a Latin origin?

Unity with the Orthodox is about unity in faith - that issue will NEVER go away, no matter how close we feel we should become to the Orthodox liturgically.

Alex

I could not agree more with that. One might only be careful: Liturgy is an expression of faith - it directly links to faith and reflects it. So, by changing the liturgy and/or its translation it should be carefully considered if it is still reflecting the true faith. That is one reason why I am strongly opposing clergy that are changing words in the liturgy on their own - most of the time it is like: they don't know what they are doing. And that is true regardless what rite.

I trust that a new translation would still reflect our true faith and then it doesn't have to be a stone in the way to unity with our orthodox brethern.

Where I do have a problem if we are imposing a revised shortened liturgy only because we want it shorter. That is in my eyes the weakest argument and as a matter of fact we should do just the opposite when it comes to worship: not less - we should worship and pray more.
I heard a comment recently from one parishner after that person realized that we have a baptism in the divine liturgy that Sunday: "Oh my we will be here for 3 hours!" My first reaction was (although I didn't say it out loud) "So what? I am thankful to be a witness to these mysteries and be part of it."

I am quite willing to make any exceptions for people who are busy with necessary activities and who can't stay for longer liturgies. But I most often hear statements like you quoted from the lard butts who can't wait to get home and park in front of the TV. It's not like they have anything more important to do than to worship God.

byzanTN: thanks for that input - and it is so true.

As a matter of fact I don't judge anyone if he has to come later or leave earlier. In that way I am quite "orthodox" in my thinking. It doesn't bother me at all if people coming late. I would even appreciate it more if they would not skip the veneration of the icon(s) or personal prayer when they come in late. But I guess that is a western culture thing: you are on-time and if not you try not to "disturb" anyone.

I am not saying coming late is a good thing but it is not the worst. I am happy that they are coming at all.

And again to shorten the liturgy to accompany our "busy" schedules - no I don't think that is the right thing to do and it will not get us one more person into the liturgy.

Dear Alex,

Thanks for the friendly voice, and your gentle 'oil upon the waters'.

You are certainly right, and on one level anyway, the Orthodox probably do not care much about the fine points of Byzantine Catholic translations of liturgical texts.

But I think it is wrong to think they are not watching what we do. In fact, I know that we are being watched.

I will be sad, if the Orthodox respond to the invitations of our new Pope, who is trying to reach out to them, with great suspicion.

They will say, "Look what happens when Orthodox in the past have joined into union with Rome! Your promises are meaningless. You promised them that their traditions were vererable, and would be protected. But you have not protected them! You threaten our traditions, and one by one, move them closer to foreign practice!"

The Orthodox believe that the way of worship, betrays your faith, and forms your faith. They look to Uniates, and say they are frauds, appearing Orthodox, but really heretical.

This new translation is not a pure, scholarly translation, but an agenda-driven revision and abbreviated edition of the text.

Christ is the lover of mankind. Transforming this love, into something else, is close to heresy. As Gary Inbinder recently wrote (and I borrow his sentence):

"It is certainly not the 'fides caritate formata' (faith formed in love) of Scripture, ...it is the "love" of humanity in the abstract that lies at the core of Englightenment humanism."

Christ does not love humanity in the abstract, he loves us specifically.

The Orthodox do notice, and will point to this revision of their Liturgy as one example among others (you can name them too) of exactly why it seems Rome should not be trusted with the Orthodox tradition.

Nick

I thought you objected to "...loves us..."?

Nick,

This is quite an accusation. On what basis do you conclude that the translation is not derived from careful scholarship? The members of the IELC, all bring various scholarly and pastoral talents to the table. Then, of course, there is the leadership of the previous and the current Metropolitans in communion with their Council of Hierarchs. With all due respect, what scholarship and educational background do you possess to make such a claim?

Nick,

You've made this statement several times. Could you please list the abbreviations (especially the "5 omitted litanies") you're objecting to?

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

Yes.

Sadly, the duty of the cantor has lapsed into a role of lead congregant and not much else. The BCC doesn't ordain readers anymore that I know of (except the case of Deacons just prior to their ordination). Things are slowly changing with more formal education provided specifically for cantors,though minor orders aren't likely to be restored anytime soon.

Steve

Dear Deacon John,

This is a very important point. I am sure that every member of the commission is scholarly, and has pastoral talents! They are all fine priests, and I respect them personally. But my protest is about the text they have produced, not with the members, I have never made and would never make any personal criticism. It is the text that is not worthy.

But since you raised the point about the membership of the committee, I do have one observation. Hasn�t anyone noticed, that the bishops have appointed 8 diocesan priests to serve on this committee to revise a Liturgy that belongs to the whole church? How �inclusive� is that? They change words symbolically embracing inclusiveness, and yet there was not one woman on this commission, not one religious on this commission, not one layman on this commission.

Maybe once upon a time, we were simple people from the mountains, who knew nothing about our Church, and would just accept whatever the bishops and clergy thought was good for us. But that is not the case now.

Pope Benedict�s books (as Cardinal Ratzinger) are available at the local bookstore, and we can read what he says about Liturgy. I just finished reading �The Spirit of the Liturgy�. (I hope all the priests on the commission have read it.) The Vatican instructions are available on the internet, and we have read them. Today, Byzantine Catholics are reading, and they think, and this just doesn�t add up. The Pope has very definite opinions about how translations should be done, and it is clear that Archbishop Schott doesn�t agree with them, and has chosen a different way.

�What is my qualification� you ask? I am a member of this church, I support my church by my tithe, I worship in my parish every Sunday and go to communion regularly, and I am reading and thinking. This Liturgy is mine too, and not the property of bishops and priests only. Do you really think that only priests and bishops (and deacons) may speak? Is �ordination� the only qualification? What qualification do you think I need to speak?

Reminds me of a story about Napoleon I heard. In anger he once said that he was going to destroy the Catholic Church. His advisors said, �Good luck, your majesty! The bishops have been trying to do that for hundreds of years, but so far haven�t had any success.�

Archbishop Schott has the authority to do this all on his own (you quoted the canons.) So I suppose they will be known as the Archbishop Schott reforms. He has the authority to revise the Liturgy. But even if the bishop has the authority, does that make it right?

I respect my Archbishop, the bishops, priests and deacons. I respect them so much, that I am speaking up so that they can hear another voice, and maybe think again. I respect you for challenging me, and disagreeing with my opinions, your orar gives you that right! But please, don�t ask me what right I have to say, what I have to say. I am a member of the Church.

Once the Archbishop signs the reforms, and issues the revised Liturgy, abbreviated, with inclusive language, and innovative rubrics, you will not hear from me again on this subject.

Sometimes the Archbishop has to make very tough decisions, and live with the consequences. If he feels so strongly about the reforms, and wants that to be his legacy, then I think he will be making a mistake. But I admire his courage, and give him credit for his convictions.

Nick

Nick,

I did not post that you were personally criticizing the individual memebers of the IELC,nor do I challenge anyone's right to ask questions as a member of the Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh, but your post was not a question. You posted that the translation of the Liturgy is not "a pure, scholarly translation." So in making that claim, you infer that the members of the IELC checked their collective scholarship at the door. Unless your indidvidual scholarship is equal (I know mine is not) to the combined scholarship of the members of the IELC, or you have some inside knowlegde that the IELC followed some insidious agenda, can anyone, including myself, make that claim?

I think it important that we do ask questions of our Church, and we should expect rational and intelligent answers, so don't stop asking.