www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Divine Liturgy Translation

I would like to make some comments over a period of time on liturgical translation. I hope it will be helpful to all of us, including me, in clarifying what it is all about.
The Liturgy begins with a phrase some have questioned. The deacon says, "Blahoslovi, Vladyko!" (Bless, Master). I think we must follow the more obvious meaning here, that the deacon is addressing the one who presides (bishop - priest), asking him to make the initial blessing, which he does, "Blessed is the kingdom (reign/dominion/sovereignty ?, but again the simpler "kingdom" works best) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever." While some have said that this invitation to bless is actually addressed to God, who alone is Master, this is not too likely, since "Vladyko," Greek, "despota", was an ordinary title of respect for someone who had a position of authority. That "Vladyko" applies to humans as well as God can be seen in the acclamation, "Na mnohaja lita, Vladyko," ("For many years, O Master," you would hardly sing to God, "For many years.") Men are also addressed as "kyrios" "Lord" though this title originally indicated God alone, e.g. "Jesus is Lord." In contemporary language, we do not usually call men, �Master," and, indeed, "Master" in English has been used for underage boys. Likewise, in earlier centuries, while the bishop would have been called "Master," there was no distinct title for secular priests who would often serve in the place of bishops - indeed, this has become the more common practice now. Therefore, no separate title evolved for priests who would serve the Liturgy. Now, however, its seems separate titles are needed. We first translated the invitation for a bishop celebrant as "Most Reverend Bishop, give the blessing." Perhaps there are problems even with this, but it is quite clear. In the restoration of the Liturgy, it will probably not be used much, since at the beginning of the Liturgy, the bishop sits in the midst of the congregation (he has not yet entered the altar) and the deacon invites the first con-celebrating priest to enunciate the blessing. For the priest, then, we developed the title, "Father, give the blessing." Usually, until now, it has been "Reverend Father ... " but we simplified here. It should be noted that the title "Father" also has some problems. It was in previous times the title for a monastic, not for a secular priest. However, now priest prefer the title "Father," to avoid the more Reform-sounding "Reverend." Interestingly, when I studied in Rome in Latin, as a secular priest, i was usually addressed as "Reverendus Dominus," translating literally as "Reverend Lord," but equivalent in English to "Reverend Mister." Of course, the title "Father" gives problems, too, because Jesus said you are only to call God, �Father." (Matthew 23:9). Irenee Hausherr in his book, Spiritual Direction in the Early Christian East, remarks, "The Lord gave this explicit warning: �You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.' If such prohibitions did not prevent certain very godly christians from calling mere mortals �Father' or �Abba', it is because - far from viewing this habit as an act of disobedience to the Lord's admonition - they advisedly saw in it homage to the one fatherhood of God, just as we do not disregard the solemn declaration of Christ, �There is one alone who is good,' when we recognize goodness in human beings. Created goodness praises the one source of all goodness." It is interesting, too, that when a priest is asked for a blessing, he immediately defers it to the one who is the fount of all blessings. A person may ask a priest, "Father, bless," and the priest will answer, "Blessed is God ... " So, too, in the Liturgy, the blessing is given to God, specifically here to his dominion (kingdom) among us.
Enough for today - when I can I will give a few of my thoughts on a very controversial translation, "forever and ever," or "ages of ages."

Bless me a sinner, Reverendus Dominus!

The reference to the Fatherhood of God and the point you make is interesting.

I've always seen the veneration of the Mother of God and the Saints like that.

In our Church, the liturgical veneration of them is considered a part of Divine Worship because we honour the Lord Who is in them and Who is the source of their Holiness.

No prayer ever ends with the Saint we invoke. It ends with God.

The Mother of God is a special case here and the Mystery of the Incarnation itself is honoured in our veneration of Her.

I just wanted to share my thoughts on this interesting subject.

Kissing your right hand, I again implore your blessing,

Alex

I am pressed for time, as usual and hope I read the first paragraph correctly...

Anyhow, the word 'kingdom' is a mistranslation in most English Bibles and services of the Gr. 'vasileia.' In the usage of the Greek Scriptures and Fathers, with rare exception, it means the power or rule of God, His uncreated glory, light, and energies of the divine world.

This is the 'blessed kingdom' that Church invokes through the priest in order for the Divine Liturgy to start, because the kingdom or divine rule is in our midst in the Church. The divine world that embraces the participation of the Saints is within the Church both mystically and visibly in the interior iconographic.

The "Kingdom" is both the "uncreated glory" of God outside of us and most importantly within us. This is why if our hearts are shut and remain so, instead of eternal life, spiritual death begins in this world and continues in the next.

So, in case I ma not making sense, "Kingdom" is a mistranslation of soemthing to the effect of "uncreated Glory of God".

(Uncreated because, unlike Latins, Orthodox do not beleive in created Glory)

About title given to Priests. My backround is of western German extraction, as is the parish i grew up in, and also the town i was raised in. Now, my mother tells me that until the mid-60s or so, we refered to Priests as Professor, or Doctor for parochial Priests (what few there were in town from the North Rhine) or Father (Prater, not Vater)for the monks in our parish (there mas a monastery at the east end of the church-temple). I do not know what we would have called a Bishop, since the diocesan Bishops were Irish typically, and problematic to us Germans (they did not like all the devotions and High Vespers services we had-Greek Catholics were not the only ones to suffer them!)

Dear Fr. David:

Thank you for your very helpful and clear posting re liturgical translation. I look forward to the next installment, esp. re the "ever forever" or "forever and ever" or "for/unto/etc. ages of ages".

Could you also say something about coordination with Orthodox in this matter. I realize that the Orthodox have not themselves been able to come up with one single translation. Nevertheless, it would seem to be that tayloring any Greco Catholic translations as closely as possible with theirs would be a central principle - given ecumenism, our mission of reconciliation [and practically {if admitted rather optimistically}]in Greco-Catholic liturgical translation. Perhaps not the only principle, but A central principle?

Why "reinvent the wheel" (as it were) if we are at a later date only going to have to use their "wheel" anyways. That is to say, hopefully Scoba (or some other body, e.g. a future Pan Orthodox Synod) will one day come up with the English Translation, we Greco-Catholics would just adopt it anyways.

Let me float a further idea.... What about at this point, provisionally go with their best translation [which also hopefully, would also be the most popular and the one most likely to be picked in the future as THE official translation]and use that?

just a few random thoughts from a non-liturgist/liturgiologist

and thank you for your work thus far...

cix

h

Dear Father David:

Some thoughts regarding the Hierarchical Liturgy:

I have been intrigued regarding some of the changes in the last decade to the Pontifical Divine Liturgy. Since the initial blessing of this service is mentioned here (i.e.: "Most Rev. Bishop, give the blessing"), I have been prompted to look for some further insight into the other reforms of our pontifical.

I realize that the version that we celebrated for decades may or may not have been the most liturgically correct vis a vis other recensions of it. But, it was always beautifully and enthusiastically celebrated and contained some very moving rubrics, the likes of which the new order does not do justice to.

We have adopted the Russian practice of the bishop beginning the Liturgy in the center of the church (at the "cathedra" or raised platform that was once the end of the solea or "amvon"). Previously, the bishop and his assistentia began the liturgy from the throne located to the right side of the iconostasis (where it is also located in Greek churches). I am aware of the differences between Russian (or perhaps Slavic) locations of the episcopal throne. The Greeks and we have kept it to the side while the Russians only put it out in the center for hierarchical celebrations. All maintain the throne which is behind the altar at the "high place." Historically, in the Great Church (and many others) the throne at the high place was the location of the bishop's chair, which he would ascend to in order to give the opening greeting: "Peace be with all" and be seated for the Liturgy of the Word. Besides remaining here in Byzantine Rite usage churches, it has been restored to this location today in many Latin Rite churches as the "presider's chair" or in modern Roman cathedrals, the bishop's throne.

The episcopal throne, when on the right of the iconostasis, is the descendent of the same throne that the Russians place in the center of the church. Since the solea was reduced to only the platform in front of the iconostasis, it was logical then, that the episcopal throne used during the enarxis of the liturgy, be placed at the end of this reformed solea, much as the scripture readings, now proclaimed (at least the Gospel) from the small circular remnant of the "amvon" in the center of the reduced platform-solea, were once read at the pinnacle of the "runway" style amvon which protruded into the center of the church, under the main dome.

Why has our church adopted the Russian usage regarding the throne used for the enarxis of the liturgy and moved away from the liturgical use of the one on the right side? These thrones still exist but it would seem that they have very little usage, except perhaps for a place where the bishop sits during vespers and other non-eucharistic services. It seems that there are now three distinct thrones or places for them: (a) at the high place behind the altar; (b) in the center of the church (at the place of the tetrapod - former amvon area); and (c) to the right side of the solea.

While I understand the historical sense of having the bishop celebrate from the center of the church during the enarxis (entrance rites of the liturgy), it seems to me to have some disadvantages. First, it causes confusion as to the location of so many thrones. (2) It obstructs the ability of the faithful (with so many clergy and assistants huddled at the tetrapod area) to see both the bishop, who should, as the presider, be a focus of the liturgy, and also, the iconostas and altar. Entered or not into the altar, it would seem that the bishop should be at a high profile position as he prays among his assembled people. (3) It breaks with years of tradition in our Ruthenian usage, where we have maintained the Greek style of the liturgy, in favor of a more "Russified" service.

I do not deny that some of these reforms are in continuity with the older usage of the liturgy, but they pose some confusing observations. In regards to the first-concelebrant intoning the "Blessed is the kingdom . . . ", this diverges from our former practice of allowing the bishop (who is the presider of the liturgy) to take this opening blessing. Regardless of whether or not he has entered the sanctuary yet, he is still present in the midst of the assembly and as the archpastor, it would seem natural that he would give the opening blessing, not a priest designated for this purpose. Having a presbyter in the altar raise the book of Gospels while the bishop intones the blessing, seems more appropriate. If the bishop is not to intone the blessing because he has not entered the sanctuary (or technically the church at all), then why have the deacons and clergy recite with him the opening dialogue of the liturgy (Heavenly King . . . Glory to God . . . O Lord open my lips . . . It is time to offer sacrifice, etc.). Under the reasoning that forbids the bishop from intoning the "Blessed is the Kingdom (or reign or domain . . .), should these opening dialogues and blessings not then be prayed with/obtained from clergy in the altar?

Note: If we wish to honor historical circumstances and the hierarch is not to be in the church until the little entrance, than maybe he could stay in the sacristy or rectory, until the point he is needed. To be absolutely true to history, having the bishop in the church at the beginning would also seem to require a reform of the enarxis of the liturgy, to eliminate the now truncated compilation of various entrance rites. I have written about this aspect before: that we have "at least" three different entrance rites compiled into one - (a) the antiphons (originally sung in procession from one church to the main one where the eucharist was to be celebrated; (b) the trisagion or "Holy God . . . " and (c) the troparia, also entrance or processional hymns. Since in our present circumstances, he has entered the main body of the church, I don't think that we should ignore the presence of the bishop during these rites, by denying him the opening blessing, albeit that he has not yet entered the sanctuary or altar. It seems to go against reason, in my humble opinion, where people would expect the bishop to offer the initial benediction.

The most noticeable changes in our pontifical occur at the beginning blessing of the four corners of the earth and at the time of the small entrance. There are awkward moments that seem to call for a return to what we did before. The current blessings with the prayer "O Lord, O Lord, look down from heaven and see . . . " are now given with no response in between (many years), until the final blessing is performed. The silence created by this lack of response makes this portion of the service seem like something is being left out. I understand that in the Russian usage, the blessing is given while the hierarch prays silently (if at all) and the choir sings "many years" while he does so. I believe it is better that the blessings should be aloud, but are enacted better, with the responses after each one, or at least (as our bishops also sometimes did in the past), to do all four sides together with a singular prayer, allowing for the "many years" response at the completion. Either option would give a stronger format to this blessing.

Our recension of the hierarchical little entrance used to contain the beautiful prayer, "O Christ, the true light, enlightening and sanctifying everyone who comes into the world . . . " Is this still retained in the current pontifical and if not, why? It would appear to be a very ancient prayer. Afterwards, the bishop would circumambulate the altar three times, while incensing it, with the also beautiful verse-response hymn of: Bishop: "Save us, O Son of God" People: "Risen from the dead (or appropriate verse) save us who sing to you: Alleluia." Our people loved to sing this and it was very inspiring. Afterwards, the people would continue directly with the "Come, let us worship . . . " and the troparia. Now, with the bishop chanting the "Come let us worship and bow before Christ" and the people attempting to complete the response, it just seems like something is ajar or being eliminated. I do realize that this is the manner the entrance is taken in the Russian usage and I'm not sure about the Greek, but should we blindly copy them in order to be "correct" when we had our own beautiful redaction?

We had a lovely and inspiring pontifical before the reforms. The people enjoyed singing it and it was very easy for the concelebrants to serve. Everyone knew their place and it flowed naturally. I know that Rome published a version of the pontifical in the 1980s. Before that, both Ruthenian and Ukrainian-Ruthenian churches used the same recension of the hierarchical service. Without having time to do historical research into the hierarchical liturgy, are there any elements of our former pontifical that are remnants of pre-Nikonian or earlier orders which have been suppressed in other usages but were retained in ours? Using logic gleamed from other liturgical rites, it would seem that the pontifical liturgy, which was used far less than the "standard redaction" without a bishop, would have undergone less changes over the years and particularly in rather isolated Subcarpathian Rus' and Galicia, may not have been effected by reforms made in other more cosmopolitan hierarchical recensions.

I believe that one interesting remnant of an older usage once contained in our pontifical is that fact that the bishop, during the amvon prayer, would turn to the people and bless at the words, "save your people and bless your inheritance." Some present bishops continue to do this and I have found it in some older Ukrainian sources. In my studies, information would point to the fact that this would have at one time been the final blessing of the liturgy, before the other dismissal rites were added, and was retained in pontifical services as one of such. Can this be another witness to the antiquity of some of our rubrics?

I am glad to recognize historical scholarship when made clear, but how was it necessary to make changes to our pontifical liturgy that seem incongruent with the manner and style of our recension, in favor of imitating current usages in the Russian and other churches? Maybe there were problems with our pontifical order and I would be glad to know these, but to me, they were symbolic of the particular and indigenous Ruthenian redaction of this important service and no catechesis has been given as to the reason for the changes. I don't claim to know all the facts and gladly acquiesce to your wealth of knowledge to help me understand some of the recent revisions to our hierarchical liturgy.

One final question. Where did our former pontifical rite originate from and is there a standard version available anywhere outside of booklets prepared for particular celebrations? Is there a compilation somewhere in Church Slavonic that was the example used for our pontifical services? I have many older liturgical books, but have never come across this one, although I have been told that it originates from a Lviv recension of the 1800s.

Any light you can shed on this would be very helpful and appreciated. Thank you, Father for taking the time, now and during past years, to help us all understand and appreciate the liturgy better.

Fr. Joe

In the Metropolia translations, the doxologies end, "always, now, and ever, and forever. This translates, of course, the more literal, "unto ages of ages." (Greek, pantote, nun, kai aei, kai tous aionas ton aionon; Latin, nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum) So both East and West agree in this. The translation (ever and forever) was chosen by the first translators in 1965. At that time it was explained that "forever" meant the same thing as "ages of ages." This translation has been maintained in the "restored Liturgy." To be honest, this translation has been the source of much reaction. Those who accept "forever," generally seem to be able to recognize "ages of ages" also, but those who hold for "ages of ages" deny strongly that it can be "forever." This problem has been around for a long time, and I think even the Mediaeval English had difficulties and came up with the unusual �world without end." "World," of course, can be conceived as a synonym for "ages," and the Latin "saecula" "ages" is the root word for "secular," which means then "belonging to this age" or equally "to this world," in distinction to the eternal world. I came across an interesting article once that traced the original meaning of "aionon ton aionon" to the concept of human generations, that its original meaning was "human life-span after human life-span," and therefore either a very long time, or eternally, that is, open-ended at both ends. We have a limited life-span, but God is eternal, before any human was and beyond all human lives, though in our Christian belief, after our earthly (therefore "secular" life, we are united with God in eternity. That, of course, is only the original meaning, most interpret "ages of ages" now as beyond all created cycles into the now of eternity. My personal opinion is that both translations are acceptable, though I realize that will not please some. I will also say that I am not a crusader for "forever and ever," I'll defend its use, but would much rather be more irenic to those who oppose it than to fight them. I have two difficulties with "ages" (though I am quite willing to accept such a translation, since it is obviously been accepted by the Church for centuries): the first is that the primitive Gnostic heresy contained many speculations about "aeons" (ages), and likewise today, I don't like to discuss "ages" in any connection with complicated theories and speculations about the cyclic nature of creation. That's all it is - speculation. This leads to my second caution - scientifically, we don't (generally, though some may contradict me on this) believe in the cyclic nature of the universe - it had a beginning, it will have an end - God has no beginning and no end. While we are bound by space and time, we cannot form conceptions of eternity, this can happen only when we die and enter eternity and are freed from our "secular" existence, when we rise in the "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:44) As St. Paul said, "At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face.' (1 Corinthians 13:12). However, these are just thoughts, I don't mean them as clubs against the "ages of ages" translation.

Fr. Joe's question is long and complicated, let me think about it. Part of the answer, of course, is that we are following the text of the Archieraticon published (in Slavonic) for the Ruthenian Church by the Oriental Congregation in 1973.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Father David:
[QB]>>>In the Metropolia translations, the doxologies end, "always, now, and ever, and forever. This translates, of course, the more literal, "unto ages of ages." (Greek, pantote, nun, kai aei, kai tous aionas ton aionon; Latin, nunc et semper et in saecula saeculorum) So both East and West agree in this. The translation (ever and forever) was chosen by the first translators in 1965. At that time it was explained that "forever" meant the same thing as "ages of ages." This translation has been maintained in the "restored Liturgy." To be honest, this translation has been the source of much reaction. Those who accept "forever," generally seem to be able to recognize "ages of ages" also, but those who hold for "ages of ages" deny strongly that it can be "forever."<<<

Insofar as aeon is not a term that can be translated easily into English, the obvious solution is not to translate it at all, and simply to render it as "unto aeon of aeons". People who are curious about the word will undoubtedly take the trouble to investigate, while those who aren't (how many people have bothered to learn the meaning of Sabaoth, Alleluia, or even Amen?) probably don't care one way or the other.

Another change that I noticed:

In the "old" Ruthenian Pontifical Liturgy, there was a point (I believe at the Prayer of the First Hour recited at the Little Entrance, but I'm not sure) where the bishop would bless with the trikirion alone. I always thought it was something purely Ruthenian, until I saw Greek hierarchs do it (not at that particular point in the Liturgy, though).

The "new" Pontifical Liturgy has both trikirion and dikirion used for this blessing.

I'd be curious as to how the Oriental Congregation compiled the Archieratikon in 1970. Was there a commission of Ruthenian clergy and liturgists that made the changes? What was the basis?

-Dave

Regarding Master/Father:

Master also has another connotation in English. Master implies a master/servant relationship that is demeaning to the servant and thus contrary to the theological construct.

The title, Father, while directed to the priest, recognizes his symbolic responsibility. Another example is when I am called Doctor or Doc in a social setting. The Doctor recognizes my responsibility in a particular relationship which is exercised on behalf of a patient. The Father recognizes the relationship of the priest on behalf of the community. I therefore think this is probably the best term that can be provided for an English/New World translation.

Regarding Kingdom:

I agree that kingdom also incompletely connotes the meaning but cannot offer a better substitute.

Regarding ages of ages versus forever and ever:

I understand the arguement when it is limited to just "ages" or "forever." But it seems to me that in either translation, it is not a word that is being translated but the entire phrase. "Ages of ages" and "forever and ever." "Forever and ever" is more modern and more common in its usage, The most modern rendition is probably "to infinity and beyond," but I digress.

While I would not deny that Orthodox texts and experts need to be consulted, I would also recommend involving Western texts and experts. One of the problems the Eastern churches can run into is ostracizing themselves from the Western Churches. By utilizing terminology that is completely foreign to the Western sense, the net result may be mis-communication or even alienation.

We must face the fact that we cannot separate ourselves from our Western culture. In my opinion "ages of ages" has this potential. "Forever and ever" is a more common and therefore a more comfortable description for our time and place.

John

The way I understood why the priest/deacon asks the bishop for blessing at the beginning of the Liturgy is because the bishop presides the liturgy. And in order for them to begin the liturgy, the priest/deacon gets "permission" from the bishop by getting a blessing from him.

Fr. David,
Thank you for your participation in this board.
As strong advocate of "ages of ages," I point out the possibility that salvation, not secular history has and can be thought of as cyclical.
I refer to the Patristic "recapitulation" theme, as especially treated by St. Irenaeus. Think
Mary as Second Eve; Christ as the New Adam, and so on.
It is this eternalized salfivic "cycle" into which creation is "extrapolated into" out from secular, straight-line history. Thus
"ages of ages" seems fully appropriate.

Just an ordinary kind of fool.

This is a very interesting and needed discussion.

As Fr. Petras has pointed out, some of the most lively and heated discussions over liturgical translations have centered around the terms, "ages of ages" vs. "and forever" or "forever and ever." Fr. David's description of the linguistic dialectic regarding the interpretation of these terms is one of the first intelligent discussions that I have seen on the topic so far.

I agree with Deacon Petrus that one of the chief aims of liturgical translations is to render the text understandable to those speaking the language today. "Now and ever and forever" is much more readily understandable to 20th and 21st. century ears than "now and ever and unto ages of ages" could ever be, regardless of the precise meaning of a phrase that has been contended even from the beginning (as noted by Fr. David). The choice of "world without end" by earlier English translators of the Western tradition points to the difficulty in rendering this term in English, no matter what century.

The change from this to "forever and ever" in the 1970 Roman Missal also points to the greater suitability of the latter in contemporary understanding. A benefit that Roman liturgical publishers have that we, Eastern Catholics or Orthodox do not, is the function of groups such as the "International Commission for the use of English in the Liturgy." This committee has provided uniform editions and circumvented the publication of multiple and often conflicting English translations of the liturgical services that we in the East have had to deal with since English began to be used in the liturgy.

To Ctec, I am glad that you pointed out yet another part of our former pontifical recension. The blessing with the trikerion only, at the time of the little entrance was/is accompanied by the beautiful prayer I mention above,

"O Christ, the true light, enlightening and sanctifying everyone who comes into the world. Mark us with the light of your countenance, that walking in it, we may see the light of your glory, which is beyond understanding. Direct our steps in the observance of your commandments. Through the prayers of your most pure Mother, O Christ our God, save us!"

I do not know off hand, the origin of this prayer, except that as noted, it is used in the Hours of the Divine Office, (Fr. David will no doubt point the origin out to us). I do believe that it succinctly sums up much of what our theological tradition teaches us about God, the incarnation, the Law, Grace, salvation, the Christian life and the intercession of the Mother of God.

Thank you again Father Petras, for taking the time to help all of us. I realize that my question is complex and am glad that others are also interested in this facet of our liturgical reforms. The Archieratikon published by Rome in 1973 and brought to the forefront by English and Ukrainian translators in the 1980s must certainly be based on scholarship, but I am intrigued to know if it was a compilation or "correction" using sources from other traditions or truly a rendering of authentic Ruthenian usage.

In Christ,

Fr. Joe

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fr. Joe:


>>>I agree with Deacon Petrus that one of the chief aims of liturgical translations is to render the text understandable to those speaking the language today.<<<

However, this should not be taken as license to render the liturgy in an entirely colloquial English that dilutes everything to banality. Liturgy, even when it was being composed in the vernacular, usually assayed a hieratic or sacred style or idiom (the same can be said of liturgical music), which served to indicate that this was an activity "set aside", not of this world--sacred. Too many liturgical translators in the English speaking world have taken the mandate to render the liturgy in the vernacular as a license to produce uninspired, flat, boring, banal--and yes, stupid translations. And one thing is very clear--if you treat the people as though they are stupid, they will act as though they are stupid. Give them a little credit for being able to comprehend something a little more advanced than USAToday (or the New American Bible, while we're at it).

Another danger resulting from the general approach taken by American liturgical translators has been a tendency to paraphrase rather than translate, as well as to impose the translator's own understanding of "what the text really means" onto the translation. The distinction between "now and ever and forever" and "now and ever and unto ages of ages" is merely symptomatic of this. In the Latin Church, I still cringe every time I hear the response "And also with you" to the blessing "Peace be unto you". Within our own liturgy, I marvel at the linguistic gymnastics that gives us such phrases as "the episcopate of the true believers" (what, are our bishops not orthodox?) or "Christians of the true faith" (is not the true faith orthodox?).

To which we must add another problem--our liturgy is sung, and therefore a translation must be not only accurate, reverent, and beautiful, but also singable. And this points out how the entire process of translation should be a team effort that involves not only linguists, but also English writers, musicians, historians and liturgists.

It's a difficult process, and insofar as the Liturgy belongs to all the people, I think that the deliberations of any liturgical translation group ought to be open and transparent. It may not be in actuality, but it has the appearance of a secret cabal, or at the very least, a conclave of experts who do not consider us to have any legitimate interest in what they are doing.

[ 09-09-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]