|
2 members (BlindEyes, 1 invisible),
266
guests, and
68
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,489
Posts417,336
Members6,132
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335
Former
|
|
Former
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335 |
Originally posted by Chtec:
]I'd just like to comment on these four things:
3) It is not uncommon for Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to leave the Royal Doors open for the entire Divine Liturgy, as well as for other services like Vespers and Matins. Some other Orthodox will only shut them minimally, like for the Communion of the Clergy.
4) I've been to Orthodox Churches of various traditions that do not have curtains; the Antiochian Orthodox parish I attend while at school does not have a curtain.
6) The New Calendar is used by many, many Orthodox.
7) Placing service books on the Holy Table is also pretty common among Greek, Antiochian, and Romanian Orthodox clergy, not to mention the ACROD. I've also seen my fair share of microphones...
So, these few practices you enumerated, whether right or wrong, are not peculiar to Ruthenian Greek Catholics, but are are found in the Orthodox world as well.
Dave Christ is Risen! Items 3 and 4 are recent innovations! 100 years ago, no Orthodox Church in the world did not have a curtain, and no Orthodox Liturgy or service (outside Bright Week) was served with the Royal doors open! And, the curtain is much more ancient than the iconostasis; Saint Basil the great, for example, notes that the curtain serves to prevent the cleargy and laity from seeing each other, and the latter from distracting the former, during the celecration of the Holy Mysteries. Item 6: A minority, <20%, of Orthodox worldwide use the Gregorian Calendar, although the vast majority in North America do, so our view from here is stilted. But, this change has a very unillustious history. Item 7: Here I agree with you. The Northern Slavs have developed a notion of not putting anything on the Holy Table that is not ritually prescribed, and they have a seperate stand for service books that the priest may need. But, this is not true anywhere else. Photius
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
A difficulty with rendering our texts into our living, vernacular language is that the language change: the meanings, usages, idioms change. To stay "within" a changing vernacular, texts have to be revised to reflect the state of the language; the perceived meaning of the text would otherwise be altered - unless it were read not as vernacular but as some archaic text.
One might not like the changes in language and protest them. But our language is a democracy, and I think that the use of words that can be gender-specific in gender-neutral contexts is disappearing our language - like it or not.
And if you wish to protest, the liturgy is not the place for it. Rather than using liturgical vernacular texts as a tool to protest such changes, ISTM, we should work for accuracy in translation even if that entails parts of our language that we don't really like. Or, if we really want essentialy immutable texts, then we should stick to Slavonic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by Photius:
Christ is Risen!
Items 3 and 4 are recent innovations! 100 years ago, no Orthodox Church in the world did not have a curtain, and no Orthodox Liturgy or service (outside Bright Week) was served with the Royal doors open!
And, the curtain is much more ancient than the iconostasis; Saint Basil the great, for example, notes that the curtain serves to prevent the cleargy and laity from seeing each other, and the latter from distracting the former, during the celecration of the Holy Mysteries.
Item 6: A minority, <20%, of Orthodox worldwide use the Gregorian Calendar, although the vast majority in North America do, so our view from here is stilted. But, this change has a very unillustious history.
Item 7: Here I agree with you. The Northern Slavs have developed a notion of not putting anything on the Holy Table that is not ritually prescribed, and they have a seperate stand for service books that the priest may need. But, this is not true anywhere else.
Photius Truly, He is risen! Chtec Fotij, I'm not saying that 3 and 4 are not changes; I'm just saying that such things are found in some Orthodox traditions, both in the Old Country and in the US. (And I would guess that 3 is much more common than 4.) Until these Orthodox (possibly entire national churches!) change their ways (which I don't see happening) I do not think that Greek Catholics should be worrying too much about them either. That's just my opinion on the matter. I'm also sure that the curtain St. Basil spoke of was a full curtain as still found in Syriac and Armenian churches. I don't know of ANY Eastern Orthodox churches that have such a curtain, either independant of or hung on the templon (as was the case in Byzantium). We only have vestigial curtains, I suppose (which all too often remind me of bad shower curtains). Regarding the calendar: even if a minority of Orthodox (including me) use the New Calendar, it is not an insignificant minority. 20% out of 250 or 300 million is not THAT tiny.  I generally try to not argue the calendar issue; I am just on the New Calendar by default. Chtec David
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
I still have not heard WHY we need a new translation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
To get it right. The 1965 translation needed correction. Just a few examples:
1) in the rite of preparation, the Great Martyr George was translated as “Gregory” and the Holy Martyr Theodore the Recruit was translated as “Theodore of Tyre.”
2) the deacon began the Liturgy, “It is time to sacrifice to the Lord..” This is simply wrong, the deacon's invitation is from Psalm 118:126, “It is time for the Lord to act.”
3) “Ecumenical” is an honorific that applies only to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Pope is the “holy Father, the Pope of Rome.”
4) People often made fun of the petition for “seasonable weather.” Are we praying for blizzards in winter and heat waves in summer. The Greek word means “favorable,” or “mild.”
5) “Peace be with you,” was corrected to “Peace be to you.” The older translators were probably influenced by the Latin, “Dominus vobiscum.”
6) The second part of the Cherubic Hymn was corrected, “That we may welcome ... “ actually means “That we mat receive ...” The Greek word for “receive” in Communion is used here.
7) The response “The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise,” was corrected to “Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.” For a detailed explanation, read: Robert Taft, “Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradtiion,”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 49 (1983), 340-365.
There are others I can think of, but this is enough for now. Most of the revisions wre purely stylistic, and affected only the priest's prayers. Do we need another translation? I think, yes, until we get it right. from Father David https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003152;p=3
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
Thanks djs for your response!  Yours in the risen Christ!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
You're welcome I think. But leaves me 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,533 Likes: 1 |
Atleast some bothered to respond to the post
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Originally posted by djs: You're welcome I think.
But leaves me Some (not all) of these reasons (and possibly others that I could add) are reasons why a new printing of the present books might contain corrections. Corrections would be helpful, and accepted. But that still doesn't explain why we need to revise the whole Liturgy, leaving out litanies etc., and bringing in new rubrics and inclusive language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335
Former
|
|
Former
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335 |
Originally posted by djs:
To get it right.
[QUOTE] The 1965 translation needed correction. Just a few examples:
7) The response “The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise,” was corrected to “Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.” For a detailed explanation, read: Robert Taft, “Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradtiion,”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 49 (1983), 340-365.
That should be " Mercy OF peace, sacrifice of praise" Photius
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
While correcting real problems or errors is great, much of the translation changes seem like change, for change's sake.
old troparion
Christ is Risen from the dead, by death he conquered death, and to those in the graves he granted life.
but in the new troparion
So "conquered" becomes "trampled" and "graves" becomes "tombs".
We have this song memorized (obviously). Now, next year, in the dark, on Easter night, the priest is going to ask us not to sing the troparion, because the words have changed. This will cause disruption and confusion.
It might be worth it, if the change was important, or correcting some error. But it seems to me that they are close synonyms anyway. So what is the gain here?
But the loss will be great! Telling people not to sing next year.... Some will be singing one version, others another version.
Of course, the Archbishop will have to organize a lot of talks, and classes, and rehearsals to repare everyone for the new revised version.
But what about those of us who do not come to classes, and will not attend a rehearsal? What about the 'ordinary' Byzantine Catholic, who will show up next year, looking forward to singing the Easter troparion? I don't think he/she will be happy.
Is it worth it?
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Personally, I can't stand inclusive language of any sort and think it silly to change mankind to humanity but I will live with it.
Shhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone, but the word "humanity" still has the word "MAN" in it. Shhhhhhhh! Joe (its not the humidity that bothers me, but the humanity)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
If inclusive language MUST be used, then our hierarchs should change the Creed.
We now profess:
"who for us MEN and for our salvation"
We should profess:
"who for us and for our salvation"
Anyone for this option? Are women included in the plan of salvation?
But changing the Creed can have disasterous consequences. Anyone remember the Filioque thingy?
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
Dear Photius,
CHRIST IS RISEN! You write "That should be "Mercy OF peace, sacrifice of praise" "
Both in Greek and in Church-Slavonic there are variations in that particular text. For Greek variations, check Trembelas; for Church-Slavonic, check the Old Rite. My own preference for this particular text is the Old Rite version, but there's a soft spot in my heart for the Old Rite. That text could be translated: "Mercy, peace, sacrifice and song".
For that matter, later in the anaphora the form prinosiashche appears in the Church-Slavonic textus receptus - but for some reasons there are precious few English translation which give that form as it should be, even though it represents the best Greek tradition (prospherontes) as well.
Good translations can be enjoyable, interesting and educational. Bad ones are painful, frustrating, boring and misleading.
fraternally in the Risen Lord,
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1
Cantor Member
|
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by nicholas:
While correcting real problems or errors is great, much of the translation changes seem like change, for change's sake.
old troparion
Christ is Risen from the dead, by death he conquered death, and to those in the graves he granted life.
but in the new troparion
So "conquered" becomes "trampled" and "graves" becomes "tombs".
We have this song memorized (obviously). Now, next year, in the dark, on Easter night, the priest is going to ask us not to sing the troparion, because the words have changed. This will cause disruption and confusion.
Nick Actually, don't tell anyone this but those are the same words the Orthodox church uses.  Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs, bestowing life! Now, next year, in the dark, on Easter night, the priest is going to ask us not to sing the troparion, because the words have changed. I would certainly hope your priest does not advise the choir/cantor NOT to sing the troparion of Pascha. (or do you mean just that 'new' one?) There does seem to be a lot of disobedience going around in priests, cantors, laity etc. Are we becoming independent churches or unified by a common patriarchy.. J Thur makes a good point in another thread tha the Divine Liturgy is the only liturgical service that is being fought over. For all the parishes that would be so disrupted by the changes in the Liturgy, how many of those parishe celebrate Vespers regularly? or Matins regularly? The idea that the Divine Liturgy is the only liturgical service worth spending time to attend seems to be a secular (and to some a 'Latin') approach to church life. Just my thoughts, however insignificant they are in the grand scheme. Steve
|
|
|
|
|
