www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Question # 2 on the New Translation of the Liturgy

Most of the Orthodox I have met are also lovely people, and they hold no notions of adapting the Church to the modern world. For some strange reason, they think that concept is totally backward. Can you believe?

Dear Anna P.,

I believe one hundred percent in the equality of women. They have always been equal, although sadly not always treated as such. However, changing language to accomodate some perceived inequity does not show equality but instead helps retain the notion that women are a minority that need to be catered to. It is not unlike the debate a few years ago as to whether or not to make "ebonics" part of the official language as taught in schools. This practice would have not had any benefit for the African-Americans but would have helped to foster the sad myth that they were somehow a group that could never be on par with others so we needed to patronize them. Changing society's views is important in all areas where there has been injustice. Creating a new language or words, however, only perpetuate inequality, which should be no one's goal.

Now this is curious. Inclusive language is out because Rome says so, but the new translation is out despite the fact that Rome says yes to it.
I remark on this despite the fact that my observations will make no difference, because this has become an emotional issue, and it is not simply a linguistic question, it is a reaction against the whole feminist movement. But there are different kinds of feminism. Some are radical and extreme and divisive and heretical. However, I think we should pay some attention to the position of women, and there are some moderate, reasonable forms of feminism. Orthodoxy in America is not a monolith against all women! A common translation was made about ten years ago, by a blue ribbon panel of Orthodox scholars, which was rejected, but which also took into consideration language about women, and was actually more inclusive than our present translation. See also the Orthodox International Symposium at Rhodes in 1988 on the place of women.
There is a particular problem in the English language about the use of the word �man� and �men.� All conservatives that I know say: in English the word �man� is equivalent to �human being - male and female.� However, it does seem that there is an ambiguity. So Rome can authorize an official English translation of a particular document and title it �Why Only Men Can be Ordained to the Priesthood,� and we all know what it means. If �men� is not ambiguous, then they should have used the word �males.� The original text in Greek uses �anthropos� and this word has no ambiguity in Greek, it means �a member of the human race,� or so Greek scholars tell me. The problem then becomes one of translation.
Yes, some political correctness is silly. And so the strident cries, �No secularism in the Church.�
Secularism = feminism = inclusive language = etc. But it not all the same. People, we speak the same language that the secular world speaks, otherwise we could not speak to it or with it or, for that matter, with anybody! It saddens me that we harden our hearts against the legitimate - and I want to underline and emphasize the word �legitimate� - concerns of women. My faith is this: some forms of horizontal inclusive language are admissible, because, after all, we have to say what we believe - and what I believe is that Jesus died on the Cross to save both men and women. Amen, brothers and sisters, and Anna P. Sadly for us weak men, it was the women who remained faithful to Jesus to the Cross, except for John, and it was the women to whom the risen Christ first appeared.

Dear Father David,
CHRIST IS RISEN! And forgive my inability to resist a cheap shot. You write that "Rome can authorize an official English translation of a particular document and title it �Why Only Men Can be Ordained to the Priesthood,� and we all know what it means." So we do. And if we are told that "A man-eating tiger has gone loose from the zoo", we all know what that means too.
Now to get serious - Rome is a big place, with lots of people in it holding various views on various matters. The Church is infinitely bigger, and also includes over a billion people, making diversity of views inevitable. So there is no cause for surprise that one does not find total linguistic consistency in the writings of different people in different departments of the Holy See, nor is it surprising that one finds multiple responses to certain pronouncements. There is also a tendency to select from the publications of the Holy See what interests the reader - the last pontificate saw an exponential increase in such publication, to the point that no one could seriously attempt to read them all with keen attention.
As to the matters at hand, it's highly probable that most of those interested have developed their linguistic opinions without waiting for Rome to dictate either how to think, or how to speak English.
It's not quite accurate to say that we are speaking the language of the secular world around us, if only because that secular world around us is not univocal. Moreover, we cannot avoid the need for some specialized vocabulary and expressions. When the auto mechanic tells me what's wrong with the car, he is apt to use his own specialized vocabulary and expressions; when the physiotherapist tells me what's wrong with my left arm and what to do about, the physiotherapist likewise uses a specialized vocabulary and expressions. Such is life.

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

It is only my opinion, I know. But "inclusive language" is out, because it is a mistake. It is silliness, and other Othodox Churches will laugh at what we have done.

Again, this is another reason why I simply do not believe that Rome has given its approval, or "said yes" to this Liturgy. Rome approves of this sort of thing? I don't think so.

I am not a feminist, nor a masculist for that matter , but I can see how some women may feel that the use of a masculine noun or pronoun to reflect all people is a thing of the past. Such gender-inclusivity or gender-neutrality can get out of hand (like those who won't use words like "history" or something), but I don't think it is wrong, or some sort of concession to PCness, to think of some women's opinion when translating liturgical texts.

When it comes to a translation, certain things are not negotiable; no matter what others may want, the Trinity is always Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it seems that other terms and words are purely stylistic, like "Lover of mankind" vs. "Love of humankind" vs. "Lover of humanity" vs. "Lover of our kind" vs. "Friend of Man" vs. "Man-befriending God." I say leave it to linguists, translators, poets and cantors to make suggestions.

All this could be considered as part of a larger issue. I think that we in the East need to come to grips with a lot of our liturgical texts. Most were written in male monasteries, so we might have a sticheron that starts off "Brothers..."; it is always amusing to hear that sung by a group of women during a service that is attended primarily by women. Other texts, especially later compositions, are very polemical and can be viewed as offensive, even by those in the church. I always wonder how Orthodox Christians of Jewish descent, such as the Hieromartyr Alexander Menn, felt when they heard the Great Week hymnography that comes across as saying the church is a Gentile, "Jew-Free" entity. We shouldn't shy away from these texts; they exist, and they are part of our tradition. But, I don't think that looking at them critically, especially when translating, is a bad thing.

Dave

May I state something quickly, I think that the liturgies and prayers developed from and mirror Holy Scripture,the Holy Fathers and Tradition should be approached very carefully and cautiously, not amplifying or changing their original intentions.

Guess I'm influenced currently due to reading and studying St.Athanasius's Letter to Marcellinus.

james

I agree. We must not allow a non-Christian ideology to infect the liturgy of the Church. If the Church seeks to be contemporary she will stand for nothing.

Christ is risen!

Can someone please explain to me with ALL the problems that are facing the Church why it is so important for our Church to work on new Translations of the Liturgy?

Really, aren't there more important things like:
* Preaching the gospels to all nations instead of closing Churches.
* Taking a more proactive Pro-Life stance!
* Insuring our children are SAFE at Church.
* Helping the needy both with finance and spiritual.
* Recruiting new priest.
* Removing none Eastern elements in the Church (ie. stain glass windows)
* etc. and so forth.

I can think of a hundred things more important than changing the Liturgy. I would really like someone to please give me an honest explaination.

Yours in the risen Christ!

A very good question.

Inclusive language often creates more questions than it answers. If Christ no longer loves mankind, but now loves 'humanity' does that mean I am no longer to love God, but I am commanded to love 'divinity'. It seems so impersonal, and so cold. Not a very attractive religion.

Exactly!!!

But the modernists do want to hear this stuff. They are too busy taking us down the so called road of enlightenment.

I could see if the modernists had one thing to point at as an accomplishment but all of the modernizing has been a utter failure.

Consider the following sad developments over the years:

1) I can't find a single Ruthenian Catholic Church where Vespers is celebrated. No, Vespers with liturgy does not count.

2) Chopped up liturgies because going over an hour is 'too much'.

3) Opening and closing of the royal doors at proper times completely ignored

4) No curtain behind the royal doors

5) Confessionals built into churches

6) New Calendar

7) Placing inappropiate items on the main altar(i.e. microphones, books, etc.)

8) Kneelers and kneeling on Sunday which is in direct contradiction with Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council "Since there are some persons who kneel in church on Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, with a view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it has seemed best to the holy council for prayers to be offered to God while standing"

9) The tremendous loss of people belonging and attending church(this is especially true in Northeast Ohio)

10) Completely ignoring any connection to our Rusyn heritage, and after doing that performing no evangilization to Americans. Thus resulting in barely any converts and all East European immigrants going to Ukrainian Catholic churches.

11) Not publishing the full Rescension in new translation.

I could go on.

Where exactly has all of this modernizing got us?


Michael Cerularius

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Michael Cerularius (an interesting choice of pen name!) presents us with a check list. My experience of Ruthenian parishes isn't altogether as broad as it should be, put I can offer a few observations on some of the items:


But the modernists do want to hear this stuff. They are too busy taking us down the so called road of enlightenment.

I could see if the modernists had one thing to point at as an accomplishment but all of the modernizing has been a utter failure.

Consider the following sad developments over the years:

1) I can't find a single Ruthenian Catholic Church where Vespers is celebrated. No, Vespers with liturgy does not count.

Well, I do known of ONE parish church where Vespers is offered regularly on Saturday evenings and before the feasts (by the way, Good Friday Vespers with the Shroud doesn't count either!).

2) Chopped up liturgies because going over an hour is 'too much'.

Likewise I know of ONE parish Church in the Ruthenian Church in the USA where this does not happen. I am reliably assured that there are a few more.

3) Opening and closing of the royal doors at proper times completely ignored.

Again, I know of ONE Ruthenian parish Church in the USA where these rubrics are followed in full.

4) No curtain behind the royal doors.

Again, I know of ONE Ruthenian parish Church in the USA where there is a curtain (actually, come to think of it, I know of two).

5) Confessionals built into churches.
This is probably the rule in most places.

6) New Calendar.
A priest of my acquaintance wanted to return to the Old Calendar, having first made sure that the parishioners would welcome this.

7) Placing inappropiate items on the main altar(i.e. microphones, books, etc.)

One can defend the placing of certain specific books on the Holy Table - such as the Gospel Book and perhaps the service-book.

8) Kneelers and kneeling on Sunday which is in direct contradiction with Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council "Since there are some persons who kneel in church on Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, with a view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it has seemed best to the holy council for prayers to be offered to God while standing"

9) The tremendous loss of people belonging and attending church(this is especially true in Northeast Ohio)

10) Completely ignoring any connection to our Rusyn heritage, and after doing that performing no evangilization to Americans. Thus resulting in barely any converts and all East European immigrants going to Ukrainian Catholic churches.

I've taken an unofficial survey and find that in many places it is true that recent arrivals from Transcarpathia are attending Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches and recent arrivals from Slovakia are attending Slovak Roman Catholic Churches. This is not completely universal, but is statistically significant.

11) Not publishing the full Rescension in new translation.
Considering what any new translation would be like, it might be better to retain the older one.

I could go on.

So could I!

Where exactly has all of this modernizing got us?

We must all answer that question for ourselves.

Incognitus

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