|
1 members (EMagnus),
227
guests, and
66
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,489
Posts417,335
Members6,131
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,723 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,723 Likes: 2 |
Steve, you have touched on a significant problem. We are just emerging from a lengthy period of Latinizations. Those latinizations are so entrenched, they are considered by many to be Tradition. I think many, including some of our leaders, suffer from a bit of an identity crisis. It almost seems we are feeling our way along trying to find out who and what we really are supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674 |
Originally posted by Steve Petach: 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! 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 [/QB] It is interesting that those words were chosen. If it was going to be changed, why not just use the Orthodox wording. Why make a 3rd one? Think of the witness it would be to use the Orthodox one! If we all could sing it together! How wonderful. If we could use the same music! Great! Now that would be a reason that would make the pain of change worthwhile. That would be a good reason to change. But just to change, for change's sake? Not a good reason, not worth the headache. I agree, with you (and our friend Joe) about the beauty of Vespers and Matins. But these questions are started, because the Archbishop is revising and editing the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. I do not think he has announced that he plans to edit or reorganize Vespers and Matins. Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202 |
Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.
Incognitus has already responded to this, but I add that the Commission deliberately chose an older reading here where "peace" is in the nominative. Cf. Codex Barberini 336. This is explained in more detail in: 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1 |
There is no such thing as THE Orthodox English version of the Paschal Troparion. Practically every jurisdiction in America has their own take on it.
The one posted above is the OCA translation.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335
Former
|
|
Former
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335 |
Originally posted by Father David:
Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.
Incognitus has already responded to this, but I add that the Commission deliberately chose an older reading here where "peace" is in the nominative... Father David, Christ is Risen! I thank you. I was unaware of this (or had forgotten it) and it makes sense with "peace" is in the nominative while it never made sense to me with "peace" in the genitive. Unfortunately, I do not have easy access to the article that you cited, and that I had seen cites before, perhaps also by you. Photius
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by djs: 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.
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003152;p=3 These are all good reasons for making corrections to the present translation of the Divine Liturgy, but the use of so-called 'inclusive language' is not. The use of 'inclusive language' is disruptive because it is an ideologically motivated thing. It is an attempt to change the faith of the Church; and moreover, it should be noted that every Church (including the Roman Rite) where it has been used, has been bitterly divided by it. It represents a non-Christian view of man (man in the generic sense). It destroys the theological connection between Christ as the new Adam and all those who have become one man in Him. This politically correct movement holds that the English language itself has evolved in a so-called 'gender neutral' manner, but any one who watches even a little bit of television knows that this is not the case. As an example, a character on last weeks episode of Star Trek Enterprise (I know, it's not the best show on TV, but it is harmless entertainment), used the term "mankind," and this is not the only example that could be given. What I have discovered in my own experience is that people normally use the generic masculine, unless they have been pressured to avoid it (this kind of pressure happens a lot at universities). I can only speak for myself, but I will have to seriously reappraise my own situation, because I will not worship with a politically motivated language that is based on a non-Christian worldview.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,373 |
I think a lot of us will be making that same choice not to attend such liturgies.
Ungcsertezs
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
Many years ago I resolved not to attend church services if I knew in advance that they would be unlikely to edify me. I've broken that resolution on innumerable occasions since then, but the resolution remains a good one!
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335
Former
|
|
Former
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 335 |
Originally posted by incognitus:
Many years ago I resolved not to attend church services if I knew in advance that they would be unlikely to edify me. I've broken that resolution on innumerable occasions since then, but the resolution remains a good one!
Incognitus Christ is Risen! Likewise, I do not attend such services unless I'm traveling and there is no "satisfactory" church at which to attend the divine services on Sunday or a Holy Day. And, for what it's worth, I have never taken any Sacrament from a priest without a beard, and in the 29 years since I commenced seminary, have only been in a church with pews about 5 times. Photius, Reader and Malcontent
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1
Cantor Member
|
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by Chtec:
There is no such thing as THE Orthodox English version of the Paschal Troparion. Practically every jurisdiction in America has their own take on it.
The one posted above is the OCA translation.
Dave Thanks Dave, I should have included that. I was in a hurry when I posted this morning. This is only one of several wordings I have seen.  Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1
Cantor Member
|
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1 |
...For all the parishes that would be so disrupted by the changes in the Liturgy, how many of those parishes 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
I agree, with you (and our friend Joe) about the beauty of Vespers and Matins. But these questions are started, because the Archbishop is revising and editing the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. I do not think he has announced that he plans to edit or reorganize Vespers and Matins.
Nick
Actually, about Vespers and Matins......No reorganization, just edit/translation and finally music for EVERYTHING! (just waiting for official word, which may never happen at this rate with so many dissenters not willing to agree to any compromise). Metropolitan Basil is not the only one revising and editing the services. He is the one who has the authority to promulgate such changes. This process of change has been going on for over 5 years (almost 10, ie BEFORE Metropolitan Basil). Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
These are all good reasons for making corrections to the present translation of the Divine Liturgy, but the use of so-called 'inclusive language' is not. The use of 'inclusive language' is disruptive because it is an ideologically motivated thing. It is an attempt to change the faith of the Church; and moreover, it should be noted that every Church (including the Roman Rite) where it has been used, has been bitterly divided by it. It represents a non-Christian view of man (man in the generic sense). It destroys the theological connection between Christ as the new Adam and all those who have become one man in Him. First go back and read the comment of Father Deacon Lance. You bundling together two very different concepts of inclusive language: one of which would entail changing the faith of the church, is proscribed, and would not be in the new text; and the other does not, is not, and may occur in the text. Some folks appear to have a desire to use exclusive language even when it is not really called for, and see ideology where it really isn't. Example: A poster (some time ago) claimed that the Ruthenian response: "And remember all Your people" was a politically correct version of the OCA's "And all mankind". :rolleyes: Father David has given another example. Like it or not, people, with no axe to grind, now tend to avoid gender exclusive language in writing whenever the intended meaning is inclusive, unless doins so would entail a gross circumlocution or error in grammar. They are just striving for accuracy and clarity in their writing. The ideological motivation IMO is on the part of who want exclusive language when it is not required for accuracy/clarity in writing/translation, or who might speak in the same way about God as Parent and the response "all Your people" as examples of ideologically motivated speech.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I am opposed to both vertical and horizontal inclusive language. If the Greek or Slavonic word should be translated as 'man' or 'mankind' in a generic sense, than that is the word that should be used in English. In English the word 'people' or 'peoples' has a different meaning than the generic word 'mankind'. The former is of a particular nature, while the latter is a universal. In other words, "all peoples" refers to nations of men, i.e., particular groupings of men.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
One other point, as I said in a previous post, the use of so-called 'inclusive language' will only bring about greater divisions within the Church. I for one will refuse to attend services which employ this ideological language, even if it means becoming Eastern Orthodox.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1 |
Originally posted by Steve Petach: This is only one of several wordings I have seen.
Steve OCA version: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life. On goarch.org: Christ is risen from the dead, by death He has trampled down death, and on those in the tombs He has bestowed life. (And it seems like every GOA parish has their own translation of it, too! )On antiochian.org: Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs bestowing life. On acrod.org: CHRIST IS RISEN FROM THE DEAD, TRAMPLING DOWN DEATH BY DEATH AND TO THOSE IN THE TOMBS BESTOWING LIFE! Fr. Ephrem Lash's version (British, not American): Christ has risen from the dead, by death he has trampled on death: and to those in the graves given life. There are other translations out there, too. I just don't have the time to find them right now.  Dave
|
|
|
|
|
