www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy News Regarding the New Translation of the Divine Liturgy

I was wondering if anyone heard anything regarding the new translation (although it is really more than that) of the Divine Liturgy.

Has it been 'signed off' on by all of our Bishops?

If it has then when will it be implemented?

Any other news regarding this subject?

mc

Michael:

I was glad to see someone has an interest in the "new" liturgy,
especially since the topic has been silent for so long. I happened to be
in Pittsburgh at the last session of cantor school, just stopped in
to see what was going on. It was announced that Arch. Bishop Basil was very
interested in the status of the new People's Book, to the point where
he called 4 times to verify the status that it was ready for the printer.

In other news, I was talking to a priest in the Archeparchy, and
he indicated that the Archbishop was just waiting for some last minute
work to be done before publishing, and that all the bishops are in
agreement on the new liturgy.

I also happened to get a bulletin from one of the parishes in
the Archeparchy touting that the new liturgy was on it way.

Truly, this is a dark day for the Byzantine Catholic Church.
Now, before you all start in on why this is such a wonderful event,
and before I get censored, let's examine a few items. I've see
both the liturgy text, and the new People's book. A few points to
mention.

The people's book contains an abridged form of the liturgy.
For those who would like to take the three verses of the antiphons,
or the complete typical psalms, you're out of luck. Same for the
"extra" litanies found though out the liturgy. When I asked
the powers that be about the "extras," I was told you can still take them,
they're just not in the book. Quite a dis-ingenious answer, since we know that
if it's not in the book, no one will take it.

Want to do the doors the right way, if you have them, sorry,
that's gone too.

Want "inclusive" language, you know, the kind Rome said not to use,
well you have a lot of that coming your way, you already have a preview of
that in the Vespers and Matins text that are available.

Want liturgical text that comes from a poet, sorry, you have text
from a commission, and it reads as such.

Want music that flows and returns to a shape that resembles it's
original form, sorry, you get music from a commission, coupled with text
from another commission. (note, this does not in anyway reflect on Prof. Thompson,
he has done a marvelous job, but alas, his work was put though a commission).


There are some good points to the new liturgy, but not enough to
outweigh the bad. Many people have put in years of hard work to make
this happen. However, hard work in itself does not guarantee a good product in
the end.


I would hope that our good bishops, on the eve of publishing
this liturgy, take pause for a moment, and reflect on their motives.
Is this truly a liturgy that we would be proud of, one that will
be a cause which we can all gather around and revitalize us, or is
it a misplaced effort, one that will divide us and weaken us, and we
will diminish as a church.


This truly is a time when we need leadership from our bishops.
However, some confuse leadership with ego, and this is a true detriment
to the church. Some want this to be the "mark" that they leave upon the
church, I would say that this is a stain we don't need.

John Scotus

The new "translation" is disappointing and I believe it will harm our Church. Bending to the "feministic" agenda is disgusting.

And some, clergy included, will take this to be the "mark" to leave the BCC.
FDD

The UGCC will welcome them warmly!

This response is not just to Diak but to anyone who is upset over the new translation.

Honestly, what is the big deal ?

I find it remarkable that people would be willing to leave the Church over a new translation. I am in the process of petitioning to *join* the Byzantine Catholic Church. I'm not joining for the translation of the liturgy. I'm joining for the benefits that are in the totality of the Church, namely, the theology, the spirituality, the liturgy and the people. The translation of the liturgy is not on the list; it is just one part of one of the factors on my list.

I have been studying Eastern Christianity for about three years now, and one thing I learned quickly is that there is a variety of translations of the same texts into English. So, when I am at liturgy, I go along with the translation that is used there in order to participate with the community. Then for my own private prayers, I choose the language that I consider to be the best from the various translations of the texts of Eastern Christian prayers.

I don't see how a change in translation could be or should be a reason to leave the Church. Translation from one language to another always involves some loss and gain and interpretation because languages are different from each other. A translation isn't a transliteration.

Like I said, I am in the process of *joining* the Byzantine Catholic Church. If this translation is so bad that people are preparing to *leave* the Byzantine Catholic Church because of it, I want to know why. I want to know the reasons why *now* -- before my petition goes through, so I can decide whether I should go through with joining the Byzantine Catholic Church or not.

So, honestly: What about this translation is so serious that people are willing to leave the Church over it? Does this new translation contain heresy, or not? Does it otherwise ruin or betray the Gospel, or not?

Or, is this just a case of some people not getting things exactly the way they prefer them and they are therefore going away to sulk?

-- John

Really? This should not surprise anyone at all, lest a Roman Catholic. How many former RC's do we have in our pews because of a few changes? From my standpoint, at least a fourth generation Greek Catholic, the liturgy has never changed, not this dramatically. Keep in mind, when you start messing with "peoples" spiritually, even the least bit of change can be upsetting.

Harmon3110, your profile says that you are Roman Catholic, heading East. You never lived through Latinizations -- a church with no icons or icon screens, but communion rails, statues, stations of the cross, I could go on and on! Just from the inclusive language aspect, it is too reminisicent of Latinizations, at least from my perspective.
For people like myself encouraging their parish priest to "bring it on" -- meaning reestablishing our Eastern tradtions, we look at this liturgy and wonder how it will help the Eastern Catholics reclaim their orthodox identity.

Eastern Catholic has always meant we were more traditional, and not trying to get anything going here with Michael Cerularius, but in reality more orthodox. (sorry!) We are Orthodox Catholics whether or not anyone wants to admit it, and we need to act like it. I'm convinced this Liturgy will not bring us closer to our Orthodox brethern like it needs too.

If you need independent verification, go to an Orthodox Church, and see how you feel when the service is over. Depending on what "regular" church you attend, you'll either feel good or bad. I think if we're celebrating the Liturgy correctly, when you go to an Orthodox church you'll feel proud to be Eastern Catholic.

Good one Cathy!!!

Pittsburgh Archeparchy's idea of a new translation will further separate them from other Eastern Catholics and our Orthodox brothers and sisters. Just when we should be extending our hand to one another, Pittsburgh goes off into left field. How sad.

It appears as though Bishop John of Parma is preparing his flock for the new translation. The following link is to his current "Voice of the Shepherd" article from "Horizons," the eparchy newspaper...

http://www.parma.org/bishop.htm#Voice

OK, Cathy, you made some valid points.

Now, where can I find a copy of this new liturgy so I can see for myself what these changes will be ?

-- John

Yet more about the Liturgy. I�m really not sure whether it is worth the time to make a response to some of the complaints that are offered. Personally, I�m willing to learn from constructive criticism, but it seems that many of the problems arise from presuppositions that themselves might be challenged.

Outside of the Liturgy field, many times traditionalists have screamed at me about the �conciliar� Church ( = Vatican II), claiming we must follow the norms of the Tridentine Church (Trent was a council too). Something similar is happening here. Complaint: the Liturgy is done by a Commission, therefore it is worse than the existing translation, which was done by ......... ? Surprise, a Commission! Of course, another presupposition is that the vast majority of parishes actually follow the 1965 Liturgicon. Or that all parishes will actually use the official translation (whatever it may be at the time).

Another presupposition is that our particular Byzantine (�Carpatho-Russian,� �Rusyn,� �Greek Catholic,� �Ruthenian�) Catholic Church is not free to deviate from the Universal Usages of World-wide Orthodoxy (henceforth abbreviated as UUWWO). What the UUWWO are is never quite spelled out, but I suspect that for those from whom this is a principle, they mean the usages of ROCOR ( = in turn, Niconian Russian Orthodoxy). The reality is that there is no uniformity in the actual UUWWO, though certainly there is a �textus receptus� which has certain features in common, though even here there are minor differences. There are many differences in actual practice between Greek and Russians, most of which do not touch the essence of the Liturgy, but which also are responsible for different liturgical styles even among our own clergy. The reality is that there is lively discussion in most Orthodox jurisdictions about the Liturgy, some of it informed, some of it misinformed, and which may depend on one�s ideological presumptions. Likewise, most Orthodox jurisdictions make compromises with what is perceived as the UUWWO, because the needs of the world in which we live today are, in fact, different that the needs of the world in which the first printed editions were made ( = textus receptus). This is not a betrayal of the Eastern tradition, indeed, it may be its salvation. Yes, �Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever,� but the human society is not and we cannot pretend otherwise. What this means is that while the essence of the Liturgy cannot change, the style may. I do not believe that the translation of the present Commission compromises the essence of the Eastern - Byzantine tradition.

One of the most important issues of the Liturgy (old or new, Greek or Russian or Melkite or whatever) is the restoration of the priest�s office. A presupposition that is problematical is that the Liturgy should be in the vernacular. Yes, this was a Byzantine principle - rarely followed out in practice. Note that the Patriarch Alexis recently mandated that the Liturgy be celebrated in Slavonic, not Russian - saying that the people understand enough of the Slavonic, or how the Holy Synod in Greece forbade bishops to use modern translations of the Greek Liturgy. The true liturgical reform in our Metropolia was the decision to use the vernacular, not this recent textual updating. The result of this was a gradual restoration of the presbyteral office - the saying (better - chanting!) of prayers that were said in a low voice because no one previously understood them anyway. The result of centuries of disuse was a post factum theology that this is the �secret� ( = �mysterious,� �mystical�) office of the priest, though Chrysostom is absolutely clear that the prayers are for all - and are sealed by the �Amen� of the people. This required no change whatsoever in rubrics, since, at least in the Slav tradition, the rubric �silently� was not added. I think this is important, since these prayers are the anamnesis, �Do this in memory of me.� So not all presuppositions are bad - and the presupposition that the Liturgy should be in the vernacular is healthy for our Church.

A thought provoking reply that is difficult to follow, but I'll be brave.

There's no doubt, Fr. David understands theology on a very different level than most people. His reply is proof of that fact. The Byzantine Church is very lucky to have a man of his esteem in our midst! : )

I'm going to have to bring this down a bit, to hopefully get information we can all use. Many older people I speak with who know about the changes in process tell me "please don't let them change the liturgy." When questioned further they are afraid we are trying to conform to societies changes, namely the inclusive language aspect, and the time it takes to "say" a liturgy.

Information, aside from what takes place here in the forum, regarding the "revised" liturgy has been one way. We hear bits and pieces in obscure Bishops' Columns that talk about mankind, humankind and the like.....why not talk openly about this subject so that many of these issues can be put to bed, if that is where they belong.

Many people in the pews do not have a great understanding of Eastern Catholic theology. They only know what they've been practicing each weekend in Liturgy. I would suspect most people who post on these forums are above average in their understanding of Eastern theology and would probably be more likely to accept change, and to help facilitate it if they understood and believed it to be in the church's best interest. I would also guess that the people posting here are the future of the church, i.e. from a certain age group. If ever a time in church history as now, this needs to be considered, because let's face it other commissions that put together liturgical texts probably didn't have this large of a group of well-educated people in the pews. Most were probably laborers or steel workers, who simply didn't understand what was taking place.

As Fr. David said: This is true, we (the Byzantine Church) are not the same demographically & educationally as in the past when liturgy commissions reviewed "the Liturgy." We are different, and we expect different. With this shift, I believe we have not been treated different, but rather the same. Thank goodness for these forums!

From reading other posts on this topic, clergy are not excited about the new liturgy either. How wonderful will the Divine Liturgy be if the priest celebrating it is not in agreement, but mearly going along? Granted, you're not going to make everone happy, and from what's been said many, many priests and deacons are not in favor of this new translation. If the priests aren't willing to get behind it, how do you suppose the people will?

The fatal flaw to the "new" translation is -- if the clergy don't/won't support it, how can the people. I wish someone would take notice of that fact. The priests are the ones who are going to have to make us swallow this, and if they're having a difficult time with it, so will the people.

Cathy, your posts are quite insightful, and obviously from the heart. And I think those sentiments are very common in the pews. Absolutely no one in our parish (and I mean 0% including the clergy) is in favor of adopting the "new Liturgy".

John - I am only stating what is reality. I still have never found an adequate answer for these four questions: What needs to be fixed and why? (2) How about actually trying to get parishes to follow the Ordo (as this has not yet been tried?), the associated (3) What about those parishes that have actually heeded Rome's guidance, have followed the Ordo (or want to or are trying to) and are actually trying to minimalize differences with our Orthodox brethren? and finally (5) Do we not heed the difficulties of our Latin brethren in the liturgical morasse they often find themselves in over the last (going on) forty years about revisions, counter-revisions, etc. in the textus receptus ?
FDD

n.b. I understand that there has already been one revision to the revisions (i.e. "whom God loves returned to "God-loving"). We already have changes to the changes. Where does it end?

John - a question for you. Do you consider those who assist at the Tridentine Mass in communion with Rome (Indult, FSSP, etc.) to have "left the Church" or "having gone away to sulk"?

This seems a rather broad brush of judgment here. Someone might consider your movement to the BCC from the Romans on the surface to be in a similar light.
FDD

"What about this translation is so serious that people are willing to leave the Church over it?"

It is a change and people don't like change.

"Does this new translation contain heresy, or not?"

It does not. There is not a single instance of vertical inclusive language. One may not care for horizontal inclusive language or feel any use of it is giving in to the feminist agenda but one cannot call it heresy.

"Does it otherwise ruin or betray the Gospel, or not?"

No.

"Or, is this just a case of some people not getting things exactly the way they prefer them and they are therefore going away to sulk?"

I am coming to the conclusion yes in some cases.

Fr. Deacon Lance