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

This reminds of the story when the Russian Orthodox Church was debating Liturgical vestments while the communists were taking over.

In other words, aren't there more important things we should be concerned with instead Liturgical changes? Perhaps I am just a simple minded layperson, what do I know.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Andrew

Andrew,

So I guess we believe in short liturgies, inclusive language, and being out of step with UGCC and Orthodoxy?

Out of step! Good way to put it.

May I inquire? What are the differences? Can someone break it down, I think if the people got a look at the liturgy then an argument would be easier to form.
I am not sure if I have the "right" to inquire, but considering you are my brethren I have care and concern for you.

Ray, I couldn't say as I'm not familiar with the services in the BCC and I have no idea what these changes are all about.

I do agree with you that the example of the debate of vestments by the Russian Church (I've never heard that story, though I'm not doubting it) sounds like the proverbial fiddle playing while Rome burns. Changes to the liturgy seem different to me though. They cut right to the core of what the church believes and are the most tangible and familiar expression for most of us of what the church stands for. That's why I said lex orandi, lex credendi, because I think that aphorism sums up what all of this means.

Andrew

When you try to desbribe what it means to be Eastern Catholic, to say a Lutheran, it's something that's difficult to explain. You can talk about what we believe, but ultimately it always comes down to, "come celebrate Liturgy with us, you'll have the best understanding." The Liturgy is everything to an Eastern Catholic, it explains our beliefs beautifully, and fully. That, I believe, everyone agrees on.

I once had a pastor whose "mantra" was, "everything 'spins' from the Divine Liturgy." Evangelization, fundraising, almsgiving...etc. Basically, we have to live out the Divine Liturgy in every area of our lives, and that of our parish life.

The Liturgy defines us as Byzantine Catholics; part of a larger group, Eastern Catholics; yet part of a even larger group, called Catholics.
It appears that along the "revisionsits" road, they forgot that these "minor" changes will re-define who we are, and where we are going.
Does it bring us closer to where we need to be, Catholics that also happen to be orthodox, or does it create something "new?"

I think those of us who have been to other Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches feel it is not going to bring us closer -- it will just drive another wedge between us. If it does that, how can the language be called 'inclusive'?

I think the true litmus test would be to see ahead of time, what the other Eastern Catholic & Orthodox Hierarchs think of the changes. Afterall, if this translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is so special, wouldn't we want to share it with everyone and wouldn't everyone be eager to adopt it?

Always, IMHO,
Cathy

Well, I just attended my home "craddle Byzantine Catholic parish"(can I say craddle or will it be erased?) and we have NO regular cantor so it is the priest singing they priestly parts and he also leads what ever small amount of parishioners that show up on Sunday morning. This means the congregation sings as best they can and what English translation they know, Levkulic that is. So I think my "home" parish will be singing Levkulic translation till it closes.

Ungcsertezs

Fr. Deacon Randoplh,

"No, not at all. I think the same could be said of the revisionists. It is, of course, impossible to keep everyone satisfied. Ultimately it's not my way that counts at all. I was thinking of standing more in terms of for our received tradition and what Rome has specifically allowed us to do via the Ordo, her counsels to us via the Instruction, etc., that's all."

I have yet to hear anybody in favor of the revision threaten to leave if the NT is not implemented. You mention what Rome has allowed, but Rome recevied the NT as well.

"And what assurances do you have that the "new liturgy" won't be imposed equally across the Metropolia in the name of consistency? With the way this has been handled to date, please pardon my skepticism."

Assurances? None, other than history. The Typicon goes the way of the priest and I have no reason to believe it will be any different.

Fr. Deacon Lance

MC,

"So isn't this 'oh you Easternized ones will still be able to do all your 'old' practices' just patronizing in its purest form, because down the road it will be too late for all these old-fashioned fuddy-duddy Easterners to preclude the 'New Translation' in their parish."

It isn't patronizing because Easternized parishes could still have abbreviation imposed on them right now with out the NT ever being promulgated. The Typicon goes the way of the priest.

"I especially get a kick when supporters of the 'NT' talk about 'their expectation' ,'their way' , 'their opinion' etc.
Now I can only speak from the 'Easternized' angle. You know, us crazies..."

You might be surprised that you could include me among the crazies. If I had a vote I would vote against implementing the NT. That said, I don't think the NT is heresy or those for it are promoting an agenda.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon, that still does not get at the heart of your categorization of those who "want it their own way". I still ask who these people are?

I hope you are not including either by insinuation or directly those who have done what they were told in celebrating fuller liturgical prescriptions according to the Ordo as "wanting it their own way". We simply ask nothing more than what has been given to us, and what has been allowed us to this point.

They, including me, simply want an explanation of what is deficient in the existing Liturgy, why it is deficient, and why this change is needed.

In our neck of the woods those talking about leaving are talking other Greek Catholic jurisdictions or Orthodoxy. I find it hard to believe someone would opt for the RCs under those circumstances.

In the past year, one monastery has passed out the Metropolia, and how may parishes have closed? This will fix...?

No opportunity was given for comments as far as I can tell. Had I been given the opportunity, I would most generously have taken it to provide feedback. I was not.

Questions at a meeting going over texts already in process of promulgation are not the same as the opportunity for commenting on the texts, and I believe you understand there is a distinction. This is akin to being at a business meeting when a new policy is being implemented and being asked any questions about it.

The process for promulgation of these texts began quite a while ago, in case you did not know. At no point were there "meetings" before the text was sent up for approbation.

Yes I do dismiss the need for revision - but not as you seemingly insinuate, i.e. not simply because it is a revision. To reiterate, I was not given an opportunity, directly or indirectly, to provide any feedback so the question about responses is moot.

I dismiss it as no one has addressed the basic questions - what is deficient in our Liturgy and Ordo that needs revision?

Once those arguments are made openly, coherently, point by point, of what is defective and needs revision, with the opportunity to make comment and have those responded to, by all means I will listen with eyes and ears wide open.
FDD

I want to clarify, lest I be smothered in minutia, that I mean no meetings outside of the closed commision that derived these revisions. The "meetings" referred to came after the text was final and ready for promulgation. But not really... even after these there were revisions after the revisions (i.e. the returned language for the Bishop)...were these discussed in any meetings? Or only the revisions? Where does it end?

The Divine Liturgy is the Source and Summit of our Christian lives. This is the Paschal Mystery lived out, and I do take these things very seriously, every iota - and I hope sincerely that this is not mistaken for "complaining" or "wanting our own way".

An explanation is deserved for all, one adequate to allay the conscience of one who must stand in front of the people he is serving and potentially pray a different lex orandi with them.
FDD

In the first week of the Great Fast, I was especially moved this time by how central the �image of God� is placed before us. In the reading from Genesis during the Wednesday Presanctified, we heard the story of creation and that �God created man in his image, in the divine image he created him, male and female he created them.� The story continues with how that image was disfigured and the likeness destroyed. The festive conclusion of the week, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the feast if the true image - the icon of Christ responds to our longing to see the image of God. We must think in our heart, how can we find God - God is �invisible,� he cannot be seen by human eyes, but the Gospel tells us, �The only Son, who is at the Father�s side, has revealed him.� Jesus is the �refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being.� Whoever sees him ,sees the Father, and so the Sunday epistle tells us, �keep your eyes fixed on Jesus, the leader and perfecter of faith.� When I prayed the Liturgy, I noticed how central that theme is, the Prayer before the Trisagion reads, �O holy God ... you brought all things from nonexistence into being. You created us in your own image and likeness,� and the Anaphora of St. Basil continues, �You formed man and honored him with your own image, O God .... You spoke to us through your own Son, the very one through whom you created the ages. Although he is the reflection of your glory and the express image of your person ... he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, conforming himself to the lowliness of our body, that he might conform us to the image of his glory.� This is what our faith is all about. To understand the Great Fast better, always look to the most ancient hymns in the Triodion, the samohlasens at the aposticha. On the first Monday, what God�s image is is described better, �for the true fast is the estrangement from sin, no more idle chatter, no more wrath, no more evil desires, no insults, no more lying, no false oaths.�

I do not mean this uncharitably, but it might be better for my soul to abstain from the Byzantine Forum during the Great Fast. However, my words of criticism are meant to be constructive. Just some observations,
Diak has written many times, �Show me what is deficient.� I think the words he used were �what is broken in the liturgy?� My heart tells me that the Liturgy is a beautiful gift from God, I do not think of it as �broken,� and I do not think that we can use that language with it. Why then do we want �change.� In this regard, Michael Caerularius presents us with a real conundrum - if change cause hurt to people, do not do it, but if it is only minor and does not cause problems, then why bother with it .... When the Liturgy is celebrated, �it is time for God to act,� (NT) and this is always wondrous and beautiful, no matter how poorly the Liturgy may be celebrated. So it is not a question of �brokenness.,� but why not try to do it well?? Why not try to do it better??? As a scholar of Liturgy, I know that the very nature of the Liturgy is to resist change, it is really difficult to propose change, but there are ways it can be improved, and I thought I was making this clear - that the priests role needs to be restored is the major concern that should be focused upon. A long time ago, I did point out some deficiencies in the 1965 translation, which I am appending below. These are of varying degrees of importance, replacing �welcome� in the Cherubicon with �receive� I consider the most important, but why not correct where correction is needed? We then decided to review the whole translation, and most of the changes are made in the presbyteral prayers, and yes - they are the work of a commission, but I see it as a step forward.

Someone brought up the question of the doors of the icon screen. Here again, I favor more openness - the icon screen is not meant to be a �barrier� between the Holy place and the community. Here we cannot appeal to the UUWWO (universal usages of world-wide Orthodoxy) because the Greeks tend to keep the door open during services, while the Russians tend to keep the door closed except when you have to go in or out of them. This is a fundamental practical difficulty, and the Ruthenians tend to follow the Greek usage here. It is not a question of a �latinization,� since the Latins do not have icon screens. No can one appeal to the �Roman recension.� The Church Slavonic does follow rubrically the Russian practice, but in 1953, Bishop Daniel Ivancho petitioned for the retention of the Ruthenian practice of opening the doors at the beginning, and this was granted, since it was not the question of a �latinization.� So the legal position is that it is permitted to us. However, I know how emotional the issue can become. One priest who follows the Russian practice confronted me at a conference once, and when I tried to defend my position of greater openness, his voice rose and he began screaming at me, �What is the use of doors if you can�t open and close them.� Since it was quickly becoming very uncharitable, I dropped the discussion.

In service to the Church, one must ask what is better for the people. Even though what I am proposing is not popular with some people, nonetheless, I think it is better in the long run, and will help us to come closer to God. There is a bad way in which liturgical practice can upset and disturb us, but there is also a good �disturbance,� and we should be disturbed - in a goood way - when we attend to the Liturgy - disturbed to act more positively on behalf of the Kingdom of God - �Let us go forth in peace - in the name of the Lord.� I cannot judge anyone�s heart, but we should not become complacent and serve only a �nostalgic� Liturgy. For that very reason, I am skeptical when some make claims that they know why people are leaving churches - only too often it seems to be reasons that are on the claimants agenda. But I don�t think we know that, and there are probably a complexus of reasons why people leave - and some of the shrinkage is simple demographics. I�ve been dealing with parishes for almost 50 years now, and I feel that liturgy is not reason no. 1 - the first reason is simply poor pastoral care. A priest can have a very poor liturgy but love and care for his people and they will come, although poor pastoral care and a minimalistic liturgy often go hand in hand. However, in any case, why not try for liturgical quality?

My final remark is in regard to the �sensus fidelium.� This concept can be very poorly applied. I accept �sensus fidelium,� and do try to talk with people about the Liturgy. �Sensus fidelium� is not a vote or a poll, though, it is only as good as its information. (The same is true for the hierarchal magisterium, though certain divine guidance is attached to it.) Fr. Nedungatt wrote an article recently about the struggle for married priests in the Western hemisphere, and he noted there that Rome was willing to concede the possibility of marriage if there was unanimous agreement on this on the part of the hierarchy. Fr. Nedungatt said this was a potent tactic against the practice, because unanimity would be impossible to achieve. I am not arguing about a wider consultation, but if done by way of a poll, it should be noted that the people�s first reaction is always to oppose change in the Liturgy. Though actually in history, the hierarchy is the most conservative body in regard to liturgy. Whether meant consciously or not, the way the consultation is being conceived seems to be a tactic to block the liturgy.

There is unrest about the Liturgy, even in the highest levels. April 26, 2003 was Holy Saturday in the Orthodox Church. On that day, in Athens, the Archbishop of Athens, Christodoulos, celebrated the Divine Liturgy facing the people on a table set outside the iconostasis. I really don�t think that is the right way to go, but I cite this as an example of unrest, and that things are not always as they seem on the surface. My hope and prayer as we traverse to ocean of the Fast is that we can serve a Liturgy that challenges us to face God. Amen.

Some errors in the 1965 translation:
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 Tradition,�, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 49 (1983), 340-365.
There are others I can think of, but this is enough for now. Do we need another translation? I think, yes, until we get it right.

This is a very nice start, and I would like to thank Fr. David for the response. Were it simply a matter of simple textural clarifications, perhaps that would ease many who are uncomfortable not only with a changed liturgy, but with the lack of attempting to get a read of the sensus fidelium.

Do the changes stop at textural corrections? It really seems to go far beyond that. When do we "get it right" ?
FDD