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

Dear Fr. David et al,

I applaud the work you and the others have done in fixing errors in the translation of the liturgy. Clearly the work has been necessary. I think that much good may come of the revision and the work also of the MCI, especially for those like myself who are relative newcomers to Byzantium (10 years).

I personally don't mind "brothers and sisters" for "brethren." That is a minor issue. But I do have a major issue that perhaps you can clear up. I wrote a letter to my bishop and his response was frankly unsatisfactory, at least in that he didn't give me the reasoning behind the new translation. Here's my question:

Why is "For us men and for our salvation" becoming "For us and for our salvation?" Why is the word "anthropous" being dropped? "Us" doesn't mean the same thing as "us men," as is clear from casual conversation. "Let me get us some more beer" has a different extension than "For us men and for our salvation."

Why not use "For us humans and for our salvation?" If we must change from "men," why not use the inclusive and correct word "humans?" Why drop it entirely?

I am very uncomfortable theologically with that change. Perhaps you can explain the reasoning.

Thanks again for all your work.

This is a gross oversimplification of a very complicated situation. Many of these people came back into communion with Rome via Ecclesia Dei through an Indult, the FSSP or the ICK. Many stayed in communion until they were able to establish Latin Mass communities.

I hope you are not insinuating those in complete communion with Rome and enjoy the Traditional Latin Mass aren't "wanting things their own way". The adherence to tradition is quite admirable, actually for those who had the patience to remain in communion with Rome until the Indult, or for those who have returned, and is certainly no occasion for scorn. As for those who may have been outside communion and now partake of the TLM - welcome home. As St. John Chrysostom says in his Paschal Sermon, "...even those who come at the eleventh hour".
FDD

Dear Jim,

You may not think that what 'others' do or think has any bearing here, and I respect your position.

But I do think it is very important.

I pray every day for the reunification of the Churches of God. Most Orthodox will not consider re-union with the Roman Catholic Church, because they fear that Rome will insist that they abandon their liturgy and theological traditions. As evidence for this, they will point to the fact that Rome seems to support the "modernization" of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

Our books should be interchangable. In Slavonic, our books differed only in tiny and hardly noticable points. In English, ideally, the same should be true.

The late holy father asked the Eastern Catholic Churches not to separate themselves at all from the praxis of their Orthodox brethren. I believe he had two reasons for this.

1. To give evidence that Rome would not force, influence, or even allow "Vatican II type updating" of Eastern Liturgy, to reassure the Orthodox, that they need not fear what would happen to their Churches, if they moved closer toward full communion.

2. To prepare for the day, when we shall be one Church again with our Orthodox brethren, that there will not be additional obstacles to our becoming one.

In many ways, ours is a "martyric" Church, a Church of sacrifice and self denial, a Church of patient waiting and hope, a Church willing to suffer if necessary, for the sake of the union of Churches, east and west. Maybe this is our vocation.

It is time for us to make an act of faith, and an act of hope, and an act of charity toward the other Churches with whom we share a common liturgical and theological tradition.

I propose that we plan, study, and embrace a common English translation for all the Churches and juristictions in America who use the same Liturgy. I am thinking not only of Greek Catholics (Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Romanian, Italo-Greek, Russian, etc.) but also working with Orthodox juristictions who are willing (and there are some).

It is time for this, it is time to work together. I believe that our future is as stake, and the multiplication of ethnic and cultural differences is crippling our Churches. By further extending divergent "praxis" and custom, we are moving ourselves further from one another.

This is about so much more than the odd litany being missing, or the verses of the antiphons being shortened, or even "inclusive language" (which "imho" is anything but inclusive).

This is about a future vision for the Eastern Churches in this country. We need a common vision.

We need a common English Liturgicon. We don't need a revised Liturgy.

the unworthy,
Elias

Hieromonk Elias, I thank you for your words. My point is that the various orthodox jurisdictions do not agree among themselves on everything that must or must not be included in the Divine Liturgy. Attending a liturgy in an OCA parish, then in a Greek one, will show that, notwithstanding the possible language difference. So, where is the commonality in that? And how can our church present an edition of the liturgy that they would all agree to if they don't agree among themselves? Besides, it is my understanding that Rome itself has approved this edition.

Dear Jim,

Of course you are correct. In the Greek Church, some litanies (usually the ones after the Gospel) are routinely not heard.

But if you look in the priests book in the altar they are there. The presumption (for litanies not taken) is that they are prayed silently by the priest in the altar. So the Liturgicon is complete, even though in practice some litanies are taken silently.

To my knowledge, no juristiction has ever published a Liturgicon that is incomplete.

My suggestion for a common liturgicon will not exclude the possibility that bishops will decide that in their dioceses such and such will be taken aloud or taken silently, according to the Greek style, or Ruthenian style etc.

But imagine the sign it would be, if there was a common liturgicon among us all.

Elias

A common liturgicon would be a wondrous thing. I also wonder how it could happen without full communion among all the churches, though.

There is nothing in particular to prevent a common Liturgicon even in the absence of full communion between the Orthodox and the Greek-Catholics. The Instruction of 1996 reminds us that it is possible to use books published by the Orthodox for our divine services, and that especially during the persecutions the Orthodox found it possible to use service-books that were published by the Catholics. We can - and must - make a greater effort to arrive at some common understanding of the problems of translation into English.

But now to Father David's posting to the Administrator:

To begin at the end, Father David informs us that "The so-called NT (New Translation) has been formally approved by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches (Prot. No. 99/2001, March 31, 2001)." March 31, 2001 is six years ago. Would Father David kindly make the authentic text of this letter available to all those who are interested?

Certain aspects of liturgical discussion are matters of opinion and taste, obviously (there is no dogmatic significance, for example, in a discussion of whether some priest prefers to wear Greek vestments or Slav vestments). Equally obviously, there do exist genuine principles of liturgiology, and certain other aspects of liturgical discussion necessarily involve those principles, as well as the question of the scholarly basis for this and that.

Father David is correct in implying strongly that the argument "if we do X, the people will all leave" is often misused and hence might be viewed with some hesitancy and reservation. But this works both ways, and the question can be addressed in a more scientific fashion. For example: what would happen if the pastor (presuming a pastor who is otherwise good and earning the trust of his parishioners) begins to serve in strict accordance with the Ruthenian Recension books? Well, instead of speculating, it is possible to observe what HAS happened in the few parishes where this is the liturgical norm in practice as well as in theory. Has the attendance at Hieromonk Elias's parish increased or decreased since he began to serve according to the books? Did the installation of a full icon-screen bring more people or fewer people to the Divine Liturgy?

Contrariwise, the Administrator reports that in his own home parish, the application of the new books of the Eparchy of Passaic has been accompanied by a drastic fall in attendance. This is certainly subject to verification - but Father David, instead of calling for verification, simply ignores the Administrator's report. Ignoring facts one does not like is unscientific.

At the risk of appearing dense, I fail to grasp how the application of the official books would make the priest's role identical to the deacon's role. To see the difference, all one needs to do is attend the Divine Liturgy served by a priest and a deacon.

Father David appears to regard the silent offering of the "presbyteral prayers" as something utterly deplorable. Well, this can be discussed and debated - I don't agree with him, but I will concede that over time my thinking has changed. In return, I would invite Father David to concede that the practice he so deplores has been with us for approximately 1,500 years, which is rather a long time for the Church to have been in grave error.

It is entirely possible to teach the Paschal Mystery and inculcate reverence for and appreciation of the Anaphora without reading the whole text aloud at every celebration.


Father David reports that "the vast majority of our parishes celebrate according to the Ruthenian style that has been observed since the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century." If that is the case - and Father David is in a much better position to know that than I am - it follows that the immediate need is what it has been since the Ruthenian Recension books were published: to implement those books for, at a bare manimum, two generations, and THEN start considering what changes, if any, might be warranted.

I could continue at length, and perhaps I will do so later, but for the moment this post is already too long.

Incognitus

Many parishes of the Ruthenian Archeparchy that are small and dwindling do not, I repeat do not have assigned cantors and many probably will never regain a full-time cantor. In these parishes, the new priestly parts and prayers may well be implemented, but these congregations will, out of default, continue to use what music and what translations they have been using for the last forty years. Like it or not, it will continue this way in these many rural outlying areas because these parishes are declining in population and continue to function in "survival mode" node. These parishes will not be affected by what ever "official promogated" changes occur. I visit many of these "dying" parishes and can list by name if need be. This is reality and by denying that this situation doesn't exist and will not happen isn't realistic.

Ungcsertezs

Fr. Deacon Randolph,

"I hope you are not insinuating those in complete communion with Rome and enjoy the Traditional Latin Mass aren't "wanting things their own way"."

It should be painfully obvious that I am not especially since I specifically referenced the SSPX and not FSSP, ICK, or any other indulted group saying the Tridentine Mass.

Fr. Deacon Lance

When oh when will the "Ruthenian" and Ukrainian Catholic Arceparchies become one? Why we are "separated" is insane!

At the very least, we could be united by a common liturgicon! It would be one sign of the unity and communion that already exists.

The moment you agree you ARE Ukrainian the union is set. It's the only way it is going to happen. You join them.

However there must have been some substantial differences between the Greek Catholics of Austria and Hungary to have to establish separate diocese for each group.

ICXC
NIKA

I, myself, being but a recent convert from American Protestant Evangelicalism may give you who are 'cradle' some insight pertaining to the Orthodox converts I have encountered of various jurisdictions. (1) Escaping from various schismatic/heretic denonimations/sects/cults make us wary of the overarching dominance we have historically observed in the RCC and their 'tight' grip on the people and congregations. Though, now, being in obedience to a hierarchial structure, does not mean any want the despotism of the Papal structure as it has or now exists in the RCC. (2) Any true Orthodox catholic Christian could not possibly refer to the Bishop/Patriarch/Pope of Rome as 'holy father', for this, as many see it (and me too) is a denegration of Otce Hash, we have, all of us ONLY one Father, In Heaven. (3) Innovations, such as the 'immaculate conception' dogma that only recently arrived in the 1800's, would have to be downgraded/abandoned. (4) The absolute power, presumed by Rome...even though..."foremost amoung equals"...would have to change. These things are enough, let alone the history of the RCC, like the sacking of Constantinople, the intrusion into Orthodox territory...such as this new revival of mission activity in Rus'..is..unacceptable! I, for one, came all but kicking and dragging my feet to the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church and obedience to a Priest, from western sectarianism, and am not about to loose it to a seemingly sheer power struggle from the Latin West. Generally, I have observed, for a number of years, though, a different 'modus operantdi' in the EC/Byz Church,(which, intrigues me.!) and in the members I have spoken to.They have a calmness of conviction, and are not 'in you face' as many RC's I have spoken to. BUT,.. I have noted the frustrations you all have expressed here with Rome (whether this is 'Church' or political struggle, I have not quite been sure)...and you are in communion...!!! What is this saying to us..? We traditional (not 'new' calendarist) EO, observe this sheer dominance for power and control in the West, and are very and rightly skeptical of ANY Orthodox ('new' or trad) who seek communion with THAT. It seems that these EO want a piece of the 'pie', and the same power..! Our Rusyn people were led over the Latin cliff..so to speak... by deceivers and power grabbers of the Austro-Hungarian empire (I have read history) and as I see it have been much divided ever since. Since this is my observation and opinion, please, understand this on that premise. It has been said before that "doctor..heal thyself"..and, that, before you try it on others. In a way, the RCC should try to heal itself, before meddling into the Orthodox East. In reverse, we see the Eastern Catholics/Byzantine Rite as having left the Orthodox to take on the Latin yoke, and that is not the same yoke as our Lord spoke about. Please forgive me if I offend any. And, please, kindly private email back, if necessary. May the Church be really One someday, and our prejudices abandoned. S Bohom, Mike Ross

Not really. Your insinuation was "I view them much like the SSPX" as I recall. Many who left with Archbishop Lefebvre have since been reconciled. Many of the priests who are in these other groups originated with the SSPX. Is desiring to assist at the Old Mass over the New "wanting it our way"? One could certainly read that into your blanket statement.

What about those who left an NO parish for a TLM in communion with Rome? Are they "like the SSPX"? Did they "want their own way" simply because they opted for the TLM over the revised Roman liturgy?

But this is tangential to what I believe is an inappropriate likening of those who you mention as "wanting their own way" (which you have still not defined) to those who openly broke communion with Rome.
FDD

Fr. Elias,

Obviously, we the faithful who see the NT as a hindrance to any type of reunion, are hoping the Hierarch's are reading our posts and are taking it to heart. If what Fr. David says is correct, the Liturgy has the stamp of approval from Rome, what are we to do next? Or is it inevitable? I know someone at one point put addresses on the 'board' for the Apostolic Nuncio, etc. would that be the proper avenue to take?

Humbly,
Cathy