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

Regarding the NT, and the changes that needed to be corrected, does anyone know if the phrase "true faith" was corrected to read "orthodox."

Cathy

Not as far as I know. Neither has there been any directives to restore traditional prosphora practices to replace the pre-cut pieces currently used in most parishes.

An interesting point that goes along with the question I just asked regarding the new & improved translation......

A friend in Tampa recently visited an OCA mission church. There were about ten people, and obviously all introduced themselves and wanted to know where he was from, etc. Turns out that the priest is a former Greek Catholic Deacon, and the cantor and three other people were also former Greek Catholics. My friend asked the priest why he left the Byzantine Catholic Church, and he said it was because the ship's going down, and there is no vision on how to keep it afloat. Also, that the Byzantine Church is becoming too liberal.

Just an aside, the group starting the mission, of which, again, three are former Byzantines, are all in their 20s.

Does the new Ruthenian translation include the word "orthodox"? Heavens, no - we should live so long!

Incognitus

Dear Cathy,

I am glad your friend had the opportunity to meet Father ... . He is a wonderful man and very grounded in the faith. He also wished to be ordained as a priest in our Church, but alas, the timing was off?
Our loss and the gain of the OCA. That is all I can say.

Michael

Since this thread seems to have died out, I'm posting my response to the Adminstrator's March 10 post in a new topic, "our liturgical tradition - a response."

Fr. David

Dear Fr. David:

Thank you for the reply concerning the churches in Akron and Cleveland. However, and as usual, you refuse to address the question of the letter that was delivered with the "approved" text from Rome, not only recently, but in discussions that went on earlier this year. That is a "fact". I let out one little part of that letter, why aren't you, or our hierarchs will to discuss that, or is it too embarrassing?

John Scotus

Dear JohnScotus,

How could I be embarrased by a report which ends, "Those who submitted this text, prepared with great care and in proper form, are to be warmly commended for such a superb piece of work."
Do you actually know the text? I would discuss it, but it is a report given to the bishops, it is not "my" report. If the bishops release it, I will be glad to discuss it.

Fr. David

A standard ending for business letters which endured for a great many years was: "I have the honour to remain, my dear Sir, your humble and obedient servant". Such an ending has no serious value whatever (as the body of the business letter often made only too clear).

Incognitus

Fr. I,

You can hardly compare the ending of a standard busines letter to a letter from APPROVING a liturgical text.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,
I not only can make such a comparison; I just did. Until we have seen the body of the letter, the flowery conclusion means nothing.

Incognitus

Good grief!

Incognitus should definitely apologize here. The passage was not from a formal closing, but from the most important and significant part of the letter, the "final judgment," which subsequently approves the text (together with the admendments mandated), and the request for a bound copy of the final texts when prepared - which are very clearly not polite fluff!

I expect the usual broadside that the approval means nothing unless the whole text is made immediately public. It is the Metropolitan with the Council of Hierarchs who promulgates the translation, and however they wish to make public a letter written to them is entirely proper. I am opposed to an improper secrecy also, but full disclosure is mandated only when the matter involved is relevant to the public welfare. I am not referring this to the letter of approval, but it is obvious that not every action taken by bishops can be made public, as, for example, when it involves the private reputation of people. Since the Council of Hierarchs has heretofore taken no public action regarding the promulgation, I would presume that at the proper time they will make public the approval of the Sacred Congregation in an appropriate manner. Of course, anyone is free to protest at any time, and if one feels that the promulgation is not proper, one may protest that also, but it hasn't happened yet.

Fr. David
Fr. David

Father David,

You're right of course, it is the Metropolitan, with the Council of Hierarchs, who promulgates the translation, and they don't need Rome's "approval".

But the point remains that you, and others here, have said "Rome has approved it". Others have said that "Rome has not approved it".

Those who say Rome disapproves have qouted the public documents which call for strict and accurate translations and forbid inclusive language.

Those who say Rome approves point to a secret document. Until the document is published, Rome may "secretly" approve, but that is meaningless. Rome's letter is not relevent to the discussion until it is published.

The Archbishop doesn't have to publish it, because he doesn't need Rome's approval, and he can keep the letter secret if he wants to, and issue the revised Liturgy on his own authority. But then, he can't claim that Rome has "approved" it.

I think that both are true. Somebody in Rome approved it (Fr. Taft). And somebody else has forbidden this kind of translation (Cardinal Medina Esteves, 'Liturgiam Authenticam').

So in my view, a simple claim like "Rome approves" is not accurate, and misleading. Somebody in Rome approves, and somebody else in Rome does not approve.

So it is the Archbishop who will have to take a stand. Someone in Rome will approve, and someone else won't, it is his call.

Incognitus makes an interesting point about the date of the letter, and the date of the "Instruction". I wonder if the letter of approval could have been sent, once the 'Instruction' was issued? It seems to me, that the ground has shifted.

It also seems to me (in light of the 'Instruction') that the whole idea of undertaking a revision of the Liturgy should be reconsidered.

Nick

Dear Father David,
In your strong suggestion that I should apologize, you write: "The passage was not from a formal closing, but from the most important and significant part of the letter, the "final judgment," which subsequently approves the text (together with the admendments mandated), and the request for a bound copy of the final texts when prepared - which are very clearly not polite fluff!"

Most interesting. Unlike us peasants, it appears that you have had the opportunity to read the letter, and that the letter mandates amendments! Thank you for the information.

I have the honour to remain, my dear Father, your humble and obedient servant,

Incognitus

Pavel,

You missed a lot of the movies with John Wayne out near Monument Valley, which is nothing but desert as far as the eye can see save those pretty rock spires.

Now back to the thread:

As a Latin, I find this whole discussion completely confusing and I have been going to DL for over two years in the Metropalia minus 8 months deployed. Before that, I had visited the Antiochian Orthodox Church near my college frequently. The DL is not something foreign to me.

Some posters referred to translations performed over a century ago elsewhere in the world and approved here in the US back in the 1940s-for almost 70 years ago! and other posters are talking about letting a few generations go by before things get implemented. There are too many posts that I am not even going to try to go back to refer to who said what, but I am not poking at anyone for their post's comments. I know the Church is slow about many things-and I think this is not always so bad, but it is readily apparent the Bishops do not have a uniform translation being used in their eparchies at the present if their posts are true.

Would it be so bad for all of the Byzantines should be sharing the same liturgicons with their Orthodox sister church?

I am not a BC, but we can post another 11 pages of posts on how to celebrate the Divine Liturgy according to Bizarro-Byzantine rubrics.

UC's comment about a lack of identity as BCs in North America really shows through in many of the 11 pages (and counting) worth of posts. IMO, if these changes actually are going to be enforced within the Metropalia, it's not going to be a pretty, but the Bishops need to join their voices and permit one and only one translation if they want uniformity in the liturgy's celebration within the Metropalia

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.

Cyril, Latin wishing these liturgical problems in the East had a mihrab of sorts to know what the bottom line is on the issue of liturgy in the Metropalia