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 Cyril,

That would not be bad, it would be ideal! We must work toward that goal. The revised Liturgy is a step in the wrong direction.

Nick

To Nicholas:

Your suggestion that the Archbishop can pick and choose what Roman voice he is going to listen to is ludicrous. The Sacred Congregation for the Orietal Churches is specifically Rome's liaison with the Eastern Churches, and its communications and decisions are directly relevant to the Eastern Churches. The other dicasteries are not directly relevant to the Eastern Church and for a very excellent reason - we are (at least ideally) not subjects of the Roman See, but in Communion with it, we have more autonomy. The letter does "approve" the translation submitted to it (don't you believe me, I have cited the protocol number and the text of the approval) as a judgment that it does not violate Eastern tradition - to which we are held by the Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches. The document is not "secret" because the Council of Hierarchs has yet to take any action on it, and hence it has yet no relevance. One may argue that the principles of "Liturgiam Authenticam" apply to us because of their intrinsic value, and one is allowed to make that argument,but that's what it is, and for us, it is not a legal document, but only a point of discussion.

To Incognitus:
I don't mind saying that some admendments were mandated, and others were recommended, the point being that the translation that will be published will include those admendments, and hence it will be absolutely impossible for anyone to claim that the promulgated translation is contrary to the wishes of the Roman See.

Fr. David

Dear Father David,
Please accept my thanks for the confirmation of the changes or amendments, some of which are mandated and others of which are suggested. This will be interesting.
One reason which may be prompting those with long memories to be concerned for the actual text of the letter is that the corresponding letter approving the 1965 version does not seem ever to have been published.

Incognitus

Dear Father,

I accept your point, that a document from the Oriental Congregation carries more importance for us, than a document from one of the other dicasteries which is directed to Latin Catholics.

However I maintain that the decree/document from the Oriental Congregation only has force from the date it is published. Until then....

I also stand by my 'ludicrous' opinion, and I still believe that Rome is sending 'mixed' signals here.

The principles for the translation of liturgical texts into the vernacular (set out in "Liturgiam Authenticam") are sound, and arise from the experience of the Latin Church.

With regard to the proposed translation, I think these principles from Rome are challenging, and should not be dismissed.

You have the advantage over me, because you have seen both documents. I have seen only one. You set your hope in one document (so far secret), and I set my hope on the other one (published), even though you are right, and it was not really directed to our Church. But I feel it has something to say to our situation.

Nick

After being away for a couple of weeks, it was interesting to review this thread today.

One of the first items that stood out to me was Diak's post earlier in the thread:

Diak, you are asking very good questions that many of us are also wondering.

cleaning up of some translations - understandable, but inclusive language, changing rubrics, etc. is just not going over with many here. Deacon Lance has mentioned that many in the pews won't even realize much of a difference. I know what he meant by this, but when I really think about this comment it is sad, sad because there really does exist a generation (at least) that has no idea that rubrics exist for opening and closing of the royal doors, for the curtain, etc. For that matter,(and this is off of the main topic) but there are many in our churches who might wonder what is wrong with someone who was doing a prostration, pews are supposed to be in our churches, think that confessionals are supposed to be built in our churches, kneelers are normal to our traditions, rosaries are normal, stations of the cross, communion rails, etc. but that is another topic at another time.

Father David (who should be commended for commenting his thoughts on this topic) gave some examples where tranlations were cleaned up, but I still wonder why 'forever and ever' didn't become 'ages of ages' (I think I know why, and that is because it is too orthodox).

Overall, it still is truly sad to see us move away from our UGCC brothers and go it alone with the liturgy rather than coming together with at least with the UGCC if not others. I am not saying that legally speaking it is incorrect, I know about sui juris and all that, it is just ashame that we continue to move away rather than closer to many of our Eastern Christian brothers.

And I probably sound like a broken record, but all the time and money spent on this new revision could have been put to use to devise a plan for the Byzantine Church in America to evangelize and bring what we as Greek Catholics cherish and are proud of to many others. I can only speak of the areas that I have been to, but in Ohio, PA, and NY for example, our churches are on a steep decline. When I travel, people come up to me and say how nice it is to see my two young sons there and that it has been awhile since they've heard children in the church. A vision, a plan, something really needs to be done, because it is just a matter of simple math and science, more funerals than baptisms is not good. Look around at many of our churches (once again I can only speak for what I have seen) and the people in them. Now fast forward twenty or thirty years, it is not a optimistic picture. I can't for the life of me figure out how this NT could be more of more importance than reversing the downward spiral that we are in.

mc

All:

The is an interesting article from TouchStoneMagazine from 1998 intitled "East Meets English". Go to the archives section and serach the words "east Meets East" to find the article.

www.touchstonemag.com [touchstonemag.com]

Ungcsertezs

...that should read "East Meets English".

www.touchstonemag.com [touchstonemag.com]

Ungcsertezs

Interesting article and interesting to note what churches were present. Translation is not an easy task by anymeans.

ICXC
NIKA

Here is the Link:
East meets English [touchstonemag.com]

I wish Bishop Kallistos was my Bishop:


I thought Fr. Robert Taft, S.J. had some thing to do with the inclusive language of the Divine Liturgy of Metropolitan Archbishop Basil.

It would be much better to read the actual papers from that conference (published in Logos, Ottawa) and thus get the actual texts of the speakers, instead of reading reportage about them.

Incognitus

Is there an approximate timeline of when this new liturgy will be implemented in the parishes?

I posted a question about the timetable for implementation yesterday and did not get a response. Does this mean that after all this discussion nobody knows when the revision will be implemented?

Yep, it's the big secret! Maybe we could make money for the church by taking bets on when it will be implemented. My guess is maybe the beginning of May,after Easter & the clergy conventions. But, JMHO. Cathy

Thanks for the reply, Cathy! I have been following this discussion for a long time now in anticipation of what will happen. I generally go to the UGCC, but have occasion to go to the BCC. I came to the East over 10 years ago from the Novus Ordo, and given what happened there, this whole discussion makes me nervous!

My bet is on "never". There are so many problems with the proposed translation, errors and mistakes, (not to mention that it features just the kind of "inclusive" exclusive language, now condemned by Rome) that it will never appear.

And I bet "never" wins the bet! Who's keeping the pot?

Nick