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

Father Lance,

What sources are you reading for this information? I�m interested.

I knew that the JB was once allowed but I understood that the RSV-CE was the one chosen by almost all English speaking countries at the time Rome directed they have only one version of the Lectionary.

Thanks also for your previous post containing the information from EWTN. It bothers me that a lot of the revised texts have Christ becoming a �mortal� instead of a �man� (especially in the troparia). In the end it only presents the Church with a confused anthropological theology.

Admin

Yes, indeed, an interesting question, Fr. Deacon. In "defiance of the wishes of the USSCB" (a somewhat ambiguous term) may still be completely consistent with canon law. The USCBC does not make canon law - only guidelines for diocesan use. And to my understanding that is all they are - guidelines.

I believe the Latin Ordinary is the competent liturgical authority within his diocese. He can allow use of the Tridentine Mass. He can allow use of the Paul VI Missal in Latin. And he can certainly revert to any previously approved texts, including lectionary resources, as the need arises.

The RSV-CE has certainly never been canonically banned, suspended, or suppressed - as is evidenced by its still widespread use. And it seems the current Pontiff himself may prefer this for an English lectionary.
FDD

Admin,

I believe it was from a survey of Lectionary use commissioned by the Bishop's Conference of England and Wales. I do not have the text ready at hand but I remember being surprised that the JB was the standard Lectionary for most of the English speaking world. Perhaps it is not so surprising since it was the first modern English Bible produced under Catholic auspices.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I was just reading some articles at the "First Things" [firstthings.com] website (a search on �NAB� brings up some interesting articles). "First Things" [firstthings.com] is not a magazine focusing on Liturgy but does often touch of such topics.

One article noted that Rome rejected the Canadian Bishop�s Conference use of the NRSV for its lectionary, but that since they were already printed it would tolerate the use of it but not allow more to be printed.

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus has an excellent article �More on Bible Babel� [firstthings.com] in the January 2006 It�s definitely worth a read, especially since there is an ongoing debate in our Church about translations.

Excerpt: �Everyone who has sung or listened to Handel�s �Messiah� knows the words: �For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace� (Isaiah 9:6, KJV). Magnificent. Here, as of this week�s amended Missalette, is the New American Bible: �For a child is born to us, a son is given us; upon his shoulder dominion rests. They name him Wonder-Counselor, God-Hero, Father-Forever, Prince of Peace.� Try singing that. Whether under the rules of literal accuracy or of what, taking liberties, translators call �dynamic equivalence,� that is no more than a pedantic transliteration of the Hebrew. It is not a translation. It is a string of possible signifiers. It is not English. To be fair, the passage is not representative. Most of the NAB is English, albeit of a down-market variety.�

Again, no one knows what the future holds but the curent Holy Father seems to be pro-active in directing that translations be exacting. I don't understand why anyone would want anything else.

B-16 Before he became Pope said the above.


Here is where I found the Quote [ad2000.com.au]

This, by the bye, is an important distinction between a Synod and an episcopal conference.

Incognitus

Admin,

here is the site. I was mistaken it was a USCCB Survey.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/page1.shtml

Fr. Deacon Lance

I agree that the term "mortal" is not a good equivalent of the term "man". Mortal is derived from the latin morta meaning death. Indeed we are subject to death due to the ancestral sin. Even dogs and rabbits are mortal. But mortality is not the only part of human reality. In fact, our souls are immortal and by baptism we begin the life everlasting.

I am glad to hear this point made. I really do not like the use of the word "mortals" when we mean "men" for just that reason!

We, in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, still cannot get a uniform translation of the Creed down pat!

In fifth grade Sunday School, we memorized the Creed in both English and Greek. Thank God, the Greek is eternal...but everytime I recite the English version, I sound like I am babbling, as the words I learned are different from the various different translations 'du jour' used at different parishes, in different DL books, and in different inserts!

The other day, I encountered yet another one...

'and for us men and our salvation, He came down from Heaven'....
(well--atleast, that is what I was saying--)

...until I thought that perhaps I was transported to an episode of Star Trek....

'and for us humans....'
(Do we have to distinguish our species from that of-- let's say-- the Klingons, perhaps?!?!?) :rolleyes:

Alice

Alice,

The multi colored cards that are appearing are now the official translation (for the GOA) of the Creed. They have been ordered to be used by the Eparchal Synod all times. there has been some resistance to them, but in all parishes are adopting them.

It will take a little while to have all the books with them in it. Official translations are expected to be released to make a uniform translation available to all parishes within the next year. This will replace the different private iniatives that have been published by Holy Cross and Narthex Presses. Copies then have to be printed and distributed.

There is no secret about this as it has been published in the Observer and online.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Fr. Anthony,

I am resistant to change because of all the many translations over the years, I like the translation I took a whole year as a child to memorize in catechism...
(with weekly tests and grades, too!)

I guess 'humans' is the one that is going to stick?
(I guess it is supposed to be 'inclusive' but I will have to get over thinking about all those Star Trek episodes I used to watch and besides, I don't think that it flows very well--)Oh well!

Anyway, thanks be to God, I know the Greek (again-that also took a school year to memorize), and that doesn't change...I have used it in Greece when I baptized my goddaughter (and all were impressed that I didn't have to read it but knew it from memory) and I have used it here in parishes from Canada to the West Coast and ofcourse it doesn't change-as it is the original.

I do like a change my good priest has made in the Lord's Prayer, however...one that is true to the Greek--'deliver us from the evil ONE'. That has a very different implication than 'deliver us from evil'.

In Christ,
Alice

A voice from Alba:

Without going into really messy details, I find that the 'liturgical norms' proposed to the BCC to be the normal process of liturgical evolution. I mean, let's be real: Jesus didn't use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or St. Basil. Things evolved FROM the passover seder, which in itself is a simple meal, transformed by the Saviour into a meal in which we partake of the sacrifice he made on the Cross. It's lots of human accretions on that simple ritual meal that has made for so much hatred and division among Christians.

I for one find the simplicity of a proper (i.e., according to norms) Novos Ordo mass to be beautiful, simple, holy, and emotionally and intellectually fulfilling. I don't always need the 'smells and bells', as my lovely wife calls them. Sure, on occasion, on a great holiday or feast day, but when I go to Mass in the Latin Rite in the mornings, I want the essence of the message and the Eucharist in a meaningful form for me, today, being all 21st-century and everything.

Before I get slammed by BC's let me just point out that while I appreciate their devotion to their liturgical traditions, it is a myth that liturgy never changes. The truth is, it constantly changes, with the needs of the people, while keeping its core - the Sacrificial nature of the Eucharist.

As a former BC (now RC), I can appreciate the beauty and solemn nature of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. And, as the BC doesn't celebrate the Eucharist daily (at least normally), as we Latin Rite Catholics do, I can understand the desire to have things 'stay the same' as when you first experienced them as holy. But, taking a broader historical view, it's not possible to take a 'snapshot' of any time and place and say that 'Well it was PERFECT THEN, but NOW...'. The same mentality taken to the extreme will lead you to old-calendar Orthodoxy (and we all know how fractured they are), rejecting everybody else except yourselves as 'heterodox'.

My watchword is - perspective. Remember, as we say in Gaelic,

"Anns an toiseach chruthaich Dia" Genesis 1:1
(In the beginning, God)

Slainte Mhath,

Daibhidh

We are all well aware that the Missal of Pius V was not used either at the Last Supper and they did not pray for the Pope at anytime. Translating is always complex and different versions of texts are a pain to deal with. One word in the Ukrainian 'Our father' was changed has meant we have to get new books. Yes the Byzantine liturgy like all living things changes. It is dealing with change that bothers people, as people like what is familiar and comfortable.

ICXC
NIKA