www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "New Translation "of the Liturgy

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Friends,

As someone who has been involved in efforts toward vision and strategic planning aimed at a new springtime of evangelization for the Byzantine Catholic Church in America I thought that I might offer some thoughts on reactions to the "new translation" of the Divine Liturgy.

At our recent clergy covention the priests of the Eparchy of Parmna were lead through the new translation along with the few minute rubrical.
Any anxiety over the new translation is really much ado about nothing. I do not care for the inclusive language but it is not as bad as it could have been. Other than that I think the new translation and the corresponding people's book
(at long last) will be a good thing for our Church.

What does concern me, however, as a person involved in evangelization, vision and strategic planning is that tweaking the translation of the liturgy is ALL that we are doing when what is needed in our Church is cataclysmic change, a genuine renewal. The Byzantine Catholic Church in America,in order for it to thrive and not just
"survive" or remain in "maintenance" mode will have to be completely dismantled and rebuilt according to its authentic self. Our Church is standing at Judgement day and it is being asked,
"What are you doing as Church and why?"

I invite you to to follow the postings on the Evangelization page of this Forum in order to put into context what I have said here.

We have to be careful not to crystalize the Church into our personal image and likness, according to our agenda and our personal concept of Church. The Church is a living body. It is greater than all of us. It is always organic. We must ascend to it, not try to tailor it to ourselves. If you have come to the Byzantine Catholic Church because you have the impression that it is a Church that does not make changes
you have an incorrect image of the Byzantine Catholic Church. There is a call for the Byzantine Catholic Church to look deep into itself and to renew itself according to a sense of Mission, a Vision and a Strategic Plan. This is a total renewal. If we launch into World War III over the tweaking of a few words of text we will never have the spiritual stomach to embrace the kind of change that really must take place for our Church to not just surive but to thrive.

"Change" in the Byzantine Catholic Churh is not to be confused with the confusion brought on by the counterfeit changes wrongly associated with Vatican II (as opposed to what Vatican II actually said.) The gaze of the Byzantine Church is not lateral into the secular world or into Protestanism to see what they are doing and how we can imitate them. Rather for the Byzantine Catholic Church the gaze is vertical; down into our authentic self which has a value that is good for all times.

Amen Father. Since we have a living Church on our hands let's learn to live with Her. The living Church is growing. Let us grow with Her.

Dan L

Thank you Father!

Amen, Father!

Sometimes one has to ask - is it a hill to die on when there are bigger battles to be fought?

Namely, the battle for souls...

Onward Christian soldiers!

Gordo

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Change is certainly characteristic of any living body (or of dead bodies, for that matter, but that's another discussion). This does NOT mean, however, that we are obligated to accept indiscriminately absolutely any change proposed by this or that bureaucracy. Our liturgical tradition is the most important possession we have, and cultivating that tradition is essential - so there is no cause for surprise that people are disturbed at the prospect of changes which at least seem unwarranted, ill-considered and disoriented.

Incognitus

Very well said.

Incognitus,


for someone who does not serve the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, you sure seem to have an axe to grind. I would hardly call our Council of Hierarchs or the Liturgical Commission of the Metropolia a "bureaucracy". Certainly, the Divine Liturgy that will be promulgated by Metropolitan Basil will not affect the Church you serve. In its God-given leadership, the Council of Hierarchs for the Metropolia of Pittsburgh is providing an English translation of the Divine Liturgy to meet the pastoral needs of its faithful.


I agree wholeheartedly with Father Thomas Loya that "Any anxiety over the new translation is really much ado about nothing." Like Parma, the clergy of the Eparchy of Van Nuys was recently presented the various minor textual changes (eg,"Holy Father" instead of "Ecumenical Pontiff" in the commemorations)in the Divine Liturgy. Questions were encouraged, but given the caliber of the presentation not many were asked.

Given our ways, there certainly is no cause for surprise that people are disturbed. Whether or not that response is reasonble is another question entirely.

If the changes seem unwarranted, ill-considered, and disoriented (does you mean Latinized ?), it would be worthwhile to find out what the changes actually are, what the rationale is, what the considerations are, and to attach at least the merest rigor to inflammatory assertions. There has been some reasonable discussion on these matters - especially in prior years. There has also been some patently unreasonable, uninformed, and rash discussion. One thing there has not been is "indiscrimate acceptance" of the changes.

Every chancery probably has its bureaucrats, its hangers-on, its "professional" Catholics, and those who have their own agendas to advance. How bureaucratic Pittsburgh is will have to be decided by someone who has more contacts there than I. It seems to me that if the hierarchs want to be trusted, then they will have to be open with the people and keep them informed every step of the way. Also, information needs to come from someone who actually holds an office with some authority. If the posts on this forum are any indication, then the hierarchy is evidently not trusted.

Just a quick note to my Eastern brethern, today while researching my current liturgy practices(RC)and to my surprise, the site that I was using with the current edition & proposed revisions had a note, due to a request from the ICEL committee, both examples used for comparison were removed.

For the curious the link is on DT Browns site near the bottom section.

james

Dear Father Deacon John,
CHRIST IS RISEN! You write me that "Certainly, the Divine Liturgy that will be promulgated by Metropolitan Basil will not affect the Church you serve." But please consider:

The Byzantine liturgical tradition is the proper concern of all of us who use it, regardless of national background, ethnic provenance and/or jurisdictional affiliation.

This is true of, again, all of us, Orthodox as well as Greek-Catholic. But inevitably those who are Greek-Catholics are more likely to be affected more directly and more rapidly by what other Greek-Catholics do.

By the same token, those of us who work in the English-speaking milieu are also likely to be affected more directly and more rapidly by what other Byzantine Anglophones do than are those who do not speak English.

I've mentioned already that the deplorable Slovak book from the 1980s was the object of numerous complaints from all over the Byzantine Catholic world (the Local Churches, not the newpaper by that name!). These protests undoubtedly hastened the process of replacing it with something much better.

The Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolitanate of Pittsburgh does not live in splendid isolation from the rest of us. Since what it does in this matter will inevitably affect the rest of us, it is not ridiculous for the rest of us to offer comments and views on the subject.

If that disturbs you, I can only offer you my sympathy. I have never owned nor used an axe, and I have no idea of how to grind an axe! If I did, believe me, heads would roll!

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

There are those of us who disagree with this statement. We do not question their motives but do question the need for this revision of the Liturgy. Liturgiam Authenicam speaks to the need not to make changes to texts people have grown accustomed to unless such changes are absolutely necessary. The necessity of the changes in rubrics and texts has not been demonstrated.

I respectfully disagree with both Father Deacon John and Father Thomas Loya. There seems to be a purposeful agenda not to address the changes in rubrics and to speak only to supposed �minor� changes in text. But even if we examine only the people�s texts we find more than 20 changes (there are many more in the changeable texts). Some, like changing �that we may welcome� to �that we may receive� and �one in substance� to �one in essence� are definite improvements. Others are simply the implementation of personal preference of a few. But even here my major concern is the fact that no other Byzantine Church (Catholic or Orthodox) is contemplating mandating these rubrical changes. It is wrong to distance our Church from the rest of Byzantium by mandating these changes and publishing a liturgicon that revises the Liturgy which we now hold in common with them. If the Revisionists consider these changes to be so minor why do we need them?

The way forward is to leave the Liturgy alone until all of the Byzantine Churches are ready to act together. A good start would be for the bishops to put a hold on these revisions and begin to work with our fellow Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) to produce a common translation. If there is to be a change in rubrics they should be agreed upon by all Churches.

Admin

The only thing that I could find termed "absolutely necessary" in Liturgicam Authenticam was recogonition from the Holy See. Indeed such an elevated standard would be impossible to meet. It would certainly exclude welcome/receive, Ecumenical Pontiff/ Holy Father, and even gracious/good. These errors in the current translation could hardly be considerd absolutely necessary to change: certainly no one would assert that the salvation of those whose worship incorporated these errors was jeopardized by these errors.

The idea several posters that bishops need to prove necessity is a neat one. So plastic that it is possible to stretch it to the point that, inherently, it could not be satisfied. Maybe something more concrete would be helpful.

James,

The original comparison of the Current and Draft Translations is available here:

Current and Draft Translations of the Roman Mass [web.archive.org]

Grazie brother David ! Back to my study, and hopefully this link will survive the requests of the ICEL.

james