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

Friends,

Is it possible to insist that the laity as well as the priests have a say in this "Work of the People at Prayer" (Liturgy) be seen by the people in its entirity before it is promulgated? Is it possible to insist that it will not be promulgated without the approval of the very people who will be praying it? It appears that Bishop Pataki is the one pushing this. Not surprising since he is the one who has promulgated it upon his eparchy. Can we encourage the other bishops to resist this until the people have seen it?

Who should speak? Obviously one person who must speak though I suspect he already has is our esteemed Administrator, John Vernoski. Who better to be the spokesmen for this wonderous idea? Why not some of our deacons and priests? Why not those who have seen enough of this to know what is actually being suggested?

If we are to come alive and stop the free fall toward collapse the laity of the Church must get involved...not with threats to leave but with an insistence that this is the Eastern way. That we aren't about forcing things upon people. We aren't the Church dominated by canon lawyers and feminist nuns. We are the Church that makes changes only if they are organically done.

I've resisted these threads because they came with an implied threat to leave. If you really care about the future of the Church and about our mission that isn't the approach to take. Rather, this may be just the catylist that will get those who care about the Church to begin moving. I will sign something. I will go with you. I will stand with you. Who is knowledgeable enough to take this matter by the horns and go with it?

Dan L

Tony,

You had made the point on the pronoun earlier. At that time I made the point that the the interpolated pronoun was far enough from its antecedent in the long sentence, that it was just plain good writing to use the noun rather than the pronoun. And while some think that there seems to be a deliberate de-masculinization agenda here, the fact is that if the entire sentence were examined, it would be found to include a reference to His mother. This use of the masculine pronoun in the very same sentence ought to put the objection to rest. But as the administrator pointed out yesterday, the objections go beyond logical argument.

A modest proposal, that just might solve the "mankind" issue, occurred to me the other day. It had been argued in another thread for direct translations of greek words into cognate greek-derived english words - catholic, orthodox etc. So how about "for Christ is good and a philanthropist." (with the necessary catechesis, of course).

(And why, after Mankowski, is it still held that "mankind" is acceptable?)

"Philanthropos" and "philanthropist" are obviously related etymologically. However, they have become false cognates. To take an example from secular life, a French librarie and an Italian libreria are each shops in which one may purchase books - they are not libraries as that word is used in English.

Incognitus

I'm just 'one of the People' and would like to comment on these 'changes':

I returned to the Byzantine Catholic Church almost three years ago. What struck me the most was/is the reverence in the Divime Liturgy and the other Services. The language and the precise words used affected me in a positive way. Having things change now, seems like a 'raping' of what I already hold DEAR in an expression of Liturgical worship to and for Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. If this 'translation' is someones way of 'weakening' or 'deface' the Liturgy, then it's a slap in the face of the Holy Fathers of the Church and maybe even Christ Himself.

I don't mean to rant, but I just belive it's NOT the time for this,since Fr. Tom has a great vision for our Springtime in the Byzantine Church.
One more point,
True, if the other Byzantine Rites are NOT changing their version and we are, then I see a problem here. I may be just a 'regular' person in the seats (we should be standing anyway), but I can tell when someting is being forced on.

Fr. Incognitus,

"The Grail Psalter was devised several decades ago to fit specific needs which Roman Catholics had at the time, and it was most certainly not based upon the Septuagint. So please explain why we should use it."

I suppose the thinking is it is the official Psalter for the Latin Church's Liturgy of the Hours in the US so it might as well be ours as well, just as we use the NAB for our Gospel and Epistles books. It does chant very well, which is another consideration.

Personally, I advocate using the Septuagint Psalter by Baron Jose DeVinck and Archimandrite Leonidas Contos. It is, as far as I know, the only liturgical book that was produced by Catholic/Orthodox cooperation. It is the official Psalter of the GOA and the Melkite Eparchy so with adoption of this text we move one step towrads a common translation of something at least.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Edwin,

Welcome.

I suggest that you write and/or phone your bishop and with respect express your opinion. Remember, we still don't have the text so just state your concern that we not have nuetered language or move away from any common liturgical understanding. It is when the laity get involved that we see real attention from the Church. You and I are the ones who support the entire Church and actually use and should develop the Liturgy which is "the work of the people at prayer." Aren't we among the people?

Dan Lauffer

Edwin,

I have to ask: where on earh did you get the ideas
of rape, weakening, and defacing? Is this from a text? Or what?

Well, my proposal was a modest one.

But when I looked up "philanthropy" I found:
1. The effort or inclination to increase the well-being of humankind, as by charitable aid or donations.
2. Love of humankind in general.
3. Something, such as an activity or institution, intended to promote human welfare.

This productive phoneme - as Fr. Mankowski would say - does indeed have the denotation: Love of humankind. We don't have a false cognate, just one that is not isomorphic - that is, we don't have a simple situation in which one Greek word gives one English word with the same meaning(s).

Of course "orthodoxy" (or "catholic") has exactly that same problem. When, in the liturgy, the Orthodox use the word, are they referring to "orthdoxy' or to "Orthodoxy" - the right teaching or the communion? Or both? Well, the English translation I looked at use captital "O" "Orthodox" in the texts. perhaps this is an error in their translation. Or maybe it is specifically intended to include the meaning of Orthodox Church and communion. If the latter is true and correct, is it right for us to use the word?

Of course "orthodoxy" (or "catholic") has exactly that same problem. When, in the liturgy, the Orthodox use the word, are they referring to "orthdoxy' or to "Orthodoxy" - the right teaching or the communion? Or both? Well, the English translation I looked at use captital "O" "Orthodox" in the texts. perhaps this is an error in their translation. Or maybe it is specifically intended to include the meaning of Orthodox Church and communion. If the latter is true and correct, is it right for us to use the word?

One could, of course, similarly ask if it is correct for Orthodox to use the word "catholic" in the Creed. I think they're entitled to use "catholic." I similarly think Catholics are entitled to use "orthodox" or "Orthodox."

There are Latin Catholics who use "orthodox" regularly to describe themselves. There are Orthodox Christians who might say those Churches who don't accept Chalcedon or Ephesus are not "Orthodox" but those Churches describe themselves as "Orthodox."

The word "orthodox" is not the sole possession of those Churches in communion with Constantinople. Nor is the word "catholic" the sole possession of those Churches in communion with Rome.

Nec

One could. This had been commented on before by incognitus, and echoed in my post above. But the point is not who owns the word.

The question is: 1) what is the meaning of the word as used in the Greek and/or Slavonic (is it "orthodox" or as the Orthodox render it "Orthodox"); and 2) how is that meaning best rendered in English. The English word directly dervied from the Greek may not be the best if it has assumed different meanings in English.

.

Actually, the introduction of the word "orthodox" into the Liturgy at the Great Entrance was done by Catholics. See this comment:

Commentary on "orthodox" from cineast [cin.org]

Rather ironic!

The meaning of the word itself is not a "problem." For some, the word has become charged with its association with Churches out of communion with Rome. Personally, I find the argument against its usage not persuasive.

Nec

Dear Father Deacon,
Thanks for the info - I had not been aware that the Grail Psalter is somehow official for the Roman Rite in the USA.
As you imply, there is no valid reason for us to be using a biblical translation simply because the RCs either like it or produced it or both.
LXX Psalter - there is a crying need for a genuinely scientific, accurate translation of the LXX Psalter. Oxford University Press published one fairly recently, but I've not yet seen it - and for the base text they took the NRSV, which is not encouraging. However, I shall look. The people who produced the Orthodox Study Bible are supposedly producing a complete LXX New Testament, but not much has been heard from them for the past couple of years.
For the moment, given the huge number of citations from the Psalter in our liturgical texts, it would be sensible to put further translations of the Divine Liturgy (there are already several hundred) on hold until a good, agreed LXX Psalter is available.

Incognitus

Incognitus,

"LXX New Testament"? I know events are beginning to pass me by but A "Septuigent New Testament"? I must have got off at the wrong stop. What is this?

Dan L

Nec, Thanks for the link. Imagine that - a unilateral change, made by the uniates, in a liturgicon no less, then picked up by the Orthodox! Maybe it was a Trojan to lure the unwary!

This origin makes it clear that meaning is that of small o orthodox here, even though the Orthodox (mainly Slavs from the texts I've looked at) who use it at the great entrance use "O". The one use that I 've found in all Slav, Greek, and Antiochian texts is in the anamnesis. (I wonder when its use appeared in the Litany of Supplication and even Great Litany). It is always "O" among the Orthodox, but is "o" in a Ukrainian Catholic text. I wonder how the Orthodox who use "Orthodox" feel about our using "orthodox" ? Perhaps the use in the anamnesis antedates the transformation of this adjective into an identifyng noun (suggesting again the correctness of small-o orthodox.

Huh? This association is the essence of meaning. If this association didn't exist, if this meaning didn't exist, then there would be no "charge". The ambiguous meaning is necessary if not sufficient for the "problem".