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

Glory forever!

I'm afraid you are right. It is a very misguided enterprise, and I pray that Rome will intervene and stop it.

Don't bet on it.

Sometimes I wonder if our Byzantine Catholic Church has a self-destructive tendency, like some mad child that is driven to injure itself.

I'd say that was a tendency of the West, but it seems that some of the insanity of modernism has infected the Eastern Catholic rites to a degree. No wonder the Orthodox don't want to reunite!

I really wonder what this "ecumenical" movement and "dialogue" with heretics is supposed to accomplish. Because it seems that all we've been doing is making concessions to them.

Be that as it may, are you on the commission? Can you appeal to the bishops to unveil a study version of the liturgy? Will you try?

Dan L

John,

How would we ever know? Show us.

Dan L

Dan,

You know as well as I, the theory behind those who criticize the changes are based upon the fact that they are changes. They are not good changes, because de facto, changes can never be good.

If you look at the responses we have seen, we can see that many of those who criticize the changes (without a sufficient examination of them) are seemingly Latinized. For example, we have seen people say "modernism." A true Latin-traditionalist response (it really is not Eastern vocabulary)-- while modernism certainly was condemned, people who make the claim tend to be disgruntled Latins trying to make digruntled Byzantines, and they really do not know what modernism really is. They will confuse any change within the modern world as "modernism" because it is "modern." Theologically, the decrees and encyclicals of the Popes need to be read within the full tradition of the Church (a tradition which goes on to today and did not end with Pope St Pius X), but also hermeneutically, within the context of the time they wrote. People fail to translate properly the context.

While I have said before there is probably the need to help ease the fears of people who do not like changes, realizing it is a normal human response, in a fashion the way they fight reminds me of some Protestants -- the ones who think the KJV is the only proper translation of the Holy Scripture (and will compare translations and show differences, which to them prove the KJV must be the one which is correct). While the KJV was not perfect and all translations are imperfect, it was fair for the time -- but it is outdated. We sometimes need to realize old venerable translations become outdated as the meaning of words changes.

If we want to be fresh, and follow the needs of the people, and to let our liturgy minister and teach as it should -- then updates from time to time are needed. But we must not expect more any translation than what is possible. Those who do not like changes will find problems, as one can always find problems when one is looking at a translation. Hopefully we will be able to show them, however, how some of the changes are superior, but more importantly, hopefully we can show them that the real response is not to get into a fight over translations, but to live the faith in charity. Fighting over words do they forget the whole point?

There are many of us out here who (like MizByz74)
have come to the Eastern Church as least in part
to get away from the liturgical destruction that
has occurred in the Western Church. I, for one,
am old enough to remember what the Western
Church was like before the revisionists changed
it completely. For those of you who are "cradle
Byzantines", you don't know how horrible it is
to have your Liturgy taken away. That is why
many of us "Western refugees" are so highly
skeptical and afraid of what may be happening
to the Eastern Liturgy. And, as many posts have
said, the secrecy isn't helping matters any.....

[QUOTE]

Dear Henry,

That's the whole problem... there is *reason for* the changes-- and you can't honestly say that "updating" our ancient liturgy for the sake of "inclusive language" is a needed or even a favorable change.

And no, the LAST thing we need is a "new and improved" liturgy that is dated and must therefore be constantly "updated."

I wasn't yet born when the Roman Catholics had their beautiful liturgy taken from them, but I sure hope that the Byzantines-- who have had to fight so hard to preserve their faith and their traditions anyway-- won't just "sit down and shut up" and allow their liturgy to be destroyed, as you seem to think they should.

The reason for the change is not "inclusive language." To say as much is to be dishonest and makes me wonder what your agenda is. Of course, I remember reading the difficulty the Orthodox had in translating the liturgy into English -- with similar debates as we see going on now. "How can we move from our beautiful liturgy."

Obviously, the reason for the change is not
"inclusive language" but one has to wonder
WHO is using the changes to "sneak in" the
inclusive language and what THEIR real
agenda is.................

Having lived through the liturgical destruction
of the post-conciliar Western Church, I hope the
Byzantine changes aren't, as Yogi Berra would say:

"it's deja vu, all over again"


antonius

I hate to have to point this out, but the above is an example of the horizontal "inclusive language" which has become part of modern English - and a demonstration that English has in fact changed. When I was a child, anyone who used the above in class would have been immediately corrected and told to say "WHO is using the changes... and what HIS real agenda is."

However, I am NOT claiming you have a hidden agenda

I lived through the desacralization of the Western liturgy as well, and I have been blessed to know a number of the priests on the Liturgical Commission - and the differences between the two "agendas" are vast. In our Church, we are trying to recover from 50 years' loss of two-thirds of our liturgical cycle (vespers and matins), and the whole history of an abbreviated "low mass" which is STILL reflected in the liturgy books we have in use.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Brooks

well, my English is often about as good
as Yogi Berra's so please bear with me...

antonius

I lived through the desacralization of the Western liturgy as well, and I have been blessed to know a number of the priests on the Liturgical Commission - and the differences between the two "agendas" are vast. In our Church, we are trying to recover from 50 years' loss of two-thirds of our liturgical cycle (vespers and matins), and the whole history of an abbreviated "low mass" which is STILL reflected in the liturgy books we have in use.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Brooks

However, the Liturgical Commission (IMO) stands
to lose much credibility by allowing inclusive
language into whatever changes are being made.


antonius

Having spent 20+ years with a government agency, I see a bit of the problem. It's a committee. Committees can become detached from the mainstream and develop a mindset that is not shared by those outside the committee. Some research I saw years ago indicated that individuals on a committee get into a "group think" mode, and lose a sense of individual responsibility for what the committee produces. If there is opposition to the committee, it can also hunker down and develop a siege mentality where it's the committee against the world. The new translations may actually be a more accurate English rendition of what we have been using. What I think is sabotaging the committee is its reluctance to be open to the laity. In secrecy, rumors and speculation abound. Get the drafts out into the open and welcome lay participation. It may not make everyone happy, but at least all will be heard. Committees don't know everything and can even learn a few things, as well. I would hate to see good work fail because of the process, not the product.

There are so many mis-conceptions about the new translation of the Liturgy that to read this thread is absolutely suffocating.
What is really happening?
The truly major decision of our church was made in the early 1950's, when we decided, with some bumps and jolts to begin celebrating the Liturgy in the vernacular. I have a living memory of those days. Some people shrilly complained and felt that this was the end of Western civilization as we know it. Some left the Church and never returned. While I was in Akron, I visited a man in the hospital who told me he has not been in church since the Liturgy was in English (he and I spoke in absolutely perfect vernacular American English - he was born here) because �I don�t understand the English Liturgy.� My thought (uncharitable and unenunciated) was, �he doesn�t understand the meaning of the word �understand.��
At the time of this change - into English - virtually all of our churches were heavily latinized - according to the principles of the 1890 Lviv Sluzhebnik - , the Third Antiphon was unknown, and only one verse of the first and second were sung, and the only litanies were the Litany of Peace and the Litany after the Gospel (and sometimes not even the Litany of Peace, in extreme �low masses�).
Eventually the multiplicity of translations required that some order be brought into the situation. In 1941, the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches had issued a new Liturgicon (in Slavonic) that was notably free of the latinizations of the 18900 Lviv Sluzhebnik and imposed it on the Ruthenian Church - (that is, basically, Ukrainian and Carpatho-Russian/Rusin, etc. churches). Our Church, the Pittsburgh Exarchate at that time, resisted promulgating this new Liturgy. After 1950, when we went into the vernacular, with no consultation with Rome that I know of, the problem resolved itself into liturgical language and liturgical form. Bishop Elko, in order to bring order into the Liturgy, established an Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission to make an official translation into English. Since there were no Greek scholars on the Commission, they translated from the Slavonic, though they did consult the latest scholarly literature at the time, and did make comparisons with the Greek where they felt necessary. This translation was approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches in December 1964, and was subsequently published by the Byzantine Seminary Press. Rome, therefore, officially recognized the one major change our Church has done - to move the Liturgy from a dead language � �Church Slavonic� (Patriarch Nicon�s Church Slavonic, slavish to Greek) to a living language, in fact, contemporary English. However - and this is a big, big �however� - Elko expected the new language to be used, but any priest who followed the new form was punished. This has led to one of the MAJOR and BIG MISCONCEPTIONS on this board - that the 1964 Liturgicon actually represents what has been or is, in fact, being done in most of the parishes of the Pittsburgh Metropolia. Though the situation has improved, there are still many places where the 1890 Lviv rubrics are the standard, and very few places that are not affected by them to some degree. I know of almost no places where pre-cut particles are not used, or the ablutions are taken after the Ambon Prayer. Except for con-celebrating in Aliquippa, where Fr. Elias is pastor, and even here I don�t know whether he did the Catechumens Litany, I have not been in one Pittsburgh Metropolia parish where all the litanies are said. This is the reality, and this must be recognized.
The problem of the liturgical form, as opposed to the liturgical language, was addressed for the first time by Bishop Emil Mihalk in the Eparchy of Parma. In 1970, he attempted the promulgation of the rubrics of the 1941 Liturgicon (retaining the latinizations of the Filioque, no zeon or sponge, pre-cut particles and ablutions before the Ambon Prayer) in the Eparchial Convocation. He was promptly stomped upon by the other bishops and the effort went nowhere. In this promulgation, he did not attempt the restoration of the litanies. Let me interject a personal comment here. I am not opposed to litanies - one member of this forum once labeled me as an �enemy of litanies� - and, in fact, have urged a fuller use of litanies than in the Ruthenian schema noted above - but some of the litanies were used only to cover the inaudible recitation of prayers - to which I am opposed, because the people have a right to know that which they are saying �Amen� to. Therefore, unless you are a liturgical literalist, there is no compelling reason to restore some of them.
To return to the history. In 1986, Bishop Andrew Pataki promulgated a Liturgy similar to Bishop Mihalik�s. It used the 1964 liturgical language, but it also used the 1941 Roman Liturgicon liturgical form (retaining the latinizations of the Filioque, no zeon or sponge, pre-cut particles and ablutions before the Ambon Prayer). The litanies were not entirely restored, but were much more fuller than in the common Ruthenian practice of the time. Bishop Andrew later suppressed the �filioque� but not without major protest from Archbishop Stephen Kocisko. This liturgical form as soon accepted by the Van Nuys Eparchy, and was imported into Passaic in 1996 when Bishop Andrew was transferred there, though he made some further modifications at the urging of Monsignor Borsuk, the Chairman of the Passaic Liturgical Commission. Archbishop Procyk
was open to the promulgation of this form on the Metropolia level. It should be noted that we, in Parma, felt that the 1986 Liturgicon was in essential agreement with the 1941 Roman Liturgicon) and we were willing to submit it to Rome for approval, but Rome would only review a text intended for the whole Metropolia..
Archbishop Procyk then re-established the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission, and this Commission recommended the promulgation of the 1941 (Slavonic) - 1986 (Parma English version) with some further modifications and the correction of translation mistakes, and since the whole project was to finally regularize the liturgical life of the Ruthenian Church, to re-do the whole translation in a superior way. This text was submitted to Rome, under the provisions of the new Eastern Code of Canon Law, for review and was approved by Rome, with some further mandated changes in March 2001. Rome, therefore, has judged this text to be in essential conformity with the norms for the Ruthenian Church as found in the 1941 Liturgicon. There is no filioque, the zeon is re-introduced, the ablutions are to be done after the Ambon Prayer. The full Litany before the Our Father was restored, at least, for optional use. There is no mention of two remaining �latiinzation� problems, the �sponge,� (now used in most parishes anyhow) or of �pre-cut particles,� which, IMHO, remains the one major latinization to be addressed. The type of language used does not differ in any major degree from the 1964 Liturgicon. Every change was made in full consciousness of the alternatives and was done according to the Greek text of the Liturgy, with comparisons to the Slavonic, where necessary). The furor over this totally escapes my comprehension and the only reason I can find to understand it is the principle that ANY CHANGE in the Liturgy, no matter how small, is bound to be immediately opposed by the majority of the people. It is this liturgical principle which has kept the Russian and Greek Churches in dead languages (and the Romans until Vatican II). I emphasize - the new translation has NOTHING (and by that, I mean, nada, niente, nichevo, nichts, etc.) to do with the reform of the Roman Liturgy after Vatican II. It seems to me there are many nervous people who see any change as a movement to Protestantization, and fail to see that in many cases it might just be a polishing up of English style. I sometimes get the impression that if we write �old� instead of �olde,� that this might mean the end of Western civilization as we know it. Yes, there is some horizontal inclusive language, and I apologize to those who see this as the end of Western civilization. I�m sorry, but there were those who opposed the abolition of slavery, too, and sometimes some social adjustments must be made, though I recognize your right to be unhappy.
The promulgation of the new translation will be the closing chapter in the struggle of our church to accept the 1941 Liturgicon, which has lasted from the requests of Bishop Evancho in 1953 for some exemptions to this text through the 1964 liturgicon (with its ineffective form) through the 1970 and 1986 promulgations by the Parma Eparchy to Archbishop Procyk�s acceptance of this basic form to now. The only alternative would be a relapse to the basic pre-1964 latinized form of the Liturgy, which would be a tremendous disservice to our Church. This Liturgy is a positive step toward the Administrator�s mantra that we should only do what all the Orthodox are doing - which, unfortunately, is also a principle that totally transcends my comprehension. I have come to the conclusion that if we really want to act in harmony with the Orthodox, we should do what their vast majority (Greeks + Russians) are doing and retain the Liturgy in a dead language. We should only celebrate the 1941 Liturgicon of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches - even here making some modifcations, because there are minor latinizations in it - in CHURCH SLAVONIC. That would have the side benefit of bringing this wearisome discussion to a screeching halt. The one major step that we are taking is the restoration of presbyteral prayers for audible chanting - and this is an organic development when the Liturgy moves into the vernacular - and which is happening in Orthodox Churches that move into the vernacular - and why the Russians and Greeks forbid it - because they ALSO FORBID THE VERNACULAR. I am willing to discuss the Antiphons - which are more a cantors problem - and which do not appear in the 1941 textus receptus anyhow - and the litanies, and I think I�ve expressed my opinion on the litanies. This new translation, by the way, is hardly my personal whim. Being the one most trained in liturgical science, I had a lot of input, but the final proposal and final approval was not from me, and was not even everything I wanted, but it was from the church. I do not appreciate some of the mud-slinging that has been done here. This is not a �revisionist� Liturgy, but a �restored� Liturgy.
Of course, our Church needs a total renewal of our minds and hearts to an authentic and genuine rediscovery of our Eastern heritage. This transcends any policy decisions. The same is true of any truly moral renewal. However, it also requires that we make policy decisions in conformity with this spirit. I see three major decisions that have to be made by our Church, which will not automatically renew us, but are nonetheless necessary:
1) the restoration of the mysteries of initiation - particularly infant communion. This has been substantially done, though some of the population still resists,
2) the de-latinization of the Liturgy, by the definitive promulgation of the 1941 Liturgicon (in essence, I am not a liturgical literalist), and this will be accomplished by the new translation, though there will be opposition by those who think it goes too far and those who think it doesn�t go far enough),
3) the restoration of a married presbyterate. Why are there still problems here?

Dear Father David, Pending a longer response, which will take time, allow me (only for myself, obviously) to thank you for your posting and to offer one small thought- the L'viv Sluzhebnyk you are referring to is that of 1905, not 1890.

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

Dear Father David,

Father, bless!

May I also thank you for your post?

Are there not other alternatives?

One, might be, to publish a faithful exact translation of the text and rubrics found in the normative slavonic Liturgicon from Rome, without the introduction of inclusive language. A reasonable alternative, as far as I can see.

Maybe it is only a standard in most of our parishes. But we all know what happens when standards are lowered.

Nick