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

Administrator,

Ingteresting. How many stichera on "Hospodi vozzvach" do you estimate you took then? How many troparia for each ode of Matins?

Thanks!

Tony

Dear Administrator,

Now, that is the kind of liturgical reform, I would like to stand up and applaud. If we spent as much time promoting the normal vision of Vespers/Matins/Divine Liturgy, as arguing about the rubrics of a re-ordered and re-organized Divine Liturgy, we might have much more to agree about.

Nick

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Father David:

The sense of mystery in the Liturgy does not come from oscurantism. The Romans have lost a sense of mystery because of a lack of understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation - Jesus is just one more nice, everyday guy. The power of the Byzantine Liturgy comes from an understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation. The sense of mystery comes from a fact beyond our human control - that God is acting in the Liturgy - that it is a truly �Divine� Liturgy. This is more than just my opinion! We should seek understanding of the Liturgy - the more we understand the Liturgy, the more profound and beautiful the mystery becomes. This is yet another reason to hear the presbyteral prayers, which express the Paschal Mystery. One major error in many of the posts is the idea that the priest�s prayers �interrupt the flow� of the Liturgy. The prayers are the �flow� of the Liturgy, the people�s �Amen,� and hymns interrupt this flow - but in a good sense, in a sense of our joining in the prayer and becoming a part of the �divine� action.

Fr. David bless me a sinner!

Thanks for this beautiful post. Amen.

In Christ,

John

Incognitus,

Thanks for your defensive post. Tony does have a way of finding misstatements and then needling people in a very public way. He shows this in his statement that if I had said �complete� or �full� he could have asked a qualifying question but my use of �omitted nothing� would not qualify for such courtesy. My choice of words was incorrect. Tony is correct in pointing this out and I accept his correction.

Admin

Tony,

I think we took the troparia at the odes of Matins in Slavonic. Since I can�t count in Slavonic I have no idea how many troparia were sung.

Admin

Administrator,

I do not understand your response. I merely asked how many troparia. Each ode is composed of irmos, troparia and katavasia. Most odes are longish and in many places they do not sing them entirely, in some places I have witnessed only the irmos or irmos and katavasia (sometimes the same thing repeated) are sung. Obviously the more troparia of each ode are sung the longer the ode and the longer the canon. I merely wanted to know how long the canon was, how abbreviated it was.

Let's be honest for a moment, most Ruthenian parishes don't even have Vespers much less Vigil. You can't handle some questions about such a novelty?

You said you prepared the book. You don't know what you put in it? That doesn't make any sense to me.

Don't worry about a response. I have learned my lesson here.

I hope you learn to practice what you preach. One cannot ask precision of you, yet you demand it of others. When someone does to you what you do to others you mock them. That is a double standard.

Very poor indeed.

Goodbye.

Dear Admin,

Many people appreciated your joke. I can say this as it was pointed out to me by several Forum members. Obviously, Tony was not one of them.

Gaudior, making no further comment

Please forgive a Latin who has been reading this and similar threads for a few thoughts.

It seems to me that you've got more than a "new translation" here. It looks to me like behind the smoke screen of a "new translation" you've got wholesale tinkering with your whole liturgical tradition. Along with the actual words and music, it seems that you've got wholesale rewriting of the Liturgy and other services as well.

If your 1966 translation is a standard English translation, there would seem to be no reason for anything to be done since. Rome has issued instructions on liturgical translation and it would seem that your 1966 translation fits the bill for what Rome is calling for. That you would be assailed by feminist language translations at this point seems to me to mean that your bishops have just now caught up with the trend that Rome wants reversed. So now that the Latin Church has come full circle in the English-speaking world--to the point where you've been--it seems that the Byzantine sui juris Churches are going to start down that road.

It seems like dejz vu to me: wandering for forty years in a wilderness that the bishops and their experts said we had to do only to find out that they were wrong.

Having been down this road, please accept my prayers and support. The struggle to grow one's relationship with Christ in such an atmosphere is tough.

BOB

Tony,

I am surprised that you do not understand my response.

When I read your original post it included the clear statement that I was obviously wrong when I used the phrase �omitted nothing�. I concluded that you only asked the question to show my mistake to the Forum readers but, since I am interested in the topic I chose to answer it.

Then, in your response to Incognitus you stated that if I had used the term �complete� you could have asked me to qualify but because I used the term �omitted nothing� you could not possibly give me the courtesy to ask what I meant by the term but had to ask me to provide a detailed listing of everything in order to prove myself. At that point I concluded that the purpose of your post was not to discuss the Vigil service but to prove to our readers that I could not have possibly done a truly complete vigil. (Especially since in my original long list I specifically stated that �my yardstick of �everything� is more-or-less the full Vigil that they do at the local ROCOR parish on Saturday evenings and the eves of feast days� and that I have been to many ROCOR Vigils and the order I gave was pretty close to what I see celebrated at the local ROCOR parish. I suspect if I had answered your questions about the exact number of stichera at Psalm 140 and the troparia at the odes of Matins you would have then pointed out that we could not possibly have also done the secondary canons appointed for the day, and etc. So rather then engage in a long slide in which you continued to point out my very obvious misuse of the English language I chose to respond to your posts to Incognitus and me as I did.

As to double standards, there are none. I do most certainly make many mistakes (there is at least one in every post I compose and I frequently overreact to perceptions of lack of charity). But I do not purposefully identify other people�s mistakes and then sarcastically offer them a chance to prove that they meant exactly what they wrote. There is a difference between asking for precision and needling one because of their lack of precision. The first can be done charitably even if done poorly. The second is always done uncharitably and because it is done without charitably it is always done poorly.

Admin

Administrator,

Have the courtesy of getting the sequence right please. You only qualified what "omitting nothing" meant after I asked you what that meant. So, your "especially since in my original long..." is inaccurate.

Look back at the posts.

Tony

Tony:

You ask me: "Is that so offensive to you?"

When I read your post with that question, I was not offended, merely puzzled to know what you read into my previous post that could give the impression that someone or something had offended me (all I had said was that a Vigil is complicated and can take various lengths of time depending on many things).

However, having since read your remarkable posts to the Administrator, it becomes only too clear that you are out to cause offense. I have no idea what agenda you are pursuing, but it certainly is not mine.

Incognitus

Divine Liturgy yesterday was lovely: unhurried, well sung, in accordance with the service-book - I gather that this is now considered a luxury to be got rid of at all costs. But nobody in our congregation seems to want any particular changes.

It would be interesting (to me, if nobody else) to ascertain just how much popular demand there is for liturgical change at the moment.

Incognitus

Gentlemen,

Once again this discussion seems to be focusing on the posters and not on the topic at hand. Please, let us refrain from denigrating one another. The issue here is of sufficiently great import that we need to make sure we are addressing the real issues and not straining at gnats.

Fr. Deacon Edward,
Moderator

They made some improvements, but they still did not fix the incorrect and heretical translation "for all" in the consecration to "for many"...

MB74,

"They made some improvements, but they still did not fix the incorrect and heretical translation "for all" in the consecration to "for many"..."

Incorrect perhaps, but as Rome allowed "for all" to be used please refrain from calling it heretical as it does have an orthodox interpretation.

Fr. Deacon Lance