When the 1964/5 Liturgikon we are supposed to be using is republished, what would you add/correct to keep the Metropolia in-line wih our received tradition?

I have a few thoughts in no particular order ...

1.) "For ever and ever" rendered as "to the ages of ages".

2.) In the Creed: "substance" would read "essence".

3.) Use the word "Orthodox" when we're supposed to.

4.) Use "our Holy Father N., Pope of Rome."

5.) No Filioque.

Other thoughts?

In Christ,

John

Dear John,
That list sounds good to me. But I'll have a look at the red book and see what else I can come up with.
Maybe a printing house can be found in Uzhhorod. Wouldn't that be fun?

Fr. Serge

My family decided not to give to the Eparchial Stewardship Fund due to their misguided steps revolving this "new" Liturgy. So, I'd like donate $1,000 to the effot of correcting and reprinting the 1964/5 Liturgicon. Please let me know where to send the check.

Cathy

P.S. This is a serious offer.

P.S.S. John, great list!

Cathy - now that is a message of support worth having! God reward your charity.

John - one more item: use Theotokos where it properly occurs.

This publication has marvelous potential.

Fr. Serge

John, excellent points. There are a few odds and ends, such as spelling mistakes - St. Panteleimon in the Proskomedia, for example, and and it should be St. George, not Gregory, in the commemoration of the holy great martyrs in the Proskomedia.

I spoke with someone at Svichado, the Studite publishers, some time ago who was definitely interested in producing such a thing.
FDD

I would also like to support the publication of the proper Liturgikon and proper pew books.

When you get plans together, please place a notice for how to send money to the appropriate location to offset the costs. I can think of several who would donate.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I didn't see whatever started this thread going. I would, however, like to ask:

Are you aware that the translation of the Liturgicon which someone is suggesting to have reprinted and revised, is under copyright? Reprinting this translation---or revising it---without the authorization of the Council of Hierarchs, would be a violation of copyright.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Good point and one worth taking into consideration.

Why aren't we using the same thing as one of the Orthodox churches? We'd just need to change that line about the pope with theirs, right?

I'll Donate!

Organizing the publication of a new edition (with corrections) of the 1964/1965 Liturgicon is an excellent idea! I will join with Cathy and pledge $1,000 of my annual tithe towards the effort.

Some ideas:

1. Pray for our Church and for our bishops. Pray especially that they will find the courage to reject the currently proposed reforms and that they will be faithful to the official Liturgy their predecessors asked Rome to prepare for us.

2. A blessing from the Council of Hierarchs would be needed for the project.

This should not be difficult to obtain. All the evidence coming from Rome indicates that Pope Benedict XVI is close to allowing blanket permission to any parish and / or priest who wishes to celebrate the Tridentine Latin Mass. Does anyone seriously think that an organized group will have difficulty seeking permission for our parishes and priests to celebrate the official Liturgy of our Church, the one that Rome has directed us to use? (Especially when the proposed one is in violation of the Roman directives to restore to what is official, be identical to the Orthodox standard and that of Liturgiam Authenticam not to use exclusive inclusive language, and may seriously impact the quest for unity?) Hopefully the Council of Hierarchs will do the right thing and finally end this push to revise our official Liturgy so that petitions and pilgrimages to Rome to prevent or recall it will not be necessary. Since the current edition is out of print and our Church will need a Liturgicon to use until a common edition for all Byzantines can be prepared (cf Liturgical Instruction, section 25) it makes sense to publish a new edition with corrections.

3. Funds should be organized in advance to cover the costs of printing about 500 copies for the first run.

4. One copy should be gifted to each parish in the Byzantine Metropolia and the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown. The 1964/1965 Liturgicon is the one that Metropolitan Nicholas has directed for use at the seminary in Johnstown. He would welcome a reprint of an edition with corrections. Such a reprint could easily include his blessing on the approval page. It could very well serve as a source of future unity between our Churches.

5. Should the Council of Hierarchs decide to reprint the Liturgicon with corrections and not utilize the funds raised by this organization I recommend that they be held in escrow to pay for another suitable project, like a quality English translation of one of the other official Ruthenian liturgical books.

I encourage everyone to add their specific ideas!

Admin / John

MR. Thompson, I don't know if your comments were directed at anyone specifically, but concern noted. Your post seems rather obvious; in general practice one doing any serious publishing determines and obtains the necessary copyright permission. It was originally copyrighted by the "Byzantine Liturgical Conference", by the way.

With the Catholic Church, things are a bit different; permission to copy and publish an approved version that is no longer in print can sometimes be obtained directly from the Congregation that approved the document(s); in this case it was the Sacred Oriental Congregation by Prot. N 380/62.

John - great points; I don't see why the hierarchs would not bless a good quality reprinting of an officially approved text.
FDD

Why not just join the Orthodox Church and avoid this whole mess?! The books are already printed!! I'm not trying to prosylitize, but alot of potential carpal tunnel could be avoided here!!

Inside every Canadian is an American waiting to come out...

Why not just use their books?

As the Liturgical Instruction has noted favorably, many of of do use Orthodox books, and for that matter many Orthodox use various Greek-Catholic editions of service-books. There's nothing controversial about that.

I don't know enough about the pertinent US legislation to be able to comment on the copyright question which J. Michael Thompson has raised. But it seems to me that this question would not have been raised unless someone is seriously frightened by the possibility of such a reprint. But why should that frighten anyone? Was the original book a money-making venture, and does someone fear that private persons might reap the profits from a new printing? If that's the issue, it can easily be addressed - but I doubt that there is such an issue, since liturgical books in general rarely hit the best-seller lists. It is far more likely that a reprint will need sponsors from individual donors because sales alone would not cover the costs.

Moreover, anyone who does not want the book need not buy it. If private individuals or a private group or an independent publishing house prints this (by the way, independent publishing houses frequently do reprints of liturgical texts - AMS Press in New York did a nice series of them about 40 years ago), such a reprint will have only its own intrinsic authority and value, and no one can be forced to buy it, let alone use it. So again, what is there to be afraid of?

Back to Orthodox publications of service-books: yes, many of us use them in a variety of ways, and appreciate them. But no Orthodox publishing house has yet produced a complete uniform set of the service-books, nor is there geneeral pan-Orthodox agreement on the texts themselves, the style, etc. So the intellectual market-place is still wide open, and likely to remain so for quite a length of time to come. Being a believer in freedom of expression, I don't find that particularly disturbing. Besides, it means that I can find more books to review.

Fr. Serge

Why so much fear of our Liturgikon?

Is the proposal to print the old English translation of the Liturgikon WITH changes, as the original poster suggested, or without? In the latter case, there was a firestorm here a few years ago when the bishops dared to reprint the old text that had the filioque in brackets; on the other hand, if changes are to be made, who decides what they are? (The original poster, for example, suggested changing "and forever" in the old translation; who decides what the replacement text is to be?)

I would certainy donate to such a project if, as John indicated, the blessing of the Hierarchs was obtained - even better would be to obtain a blessing for the use of the 1944 Ordo by any priest who so desired. (At the same time, the bishops could, of course, provide guidance as to which litanies, for example, must NOT be omitted, or for ALLOWING the anaphora to be taken aloud, without prejudicing the right granted to each priest to celebrate the Ordo as given to us. This really WOULD move us toward a common standard based on both present usage AND the Ordo.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

There is a hardbound Green Liturgikon that came out of the Eparchy of Parma in 1986. The names of Father David Petras and Bishop Andrew Pataki are on it. It does not seem to have a copyright.

In the preface there is a remark that it is based on the Red Liturgikon.

A quick skim revealed that "Master Bless!" has been replaced with "Reverend Father Give the Blessing!". The antiphons are abbreviated and the filioque is included.

Anyone have details on this version?

Perhaps something like the 1988 UGCC Liturgikon, which has brackets around specific litanies that can be ommitted with the permission of the Synod, but the text for the litanies are fully included in their entirety and present if the priest wishes to take them. Now that's a thought - more consistent usage with a sister Church of the Ruthenian Rescension.

John - if you look at certain aspects of that "green" book, such as the abbreviations of text and rubrics, some language (you mentioned one example i.e. "Reverend Father") and the primary persons involved, you will see it is a precursor to the New Liturgy.
FDD

Professor Thompson:

With all due respect, has the original copyright been renewed?

If not, it has probably expired--copyrights usually last only 17 years from my understanding of copyright law. And even if it had been renewed, it would have run out the second time unless renewed for a third run.

BOB

I have no information about the particular book you mention, but I do know that in his notes on the Ordo Celebrationis in 1996, Father Serge mentioned without comment that in the Eparchy of Parma, the "Master, give the blessing" at the Liturgy of the Pre-sanctified Gifts was translated "Reverend Father, give the blessing."

Of course, if it WAS in use for the Divine Liturgy in 1986, that takes it back almost half the lifetime of the current translation, and makes it hardly a new issue. *shrug* Or is this the request for a blessing at the dismissal? -- Jeff

-----------

Jeff,

To be honest, I only had a quick look.

I wonder though what was the theological driver that made it necessary to change "Master give the blessing!" to "Reverend Father give the blessing" in that Green Liturgikon.

What is wrong with "Master give the blessing!"
and better stated with "Reverend Father give the blessing?"

Wondering,

"Why aren't we using the same thing as one of the Orthodox churches? We'd just need to change that line about the pope with theirs, right?"

Because no Orthodox Church prints book according to the Ruthenian Recension. ACROD uses our books to produce theirs.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon:

Would you care to define "the Ruthenian Recension"? Then would you care to compare the red book with, say, the OCA Divine Liturgy book and see how many - or how few - differences you can find?

I'll tell you one difference - the rubrics are more accurately translated in the red book. Where they are more accurately observed is another question.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge,

I would say the Ruthenian Recension is pretty much a Catholic phenomena. Other than ACROD are there any Orthodox Churches that use this recension? UOC in Canada and US and the UAOC in Ukraine I would imagine as possibilites but I do not know for sure.

As to the differences they are few and Fr. Casimir Kucharek's Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom gives them. However there are differences and the Ruthenian Recension will not survive if we simply start using Russian Recension books. Prostopinje certainly did not fair well in the OCA alongside the various Russian styles.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I won't yet publish my analysis of the Ruthenian Recension - but I am quite willing to suggest that Prostopinije appears to be by far the most important element in the popular Carpatho-Russian liturgical identity.

The translation problem could be solved - and this I've said several times, and even in print - by this process:

a) produce a genuinely scientific, strictly accurate English translation from the Greek.

b) taking that "mother text", produce several "daughter texts" for the variant usages (Old-Rite, Nikonian, Romanian, Ruthenian and so on).

c) taking the Ruthenian version of the daughter text, commission competent Church musicologists who are themselves learned in Prostopinije to produce settings of the portions to be sung - leaving the possibility that it may be necessary to adjust the text in places, but that such changes should be held to a minimum.

d) commission an outstandingly good group of chanters to sing and record this material, and ask several parishes to try it for, say, a two year period. Then make whatever further adjustments in words or music might have been discerned during this trial as necessary, or at least highly desirable.

Voila!

Meanwhile, I can assure you that it is not difficult to sing Prostopinije to the OCA text - I've heard it done fairly frequently.

Fr. Serge

Jeff’s question gets right to the heart of the discussion.

My recommendation is that the goal should be to reprint the 1964/1965 Liturgicon (the “Red Book”) with corrections using the official 1941/1942 Liturgicon as the standard. Since this would be a temporary book (until all Byzantines can get together and prepare a common translation) I suggest that it only contain corrections to what is actually incorrect. An appropriate written justification should be prepared for each correction. The guiding principal for preparing the corrected text should be to correct only that which absolutely necessary.

There are not really a lot of changes to make – maybe a dozen or two (many of them being changing a single word).

Some obvious typos and mistranslations are easy to justify. Father Randy noted two mistranslations of saint’s names in the Proskomedia. “For this holy church” really should be “For this holy temple”. The Third Antiphon is misplaced and can be easily moved back to its proper place. “Christians of the true faith” should be “Orthodox Christians”. In the Pre-Creed and Creed “substance” can become “essence”. It would not take a great effort to justify these corrections.

Other translations would take a bit more work to justify. Sometimes the idea of a perfect translation can be the enemy of a perfectly good translation. We all know that “Mother of God” is not an exact translation for “Theotokos”. Yet it has the advantage of being the standard translation that is used in the English speaking world (even non-Christians know who the “Mother of God” is). “Now and ever and forever” is not the best translation but it is not hopelessly incorrect. These issues would take more effort to research and seek opinions of numerous translators in the Byzantine world (as a reference it would be interesting to see a survey of why some call to leave “Theotokos” untranslated and then why the RCC and some Orthodox chose to use “Mother of God”) . Ultimately any possible corrections would be based upon good scholarship balanced with pastoral sensitivity. [An example of something that we will probably not change for many generations is the translation of the Lord’s Prayer (since everyone has it memorized)].

Such guidance is not proper to a Liturgicon. The Liturgicon simply gives the standard. Guidance for how to celebrate the Liturgy is provided in a liturgical instruction. My recommendation is that the bishops finally promulgate the Ordo Celebrationis and then, by way of temporary exception, set the “lowest” usage to be along the lines of what is in the current Levkulic pew book. [BTW, Jeff, the official Liturgicon offers no rubric as to whether the Anaphora should be prayed quietly or aloud. That is why I have always supported giving the individual celebrant liberty to take it quietly or aloud.]

In a previous post I mentioned that Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown prefers the 1964/1965 Liturgicon. But maybe more Churches can be involved in such a project. Bishop Vsevolod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has reminded us that the Ruthenian editions are also the standard for that Church. Maybe one could seek input from all those who share the Ruthenian recension? Such an effort might just lay the foundation for working together to produce a future common translation of all of our liturgical books.

John

Sorry but "forever" is a hopelessly incorrect excuse for "ages of ages".

There are some changes, not in the text but in the formatting, which should be made - for instance, in the red book the Third Antiphon is in the wrong place. If you have a copy, take a close look and you'll see what I mean.

For that matter, there's no reason not to reconsider the formatting across the board - the dimensions of the book should be reduced, even though the result would be a somewhat thicker book. And if one wants to have the same book for Priest, Deacon and layman, that also requires more careful consideration by people who are better qualified than I am in designing such a layout.

Binding: on the one hand, one wants a book that will lie flat on the analogion without the necessity of breaking the binding (being a Priest myself I know full well how annoying it is to serve from a book that will not hold its place). On the other hand, one wants a binding that does not look cheap - as Pope Benedict says, a service-book should be of a noble appearance. This may require consultation with experts in book-binding.

The Deacon will certainly want a pocket-sized book.

The faithful want something large enough to read but at the same time not too heavy to hold for 90 minutes.

I have no doubt that the experts can accomplish these desiderata harmoniously - but the time to consider and seek advice is now.

Fr. Serge

This all seems amazingly possible. But...

Is it not also necessary to have a bishops approval to use the books in a parish?

How would the hierarchs react to a rival to their own planned release?

And, are they reading this forum?

Yes, a blessing from the hierarchs for the project would be necessary. That was spoken of near the start of this thread. A good discussion of what actually needs to be corrected is useful and can help focus the project into something that might be useful in serving the Church.

My understanding is only one hierarch is really keen on revising the Liturgy. It’s only a guess on my part, but I suspect that one or more of the remaining hierarchs would welcome an alternative that demonstrates a commitment to bring us closer to the official Ruthenian Liturgy rather than moving away from it.

The bishops are aware of the Forum. How often they read it is something only they know. Three have commented positively about the website and Forum. One has never mentioned it (and I’m not sure if that particular bishop is himself online).

Father Serge,

You might be correct that “now and ever and forever” is hopeless incorrect. My point (which I presented carelessly) was that the research and justification (for correction) needs to be done by more than one scholar so that any argument for a correction is beyond question. I have in my collection a copy of a Greek Orthodox people’s liturgy book that uses “now and ever and forever”. Surely a history of why specific translations were made would be useful in understanding and garnering support for something more accurate?

Regarding the Third Antiphon, I listed that already, together with a few others.

Your idea of several editions is excellent. The “pocket sized Green Book” for the 1960s was an excellent edition that contained the full text of the Liturgy and could serve as sort of a possible model for size and layout.

John

Check Father Paul Harrilchak - no mean scholar himself - on the issue of "ages of ages". Most Greek-Catholic translations used this phrase up until the mid-fifties, whereupon it was suddenly changed with no explanation ever offered.

Fr. Serge

Come to think of it "per omnia saecula saeculorum" in the Latin Rite should literally be translated "through all ages of ages". I remember the old Tridentine missals translating it as "world without end".

Dn. Robert

That is exactly what per omnia saecula saeculorum means. "World without end" strongly implies a highly un-Christian idea; this present world will certainly have an end (and I'm inclined to say "the sooner, the better"!).

The trouble seems to have arisen because in late Latin saecula took on an additional meaning (as in the word "secular"). But it originally means "ages" or perhaps "centuries" (as in the French siecle (sorry; this e-mail program won't do accent marks). The normal word for "world" in Latin is mundus from which we have the English word "mundane" and the Latin Salvator Mundi.

Father Serge