Father Deacon John,

Should we abandon all Christian theology whenever it has no meaning for us?

Why do you believe we should adapt the Church to the world?

Why do you believe that accuracy in translation is not important?

JD

I'm responding to my own post. Is that kosher? Ok. I am really trying not to impute motives to the IELC. I should have said "The faithful are, I think, capable of understanding its use," rather than "Translating it away presumes that the faithful are too dumb. . . ."

Oh good, I did find the thread I was looking for, started 07/12/02, on the secret "Proposed Text of the Byzantine Liturgy":

Orginally posted by Administrator:
Then by Fr. Elias:
Then Fr. David:
This exchange illustrates some permutations on the theolgical issues raised. I suspect that a person will always be able to argue that a given rendering has the potential to miss or to confuse some theological point or another. (I can't help recalling a Bishop's comments on the dogmatic significance of loose sleeves.) It also comments on the understanding of "Vladyko" as a form of address by at least one member of the IELC, who, I would hazzard a guess, grasps a few other things better than allowed by opponents.

Dear djs,

How would you accurately translate Despota-Vladiko into English?

Nick

JD

RRTQ

It is clear from the context that I do not advocate the abandonment of Christian theology.

As for adaptations, it is God the Son who condescended to our human nature as Jesus of Nazareth.

As for translations, my question pertained to one specific translation for specific situations. Please do not try to generalize the specifics. The topic of this thread does have as its title "Despota: Master or Reverend Father?"

RRTQ

having been scratching my head and searching for this meaning - I can't find it

Dear Fr Deacon John - what is RRTQ - inquiring minds need to know

Father Deacon Montalvo,

When you kiss the hand of the priest or bishop who celebrates the Divine Liturgy whose hand are you kissing?

Are you kissing the hand of “Reverend Father” as a mere courtesy?

Or are you kissing the hand of your Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, who is part of the person of the priest by virtue of his ordination?

JD

Nick,

I am not a translator, and won't make an attempt lest I also be called for stupidity. I like a comment that I read over at BEMA by a familiar voice, and am inspired to adapt its sentiment to this thread:

I am neither so dense nor so rigid I would become lost, or saved, simply because of the choice of one or another of these translations. I am able to accept what my Master and his priests recommend for us all. And I am committed to working with them to help make our liturgies as splendid as I can.

Fr. Serge argued earlier that the prayers should be called episcopal prayers rather than presbyteral prayers because the Liturgicon assumes the normal celebrant of the Liturgy to be the bishop. Fair enough. If then the Liturgicon assumes the bishop to be the normal celebrant, obviously Master is in reference to the bishop. Sorry, I am not buying this is a reference to God due to context and since in other places God is addressed directly.

However, since today the normal celebrant of the Liturgy is the priest, it only makes sense that a translation would provide for substituting Father, the normal way of addressing a priest in English.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The opening intonation of the Enarxis is the Deacon's "Bless, Master", calling for the "Blessed is the Kingdom . . . " As it happens, this is never done by the Bishop (unless by way of exception there is no priest concelebrating with the bishop), but always by a priest.

Fr Serge

I'm not sure why you sidestepped the question and resorted to a 'Philadelphia lawyer' type answer. Why not just answer 'yes'.
Especially when you've gone on record here advocating that the church adapt to the world regarding other issues (i.e. inclusive language.)

Here I'll refresh your memory:

http://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003685;p=1#000005

Deacon John Montalvo wrote:
"If a woman, who has never been raised in any faith and has been educated in the most "liberal" university of our country, should be invited to a Divine Liturgy, would she not find some of the language in the Liturgy offensive? If so-called "exclusive language" becomes a stumbling block to evangelism, should not "sex neutral" language be employed?"

It is sad to see that you are willing to bend over backwards for 'liberals' but aren't too worried about offending the Traditionalists already in the Church. Please advise?

Philadelphia Lawyer? Actually it reminded me of the the kind of answer He gave when asked about the propriety of paying taxes.

Give the transslators at least an "E for efoort." Too much fixation on the English language, one of the most complex and mixed up in the world since Shakesphere. I don't think the Slovaks using "pan" for Lord (God) or Mr/Sir have been dwelling on this, or Germans with "Herr" for both Mr/Sir and Lord (God). And most of the other languages. There is no real problem except with the linguistics of english which can be translated as one sees fit. What about variations of english like ebonics - don't even go there!

Father Deacon,

It may make sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. It is your opinion, your idea of an improvement.

Anyway, it is not a "translation" as you say, but a change. You can argue for change, but you can't call a change a "translation".

That is just the kind of casual imprecision in language that is at the root of the problem.

A good translation for "Despota" and "Vladiko" is "Master". Calling it "Father" is a change and a revision, not a translation.

You can argue for change if you want, but don't hide it under the flag of "translation". It is a change, a revision, somebody's idea of an improvement.

I call it a corruption, and an indication that we really don't understand the roles of bishop, or priest in the Liturgy. God blesses the Church through the bishop (or his delegate, the priest).

Nick