in the new liturgy. At least, not specifically.

The petition which asks us to pray for the government and all the armed forces has been changed to "For our government and for all in the service of our country, let us pray to the Lord."

Fr. Keleher points this out in his book. I checked the Greek text, and it has us pray for "palatiou" and "stratopedou", which are the genitives of "the royal court" and "the army", I think. The new translation collapses all that into "all in the service of our country."

Is there a reason to eliminate the specific reference to the armed forces?

"the royal court" has no meaning anymore. I have no problem with this translation. It nicely sums up the intent.

Maybe it is omitted or avoided because some of the translaters are still stuck in the 60', 70's unease with anything military.

In the Latin Church during that time it was taboo to speak of Christians as "soldiers of Christ" even though this terms comes to us from St. Paul.

Ray S.,

Does "army" no longer have meaning anymore?

Dear Pseudo Athanasius you said:

I say:

Knowing a little Greek, a more accurate translation of 'palatiou' would be 'those of the palace'. In other words, the government, and 'stratopedou' would be 'those soldiering'. So in that sense, 'all in the service of our country', would be a more concise translation.

Zenovia

Concise? Yes. Accurate? No. Why would we want to be concise, anyway, when the Greek isn't? Is the liturgy too long? Can't we spare half a second to mention the armed forces?

We had a young lad get a blessing as his unit was called up to Iraq last Sunday. I find it very problematic that we will no longer be praying specifically for him, as the petition that mentions our armed forces gets folded into a bland petition that includes all.

I heard a rumor that the Greeks were actually adding to one or more of the Litanies to include not only those that travel by sea, air, and land, but also those in space.

I would expect that a the NEW IELC? Liturgy to include those in submarines and in space. Not to delete the armed forces.

At least in Western Europe, palace (a word taken from Latin) meant not so much the court as the royal administration - and not necessarily royal (to this day in French one speaks of the Palai de justice, for example), so translating it as the "government" is defensible.

As to the army, it may be - this is a guess - that in the Vietnam War days priests began to employ various euphemisms rather than risk potential unpleasantness during the Divine Liturgy. The Vietnam War polarized the USA to the point that almost any symbol was risky. I moved to Canada in the midst of it all, and I still remember how shocked I was the first time I went to the movies: the Canadian flag came on the screen and the audience quite peacefully and normally stood up, sang the Canadian national anthem, and sat back down again. Any cinema which had tried that in the USA at the time would probably have had to deal with mayhem.

Fr. Serge

I can't wait! I hope one day to have my own space ship.

The Greeks also have:
Does anyone use "army"? I have heard "armed forces" and "armed forces fighting everywhere", but not "army". The rendering found in the new edition has been around for a while; it is not new to this edition.

And does anyone remember if there was a brouhaha over altering the text to add "air" to travel by sea and land?

I think the Greeks are the only ones who have that sort of translation. All the others I've checked refer to the military.

Didn't the Ecumenical Patriarch add "air" to the litany back in the early twentieth century? That's the story I had heard.

Nec

I did notice the Melkite version has "For our public servants." The OCA version has:

Is that second petition in paranthesis for a reason? Is it used in time of war? Anyone know?

Nec

Dear Nec Aliter,
That petition in parentheses is properly used, if at all, only of a Christian Sovereign.

Fr Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I have to say that here I think the translators have been quite reasonable. Sometimes a literal rendering conveys an idea in English that, while using counterpart vocabulary, conveys an idea that is quite foreign to the original.

A medieval Byzantine Christian would pray for the emperor and his army for reasons that are quite different from those that motivate us today to pray for our various national armed forces. Under the notion of "symphonia" (as I understand it at least!), the Byzantine church identified its aims with those of the state. There was no separation of church and state in the oikumene, simply separation of tasks.

Today, of course, the secular state and its army has aims that, however worthy, are expressly distinct from those of the Church. To use the language of "symphonia" to pray for those secular organs of government would be to distort that very language. It would imply something that the Greek definitely does not, namely an accomodation of the Church to the secular ideal.

So surely we have to go back to basics and look at why we pray for the state at all. We have both apostolic and (pre-Constantine) patristic warrant for such prayers on the ground that the state provides, or should provide, a peaceful environment for the Church to prosper. Thus the rendering of the new translation seems quite acceptable.

Another point: why would we want to specify only the "army" or even the "armed forces." What about police and other protective agencies? Not all of them are armed, but all of them have as their aim the promotion of peace and justice and certainly they all need our prayers to help acheive that aim!

Finally, I took a look at a couple of modern Greek Orthodox translations to see what solution they take. One simply omits this petition altogether! Another, namely that by Archimandrite Ephrem (Lash) and which I believe is the official version of the Liturgy for the Diocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, gives a different GREEK version of the petition. The Greek reads has pray for the "arches" and "exousias", i.e. the government and all in authority.

Finally, if we are going to insist on a completely literal translation of this petition, then we had better go the whole way and sing the Troparion of the Cross properly as well: "grant victory to the kings over the barbarians"!!

hierodeacon Maximos

Dear Father Maximos,

Certainly there is a reason to pray for everyone, including the post office, the utility workers, and the school superintendants, but we don't generally have specific prayers for them. The armed forces, it seems to me, have such a greater responsibility and danger, both physical and spiritual, that I don't think it is out of line to pray for them. Such a prayer includes in it the safety of the soldiers, that they engage in good conduct in war, that the war be just, that the government act for the good of God's Church, etc.

I also wonder what exigence motivated this change. Why do they say "government and armed forces. . . that won't do. Better say 'all in the service of our country.'" Why not retain "armed forces", a translation of stratopedon, and add "all in the service of our country," which seems to me to be implied in the word "palation"?

Perhaps I am a bit emotionally attached to this petition, since we have several soldiers in our parish. I don't like the idea that they are losing a petition.

P.S. Congratulations on your ordination! Axios! Axios! (Perhaps I should translate that, via dynamic equivalence, into "Groovy!")

Well, I'd far sooner concede grooviness than worthiness

Actually, it's difficult to imagine a more text book example of dynamic equivalence than the near-universal (in the US) rendering of "well-revered and God-guarded kings" as "our President" or even just "civil authorities"!!

Let's face it, sometimes a little dyn. equiv. is necessary to make something intelligible. Just don't make it an ideological committment.

No, restricting myself to this one petition and the surrounding issue, the solution proffered by these translators is as good as any other I've seen.

And if there are particular people in a parish whose responsibilities on our country's behalf have put them in harm's way, perhaps the better pastoral solution is to remember them by name in the Litany after the Gospel and/or at the Great Entrance together with all those others in each community who most need prayers.

Just my thoughts,

hierodeacon Maximos

There is no objection whatever to mentioning the names of the faithful in the divine services in the usual places and the usual way. It is something else again, though, to commemorate a purely secular official as though he were a Christian Sovereign.

In the traditional service-books of the past one usually found prayers for the "Christ-loving armed forces". These days, such words would provoke mirth in the Church.

Fr. Serge

As an ex military chaplain I for one will continue to pray for those in our armed forces.
Stephanos I

The 1964/1965 translation has in the Great Synapte: “For our civil authorities (For our divinely-protected Emperor N. or King N.), and for all our armed forces, let us pray to the Lord.” The petition in the Litany of Supplication after the Gospel is similar (except it adds after the mention of the emperor or king: “for his health and salvation”).

The proposed new revision has: ”For our government and all in the service of our country, let us pray to the Lord.”

Two points:

1 Process - The references to “our divinely-protected Emperor N. or King N.” are part of the official recension book and should not be removed from any new Liturgicon (in any language) without agreement from all the Churches that make up the recension.

2. Text – There is nothing wrong with the proposed change but I don’t see it as an improvement over the existing version. I’d like to know what was in the commission’s mind when they made the change. Did they hope to broaden the scope of the prayer? Was someone offended by the reference to the “armed forces”? I would like to see the minutes that recorded the analysis of this petition. I would recommend a modification to their text (if they wish to specifically pray for the government) as: “For our government, our armed forces, and all who serve our country, let us pray to the Lord.”

There is something appealing about what I’ve heard in some OCA parishes: “For the President of these United States, for the Congress and the Supreme Court, for all civil authorities and for the armed forces, let us pray to the Lord.” But a change of this magnitude would need to be accomplished at the recension level.

"For those in the service of our country" has been around since the 1978 blue book. Why all the uproar now? Does any intelligent person think of anything other than those in the army, navy, airforce, marines, or coast guard when somebody says: "He is serving his country or is the service of our country."? I know I certainly don't think of the postman.

And is omitting Emperor/King that big a deal in this country? Only Greek Catholics living in Spain, Belgium, Monaco, Luxembourg have Catholic monarchs for whom they could use this petition.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon,

Thanks for your post. Yes, I have seen for “all in the service of our country” (replacing “armed forces”) in some of the pew books. I have not heard all that many deacons or priests use the altered terminology. Perhaps it is something more common in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy than it is in Passaic?

I do think of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard when I hear this petition. But I also quietly remember our President, the Governor of my state and my local police and firemen. Sometimes I even remember some friends of mine who work at the Pentagon. But this is off topic.

I do think omitting the references to the Emperor and the King in the Liturgicon is a big deal (Pew Books are a different story). We (as a local Church in a recension) do not have the authority to alter that which is the property of the whole. In a similar way I have previously noted that I believe that the members of the Ruthenian recension should act together to officially remove the filioque from the official texts of the Ruthenian books (even if only so it is officially gone once and for all). I am far from a legalistic person but I do believe that legal process is important. Here Washington, DC there is a continuing demand by some to “just allow” the “shadow representative” from Washington, DC to the U.S. House of Representatives the right to vote and have it counted legally. They say it would be OK to ignore the existing constitutional structure. I support some kind of representation in the House of Representatives for the residents of DC (the U.S. Constitution made no provision for this) but I oppose “just doing it”. What I support here is the rule of law to accomplish desirable goals at the proper level of authority. For us, our Metropolitan has the canonical authority to issue a translation (be it good or bad and apparently after some consultation with Rome). The Metropolitan does not have the authority to alter the text or rubrics of the Liturgy. Keeping the reworded petition would be considered a matter of translation (since it has already been approved in a previous edition). Removing the original petition (that references the Emperor or King) would be a matter for the entire Ruthenian recension to consider. [The 1965 edition is used by the Slovaks in Canada where they do pray for Queen Elizabeth.]

I do think that it is important to specifically remember the armed forces (and, by extension, all those who protect us). It is quite possible for an intelligent person who might have a bias against the military to think only about the governmental officials and their cousin who works for the IRS. I am not insisting on this, but there may be theological implications here. By removing the reference to the armed forces and making it more generic could we be unwittingly complicit in allowing people to conclude that it is wrong to pray for our armed forces? The issue is not as straightforward as some might think. That’s why I would like to see the written account of how this decision was made by the commission. I don’t really think I am asking all that much here.

Admin

What law are you talking about? CCEO ?
Which Canon?

Dear father Deacon,
You forgot Liechtenstein!

Fr Serge

djs,

This is really a topic for another thread (please feel free to start one!). But since you’ve asked I’ve quoted the relevant canons and bolded and italicized the most important parts:

There has been much discussion on these canons in our Church. I’ve personally heard the unofficial opinions of two canon lawyers, one Byzantine and one Latin. Both noted that in this instance “rite” means “Ruthenian Rite”, so that our Metropolitan (with the consent of the entire council of hierarchs) could issue a translation but that he could not admit changes to the “Ruthenian rite” because the “Ruthenian Rite” did not belong to him alone (that would violate the “mutual goodwill and unity” part).

Some of the proposed rubrical changes would be legitimate as part of a liturgical instruction (how the Metropolitan wants the Liturgy to be taken). But they are not legitimate for a Liturgicon (the Church’s official Liturgy book). One can compare that the Latin Church’s official books in English are nearly identical to the official Latin edition. Rubrics (like waiting until the end of the Sanctus before kneeling) are properly part of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. A short way of putting this is that the bishops can give a priest permission to skip a litany but they have no authority to print a Liturgicon without that litany.

We discussed this at length here on the Forum about a year (?) ago. Unfortunately the current version of the software we use has a poor search engine and I can’t find the thread. The software developers are promising a much improved version for the upgrade (which may happen in August).

Admin

My reading, FWIW, of the canons is that these matters are in the hands of the Metropolitan and the Synod of Bishops. I didn't find "rescension" (or "recension") in the CCEO search word list. I don't think that your interpretation of Canon 40 is correct, as it implies a sense of "rite" that is very different than the usual usage: the byzantine rite embraces many different Particular churches presumably with distinct "official" liturgical books. I think that mutual goodwill is important; it is, however, a two-way street.

In any event, the meaning of the Canon will be obvious from what Rome does or does not approve - independent of our interpretations.

Searches here have been corrupted by the opening of new fora and shifting of old threads there. It is especially tough to find posts relevant to the new liturgical edition. Some search results appear to point to "positions" within a forum that a moved thread formerly occupied. It's a mess, but presumably there should be some way to re-link the old pointers to the threads moved into the new fora. It would help.

djs,

There is no way at present to relink threads that have been moved to this forum. The anticipated software update that may correct this is still a couple months away for us. If on the database the thread shows as unavailable, it may have been moved here to this forum when it was created six days ago. You will just have to do the manual labor in finding it. I assure you that the 13 threads that were moved here when this section was created, none were deleted in the transfer. I was extremely careful in that regard. Our current software has no way to relink transferred threads.

Other than that I can offer no solution other than you will have to work a little harder in your searches to find the material needed for your posts in this section.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Who's army, Father?

Eli

djs,

Thanks for your post.

It was my understanding from the canon lawyers that the term “rite” applies at several levels. We are part of the “Byzantine Rite” but also part of the “Byzantine-Ruthenian Rite”. The Metropolia of Pittsburgh does not have its own set of official books but holds a single set of books in common with other Churches (the Ukrainian, Romanian, and etc.). Bishop Basil Takach was one of a group of Ruthenian Rite bishops who requested that Rome prepare and promulgate the Ruthenian recension books. Because we hold the books in common with others we need to accomplish change with others. This is why I have consistently argued that those things which are unique to the Ruthenian recension can be changed only by common agreement of all of the Churches of the Ruthenian recension while those things that are common across all the Byzantine Churches can only be change by common agreement of all of the Byzantine Churches.

Regarding mutual good will, the Liturgical Instruction does not tell us that organic process is a “two-way street”. It specifically tells us to look to what the Orthodox are doing with their official books. It does not speak directly to intra-Ruthenian diversity but it seems to assume that there should be none. The Ordo Celebrationis” most certainly applies to all the Churches which make up the Ruthenian recension.

But the canon lawyers I spoke with might be incorrect and you might be correct. Time will tell.

Thank you very much for your comments on the search engine, especially the part about moved threads. There is a way to rebuild the search engine index and I have run the script (which is why the Forum was closed for maintenance earlier). I hadn’t known about the broken links until you mentioned it. I don’t think it will improve the quality of the search engine but it should fix the links to what is returned from a search.

Admin

On the issue of the Canons, not just time, but as I mentioned, Rome will tell. I am interested to hear about the involvement of Bishop Basil in the development of the 1942 edition, and would pointers to anything available to read on this point.

When I mentioned the two-way street, this was in connection with the Canons that you quoted, not the liturgical instruction. Since this is Canon applies to all Particular churches and their mutual interatction, it is a manofold of two-way streets.

I posted my comments after your on the search hoping that three might be a fix to that problem. In trying to look back at previous postings I kept getting hits to other peoples posts on other threads. It took me awhile to realize the problem. And your fix worked.

Father Serge is reputed to be a wonderful historian. Perhaps he can enlighten us? My understanding is that there was disagreement so the bishops in both Europe and North America asked Rome to do the research and produce the books. My guess is that the time frame (probably late 1930’s or so) the political situation in Europe complicated everything.

OK. Yes, if there is an organic development that occurs in one Church that Church is certainly free to convince the others of its value. Possibly a good example of this might be a push by our Church to the other Churches in the recension to remove the filioque from all official Liturgical books. Of course the cannons and the Liturgical Instruction cannot each be understood in isolation.

Excellent!

Bishop Basil and the development of the "Ruthenian Recension" editions. Bishop Basil participated in the meetings of the "Ruthenian" hierarchy convoked by Metropolitan Andrew. Sometimes he was there in person, and sometimes he sent a delegate instead. He was represented on the Inter-Eparchial Commission. At that time, Bishop Basil (as well as the bishops of Mukachiv, Preshov and Krizhevtsi) was using the 1905 "Ruthenian Missal" published in L'viv, and so were all of Bishop Basil's priests.

But Bishop Basil was simultaneously fighting the celibacy war and all the litigation which was part of that struggle; this will have taken up much of his time and attention. In the nineteen-thirties, he also had to cope with the Great Depression, which will have further complicated his life. The Roman Commission which actually produced the "Ruthenian Recension" did not get into its stride until 1938 - and in 1939 World War II began in Europe, making communications difficult. Bishop Basil's health was deteriorating. So all in all, I doubt that he was much involved in the "Ruthenian Recension" process after 1938, even though the petition of the hierarchy to Pius XI was in his name as well as the name of all the other hierarchs.

Since Bishop (later Metropolitan) Constantine of Philadelphia received copies of the books as they came off the press during the war - probably via the Holy See's diplomatic channels - I would assume that Bishop Basil also received them, but was in no position to do much about them because by that time the USA was in the throes of World War II (there was an acute need for service-books, but the Basilians in Canada managed to reprint the 1905 "Ruthenian Missal" - using, by the way, the graphic illustrations from Grigassy's pocket editions - and that proved a sufficient stop-gap during the war years and immediately afterwards. It was not until Bishop Daniel's administration that the Pittsburgh Exarchate turned its attention to the "Ruthenian Recension", and that I describe in my book.

It is possible, even likely, that there is more information in the archives in Pittsburgh, but those archives are not open to scholars.

Fr. Serge

I was thinking about this very thing the other day when I went looking for something on the mid-century struggle with Orthodoxy in Russka Dolina in Pittsburgh. There's nothing. It has even been expunged from the public record completely.

It might explain the avoidance on the part of some of our Ruthenian leadership to have much of anything at all to do with things Orthodox. I believe Bishop Andrew was involved in Russka Dolina? Apparently it made a significant impression on him from what I have heard word of mouth.

I am also interested to see if this note lasts any longer than my notes from yesterday.

Eli

Well, translation is more than just word to word as my translator friends always tell me...

...we always said "for our government and for all those in the service of our country" as far as I've noticed in my church. That would include all military services. (The word "army" doesn't include the "navy." "Armed forces," perhaps works. In American English, we still collectively refer to military people as "service members" or as "members of the service" so I figured that was okay.)

Translations are like that, though. A word that means one thing in this English speaking country might have come to mean something slightly different in another, as I learned when I was a student in England years ago.

All this time, I figured I was praying for those in the armed forces when they said "those in the service..."

And, as Fr. David Petras remarked somewhere, if the Army isn't "in the service of our country", we're all in a lot of trouble.

One thing that I like about the prayer for all those in service to our country is that it includes not only those in the armed forces but also those who serve our country in dangerous ways like the U.S. Coast Guard (not technically part of the U.S. Military as they are Dept. of Transportation and not Dept. of Defense) and our firefighters and police officers.

I think that we can become too focused on the minute and loose focus on things of greater importance.

Coasties are considered military and are covered by the UCMJ, but in peacetime, the Coast Guard does a lot of police and public safety type fuctions, as well as search and rescue. They also enforce environmental regs and perform valuable services like icebreaking and buoy tending. It's arguably the most versatile of the uniformed services.

However, the Coast Guard is actually under the Department of Homeland Security. It's been a few years since that move occurred. Semper Paratus!

"if the Army isn't "in the service of our country", we're all in a lot of trouble."

Lead me not into temptation!

Can anyone give me a good reason why you should not pray for those in the service of your country ?

Surely all of them need your prayers - no matter what service they are giving ?

You're right - all these people unquestionably need our prayers. For that matter, so do people in the service of our enemies - and that's not a joke; in several places our Liturgy calls upon us to pray "for those who love us and for those who hate us".

Or as a popular Russian toast has it: Нашым Врагам - Царство Небесное!

Fr. Serge

To our foes - reign celestial!

Is that the sense?

Perhaps it's more like wishing Osama Bin Landen the earliest opportunity to greet his seventy virgins.

I'm not sure - but djs may have gotten it right. Anyway, the point is that it is forbidden to wish evil to anyone, but it is laudable to wish people good, so we wish the enemies the Kihgdom of Heaven (the implication being the sooner the better!). As I said, this is a toast, not a serious invocation.

Fr Serge

Thank you Father, It's been a while since anyone has thought - even with a disclaimer - that I've gotten something right.

You are most welcome!

Fr. Serge