Just came across this interesting review of the new Revised Liturgy from a parish website:

"The Byzantine Catholic Church in the New Millennium," by Dr. Catherine Brown Tkacz, Ph.D.

Could be a springboard for discussion.

A springboard?!? Now that's an understatement - it's more like Cape Canaveral!

Her article is very intriguing. Who is she? Clearly she is no theological lightweight and her constructive criticisms should - in the very least - be received graciously and generate fodder for further discussion and review of the changes.

I plan on printing this out and doing more than just a cursory overview. Thanks for the link!

Many years,

Gordo

The formatting is horrible, though. Looks like where there were "quotes" , "dashes" or otherwise superscript or any other non "letter or number" the formatting was lost.

Sure would be nice if the webmaster could clean it up - it makes it difficult to read at times.

It's a long article!!! Well written.... however...
Catherine Tkacz makes several valid points on the difference of language, translation and usage. I am still digesting all the points she makes.

I was dissapointed though at her analysis of the music. Her understanding of the changes to the music indicates she did not do as much research into the origins of prostopinije. Her references to the changes of the music seem to focus on the 1970's (Byz. Lit. Chant) rather than looking back at 1906 Bokshai/Malnits. True there are significant differences between the "old" and "new" music.

She states:
Music. The musical changes warrant special attention. Over and over again changes seem to have been introduced in the music for the sake of making the music different. This itself is not an authentic Byzantine approach to the music. Where the music is good in the services of March 25, 2005, it is what has been used before. Where there are changes from the way the music has been scored before, the new version is less musical, less recognizable as the tone intended, less effective in suiting the text. In sum, it is less Byzantine. Musical lines which were evidently meant to be elaborated for the feast are often only busy.


Many of the difficulties of the music really lie in a difficult to sing a translation of Greek to English that doesn't always follow what the music was meant to convey in the Slavonic translation. To me, these difficulties arise from a 'committee' model of addressing changes of translation. The music itself is FAR more faihtful to our heritage than she credits especially when compared to settings used in the last 40 years.


She also states about the setting for Psalm 140:
Psalm 140. The musical changes here seem to be tinkering. Moreover, the results are unfortunate. Before, eloquently, the musical line for the words Let my prayer be directed like incense to You had risen to A for prayer and stayed up through the first syllable of the word incense, then descending peacefully for the rest of the clause. Then, for the lifting up of my hands as an evening sacrifice, the line had enacted a strong lifting by starting on F (and the) and at once rising up a fourth to B for the entire phrase lifting up of my hands. Again followed a graceful descent on as an evening sacrifice. What a beautiful consonance of music with meaning. In the new setting, however, the word incense heavily descends in three half-notes (G, F, E) and then only the syllables lift and up attain a high pitch (B), with of my hands descending at once, as if the hands are heavy and must be lowered. Musically, this is disappointing.
Also:

Musically, another concern has to be the Ahomogenized rhythm@ in the 2005 Great Friday /Annunciation service. This steady rhythm also appears to be used generally in music coming from the Cantor Institute. Dotted quarters and sixteenth notes and triplets are gone. Rarely is a note used that a child playing piano in the first year might not yet know. To be blunt, this is a sort of musical dumbing down. Consistently the previous musical settings had more rhythmic variety. Such variety is in the printed materials from the Byzantine Seminary Press, in the musical leaflets from John Vernoski, and in the older pewbooks of our parish.

She OBVIOUSLY is not a cantor! The music isn't written for piano!!! Nor has she likely heard in person or recordings of Slavonic chant. She points out rhythmic variety again like it is time measured music which chant inherently is not. If she had analysed the music settings in Bokshai, Ratsin, Sokol, Papp she would have likely made equally erronoeus statements.

Likewise, I, not being a professor will not try to debate the fine points of liguistics which she does admirably.

I gather she focused primarily on the material for March 25, 2005 being that it was the first officially promulgated material.

Just my .0002 cents of opinion on this otherwise well written article.

Steve

Thanks for the link. Interstingly, quite a number of the points raised have already been discussed here. I hope this was written for the liturgical commision and that they gave her comments attention where appropriate.

I agree. For one who claims to be a "scholar" there is a lot of personal venting. Not necessarily scholarly. Tyring to understand something is one thing; qualifying it with personal commentary is another. You'd swear her document was a compilation of posts on these forums.

I'm looking at my 1906 B/M and I still can't find all those traditional sixteenth notes and dotted eighths.

Joe

There is venting on most subjects (is she a forum member? ). This is unfortunate because it is likely to undercut some of the good points she makes.
I am curious on this idea of rhythm that Joe brought up on another thread. It is fairly standard practice to keep the chant notation very simple, but the execution would be "boring" if there were not rhythmic variation - not changing tempo, but adjusting the duration of notes so that the text is rendered conversationally. If you listen to the old country recordings you will hear this technique (and clear some depatures from the notes in Papp). (The effect can be done inexplicit notation, but the notation gets very complicated. ) I think it would be difficult to avoid doing this. But I have the sense that you cantors might be doing this and doing so without trauma. Am I reading you correctly?

yes.

That is a good part of what the cantor brings to the interpretation of chant notation. To notate all of the subtleties is next to impossible. Much like reading this paragraph. Unless one knew my voice and style of speech, one would likely speak it differently than I. It it the same words, same order, but the inflections and temp are what characterize the flow.

At times it seems the greater trauma is trying to fit an awkward translation to a particular tone. When the translating is done, hopefully there is mindfullness of the tone (octoechos) that will be used for the text.

To play chant musical notation on a piano as written in the older books would make for an EXTREMELY labored and mechanical feel. The older music texts did not make use of a single 'feathered' note to indicate a phrase chanted on one note, but rather indicated a 'quarter note' for each syllable with the understanding that the cantor would chant in a speaking style on that one note without a particular defined time value of that string of 'quarter' notes. The new arrangements of the music correct this deficiency in the older typsetting.

Most all of the 'difficulties' with the "new" music is that we haven't heard even the older (1965)translation sung to the original melodies found in Bokshai. When the first round of English translation occured, there was also a great change in the music. Sound familiar??? Much of what people are lamenting about the music is actually a RETURN to our prostopinije heritage which an entire generation seems to have lost touch with!

just my opinion.

Steve
who is just a cantor

Yes I think her criticism of the lack of rhythmic variety as a problem in execution.

She makes a couple of nice points about a few weak spots in the matching of the musical lines with the text - a problem you mentioned. I think that such criticisms can be useful, though; she identified a couple of problem areas that might benifit from reconsideration and reworking.

She makes a bit of a gaffe, however, on the prokimenon and alleluia tones. She does not recognize that these are Bokshaj, but represents them as, in effect, some sort of Gregorian chant influence. Fascinating, albeit wholly undeveloped, hypothesis.

And she goes ballistic on the Dismissal - over one pitch (going down versus up on "give the bless-") I remember as a schoolboy learning the grey book settings. Going up on "give the bless-" was a surprise - a nice one - but an innovation, at least for our parish. The "new" version is the was we sung it ~40 years ago. This alteration problem is given a fascinating theological significance. I am always singing harmony anyway, so I will probably "go up" and solve the problem.

Yay for the Drs. Tkacz! Both Dr. Catherine and her husband Dr. Michael (a philosophy professor at Gonzaga University) were instrumental in my decision to become a Byzantine Catholic. I met them at a Gonzaga function last year and see them every week at Liturgy. In addition to being a lecturer at Gonzaga University and cantor at my parish, Dr. Catherine was just appointed to the advisory board of the Seminary.

Her lectures are very thought-provoking, to say the least. A few weeks ago she delivered one at Gonzaga addressing the problem of iconoclasm in the Western Church. I wasn't able to attend due to the opera performance that evening, but my girlfriend snagged a hard copy for me--she is indeed no theological lightweight.

When I see her this Sunday I'll let her know that the formating on the webpage is royally screwed up. Perhaps she has a PDF file of the paper that she'd be willing to share with everyone.

This has been a matter of debate on these forums. Silent anaphora or aloud? I agree with Tkacs on this one.

I agree.

Which New Catechism?

I always suspect documents that are primarily aimed at the Latin Liturgy, but include some things to nibble on for Easterners. Why do we always have to wait until the Vatican to publish a document to feel like we can arm ourselves?

I really would consider Tkacs’ article to be considered ‘scholarly’ if she only studied what happened to our liturgical tradition BEFORE the 1970s. Where DID “Christians of the true faith” come from? Or the Filioque? Or “Supreme Ecumenical Pontiff? What about all our traditions, especially vespers and matins? Or the demise of the free-standing vesper service in its own right, not a mere appendage to the “Mass”? Who put in our funeral service “in case Divine Liturgy is to be celebrated”? or “Blessed is the one” in the Basilian vesper text?

Why?

There is a difference between the stich or Psalm tone chant and the sticheron melody. Any cantor who regularly chants vespers knows that. Tkacs should familiarize herself with our Plainchant. The 1906 B/M will give the cantor’s parts separately. Even Sister Joan Roccasalvo gives a little cheat sheet on page s 144 and 145 of her chant study, “The Plainchant Tradition of Southwestern Rus’” (1986). What the cantor or Psalmist intones between stichera IS of a different melody even though of the same tone. During vespers, my wife chants these Psalm melodies. Everyone then follows the cantor and/or schola chanting the stichera melodies.

Which one?

If the author would only consider the Septuagint (LXX) translation.

Let’s compare:

Translation “is use for decades”:
“You make the winds your messengers and flaming fires your attendants.”

March 25, 2005 verse:
“You make your spirits angels and your ministers a flaming fire.”

LXX (Sir Lancelot Brenton, 1851/1999):
“Who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire.”

Tanakh (Jewish Publication Society, 2000)
“He makes the winds His messengers, fiery flames His servants.”

DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls):
“ who makes the winds his messengers, flaming fire his ministers.”

The “translation is use for decades” (1970s) agrees with the DDS and Jewish Tanakh, but NOT the Septuagint (LXX). The March 25, 2005 translation is more faithful to the Septuagint, which is the text we should be using, no? The first half is not obscure. And what does Dr. Tkacs mean by the second half sounding “risky for the clergy” ? When the flames/tongues of fire rested on the Apostles on Pentecost, it wasn’t a matter of risk.

And why CAN’T we call the Sunday of the Myrr-Bearing Women the Sunday of the Spice Girls? My New Testament professor liked that one.

I believe it was the Douay-Reims that uses “clean” in place of “pure.” No one accused the translators of the DR as not acknowledging holiness. I have seen the word “pure” used in regards to one’s heart, whereas “clean” refers to things we do with our hands. Please refer to Psalm 23:3-4 (LXX):

“Who should go up to the mountain of the Lord, and who shall stand in his Holy place? He that is innocent in his hands and pure in his heart; who has not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully to his neighbor.

We see the preference of the word “innocent” in Sir Brenton’s LXX version, but the word “clean” is used in the Tanakh,

Then there is:

“He whose hands are clean, whose heart is pure” (The Jerusalem Bible)

“The man with clean hands and pure heart” (The Abbey Psalter)

“The clean of hand and pure of heart” NAB – the singular is used for hands because it refers to the entire class of worshippers (footnote given).

“He who has clean hands and a pure heart” NIV

“He who has clean hands and a pure heart; who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood, and has not sworn deceitfully.” WEB

”He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; Who hath not lifted up his soul unto falsehood, And hath not sworn deceitfully.” ASV

”He who has clean hands and a true heart; whose desire has not gone out to foolish things, who has not taken a false oath.” BBE

”He that hath blameless hands and a pure heart; who lifteth not up his soul unto vanity, nor sweareth deceitfully:” DBY

”He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.” KJV

”He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.” WBS

”He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not taken My name in vain, and hath not sworn deceitfully.” JPS

”The clean of hands, and pure of heart, Who hath not lifted up to vanity his soul, Nor hath sworn to deceit.” YLT

“Clean” and “Pure” are two biblical terms.

-------
Interesting enough, the Creation Institute Research folks (I have no affiliation with these folks) has one of the best explanations of “clean” versus “pure” and their Greek meanings:

Standing with Clean Hands

Let's take the qualifications one at a time. What are "clean hands"? When we look at the New Testament to find "clean," the first usage we see of this term is in Matthew 8:2: "And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." This word in the Greek is "katharizo" (katharidzo), from the word "katharos." The Septuagint (Old Testament in Greek) uses the term "katharos" in Psalm 24, speaking of "clean" hands. The source of Biblical "cleanliness" is Jesus Christ. The same Hebrew word translated clean in Psalm 24 is also translated "innocent" elsewhere in Scripture. The majority of the uses of "innocent" are used in the context of "innocent blood." The following account in the New Testament gives us this perspective: "Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood..." Matthew 27:3,4

It would be safe to say that Jesus again is the only One who fulfills the requirement of innocence. In fact, the whole concept of "clean" in this verse is that of being blameless, guiltless, or without sin. After Jesus knelt and drew on the ground next to the woman who was taken in adultery, he said to her accusers, "...he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). Every man left without throwing a stone. In contrast, it is said of Jesus: "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15).

Standing with a Pure Heart

What about the fact that only the one with a pure heart will stand in God's presence? Jesus said in Matthew 5:8 "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God," and then He also says in John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." When Matthew spoke of the "pure in heart" -- the word He used for "pure" in the original Greek is the same word "katharos" translated "clean" when the lepers asked Jesus to make them "clean." In order to stand in God's presence, the heart must be as pure as the hands are clean.

The entire article can be found at:

http://www.icr.org/

So, I don’t see how using “clean” is a childish word. It is a biblical word. “Clean” refers to what people see; “pure” refers to what God sees.

I am disappointed that Dr. Catherine did not quote these prayers so we can see for ourselves. I cantored the March 25, 2005 service, but will have to find where I placed the text.

Many of our earlier liturgy books use other terms that are neither “Ecumenical” or “Holy Father.” The late Professor Nicholas Kalvin gave me one of his liturgy books, which states, “Svjatijsaho vselenskaho Archiereja (Imjarek) Papu Rimshkaho” during the Great Entrance, but nothing close for the Great Litany. (Uzhorod, 1924)

If we would really be Eastern, we wouldn’t have to mention the Holy Father’s name at all. Wouldn’t that be the responsibility of our bishops, who are in communion with him?

The word “wood” can refer to the “wood” used as the means of sacrifice in Genesis 22:1-9, where Isaac is a type of Christ. “Wood” refers to sacrifice; the sacrifice of Abraham’s only son, who is innocent, a lamb (v. 7).

“And Abraam said, God will provide himself a sheep for a whole-burnt-offering, my son. And both having gone together, came to the place which God spoke of to him and there Abraam built the altar and laid the wood on it, and having bound the feet of Isaac his son together, he laid him on the altar UPON THE WOOD.” (Gen 22:8,9 LXX)

In my parish-temple, there is an icon of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac on the wood inside the altar. Very biblical. Very liturgical. The interplay between the use of the word “wood” and its relationship to sacrifice, altar, and worship is keen if not beautiful. The “wood” was placed on the altar.

We understand that Jesus was sacrificed on a “cross” which was an instrument of torture/capital punishment by the Romans, but the “wood” has a longer tradition in sacrificial theology. BOTH play an important role in our Byzantine theology, but the type found in Abraham’s “wood” is deep. As I just noted above, Isaac was innocent and Abraham’s only-son.

The old version, “You have plunged me into the bottom of the darkness and the shadow of death,” is definitely from the book of Job. But in the Hebrew scriptures, “darkness” (choshek) can refer to misery, destruction, and even death. “Deep” (thown) can refer to the abyss. In Job 28:14, the “deep” or “depth” can even speak. In Genesis 1 we read, “darkness (was) upon the face of the deep.” If we fall into the deep it can also refer to our falling into sin and death. What we can end up doing (the Fall all over again) can be prevented by our Lord’s salvific act (as depicted in our traditional paschal icon where Jesus Christ is shown holding Adam and Eve’s hands/arms, bringing them out of the abyss/deep. Refer to the Gospel of Nicodemus:

“Now when we were set together with all our fathers in the deep, in obscurity of darkness, on a sudden there came a golden heat of the sun and a purple and royal light shining upon us.”

“And as David spake thus unto Hell, the Lord of majesty appeared in the form of a man and lightened the eternal darkness and brake the bonds that could not be loosed: and the succour of his everlasting might visited us that sat in the deep darkness of our transgressions and in the shadow of death of our sins.”

“Bottomless pit” and “abyss” and “depths/deep” all refer to the same thing.

If the Greek, Latin, Hebrew and other languages don’t have it, then where did it come from? It is no greater English than for us to sing, “We be glorify you God!” We be, I be, you be … why not just, “We glorify you God!” or “We give you glory” ? I think a history of where the “be” entered into our English translation is needed.

I’ve been doing it for some time and it never registered on the radar. Even the girls in our parish schola picked up on the change and adjusted quickly. So, what’s the problem?

This is a personal commentary, not a scholarly treatment. If removing the word “be” makes the liturgy so unintelligible and/or unrecognizable, then I have concerns about that person.

Then why was it included in the first place?

Readily understood by whom? Dr. Catherine states earlier about he intelligence of the laity, but makes an exception to use the “more readily understood” term rather than the deeper theological one. I know what “cross” means in Christian theology, but I also appreciate the word “wood,” which refers to that typological comparison. Byzantine tradition is heavy with typological use. Ever read closely the burial service for the Theotokos?

I agree on this one.

I believe it was an ENGLISH translation.

I disagree. All our old cantor books (pre-1970s) included musical terms for what tone to us. Samohlasen, podoben, bolhar … THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT, DR. CATHERINE!!! The 1970s gave us that dastardly clause: “Texts are edited to sing to Samohlasen melodies” (cf. The Office of Vespers, Uniontown, 1982/87). This was, indeed, a dumbing down of our tradition. We just gave up on trying to sing the proper tone by “editing” the text to fit another tone selection. It is not a matter of sophistication unless one considers singing willy-nilly. Take a look at our older cantor books like the sbornik to get the feel of how our liturgical texts USED TO give the proper tones. Unfortunately, the 1970 black notebook “Byzantine Chant” mixes up the Our Father tones and doesn’t even call out their Tone Number. What were we trying to hide?

Actually, the melodies given in the March 25, 2005 service reflect a good transliteration of our Plainchant. Several of the old-timers noted how we did things the old way for a change.

God bless,
Joe Thur

Nice post, Joe.

There is an interesting point here - apart from "be" itself. I have found that my brain is really programmed as a result of singing the grey-book liturgy probably a couple of thousand times during my youth. When I sing a different text, for example in an OCA parish, I have to pay strict attention, to overcome certain programmed defaults. "Glory be" is one, "Mary the Virgin" (vs. "the Virgin Mary") in the creed is another. When I hear "beseech" in an intonation, I automatically respond "Grant it O Lord", but if "ask" replaces "beseech" the neurons don't fire. Same with "commend" and "commit". And I can't anymore sing Chestnishuju Cheruvim in English without a text in from to me.

I don't doubt for a moment that a young person could adapt faster. I find it interesting to get such a vivid illlustration of the loss of plasticity of my aging brain.

This experience makes me think that while in any translation the goal is, as Fr. David said, to get it right, there is something to be said for leaving alone as much as possible (St. Jerome) and for gradual implementation. It is very jarring to slip from a sense knowing it "by heart" to a sense of awkard unfamiliarity. Starost ne radost; marazm ne orgazm.

djs,

Thank you. Saying Glory "be" calls to mind the infamous "I've got". You either have or you got something (of recent). But some companies don't use spell check and prefer to say "You've got a friend in the business."

Glory CAN stand alone without the be-ing verb. We either give glory (noun) or we glorify (verb). But how do we glory be?

You is what you is. So 'be' it.

I like the newer Ukrainian version of the Creed with Mary in mind. In our current English version, we Ruthenians can mumble our words and profess that Jesus "married the virgin."

What I also like about the new English adaptation set to music is that we are now placing the acCENT on the right sylLALable. No longer do we end a Psalm verse as "in HEAV-en" (with HEAV on the downbeat) but "IN Heaven" (with IN on the downbeat). This is a correction on our merging of the English language to the melody. We can lead ourselves to a slavish blind following of the melodic formula and end EVERY Psalm verse with the downbeat on the second to last syllable NO MATTER WHAT.

Joe

:p

djs,

Certainly custom has everythig to do with it. I bet most of those who are opposed to removing the "be" in as in "Glory to You, O Lord" don't flinch when they hear "Glory to God in the highest..." from "Gloria in excelsis Deo.../Slava vo vyshnykh Bohu..."

At least among the Ruthenians the translations of the Great Doxology that I know don't have "be" but I don't remember anyone complaining about it.

Tony

Why can't "got" have a perfect tense?

Glory ...
It either is a salutation in direct address (no verb), or a sentence (with verb) in a uncommon mood. This is all probably clear in the Greek.

I think that Dr. Tkacz makes good points on highlighted syllables. (I don't like accents on prepositions; I don't get your IN heaven example.) and matching the text and melodic contour. The finest example of the latter, I think, is in "Messiah" - "and every mountain and hill made low). The mountain towers, the hills roll then fall low. But this integration doesn't happen everywhere even in this masterpiece. The opening line climbs to peaks on valley and declines on exalted.

The Cantor institute has a lot of settings to produce. I think that she is right in her suggestion that they use a seemingly automated approach is accurate - but the approach is understandable at least for now with so much work to do. The problem is that it doesn't allow for modest variations that add musicality and allow a better mesh of text and music. I think tone 2 settings are a good example. The beginning of all phrases tends to be rigidly the same; rising to "la" before the end of the phrase is absent, etc. I think that in common practice of the tone, however, interesting little variations are incorporated that are, in conjunction with the text, intutitive; they solve problems of position of accents, for example. Removing these variations and sticking to a rigid template, does not make the chant simpler; it makes it more difficult, because the variations solve awkward situations; without them the awkward features remain in the settings. (And what on earth was the rationale for departing from the established - already in the Slavonic - practice of having "The noble Joseph" as a whole phrase, and replacing it with an initial phrase characterized by monotony?)

I think there will be an evolution of these settings. It is almost unavoidable; variations will creep back and be exchanged among singers. There will be a natural selection of what works best.

I agree.

I posted the link to this article in another thread, but it fits here as well:

"Jesus, Son of Humankind?" by Fr. Paul Mankowski, S.J.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Interesting that so much of the criticism of Dr. Tkacz's article focuses on musical questions. From that I shall abstain, at least for the moment, since I seldom use Prostopinije - my one criticism is that it's not always clear whether the author is using "Byzantine" to mean Byzantine, or whether she is using "Byzantine" to mean "Ruthenian". Prostopinije is emphatically NOT Byzantine chant.

The discussion of the translations themselves is far more interesting to your humble servant. While there is plenty I might disagree with, Dr. Tkacz has written a major contribution to the discussion and I earnestly hope that as many people as possible will read it carefully.

One caveat: do not, repeat not, print the article without first correcting the formatting - which is not easy; I've done my best and still missed a few points which could be important. If a PDF file can be obtained, that will be a vast improvement.

Incognitus

Thanks for the link, Apotheoun. The article makes some good points, but misses widely on others, IMO. From my reading, the author would not like "mankind" however, but would prefer "man".

I think the issue is that "got" is like "spoke." So, I spoke, I got. I have spoken, I have gotten. I have spoke is wrong, so should I have got.

If not, what is the issue?

While Ameican heritage at Deictionary.com does give "gotten", it also gives these uses:


To have current possession of. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: We've got plenty of cash.
Nonstandard. To have current possession of. Used in the past tense form with the meaning of the present: They got a nice house in town.
To have as an obligation. Used in the present perfect form with the meaning of the present: I have got to leave early. You've got to do the dishes.
Nonstandard. To have as an obligation. Used in the past tense with the meaning of the present: I got to git me a huntin' dog

Well, if this is so, why did they change the license plates in PA over this "You've got a friend in PA" business?

I haven't lived in PA for 30 years, but here's a guess:

There were those who found this construction to be an innovation, and determined that it was driven by the modernist agenda of unfriendlies. Others feared that the possesive nature of the construction could be misunderstood - without extensive education - and as endorsing a return to slave-holding. Still others considered this as a crypto-quaker heresy. Many vowed to move out of state if this were not reversed - for example to New York where this phrase would never be used (the friend part, that is). Given the continuing decline in the state's population, and fearing further losses, the offending clause was removed.

Feel free to elaborate on where he misses the mark so widely.

Though 'local custom' has become the norm in combining got and have, I think there is a difference. "To have" is different from "to get." One means "I already possess something" whereas the other means "I recently attained something." Just a technicality.

To say "I've got a house" is poor English. I either "have" a house (already in my possession) or I just "got" a house (just purchased and closed on it yesterday or last month). "I've got a house" literally means "I have got a house." This is confusing. Just a pondering.

But back to the doxology.

Are we talking about God receiving glory and/or praise from us or are we talking about God's being? Worship or essence? Or are we telling God to receive our glory and/or praise like we tell a child to "be still."

Tony and others mention rightfully how some of our hymns do not have "be" in it. If they can stand alone without it then we have to ask from whence did the inclusion of "be" came from? Latin?

Joe

djs,

Your reply made more sense after a Guinness and watching Madagascar.

Joe

Apotheoun,

The article you cited http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html , entitled "Jesus, Son of Humankind?" and subtitled as "The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations" is excellent and is very appropriate for our discussion regarding the revision of the Liturgy.

Thanks for the link!

Here is one answer to why the Latins removed the "be" in their doxology.

-------

When the prayers were revised after the Second Vatican Council, newer translations were adapted which were MORE FAITHFUL [emphasis mine] to the Latin texts. In 1971, this prayer was updated and no longer has the "BE" in it.

Reference:
http://www.blessedsacrament.com/theology/q100.html

-------

The English translation of the Latin:

Gloria Patri et Filio et Spiritui Sancto,
Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,

sicut erat in principio
as it was in the beginning,

et nunc et semper
is now,

et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
and will be forever. Amen.

Joe

Joe,

The first part of the Gloria Patri might be more accurate, but the second part is lacking. I think the text would more accurately be rendered as:

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always

et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.
and unto ages of ages. Amen.

CHRIST IS RISEN! "I've got friends in Pennsylvania and I've got friends in New York" is a) true, and b) perfectly good spoken American English. In writing English, the preferred form would be "I have friends in . . ." Almost every living language has slightly different forms in some instances for speaking and for writing.

Incognitus

Lazareno,

Thank you for the better/more accurate translation. But I gave the Church's 1971 English translation.

Joe

An excellent point relevant to Apotheoun's link. The author develops a fantastically strong case against the staw man that "man" is understood exclusively exclusively, including evidence drawn from prisonyard language, schoolyard language, and excited utterances. Others have made this same type of argument here. But the issue is not about the comprehensibility of what is heard (with catechesis), but about the style of the written language is a different matter. And I think we would all be apalled by prisonyard conversational English for the liturgy or scripture.

What about style? It is considered as taboo or mere etiquette in the article but it is really about good writing.

The author gives a terrific example in the realm of marked and unmarked terms. "The farmer had a pig and five piglets." Is the meaning unambiguous? Yes, but only because 1<5. What about "the farmer had four pigs and one piglet"? Perhaps unambiguous. But even the first sentence is problematic. Give it on a reading comprehension test then ask: How many pigs does the farmer have? There will be howls from the test-takers about so naughty a question. The problem is solved by avoiding words whose generic or exclusive use is potentially unclear and totally unnecessary. "The farmer had a total of six pigs: one adult and five piglets." "The farmer had one adult pig and five piglets."

Here are a few other points Apotheoun:

I think the author has it backwards about gender inclusivity in English versus, say French. In our language gender is about sex, which enables a sexist usage. In French gender extends to asexual nouns, thus decoupling gender and sex and mitigating sexist usage.

I thinking he is unconvincing about the obvious and untainted use of "man" in the generic. First I would say the usage IS obvious when used without an article (which is why I like "Lover of man"). But his reaching back to Anglo-Saxon days should have commented on the often cited fact that in old English "man" was strictly generic and "wer-man" exclusively male. Moreover, he clearly points to the distinction between unambiguous genery and the more subtle problem faced in English with "man": One can literally refer to a buck or a doe as a deer, but a woman just are almost never referred to in a literal sense as a man.

The author devotes a great deal of the essay to &#8220;man&#8221; and argues mainly by extension to &#8220;he&#8221;. But the case here is much less clear cut, the potential for sexist usage much greater (Doctors he?/ nurses, she?). And when the author takes up this point in examples, in the case of gender of the psalmist, which is interesting. There is a fundamental question to be addressed &#8211; are the psalms nice literature or are they guidebook for people in the church. If the former, then certainly leave the author's gender explicit; if the latter the case is less compelling. No contemporary organization would write its guidebook arbitrarily in an masculine voice. If the answer is both, then there is an antagonism to be worked out.

Finally, there is some movement toward the British manner of handling collective nouns are plurals that the author might have considered in one of the examples.

That's all I remember without a re-read.
I think the author is right, btw, on "man" versus "mankind" or its synonyms. And will you give me your answer to "brothers and sisters"?

djs asks: "And will you give me your answer to "brothers and sisters"?"

Certainly. The phrase "brothers and sisters" is, horror of horrors, OUT OF DATE! The latest demand from the sort of people who makes such demands is that we must all say "sisters and brothers" - presumably because they find the present alphabetical order oppressive.

Incognitus

The point of Fr. Mankowski's article is not that "man" lacks a socalled "exclusive" (or better a "specific") meaning and use, but that it also has a generic meaning and use. The reasoning in your post is specious and shows that you didn't get the point of the article, I suggest you re-read it with an open mind. One that is less motivated by political correctness and the taboos that feminist language engineers promote.

An ideologically motivated form of the English language, which clearly is divisive (based on the responses in the various threads on this website), should not be used in a translation of the Divine Liturgy. You have not proved that the word "man," which has both a specific and a generic meaning and use, no longer has a generic meaning and use.

The reference you gave above proves Fr. Mankowski's point, "pig" has both a specific and a generic meaning, in other words it includes both adult and new born pigs, while "piglet" is a specific term, in that it only applies to "baby" pigs. The same holds for the word "man," which can be both inclusive of all human beings, or which can mean males, depending upon the case. The fact that some people have an aversion to the use of "man" as a generic term, does not mean that the term may no longer be used in that way. I have used "man" as a generic term in the papers I've written for school, but at FUS and SFSU, and no one ever said that I was excluding women.

The burden of proof is upon those who argue that standard English is no longer used.

An interesting assertion, but where is your proof?

Adelphos (and adelphoi) should be translated into English as "brother(s)." If this is confusing to some people, then as Liturgiam Authenticam indicates, proper catechesis should be done in order to explain the "inclusive" nature of the term.

Dr. Vall (of Ave Maria University) had an excellent article about this very issue in The Thomist magazine about a year ago. I suggest you get a copy of it, because it answers your concerns, and moreover, he explains the theological reasons why terms like "brothers" (and not "brothers and sisters") and "sons" (and not "children") should not be changed in modern English translations.

Let me ask you this: Do women become "sons of God in the only begotten Son of God," or are women configured to the "only begotten daughter of God"? If they are configured to the "only begotten daughter of God," who is she?

My concern in the translation of texts is focused upon theological issues (after all, I am a theologian), and so translations must convey the faith of the Church, and not some modern political or ideological perspective, no matter how powerful that political movement may be in secular society.

Until the theological issues are taken seriously by those doing the work of translation, I see only division and discord in the Church in the future. As a new member of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church, I have no desire to see this sui juris Church die as people look for a liturgy that is faithful to the tradition of the Fathers (sorry, I suppose you would prefer the word "ancestors").

Apotheoun,

First, I would ask you to re-read my comments here and to Lorenzo. You assume and discuss far too much about my motives and desires. And a fair reading of what I have posted would make that clear.

First, as I have mentioned a couple of times already, I don't think that the issue is fairly framed as whether or not man has an inclusive meaning. You may be able to dig someone up who holds that view, but it is not me, and my posts reflect that without ambiguity. Note: I even referred to this argument as a straw man.

The issue begins with the fact that in contemporary English writing, people avoid purposeless use of language that could be constrewn exclusively, when they mean to be inclusive. The intersting questions is: what are the criteria and norms of "purposeful". It is uninteresting to argue at length that there is a generic meaning to "man" or that that is a default usage in prisonyard speech. (I am fairly sure that "none" takes a plural verb (if the bverb is inflected at all) in such speech, but don't exp3ct to see such stuff in formal written English.)

That the pig sentence is not unintelligible linguistically, I have already said. The sentence could, however, be written better to eliminate ambiguity. The ambiguity is obvious when the question "how many pigs..." is asked after the sentence. It is better to write with precision.

I wish that we could agree that precise writing does not ipso facto indicate porklitical correctnes, or piginist agenda. To assert such ulterior motives without evidence - let alone in contradiction to evidence - widely misses that mark. And you should realize that it will inevitably diminishes the force of the cogent things that you say when also include such stuff. I will add that I don't like when it's done the other way either: Fr. Taft took a swipe at those eschewing (horizontal) inclusive language in his talk reported in the Touchstone article that I linked to previously.

I have no proof and no systematic study, only anecdote of discussion the sense of the meaning of gender with native speakers of languages use gender inflection with asexual objects.

djs,

Am looking thru the pages of this various threads and can't find what you mention above, can you post it here please?

T

This is a disadvantage with not requiring foreign language study in schools and being a basically monolingual nation, people can't think or understand beyond the way their language expresses things.

For anyone who speaks (and is somewhat educated in) a Romance or Slavic language this is obvious, words have genders, grammatical genders that don't match the gender sense that I bet most English-only speakers would attribute to them. Why is table feminine in Spanish and Portuguese? Why is milk masculine in Portuguese yet feminine in Spanish? Why is grass feminine in Slovak yet house masculine? Why are some things neuter?

Tony

Dear Apotheoun,
Thanks for your answer. I will try to track down the Vall article. What Iam missing in your response is any sense that brother-1 is not brother-2 (to paraphrase Hayakawa). I think that mechanical substitution, as Liturgiam Authenticam phrases it, of brother for "adelphos" MAY be inaccurate in translation - just as "brothers and sisters" for "adlephoi" would. What is the context. If I understand you, you are asserting that those who first initiated epistle readings with "Adelphoi!" intedend not just a greeting to all homo sapiens present, but were also making a specific allusion to the male types of hte scripture. That adelphos not only carries the same nuance of generic with overtones of the individual in Greek, but that that overtone is specifically inteded in the initiation of hte reading. Interesting assertion... I think that fidelity to the meaning of the original is the crucial point. I lack the fluence in the Greek to discern it. And to be frank, Apotheoun, you have clouded your post with enough tangential political material (and flase assetrtion) that I am skeptical enough of your assertion to also ask you: where's the proof?

And what of your daughter/ancestor questions to me? I have already saif that my personal preference for philanthropos is Lover of man. So what do you think?

That is interesting. If by this you mean to make alteration in translation to improve the text and its conveyance of the faith, I disagree. Specifically, you may wish type allusions every where - even where not intended in original. I would object to such tampering. (I had assumed that you were still a student, from your web-page. Is it out of date?)

AFAIK you have no place whatsoever to make any suggestion that theological issues are not being taken seriously. Or perhaps you are on the liturgical commission , have been part of their studies and deliberations. And perhaps you also have a studied appreciation of our liturgy and tradition. If not, then please amend this wreckless remark.

Here is an interesting perspective.

from http://orlapubs.com/AR/R56.html

Whatever one mightlike to say about orlapubs, one could not accuse them of modernism or of a lack of devotion to language, in particular Greek.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r

I think that the latter remark is a foolish one to make, and that it detracts from the substace of his talk. I hope that Ko63ar will check again for Tighe's accuracy.

This is reason enough to avoid altering the liturgical language of the Church in order to conform it to a secular idealogically based form of the English language.

Nowhere have you proven that the socalled "gender neutral" texts are a better translation. The fact that they are Christologically and anthropologically questionable, is reason enough to avoid using them in the Church's liturgical worship.

As far my education is concerned, I graduate in December, and thank you for your interest. Nonetheless, I see nothing wrong with calling myself a theologian. I have been reading the Fathers of the Church since 1980, and studying theology since that time as well, and so the fact that I entered school later in life does not disqualify me as a theologian. But I suppose it does allow you to avoid the actual topic of this thread.

The explanation of texts that may be difficult to understand should be done at the appropriate time by priests and catechists; while translations should simply convey the meaning of the texts in standard English, unaffected by any secular ideology, as the Pope himself said several times.

Apotheoun:
I have no translations to defend. I have pointed out what I see as deficiencies in an automatic approach to the issue of translating such words: that an understanding of the actual meaning of the text and a faithul rendering of that meaning into the target language is the goal. As such one cannot sensibly adopt a broad brush and rule out - or in - any particular translation without study of the text in question. I don't have the Greek scholarship to go further and "prove" one translation better than anohter.

But I do understand crtiical thinking and argumentation well enough to see a discussion that points toward ideologically-driven a priori rejection of gener-neutral language, in general. I think that that type of argumentation is unfortunate, and lacks substance.

I wish you well in studies and your career.

Apothenoun,

According to this author they are not meant to be a better translation. She admits the changes are for political reasons. Reread what she said:
Thus, according to her words feminism has reached the heirarchy.

Forum,

If she is correct do you still think these are minor changes?

Critical thinkers should also reject the ideologically-driven proponents of gender-neutral language.

Yes of course. Who would disagree? The hard part is discerning which ideologues are drivin what - and for that matter to stop the kee-jerk reading of ideological motives into what might simply be good work by good people.

I thought you would disagree. Your posts led me to believe that you give full support to the ideologically-driven agenda of the proponents of gender-neutral language.

Are you saying that we should assume that the revisions are good until proven otherwise? I say that the bishops should first prove that these changes are necessary before asking us to give them our support. The revised translation could easily be misguided work by good people.

Well, why do you presume the current translations are good? Who proved that to you? Have you seen the older Grigassy works? Couldn't the current texts be as well misguided work of good people? Whom do you trust? Who is well-informed enough to make these decisions? The masses?

T

Your point is well taken. I stand corrected. The current texts also could easily be misguided work by other good people. I hereby revise my comments to say I ask that the new translations must be better then the current ones.

Whom do I trust? I do not trust anyone who says that the Liturgy is outdated and needs to be modernized.

Dear nicholas,

There are many issues at play here. It seems to me that most of the aversion to any perceived changes is ill founded, based on people being used to something. Certainly some arguments are well founded and sensible. The issue is that if the current translation is lacking then it certainly needs to be corrected, I think all Christians of good will would agree, at least so I hope.

Some of the posts, on the verge of histeria, seem to lose sight of the fact that what is current is also a rather newish translation. It is the first official one AFAIK, but English texts certainly were available before this present one. Some of the posts here show a lack of knowledge of the original languages, that is a problem. Many of the people involved in the older translations may (likely did) not have a good command of English.

I am no expert. I do, however have an MDiv from an Orthodox institution, was involved with the BCC, have a good knowledge of Slavic and a descent knowledge of Greek, and I think some of these posts are uncharitable. If people don't respect their church and their hierarch then they should leave. But, where will they go? Real churches are in search of authenticity in practice, I can't imagine any bishop setting up a church and saying "well, we'll have this liturgy frozen in stone forever and the rubrics you have frozen in stone forever." Does anyone really think the liturgy was the same in all parishes of the Ruthenian Metropolia until bishop ANDREW intervened in Passaic? Textually perhaps, but not everywhere took the same things, I have seen that with my own eyes. And rubrically? Well, there isn't time for that here but the answer is no, it was not the same in all places.

Remember that the etymology of diavolos (devil in Greek) is to throw apart, to scatter. Divide and conquer. I certainly pray that this hysteria which has overtaken this board is not part of the enemy's plan.

Tony

nicholas,

I don't recall anyone saying that. If I have understood the purpose it to correct, not to modernize. Did I miss something?

T

My posts did not lead you to think this way. What actually did?

The burden of proof idea has been raised a number of times. The fact is the bishop has the authority to do what he will do, including ask for your support. If you wish to have influence then actually the burden of proof is on you to make a convincing argument. You are free of course to refuse to accept what your bishop does. This is serious business.

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D.

Yes, and for that matter you are free to refuse to cooperate with the church, and with Christ himself. You will have ample opportunity to defend your actions before the dread judgment seat of Christ.

I am saying that if you want to take it upon yourself to judge the scholarship, integrity to tradition and organic development, and the pastoral senstivity of the revisions - with whatever background you have - no one can stop you. And if you want ultimately to substitute your private judgment for that your church again no one can stop you, but please bear in mind that it is an awesome responsibility with very high stakes. I am grateful to Christ for giving us the church which assumes that responsibility for me.

Thanks Tony for the food for thought from an Orthodox perspective.