A few BCC parishes chant psalms during communion; my own parish uses para-liturgical hymns mostly. Where a psalm is chanted, the cantor chants a verse, then the congregation chants a threefold alleluia. I would be interested in knowing what translation of the psalter is used (authorized?) for chanting the psalms; ALSO, whether there is a specific selection process for which psalms are used; AND, what tones are selected for use for the verses and alleluias.

Jim Sprinkle, Cantor
St. Thomas BCC, Gilbert, AZ

At my parish, we use Psalm 33:

Cantor: I will bless the Lord at all times, His praise shall continually be on my lips.

Choir/ Congregation: Alleluia (3x)

We do that until everyone has finished going to Communion.

For the last verse, after the priest walks back to the Altar, we finish with this:

Cantor: Glory be to the Father..... forever and ever. Amen.

Choir/Congregation: Alleluia (3x)


I'd say we do this once or twice a month. It's usually in Ukrainian, but if it is a combined service, we will alternate verses in both languages. As far as the tone, I don't know what it is called exactly. It resembles the Galician Akafist chant.

If I find the melody on the web, I'll post it here.

-uc

Jim,

I believe the currently accepted version is the 1963 Translaion of the Grail Psalter. There is a very nice hardbound copy available on Amazon, but a bit cumbersome to carry around. The Psalm I have found most used in the Pittsburgh area is Ps. 148 (below). The chant melody depends on which version of the Cherubic Hymn used. I suggest you contact Prof. Thompson to see if he can mail you notations or .pdf files.

- Hank


PSALM 148

1 Praise the Lord from the heavens,
praise him in the heights.
2 Praise him, all his angels,
praise him, all his host.

3 Praise him, sun and moon,
praise him, shining stars.
4 Praise him, highest heavens
and the waters above the heavens.

5 Let them praise the name of the Lord.
He commanded: they were made.
6 He fixed them for ever,
gave a law which shall not pass away.

7 Praise the Lord from the earth,
sea creatures and all oceans,
8 fire and hail, snow and mist,
stormy winds that obey his word;

9 all mountains and hills,
all fruit trees and cedars,
10 beasts, wild and tame,
reptiles and birds on the wing;

11 all earth's kings and peoples,
earth's princes and rulers,
12 young men and maidens,
the old men together with children.

13 Let them praise the name of the Lord
for he alone is exalted.
The splendor of his name
reaches beyond heaven and earth.

14 He exalts the strength of his people.
He is the praise of all his saints,
of the sons of Israel,
of the people to whom he comes close.

AFAIK there is currently no official directive on which Scriptural texts are to be taken for the psalms. Generally speaking, it is clear that the Grail Psalms are preferred (and I add that they should be the 1963 edition since the later revision with inclusive language is not approved for Catholic worship). In addition, the current translations of liturgical text do draw from the Revised Standard Version; Catholic Edition so there would surely not be anything incorrect in using the RSV-CE. Also, the New American Bible (1970s edition) is also in general use.

Paulist Press republished the 1963 version in a nice ~5”x8” paperback that I myself use.

As far as how to take the psalms there are many accepted methods. There is a tradition of singing the Communion Hymns to podoben and other melodies. I advocate simplicity. Most parishes sing the Communion Hymn (“Praise, you, the Lord of the heavens….) according to the same melody used for the Cherubic Hymn. I recommend singing the verses almost on a single note (in the same key as the Communion Hymn) with the people singing the “Alleluia!” refrain. I have also heard some cantors sing the entire verse to the melody used for the Communion Hymn. That can be awkward since the Communion Hymn melodies do not always lend themselves to the longer psalm texts.

There is room for diversity here, so long as whoever is chanting the verses can be fully understood by the gathered Church.

I was able to find a reference to the Grail Psaltir on the Cantor's Institute website. It said that the Inter-eparchial Liturgical Commission uses it. It did not say which edition, etc. Probably Fr. Pipta in San Diego will be able to pin down an edition for use in our eparchy for me next week when I'm there. (I tried to reach Prof. Thompson by email, then by phone.)

From last week's additions to the MCI WebSite:

The Psalter:

I hope to add some text next week on the major Orthodox translations of the Psalter into English, as well as on the Communion Hymns. (I don't know anyone using podobny, though; the traditional practice is to use the melody of the Cherubic Hymn from the same service; this is what is done in the proposed service book, and taught in the Cantor Institute.) I hope the above answers your questions, Jim.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff, your message with those of UC, Zeeker, and our esteemed Administrator answer my questions. Thanks everyone for your help. I will want to get Fr. Pipta's confirmation of which source to use in our eparchy (There are a couple of editions available from Amazon.) before doing the chanting as suggested. I could even chant 2 lines of a psalm in the Uzghorod (sp?) psalm tone, and have the congregation sing the same alleluia as in the communion hymn itself. That way the psalm itself wouldn't need to conform to whatever communion hymn melody we happen to be using that week. There is also less chance of a screw-up that way. It would be nice to be able to chant the entire psalter over time. (I wonder if I could do that. We do the Third Hour prior to Liturgy nowadays, too.)

I have done singing the Psalm verses in plain chant as the Admin describes with the usual Alleluia refrain (in the proper tone if the people know it) as long as is necessary. Instead of one note I use a two-note (do up one step and back down at the end of the phrase) chant to the psalm verses so the people know when the end is.

I have also occasionally used the Pochaiv Akathist melody for Psalm 33, which works well and is both easily picked up and harmonized. Another melody which works well for a psalm refrain is the "Kyivan Matins Chant" (that's what it is called in Ukrainian or Slavonic and what Fr. Peter Galadza called it when he taught our diaconal class). This is a simple 2-part alternating three-note melody that is also easily harmonized and picked up.

As to text, HTM is most often used but the newer OCA text is starting to see some use.
FDD

Jeff, the current "Abbey Psalter" is listed on line as being published in 1981. Do you know if it uses the 1963 translation of the Grail psalms? Does it avoid inclusive language?

Mr. Administrator, is the 1963 paperback version you mentioned the one readily available for purchase on line from Paulist Press?

The Abbey Psalter uses the uninclusive Grail Psalter. You can see a sample page at the Abbey website:
http://www.geneseeabbey.org/books-psalter.html

TO ORDER: The Abbey Psalter from the Abbey send a check for $39.95 plus $3.00 for shipping and handling to:

Bookstore
Abbey of the Genesee
3258 River Road
Piffard, NY 14533

I received a mailing from MCI today concerning using psalms at communion with an example of Psalm 148. Enlightening.

I wouldn't call the older Grail version "uninclusive" it is merely standard english - there was no effort to "exclude" people.

What I don't like about the Grail translation, old or new, is that it is basically a paraphrase (loose translation) and misses some of the words/terms that the Fathers would put some emphasis on. If you read the Fathers on the Psalms and used the Grail version as your text, you would not perceive some of the points the Fathers were trying to make. Besides, it is based on the Hebrew text, not on the Septuagint which is traditionally the official Psalter of the Church.

For example, Psalm 50 (Have mercy on me, O God) which is often used in the Byzantine Horologion, the Grail version goes: O purify me, then I shall be clean; O wash me, I shall be whiter than snow.

Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be made clean; Thou shall wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.

The Father's tooks seriously each word of the sacred texts and they sought out their fuller meaning. An analogy which might help to illustrate things is the "hyperlinked" word in a text. If one clicks on a hyperlinked word, one will be brought to another page with more information. In the phrase from Psalm 50 above a key word is hyssop. If we see hyssop as a hyperlinked word, we would click on it and be brought to 11 other occurances of the term hyssop in Scripture. Among them would be Exodus 12:22 & John 19:29. The Exodus text refers to the blood of the lamb being applied to the doorposts and lintels of the Hebrews' homes on the first Passover. The text from John refers to the soldier raising up a sponge soaked in vinegar using as sprig of hyssop that Christ might drink it on the Cross.

Hyssop - blood of the lamb - Christ on Cross - cleansing. There is a connection here. The old Testament Psalm verse (50:7) can then be seen in the light of New Testament revelation: Christ is the Lamb, in His blood we find purification. All this connection is not done merely in academic study but in prayer and meditation on the word of God.

Getting back to the Grail "translation": this version omits the term "hyssop" just to make things simple. But the Grail: "O purify me, then I shall be clean" is not the same as "sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be made clean". Using the Grail text deprives us of a more accurate text with greater meaning.

The Grail Pslater is a translation not a paraphrase, there is a difference. Even though it has problems from the LXX point of view every Psalter (even Orthodox ones)other than the Psalter of the Seventy by Holy Transfiguration Monastery makes poor translation sources avoiding difficult metaphors.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission's use of the Grail is done with certain modifications to bring the text more in line with the Septuagint. It was with that proviso that the IELC got permission to use the Grail psalter in the Liturgicon and in the Faithful's Book.

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

Professor,

I have seen this disclaimer in some of the books, but take for example Psalm 50(51), the most used Psalm in the Byzantine tradition. Byzantine liturgists have pointed out, as has Lazareno, that hyssop is an important word to conserve as well as vs 6: "in sins my mother conceived me." Which is the correct rendering of the LXX. I see no modifications to the Grail Psalter to retain either of these important differences in any of the newer liturgical materials. If no changes have been made to Psalm 50, which is used everyday at Matins, Third Hour, Compline, and Midnight and contains two important LXX renderings, one wonders if any changes were in fact made to help the Grail Psalter conform to the LXX Psalter. I think they really need to simply, as a start, retranslate the fixed Psalms of the services from the LXX, rather than rely on current transaltions based on the Masoretic text.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Lance:

The psalms that have been retrofitted are those that are used in the Divine Liturgy. I just looked at the Liturgikon, and Psalm 50 is not given in text, only in rubric.

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

If you are going to use the Grail Psalms stick with the original translation. The texts that are being published by the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commision are of very poor quality. Their attempt to rewrite the Grail Psalms with whatever their liberal idea of what the Septuagint means is unacceptable for public worship. Need proof? Look at the already published translation of the troparion for the feast of the Annunciation where they have purposely changed "today is the prelude (beginning) of our salvation" to "today is the summit of our salvation." The Resurrection is no longer the summit of our salvation. The Annunciation is now the summit of our salvation. This is a major change in theology. Where is the explaination? There is none. They do not even realize they have screwed it up! Need more proof? Just look at any of the new and "improved" texts. If the theology is not screwed up the sentence structrue is not grammatical.

Glory to Jesus Christ, and his blessings on all those ending the time of the Pentecostarion, whether this week or next!

John,

I'll bite. The troparion of the Annunciation, of course, is not from the Septuagint. So let's look at an actual example.

For Psalm 103, verse 4, the Grail Psalter has

you make the winds your messengers
and flashing fire your servants.

On the other hand, the Brenton translation of LXX is:

Who makes his angels spirits,
and his ministers a flaming fire.

The Old Rite Prayer Book has

Who maketh his angels spirits
and His ministers a flame of fire

On the other hand, the IELC somehow took it into their heads to say

You make your angels spirits
and your ministers a flaming fire.

So tell me - where is this "liberal idea of the Septuagint", or did it just seem like a good accusation to make? On the other hand, the Brenton translation of the LXX here is NOT good grammer, since not only is the verse a sentence fragment, but switches from second to third person with no inserted subject.

I certainly have issues with some of the choices the IELC made; it's not my call to make. I do notice that there are some six occurrences of "man", "he" and "his", referring to a human being in general, which the "liberal translators" with their supposed "feminist agenda" kept as they were in the 1963 Grail - restoring them from the inclusived language the Sisters used, some 25 years ago.

So, we're talking about the Grail Psalter, which is well known and widely accepted. We're still waiting for a GOOD modern language LXX to which the rights for publication could be acquired. What are these "rewrites" of the Grail which are "unacceptable for public worship"?

Yours in puzzlement, but yet a brother in Christ -
Jeff

Out of the mouths of babes and infants....

Chuckle! I was on a shuttle bus from the air terminal to the plane the other day when a little boy pointed and called out: "Mommy! Look at the baggage man. Is she pretty!" Everyone turned to look and, indeed, the baggage man turned out to be a very attractive young woman. After a few minutes I thought that if we accept the philosophy of the liturgical revisionists who are trying to force gender neutral language upon the Church then maybe someone on that bus should have stood to yell "Heresy!" at the child or at least demand that his mother teach him that the term "baggage man" was offensive to a small segment of our society somewhere. Or maybe I should have expected confusion, as if the people who heard the term "baggage man" applied to a woman were not capable of figuring out who the child was referring to. But no! No one complained. Everyone understood what the child meant.

--

On the issue of the Septuagint, I can understand and, in theory, support the adaptation of particular psalm verses when used apart from the full psalm. Bishop Kallistos and Mother Mary followed this procedure in their translations (for them, full psalms were from the Authorized Version but psalm excerpts for prokimney and etc. were corrected to the LXX where necessary – I have been advocating this example for at least 20 years). One must be very careful in altering the text of the Grail because one can very easily alter the flow. Whatever is changed should have the exact same number of syllables as the original Grail. Otherwise you change the whole flow of the psalm.

And then there is the issue that the whole of the OT should be from the LXX, and not just psalm excerpts. Maybe someday a full translation will be available.

Jeff has assured us that the commission has not used inclusive language in their updates to the psalms. This is surprising given the bishops seem to oppose the Vatican’s directives against inclusive language in their proposed texts of the Revised Divine Liturgy. I have not seen many of the Revised Troparia and other changeable texts, but I have been told that they are far worse (with regard to inclusive language). It very much looks like a protracted effort by the faithful will be necessary to restore both authentic Liturgy and quality American English if the revised texts are ever promulgated. Of course, many of us faithful are praying fervently that the Holy Spirit will descend upon our bishops and that they will reject all of the revisions. What we need are complete editions of all of our liturgical books in good, American English (free from the political agendas of the secular feminists). Where we have a 40 year history of a particular translation (like the texts of the Divine Liturgy and troparia) we ought to change only what is incorrect.

For now I advise cantors to stick to the existing texts, in whatever musical settings they find useful.

Best wishes to all.

A short response to - yet again - the crusade against liturgical change.

The idea that retrofitting psalms to the LXX in part or in whole is a “liberal idea” is amusing. The “liberal idea” is that the Psalms are Hebrew scripture and that the LXX corrupts the Hebrew ideas. The reason, however, that some verses were “retrofitted” - a more conservative stance - is because Byzantine Liturgy uses the LXX and where there is a substantial discrepancy between the Hebrew meaning and the LXX meaning, we follow the LXX, to be consistent with the literal meaning of the liturgical texts. [I will not enter into the problem of the inspiration of Scripture - Hebrew or Greek??? - but will note that in some cases, the Septuagint may reflect a more ancient reading.]

In the Troparion of the Annunciation, the word for what most translate as “beginning” is the Greek “kephalion,” which means the “head,” the “summit,” the “top,” not necessarily in the temporal sense as “beginning.” We may be influenced here by our theological ideas that the Annunciation was the first moment of the incarnation. At any rate, an argument could be made that the incarnation is the point of salvation - which includes its climax, the resurrection, since Christ could not rise if he were not a man - and the annunciation is the day on which our salvation through incarnation becomes a reality - eternity and temporality are united. At any rate, it would be vain to seek in the vast mass of liturgical texts - triodion, pentecostarion, octoechos - to find one consistent theology that you can only call the resurrection and nothing else the “summit” of salvation. On any given day, the liturgical texts will be super-effusive in their praise and glorification. One might say that here the IELC is actually being more “literal.”

In fact, it gets so wearisome that terms like “liberal,” or “conservative,” or “feminist” or “revisionist” are thrown around like so much mud with very little relation to the issues involved. Does one think - seriously - that the 1965 translators were not “revisionists” while the 2006 translators are? Does one think - seriously - that the 1965 translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit, while the 2006 were not, as the administrator seems to think?? [Administrator - “Of course, many of us faithful are praying fervently that the Holy Spirit will descend upon our bishops and that they will reject all of the revisions.”] I hardly think the anti-IELC crusade is the work of the Spirit. Outside of the one good paragraph “On the issue of the Septuagint .... “ which I don’t agree with completely but makes a good point, the only thing I got out of the last post is that we should have little boys translate the Liturgy.

I thank Father David for his post.

I cannot speak to clarify other’s posts on this thread but it seems to me that the issue raised is not one of using the LXX as being conservative and the Hebrew as liberal but rather of utilizing a translation style based upon gender neutral inclusive language. Inclusive language is certainly a very liberal agenda in our society and anyone who embraces it really cannot pretend it is not being forced upon us be secular feminists. Liturgiam Authenticam speaks to this and we should not reject its wisdom.

As noted above, I support the use of the LXX. In whole someday but, for now, at least where it is possible. I subordinate all of this to the pastoral need of only changing what is absolutely necessary. It is wrong to force people to make changes to the texts they have prayed for the past 40 years unless it is absolutely necessary. We see respect for the people in the Church’s ongoing decision to leave alone the text of the Lord’s Prayer and the very current debate by the Latin bishops over whether to leave some of the poorer translations of the Roman Mass alone simply because they are so well known and changing them would do violence to the spiritual lives of the faithful. For pastoral reasons different rules must be employed for updating well known translations then for creating translations where none had existed previously (or had at least not been well known).

This is a very good explanation. I hope that when the minutes of the translation committee are published they contain similarly good explanations of all the changes to the texts. As I have stated numerous times, there is much good work by the commission hiding behind the intentional revisions and faulty inclusive language. It would not be a huge effort to return the rubrics back to those of the (1942) recension and remove the offensive gender neutral inclusive language.

No one can argue with the fact that the proposed Revised Liturgy is less faithful to the Ruthenian Recension of the 1942 Sluzhebnik published by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches than the 1964/65 edition.

I am unaware of any anti-IELC crusade. The “crusade” (if such a term must be used) I associate myself is one towards authenticity, one towards an embracement of the fullness of the Ruthenian Recension as documented in the Roman edition of our liturgical books beginning in 1942.

Our liturgical heritage needs to be claimed, embraced and celebrated. It does not need to be filtered by any individual’s personal preferences in Liturgy.

Ah yes, the 1965 edition, with "High Liturgy only" omissions like no small entrance or troparia, no prokimenon, no alleluia, no litany of supplication for weekdays. :rolleyes: While faithful to 1942, could things have been improved even then? There were some translation problems in the 1965 edition, too.

By comparison, there has been orders of magnitude more input on the IELC Revised Liturgy, than was given the 1965 translation.

Wandering BACK to the original discussion subject, how many parishes regularly chant the psalms (any) during communion? As I recall, in my younger years, we never chanted the psalms during communion at my parish. These days, I find it more common in the various parishes I have visited.

Steve

P.S.
ISTM IMHO at least, AFAIK, HTM is Holy Transfiguration Monastery, since I didn't see it spelled out at first reference?

The reference to the 1964/65 edition is to the altar Liturgicon, which faithfully transmits the 1942 Sluzhebnik into English. The 1942 Sluzhebnik is the official book for the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and presents the Divine Liturgy in full. It is most certainly not the “Gray Book” Steve seems to be referring to (an edition of the Divine Liturgy with music). The official Liturgicon does not contain any provisions for skipping entrances, troparia or litanies.

True, the altar liturgikon does not refer to skipping these areas, though I have recordings of weekday liturgies where those "High Liturgy Only" items are skipped. I was under the impression that in the Byzantine Churches there was no "high" or "low" liturgy.

How then did this come to be in the gray and green books if there is no rubric for that practice specified in the liturgicon? It would seem to have entered the mainstream by it's publication, and use in the 1965 (Divine Liturgy with music) book. (Good subject for a NEW thread)

However, I will keep this reply simple here as we are diverging from the original path of this thread, "Chanting Psalms During Communion".

Steve

When I've been designated to read the epistle I often have a bible thrust into my hands with the injunction "read some psalm" and pointing at a particular place, from which I read till gestured to stop. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the choice; I've had everything from psalm 81, to ps 109. Is there a correct order for which are to be read? Additionally, I have heard psalms read in a Jordanville parish here (I am Byz Cath, Russian).

Ned

There are specific psalms appointed to be chanted at almost all the services (Vespers, Compline, Midnight Office, Matins, the Hours, Typika). In addition, following monastic practice, we take groups of psalms in numerical order at Vespers and Matins, though these parts of the service are often omitted in parishes. The singing of "Blessed is the man" at Vespers on Saturday evening is actually an abbreviated reading of the very start of the Psalter.

In addition, whole psalms are sometimes chanted during Holy Communion (as discussed in this thread), and the whole psalter may be read overnight as part of the funeral services.

Finally, in some places, the psalms may be read to provide "cover" for the priest to hear confessions , etc.; in other places, the First Hour (which also had psalms!) does the same service.

A lot depends on which service you are at when you are asked to take a psalm!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Just looked up главизна in Church-Slavonic: it is indeed derived from κεφαλισ and means "beginning" or "foundation" (it can also mean a pen, but that is not in question here). That makes the opening phrase of the Troparion of the Annunciation a bit tricky, which may explain the use of "today is the prelude . . ." What further light can our forum-mates shed on this one?

Incognitus

In any case I think the point vividly made by John Damascene's tirade about changes in theology and Fr. David's reasoned response is that many, perhaps most, of the people complaining have no idea what they are talking about. They have no proficiency in Greek, and therefore no position to criticize any of the textual changes based on comparison to the Greek.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My friends here know that translation is not just a matter of looking words up in the dictionary, there are too many meanings to choose from! So, you look at the context.

In context, the meaning of the sentence is clearer. "Today" is the first word, and so we're talking about a point in time.

So the "head" or "summit" in that context, is the "head-point-in-time" of our Salvation, o.k.

There was nothing wrong with the old translation, which is valid, and makes sense in context.

Father Deacon, does this also constitute a "tirade" merely because I prefer the old version?

Nick

It is fine to prefer the old version, what is not fine is to accuse those who correct the text and translate the Greek properly to be accused of trying to change the theology of the Church.

And the method you describe: "looking at the context" is a tool of the much decried Dynamic translation method. Literal transaltion, on the otherhand, is word for word. Kephalion is a place word not a time word. It means summit or head as in autocephalous. αρχή is the time word for beginning or start.

The old translation is fine but not a completely correct translation. The new translation is better in that it faithfully transmits the Greek word κεφαλισ as summit, rather than beginning which would be αρχή.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Nick

Ned - at what point of the Liturgy are you referring to? Alleluia? Communion? After Liturgy? That might make the answer quite simple as before or after Liturgy you could read the Little Hours, Prayers before or after Communion, etc. The cycle of Kathismata (the twenty divisions of the Psalter) runs in its entirety once over the course of a week, twice during the Great Fast between Matins and Vespers (and the Little Hours during the Great Fast).
FDD

As Steve has noted, this thread has gotten off the track.

However, some observations seem to require a response, so I will respond here, and start a new thread if the discussion needs to be continued.

If not an anti-IELC Crusade, there is definitely an anti-IELC Liturgy translation crusade, seeming for two reasons, either the use of some horizontal inclusive language or the fact that the ordo is not exactly like the 1942 Ruthenian recension.

The Administrator wrote:

“No one can argue with the fact that the proposed Revised Liturgy is less faithful to the Ruthenian Recension of the 1942 Sluzhebnik published by the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches than the 1964/64 edition.”

In fact, one can argue. The proposed translation is probably more faithful to the original texts (Greek/Slavonic) than the 1965 translation. There is a definite misperception here among some in the Forum. In all cases, the IELC always has the 1942 text + the other texts, e.g. the 1950 Trebnik, and the 1973 Archieraticon as the norm. We translate from the Greek original, always comparing it with the Slavonic, and the IELC tends to be conservative, preferring the more literal meaning.

Of course, as is obvious, there are parts that are omitted for parochial use. This is not a translation problem but a question of liturgical policy. Even here, I would argue that the proposed format is respectful of the Ruthenian recension and the dicastery that originally promulgated said recension agrees. The IELC is conservative, but it is not literally fundamentalist. The result of this is that those opposed to the proposed IELC translation must resort to a literal adherence to the 1942 Recension/1965 translation in order to block the project.

This is then dressed up in the claim that this is alone the tradition, but I would dispute that. There is a deeper tradition. The 1942 recension has now been translated into the vernacular. This puts pressure to restore the presbyteral prayers. I think the greater tradition is to restore these prayers which give the core meaning of the Divine Liturgy, that is, the remembrance of the Lord’s Supper - “Do this in remembrance of me.” The prayers give the theology of Christ’s salvation. The other parts are beautiful and necessary, the peoples hymns of glorification and the deacons petitions for needs - but the Liturgy is still incomplete without the presbyteral prayers. So certainly I can argue - whether you accept the arguments or not is irrelevant - that my position is more authentic and traditional.

Lest one make a case, I will state that what the Oriental Congregation did for the Ruthenian recension was the best that they could do, and we should be very grateful for this service to our Church. However, it should be clear that this is a service ONLY for that minority of the Eastern Church united with Rome, and served by the Oriental Congregation. The 1942 recension has no standing whatsoever in regard to the larger Orthodox Byzantine Church. Traditional Orthodox would probably consider it an abomination, not in regard to the quality of the work, but as a proselytizing tool by the Roman Catholic Church. More moderate Orthodox would appreciate the work done in it and the quality of the tradition expressed, but then they would not be literal fundamentalists in regard to liturgy. You must be aware that the vast majority of Orthodox Churches do make some parochial adaptations. The process of liturgical reform in the Greek and Russian Churches is fascinatingly described in Father Marcel Mojzes’ new book, which I just finished reading, Il Movimento Liturgico nelle Chiese bizantine.

As a duty, I will discuss translations that include some horizontal inclusivity, because it is a part of the IELC work. However, I refuse to be drawn into a larger discussion of “feminism,” its “agenda” and other sociological issues. This definitely has crusade elements, whether you are pro or con.

Personally, I do favor a certain modicum of horizontal inclusivity, for practical reasons - God does save both men and women and we should occasionally say that. One problem is that, in English, “man” and “mankind” can indeed be ambiguous. The Administrator told the story of the little boy and the female baggage “man,” but the story was totally banal unless you admit that there is a certain ambiguity, and then it becomes amusing.

Finally, the Administrator makes a statement without a shred of supporting evidence - “it does not need to be filtered by any individual’s personal preferences in Liturgy.” I apologize for what I am about to say, but this is simply mud-slinging and nothing else. Forgive me for shouting - THE IELC PROPOSAL IS NOT SOMEONE’S INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. It was initiated by the Archbishop of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it was carried out by a committee of experts and pastors, it has been accepted by the Council of Hierarchs of the Ruthenian Church sui juris, it has been approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, IT IS NOT SOMEONE’S INDIVIDUAL PROJECT. I think an apology is due here.

With all due respect, the fact that you are identifying certain language as "horizontally inclusive" means that you have in fact been drawn into the larger discussion of feminism and its agenda whether you acknowledge it or not. The reason "men" could be used in the Creed is because it includes all men without regard to sex or age. Those who find a problem with this fact think either "men" only means adult males, or are offended that it can mean men, women and children. That the term "men" is ambiguous allows for the richness in the expression, "who for us men and our salvation...became man."

Why many, like myself, find offense that the Church is welcoming this language into the liturgy is because it (and the agenda which it represents) is often shoved in our faces by those who reject Christ. While I understand that the Committee or heirarchs are not intending to do that, nonetheless, the feminist battle is raging in the secular world and the Ruthenian mistranslation (wittingly or unwittingly) will have become (as one Patristic scholar has stated) a trophy for feminism. It is discouraging.

If it were not for that battle, there would be no reason to make these mistranslations. Moreover, that the Congregation for Oriental Churches has approved the mistranslation is disappointing when they have not expressed to the faithful why in our liturgy this is acceptable but in the Roman liturgy it is not. The reasons given in LA not to make these mistranslations are universal and make perfectly good sense. Perhaps the Congregation has been influenced by the academic world or is getting misinformation about the desires of the faithful? Perhaps the Holy See is permitting us to make our own mistakes? I don't know.

But the mistranslation of the Creed is indeed a concession to the feminist agenda; it does not clarify anything; and I believe it does not bring us any closer to Christ nor will it attract others to Him.


lm

Dear Father David,

I think the drive to revise the Divine Liturgy, imposing new, abbreviated and re-organized texts, invented rubrics, together with introducing exclusive "inclusive" language, not to mention a foreign interpretation of the chant, speaks of an "agenda" and has definite crusade elements.

It may or may not be the work of one individual, but is clearly not supported by the rank and file. It is the project of a clerical elite.

If only the time, energy and money spent on this project were spent on something important.

Nick

Hmmm. Father David writes that putting the Divine Liturgy into the vernacular increases the pressure to restore the presbyteral prayers. But they've been there all along (we trust), and have been available in English ever since John Glen King's translation appeared. They are not hidden texts which for some reason we need to find and restore (as one might say of the Divine Liturgy of Saint James, for instance). What Father David is probably referring to is the minority practice of reciting some or all of the presbyteral prayers aloud - which we have discussed already.

Father also writes that the Oriental Congregation agrees that the projected new translation/recasting of the Divine Liturgy is faithful to the 1941 "Ruthenian Recension". Before one could respond or comment, it would be necessary to know exactly what the Oriental Congregation has written; Curialese is often a language unto itself and the interpretation of anything written in that lingo is an arcane art.

Father David also writes, most emphatically, that the proposed translation/recasting (a combination of words which he did not use and would take exception to) is not the personal project of any one individual, but rather the work of a body - the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission - entrusted with this task by the hierarchs. When he writes this twice in the same brief paragraph, with capital letters, the reader may reasonably conclude that his protest is so strong as to arouse suspicion.

The "IELC" is almost the same as "ICEL". That in itself is nothing more than a coincidence. But ICEL had and its defenders still have a habit of trying to shift responsibility from pillar to post, so that nobody can be called to account for what ICEL has done. Patient research leads to the conclusion that translations do not, as a rule, make themselves, nor do translations emerge from computers. People do translations. It is often possible (not always, often), again with time and patience, to determine who actually had the inspiration to take this or that decision.

Finally, Father David writes that those who have reservations about the proposed translation/recasting (and again, this combination of words is mine, not Father David's, and he would repudiate it) are immobilists embarked upon one or more crusades in connection with the matter. He may or may not be right about particular people but if so, I have not met them.

My own position can be stated with simplicity. I favor accurate translation of liturgical texts over free translation of those texts. I oppose unilateral liturgical change by one Greek-Catholic jurisdiction because such a unilateral step risks widening the gap between Greek-Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, and because, in the case of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, there has been no serious attempt to introduce and teach the complete Divine Liturgy in its present form.

That will have to do for the moment - it's late and I'm stealing this time from something else I'm writing.

Incognitus

Hmmm. Not at all. Readers who have been following all of these threads will recall that the idea that this work is about "personal preferences" has long been a talking point of those who cast the work in a negative light. Fr. David has responded to this curious charge numerous times. But these threads have largely ceased to involve dialogue. His frustration is very easy to understand.

Dear Im, I see this differently. If there is a battle it is a battle over English language usage. It is not, inherently, a religious battle. And I would say to you that that battle, for better or worse has ended - not at the level of the playground or prisonyard - but at the level of formal writing. Style manuals for those teaching writing, and for those editing writing are clear on this point. And I don't honestly understand why people have strong feelings on this narrow point.

For translations the situation is of course more complex. But the I think the default idea is that translations should be rendered in good, clear, formal English, unless there are compelling reasons to depart from those conventions. However, the idea that the compelling reason - rather than being a matter of good English or theology - is rooted in opposition to feminists shoving things in our faces - that is the moment when the politics are brought into the church.

I confess, I am as behind in the times as is Rome in Liturgiam Authenticam. Time to evangelize and instruct all those writers of manuals about the faith and good English all at the same time. Stick to "for us men and for our salvation....was made man." It's good English; it's good theology; and, it has the added benefit that it will drive the feminists crazy (which in their case, might actually bring them to their senses).

Diak,

the pointing to variable psalms is during communion; the priests communion that is. I've been asked to read them from the choir, so it's not anything to do with the absence of Deacons. The reading of psalms at communion was during the people's communion.

I read the hours myself at home, and I'm not concerned with the psalm sequence there. Although I have both the Old Rite and current Russian usages, and in the old rite there seem to be differences in the Bogoroditsen and the hymns to be recited on days other than feast days. Am I understanding the rubrics right? Also, the old rite don't repeat the prayers Presvyataya Troitse, the Our Father etc..is that right?

Ned

Father David's frustration could also be easily resolved. One assumes that since the IELC would of necessity hold its plenary meetings on a fairly infrequent basis, the several members of this commission would write their contributions to the discussion on the various questions put before the commission.

On that assumption, it should be possible for the commission itself to compile an anthology of these papers, invite the several authors to review their contributions for publication, and then publish the anthology, That would demonstrate quite clearly, for all those interested, to what extent the work of the commission is collective. It would also be a worth-while contribution to the study of the Byzantine liturgy.

The only possible objection is that some people might consider this a violation of "confidentiality". But this was not and is not a discussion of industrial secrets, or of anyone's occult sins, or anything else that would be a legitimate cause of embarrassment.

Again, this would be a serious contribution to our knowledge of the liturgy. If, for example, in translating liturgical texts the translators have made efforts to trace words and phrases in their patristic appearances, that work is of considerable importance, far beyond its immediate significance for one particular translation.

Incognitus

Fr. I,

You know better. Fr. David has no power to release the work of the Commission, the letters from the Congregation or anything else. Fr. David participates here by choice, using his real name and gets largely grief for it, being made the sacapegoat for every unliked change in transaltion or rubric. But since you seem to be a priest in the know, I invite you to call or write Bishop Andrew, the episcopal chair of the IELC, and demand all the things you wish to review and critique. Just remember to use your real name.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,
I would dearly love to accept your suggestion. Unfortunately commiting suicide is a sin, besides being rather counter-productive.
Thanks for the information, by the way; I did not know that Bishop Andrew was the episcopal chairman (a bishop is necessarily male) of the commission. That already contributes to an understanding of the process.

Thanks also for the compliment, but I fear that it's not entirely deserved - regardless of my hierarchal rank (I'm really the Metropolitan of Luna City, Exarch of the Moon, Patriarch of the Planets and the Spaces Between - all of which helps to explain why I seem like a spaced-out loonie!), I genuinely don't know how that commission reaches decisions - in fact, now that I think of it, I'm not at all sure who the members are. But this I do know: such secrecy serves no good purpose; people have a right to know who makes the decisions that directly affect their lives.

Incognitus

Father Deacon,

Then neither can he say it has the approval of the Congregation, bishops, committee, etc.

If Rome has communicated this information to him in a private letter, then it is a private matter between him and the Congregation, and no one can claim Rome's approval.

There is a public letter "Liturgiam Authenticam" published and available, which clearly disapproves of free translations, inclusive languagne, and re-organizing the approved texts in the name of "translation".

A private letter remains private, and is irrelevant to public discussion until it is published.

I'm growing frustrated with claims like "Rome approved" and "the Council of Hierarchs authorized" when there is no shred of evidence for this.

You have to accept the principle in law, that Rome's action takes effect from the date that the letter is published. Until it is, I maintain that Rome did not approve of the revised Liturgy, because it is contrary to what Rome has spoken in PUBLISHED letters, that DO carry authority.

Forgive me for shouting, but frustration is not something exclusively borne by Fr. David.

Nick

Perhaps this thread should be renamed: "Discuss which translation of the Psalms do you use for communion in your church?"

How about frustration over hijacked threads. This Forum (Byzcath.org)seems to excel in wandering on hijacked threads rather than starting new ones. It seems our moderators have abdicated moderation here. The original question has been duly answered by some until the thread wandered into a sore subject regarding translations.

Perhaps there could/should be a seperate forum for discussion of translation/rubrics ONLY since it is, and will remain, a contentious issue for many? This way, rather than hijacking threads to vent frustrations over liturgical decisions VERY few of us have ever had any real input on anyway, we can focus on the questions posed in various threads.

back to lurking,

Steve

Nick,

He can and should when posters are claiming the Metropolia is acting in defiance of Rome, when in fact it is not. Rome does not communicate such things with a private letter but through official correspondence with protocol numbers, which in another thread, Fr. David gave. All said contents may or may not be made public. The new Liturgicon may simply reference the protocol number, as does the current Liturgikon, and none of the correspondence may ever be made public.

Liturgiam Authenticam was given by the Congregation of Divine Worship to the Latin Church. The CDW has no jurisdiction over Eastern Churches. The Congregation for the Oriental Churches has reviewed and approved the new translation. I am sorry the bishops have not disseminated the letters regarding this but they have not, it does not change the fact that the COC approved it.

As to why two Curial Departments seemingly contradict one another is a seperate question, but as referenced earlier,if you can read Slovak get a hold of the Slovak Liturgicon published under Bishop Jan, which also had COC approval and compare it to their current one.

That the COC is approving things you don't care for is, I imagine frustrating. That does not give you license to to accuse the IELC or others of lying about the approval simply because they are not free to disseminate the correspondence which is up to the bishops.

And Steve, my apologies for hijacking the thread. I'll take it to Faith and Worship.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, I said that. But it is a fact, that until it is made published, it means nothing. You, and Father David, and anyone else can claim the letter grants approval, but approval only comes with the publication. Until it is published, it means nothing. I heard the letter was full of criticism of the draft.

But I admire your loyalty.

Nick

"But it is a fact, that until it is made published, it means nothing."

So now, instead of accusing others of lying about the approval, you are simply stating that until published authorization means nothing. Of course that is rather silly because ones needs authorization first then a Liturgikon is published. One doesn't publish first then ask for authorization later unless you are the Canadian Bishop's Conference.

The bishops are under no obligation to make any of the contents of the IELC's and COC's correspondence public and it is likely they will not. As I stated earlier, the new Liturigkon could be published without anything but reference to the protocol number of the document giving authorization, just as the current Liturgikon does. Will you then accuse the hierarchs of lying and publishing the new Liturgikon without approval?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Let's move this converstion to Faith and Worship.

You're right on that point. (We've been round these arguments before.) The Archbishop doesn't need Rome's approval, and can authorize the revised Liturgy without it.

My point, is that he cannot claim he is doing so "with Rome's approval" unless he publishes the approval letter.

Any edict, rule, law, approval, etc. etc. from Rome takes effect on the day it is published. Until then, it means nothing. That's why I get so tired of "Rome approves". It doesn't.

The Archbishop should publish the letter, if he wants to claim Rome's approval. I think he doesn't want to publish it, because of all the criticisms of the draft that the letter contains.

Nick

I thank Father David for his post.

The fact that the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy is not exactly like the 1942 Ruthenian recension edition is certainly more then enough reason to reject the Revision. The 1942 Sluzhebnik is the Liturgy Book common to all the Churches of the Ruthenian recension. We need to keep this commonality together with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox). Changes that are deemed necessary (to correct mistakes in the official Slavonic edition, etc.) should be accomplished by all these Churches working together.

While ”Liturgiam Authenticam” is not a document directed to the Eastern Catholic Church it does wisely observe in section 4 that: “The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its deliberations and decrees assigned a singular importance to the liturgical rites, the ecclesiastical traditions, and the discipline of Christian life proper to those particular Churches, especially of the East, which are distinguished by their venerable antiquity, manifesting in various ways the tradition received through the Fathers from the Apostles. The Council asked that the traditions of each of these particular Churches be preserved whole and intact.”

The Liturgical Instruction (which does apply directly to us) states: “In every effort of liturgical renewal, therefore, the practice of the Orthodox brethren should be taken into account, knowing it, respecting it and distancing from it as little as possible so as not to increase the existing separation, but rather intensifying efforts in view of eventual adaptations, maturing and working together. Thus will be manifested the unity that already subsists in daily receiving the same spiritual nourishment from practicing the same common heritage.” Clearly our Liturgicon should be – if not common to – near identical to those used by the Orthodox Churches of the Ruthenian recension and, as appropriate, to the larger Byzantine Church (Catholic and Orthodox).

Horizontal inclusive language is unwise and unnecessary. But changing “who for us men and for our salvation” to “who for us and our salvation” and “lover of mankind” to “loves us all” are not examples of horizontal inclusive language. They are examples of inaccurate renderings.

Liturgiam Authenticam is quite correct in stating: “When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation.” (Section 30) “Who for us and our salvation” and “loves us all” simply do not maintain the property of the language of the original text.

Further, in his “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal” from 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, emeritus prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments was quite clear in stating: “…the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term ‘men’ has effects that are theologically grave. This text ­’For us and for our salvation’-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The ‘us’ thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.”

The Latins have experimented with such language and have found it wanting. They are now calling for translation committees to be authentic and faithful to the original texts. Let’s learn from their experience and skip the whole experiment with secular gender neutral language.

I agree that the rubrical changes are not a translation problem. They are, however, a change in the Divine Liturgy which we share with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension.

A literal adherence to the 1942 Sluzhebnik is exactly what many Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics (priests and laymen) have been praying for. It was denied to us in past generations and it is sad that attempts are being made to deny it to us today. Father David seems to speak of the 1942 Sluzhebnik as if it were contemptible.

If it is commonly believed that the 1942 Sluzhebnik does not reflect a “deeper tradition” the proper response is to address this in the larger Church, at the very least to accomplish change at the Ruthenian recension level.

The translation of the 1942 recension into the vernacular has no bearing on the idea that the presbyteral prayers should be prayed aloud. There is certainly no consensus across the Byzantine Church that such a practice must be mandated as more reflective of a “deeper tradition.” As I have noted numerous times in these discussions, why mandate where liberty will serve? If it is the will of the Spirit that the presbyteral prayers be prayed aloud then give the priests the freedom to pray these prayers either quietly or aloud. Surely the Spirit will lead. If, in a generation or so, the custom has become widespread and accepted across all of Byzantium then it can be documented in the liturgical books as an organic development. In the meantime the Liturgy is certainly not incomplete when the priests follow the traditional custom of praying these prayers quietly. What is this hurry to distance ourselves from even our fellow Churches of the Ruthenian recension?

My story may or may not have been a banal but it certainly does show that even a four year old child understands that a “baggage man” can be either a man or a women. Father David’s belief that the liturgy’s many references to God saving men does not really apply to women and needs to be revised to specifically say this suggests that he has bought into the claims of the secular feminists. Certainly replacing “for us men” with “for us” and “mankind” with “us all” introduces ambiguity where there was clarity. We do not have a rush of women and children crying that they are not saved. Even if we did the directives of Rome are clear that the proper response is one of education, not changing the texts.

Father David is either being modest or disingenuous. He alone is originator of almost all of the rubrical changes. I have no doubt that some were readily received and embraced by the commission while others were accepted only after much persuasion on Father David’s part. I am friendly with several members of the commission and have often discussed the work with them during the past decade in which it was in preparation. It is certainly clear that Father David was and is the leading member of the commission. Father David’s crusade (to use his term) to mandate the priest to pray the presbyteral prayers aloud and to remove litanies predates the current effort to produce a new edition of the Liturgicon. We see this in his years of writing in our eparchial newspapers but most especially in publications like the 1986/1987 edition of the “The Divine Liturgy of Our Father Saint John Chrysostom” published by the Eparchy of Parma and other liturgical books in which he took the lead in preparing. Already in the people’s edition we see some of the Prayers of the Anaphora other presbyteral prayers presented to be taken aloud (if not in specific rubric then in the way the page is arranged). We also see both truncated and missing litanies. Many, many of our clergy and laymen refer to the proposed Revised Liturgy as either the “Petras Liturgy” or the “Petras/Pataki Liturgy”. They do this with great legitimacy.

Father David may rightly claim that in the end there was/is a consensus among the commission members. I do not think he can correctly claim that he was not the original author of many of the changes. Had he not been part of the commission I have no doubt that the commission would have produced a new Liturgicon that would contain minimal updates to the 1964/1965 edition and that there would have been no rubrical changes (I believe that was the original charge from Metropolitan Judson). Of course, Father David is the most talented individual in our Church (with regard to Liturgy) and rightly belongs as the lead on the liturgical commission. I disagree with the direction he wishes to set for our Church regarding Liturgy. But even in intellectual disagreement I recognize and thank him for his work.

I maintain my position that most of the translation work the commission has done is quite good but that it is hiding behind the changed rubrics and inclusive language. It would not be a great effort to produce a new edition of our Liturgicon that is literally faithful to the 1942 Sluzhebnik (even to the detailed level of page layout) while keeping close to a well known and accepted text. If changes to the Ruthenian recension are warranted they should be accomplished together with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension. Prominent Orthodox hierarchs from two different jurisdictions who are part of the Ruthenian recension have publicly spoken of the desire for a common translation. What a witness that would be! Perhaps the time is here for Metropolitan Basil to speak to them about creating a commission to produce these common texts?

Admin

I would not want to change the topic to which translation do you use. I am looking for the approved translation which I figure comes from the liturgical commission itself, and may be known to some Forum users, but not necessarily all. There does not appear to be an established communications link for getting information from the commission itself to cantors for use in parish worship.

I think the answer is that there is no "approved version" of the Psalter. There are many traditionally used translations of various psalms; the 1963 Grail Psalter is widely used, and has been recommended for years as a common translation. When the Liturgical Commission has completed specific services and given them to the bishops for consideration, they have sometimes retranslated parts of INDIVIDUAL psalms as needed to match the context. Applying this process to the complete Psalter would be a lengthy process - and it is really only needed for the fixed psalms in the services (maybe 20 psalms all told?) and the individual verses used in the prokeimena, etc.

The Metropolitan Cantor Institute has used the recommendations from the Liturgical Commission in its publications when those have been available - for example, for the order of Vespers. But I don't know of any cantors who have access to IELC materials beyond those cases.

I agree that it would be wonderful to have all texts from the Liturgical Commission available in one place (with notes!). Until that day, we will provide what we can via the MCI and its website.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff is correct that there is no known official declaration on which edition of the psalms should be used in public worship. Given that our official texts use Biblical texts from the RSV-CE, NAB, Raya’s Psalms from “Byzantine Daily Worship” and the Grail Psalms, all should be suitable. As always, cantors should follow the directive of their pastors.

For the Grail Psalms the 1963 original edition is approved for Catholic worship. Paulist Press reprinted it a few years ago.

See: THE PSALMS: A New Translation From The H...Joseph Gelineau ($15.95)
ISBN: 0-8091-1669-3
Be careful to get this 1963 edition since there is an inclusive language version that was rejected for use in Catholic worship.

and
Abbey Psalter, The: The Book of Psalms Used by the Trappist Monks of Genesee Abbey ($44.95)
ISBN: 0-8091-0316-8

Note: Both may cheaper at amazon.com.

PS: This thread has indeed gotten off track. I may try over the weekend to separate it into two threads.

I’m moving this to another thread. You will find my response in “Faith and Worship,” under “Further Liturgical Thoughts

Re: Grail Psalter

A copy of the 1963 Grail Psalms can be obtained from half.com for $3.12 plus shipping.

This book has very nice meditations on the psalms and uses the LXX-vulgate numbering scheme since the original work was done in the 1950's. The translation, however, is from Hebrew not Greek. The scholarship behind the translation is that of the Jerusalem Bible.

The meter of the Grail psalms is based on the number of stressed syllables per line - much like the nursery rhyme Three Blind Mice. This means it's a little easier to make modifications than would normally be the case for a verse translation.

I use these psalms daily in the Roman Liturgy of the Hours and I like the translation overall. I think it would be a simple matter to divide this book into kathismata and do the psalms according to the scheme of the Byzantine office.