So who is making this a mandate, Rome or the Ruthenian Metropolitan??

Ungcsertezs

??????????????????

It appears no one knows.

Dan L

I'having a flash back to 1967 when Bp. Elko was recalled, and no info was sent to the laity until
what 6 months later? Nothing ever really changes!

Ung-Certez

My understanding is that it came from our hierarchs, was sent to Rome for review and the additional input of specialists, was approved and then returned to the Metropolia where it was set aside (or studied further) until recently.

I would highly doubt that the request came directly from Rome. What would lead Rome to choose our specific jurisdiction over others for a new translation?

Bottom line? All I know is second and third hand, so it isn't worth much.

Gordo

The revision is not being mandated by Rome but is the initiative of the council of hierarchs.

When Metropolitan Judson was still alive, I believe, a basic translation and revisions of rubrics were approved by the proper Vatican authorities. This is still the basic text that is supposed to be promulgated by the Metropolitan soon.

What would be interesting to know is whether there have been further revisions since that time and whether or not these subsequent revisions were submitted given explicit approval from competent Roman authorities.

It's one thing to attempt a more accurate
translation. It's a completely different
thing to use this new translation as a vehicle
for "sneaking in" politically correct/inclusive
language such as replacing

"for he is gracious and he loves mankind"

with

"for he is good and loves us all".

My opinion of this whole new translation/new
rubrics fiasco can be summed up by the quote:

"Iceberg, Right Ahead !!!!"


antonius

So my point is that Rome can not "mandate" anything to a specific "SUI JURIS" Eastern Catholic Church. Why are the faithful being told that these particular changes are a directive
from Rome? This is impossible according to how Rome governs Eastern Catholic Churches.

Ungcsertezs

I am beginning to think that telling the
faithful that these changes are "a directive
from Rome" is just a convenient "cover" for
those in the Byzantine hierarchy that don't
want to take responsibility for them.
Rome can be blamed for many things, but I
don't think this is one of them......

My thoughts exactly!

Ungcsertezs

Does anybody have an address for the Congregation for the Eastern (Rite) Catholic Churches in Rome? I would like to hear it form them that they have "mandated" the changes in the Divine Liturgy for the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan "Sui" Juris" Church in America. An e-mail address would be even better!

Ungcsertezs

They have a mailing address, a phone number, and
a FAX number, but I can't find an e-mail address...

antonius

I am not criticizing your desire to write to Rome. You have a perfect right to do so. But I would like to SEE the new liturgy before writing anyone. So far, all the complaints seem to be based on rumor, and what is, or is not happening in Passaic.

But is it not wrong for the Metropolia to go and tell the faithful that "Rome is mandating these changes"? This really is "hierarchical irresponsibility" to the fullest extend!

Ungcsertezs

The copies I have seen so far have INCLUSIVE
language, and that in itself is enough for
me be GREATLY apprehensive as to the final
version...........................

"But is it not wrong for the Metropolia to go and tell the faithful that "Rome is mandating these changes"? This really is "hierarchical irresponsibility" to the fullest extend!"

You are jumping the gun, the Hierarchs have told the faithful nothing. People here are assuming that is what is going to be said. In any case however, if people are going to start writing Rome about a Liturgy they haven't even seen yet then I think it within the Hierarch's tights to remind the faithful that Rome did review and approve the Liturgy and did make some request of its own.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The priests have returned from their pastoral meetings with Metropolitan Basil. After liturgy on Sunday it was stated by a priest of the Metropolia that "Rome is mandating these changes".
Seems very clear to me.

Ungcsertezs

"The priests have returned from their pastoral meetings with Metropolitan Basil. After liturgy on Sunday it was stated by a priest of the Metropolia that "Rome is mandating these changes".
Seems very clear to me."

Well I was at the same meetings and at no time was it said Rome is mandating all these changes. It was said that Rome did mandate some of the changes and most of those delt with concessions Rome made to Bishop Daniel.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Rome doesn't make changes, "Sui Juris" Churches make the changes, Rome only approves changes. You would never hear Patriarch Lubomyr say things like "Rome has mandated that we do this and that."
Let our hierarchs take the responsibilty head on and not deflect blame to Rome.

Ungcseretzs

"a priest of the Metropolia"? or Metropolitan Basil?

When there is a written document stating the mandate and who is mandating, then we should start debating whether it is Rome or the Metropolitan making these changes. Otherwise we are all guilty of speculation based on second or third hand information which may not have been conveyed as intended.

Steve

"Rome doesn't make changes, "Sui Juris" Churches make the changes, Rome only approves changes. You would never hear Patriarch Lubomyr say things like Rome has mandated that we do this and that.
Let our hierarchs take the responsibilty head on and not deflect blame to Rome."


That is a pretty naive statement considering Rome still appoints our bishops and had to review, make changes to, and approve our particular law before it was promulgated. What makes everyone around here so convinced it is any different with our Liturgy which Rome changed (form the Lviv 1905 Liturgikon) and approved back in the 40s? The need to have a scapegoat other than Rome since some Orthodox don't like the changes?

Fr. Deacon Lance

The bottom line is Rome can't mandate, so don't say things like Rome has mandated these changes for a "Sui Juris" Eastern Catholic Particular Church, period! To say it any other way is incorrect.

Ungcsertezs

"The bottom line is Rome can't mandate, so don't say things like Rome has mandated these changes for a "Sui Juris" Eastern Catholic Particular Church, period! To say it any other way is incorrect."

Rome can't mandate? Please get a hold of reality. Read the CCEO. The way a Metropolitan Sui Iuris Church functions in relation to Rome is little different than how a Latin diocese does. Why do you think we have to submit everything we do to Rome in the first place. If we were really autocephalous we would simply do as we please and not have to submit things for review. Rome mandated changes to our particualr law, it can certainly do so for the Liturgikon.

Fr. Deacon Lance

If that is true, then Rome can go tell the Ukrainian Synod and Patriarch Lubomyr what to do liturgically, somehow I don't see that happening.

Ungcsertezs

They don't have to because they made the changes voluntarily. But please note Archbishop Lubomyr is still waiting for Rome to erect his patriarchate.

Fr. Deacon Lance

What were the concessions that Rome made to Bishop Daniel?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In the edition of the ORDO CELEBRATIONIS (1944)published by Eastern Christian Publications in 1996, you will find Bishop Daniel's letter to the Oriental Congregation on pg. 116; you will find the response of the S.O.C. to Bp. Daniel on p.120.

You can order the ORDO CELEBRATIONIS from E.C.P., POB 146, Fairfax, VA, 22030.

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

Somehow, I doubt Bishop Daniel
requested INCLUSIVE language.
Who is the Modernist that did?

"Somehow, I doubt Bishop Daniel
requested INCLUSIVE language.
Who is the Modernist that did?"

I did not say he did. It was stated that Rome cannot or did not mandate any of the changes. Rome did in fact make some of them, which only makes sense since Rome was the one who allowed concessions from the Liturgikon and Ordo in the first place.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The 10 concession made by Rome to Bishop Daniel were:

1. The priest and deacon could omit kissing the icons in their prepartory prayers.

2. The priest could bless the offerings with the Sign of the Cross at the preparation.

3. In the absence of a deacon the priest could omit censing the apsidal icon and icons within the altar.

4. The royal doors could remain open throughout the Liturgy.

5. In litanies the petition for the Pope could be joined with that for the hierachs.

6. The censing of the Gospel could be anticipated during the Epistle.

7. The "Peace be with all" before the Gospel could be omitted.

8. The mention of the civil authority could be omitted at the Great Entrance.

9. The Prayer before Communion that was in use could continue. (It was/is different than the one published in the Liturgikon.)

10. The ablutions could be performed during the singing of "May our lips be filled..."

Biwshop Daniel asked for 13 other concessions that were not granted.

Only 4 and 9 have been retained in the revised Liturgy.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My question is, how faithful is the "revised liturgy" to the Greek texts? Since Greek is the original language, I have no problem with accurate translations from it. Is this one accurate?

Well, no one denies that Rome mandated the original "ruthenian recension" service books which began to appear in 1941.

That raises a question worth considering. Since these books were promulgated with the authority of the Holy See, on the request of ALL the Ruthenian hierarchy, it would surely require a similar authority to revoke that mandate. And until the mandate is revoked, one could easily take the position that regardless of whatever the local hierarchs might approve by way of exception, the right to continue to use the original "ruthenian recension" remains in force.

Before screaming, bear in mind that no less an authority than Pope Benedict XVI maintains that the Tridentine Mass has not been abrogated and that every priest of the Roman Rite retains the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. If you wish to hear him say this with your own ears, order the video-recording of the exclusive English-language interview with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from EWTN. I very much doubt that the Holy Father is either backtracking on what he said or trying to withdraw that interview from circulation (in the latter event, it would take only one request from the Holy Father for EWTN to stop broadcasting or distributing the interview).

Well, licet jovi, licet bovi. If the Latins may lawfully continue to use the Tridentine Mass, it would appear likely that Ruthenians may continue to use the ruthenian recension as originally published by Rome.

Incognitus

:p

Dear Friends,'

Perhaps this is out of place, but the issue of whether Rome is to blame for this or that, or our bishops, can often be a moot point.

As the incomparable incognitus has said, who is it who appoints the bishops?

Having had the privilege of discussing issues with two such bishops recently, I can say that, yes, Rome now need only sit back and let their bishops do its work for it!

Rome is a master politician, we EC's are really babes in the woods by comparison!

Alex

For those interested, this is the official English text of the Divine Liturgy for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The "inclusive" language in this text is similar to what will be in our revised text. So much for distancing ourselves from the Orthodox.

http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp

Dear Father Deacon,
Many thanks for providing this useful and interesting text. Your generosity is particularly admirable since this text may turn out to be a two-edged sword in the present discussion! But you have done everyone a valuable service.

Incognitus

A few comments on the text link to the Greek Orthodox translation of the Divine Liturgy posted by Father Deacon Lance:

1. It omits the deacon’s parts (it is an online text and not a formal liturgicon). The official liturgicon is very close to the Ruthenian 1965 edition.

2. The prayers of the antiphons are said in “a low voice.”

3. There is a rubric for the antiphons stating: “(The designated verses from the Psalms are sung with the hymn:) People: By the intercessions of the Theotokos, Savior, save us (3).” [Note that the rubric says “verses” (plural) and not “verse” singular.] Some parishes do omit the verses and just sing the refrain 3 times. Others parishes sing three verses with the refrain. There is no prohibition against singing the traditional verses.

4. The Little Litanies between the antiphons are preserved in full. There is no prohibition against these prayers.

5. The prayers of the Little Entrance and the Trisagion are said “in a low voice.”

6. The litanies between the Gospel and the Great Entrance are omitted from this text. They are often omitted in parochial usage. They are included in the liturgicon and there is no prohibition against praying them.

7. The prayer of the Cherubic Hymn is prayed “in a low voice.”

8. The Litany of Preparation is preserved in full. There is no prohibition against these prayers.

9. The prayer of the Proskomide is prayed “in a low voice.”

10. The Anaphora is prayed “in a low voice.”

11. The “Grant it O Lord” petitions of the Litany before the Our Father are shortened in this text but they are in the Liturgicon. There is no prohibition against these prayers.

12. The prayer at the bowing of the heads is prayed “in a low voice.”

13. The prayer at “One is holy” is prayed “in a low voice.”

14. The Litany of Thanksgiving is included in full.

15. The prayer of the Litany of Thanksgiving is prayed “in a low voice.”

16. The dismissal prayer does reword the text to avoid mention of “mankind” and should be condemned for doing this.

It is unfortunate that this text uses some inclusive language.

We should all thank Father Deacon Lance for providing us with this link. It makes it very easy to confirm that the Greek Orthodox are not changing the liturgy to mandate certain prayers be taken out loud or prohibiting the praying of certain litanies. They have preserved the rubrics of the traditional liturgy.

Christ is Risen!
The synod of 1924, which adopted the new calendar, suggested these be suppressed; where that synod's "reforms" were put in force, these litanies are occasionally used, but rarely, even in monasteries.
I don't believe anyone proposes that this be said out loud.

I very much dislike this translation for numerous reasons, and although used by the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the USA, it is not typical of Orthodox translations.

Traditional Byzantine translations (whether into Slavonic, Arabic, et cetera) use a stylized form of the language, something that both preserves a bit of the flavor of the Greek and that sets it aside as a sacred text, distinct from the language on the street. Consider, for example, ROCOR's translations:

http://www.orthodox.net/services/index.html#S3

It has a few things that annoy me (and it has ROCOR-specific commemorations worded into the text, but this is consistent with older liturgicons, just not useful to non-ROCOR folk who may want to use them), but it is exact and precise.

Photius, Reader

A few comments on the text link to the Greek Orthodox translation of the Divine Liturgy posted by Father Deacon Lance:

1. It omits the deacon’s parts (it is an online text and not a formal liturgicon). The official liturgicon is very close to the Ruthenian 1965 edition.

2. The prayers of the antiphons are said in “a low voice.”

Further,

The text uses "Orthodox" instead of "right-believing."

The rubrics call for the distribution of antidoron at the end of Liturgy. This presupposes, of course, that the faithful use of prosphora instead of using precut pieces.

Nec

Dear Photius,
CHRIST IS RISEN! Please accept my thanks for that link - I look forward to making much use of the liturgical materials which it has to offer. There's a nice hand-size (duodecimo) edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in English printed at Jordanville a few years ago - a bit pricey, but worth the money and useful to have.

in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

Apparently an important point was left out of incognitus' post. Latins may only use the Tridentine Mass at the discretion of the local Ordinary. Only the local Ordinary may permit a priest to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass. The Mass celebrated is according to the Johannine Roman Ritual of 1962. John Paul II of blessed memory rightly left that decision to the local Ordinary who is in the best position to decide the pastoral needs of the faithful.

IMHO, incognitus' post is a bit reckless in its veiled inference that a priest may disregard the lawful authority of the Metropolitan and the Council of Hierarchs in liturgical matters.

Vladyka Incognitij,
In Truth He is Risen!
I am heartened that you found that link useful.
I have the Liturgy of Saint Basil in the same format, which was given to me by Father Lawrence on a trip to Jordanville a few years ago. I am saddened to hear that it was pricey. Jordanville used to be very reasonable in the prices of all they printed, but, I suppose, the times are changing everywhere. They have closed down their dairy farm because it ran in the red ... 140 head of cattle are too few to be competative, I suppose ... but I miss that most charming aspect of Jordanville's work ethic, it being the only place in the New World where one could regularly see an archimandrite shovelling cow manure.

Photius

Dear Father Deacon John,
CHRIST IS RISEN! You write: "Apparently an important point was left out of incognitus' post. Latins may only use the Tridentine Mass at the discretion of the local Ordinary. Only the local Ordinary may permit a priest to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass. The Mass celebrated is according to the Johannine Roman Ritual of 1962. John Paul II of blessed memory rightly left that decision to the local Ordinary who is in the best position to decide the pastoral needs of the faithful."

Your analysis is not unusual. However, In a lengthy interview given not so very long ago to EWTN, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (better known as Pope Benedict XVI nowadays) stated flatly that the Tridentine Mass has never been legally prohibited and that any Roman Rite Priest who wishes to celebrate that Mass is free to do so. His Eminence (as was) did not add the information that repeatedly over the past 30-odd years local bishops have attempted to suspend priests for celebrating the Tridentine Mass, and Rome has invariably lifted the suspensions (unless, of course, the priest was guilty of other offenses). I have no reason whatever to believe that Pope Benedict XVI has changed his understanding of the situation of the Tridentine Mass.
Moreover, the 1941 Divine Liturgy is published by Rome and issued on the authority of the Holy Father. It is unlikely that the same authority will mandate the revision currently under discussion.

Incognitus

Dear Photius,
Alas, printing and binding are more expensive everywhere these days.

Incognitus

I want to return to the problem of the new "translation" of the Creed in the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. In some cases the translators sought to be more accurate in there rendering of the Creed, but in other ways that have acted more like revisers than translators.

Many Eastern Christians dissaprove of how the Roman Church added a word to the Creed (i.e. filioque), but we now have a revised creed that has a SUBTRACTED of a word from the historic Creed of the Universal Church.

The Greek text says: "For us men (anthropous) and for our salvation..." Men is an english 'inclusive' term which traditionally includes both men and women, boys and girls. It was only in recent times that some have tried to convince us that men only means males. What ignorance of our language!

Here is a Greek transliteration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: (I don't know how accurate this transliteration is, but I found it elsewhere on the Forum)

Pisteio eis ena Theon, Patera, Pantokratora, Poitin ouranou kai geis, oraton te panton kai aoraton. Kai eis ena Kyrion, Isoun Kriston, ton Eion tou Theou ton Monogenei, ton ek tou Patros gennithenta pro panton ton aionon. Phos ek photos, Theon alethinon, ek Theou alithinou gennithenta, ou poiythenta, homoousion to Patri, di Ou ta panta egeneto. Ton di imas tous ANTHROPOUS kai dia tin imeteran sotirian katelthonta ek ton ouranon, kai sarkothenta ek Pnevmatos Agiou kai Marias tis Parthenou kai enanthropisanta. Stavrothenta te iper imon epi Pontiou Pilatou kai pathonta kai taphenta. Kai anastanta ti triti imera kata tas Graphas. Kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous kai kathezomenon ek dexion tou Patros. Kai palin erchomenon meta doxis krinai zontas kai nekrous, Ou tis Basileias ouk estai telos. Kai eis to Pnevma to Agion, to Kyrion, to ZoOpion, to ek tou Patros poreoumenon, to sin Patri kai Eio simproskinoumenon kai sindoxazomenon to lalisan dia ton Prophiton.
Eis Mian, Agian, Katholikin kai Apostolikin Ekklesian. Omologo en Baptisma eis aphe sin amartion. Prosdoko anastasin nekron. Kai zoin tou mellontos aionos. Amin.

See the above word in all capitals? ANTHROPOUS. This word was part of the Creed of the Church since 325 AD. Now, get your black marker and put a line not under the word but through the word itself. If you have an eraser, erase it. Or just delete it. Anyway, this is what our "translators" have done for us. There is a change of meaning of the text. (A matter worth discussing.) This is an example not of translation but of deletion. The revised Creed is not the Creed I profess, nor has the Church ever professed it. What right do they have to do this? Political correctness should not be a norm for translation.

Oops! I made a few typos in my post above. It should say:

"Many Eastern Christians dissaprove of how the Roman Church added a word to the Creed (i.e. filioque), but we now have a revised creed in which our "translators" have SUBTRACTED a word from the historic Creed of the Universal Church."

:rolleyes:
"Men" has a usage an inclusive term, but it cannot be said that it "is" an inclusive term (at least, depending on what the meaning of "is" is!) Women and girls would not be appropriate in the men's room, for example. I don't know that anyone tried to convince anyone that "men" only means "males". Only that when the meaning is inclusive and an alternative word without that other, exclusive meaning can be found, then the latter is preferred. incognitus gave a nice example the other day: cleric instead of clergyman (or clergyperson).

I note an interesting "us". Does this phrase apply only to the men present? ...

Lazarenzo,

Please note the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese's English text also does not include "for us men", but simply reads "for us". Again I must state I think this is much ado about nothing. God came down from heaven for mankind, humankind, us. All are pointing to the same reality.

What I find odd is the most debated change in the English Roman Rite text is "given for you and for many" vs "for you and for all" for all is blasted as erroneous or heretical because it is too inclusive for Christ did not die for "all" but only for the "many" that would be saved. We have the reverse going on here with people worried "for us" or "loves us all" is not inclusive enough.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Incognitus, IN TRUTH IS HE RISEN!
Note, however, that the monks do all their own printinng and binding (even making the hard covers), so there's no labor expense.

Photius

It's an odd mixture of Erasmian and modern Greek pronunciation.

But, your point about not altering the Symbol is very well taken; the disputed translation does, indeed, delete a word. If one wanted to be "politically correct", then use "us humans" rather than "us men", although that is not strictly a literal translation, but then again, neither is "ascended into heaven". That the Greek Archdiocese makes the same error is no justification for it.

Photius

Dear Photius,
CHRIST IS RISEN! That the monks do the printing and make their own bindings is correct, edifying and joyful. Alas, though, even monks must eat, wear clothing (despite occasional legendary hagiographies of anchorites clothed only in their own hair), sleep in buildings, and so forth and so on. The result is that the monks must live largely from the work of their hands - which is itself an ancient monastic tradition.
Saint Benedict teaches that the monks should live by the work of their hands and, indeed, should sell their handiwork at somewhat less than the commercial price, as an act of charity. When Saint Benedict wrote this, he did not foresee that the day would come when this simple advice would cause the monks to make more money - I'm not referring to Jordanville, but I know quite a few monasteries who produce this and that by hand, thus making the quality better than what is commercially on offer, and then sell the products at less than commercial prices. As a result, since the word gets around, they find themselves besieged by would-be customers. It's self-correcting, since the monks do not have, e.g., the production of hand-made chocolates as their chief goal in life. But it's a reflection on our mad times.
Back to Jordanville for a second - oops. I was about to give a specific example of a form of charity which the monks regularly practice, but I suddenly realized that I might not be doing the monks any favor, so I won't mention the specifics. Suffice it to say that they do indeed practice exemplary charity.

Incognitus

Here's one more question regarding the new and revised Liturgy:

Who is going to pay for ALL the new books for the people, the cantor and the priest? Will each parish have to buy them or will the diocese send them to each and every parish?

Many of our parishes are small and short on cash. Weekly collections barely pay the REAL bills. How are all these changes supposed to be implemented if we have to decide between "gas and electric" or new pew books, cantor books and altar books?

Dear John K - as to who's paying for all the books - here's a trick that was used by at least one bishop back in the 'fifties: send out the books to each priest, along with a list of "mass intentions" with, of course, no money attached and a form which the priest was supposed to complete to assure the bishop that he had offered the Eucharist for the intentions thus mentioned. The bishop then kept the money as payment for the books (and no, I am NOT making this up). Somehow I suspect that this would not be a successful technique nowadays.

Incognitus

A good point! Also, how much have we already paid for this misadventure? Is there a figure for how much the Archbishop has already paid, for travel, time, accomodation over the past years, while this misguided revision has been thought up? That my donations have helped to support this nonsense, makes me sick.

Has no one heard of the clergy abuse scandal? Have the Bishops learned nothing about how the people feel about their, "I'm accountable to nobody, everybody has to do whatever I say" attitude?

Nick

Do we get to deduct from this "wasted" amount the time and money that was spent on getting Metropolia-wide agreement on a text for the ordinary of Vespers, and the Sunday propers, that does NOT use the "vertical" inclusive language (language related to the Messiah, note!) in the Uniontown books? Or should we continue praying "Blessed is the one" on Saturday evening, to avoid doing anything our bishops might suggest?

Our parish is using books with no music, incomplete festal materials, no beatitudes, that replaces several litanies with "some parishes have a litany here", that STILL has the filioque (even if we don't sing it). I will not like every change if our bishops approve a new book, but IF the bishops promulgate one, I'll pay for the first ten copies in our parish.

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

My Dad used to say, "A thing worth doing, is worth doing right."

What is so shocking and unreasonable, about producing a careful, accurate, and poetic translation of the ruthenian recension?

....without abbreviations, alterations, innovations, inclusive language, editing or otherwise seeking to 'improve', reorganize, reorder, or rearrange the byzantine liturgy.

An accurate translation!

WHY is that too much to ask? If that is beyond the ability of the committee, then we need a new committee.

Nick

I've heard this recently and some time ago:
What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist. You can negotiate with a terrorist.

This might not be totally true, but it does reflect some people's experience.

Nicholas writes:

What is so shocking and unreasonable, about producing a careful, accurate, and poetic translation of the ruthenian recension?

....without abbreviations, alterations, innovations, inclusive language, editing or otherwise seeking to 'improve', reorganize, reorder, or rearrange the byzantine liturgy.

An accurate translation!

WHY is that too much to ask? If that is beyond the ability of the committee, then we need a new committee.

******************************************

A sensible question. One reason is that such a translation is unlikely to be accomplished by any committee. But take heart, such translations are available. With the exception of "poetic", most of your criteria are objective. If some more participants will post more possible criteria, and we can arrive at a consensus, it would not be difficult to take all the criteria into account and produce such a translation.

Incognitus

What do you understand as "accuracy: in a translation?

A translation that is, as Pope John Paul II said, free of "ideological influence."

Thanks. That is one necessary, but hardly sufficient criterion. And it cuts both ways, of course. Resistance to inclusive language may als be ideologically driven.

I think that Liturgiam Authenticam is theologically driven.

djs,

Your inbox is full and will not receive more messages.

T

Accuracy in a translation - this is not easy, since language involves both science and art (poetry is not exactly a science). Still, one can at least approach this goal, by firm resolution to determine correctness on the basis of scientific criteria, not on the basis of ideological or polemical criteria, nor on the basis of personal preference.

"Inclusive language" is a case in point. Granted that it is POSSIBLE for non-inclusive language to be ideologically motivated, that is not the most likely possibility in most cases. For another example, I would regard any translation which avoids the term "Catholic" even where it clearly occurs in the Greek as ideologically driven and therefore unscientific (this is not hypothetical; I was once disagreeably shocked in a Serbian Church to hear the Creed read in English with this text: "and in one, holy, ecumenical and apostolic Church". That simply isn't the Nicene Creed].

Here's a nasty one: accuracy of TRANSLATION cannot be motivated by musical consideration. Before everyone decides to murder me, I may add that, especially in certain cases where the music of extraordinary importance, it is possible to re-work the text in the receptor language to fit the metre of the music. But one must at least begin with an accurate translation before seeking to alter it on the basis of other considerations.

Here's an example of two different kinds of criteria: I would insist upon the Septuagint as our normative text of the Bible, most especially of the Psalter. I prefer a moderately traditional English (retaining, for example, the second-person singular forms). The first is not negotiable; the Septuagint is, in cold fact, the normative Christian Old Testament in general and the basis of many Byzantine texts in particular. The second is, alas, negotiable - I am entitled to insist on proof that it is possible to produce a genuinely accurate translation without accepting the traditional forms of sacral English, but if someone succeeds in doing it (and I have seen at least one attempt which comes within a reasonable distance of that accomplishment), then I shall have to admit that my preference is not a purely objective criterion.

More could be said, but I'm tired.

Incognitus

Similarly, the avoidance of the use of the word "orthodox" where present in the underlying Greek and Slavonic texts should be looked at as ideologically driven and unscientific, and therefore inaccurate.

Tony,
CHRIST IS RISEN! As regards the employment of euphemisms to replace the word "orthodox" you are, of course, entirely correct. Thanks for pointing it out.

Incognitus

I would still like to hear from someone in the Ruthenian Metropolia to say "We, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropoliatan Church ARE making these changes, and Rome has approved these changes." Is the truth too much to ask? Enough of the smoke and mirrors already!

Ungcsertezs

UC:

You are the only person to post having heard anything about Rome mandating the translations.
And I thought that Fr. Deacon Lance cleared this up earlier in the thread. I don't get what is still to explain.

Which particular part of the translation was "mandated" by Rome? Inclusive language? I can understand Rome saying "return to an authentic
liturgical celebration according to the Ruthenian Recension rubrics". I don't see Rome saying "We think this is how your English translation should be completed, complete with inclusive language. Here it is, promulgate it in your Metropolitan Church." Is this what has been done?

Ungcsertezs

This is what Fr. Deacon Lance has said.

Who has said this? You are the only one to have suggested this, and Fr. Deacon Lance, if I read between the lines correctly, denied this.

It was mentioned by a priest of the Ruthenian Metropolia after Sunday liturgy, May 22nd after the Archeparchial clergy meetings. That is why I wanted to have this point clarified.

Ungcsertezs

Rome has not directed changes to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Archbishop Basil is making these changes on his own authority.

Does this mean the new liturgy will be called "The Liturgy of St. Basil?" Sorry, I am being evil. I couldn't resist. Mea culpa.

Let's reopen this thread on why we must be mandated into this RDL...

Why indeed? Is it not a form of legalism to jam a reformed Liturgy down the throat of an entire Church? Historically, the Eastern Church changes organically and incrementally over long periods of time. Suddenly, we have sweeping changes, instituted by a small group of liberal elite academia, and we are told, "This is the new Liturgy, if you do not like it, tough beans."

There is nothing liberal about this process, and, as I have tried to point out in my book on the subject, precious little of it has any scholarly or academic basis. We have nothing to fear from genuine scholarship.

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father

Of course you are correct. Bad choice of words on my part. It should have been written as "so-called elite academia".

I added the word "liberal" because of the inclusive langauge issues.

Kissing your right hand,
Recluse

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Ecclesia Dei Conference
October 24, 1998

http://www.sandiego-tlmc.org/ratzpatience.htm

Id.