Well there is the Stamford translation 1954, the Basilian translation unsure of year, Synodal transaltion 1988, St. Josaphat of Parma translation 1996. I am unaware of any consultation with the Rusyns or Melkites taken in any of the above.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Maybe it's time we started trying to work together?

Nec

I think I know the priest of whom you are speaking. Regardless, I don't think the above statement would reflect a common opinion in ACROD (let alone any other jurisdiction).

Andrew

Rilian,

You are probably correct. I think future moves in ACROD are likely to be more conservative in nature. I think that is something we should take into account.

At the very least we should allow for this sort of development in our Metropolia. If younger priests want to have fuller liturgies, no pre-cut pieces, use "orthodox" insted of "of the true faith" give them the option.

Nec

Dear Michael Robusto,

I have read it, and find many curious choices of translation that seem to reflect an ideology. I will post examples in the next few days, and have already posted one (the dropping of the prayers for the armed forces). Lots of these translation choices are not evident to the casual reader.

I recommend you get Fr. Serge's book.

I downloaded Pseudo-Athanasius' scan of the new translation, and e-mailed it to a good friend who has some background in Byzantine things. Here are his comments:

Thank you.I happen to have a copy of the book written by Serge Kelleher.
It is, indeed, a wonderful book.
Now, I can have the aggravation of reading the complete translation he is criticizing.

Understand this (I find that many people who are going on Byzantine Forum and are following the argument between Petrus and Kelleher miss this point) : Serge Kelleher served for decades in the Ukrainian Eparchy of Toronto where the abbreviated Liturgy (apporved by the Ukrainian Catholic Synod of Bishops in 1963) was celebrated as the norm. He is not saying that Ruthenians should celebrate a full Liturgy or that they, as a "Particular Church" do not have the right to publish pew books differently.
But, it has always been the case that when one "translates" Liturgical services, the entire service is translated. What Petrus has done (and surprisingly it has been done with Rome's approval - in 1963 Rome instructed the Ukrainian Synod that while they had the right to pastorally abbreviate the Liturgy - they could not prohibit a priest or a parish from celebrating the entire Liturgy - now, they've gone and permitted the publication of a translation of part of the Liturgy claiming that this is the Ruthenian Liturgy).
While many of Petrus' explanations on how the Liturgy was translated seems to take consideration of the standard norms of Liturgical translation, his practice does not show that. If this new book goes through, the Pittsburgh Metropolia will have formed a new Rite.


This should stoke the flames a little more!

Dn. Robert

Slight correction - the Eparchy of Toronto (which just celebrated its golden jubilee the other day) does not require the use of the abbreviations authorized by the Fourth Synod under Patriarch Joseph; the Eparchy permits those abbreviations. There are still holdouts who do the full Liturgy.

In Ukraine, the full Liturgy is still in general use. Here in Dublin, we use the full Liturgy; when Ukrainian bishops come they have never criticized us for it.

That said, the Fourth Synod's abbreviations are relatively modest. They do not resemble what the present Ruthenian recasting is aimed at.

Thank you for your kind words about my book. It's nice to be appreciated!

(Archimandrite) Serge

Dear Father Deacon Robert:

I think you are right about flames.

Your friend writes:
My question to your friend: who is Petrus, and what is he doing?

My question to your friend: What idea of "rite" informs this claim?

What is he saying about our rights as a Particular, sui juris church?

I'd sure like to know more about this! Does anyone have access to the document which says this?

Nec

Not only do I not have access to such a document, I am reluctant to believe that it exists. In 1963 Rome did not recognize the existence of a Ukrainian Synod. Moreover, the abbreviations were not authorized until 1966. Patriarch Joseph stated clearly that all the Bishops had decreed that it was permitted to abbreviate the Divine Liturgy, but it was certainly not required and there were quite significant voices reaised against the idea.

The abbreviations are quite simply described:

It is permitted to omit the first small synapte and the second antiphon, going straight from the First Antiphon to Glory . . . Both now . . . Only-Begotten Son . . .

It is permitted to omit the petitions for the Catechumens.

It is permitted to omit the first Aitesis, so that the Plerotika themselves are sung as usual, followed by the Ecphonesis of the Prayer of the Proskomede

That is the sum total of the authorized abbreviations. I cannot even remember the last time that I was involved in a service during which these abbreviations were used.

Prayer-Books for the faithful and service books for the clergy continued to be printed with the full text of the Divine Liturgy. I did a bi-lingual one here (Irish-Ukrainian) for the faithful in Ireland, and no one has even discussed the obvious use of the full text.

Fr. Serge

Thank you, Archimandrite Serge, for explaining this. Though I wonder if perhaps there was some sort of instruction from Rome on this at one point.

At any rate, wouldn't this be a better way for our Church? Translate the entire Liturgy (though I'd like to see us try to work with other Eastern Christian Churches in doing so) and then allow for some pastoral abbreviation?

Nec

Nec:

You may be intersted in this exchange 08/27/02

StuartK wrote:
Father David responded:

Btw, a better download is available here.

DJS,

Thank you for the link to the draft and for the information from the exchange in 2002.

Re-reading the answer. One scenario might be we would be going from 'it's permitted to abbreviate' to a possible 'it might be permitted to do more'? So, exceptions for a fuller celebration of the Liturgy might be made but might have to be approved?

Just expressing my opinion. I don't like that.

Nec

It depends on the manner of promulgation, and this might be done differently by each Bishop.