Father David,

With all do respect can you please explain to me why you are spending your time with Liturgical revisions?

Thanks!
Ray
Florida

First, why so defensive? I received that tidbit of information from two reliable sources, so I was not pulling it out of thin air. It's a plausible question, as they are women and women are feminine. Nothing else was implied. A very straightforward question. Geez.............

Ray,

To answer your question “…please explain to me why you are spending your time with Liturgical revisions?” - Fr. David is Professor of Liturgy at Sts. Cyril & Methodius Seminary – it’s what he does, and I suspect just might be why he was appointed to the Liturgy Commission.

Although I do not agree with Fr. David’s position on the liturgy revision matter, I must say I am quite saddened by the seeming lack of respect shown him by some posters to this and the previous thread these past few days. A wise man once said: “Even if you are not a peacemaker, at least do not be a troublemaker.” (St. Isaac of Nineveh) [There, I managed to get in my weekly quotation quota of my patron. :p ]

Especially since the IELC "rolled back" much of the inclusive language in the Sisters books. ("Blessed is the one", etc.) The Basilian translations and those of the IELC have a number of individual quirks - for example, the Basilian texts tend to change relative clauses into separate sentences much more often.

But it is certainly true that a lot of groundbreaking work was done by the Sisters of Saint Basil the Great, and their work came across (to me, at least) as much less "ideological" than the vast majority of such work done by nuns in the Latin orders. May God prosper all our religious!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

There are almost twenty examples of the type of inclusive language forbidden by the Vatican in the Revised Divine Liturgy.

With something as exacting as liturgical text, how does one get almost 20 examples of something?

This is the kind of slippery thinking and referencing from both sides that makes this discussion so painful to follow or to contribute to in any meaningful way.

Eli

*shrug* I stand by what I said, Nick. Since the Fathers point to Psalm 1 as referring to the Messiah, translating the opening line as "Blessed is the one" rather than "Blessed is the man" is a rather serious issue.

On the other hand, "mankind" does not, as far as I can tell, really unite the individual and the collective. Have you ever had a couple of mankind in your office? The Sisters used "humankind", which has the same fault. "Us all" does combine the individual and collective connotations, at the cost of being TOO large a collective (I think the "all" likely negates much of the "it only include Christians" problem - but are the angels included, etc.?)

As I asked earlier - if anyone knows of inclusive language issues other than the translation of celovikolubce and its variants as "lover of us all", and "us" versus "us men" in the Creed, please send me a PM. I couldn't find any, so it looks like the "almost 20" reduces to two specific translation issues. I have heard people complaining for 20 years about "Blessed is the One", and personally I was glad to see the IELC stick to the literal rendering.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I don't have to go to my office for that. I attend liturgy every Sunday morning with members of mankind.

I can tell just by looking that these beloved members of mankind are all highly individual, I can recognize almost instantly that each on fits into general categories of babes, youth, boys, girls, men, women, clergy, laity, alive and/or dead.

There is a component of a kind of movement into membership that is crucial to building community that can be found in who loveth all, who loveth man, who loves mankind.

The movement is a drawing into community by the mysterious WHO calling out to us in, with and through Love, an actioin which is totally lost in the static English rendering of "lover of us all."

There is no call and response movement inherent in the latter phrase and therefore no poetry as well as loss of meaning.

Also, and probably first in consideration, is that in this phrasing the WHO, the One Who Loveth, the great I AM, is reduced to a nominal predicate adjective modifying the US who is loved, and so the focus is on the objective US who is loved, and not the subjective I AM , of the great and loving, I AM, which is a modernist innovation in the worst kind of a way.

And finally and least important except in terms of wanting to participate in the language of liturgy, "lover of us all" is simply ugly and banal phrasing esthetically, the verbal equivalent of the visual difference between a temple and a cowshed.

The current translation as it stands is far worse a thing that "inclusive." It is modernist and stands outside the Tradition of the Church. IT is lousy Catechesis and Mystagogy.

Eli

Dear Eli,

You ask "With something as exacting as liturgical text, how does one get almost 20 examples of something?"

Actually that can occur in at least one legitimate way: even in the New Testament (let alone the Old Testament) there are a fair number of disputed passages, to say nothing of words and phrases. So it is possible to be confronted with "almost x examples of something", the precise number depending on whether one is referring to the textus receptus or a critical text. Sounds weird, but it happens!

Incognitus

Oh yes. That seems to be making clear sense to me in general terms. But does that apply in this case? I guess I spoke too generally when I should have focused more on this particular instance. I don't see here a critical text and a received text or am I missing something? Again.

Eli

Dear Eli - I'm not quite sure which text is under discussion. But I can look (using a magnifying glass) at the proposed revised text of the Divine Liturgy and see what it has to offer in the way of "inclusive language". Even there, some questions can be raised - are we speaking, as I would, of all "inclusive language", or are we ignoring what is sometimes called "horizontal inclusive language".

It is not quite nonsense to talk about the "received text" of the Divine Liturgy, even though there are actually several, depending on the Local Church. I've never yet seen much by way of attempts to provide a critical text (apart from Trempelas in Greek), although a few editions at least footnote the scriptural references, which is a help.

Incognitus

At this point I believe I would need a microscope and projector.

What omniscient humor deigns to remove one's eyesight at the very time in life when they finally have the courage to open their eyes and actually take a look?

In the case of the putative inclusive translation of celovikolubce, said translation is much moreproperly said to be upside down, and backwards than it is horizontal. I think we need to expand our categories!!

Sye

I would love a pew book which offered Scriptural references, the full text of all optional texts, rubrics and historical glosses on the rubrics. I might even pay good money for such a wonder, depending, of course on how celovikolubce is translated!!

Eli

Ayeeee

See what I mean about fowl humors?

Eli

We need to keep in mind that it is not only the text of St. John Chrysotom's Liturgy that has be revised, but also that of St. Basil, the Pre-Sanctified, and the propers (changeable parts; i.e., troparia, kontakia, prokeimena, etc.) There was probably less scrutiny in the development of these texts because of their greater volume.

Can you imagine what they may have done to these texts?

Eli - Christ With Us, published by the Ukrainian Exarchate around 1954, fits your description - it gives all the rubrics and the complete texts, the scriptural references (including one hilarious gaffe) and the Church-Slavonic text parallel to the English.

It was done in a pew-book version which is too small to be easily read and an "altar book" which is of convenient size, much more easily read, and includes the Prothesis. Obviously, I recommend the "altar book" - it's not too big for use in the pews. And since the price has not increased since the book appeared 50+ years ago, it's no longer unbearably expensive. The translation is not perfect, but it's also not polemical.

Incognitus