The Rite of the Sacred and Divine Liturgy, presented here, is a faithful translation of the text and rubrics of the typical Church-Slavonic edition of "Čin Svja�čennyja i Bo�estvennyja Liturgii" published by the authority of the Holy Apostolic See of Rome, and printed by the Grotta-Ferrata Press, Rome, 1942.

Where the English lacks a concise and literal equivalent of the Slavonic, paraphrasing has been employed, and where the natural order of the English language demands it, words have been transposed. In order to capture the various shades of meaning, which the Slavonic lacks, this translation has been compared with the official Greek version published at Rome in 1950.

The text has been translated from the Greek original as found in the Ieratikon (Rome, 1950), compared with the Church Slavonic of the Slu�ebnik (Rome, 1942) and the English translation of the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission of Pittsburgh and Passaic (1965), which was confirmed by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Prot. No. 380/62, on December 10, 1964. ... The rubrics are founded on a careful historical study of the development of the Liturgy as revealed by manuscript evidence and modern liturgical scholarship. Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected and the final product is guided by considerations of pastoral prudence in the specific situation of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in the United States of America.

the final product is guided by considerations of pastoral prudence in the specific situation of the Byzantine Ruthenian Church in the United States of America.

The idea that the choice of liturgical forms must be made from the "pastoral" point of view suggests the presence of this same anthropocentric error. Thus the liturgy is celebrated entirely for men and women,

Based on the Forward in the 2006 liturgicon I have to wonder, what is the present status of the recension books. We may presume they are the norm but there is a shift in emphasis indicated from Slavonic first and Greek last (1965) to Greek first (2006).


1965 Liturgicon Preface


2006 Liturgicon Forward


Also, what are instances of "modern liturgical scholarship" that influenced the RDL? What "Authentically distinct Ruthenian practices are respected"; what are examples of practices that were deemed not to be authentic?

Dn. Anthony

This is certainly a legitimate and worthwhile request, but keeping in mind that the Ruthenian Recension is in Slavonic, I am concerned about the bypassing of the Recension and the Slavonic in favor of the Greek in the RDL* -- no, not always but all too often and when it seems to me not necessary or even warranted. The Nikonian reform and the biblical Textus Receptus are prime examples why "original Greek" is not automatically "right" or to be preferred. Our liturgical expression is filtered through the Slavonic and exhibits a legitimate Slav ethos that is our heritage (regardless of our biological ethnic background). If we do not preserve it who will?

This is a bit off topic; may I suggest that replies if any be posted to the thread below.

Dn. Anthony

I could be wrong, but I think this new RDL promulgation makes the Rescension (Ordo Celebrationis), and the Rome-issued Sluzhebnik illicit for us. One could say we have a "new rite". Hope I'm wrong.

I thought that even after June 29 if the liturgy is in Slavonic it is to be as in the Sluzhebnik, if in English according to the "new rite". If so the problem is then that, to function as indicated in each (rubrics), one needs to be a schizodeacon.

(1.) In Slavonic, do we run with the full text of the Sluzhebnik, or a butchered version?

Ok, I'm really enjoying this discussion of somethint that is near and dear to me-my religion and how I express my love for God and how I give thanks to my savior. But my problem is I have no idea of what some of your words mean. Is it possible to phrase things in such a way that the members of the Forum who don't have a theological background can understand it? Without running to a dictionary every other sentence?
Please?