So, I pose the question again as an individual topic from the, "I guess they are right again" subject.

Here is a perplexing question for the RDL scholars:

With all of the other ridiculous changes, why weren't the words to the Our Father then changed to reflect the changes in the other portions of the RDL?

Shouldn't it be this way as the English Language Liturgical Consultation has it? I mean everything else has been changed, why not this? If we are going for translational accuracy, this should be it, correct? Is it because this version has been the traditional edition that doesn't get changed. Is there a double-standard here with what does or does not get translated?

Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come, your will be done,
on earth as in Heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial and deliver us from evil.

I say they should revisit the RDL to include this change as well! Might as well go for the trifecta, right?

As I see it, either change the entire manuscript to have content and style consistentcy, or don't change any of it at all! So now we have changes to reflect the re-translation, but not in other places, sounds like a double-standard to me.

Same theory applies to the changed prostopinije as well, that would certainly make the trifecta complete.

Are you making a serious proposal?

If he's not, I am :-)

I agree -- why keep the older language when we are changing everything else?

Why not? Does it sound strange, does it sound not quite right and displaced? ...well, that is my point here, and has been through my various posts on my displeasure with the RDL.

The other changes that were made are serious, aren't they?

In my view, and the view of the many others that do not care for the RDL, isn't it pretty serious? Faithful are leaving because of it, right? That seems serious.

In all reality, no it won't be considered as a serious proposal. I expect that most of those that are for the changes, as well as those who orchestrated the changes will just laugh at it. I think it is a really valid question though.

Look at it as we who grew up with the Slavonic Liturgy and traditional Rusyn Prostopinije look at it. I am a serious proponent of Rusyn culture, I have seen first hand through my research how changes have and still are destroying Rusyn culture in the homeland.

The Liturgy was one way of preserving that Rusyn culture (as well as the original way), but not any more. Something that we love, cherish, desire and still want has been ripped away from us for the sake of change.

So, to answer your question, yes, I am making a serious proposal.

... and why not change "brethren" to "brethren and sisters" before the reader intones the epistle?

No - he/she can intone "Peee-ple..."

"Our Parent, who resides somewhere else, special is your name...."

No! No! No!

It's "all of us"! Get with the Reformation you all!

Please, I don't think we need to give the RDL folks any more rope to hang themselves with! I can barely stomach the new wording, and have one foot already out the door....another would just send me over the edge.

JohnS.:

"Brethren" is an older English word that is inclusive for all relatives, whether male or female. We have no equivalent in modern English and that's why it need to be "brothers and sisters."

In Christ,

BOB

Rusyn31:

Thre was an extensive discussion of the translation of the Our Father done on this forum some years ago and the comparisons were made to the text in Latin, Greek, Slavonic, Armenian, Syriac, etc. You can find it if you search back over the past five years.

We've got this version that has been in use in the English-speaking world for a long time. It predates the Reformation and so the problem with changing it today is that by doing so we isolate ourselves from the broad bulk of the English-speaking world and people. In ecumenical settings--which we seem to have many of these days--it would definitely paint us as something odd and cause some confusion. And it's not the intention of the Church to be seen as odd, but rather open and available to evangelize. Thus, the Our Father as we have it is a bridge to those who are not part of our own particular Church. And, even if the translation could be improved, it is what it is. I should add that the Lutheran Church has a modern version as an optin in their Service Book, but it is probalby more ignored than used.

In St. Matthew's Gospel, the Latin Vulgate has the addition of a word that indicates the Eucharist in the "Give us this day our (supersubstantial) daily bread . . .," for example. But we have used the version found in St. Luke's Gospel that does not add this word both liturgically and in training people in the practice of the Faith. Then there is the discussion of the "Et ne . . ." construction. In a very old Latin grammar that I have there is a mention of this obscure grammatical construction that would suggest that this sentence was mistranslated centuries ago and should be rendered:

"And in order that You not (allow) us to be put to the final test, deliver us from the Evil (One)." A bit more wordy, but closer to the original Latin than the literal rendering we have had for centuries in English.

In Christ,

BOB

I guess following the Vatican directives to teach people the theology behind 'brethren' is out? Given the hatred expressed towards the Vatican teaching on language by some on this forum I guess we should not be surprised.

Because it's too wordy for "out the door in an hour" liturgy.

The appropriate inclusive expression is :

"Y'ALL"



PS: I occasionally use the term "brethren and cisterns", but not in Church!

I think in the case of many (western Pa.) Ruthenian churches, that would be

"Y'uns"

1 Th 5:21:

Before you get angry about the word "brethren," please understand that it has not been in common usage in English for the better part of the 20th century or longer. It is considered archaic and before the feminist movement insisted on using two words, we used the single "brothers" as the modern substitute for "brethren."

BOB

The familiar form of the "Our Father" is from Matthew's Gospel. In both Matthew's and Luke's version the word under consideration in the Greek is epiousion (επιουσιον)(the wording of most of the corresponding verses is different in the two Gospels). This is rendered in the Vulgate (in the phrase): Matthew 6:11 panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie. It is not an additional word but the word that translates epiousion (ousia=substantia). The Vulgate of Luke has: Luke 11:3 panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie. The traditional liturgical form, said in the Latin of the Mass, is a merging of the two: panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis hodie.

So I'm not sure what point was being made.

Dn. Anthony

The epistle book published by the Ruthenian Church uses the term "Brethren" to introduce many of the Pauline epistles. I sang it just prior to the introduction of the Revised Divine Liturgy (when I stopped chanting the Liturgy). No one ever asked me what it meant or had problems with it. It is not obsolete. It is rejected by secular feminists because it hints at masculinity. It is the secular feminists who do not understand....

Unfortunately, the term in the Greek is oi adelphoi. The omicron iota vocative ending is clearly masculine so that it is not inclusive.

hmm...

In Greek, the masculine plural of words referring to humans may include both genders. The ending is masculine because the noun is masculine.

This illustrates the GREAT difficultly in translating from Greek into English. English is a "gendered" language whereas Greek is not. What I mean by this is that gender in Greek is related to grammar and not anthropology. The same is not true of English.

The best way I have found to explain this is to use German. In German, the word for "little girl" is in the neuter -- das madchen. So a literal translation when the pronoun is used would be "it" instead of "her".

This makes translation VERY difficult. Translating a gramamtically gendered language into English almost always obscures some part of the original. For example, we have no way to talk about a non-gendered being. So when we use the pronoun "he" for God a lot of people think that this means God is male. Which, of course, he is not -- God is neither male nor female -- He transcends gender. But our language limits our ability to talk about God in non-gendered ways. But for the Greek, since she does not identify the gender of the word with actual gender (after all, a table is feminine in Greek, etc.), she does not draw false conclusions from the use of the masculine pronoun.

For a portion of my master's thesis many years ago, I set out to offer a new translation of St Ignatius of Antioch's letters. After several months of frustration, I gave up the project and changed my thesis. I realized then that I was not gifted to be a translator. I thank God for those who are and rejoice in their gifts (for example, Fr Seraphim Rose was probably the best translator from Russian that I have ever read).

The Lord's Prayer that we use can be called, "ecumenical." Most Christians will use this English version of the prayer that our Savior taught us. Why add to more fragmentation. Leave the Lord's Prayer alone. If anything, there should be more common texts such as the Creed. When we gather for services, it is nice when we say the same words at the same time.

Just a thought.

Ray
www.theologyincolor.com
www.myspace.com/iconostasis

Couldn't the whole Liturgy be considered, "ecumenical"? You're right, leave the Lord's Prayer alone, along with the rest of the Liturgy! It still seems like a hypocrisy to change some things but not others...

When I am at Liturgy, I do not use the new versions of the Creed and the Communion Prayer. I recite them the way I was taught 30+ years ago.

As stated before, change is good, if it is done correctly and for the right reasons. Changing for the sake of change with no real reason is not...

You use the Creed WITH the filioque?

No I do not.

Yeah, me too -- and I really "belt" them out! I figure maybe I'll inspire someone else!

Dear Rusyn31 and Stephanie,

With respect to the Communion prayer: Why is it so necessary to say before Communion that we "confess to you", when in the troparion that the prayer comes from, we say "like the repentent thief I openly profess you"? Was the old translation of the troparion wrong, and we should say "like the thief I openly confess to you" on Great and Holy Thursday? Or do you just object to change, whether its consistent or not? Do you still sing "many happy years" instead of "many blessed years"?

Jeff

Every parish I attend still sings "many happy years". But then again my home parish now has a hybrid liturgy, uses the new RDL texts but most of the music and tropars and kondaks are still sung from the old Levkulic Blue book.

Ung

Dear Jeff,

You yourself have said in essence (see I used an RDL word...)
"it's just a few words, why fuss." Well, you're right, they're just a few words that I choose not to say because the old ones fit me just fine, so why fuss??? I can be forced to say them and leave for the Orthodox church or I can recite/pray those few, other words and stay. It's really that simple. The committee took away my beloved Red Book, and I'm not giving up any more than I have to.

And my Red Book parish said "many blessed years" all along. I wish you could have experienced it -- then you'd know how I feel.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving Jeff, and please don't fret over a few words I choose not to say.

Why didn't the Latins translate "Kyrie Eleison" from the Greek as they did with all the other words?

But I understand what you are getting at. My aunt tells me that their priest still uses the word *Orthodox* in the worship. The singers don't sing the Beatitudes from their new hymnal since their new translation ignores Scripture and adopts feminism.

Ed

We DO have such a word in modern American: "Brethren"

I was taught the Creed with the Filioque, I received First Holy Communion in 2nd grade (I think?). We've made changes to restore traditional practices; so dropping the Filioque from the Creed isn't just "for the sake of change."

The removal of the Filioque is almost the only necessary change in the texts of the Divine Liturgy. And it was already gone in most places. There was nothing wrong with the rest of the Creed. Nor was there anything wrong with the other texts from 1965. The errors could have been corrected with a pencil. A bulldozer was not needed. The changes are all to serve personal agendas. If I hear "we must make progress with the Liturgy" one more time I'm gonna puke.