FYI.
Deacon Robert

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=54532

New English translation of Missal is complete

Nov. 2, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has completed a draft of its English translation of the Roman Missal.

The ICEL draft, which was unveiled on November 1, will now be submitted to the bishops' conferences of the English-speaking world. Bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, England, explained that ICEL will solicit comments on the draft, make appropriate changes, and hopes to complete the English translation by the end of 2008.

The ICEL draft is a translation of the Latin that appears in the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal. That official Latin version was released in 2002.

The process of translating the Roman Missal into English has been complicated by lively debates about the principles of liturgical language-- a debate that prompted the Vatican to set up a new committee to join in the consultations. The Vox Clara committee, chaired by Cardinal George Pell of Sydney Australia. In March 2004, the Vox Clara committee welcomed a new translation, which provided a more accurate rendering of the Latin original.

Among the most notable changes proposed in the new translation are:

The Creed begins with "I believe," rather than "We believe"-- in a simple and accurate translation of the Latin " Credo ."
When the priest says to the congregation, "The Lord be with you," the response is now: "And with your spirit"-- again, a faithful translation of the Latin " Et cum spiritu tuo. "
The use of "inclusive language" is generally avoided, so that masculine pronouns are more broadly used-- especially in cases where the pronoun might refer to Jesus or to God.
The latest draft is being submitted by ICEL for comments by the Vatican and by the 11 episcopal conferences represented in ICEL, which includes the bishops of Australia, Canada, England and Wales, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, and the US.

It mat be generally avoided but it is not completely avoided:

Changes
The following will be the most obvious changes to the lay people's responses when the revised Missal finally becomes available:

* 'And with your spirit' instead of 'And also with you';

* 'through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault' as well as 'and you my brothers and sisters' instead of 'and you here present' in the Confiteor;

* 'peace on earth to people of good will' instead of 'peace to his people on earth' and 'Only-begotten Son' for 'Only Son of the Father' in the Gloria;

* In the Nicene Creed, 'I believe' instead of 'We believe', 'all things visible and invisible' for 'seen and unseen', 'by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary' instead of 'born of' and 'for us and our salvation', with 'men' deleted;

* 'Pray, brothers and sisters, that the sacrifice which is mine and yours [not our], may be acceptable';

* 'We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come in glory' instead of 'Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again';

* 'Behold the Lamb of God ... Blessed are those called to the banquet of the Lamb ... Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed'.

These are just a few examples of the many improvements that will be found in the revised Missal. Apart from being more accurate translations from the Latin originals, while allowing for reasonable fluency, the wordings are also far more in keeping with the sacred mysteries being celebrated in the Mass than the often dumbed down language presently in use.

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2007/jun2007p3_2551.html

The Lectionary text will be taken from the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), corrected according to the Latin of the New Vulgate. An International Commission for that work has now been set up, with Melbourne auxiliary Bishop Mark Coleridge playing a prominent role. The NRSV translation (like its predecessor the RSV) is generally superior to that of the Jerusalem Bible being presently used in Masses (with its �happy� preferred to �blessed�).

While the NRSV contains some questionable use of inclusive language, this is to be carfully monitored in terms of doctrinal precision.

http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/liturgy/new_mass.shtml

I believe that what pertains to the "Ordinary" of the Mass will be applicable in English worldwide.

The Lectionary, however, varies from country to country. In the USA, the NAB -- the copyright being owned by the USCCB -- will continue to be used, as I understand it.

I am thrilled that this new translation will replace the present one. One thing I dont understand about this article is that the USCCB already approved a translation last year and is waiting for Vatican approval. Why is ICEL just now coming out with an international version? This whole process is very muddy to me. Anybody know?

Fr. J.

Father J.,

I think that last year's vote by USCCB was the last Episcopal Conference of English-speakers signing on to the ICEL reformed language. They did that with their own suggestions for "improvement" and requests for exceptions. I think the process thereafter was to be:

a) ICEL reviews all suggestions from Bishop Conferences, incorporating into new texts where appropriate, then issues their final version (which is, I think, what this article is reporting);
b) The Congregation gets this, reviews, and makes any changes it deems appropriate;
c) Pope signs off;
d) Translation is promulgated;
e) Bishops conferences decide on implementation date.

At least, that's my understanding.

Best regard,
Michael

It looks like Rome is loosing the fight for the heart and soul of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI calls the church to embrace Holy Tradition. The reformers call us to embrace the Modern World. The reformers are winning. Doubly sad for us Byzantine Catholics as our bishops embrace the Modern World and encourage those who seek faithfulness to Tradition to go away.

Unfortunately, "horizontal inclusive language" is becoming an aspect of ordinary English; even one of our moderators just used it in referring to members of this list. Does that make him a radical feminist?

Jeff

Profanity has as well.

But not on this website, nor by the moderators (that I've seen). The argument has been made that this is an accepted pattern of speech nowadays, even in formal situations, and not necessarily one that should startle, offend or dismay; the fact that it does get used here by regular posters provides some evidence in favor of that argument.

Jeff

Jeff,

That, or perhaps the return to teaching English using actual grammar books?

Michael

Now there's a novel idea! Bring back those old-timey, big chested, broad-shouldered, chunky English teachers with buns. Learning how to diagram sentences would be a great start.

I assume you mean by the term "buns," hair buns! ;-)

Oh My! Lets hope so! Yeeeeesh!!

Alexandr

Yes, the gray hair buns. But now that you mention it, they did seem to have light-blocking capabilities with the other kind as they lumbered down the hallways.

There I on the other hand had this idea of sweet lady teachers holding a tray of freshly baked buns, possibly nice sticky cinnamon? Shades of St Agatha!

A very good article "Liturgical Translation; A Question of Truth", could some of it be applied to the Revised Divine Liturgy being discussed elsewhere ?


http://adoremus.org/0607LiturgicalTranslation.html

james

__________

Quite often our Bishops have been criticized in this forum for not submitting the revised text to the priests prior to promulgation.
From the above release it doesn't appear that the Roman Catholics will do so. Will they be roundly criticized also? A comparison to the sizes of the Churches (we have fewer priests so it would be easier, and so forth)is not justified because the Latin Church has more resources.http://www.byzcath.org/forums/images/icons/default/confused.gif
confused

Fr. Deacon Paul

There are a number of significant differences here.

The Roman Catholics started with a goal of making a translation that is exactingly faithful and complete to the normative Latin edition. They did so because the current translation is not accurate enough. They assembled a translation team that included experts from within the Roman Catholic Church and sought critical review from experts both within the Roman Catholic Church and those outside it. When a review of the translations prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy showed deficiency (by being more paraphrase then literal) the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, reorganized it and promulgated additional detailed instructions (Liturgiam Authenticam is the most important). Additionally, the texts were subject to review by a very large number of Catholic bishops (over 400 just in the United States). Finally, when the texts were still not exact enough, the Holy Father created the �Vox Clara� (�Clear Voice�) committee to ensure accuracy. Even here there are remaining concerns about balancing accuracy with pastoral sensitivity (i.e., not to change what is acceptable and memorized unless absolutely necessary). And it appears that there are still powerful bishops attempting to inject political correctness into the texts. Finally, while it can be said that the texts were not passed to laymen for review it is not true that no clergy and laymen were consulted. We can see that the forthcoming change from �for all� to �for many� (as a translation of �pro multis�) has come predominantly from the clergy and laity. In the end, thousands of men (lay and clergy) have been involved in preparing the corrected translation. And it is still not perfect.

Compare this with eight men � all very intelligent and good and faithful servants of the Lord who are each to be praised for their efforts � who prepared the new Ruthenian texts. The goal was not to make an exacting translation from the official Church Slavonic texts of the Ruthenian recension - it was to �improve� the Divine Liturgy by revising it. Not all members of the commission are fluent in Slavonic. The official Church Slavonic normative edition was not the starting point but, rather, a Greek edition. The Vatican directives to translate accurately, match the Orthodox, and work together with other Byzantines to produce a common translation were all ignored. The end result is noticeably less faithful then the 1964 edition.

Those who are fluent in Church Slavonic and Greek have indicated that the 1964 translation was quite good. The Liturgy did not need this major reform that separates us from the Ruthenian recension. It did not need major changes to the translation. The changes required could have been done with a pencil.

Good scholarship never need fear the light of solid, critical analysis. The Roman Catholics had a very large number of participants and had team after team reviewing for accuracy. It is very logical to ask, that since Byzantine Churches in the English speaking countries do not have the same resources as does the Roman Catholic Church, they seek input from talented clergy and laymen � be they linguists, poets, singers or grammarians.

John, I agree with this statement. The rest is misleading. I understand your general statement that the committee or Bishops should have received some selected input and I agree. Do you know for a fact that they didn't receive any input?

To compare the massive English speaking Latin Church to our tiny Byzantine Catholic Church is totally unfair. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops alone has a staff of 350. There must be 400 BISHOPS IN THE U.S. I welcome actual data of the number of Roman Catholic bishops in the English speaking countries. Compare that to our four, who do not have auxilliary bishops who can do special projects.

Just to put things into perspective, the relatively small Erie (PA) Diocese collected $5.4 MILLION dollars from its special collection Catholic Services appeal in 2006. This is a grain of sand compared to the total potential in the English speaking world. Their combined budget is greater than the income of most countries.
___


I recall over the years hearing several of my pastors remarking that some of the translations were not perfect. Let's see.... is it may our mouths be filled or may our lips be filled? I remember both versions in the early 60's.

If people are waiting for the perfect promulgation, whether one of the Eastern or Western, they will be disappointed, because that is a subjective opinion. People should not use this as a sole reason to leave the Church.

Father Deacon Paul

Father Deacon Paul,

Thanks for your post.

I don�t think there is anything at all in my post that is misleading.

I am speaking not of an informal review but of a formal critical analysis and review. I�m glad that you agree that there should have been such. I do not know for a fact that the bishops did not seek such input. Given that the Pittsburgh Metropolia is clearly headed in a direction away from other Byzantines, I would be very surprised to find that there was some sort of consultation. I�ve asked the question to my friends in the Ruthenian Church and in various Byzantine jurisdictions (Catholic and Orthodox) here and in Europe and they are unaware of it.

I was not suggesting that the Ruthenian Church could mount a review process as large as the Roman Catholic one. I was speaking firstly of the Latin Church's commitment to authentic Liturgy and accurate translation, and then to the fact that they did conduct an extensive review process. Our bishops clearly rejected the texts and rubrics of our official Church Slavonic books, the directives of the Liturgical Instruction, and Liturgiam Authenticam (to name only a few). In the smaller Ruthenian Church there could have been a similar review (on an appropriately smaller scale) using all the talents available � be they those of clergy or laymen. Certainly, as minimum, other Churches of the Ruthenian recension should have been consulted. The only review I am aware of (the one by Father Serge Keleher completed apparently at the request of a number of our clergy who managed to get a draft copy of the text) was not welcomed and responded to as the scholarly piece of work it is but instead was treated with open hostility.


You raise a good point. Why the change from �lips� to �mouths�? My understanding is that the Slavonic translates to �lips� while it is the Greek that translates to �mouth�. The Commission decided not to use the normative Church Slavonic text and instead used a Greek version. Why? Why was our official Ruthenian book found unworthy? We are a Church with an older membership. Did not anyone care that they were being disrespectful to our older members by forcing them to relearn textual changes when such changes were not at all necessary?


No one expected perfection, and this whole discussion is not about a quibble or two in an otherwise very accurate list of corrections. [The Revised Divine Liturgy book is far less accurate then the 1964 edition.] The discussion is about the abandonment of the official Ruthenian recension book and the prohibition of what remains the official, current Liturgy for the Ruthenian recension, purposeful changes in rubrics and texts, and much more, including the issue of unnecessary change - all of which has hurt so many of the faithful.


Why? If the Liturgy to worship Christ is your life and the Church you love has deformed that Liturgy and prohibited her priests from praying the fullness of the official Liturgy why should one stay? Is it not better to find another Church that respects and loves the Liturgy, one that is willing to be formed by the Liturgy that has been sculpted by the Holy Spirit? Why should one put up with the aggravation of a reformed and politically correct Liturgy when one can go to a Byzantine Catholic parish of another jurisdiction and find a Divine Liturgy that is far closer to the official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy then the one taken in Ruthenian parishes? Something tells me that you might not have a good grasp at just how painful and destructive this reform has been to so many in the Ruthenian Church.

John

John,

John, your feeling that I "don't have a good grasp just how painful and destructive this reform has been to so many in the Ruthenian Church" is correct. I can't understand it. I do believe that if one is not at peace at a particular Divine Liturgy then he should look elsewhere, for obvious spiritual reasons. I pray that my following remarks may not be interpreted wrong, for it it meant with brotherly kindness. I believe your soul is good, your enthusiasm for God is great, and He has looked with grace upon you.

If one is not at peace at the Divine Liturgy one has to make an introspective reflection. Our worship, where we enter the Kingdom of God and in a magnificient way Jesus Christ, indeed the Most Holy Trinity, comes in majesty to us, nonetheless comes in FINITE conditions, surrounded with human weaknesses. At any one Divine Liturgy there are imperfect things. If we focus on them, we will not be at peace.

For instance, if I attended the most perfectly sung Divine Liturgy by a professional choir and I focused on the detail that this was not a complete Divine Liturgy because there is no congregational singing (very important in my opinion) I wouldn't be at peace and would not be receptive to the graces which God intends.

Do you see what I am saying? My thought that congregational singing is correct (in my mind and in the opinion of many others) but if I worship (I use the term loosely) my opinion more than the presence of God than I am forfeiting God's Mercy.

It is with this reflection that I believe that the changes in the Divine Liturgy should not be a reason to leave the Church.

With brotherly love,

Father Deacon Paul

Father Deacon Paul,

Thanks for your post. I have been praying over a proper response, and I hope this will make sense to you (and to others who read it).

You mentioned that you do not have a �good grasp at how painful and destructive this reform has been to so many in the Ruthenian Church.� Might I respectfully suggest that that this lack of understanding is the direct result of something you posted in an earlier discussion, which is that you have never experienced the full Divine Liturgy? I can only say that this is very sad (although common). If you had experienced the full Divine Liturgy, over time you would not only have been formed by it, you would have come to respect it and even to love it. But you are not alone, as it seems that even our bishops do not understand our Liturgy, because they see it not only and firstly as a means of worship that leads to salvation but also as a tool of socialization. It is this lack of experience with the full Liturgy for so many in our Church that has caused me to continually suggest that people should travel to parishes that celebrate it (or, now that it is prohibited, to experience the Vigil and the Divine Liturgy at a ROCOR parish, or even to obtain recordings of the full Liturgy and attempt to discover it). [A priest friend of mine suggested that I use the analogy that our official Liturgical Tradition is a smorgasbord of incredibly delicious and nutritious spiritual food and our bishops have instead mandated the equivalent of McDonald�s hamburgers. And because so many have become use to the McDonald�s as the standard fare of the Ruthenian Church they do not worry about it, and instead when they want good food they head elsewhere. It is not the best analogy but maybe one that will be useful to you in trying to understand.]

If the Liturgy was the center of the life of our Church then almost everyone would understand why the reform is wrong. But since Liturgy is not the center of the life of our Church (and has not been for so long), and instead we speak about �business models� and �making progress with the Liturgy� we have good men who puzzle about why anyone should concern themselves with the form of the Liturgy. I submit that those who puzzle over why so many are upset with the reform do not really understand Liturgy.

Your second point spoke to the need to make an introspective reflection, and suggested that I am worried about finite conditions, and am seeking perfection. Perhaps I, too, don�t understand what you are saying, but it seems to me that you are suggesting that I am too concerned with form and that if I forgot about form I could find the wonder of the Liturgy even in the Revised Divine Liturgy (RDL). To that I can only suggest that the discussion of form is a valid one, and that it is right to stand up for what is right, and even to walk away when the bishops do things that are wrong. Here, I will again offer the words of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI):


Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) teaches us that that form is important, and that it has everything to do with the question of whether the Liturgy is about worshipping the Lord or about socialization. Perhaps those who do not understand why so many are upset might profit in finding a Byzantine parish that prays a full Liturgy, studying the Liturgy itself and prayerfully considering Cardinal Ratzinger�s teachings. [When praying over this from Cardinal Ratzinger I suggest considering comparing Father David Petras� words that the Liturgy needs to be emphasize the education of man (the transmission of information), and that the Liturgy must be rearranged to make that education primary, and that the it is this change in emphasis that that Ratzinger speaks of as being the problem.] Byzantine Liturgical development has been led by the Holy Spirit over time and is wonderfully pastoral. Changing the balance based upon the ideas of how men wish to use the Liturgy to educate destroys that balance and, with it, the attractiveness of the Divine Liturgy that Cardinal Ratzinger speaks about. [Which ultimately results in men walking away.]

I remain fill with every confidence that the appeals to Rome will be successful, and that the right of our priests to pray (and our people to have access to) the full Ruthenian Liturgy will be recognized and restored. As I talk with many people across the Church I also see that the RDL is largely being rejected. Perhaps this finally is the low point of the life of our Church, and that we can reject these types of Latinizing reform once and for all, and get about the task of reforming our Ruthenian Church according to our own Liturgical Tradition. I pray that the true restoration is not too long delayed in coming, as we see the clear evidence of how with each step away from our Liturgical Tradition (from the 1950�s forward) people walk away.

John

Thank you, John for your good response; I was praying and hoping that you did not take offense.

I listened to the CD that you kindly sent me. I have heard the full Divine Liturgy previously and am fully aware of it.

Regarding the issue of form, there is merit for a revised promulgation with "bracketed" or "shaded" antiphons and ektenia and I don't see (in my humble opinion) any reason for an objection. I believe I understand your advocacy of this result.

That being said, and with official restoration in the future, there will still be individual objections to interpretations and details of rubrics, such as installation and opening and closing of doors and curtains, position of the deacon, etc. Most likely there will be very few parishes which will implement the "additions." And many objections will be uncharitable and unjustified (such as charges of heresy that were voiced on the forum) and to this I have posted and will continue to post as an issue of fairness and truth.

This brings us closer to a reconciliation, which is not so important personally to you and I, but is of utmost importance to the entire BCC.

I have "officially" moved my position (personally I never had any objection). But I stress, I stand by my Metropolitan and do not advocate leaving our Church over this "temporary" change. I say "temporary" because over the past 100 years the Divine Liturgy has been transitioning, event the official Ruthenian rescension is a relatively new transition.

S'nami Boh,
Fr. Deacon Paul

Unfortunately, the teaching of English grammar is a thing of the past and will not be restored, if at all, for several generations. You can blame it on my generation which came of age in the '60s. I teach Latin and Greek at a local university and i spend more time explaining to the students the difference between a noun and a verb. I can explain it a 1000 times and they forget it right after I have finished. The issue goes back to those teaching English in grammar and high schools.

Slava Isusu Khrystu!

I honestly do not believe that the Liturgy is the place for inclusive language. Years ago in the Latin Mass the language was not inclusive and most people were fine with that. One cannot simply change the Liturgy to suit everyone's taste. The Liturgy is a sacred act and should not be altered to suit the tastes of the people. There are regulations and Canons which should be followed and respected!

I do not mean this as a disrespectful statement to women, but liberation is destroying family life, the sacredness of the family, the sacredness of the sacrament of marriage and is greatly harming the Church.

Hopefully I do not sound too petty!

Thank you,

John Doucette

Dear John,

You don't sound petty at all...you are correct about this.

In Christ,
Alice

Father Deacon Paul,

Many thanks for your post! The past few weeks have been so filled that I have barely had the time for my daily tasks to keep the website current. I had, however, read your post and have been thinking about it. I am glad for this dialog.

I am glad that you listened to the CDs I sent. [I have now filled requests for over 300 copies each of the Aliquippa 2006 Good Friday Vespers and Paschal Divine Liturgy CDs and just ordered another hundred of each.] I find over and over that once people are exposed to the full Liturgy they fall in love with it and want it, and not a Liturgy that revises it according the latest ideas of men. I�m not sure where you live, but my ongoing recommendation to find a ROCOR parish and keep the Old Calendar feasts there still stands. They have a love and respect for Liturgy that permeates the Divine Services and is incredibly attractive. ROCOR is not perfect (there is no perfect Church) but we have much to learn from them if we are willing. As we are only at the beginning stages of having deacons again our deacons can watch and soak up their deacons� relationship to the Liturgy. [I have said before that as a Church we are so unfamiliar with our own Liturgy that we need to pray it in an exacting manner according to the official 1942 rubrics so that it might form us anew.]

In a conversation I had with one of our priests just before Thanksgiving we discussed the health of the Ruthenian Church before the wave of abbreviations to the Liturgy that came in the 1960s (or thereabouts). He noted that our parishes were full and even growing when we still had Vespers, Matins and a fuller Divine Liturgy (even though it was not the total fullness of the Ruthenian books). He noted the difference between the �public� Liturgy (putting into a different category some of the many latinizations at the Holy Table but generally out of view of the people and not actually affecting the flow of the Liturgy). It was his idea that if we were to return to what we did then (less some of the more obvious latinizations like the filioque) our parishes would be filled again. There is much merit to his argument. In these discussions we have touched on �liturgical flow� but really have not discussed it. I, myself, remember when we had the �High Mass� which included a good deal of the Litanies (making it far closer to the Ruthenian Liturgy then is the Revised Divine Liturgy). The church was filled on Sundays. But when the abbreviations started (in the 1970s at the parish I grew up in) the people left. That says something. Also, a Melkite priest friend of mine has noted that taking all those prayers out loud does not educate anyone and only makes the people wait until they can pray again. Liturgical flow is important and altering that flow for the purpose of education (making the Liturgy about the education of man rather about the worship of God) drives people away. The Revised Divine Liturgy affects the liturgical flow in a very negative way.

I�m glad that you understand the need for revising the promulgation. I will point out that the best way is not to produce an edition with brackets for the parts that may be omitted. The way forward is to publish a complete Liturgicon, one that is as literally identical to the Roman edition as is possible in English. Then the bishops would publish a separate Liturgical Instruction stating what abbreviations are allowable and what alternate rubrics would be permitted. That would keep our standard common with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) and allow some of the ideas (like Father David�s desire for the Anaphora prayers to be taken aloud) freedom to develop through inspiration of the Holy Spirit (rather then by mandates that limit the Holy Spirit). [The Vatican directives on Liturgy were quite wise and should not have been rejected.]

I agree that there will be many parishes that will not immediately celebrate the full and official 1942 Liturgy. That is where example, education and encouragement come in. If, for example, the Cathedral at Munhall was to implement the full, 1942 Divine Liturgy (using the 1964 translation with only necessary corrections done in a way that respects what is memorized) using music that is singable (the gray and green books are indeed simplified but they are also memorized and better respect proper accentuation of English than do the new books). Over time (a few years, not decades) it would become a center of good liturgy that attracts people. Eventually people in other parishes start asking �why can�t we have that here�. And it grows from there because it both correct and the people eagerly embrace it.

Have there been voices on both sides that have been uncharitable? Yes, there have. I don�t remember any accusations of heresy on either side but there has been uncharity. I dare say that the ultimate responsibility for this lies with the Council of Hierarchs. They are the ones who created the situation giving rise to these discussions. I am at a loss as to why they (if they really all wanted these changes) used mandates and threats of obedience to obtain it. It would have been far better to put forth an argument based on merit and to spend several years offering example, education and encouragement. Sadly, people who are hurt by the Church often do not return. And those who return often do not heal but instead retain the hurt for a lifetime. The doctor�s oath that begins with �First, do no harm� should have been paramount.

I am glad you have officially moved your position. No one is asking you to be disobedient to your Metropolitan. One can be obedient and ask for what is both correct and better. What I am asking is that you (and everyone) study the Liturgy and learn from other Churches that celebrate it correctly. As you do, and as you visit other Churches and experience the full Liturgy I am confident that you will fall in love with it and that it will become the center of your life.

I don�t know you so the following comment is a general one.

If Liturgy is your life, then you will understand everything � why the official Liturgy must be respected and embraced, and how it will grow the Church.

If Liturgy is not your life, then you will be puzzled as to why anyone cares about the details of the rubrics, the texts and the music; or puzzled as to why one might object when they are changed according the latest ideas of well-intentioned men.

Liturgy should be the primary way we � as Byzantine Christians � relate to the Lord. That is why those of us who have made the Byzantine Liturgy - in its official form - the very center of our lives have been so hurt by our bishops. The way we relate to God has been taken from us. We cannot live without it. We will petition for its restoration. But we may wind up in another Byzantine Church which allows it.

Thanks again for the discussion.

John

Well the English translation of the Ordinary of the Roman Missal was approved by Rome with horizontal inclusive language.

In the intro to the Pentitential Rite and at the Offeratory: "brothers and sisters"

In the Gloria: "peace on earth to people of good will"

In the Creed: "for us and our salvation"

Perhaps no we can dismiss the idea that Rome did not approve of the RDL or that our hierarchs disobeyed Rome in allowing horizontal inclusive language.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Dn,

Is this a comparison of "apples to apples" or "apples to oranges"?
Does not the National Conference of (Roman)Catholic Bishops have greater self-governing power than a tiny American "Sui Juris" Church of the South-West Rus' Rencension of the Constantinopolitan Particular Church tradition? Would not Rome be more lenient towards the American Roman Catholic Church because of it's huge size? Wouldn't Rome tend to be more concerned about the Eastern Particular Churches in union w/Rome because of possible ecumenical ramifications?

Ung

Ung,

No.

No, in fact they have less.

No.

Apparently not.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My apologies, the Creed does contain: "for us men".

Fr. Deacon Lance

The texts as found on the USCCB site.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/index.shtml

Fr. Dn.,

Well then there seems to be a possible double standard occuring here in the United States. Rome allows the NCCB in the US to use "for us men", but then says nothing (officially as of August 5th, 2008) about the "Sui Juris Byzantine Metropolitan Church of America" Church's use of "for us all" in the new RDL?

Ung

Yes. I agree.

I suppose Rome has no problem with gender neutral language. Rome approved the RDL and the Metropolitan promulgated it. Case closed. I do not foresee any type of reversal or revision--no matter how many letters are written. Disenfranchised Ruthenian Catholics will be forced to either find another Eastern Catholic Church or make the journey to Holy Orthodoxy.

R

I think the issue is not so straight forward. There have been various news reports that Rome allowed some gender neutral language to be retained from the existing translations for pastoral reasons (i.e., that it was already committed to memory by the faithful). We also saw that in Canada the one bishop noted that neither Rome nor the Canadian Bishops got what they wanted with the approval of the Canadian NRSV-Based Lectionary. It is not really correct to say that because Rome approved or compromised, such compromise now constitutes the new standard. I have not see explanations for each translation change, but it seems reasonable to consider that the retention of “brothers and sisters” might fall into this category. I don’t know about the Gloria. “Peace on earth to people of good will” might have been chosen as a compromise since the people already know “peace to his people on earth.” Explanations for the changes seem to be forthcoming.

As far as the RDL, it remains confusing. The three books that were approved and mandated carried an approval number from the Oriental Congregation (99/2001). But it is customary that such approval carries with it no authority unless made public. So it is very reasonable to suggest that the bishops promulgated the Revised Divine Liturgy on their own authority. One could also note that Father Taft has told more then a few people that he was the only one that reviewed the RDL texts submitted to Rome, that he checked them only for heresy and not accuracy. And we have seen his published statements rejecting Liturgiam Authenticam.

But, as I have noted before, the approval letter from the Orientale dated 31 March 2001 is just a month before the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam (7 May 2001). That was followed by the reorganization of the International Committee on English in the Liturgy and it was clear that direction was given to return to translations that were both authentic and accurate. Then came the creation of the Vox Clara Commission in 2002. I think it is very fair to state that in the six years between the 2001 approval letter and the 2007 promulgation the Council of Hierarchs had a responsibility to direct that the texts be reviewed to ensure conformance to the new directives that they be accurate.

Finally, note that removal of “men” in “for us men and our salvation” in the RDL is not an example of “horizontal inclusive language”. “Anthropos” and its English translation “men” are inclusive of all men from Adam and Eve forward until the final soul conceived before the Second Coming. Removing the word “men” potentially excludes all men from Adam and Eve forward excepting those physically present at that particular celebration. This type of language cannot really be called "inclusive" as it does not include anyone who was not already included. It is more correctly termed "gender neutral language".

It is not too late for the bishops to correct the problems with the RDL. I have spoken to this elsewhere but they could restore to themselves a large amount of good will from the clergy and laity by rescinding the Revised Divine Liturgy, making the official Ruthenian recension books normative, reprinting the old books with only the necessary corrections (respecting what has been memorized), and allowing freedom in music.

Please remember to pray for the Ruthenian bishops, for all bishops everywhere, and for all our clergy.

No. It is not too late. But do you really believe in your heart of hearts, that anything will be reversed or rescinded anytime soon? There was a time when I had great expectations for a speedy correction. But now I feel that the tragic RDL is here to stay for the long run.

I believe that it will be reversed or at least most of the major problems corrected, but I cannot guess the time frame. In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI issued an Apostolic Letter, "Summorum Pontificum", guaranteeing the right of Roman Catholic priests to celebrate the 1962 Missal, calling it the “extraordinary form” of the Roman Catholic Mass. I have every hope he will response favorably to appeals from the Ruthenian Catholic faithful that their priests be able to celebrate the normative version of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in a translation that is accurate and complete and in conformance with Liturgiam Authenticam.