Only Chrysostom has received approval from the Holy See, which apparently has been sitting on Basil, the Presanctified, Vespers and Orthros (and long may they sit!). If "revised" versions of those services are being celebrated, the texts are either drafts or unofficial variants.

From the inception of the promulgation of RDL, we were also given Basil liturgicons. While the Chrysostom books have a dark green cover, the Basil ones are tan. As far as I know, the Basil Liturgy version of RDL has the same level of approval as Chrysostom. I hesitate to speak more authoritatively because I am at work, and don't have access to my books. I can only imagine what can be done to the other services. The Basilian texts of the Divine Office are already objectionable on many fronts. May God spare us!

Dn. Robert

I get the point. Where are the official texts published? And if they can be found somewhere in the US, Church Bookstore or something similar. In any case, I realize that something must be done in order to return to an older or better translation of the Liturgy.

Complete? No.

The DL of Sts. John and Basil?
http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgicon_2006/2007%20Liturgy%20-%20Music.htm

The IELC and MCI are not done with the full panopoly of texts.

What the MCI has done is at
http://www.metropolitancantorinstitute.org/Publications.html

We've got Matins, Vespers, and DL's of St John and St Basil, and soon, presanctified, but not consolidated. Reader services don't have books out, and there is consideration of deaconal forms for hours and Typica with Communion.

What must be so frustrating is that there are so many translations of the DL out there. It isn't as though this is the first attempt to translate from either Greek or Slavonic. The whole thing about approval seems to be a smoke screen to me. If the Ukrainians have an approved translation and the Melkites have one and the Romanians have one, what's to prevent the BCC from just shifting over to one of these? Of course, there is the issue of who controls . . ., control being the operative word.

BOB

Here is a link to one of our parishes which has posted PDF copies of our liturgicons (amongst other things).

Dn. Robert

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgicon_2006/2007%20Liturgy%20-%20Music.htm

Thank you! I have already read those texts. I was wondering when this idea of a new "revised" Liturgy came in the mind of your bishops? There were any particular aspects that asked for this new version? Pastoral reasons?

And this is a problem. . .why? As the ICEL translation of the Missale Romano (and the NAB) and the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission's "translation" of the Ruthenian recension show, the problem with one "authorized" translation is you are stuck with it for good or ill (usually ill). With multiple translations competing, one can compare them against each other, take what is good from each, discard what is faulty. Let a thousand translations bloom--and let them be properly peer-reviewed (the peer review process of the RDL being just about as rigorous as that applied to global warming models).

The complete, authorized Slavonic recension was compiled in the 1940s by the Oriental Congregation at the behest of the "Ruthenian" (i.e., Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn) bishops because neither was willing to rely on the other to do it. The 1942 recension, while not perfect (it is full of typos and retains some latinizations since discarded) was widely considered a model of liturgical scholarship.

Unfortunately, none of the Ruthenian bishops in the United States accepted what they had asked Rome to provide, as a result of which the entire liturgicon has never been translated into English, let alone celebrated in English. The RDL originated as a mandate to (finally) provide a full and accurate translation of the Slavonic texts. It does not take either a rocket scientist or a liturgical scholar to see that the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission did something entirely different--they created a new "American" liturgy and then made it mandatory on all.

Think of it as "Elkoism with a human face". But, under the silk glove remains the iron fist.

Hegumen Nicholas was not without blame in this. He overstepped his bounds trying to erect a women's monastery, a power which canon law does not grant him. It went downhill from there.

It was much deeper than that. There seemed to be episcopal resentment against the monastery from its inception (with the exception of Bishop George). Furthermore, Hegumen Nicholas was quite forthright in his insistence upon restoring the fullness of the liturgical life of the Metropolitan Church, including both regular celebration of the Divine Praises and the Divine Liturgy in its completeness. His address at Orientale Lumen was a clarion call, and from that time onward, the knives were out. Once Bishop George retired, it was only a matter of time. The monks of Holy Resurrection represent everything our bishops loathe--including an alternative source of spiritual authority within the Church.

Actually, "it" is much deeper than what you post, and I would not classify "it" as episcopal resentment of the monastic witness. "It" began during the later years of Bishop George's episcopacy, developed during the vacancy and the early years of Bishop William's episcopacy, and culminated with HRM's transfer to Bishop John-Michael's jurisdiction. No Eparch or Administrator prevented Fr Abbott Nicholas to celebrate the liturgical offices in their fullness. That these liturgical offices are being celebrated with various degrees of regularity among the parishes of the Eparchy of Van Nuys points to the reality that not everyone of our faithful lives within the clarion call for vespers, matins, or the hours. If the knives were out (and they were not), it was not over the celebration of the liturgical services.

For practicality, I for one would rather see an urban monastic presence.

Stuart:

My point about so many translations was that the Powers-th-Be seem to think they have to reinvent the wheel over and over. Why not start with something already extant and simply revise or refine the existing language? Or better yet, why not simply adopt someone else's translation and use it? Or even better allow parishes to choose formt he existing ones?

BOB

My sentiments exactly. But the Powers-That-Be prefer to control everything themselves, something which was not even possible until the invention of the printing press. Before that time, no two Liturgicons were alike.

When we have monks coming out our ears, we can think about it. In the meanwhile, a rural presence on both coasts is badly needed.