Pulled this off the Melkite website. Very interesting. It was promulagted "ad experimentum" from February, 2009 through October 2010, at which point the Patriarch is to meet with the Bishops from English speaking countries to formally approve it on a permanent basis. I did a quick read of this,and from what I can see, it is quite good. The celebration is a "full" one. The priest is adressed by the deacon as "Master". The term "Orthodox" is used instead of "true faith". There is not one shred of political correctness, or of "horizontal inclusive" language. Enjoy!

http://www.melkite.org/PDF/LITURGY2009.pdf

There was some unhappiness about not saying "ages of ages" instead of "forever and ever." However, the explanation is that they are following use of English Bibles.

Actually, the so-called "Synodal" liturgy with just one antiphon is provided for.

There are two things I would suggest (were anyone to step out from behind a bush to ask me):

1. Please allow for the proper Ambo prayers.

2. In the petition for travelers, add "....and in the vastness of the heavens." Those in the space shuttle (and future space missions) are NOT traveling through the air.

Good point. "Ages of ages" is a more lieral translation, and the meaning is not lost to modern ears.



Yes, but the full celebration is "in there". Sadly, this is not the case in the Ruthenian translation. The abbreviation has become the "licit" norm for us.
There are two things I would suggest (were anyone to step out from behind a bush to ask me):



Yes, and a faithful translation is of the utmost importance. We are using a multiplicity of Ambo prayers, but some of them, because of "horizontal inclusive" spins to the translation make one cringe. There is one particular Ambo prayer which addresses Our Lord by saying, instead of "You became man for us", "You became a human being for us." I am no theologian, but this one might be really problematic in that Conciliar teachings (from the early Councils) tell us that Our Lord Jesus Christ is a "Divine being who took on human nature ". Would referring to Him as a "human being" in any way deny that He is a Divine Being, or does it just affirm that He took on human nature in addition to His Divinity? Does this translation of the prayer tend toward Arianism, or is my line of thought drifting toward Monophysitism?

At any rate, the translation is bad, and obscures the fact that Our Lord took on a male human nature, all, apparently in the name of modernity and political correctness.

(2.) As to space travel, I would see no problem with adding that to the ektenia (with proper Patriarchal approval, of course).

Dn. Robert

I honestly wonder how much affect this new translation will have, at least in the U.S. My parish hasn't even attempted to implement it. That being said, the translation we use and the "new" translation are pretty similar (nearly identical). We still use "ages of ages" and "God, be propitious to me..." Still, I have a copy and thoroughly enjoy the translation, as opposed to the RDL or even the Raya/DeVinc translations. I think it could use some work, but its a translation. What translation doesn't need any work?

There is one mistranslation which I've pointed out to them many times. The received Greek text of the prayer after the epiclesis prays for 'sobriety' or 'watchfulness' of soul not 'purity' or 'cleansing' of the soul. The difference is between the vowels 'eta' and 'iota' both pronounced identically in koine Greek. The problem is that the Melkite powers-that-be determined that the English translation had to follow the Arabic 'original' (sic!). The Arabic mistranslated the Greek word as if it had an iota instead of an eta.

I remember reading somewhere that others have made the same mistranslation.

Dn. Robert

We shall keep the English in line with the "official" (not "original") Arabic text of the liturgy. When it is updated, the English will follow suit.

There are several Melkite churches that use the Greek Divine Liturgy, and in fact most do from time to time, but there are few of the faithful who understand it.

On a side note, this is tremendously interesting thread to me, but should this not be somewhere else than in the Ruthenian RDL discussion folder?

While the two matters are similar, they are not intrisicly connected, and the issues affecting one are not those affecting the other.

Quid vobis videtur?

The Litany of the Catechumens is only taken if Catechumens are present, The first set of Angel of Peace petitions are surpressed in the Litany of the Gifts both shared with the RDL.



"Brothers and sisters in Christ" is used in the 5th petition of the Ektene(Ecumenic Petitions) shared with the RDL.

Of note is the provision for lay people to offer the petitions of the Ektene and join the priest in praying the Prayer of Thanksgiving after Communion.

But the option allows for more than one petition. It is still "fuller" than the RDL.



Perhaps one "shred", but this is minor. There is liberal use of the term "mankind".In the Creed, one finds "for us men and our salvation"



Interesting. I found the provision re: the Prayer, but could not find the provision re: the Ektene. To which page are you referring?

Fuller but not the "full" Liturgy and one shred is more than "not one shred".

From Appendix 6, Page 137:

"The Ektene after the Gospel may be shortened or varied, by asking preindicated
people, lay or not, to intone the petitions. The readers should stand
in the middle of the central aisle and form two groups facing each other, with
the Deacon, if present, standing between them. The Priest or the Deacon
should end each petition by proclaiming in a solemn tone: “We pray to You,
hear us and have mercy.” The first three petitions found on page 50 must be
maintained. The final petition of the Ektene, found on page 51, must always be
maintained as well, because it contains an invocation for the people present."

This sounds like a very... roman-catholic influence to me. Am I right? I feel that the byzantine catholic churches become increasingly distant to the original spirit and text of the liturgy... That is very sad for me! It is not in the tradition of the byzantine liturgy for the lay people to intone petitions...

Interesting question, BpBasil, and one that I thought about as well.

The audiences for the two subjects are rather identical and there had been quite a bit of interest, anticipation, curiousity, etc, among the Ruthenian community as to how the Melkite and Ukrainian retranslations were going to look compared to that of the Pittsburgh Metropolia.

It does occur to me that, shortcomings aside, it's unlikely to generate anywhere near the controversy that the RDL did and would quickly fade away into the archives of the F&W forum while, here (where most posting is to existing threads and thus threads are pushed down on a much less frequent basis), it will remain more readily available for comparison, etc, for a longer period.

I'm not the principal moderator of this particular forum, so I'm going to leave the matter to be decided by someone else.

Many years,

Neil

\\Perhaps one "shred", but this is minor. There is liberal use of the term "mankind".In the Creed, one finds "for us men and our salvation" \\

"Mankind" is a perfectly proper rendering of "anthropos." Usually I've heard "Philanthropos" rendered as "Lover of mankind."

For that matter, in Greek, most of the Epistles are introduced with the word "Adelfoi," which is the plural of both "adelfos" (brother) and "adelfe" (sister).

Therefore, to begin the English epistle with "Brothers and sisters" would not be inaccurate in itself.

\\"The Ektene after the Gospel may be shortened or varied, by asking preindicated
people, lay or not, to intone the petitions. "\\

It might be tried in a few places once or twice, but will never catch on.

One of the points here is that the Melkites are not forbidding a fuller Liturgy as have the Ruthenians.

The Litany after the Gospel, for example, has been missing in most Melkite parishes for a very long time. The Greeks also have mostly lost this Litany. I have been told that the Ecumenical Patriarch is slowly restoring all the litanies to the Liturgy. bpbasilphx might be correct that it will not catch on, but allowing these litanies would not thwart the work of the Spirit should He be desire that they be prayed.

As to "brethren" and "brothers and sisters" we have already noted that those who want a single inclusive term can use "brethren" and those who want to introduce gender differences can use "brothers and sisters". The new translation of the Roman Mass has "Brethren (Brothers and Sisters)" as an accommodation to those who insist on it. But the larger point of Liturgiam Authenticam is that where the faithful might lack understanding the Church should teach them, rather then water down the faith.

For the most part the Revised Divine Liturgy (Ruthenian) does nothing but copy the worst of the Latin ideas that occurred after Vatican II. It is ironic that while the Latins are correcting things that didn't work with their "Reform of the Reform" the Ruthenians are insistent on copying these things that didn't work.

Want to see catechumens prayed for and then dismissed? Don't go a Ruthenian parish as they removed most of the petitions and don't dismiss them. Go to the Roman Catholic parish near my house. They have what appears to be two times during the year when they have formal programs for catechumnens (esp during Advent and Great Lent). During those times during the Mass they invite the catechumens forward, pray for them, and then dismiss them.

I think, John, what bpbasilphx was refering to not catching on, was the part about allowing lay people to read the petitions of the litany after the gospel. Talk about a latinization.

They most certainly are, the Aitesis after the Great Entrance is gone same as the RDL. They may have supressed less than the RDL but they have still forbidden the "full" Liturgy.



The Little Litanies have been missing for long time in most Ruthenian parishes.



I see no option to use brethren, brothers and sisters is inserted in the same petition as the RDL.



Letting lay people take the deacons petitions is considered one of the worst Latin ideas after Vatican II. The Ruthenains didn't copy that one. I also note the Melkites mandated the Anaphora be aloud.



They removed none of the petitions they joined 4 of them into one. As to dismissing the catechumens this is one of the bad ideas criticized in the post Vatican II Roman Rite. It has been criticized as disruptive of the Mass and irrational in logic in todays Church. Why dismiss those preparing for Baptism when non-Catholics indeed non-Christians may remain?

\\I have been told that the Ecumenical Patriarch is slowly restoring all the litanies to the Liturgy. bpbasilphx might be correct that it will not catch on, but allowing these litanies would not thwart the work of the Spirit should He be desire that they be prayed.\\

While I was specifically referring to laity intoning some petitions, saying that this practice will never be wide-spread and (in my opinion) will justly die out soon, I also agree that the Holy Spirit is the ultimate guide of and is indeed what makes it DIVINE Liturgy, and not merely human liturgy. This is not to say that new petitions cannot be composed and authorized for use as pastoral need indicates.

Abp. Dmitri of Dallas once said that the liturgy has never been pure, in the sense of being celebrated exactly in one century as it was the previous one.

As far as the Litanies after the Entrance and before the Lord's Prayer, if one is suppressed or omitted, it should the be latter, as this one is the later addition (or so I've been told).

bpbasilphx,

I tried to send you a private PM, but it said you were over the limit. When you're able, could you contact me via PM?

Thanks!

Just a disclaimer. I really don't have a problem with the new Melkite Liturgy other than lay people doing the petitions. I just find it unusual that the RDL got so much criticism and the Melkite Liturgy shares many of the same features and and nobody has anything bad to say about it.

Thanks to both you and John K for the clarification. I agree that laymen should not be leading petitions.

Actually, there was quite a discussion about this when it first appeared (about a year ago?). But we don't have as many Melkites participating here as we do Ruthenians (there are about 220 Ruthenian parishes vs 35 Melkite parishes, numberwise there are probably 20,000 Ruthenians vs 10,000 Melkites in the USA (my estimates, not the 'official' claims)).

Further, my understanding from a Melkite I know is that is not really used in too many parishes, but really only at the cathedral in Newton. [No one ever expects the Melkite parish here in Virginia to ever use it.]

Even further, it did not come with mandated music that completely changed what was memorized, and with threats to the clergy that "retirement income was a gift from the bishop" and cries of disloyalty to anyone who asked questions. I could go on.

Of course, the major loss here is that of opportunity. The various Greek Catholic Churches could have worked together to prepare common texts for common texts. Even if it was limited to the clergy texts it would have been a good start. But judging from the issues with both the Ruthenian Revised Divine Liturgy and the 2009 Melkite text it is probably good that there is not one common text.

That is irrelevant. They were used in places and they were missed when these prayers were forbidden.

Further, the Liturgical Instruction is very clear on restoring to official forms, not inventing whatever you want. Over the years the people have never asked for the abbreviations. Most have come from Latin-leaning bishops and priests.


Merging 4 petitions into one is not the same. The faithful barely have a chance to pray "Lord, have mercy". It was done only because Father Petras wanted the priest's prayer to be intoned out loud.

I would suggest that non-Catholics (those outside the Catholic / Orthodox faithful) should not remain and should be dismissed.

As to your other points, I agree, some of them are in the 2009 Melkite Liturgicon. There is the old adage, just because everyone else is jumping off the cliff is it necessary for you to do so?

So everyone is disobeying the decree of the Archbishop?

DECREE
+
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
ONE GOD FOREVER AND EVER. AMEN.

WHEREAS, His Beatitude, our Holy Patriarch Gregorios III,
together with the Bishops of the English-speaking Eparchies of the
Melkite Greek Catholic Church have approved the final draft of the
official English translation of the Divine and Holy Liturgy of Saint
John Chrysostom,

WE, ARCHBISHOP CYRIL,
By the grace of God, Eparch of Newton,

HEREBY DECREE that this English translation of the Divine
and Holy Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom herein attached, is the
sole, official translation of the Divine and Holy Liturgy of Saint
John Chrysostom to be used by all the Clergy in all the churches of
the Eparchy of Newton whenever this Liturgy is prescribed to be
served, and that all other usages are hereby suppressed.

LET THIS DECREE take effect on the fifteenth day of February
in the Year of Our Lord, the two thousand and ninth, and remain in
effect until the last day of October in the Year of Our Lord, the two
thousand and tenth, at which time His Beatitude together with the
Bishops of the English-speaking Eparchies of the Melkite Church
will convene to give final approval to the text.

WHEREUNTO, I hereby set my hand and affix my seal, this
twenty-seventh day of January in the Year of Our Lord, the two
thousand and ninth, the Feast of the Transfer of the Holy Relics of
our Father among the Saints John Chrysostom.

+ Archbishop CYRIL Bustros
Eparch of Newton

Father Lance,

Yes, I see it at the beginning of the pdf liturgicon.

What about the parishes in Pittsburgh that are not yet doing the Revised Divine Liturgy?

And the parishes that are shelving the teal books and replacing them with home-made books that are text only (despite the mandate from the Council of Hierarchs that only the teal books are allowed and all else is prohibited)?

I'm only reporting what I've been told by a Melkite friend.

John

Which goes to show how effective mandates are.

John, Just another clarification. Since the rubrics use the term "lay people," I think that means everyone, laymen and laywomen, could read the petitions to the litany, not just laymen.

John,

Check any dictionary. The term "laymen" refers to any man who is not ordained and all women. This is exactly the point of Liturgiam Authenticam (#30). Teach the faithful the correct meaning of the terms, and don't change the terms because people lack education.

John

That is one of my points.

Firstly, the bishops have rejected the clear directives on Liturgy from Rome (that they restore to official forms and allow the Church to be formed by those forms and that they translate completely and correctly). One of the issues here is the whole Church knows about the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam. Knowing that the Council of Hierarchs has been disobedient to these directives (relying on an approval that is both secret and strange) how can the bishops then demand obedience to their disobedience?

Really the only way forward is to set the stage for organic development and then let the Spirit take over.

I have found, and seen in my own life, that people don't want things shoved down their throat and, when that happens, they reject whatever is being shoved. It is much better to present people with the idea and the product and let them embrace it because it is good (or reject it because it is not good). By banning the Ruthenian Liturgy in favor of one created in a hotel conference room the bishops have told the faithful that their whole liturgical history is not worthy of public celebration. And - by extension - that they are not worthy.

I continue to recommend that the bishops rescind the mandate for the RDL and replace it with a complete, corrected translation that is very accurate and has a consistent style, and that they allow the old melodies and settings that people have memorized. Someone pointed out to me recently that Ruthenians will probably have to close half their parishes in the next 10 years and that it is immoral to take away from the people the songs they knew and loved in their final days. I agree.

I realize that comparison between both the two editions (Melkite and Ruthenian) and the processes employed in their implementation is inevitable, but I'd ask that we try and limit this thread, as much as possible, to the titled topic, rather than have it become another grounds on which to debate the Metropolia's RDL.

Many years,

Neil

I respect that the Melkite Greek Catholic bishops have the authority to make adjustments to the Divine Liturgy as bishops, clergy and faithful see fit. I won't pass judgment.

May they be guided by the Holy Spirit and God grant them many blessed years.

Fr Deacon Paul

The originator of the subject post did put it in this forum, presumably with purpose. Although the RDL is not noted explicitly in the title nor the initial post, the latter clearly indicates a comparison with the RDL is intended.

This forum seems the proper place for a comparison between this Melkite and the RDL approaches. Also, there is a previous posting ( link ) on the subject in the (more) "neutral" Faith & Worship forum for those who prefer comments rather than comparisons.

I wonder what process the Melkite bishops used to discern the fitness as seen from the perspective of the "clergy and faithful," and how the same was done by the BCC for their similar promulgations.

Deacon,

Posters put threads where they choose - and they get moved regularly.

My comment stands - this thread is for discussion of the titled subject, including what, why, and how.

Anyone wanting to engage in a comparison of the 2 liturgical texts or the methodology used in implementing them can open a thread for that purpose.

Neil,

As you are a Global Moderator I respect your authority in this matter and its application, though I think this is misguided (as apropos of the RDL itself!).

I note that you have posted in this thread this opinion:

[emphasis added]

And I have agreed that this is the appropriate place (though the subject lacks an explicit RDL reference).


Then, however:



And then:



If this is followed, and only the "titled subject" is addressed, then the RDL need not be a consideration. The stated purpose of this forum, however, is clear:

[emphasis added] link

I note again that this thread, here, with the sense of a comparison implied, is in the right forum. It is serving a useful purpose and has generated informative comparisons between the two approaches. To move it serves no purpose, to let it stay, insisting it be limited to the titled subject, contradicts the stated scope of this RDL forum.

As I noted above parenthetically about the RDL itsef, hopefully this will not become another example of authority's my will be done over good sense.

You might be interested in the Byzantine Rambler's assessment of the new Melkite text. http://byzantineramblings.blogspot.com/2010/02/critique.html#more

Deacon Tony,

Try this analogy to understand my reasoning - consider this forum as a course in Ruthenian Liturgics and this thread as a course in Melkite Liturgics. You read, study, debate, analyze the ancestry, development, etc of each and then you move on to Comparative Liturgics, in which you apply what was learned in the other two courses to a comparison of the two.

It may be parochial on my part, but I consider that the proposed Melkite revision merits its own discussion (and you are correct, there is an existing thread in F&W, but in that forum it is isolated and will soon sink to the depths). That discussion being had (and likely to be ongoing until we see what the final approved version looks like), it deserves to be available for purposes of comparison - this forum provides the best opportunity for that to happen. But, if a single thread tries to serve both purposes, we will have:



An, on we go, off into a tangent that will, 3 pages later, be unrecognizeable as belonging to its titled thread.

So, consider it, if you choose, to represent but that's my logic. My earlier instruction stands.

Many years,

Neil

Indeed, a fine illustration of the use of authority -- a Melkite only discussion in the RDL forum it will be. If I may (again) note just for the record:

[emphasis added] link

Amen.

Has this addition been printed. And if so, where can one obtain a hard copy. I don't see it listed at Sopia Press.

As I believe that it is still 'experimental' (I think that is the term being used), the only readily available version of which I'm aware is the PDF linked in the original post.

If I'm wrong, I have no doubt that someone will correct me.

Many years,

Neil

We're still not using it. Don't really see any point to the exercise, actually.

So who prints the editions you have at church. Or does the parish make it's own copies.

The Raya Liturgikon is still readily available (2001 edition).

Link to where it can be purchased?.

Thanks!

That is not a Litourgikon. It only contains the basic text of the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom.

It is still to be used "ad experimentum" and looks, from the feeling at the last synod, as being approved for use as our translation in English.

We printed sufficient copies for the bishops and clergy, I believe, in Lebanon. But we did not print official copies for the people, in case any texts changed.

Presumably most parishes would have used whatever electronic means is at their disposal to reprint or project the new text.

I for one do not see any reason to change from what we are using (essentially the Raya text) for one which is fundamentally inferior in quite a number of ways. One gets the impression that all these recent translations are written by people who have very little capability for writing in English or feel for the English language--and I include in that quite a number of American-born, university educated clerics. This should not surprise: I deal with graduate theses on a regular basis, and even my low expectations are constantly being disappointed. My wife, a professional translator in charge of setting standards for and the hiring of translators, tells me that only people scoring in the top five percent in reading comprehension have the potential to make good translators.

Stuart:

Christ is in our midst!!

And I thought I was the only one who stumbles over much of what passes for written communication in the last number of years. Unfortunately, I think that the push for pliitically correct language in the academy is at the root of the problem you identify. And I'm not sure how one remedies a structural, institutional problem with such long standing support from those now in control of the education establishment.

I haven't seen the new translation, but from new translations I am familiar with in the Latin Church, they are written by people who don't pray. Putting words together on paper do not make for good prayer. As Metropolitan Anthony says in his books on prayer, a man should pray for a number of years the prayers written by others to get the "feel" for prayer and the way that the Church prays before he goes off to compose prayers.

Bob

It's not just political correctness that is to blame. Grammar is no longer taught, nor is writing stressed as much as it ought to be. But, as far as liturgical translation goes, I would point a finger at the decline in rhetoric and a failure to understand the fundamental orality of liturgical texts--which, like the Bible, were meant to be read aloud. I recently read an article by a woman who teaches people to read and understand the King James Bible. She made an important point: this was a book meant to be read aloud, and when one does so, the first thing one notices is how well the sentences flow, unforced and without a hint of awkwardness. Moreover, and aside from the issue of some arcane vocabulary and obsolete terminology, most of the problems of comprehension also fall by the wayside.

The rule that I learned, early on, and by shameless plagiarism of good writers, is to write as one speaks, and to speak plainly in a manner that conveys the plain meaning of what you want to say. Underlying the problem of poor writing is the problem of poor speaking--most people can't even say a proper English sentence, let alone put one on paper.

In earlier times, people would say "let us hear that play."

Just reading Shakespeare, as another example, is to ignore the manner it was intended to be experienced. It never occured to me to understand the Bible, much less the KJV, in the same sense. The same concepts apply. People who can't make heads or tails of Hamlet or Lear in a class see a live performance and are blown away.

I know that the late Archbishop Raya's translation moved one of the Litanies to a different place and he used the Epiclesis of St. John Chrysostom in the Liturgy of St. Basil, and those need to be fixed, but there was also a 1956 translaton of the Liturgy that came from Rome that was just fine. There were no problems with it. What I'm afraid of is a watered-down set of Liturgies that take away the meaning... that's exactly what happened to the Latins. There's no reason why the 1956 English translation of the Greek Liturgy can't be used.

Yes, the 1956 translation of the Liturgy of John Chrysostom was the best one as well as the one that Capella Romana sings on it's Divine Liturgy in English CD, which is from england.

I have created an EPUB (i.e., eBook) version for use by the people, if anyone is interested. Available in Arabic or English.

It does not contain all the rubrics, nor all possible variations. It is more in the style of a Western pew book.

Dear Matta:
How does one obtain it?

I love that recording. It's one reason my gaze is fixed eastward.