Is there much difference in the english translation Divine Liturgies used by the Ukrainian Greek Catholics and the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics here in the US.

Yes. As much as between daylight and dark.

I'm surprised at this - can you expand please Sielos?

I'm surprised because in Australia the UGCC uses the revised Divine Liturgy in the same translation as the Ruthenians so far as I understand it.

I'd be glad to say some of the reasons why if I had set my alarm clock and hadn't waked up late - gotta get to Liturgy and then work afterwards...Also I'm going to be away from computer for a coupla days. I bet other forum members can, in the meantime, put in their 2 cents worth. That is, if anyone else finds the 2 versions as distinct to each other as I do.

I admit I prefer it in Ukrainian or Slavonic...

Yes, a very significant difference. Probably the only thing in common is "Lord, have mercy". The Synodal English translation was approved in 1987 with the publication of the Liturgikon and later the pew books.

Diak,

Can you please expand? Not living in the US, I have no idea what the differences are, and find it distressing that a sister church in the Byzantine family could differ so radically...

Some relevant links that may be of interest and for background:

The official Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension, that is, the common source for the Ukrainian and Byzantine Catholic churches. The following Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and Preparation Rite (Chrysostom Liturgy) is extracted from the Ruthenian Recension Služebnik.

The 1964/65 BCC Liturgicon which is a complete translation of the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension: Chrysostom Liturgy.

The Revised Divne Liturgy(RDL) 2006 liturgicon: RDL Chrysostom Liturgicon]

See also Study Texts of Translations of the Liturgical Books of the Ruthenian Recension.

Come on... I know that nobody likes the Ruthenian translation, including me, but the poster asked a serious question and this is a rather flip answer. They have much more in common than is different, although the differences are significant. I tried to do a search online, and the only thing I could find from a Ukrainian source is this. I'm not sure if this is the actual current translation used in Ukrainian parishes, however. It actually seems a lot like the previous Ruthenian translation, with a few differences. I'm not familiar enough with the Ukrainian translation to offer a solid comparison. On the occasions that I've attended a Ukrainian church, I haven't been so struck by the differences that I would say "night and day". I have thought "this is nice, I wish we said it this way instead".

Agreed - I too wish I could offer more educated commentary, but babochka sums it up well.

I have a cherished copy of the UGCC's Anthology (to which I refer often), and have been to many Ukrainian DLs, never feeling out of place or disoriented as a Ruthenian. In fact, the instances of overlap in our chant traditions are rather comforting and remind us of the common elements of our heritage.

Without the benefit of the level of scholarship required to make a well-supported comparison, I would say that the UGCC translation (i) is different in terms of the style of language used and (ii) lacks the "ever popular" inclusive language used in the RDL. They still chant of myrrh-bearing women and a paralytic man.

As an example, I was recently reviewing the Typical Psalms.

UGCC: Bless the Lord, O my soul, and let all that is within me bless His holy name.

RDL: Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all my being bless His holy name.

Different, yes. Substantively / theologically different? I couldn't say, but I wouldn't think so.

What is more perplexing to me is that two Eastern Catholic Churches of similar Slavic heritage could not simply collaborate and agree on a universal translation in English.

But alas, that ship has long sailed ...

Yes those differences, even seemingly small -- like homoiousios vs. homoousios of the 4th c. -- can be so significant. This is not a complete text in that it does not have the preparation rites and deacon parts and has some other abridgements. Of the portions most criticized in the RDL on this forum, this translation by the Ukrainian church should, by contrast, get very high approval. It also makes some needed improvements relative to the 1964/65 BCC liturgicon with which it has a lot in common, as does the RDL. But this Ukrainian version makes the right moves unlike the RDL which I see as a setback.

To this new Byzantine Catholic, but a long-time student of the Eastern Church, one of the most maddening experiences involving any of the Orthodox or Eastern Catholic groups is the plethora of translations of the liturgy and office hymns into English. Too many otherwise gifted clerics have decided that they know better how to translate the Greek and/or Slavonic texts and so impose them on their congregations or "sell" them to their eparchies. They mean well, but the result is that memorizing hymn and liturgy texts or teaching them for use outside the home parish is pointless. The same writ large confronts those moving from Ukrainian to Ruthenian or Greek to OCA. And yes, some of the translations are not that good, accurate, or beautiful- let's be frank. One of the complaints against liberalizing Protestant groups is that you never can tell what the worship will be like from one place to another. Hmmmm.... Makes me kinda appreciate Church Slavonic all the more!

It is an honest answer, although admittedly exaggerated a bit. There are some intentions in the Ektenies that are similar, but that is about the extent of the exact similarities. The question was not about "liking" anything, which is completely subjective. I am only referring to the English text, which is a different translation entirely. When the translation is different, even over a few words, it is different especially if you are trying to sing it. Those few words can make all the difference in phrasing when singing the text. And no, the text you linked to is not the UGCC Synodal English text.



As has already been mentioned consistency in translations has not been a thing of great importance amongst Eastern Christians. Rather than spending pages and pages of specific commentary on this thread, I would recommend you take the red Synodal English-Ukrainian Liturgikon and going through comparing the text to the RDL.


And your point is that they are different translations? That was mine as well.

It's a bit more than that. The RDL only allows the first verse of Psalm 102 to be taken. The following is Psalm 102 as taken in the typical UGCC pew book:
Bless the Lord, O my soul,* Blessed are You, O Lord.
Bless the Lord, O my soul,* and let all that is within me bless His holy Name.
Bless the Lord, O my soul,* and forget not all His benefits:
He forgives all of your iniquities,* He heals all your diseases;
He redeems your life from corruption,* He crowns you with mercy and compassion.
Compassionate and merciful is the Lord,* long-suffering and abounding in great mercy.
Bless the Lord, O my soul,* and all that is within me bless his holy Name.* Blessed are You, O Lord.

As I said I don't really wish to go blow-by-blow on every phrase of text, but it can be seen already from the First Antiphon that the UGCC Synodal text is very different from the RDL.


After 2006 it seems even farther away.

Yes, but just in the example given, it is clear that the two texts have much more in common than just "Lord, have mercy", which was your original response to the question.

I disagree, especially when trying to sing them. Even small differences can be vexing when trying to match texts to melodies. So taking one line of one translation is like taking seven lines of a different translation? I don't think so. Actually, I am starting to think my original observation not so much of an exaggeration.