Another thread has talked about the cutting of the antiphons, and the litanies between them. But that is not the thing that disturbs me most about the proposed new translation. I find it very worrying, and I wonder if there is an agenda behind some of this translation work?

Why are we embracing "inclusive language" at a time when the Roman Catholic Church is being instructed to step back from this experiment?

Rome doesn't approve of contrived "inclusive language" in the Liturgy, and has issued very concrete prohibitions against it, this can be found on the Vatican website.

I have the official book distributed this year for Good Friday, and it contains some examples of what worries me, these are only a few illustrations, but there are many more.

I compare it to a copy of Mother Mary & Bishop Kallistos Triodion, and Menaion, which I am told, is a very faithful translation. I compare them with the new official texts put out by the Archbishop, for the Byzantine Catholic Church.

Mother Mary.
"...and he who loves mankind is raised upon the Cross."
New Liturgy.
"...and the Lover of us all is lifted up on the wood."


Mother Mary.
"Lo, our restoration is now made manifest to us: God is ineffably united to men."
New Liturgy.
"Behold our restoration is now revealed. God beyond words is united with humanity."

Mother Mary.
"Down from the Tree Joseph of Arimathea .... 'Glory to Thy self-abasement, O Thou who lovest Mankind'."
New Liturgy.
When the Arimathean took you.... O lover of humanity, glory to your condescension."

Dismissal of the current Liturgy.
"... for He is gracious and he loves mankind."
Dismissal of the New Liturgy.
"...for Christ is good and loves us all."

Why for example has the second Sunday before Christmas (formerly the "Sunday of the Holy Forefathers, the Patriarchs") become the "Sunday of the Ancestors"?

The question of "Inclusive Language" raises red flags in the Church, and is very controversial. Without going into all the reasons Rome has forbidden translators to go that way, is it enough to know that Rome forbids it?

Nick

Nicholas,

Rome has not forbidden horizontal inclusive language, i.e. changing brethren to brothers and sisters, mankind to humankind, etc. It does forbid vertical inclusive language like changing Son of God to Child of God, Father to Parent, or changing things like Psalm 1: Blessed is the man to Blessed are those, since the Psalm is messianic and refering to Christ.

Personally, I can't stand inclusive language of any sort and think it silly to change mankind to humanity but I will live with it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

So-called "inclusive language" is a debasement of language, and goes hand in hand with other linguistic debasements which certain translations resort to. This is a serious matter, since the gift of intelligent speech is one of the most important differences between mankind and the animals.

Incognitus

inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy - I am speachless!

Orthodoxy here we come,
Right back where we started from....

Is outrage!

Dear Brethren and Sistern, Christ is Risen!
I concur with Incognitus in his opinion, expressed below. Having to play endless games of politically correct speech in secular life, it would grieve me greatly to see the sacred dragged down to this level. I do hope that no one proposes to change the wording in the Greek or Slavonic versions of the divine services to be gender neutral, or whatever is the term de'jour!

Photius, Reader

Christ is Risen! To Incognitus and Photius who have greatly illumined these question threads, be assured of my heartfelt Paschal greetings and assent to your posts.

Dear Diak, In Truth He is Risen!

While I appreciate the compliment, please be aware that it is through no virtue of my own; rather, my name takes the credit for illumining!

Likewise! Let us embrace one another ... and sing, "Christ is Risen from the dead ..."!

Hoping to exchange more enlightening posts with you on this earth,

Photius

The use of inclusive language is one of the most tragic and embarrassing elements that will haunt the "new translation". Rome has been very vocal over the years in its disapproval of this phenomenon. It spoke, of course, basically to the Latin church because no one could have truly forseen that such practice would enter into the Eastern churches. The use of such language has not been introduced by the will of the majority people or the majority of the clergy, but in most cases by nuns who remain among the very few in this country still holding on to this sixties notion of eliminating all pereceived male reference in speech, thus proverbially oppressing the oppressors. Intelligent, successful and powerful women have long ago abandoned this notion realizing that if one has to go about saying he/she is equal or change language to somehow prove it it only shows that there really is no equality. Equality only comes about when an individual is confident that he/she is equal and shows it in action, not by trying to change the world to conform to whatever minority view is held. Attempts to change language prove nothing other than a few individuals are still insecure in the fact that they are equal. Sadly, it is this insecurity that will keep these individuals prisoners of their perceived injustice and no change in language will ever be of help.

MJ, I would also posit that these sorts of innovations will also insure that the gulf between Greek Catholics and Orthodoxy will remain if not widen. That is not what it is supposed to be about.

Are we really being faithful to the Holy See as expressed in Orientale Dignitas, Orientale Lumen, and Orientale Ecclesiorum, to restore a more traditional practice and praxis in our Churches? Or are we, as in many things, simply lagging behind the Romans in taking some of the worst aspects and approaches of their "liturgical reform" and just getting to them now?

Why am I not surprised by this outrage against inclusive language? I for one, am delighted to hear that someone in the Catholic Church has the courage to stand up for women, and women's rights.

Byzantine rite Archbishop Schott is to be praised for standing up to the right wing lunatic fringe so vocal in the Catholic Church today. Somebody in the Catholic Church has to take a stand, and it is refreshing to find a bishop who is supportive of women.

I am very surprised and saddened that these innovations (mainly inclusive language, can't really comment on the liturgy...yet) that have been a thorn to many of us Latins have reached my Eastern brethern.

Be patient and careful when dealing with them, once embedded they are difficult and painful to remove, leaving wounds and divisions.

james

Political correctness has no place in the Church.
Why should the Church bow before this form of secularism?

God help us all!

Ungcsertezs

Christ is risen!
That sediment is exactly what I posted earlier concerning reciting the Anaphora aloud ... it is widening the gap, which is quite obvious to me; as an Orthodox Christian, I perceive that many Byzantine Catholics wish to play experimentation ... go though the immeadiate post vatican II stage of their Latin bretheren ... and have no interest in the Byzantine Rite in any meaningful usage of that phase.

Photius, Reader

That doesn't sound too bad.

In fact, there is a http://www.acrod.org about 2 miles from my house. I have met the priest and his wife they are lovely people.

Perhaps God is calling me in another direction.

Most of the Orthodox I have met are also lovely people, and they hold no notions of adapting the Church to the modern world. For some strange reason, they think that concept is totally backward. Can you believe?

Dear Anna P.,

I believe one hundred percent in the equality of women. They have always been equal, although sadly not always treated as such. However, changing language to accomodate some perceived inequity does not show equality but instead helps retain the notion that women are a minority that need to be catered to. It is not unlike the debate a few years ago as to whether or not to make "ebonics" part of the official language as taught in schools. This practice would have not had any benefit for the African-Americans but would have helped to foster the sad myth that they were somehow a group that could never be on par with others so we needed to patronize them. Changing society's views is important in all areas where there has been injustice. Creating a new language or words, however, only perpetuate inequality, which should be no one's goal.

Now this is curious. Inclusive language is out because Rome says so, but the new translation is out despite the fact that Rome says yes to it.
I remark on this despite the fact that my observations will make no difference, because this has become an emotional issue, and it is not simply a linguistic question, it is a reaction against the whole feminist movement. But there are different kinds of feminism. Some are radical and extreme and divisive and heretical. However, I think we should pay some attention to the position of women, and there are some moderate, reasonable forms of feminism. Orthodoxy in America is not a monolith against all women! A common translation was made about ten years ago, by a blue ribbon panel of Orthodox scholars, which was rejected, but which also took into consideration language about women, and was actually more inclusive than our present translation. See also the Orthodox International Symposium at Rhodes in 1988 on the place of women.
There is a particular problem in the English language about the use of the word “man” and “men.” All conservatives that I know say: in English the word “man” is equivalent to “human being - male and female.” However, it does seem that there is an ambiguity. So Rome can authorize an official English translation of a particular document and title it “Why Only Men Can be Ordained to the Priesthood,” and we all know what it means. If “men” is not ambiguous, then they should have used the word “males.” The original text in Greek uses “anthropos” and this word has no ambiguity in Greek, it means “a member of the human race,” or so Greek scholars tell me. The problem then becomes one of translation.
Yes, some political correctness is silly. And so the strident cries, “No secularism in the Church.”
Secularism = feminism = inclusive language = etc. But it not all the same. People, we speak the same language that the secular world speaks, otherwise we could not speak to it or with it or, for that matter, with anybody! It saddens me that we harden our hearts against the legitimate - and I want to underline and emphasize the word “legitimate” - concerns of women. My faith is this: some forms of horizontal inclusive language are admissible, because, after all, we have to say what we believe - and what I believe is that Jesus died on the Cross to save both men and women. Amen, brothers and sisters, and Anna P. Sadly for us weak men, it was the women who remained faithful to Jesus to the Cross, except for John, and it was the women to whom the risen Christ first appeared.

Dear Father David,
CHRIST IS RISEN! And forgive my inability to resist a cheap shot. You write that "Rome can authorize an official English translation of a particular document and title it “Why Only Men Can be Ordained to the Priesthood,” and we all know what it means." So we do. And if we are told that "A man-eating tiger has gone loose from the zoo", we all know what that means too.
Now to get serious - Rome is a big place, with lots of people in it holding various views on various matters. The Church is infinitely bigger, and also includes over a billion people, making diversity of views inevitable. So there is no cause for surprise that one does not find total linguistic consistency in the writings of different people in different departments of the Holy See, nor is it surprising that one finds multiple responses to certain pronouncements. There is also a tendency to select from the publications of the Holy See what interests the reader - the last pontificate saw an exponential increase in such publication, to the point that no one could seriously attempt to read them all with keen attention.
As to the matters at hand, it's highly probable that most of those interested have developed their linguistic opinions without waiting for Rome to dictate either how to think, or how to speak English.
It's not quite accurate to say that we are speaking the language of the secular world around us, if only because that secular world around us is not univocal. Moreover, we cannot avoid the need for some specialized vocabulary and expressions. When the auto mechanic tells me what's wrong with the car, he is apt to use his own specialized vocabulary and expressions; when the physiotherapist tells me what's wrong with my left arm and what to do about, the physiotherapist likewise uses a specialized vocabulary and expressions. Such is life.

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

It is only my opinion, I know. But "inclusive language" is out, because it is a mistake. It is silliness, and other Othodox Churches will laugh at what we have done.

Again, this is another reason why I simply do not believe that Rome has given its approval, or "said yes" to this Liturgy. Rome approves of this sort of thing? I don't think so.

I am not a feminist, nor a masculist for that matter , but I can see how some women may feel that the use of a masculine noun or pronoun to reflect all people is a thing of the past. Such gender-inclusivity or gender-neutrality can get out of hand (like those who won't use words like "history" or something), but I don't think it is wrong, or some sort of concession to PCness, to think of some women's opinion when translating liturgical texts.

When it comes to a translation, certain things are not negotiable; no matter what others may want, the Trinity is always Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But it seems that other terms and words are purely stylistic, like "Lover of mankind" vs. "Love of humankind" vs. "Lover of humanity" vs. "Lover of our kind" vs. "Friend of Man" vs. "Man-befriending God." I say leave it to linguists, translators, poets and cantors to make suggestions.

All this could be considered as part of a larger issue. I think that we in the East need to come to grips with a lot of our liturgical texts. Most were written in male monasteries, so we might have a sticheron that starts off "Brothers..."; it is always amusing to hear that sung by a group of women during a service that is attended primarily by women. Other texts, especially later compositions, are very polemical and can be viewed as offensive, even by those in the church. I always wonder how Orthodox Christians of Jewish descent, such as the Hieromartyr Alexander Menn, felt when they heard the Great Week hymnography that comes across as saying the church is a Gentile, "Jew-Free" entity. We shouldn't shy away from these texts; they exist, and they are part of our tradition. But, I don't think that looking at them critically, especially when translating, is a bad thing.

Dave

May I state something quickly, I think that the liturgies and prayers developed from and mirror Holy Scripture,the Holy Fathers and Tradition should be approached very carefully and cautiously, not amplifying or changing their original intentions.

Guess I'm influenced currently due to reading and studying St.Athanasius's Letter to Marcellinus.

james

I agree. We must not allow a non-Christian ideology to infect the liturgy of the Church. If the Church seeks to be contemporary she will stand for nothing.

Christ is risen!

Can someone please explain to me with ALL the problems that are facing the Church why it is so important for our Church to work on new Translations of the Liturgy?

Really, aren't there more important things like:
* Preaching the gospels to all nations instead of closing Churches.
* Taking a more proactive Pro-Life stance!
* Insuring our children are SAFE at Church.
* Helping the needy both with finance and spiritual.
* Recruiting new priest.
* Removing none Eastern elements in the Church (ie. stain glass windows)
* etc. and so forth.

I can think of a hundred things more important than changing the Liturgy. I would really like someone to please give me an honest explaination.

Yours in the risen Christ!

A very good question.

Inclusive language often creates more questions than it answers. If Christ no longer loves mankind, but now loves 'humanity' does that mean I am no longer to love God, but I am commanded to love 'divinity'. It seems so impersonal, and so cold. Not a very attractive religion.

Exactly!!!

But the modernists do want to hear this stuff. They are too busy taking us down the so called road of enlightenment.

I could see if the modernists had one thing to point at as an accomplishment but all of the modernizing has been a utter failure.

Consider the following sad developments over the years:

1) I can't find a single Ruthenian Catholic Church where Vespers is celebrated. No, Vespers with liturgy does not count.

2) Chopped up liturgies because going over an hour is 'too much'.

3) Opening and closing of the royal doors at proper times completely ignored

4) No curtain behind the royal doors

5) Confessionals built into churches

6) New Calendar

7) Placing inappropiate items on the main altar(i.e. microphones, books, etc.)

8) Kneelers and kneeling on Sunday which is in direct contradiction with Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council "Since there are some persons who kneel in church on Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, with a view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it has seemed best to the holy council for prayers to be offered to God while standing"

9) The tremendous loss of people belonging and attending church(this is especially true in Northeast Ohio)

10) Completely ignoring any connection to our Rusyn heritage, and after doing that performing no evangilization to Americans. Thus resulting in barely any converts and all East European immigrants going to Ukrainian Catholic churches.

11) Not publishing the full Rescension in new translation.

I could go on.

Where exactly has all of this modernizing got us?


Michael Cerularius

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Michael Cerularius (an interesting choice of pen name!) presents us with a check list. My experience of Ruthenian parishes isn't altogether as broad as it should be, put I can offer a few observations on some of the items:


But the modernists do want to hear this stuff. They are too busy taking us down the so called road of enlightenment.

I could see if the modernists had one thing to point at as an accomplishment but all of the modernizing has been a utter failure.

Consider the following sad developments over the years:

1) I can't find a single Ruthenian Catholic Church where Vespers is celebrated. No, Vespers with liturgy does not count.

Well, I do known of ONE parish church where Vespers is offered regularly on Saturday evenings and before the feasts (by the way, Good Friday Vespers with the Shroud doesn't count either!).

2) Chopped up liturgies because going over an hour is 'too much'.

Likewise I know of ONE parish Church in the Ruthenian Church in the USA where this does not happen. I am reliably assured that there are a few more.

3) Opening and closing of the royal doors at proper times completely ignored.

Again, I know of ONE Ruthenian parish Church in the USA where these rubrics are followed in full.

4) No curtain behind the royal doors.

Again, I know of ONE Ruthenian parish Church in the USA where there is a curtain (actually, come to think of it, I know of two).

5) Confessionals built into churches.
This is probably the rule in most places.

6) New Calendar.
A priest of my acquaintance wanted to return to the Old Calendar, having first made sure that the parishioners would welcome this.

7) Placing inappropiate items on the main altar(i.e. microphones, books, etc.)

One can defend the placing of certain specific books on the Holy Table - such as the Gospel Book and perhaps the service-book.

8) Kneelers and kneeling on Sunday which is in direct contradiction with Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council "Since there are some persons who kneel in church on Sundays and on the days of Pentecost, with a view to preserving uniformity in all parishes, it has seemed best to the holy council for prayers to be offered to God while standing"

9) The tremendous loss of people belonging and attending church(this is especially true in Northeast Ohio)

10) Completely ignoring any connection to our Rusyn heritage, and after doing that performing no evangilization to Americans. Thus resulting in barely any converts and all East European immigrants going to Ukrainian Catholic churches.

I've taken an unofficial survey and find that in many places it is true that recent arrivals from Transcarpathia are attending Ukrainian Greek Catholic Churches and recent arrivals from Slovakia are attending Slovak Roman Catholic Churches. This is not completely universal, but is statistically significant.

11) Not publishing the full Rescension in new translation.
Considering what any new translation would be like, it might be better to retain the older one.

I could go on.

So could I!

Where exactly has all of this modernizing got us?

We must all answer that question for ourselves.

Incognitus

I'd just like to comment on these four things:

3) It is not uncommon for Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to leave the Royal Doors open for the entire Divine Liturgy, as well as for other services like Vespers and Matins. Some other Orthodox will only shut them minimally, like for the Communion of the Clergy.

4) I've been to Orthodox Churches of various traditions that do not have curtains; the Antiochian Orthodox parish I attend while at school does not have a curtain.

6) The New Calendar is used by many, many Orthodox.

7) Placing service books on the Holy Table is also pretty common among Greek, Antiochian, and Romanian Orthodox clergy, not to mention the ACROD. I've also seen my fair share of microphones...

So, these few practices you enumerated, whether right or wrong, are not peculiar to Ruthenian Greek Catholics, but are are found in the Orthodox world as well.

Dave

Christ is Risen!
Items 3 and 4 are recent innovations! 100 years ago, no Orthodox Church in the world did not have a curtain, and no Orthodox Liturgy or service (outside Bright Week) was served with the Royal doors open!
And, the curtain is much more ancient than the iconostasis; Saint Basil the great, for example, notes that the curtain serves to prevent the cleargy and laity from seeing each other, and the latter from distracting the former, during the celecration of the Holy Mysteries.

Item 6: A minority, <20%, of Orthodox worldwide use the Gregorian Calendar, although the vast majority in North America do, so our view from here is stilted. But, this change has a very unillustious history.

Item 7: Here I agree with you. The Northern Slavs have developed a notion of not putting anything on the Holy Table that is not ritually prescribed, and they have a seperate stand for service books that the priest may need. But, this is not true anywhere else.

Photius

A difficulty with rendering our texts into our living, vernacular language is that the language change: the meanings, usages, idioms change. To stay "within" a changing vernacular, texts have to be revised to reflect the state of the language; the perceived meaning of the text would otherwise be altered - unless it were read not as vernacular but as some archaic text.

One might not like the changes in language and protest them. But our language is a democracy, and I think that the use of words that can be gender-specific in gender-neutral contexts is disappearing our language - like it or not.

And if you wish to protest, the liturgy is not the place for it. Rather than using liturgical vernacular texts as a tool to protest such changes, ISTM, we should work for accuracy in translation even if that entails parts of our language that we don't really like. Or, if we really want essentialy immutable texts, then we should stick to Slavonic.

Truly, He is risen!

Chtec Fotij,

I'm not saying that 3 and 4 are not changes; I'm just saying that such things are found in some Orthodox traditions, both in the Old Country and in the US. (And I would guess that 3 is much more common than 4.) Until these Orthodox (possibly entire national churches!) change their ways (which I don't see happening) I do not think that Greek Catholics should be worrying too much about them either. That's just my opinion on the matter.

I'm also sure that the curtain St. Basil spoke of was a full curtain as still found in Syriac and Armenian churches. I don't know of ANY Eastern Orthodox churches that have such a curtain, either independant of or hung on the templon (as was the case in Byzantium). We only have vestigial curtains, I suppose (which all too often remind me of bad shower curtains).

Regarding the calendar: even if a minority of Orthodox (including me) use the New Calendar, it is not an insignificant minority. 20% out of 250 or 300 million is not THAT tiny. I generally try to not argue the calendar issue; I am just on the New Calendar by default.

Chtec David

I still have not heard WHY we need a new translation.

To get it right.

from Father David
http://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=003152;p=3

Thanks djs for your response!

Yours in the risen Christ!

You're welcome I think.
But leaves me

Atleast some bothered to respond to the post

Some (not all) of these reasons (and possibly others that I could add) are reasons why a new printing of the present books might contain corrections. Corrections would be helpful, and accepted.

But that still doesn't explain why we need to revise the whole Liturgy, leaving out litanies etc., and bringing in new rubrics and inclusive language.

That should be "Mercy OF peace, sacrifice of praise"

Photius

While correcting real problems or errors is great, much of the translation changes seem like change, for change's sake.

old troparion
Christ is Risen from the dead, by death he conquered death, and to those in the graves he granted life.

but in the new troparion
So "conquered" becomes "trampled" and "graves" becomes "tombs".

We have this song memorized (obviously). Now, next year, in the dark, on Easter night, the priest is going to ask us not to sing the troparion, because the words have changed. This will cause disruption and confusion.

It might be worth it, if the change was important, or correcting some error. But it seems to me that they are close synonyms anyway. So what is the gain here?

But the loss will be great! Telling people not to sing next year.... Some will be singing one version, others another version.

Of course, the Archbishop will have to organize a lot of talks, and classes, and rehearsals to repare everyone for the new revised version.

But what about those of us who do not come to classes, and will not attend a rehearsal? What about the 'ordinary' Byzantine Catholic, who will show up next year, looking forward to singing the Easter troparion? I don't think he/she will be happy.

Is it worth it?

Nick

Shhhhhhhhh! Don't tell anyone, but the word "humanity" still has the word "MAN" in it. Shhhhhhhh!

Joe
(its not the humidity that bothers me, but the humanity)

If inclusive language MUST be used, then our hierarchs should change the Creed.

We now profess:
"who for us MEN and for our salvation"

We should profess:
"who for us and for our salvation"

Anyone for this option? Are women included in the plan of salvation?

But changing the Creed can have disasterous consequences. Anyone remember the Filioque thingy?

Joe

Dear Photius,
CHRIST IS RISEN! You write "That should be "Mercy OF peace, sacrifice of praise" "

Both in Greek and in Church-Slavonic there are variations in that particular text. For Greek variations, check Trembelas; for Church-Slavonic, check the Old Rite. My own preference for this particular text is the Old Rite version, but there's a soft spot in my heart for the Old Rite. That text could be translated: "Mercy, peace, sacrifice and song".

For that matter, later in the anaphora the form prinosiashche appears in the Church-Slavonic textus receptus - but for some reasons there are precious few English translation which give that form as it should be, even though it represents the best Greek tradition (prospherontes) as well.

Good translations can be enjoyable, interesting and educational. Bad ones are painful, frustrating, boring and misleading.

fraternally in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

Actually, don't tell anyone this but those are the same words the Orthodox church uses.

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs, bestowing life!

I would certainly hope your priest does not advise the choir/cantor NOT to sing the troparion of Pascha. (or do you mean just that 'new' one?)
There does seem to be a lot of disobedience going around in priests, cantors, laity etc. Are we becoming independent churches or unified by a common patriarchy..
J Thur makes a good point in another thread tha the Divine Liturgy is the only liturgical service that is being fought over. For all the parishes that would be so disrupted by the changes in the Liturgy, how many of those parishe celebrate Vespers regularly? or Matins regularly? The idea that the Divine Liturgy is the only liturgical service worth spending time to attend seems to be a secular (and to some a 'Latin') approach to church life.

Just my thoughts, however insignificant they are in the grand scheme.

Steve

Steve, you have touched on a significant problem. We are just emerging from a lengthy period of Latinizations. Those latinizations are so entrenched, they are considered by many to be Tradition. I think many, including some of our leaders, suffer from a bit of an identity crisis. It almost seems we are feeling our way along trying to find out who and what we really are supposed to be.

It is interesting that those words were chosen. If it was going to be changed, why not just use the Orthodox wording. Why make a 3rd one? Think of the witness it would be to use the Orthodox one! If we all could sing it together! How wonderful. If we could use the same music! Great! Now that would be a reason that would make the pain of change worthwhile. That would be a good reason to change.

But just to change, for change's sake? Not a good reason, not worth the headache.

I agree, with you (and our friend Joe) about the beauty of Vespers and Matins. But these questions are started, because the Archbishop is revising and editing the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. I do not think he has announced that he plans to edit or reorganize Vespers and Matins.

Nick

Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.

Incognitus has already responded to this, but I add that the Commission deliberately chose an older reading here where "peace" is in the nominative. Cf. Codex Barberini 336. This is explained in more detail in: The response “The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise,” was corrected to “Mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.” For a detailed explanation, read: Robert Taft, “Textual Problems in the Diaconal Admonition before the Anaphora in the Byzantine Tradtiion,”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 49 (1983), 340-365.

There is no such thing as THE Orthodox English version of the Paschal Troparion. Practically every jurisdiction in America has their own take on it.

The one posted above is the OCA translation.

Dave

Father David, Christ is Risen!

I thank you. I was unaware of this (or had forgotten it) and it makes sense with "peace" is in the nominative while it never made sense to me with "peace" in the genitive. Unfortunately, I do not have easy access to the article that you cited, and that I had seen cites before, perhaps also by you.

Photius

These are all good reasons for making corrections to the present translation of the Divine Liturgy, but the use of so-called 'inclusive language' is not. The use of 'inclusive language' is disruptive because it is an ideologically motivated thing. It is an attempt to change the faith of the Church; and moreover, it should be noted that every Church (including the Roman Rite) where it has been used, has been bitterly divided by it. It represents a non-Christian view of man (man in the generic sense). It destroys the theological connection between Christ as the new Adam and all those who have become one man in Him.

This politically correct movement holds that the English language itself has evolved in a so-called 'gender neutral' manner, but any one who watches even a little bit of television knows that this is not the case. As an example, a character on last weeks episode of Star Trek Enterprise (I know, it's not the best show on TV, but it is harmless entertainment), used the term "mankind," and this is not the only example that could be given. What I have discovered in my own experience is that people normally use the generic masculine, unless they have been pressured to avoid it (this kind of pressure happens a lot at universities).

I can only speak for myself, but I will have to seriously reappraise my own situation, because I will not worship with a politically motivated language that is based on a non-Christian worldview.

I think a lot of us will be making that same choice not to attend such liturgies.

Ungcsertezs

Many years ago I resolved not to attend church services if I knew in advance that they would be unlikely to edify me. I've broken that resolution on innumerable occasions since then, but the resolution remains a good one!

Incognitus

Christ is Risen!
Likewise, I do not attend such services unless I'm traveling and there is no "satisfactory" church at which to attend the divine services on Sunday or a Holy Day. And, for what it's worth, I have never taken any Sacrament from a priest without a beard, and in the 29 years since I commenced seminary, have only been in a church with pews about 5 times.

Photius, Reader and Malcontent

Thanks Dave,

I should have included that. I was in a hurry when I posted this morning. This is only one of several wordings I have seen.

Steve

Actually, about Vespers and Matins......No reorganization, just edit/translation and finally music for EVERYTHING! (just waiting for official word, which may never happen at this rate with so many dissenters not willing to agree to any compromise).

Metropolitan Basil is not the only one revising and editing the services. He is the one who has the authority to promulgate such changes. This process of change has been going on for over 5 years (almost 10, ie BEFORE Metropolitan Basil).


Steve

First go back and read the comment of Father Deacon Lance. You bundling together two very different concepts of inclusive language: one of which would entail changing the faith of the church, is proscribed, and would not be in the new text; and the other does not, is not, and may occur in the text.

Some folks appear to have a desire to use exclusive language even when it is not really called for, and see ideology where it really isn't. Example: A poster (some time ago) claimed that the Ruthenian response: "And remember all Your people" was a politically correct version of the OCA's "And all mankind". :rolleyes: Father David has given another example.

Like it or not, people, with no axe to grind, now tend to avoid gender exclusive language in writing whenever the intended meaning is inclusive, unless doins so would entail a gross circumlocution or error in grammar. They are just striving for accuracy and clarity in their writing. The ideological motivation IMO is on the part of who want exclusive language when it is not required for accuracy/clarity in writing/translation, or who might speak in the same way about God as Parent and the response "all Your people" as examples of ideologically motivated speech.

I am opposed to both vertical and horizontal inclusive language. If the Greek or Slavonic word should be translated as 'man' or 'mankind' in a generic sense, than that is the word that should be used in English. In English the word 'people' or 'peoples' has a different meaning than the generic word 'mankind'. The former is of a particular nature, while the latter is a universal. In other words, "all peoples" refers to nations of men, i.e., particular groupings of men.

One other point, as I said in a previous post, the use of so-called 'inclusive language' will only bring about greater divisions within the Church. I for one will refuse to attend services which employ this ideological language, even if it means becoming Eastern Orthodox.

OCA version:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.

On goarch.org:
Christ is risen from the dead, by death He has trampled down death, and on those in the tombs He has bestowed life.

(And it seems like every GOA parish has their own translation of it, too! )

On antiochian.org:
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs bestowing life.

On acrod.org:
CHRIST IS RISEN FROM THE DEAD, TRAMPLING DOWN DEATH BY DEATH AND TO THOSE IN THE TOMBS BESTOWING LIFE!

Fr. Ephrem Lash's version (British, not American):
Christ has risen from the dead, by death he has trampled on death: and to those in the graves given life.

There are other translations out there, too. I just don't have the time to find them right now.

Dave

Dear Apotheoun,

Your posts now reach the level of manifesto. But no specifics. Why not deal in concrete things in the new translation you object to, let resposible people respond, and try to make a sober judgment about politics and ideology?

Are we sticking with "He granted". I hope so. The Serbian and Znamenny music work with bestowing, but ours makes it sounds like something done in an apiary.

Well, you might like the Madonna House version: "lavishing life". Not bad, actually.

Incognitus

Not bad? How about dazzling!
Can we get these folks on our writing commission?

I'm working from my memory here, but I think the New Skete translation is:

Christ is risen from the dead,
conquering death by death,
and to those in the graves
bestowing life.

So, add that to the list.

Dave

OK, OK. How about a literal translation retaining the original word order?

Christ is risen from dead, by death death having trampled, and to [those] being in the graves, life having gifted.

That isn't the way I intend my posts, so if that is how you take them, I apologize; but I will not go through yet again the type of liturgical war that I went through in the Roman Rite. I have no interest in the modern attempts of feminists to alter the English language, nor do I see the need for the constant revision of liturgical texts in order to conform them to the most cutting edge use of the English language. Now, rather than go through all of that yet again, and have my spiritual development retarded yet again by political attempts to alter the received tradition of the Church, I will simply seek out a liturgy that conveys the faith of our Fathers. If that is in the Eastern Orthodox Church, so be it. As I said in my posts before, I can only speak for myself, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.

Now, the use of 'inclusive language' is a problem for many reasons: (1) it blurs the christological and ecclesiological meaning of various scriptural and liturgical texts; (2) it destroys the unity of man in the One Man, Christ Jesus, because all men are one man in Him; (3) the 'gender neutral' language agenda is progressive, and thus it will not stop with horizontal language, in other words, it inevitably gets applied to the person of Christ Himself, and that leads to christological heresies (i.e., like calling Christ a 'human being' instead of a man, when in fact there is only one act of being in Christ, and thus He is a divine person and a divine being who has assumed a complete and integral human nature).

These are just a few of the problems that I have with inclusive language (so-called). This ideologically motivated movement is at its roots a non-Christian movement, and the language of worship should not be infected with any ideology that is ultimately inimical to the tradition of the Church.

Well, many if not most here really don't know what wars were gone through in the Latin church. Again, why not deal in concrete things in the new translation you object to. When you deal in generalities you perhaps inadvertently convey the suggestion that these issues - e.g., inevitable vertical inclusiveness - apply to us. I don't think that they do.

I don't know about cutting edge, but this is part of the bargain for liturgy in the vernacular. Contemporary culture is embedded in the vernacular language; language encodes the culture. A good translation renders the ideas of the original as they would be said in the target language. ISTM that you are proposing a different scheme of translation that introduces an ideology of what the language really should be, and translates toward that created-target.

Personally, I think that these troubles are a good argument for sticking to non-vernacular liturgical languages. Or less volatile ones. But I accept the wisdom of the Church on this matter.

The problem that we are dealing with concerns the "target language," and whether a man speaks English or politically correct English. I completely agree with you that any translation should convey the original language in the vernacular. What I don't accept is the idea that the English language has evolved to a point were the generic masculine is no longer valid.

But lets look at a specific text (it would be nice if the entire new "translation" of the Divine Liturgy were available online):

These two texts are not identical. The text from the current liturgy speaks about all men, i.e., it speaks about mankind; while the proposed new text refers to "us all," but who is it specifically speaking about? Is it speaking about everyone present at that particular liturgy, or is it speaking about the whole Byzantine (Ruthenian) Church, or does it refer only to those who live in Weirton WV? The "translators" have made the text ambiguous, when before it was quite clear who was meant.

I think that you are wrong about English. The very fact that we talk of inclusive and exclusive language means that this idea exists. And while, as incognitus pointed out earlier, some words such as the may be either inclusive (generic masculine) or exclusive depending on context, good writers will try very hard to avoid ambiguities; so I think the generic masculine is working its way to history - notwithstanding interesting attempts, motivated by I don't know what - to keep it alive.

I don't like "loves us all". Such a rhetorical low point for the end of the liturgy! But the alternative is not so great either. I liked [He is] "the Lover of ..." better than "He loves" - much more striking. I think "mankind" is as impersonal as "humanity" and more impersonal than "us" (which is as you point out vague (potentially exclusive, as you point out) - as happens with pronouns without clear antecedents).

What is the word that conveys the right blend of intimacy and universality (if this is indeed what is conveyed in the Greek)? "Man" is better than mankind and does not parse as exclusive. But ...
I am a much better critic than writer, I'm afraid, especially when trying to eff the ineffable. Maybe Madonna House has it? Maybe, like Theotokos, we should stick to the Greek?

Clearly you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. No where have I said that this idea of 'exclusivity' and 'inclusivity' doesn't exist, quite the contrary it does exist, and it exists as a politically and ideologically based movement with a defective christology and anthropology. It is an attempt to alter the English language, and I avoid it like the plague.

As the Vatican itself has indicated:

I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of so-called 'inclusive language.' I will simply find a place to worship God without this political and ideological agenda.

The politically correct 'inclusive language' movement will not be happy until it utterly destroys the beauty of the English language. I will never forget having to sit through the hymn "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlepersons" during Midnight Mass back in December of 2000.

Not long ago this idea was obscure. Now it is commonplace. This change reflects the fact that the language, our sense of it, has changed.

Here we disagree, in part. I think it exists independent of any Christology whatsoever, and largely independent of any anthropology. But I agree that it was puposeful. And effective: our sense of the language has been altered. You might not like the origins of this alteration, but to express oneself in what is becoming an archaic fashion is certainly a political and ideological statement in its own right. IMO, such sentiments should be left outside of the liturgy.

I think that most folks who favor avoiding exclusive language (when it is not intended in the meaning) are not interested in destroying the beauty of the language - really no need for such gratuitous (symptomatic?) swipes. By the way, if actually interested in the language how about the requisite punctuation: "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen"

If you see an an agenda to foster bad anthropology, Christology, and language in my church, ISTM that you projecting your own demons and past war trauma on its good people.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

For those of us who are in communion with Rome, it would be wise and prudent to notice that no less a person as Pope Benedict XVI has ruled that the Church is not buying the "inclusive language" agenda - at the time he was still writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but there is no reason to think that His Holiness has changed his mind.

As to the linguistic madness of "God rest ye merry, Gentlepersons", I am as always maddened by the behavior of these, ah, persons who don't seem to know ANY language adequately. If they had even gone as far as Sir Walter Scott (mandatory reading when I was a high school freshman) they would know that "Gentles" can be used as a noun (do they even know what a noun is?) and hence they could have achieved their alleged goal with "God rest ye merry, Gentles All". It resembles the unword "clergyperson" - the writer of such babble obviously is unfamiliar with the authentic word "cleric".

Incognitus

Here's a link:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vatican-norms.html
For the most part, changes of the faith-altering variety are combatted here.

Cleric: what a nice example of a word uncontrived that avoids exclusion.

The first norm states plainly: “The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.”

"Inclusive language" is an agenda. It cannot be an accurate translation of the texts of the Church. Rome doesn't approve of contrived "inclusive language" in the Liturgy. Why is the archbishop challenging Rome’s directives with an “inclusive language” Liturgy? The Archbishop’s revision to the Liturgy is a mistake.

Please elaborate. What is the agenda and who holds to it in the present context?

I think you're wrong to make so general statement a statement on the matter.

Another Rome/approval item to add to the list.

Nice example of begging the question here.

I think you're wrong to make so general statement a statement on the matter.

[QUOTE]

I can't speak for the person who you were writing to in your reply, but I can give a couple examples of how the inclusive language in the New Translation does not jive with the texts of the Church:

In the Litany of Supplication before the Cherubic Hymn:

... i vsej vo Christ'i bratiji nasej.

... and for all our brethern in Christ.

in the new translation I have seen:

... and for all of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

bratiji is clearly brethern or some masculine word. in modern day Ukrainian brati is brothers, so 'and sisters' is added. And whether you like it or not it is not what the Slavonic traslation says.

... jako blah i celov'ikolubec.
... for he is gracious and loves mankind.

in the new translation I have seen:

for he is gracious and he loves us all.

Once again, in modern day Ukrainian cholovik is the word for 'man'. L'ubit is 3rd person for 'to love'. So clearly the Slavonic celov'ikolubec is lover of mankind and not of us all.

Another translation in question is even in the currently approved translation at the very beginning of the Litany of Thanksgiving

Prosti prijimse bozestvennych, svjatych, precistych, bezsmertnych, nebesnych, zivotvorjascich, strasnych Christovych tajin, dostojno blahodarim Hospoda.

Having received the divine, holy, most pure, immortal, heavenly, and life-creating, awesome mysteries of Christ, arise, let us worthily thank the Lord.

Prosti does not mean 'arise' and nowhere in the Slavonic is the word 'arise' in there. It was added because the Ruthenian Catholics adopted the practice of sitting during the Da ispolnatsja ...(May or lips be filled..).

I have been to Ukrainian Catholic churches where they stand during the Da ispolnatsja and have heard the phrase 'Be Attentive' which is more appropiate because the insinuation that we are supposed to be sitting (most churches in the Mother Land don't have pews)is not intimated.

I have people say to me 'it's not a big deal' and 'what's the difference'. To which I reply, 'I agree, it's not a big deal, so since it's not a big deal, let's make it the way it's supposed to be'.

Finally, does anyone else find it strange that Slavonic is being stamped out the way it is. Because if people have access to the Slavonic and Greek then they can question the translation. Without it, it makes questioning much more difficult.

Michael Cerularius

MC, I agree that errors of this sort are possible. But I don't think that it is possible to make a general, valid assertion, that such language CANNOT be accurate. And no finite list of examples of errors is responsive to that criticism. The examples you give, however, are interesting. For example, in the original Greek, was an exclusive word like "brothers" used or not. If not, is it really appropriate to use an exclusive word in the English translation - CAN it be accurate? Why are you translating a translation rather than the original?

djs,

I acquiesce that I do not have a Greek translation in front of me. The reason that I translate from Slavonic is because I have the Slavonic translaiton in front of me and because I am able to understand Slavic languages.

I would be curious as to what the Greek is for "bratiji nasej" and "celov'ikol'ubec".

I would almost guarantee that the Greek does not say "arise" much like "Prosti" is not arise. But I base this on the fact that the people would not have been sitting in pews when the Greek was written, not because I have a Greek translation in front of me.

Michael Cerularius

http://www.goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_chrysostom_greek.asp

And if you get everything, please let me know how you did it; I lose a quarter o the characters.

It has already been stated that Liturgical commision was instructed to work from the Greek (which I think says Orhtoi for Prosti).
If you look around on the topic of Bible translations there is not shortage of discussion on adelphos and anthropos. Having limited expertise, no axe to grind, and no influence on the matter, I will just work to support what those in authority, by God's grace, produce; and just hope that the product is respectable, even if not pleasing to everyone's refined sensibilites.

A Greek translation? What it it be translated from?

"bratiji nasej" ... in Greek, the word for brothers is "adelphoi"; it turns out that the word for "brother" and "sister" are the same (except for gender, i.e., stem endings), so one could, I suppose, translate it "siblings", but since it is used as a perelel to, for example, "fathers", that would be pushing it.

"celov'ikol'ubec" ... "philanthropos" "lover of man".

"Prosti" ... "orthoi" ... same verb used for the sun's rising (from which "orthros" ["matins"] is derived.

Photius

I don't have a Greek TEXT in front of me, but I do have a translation into English of the Divine Liturgy from Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, Massachusetts, where the Litany of Thanksgiving begins:

The deacon: Upright. Having partaken of the divine, holy...

The Old Orthodox Prayer Book from the Erie Old Believers has the Litany of Thanksgiving begin "Prosti..." in Slavonic, and translates it as "Upright! Having received..."

So I think this is one "mistranslation" that you can safely remove from your list.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,


I can see a difference between upright and arise but maybe that's just me.

What would have the people been arising from?

So how does your explanation allow me safely remove it from my list.

Michael Cerularius

Why would the commission be instructed to work from a greek text, when the ruthenian recension normative books given in Rome are in slavonic?

Now that you brought it up.

How does the Greek translate:

Premudrost', prosti !

Wisdom! Be attentive!


is the word in the Greek that 'prosti' comes from the same or different from the one that we have discussing. If it's the same then the Slavonic is consistent but the English is not. If it is different then the Slavonic is not consistent.

Michael Cerularius

Your note said you guaranteed that "Prosti" could NOT mean "arise". I'm simply saying that you might not like the translation, but "Prosti" is a command with the sense of "Upright!". The Greek Catholics clearly did not "add" a sense of "being upright" or "rising" to the Greek and Slavonic. Do you object to both "prosti" and "vonmim" being translated as "Be attentive", and wish ALL occurences of "prosti" to be translated as "Upright!"? Or are you saying the Greeks and Old Believers are misleading, that their "upright" has false connotations?

Jeff

http://www.research.umbc.edu/~dkusic1/divine-liturgy.html

I don't know whose English translation this is; we have prosti, before the Gospel as let us stand (even though we have just been standing through the Alleluia).

The GOA has "Let us be attentive" at the Little Entrance and after communion, but "arise" before the Gospel.
http://www.goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp

No, I questioned 'prosti' being translated to 'arise'. 'Upright' is better, it's pretty simple.

Rosumiete? (that's Ukrainian for do you understand?)

this is turning into an Abbott and Costello routine!

MC, On adelphos and anthropos you might like to read from this Orthodox source:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/liturgics/nrsv.html

Serbian or a Serbian influenced typo. Vsjem would be Serbian Slavonic (Rusins say vs'im), the Serbs have inverted the vs- in the "all" words.

Thanks, Tony.
It's actually a music site, but is the only place that i've seen with English, Greek, and something "Slavish" all together.

The difference between prosti and vonmem occur in Greek as well, orthoi and proschomen and both go with sofia! at times.

Proschomen becomes vonmem in Slavonic as far as I can see and orthoi prosti. We see the orth* root in many English words like, Orthodox, orthopedic, orthodontic, etc. It means straight or right. Prost* is similar and we see it in prostop'inije, plain (or straight) chant, it can also mean simple (call someone sprosty and see).

Arise is a bit stretched (pardon the pun but it makes a point). Since pews and sitting in them has become custom, how else will one become attentive and "straight"? By stretching out in the pew and lying down? I don't think so. It is by standing up. So to render prosti/orthoi as "arise" is at least euphonous. I can't imagine many BCs would prefer "straight" or "up" or even "upright" in their parishes on Sunday.

To say "'Be Attentive' ... is more appropiate" for prosti/orthoi is a bigger stretch and less of a translation. Vonmem/proschomen is "let us attend." At least in the current BC texts I am familiar with the distinction between vonmem and prosti is maintained.

CHRIST IS RISEN! Nicholas asks "Why would the commission be instructed to work from a greek text, when the ruthenian recension normative books given in Rome are in slavonic?"

Because the Greek text is usually the original. There is nothing to be gained by producing an endless number of "translations" into English, made from, for instance: Greek, Church-Slavonic, Arabic, Syriac, Romanian, Ukrainian, Italian, Inuit, Chinese, Japanese and whatever else is going.

Granted that there are particular matters which can differ from one recension to another (for instance, the text of the ektene [after the Gospel] is highly variable), it is still sensible to begin by making a scientifically accurate translation from the best critical edition of the Greek text available, and then, if necessary, adjusting that translation to suit the needs of a particular Church.

The Old Rite is a special case (note, please, the expression "special case" is not in the least pejorative). Ideally, the best approach to the Old Rite for purposes of translation would be to establish the Greek texts from which the translators prior to Nikon were translating into Church Slavonic. This, however, is a large task and may not be entirely possible - although it is known that such texts existed and were in use relatively recently. Meanwhile, in a practical way, those who do not read Church Slavonic would still like to know what the Old Rite texts now in use mean. So an English translation directly from the Old Rite Church Slavonic text would be useful.

Another special case is the Menaion - the Church-Slavonic Menaion is much richer than the Greek one. In a few cases, it may be possible to establish an underlying Greek text, but in many cases there is no alternative but to translate from Church Slavonic. At the moment the only complete Menaion available in English is a translation from Church Slavonic, so we must use it and be grateful to the translator and the publishers. Another outfit has been promising a complete translation of the Menaion from the Greek for well over a decade, but so far there is no sign of it appearing.

Incognitus

I re-post this for new member Hopal who wants to know about the RDL.

U-C

I believe we are losing our identity.
We are truly becoming more Roman Catholic each year.

I remember when I was a child attending St Michaels in Pittston, we had a priest named Father Michael Wardy. A very good priest who was also a good husband, father, and grandfather.

No lawsuits, no embarrassing rumors of improper behaviour, just good people worshipping according to belief and tradition.

Perhaps, the Orthodox know more than we give them credit.

By the way, we knelt then which was a sign of respect and commitment.

Andrew,

We have lost our ethnic identity. The BCC used to be the greatest identifier for our Rusyn culture.

We used to be known as the Byzantine Ruthenian Metropolitan Province with Church Slavonic Liturgies as well as language schools, regular Rusyn, Slovak, Hungarian, et al., ethnic events, etc. This is now gone because of "modernization" & "americanization", and dare I say....."latinization".

I still would like to know why we have rid ourselves of our cultural traditions when other churches have further embraced theirs?

Examples:

Ridna skola in the UGCC, as well as the use of Ukrainian and Church Slavonic in UGCC and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches. (Just watch the EWTN special on the 100th anniversary of the Greek Catholic Church in America).

Look at the Serbian Orthodox Church, they have priests from Serbia that are teaching Serbian to the youth.

What about the use of Arabic in the Melkite Church in America? Open one of their Liturgical books and it's in Arabic.

And of course, the use of Greek in the Greek Orthodox Church. Do they still have manditory Greek school for the children?

Even the ethnic Roman Catholic churches keep their traditions. There are many tambura masses at the Croatian Church, polka masses, and regular masses entirely in Slovak and Polish.

Why is it ok for the others to keep their traditions, but when it comes to our Rusyn traditions, we have to lose ours?

It is very sad to know that one day, our traditions will be relegated to something only read in history books. Is it cultural genocide through forced modernization? Rusyn religious and cultural traditions are soon to be extinct if it keeps going this way.

This is the challenge confronting many Church traditions in the U.S. (I am very familiar with the struggles in the Lutheran churches over this.) How do you adapt to the "new world" without losing the "old world"?

The problem is that if you don't adapt, you lose the children (young people). I remember serving in an ethnic parish on Great and Holy Friday for Lamentations. The entire service was in the original language. The altar was filled with young boys and teenagers who were serving. As the service progressed, I quietly went to each young boy/teenager and asked them questions about the service. To a person, they reported that they had no idea what was going on, what the service was about or what was being said.

This is the problem -- I thoroughly suspect that these young boys/teenagers will stop attending church. Church for them was completely unrelated to their "normal lives" -- it was an ethnic thing they did with their parents and grandparents. But it was not "real".

Is it any wonder that this particular church has lost entire generations?

The Church is a living organism -- the Church in America has to be American. It has to find a way to sanctify American culture so that our young people see a connection between what happens in Church and their own lives. If we don't do this, we will close many churches -- not because of the RDL but because we have allowed the Church to become irrelevant.

A polka mass is a Polish tradition? Really? News to me.

I never said polka masses were Polish. They are Slovenian...go to Cleveland & Pittsburgh (and points in between), you'll find 'em.

I write as one with no Eastern European connections whatever.
I am all in favor of people trying to retain their ethic cultures
and identities in America. However, to use the Eastern Catholic
and Orthodox Churches as a focus and tool to retain these cultural traditions can, as far as I can see, have only one outcome: the disappearance of those churches. All churches exist
for the service of God, not ethnicities.

My suggestion: as to languages, mix and match. Have settings of
the fixed parts of the Liturgy in both English and the "old"
language. Let the priest and choir or cantors use a different
mix each week. That way the young people will know what is being
said.

I also submit, speaking as an ex-Latin now in a Slavic church,
the troparia, kontakia and stichera should always, or almost
always, be in English. How can young people's hearts and minds
be moved by this great liturgical poetry if they can't understand
it. And if their hearts and minds be not moved, how are we going
to keep them?

Edmac

One of the key points missing in this discussion is that the traditions you mentioned continue to have NEW immigrants coming from the old country.

It is these NEW immigrants who keep the "older" cultural traditions alive. The situation with the Rusyns is different in that there are not massive NEW immigrants coming. In this respect, the Rusyn situation is much more like the German Lutheran situation.

For crying out loud, why do we keep talking about this like the answer is some mystery.

There's no reason why the Greek Catholic parishes can't have at least one church in the Cleveland and Pittsburgh areas for example that would thrive with being ethnic (slavic) churches. There are the populations and the desire for these heritages in these and a few other areas. The parish I now attend, Pokrova, has everything, sermon included, in Ukrainian. I guarantee you that on Easter and Christmas there is no other Greek Catholic parish in the state of Ohio that has more people, and I have to believe that Sunday attendance is the highest as well. My 5 and 2 year old boys don't have any issues with the Ukrainian sermons, troparia, etc. by the way. Vony rozumyty duzhe dobre! Why would we not have at least one parish in Pittsburgh and Cleveland for example to serve these communities?

Does that mean that in Marietta, OH for example where they probably don't even have a clue as to what a pyrohy is that they should have Ukrainian speaking churches? Of course not! Obviously if the church is to grow we need to have the majority of churches across the US having English liturgies and English everything. If we are going to truly evangelize to others in this country, then English has to be way in these parishes period. I don't understand how anyone could debate the fact that if Greek Catholicism is to grow here in the US that English is how it will be done. If the US were a Swahili speaking nation then Swahili is how it would be done. It's not that difficult to figure out, really.

Furthermore, there's no reason why we shouldn't be reaching out to say the Spanish speaking communities and evangelizing and growing the Greek Catholic faith in those communities. This is a growing demographic and should be evangelized as well.

Sts Cyril and Methodius understood this. They conformed to the local population and got pretty good results by the way. However, I'd be willing to bet that if there were pockets of Greek speaking people they would have kept the original Greek language in those parishes and those parishes only.

The BCA could have achieved this by properly analyzing existing parishes and putting together a comprehensive evangelization plan to create and nurture parishes in English and in other specific areas Spanish would have been appropriate as well. But no, they were too busy revising and secularizing for anything like that. What a waste of time and money and what a great opportunity missed out on.

Monomakh

Father,

It all depends on what you mean by adapt. I agree with you if you mean adapt in terms of language. It's ludicrous to expect a Rusyn or Ukrainian parish to thrive in an area where no one speak these languages and to generations that can't even understand Slava Isusu Christu. That's why introducing English in order to grow is what is needed in the US. But if adapt means to also secularize wording, rubrics, fasting cycles, in and out in under an hour, etc. then I would disagree.

Overall I think that if your post is only speaking about language that you are correct. However the existing issue is this, can you name three things that the BCA has done to remain relevant to its youth and can you point out the corresponding success stories to these three things? Sadly I doubt that anyone can. If the BCA is going to be completely focused on English, then where is the world is the plan to reach out to English speaking people? It seems that the BCA wandered half way down the path and stopped. Thus the decrease in attendance, vocations, baptisms, etc. Having relevant language is not the whole solution, as evidenced by the current state of the BCA, evangelization must occur as well. What is the plan for this? This is what saddens and upsets me the most about the RDL, Father. The BCA should have used the time and money on evangelizing rather than dividing and revising.


Monomakh

I disagree, there are many new Rusyn immigrants from Slovakia, Ukraine and Poland that speak Rusyn and want to, but they cannot do this through the church....Fortunately, we have the Carpatho-Rusyn Society propagating these events for them and us.

Cleveland, Chicago, New York and Minneapolis have many new immigrant Rusyns. Pittsburgh does not because of the bad job market. My cousin from Rokytov pri Humennom is a perfect example of this. He lives and works in the New York area because the jobs are there. He is Rusyn, speaks Rusyn, but there isn't a prominent Rusyn association (either church or cultural) for him to go, so he has to hang with his fellow countrymen in the Slovak associations there. (As a note, he is in his mid 40's and only began to speak Slovak when he went to school).

It seems to be the same old situation that since Rusyns are just a minority in these countries and thus do not have their own country, they should just be happy to have some association whether is be Polish, Slovak or Ukrainian.

I am fascinated about the news that there are "many" Rusyn immigrants. Can you share actual numbers please? Also, please give a source for these numbers so that I can research this? Thanks!

Oh, come now....considering one cannot even find out the number of Slovak, Polish, Czech, Serbian, Croatian, Russian, Ukrainian, or any of the other immigrants that come to this country either legally or illegally, how do you expect that we can one find the number of Rusyns?

I think Father asked you a fair question. You say many new Rusyn immigrants are coming here, so wouldn't it be fair to share your knowledge of this fact? You must have an idea of numbers? How many have arrived?

And if so please send some of them to my parish...We need choir help!

Hello All,

I believe the situation is not so dire for the BCA as it may seem from the tone of some posts above. My son is a college student and recently brought a group of his RC friends to a BC Church in Binghamton, NY. They all found it to be an awesome experience.....One student even said she would consider changing churches based on this one experience....

The Spirit works in mysterious ways....and, for some, one such experience can be a turning point. After all, wasn't just such an experience that convinced Vladimir more than a millenium ago?

At the Byzantine Youth Rally in Emmitsburg, Maryland in 2006, a group of about 30 teens from throughout the country sang the responses to a liturgy celebrated by all 4 Byzantine Catholic Ruthenian bishops. It was magnificent!! One of the nuns there, Sr. Celeste of the Sisters of St. Basil the Great, said to me just a couple of weeks ago that the liturgy in Emmitsburg was the most moving liturgy she had ever experienced. She and others are still marveling about it....even almost two years later! Personally, it renewed my hope that our church lives in the hearts and voices of our youth and will persist in the future. Yes, the liturgy was in English. But Sister Celeste told me that there are teens interested in learning the Old Slavonic, and would take advantage of the opportunity, if provided......

So, perhaps the challenge is to (1) participate to the hilt in the liturgies that are available; and, (2) provide opportunities for those who are interested in learning more and participating to the greatest extent possible (and allowable), and (3) trust in the Spirit to work through them.

Peace to you all! A student

No, we have to change our lives to be like the church and follow the Truth. Chopping up the liturgy and conforming the church to American culture has been an abysmal failure. That's yet another reason why it is ludicrous to think that feminized inclusive language will attract people and be any kind of success. Furthermore, examples of parishes who practiced a fuller liturgy have been shown to attract people, especially younger families. People can get secularism anywhere in their lives without even looking, it is practically jammed down their throats. What people are seeking is undiluted fundamental Traditionalism, which of course is not something that they can find from the TV and Hollywood. The BCA and all Greek Catholic churches would be wise to offer this for many reasons.


Monomakh

Indeed! And that is the greatest mystery of all. The committee and hierarchs who decided to approve genderized language are very intelligent people. It is impossible for them not to have seen the results of the Roman Catholic gender language experiments. It did not work!

And now, they have decided to begin the experiment again!!!

It is beyond ludicrous. It is beyond understanding!!!

R

Monomakh writes:



Delighted to hear it. Perhaps in time they will be so kind as to explain to their father the distinction between the infinitive form of the verb, and the third person plural indicative!

Fr. Serge

I know I'm going back 2 years +/-, but I like what Prof. Thompson said in the above post!

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Amen! Thank you for reposting Fr. Deacon...

Monomakh, there are people in parts of the Orthodox Church who believe the same thing as well. The need to modernize the liturgy, be totally generic American, etc. I don't think it will be met with success.