www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "New Translation "of the Liturgy

As I said before, I have not seen a final product. But drafts were published here. Detailed comments were accepted by Father David.


Bigger question: When is the right time to promulgate a text?

First let's agree that it is possible to do it TOO early. Inviting opinion at a draft stage would be counterproductive. It would raise fears of about false starts and blunders that would not otherwise have seen the light of day. Worse, "scholarly" argument could lead to disagreement and partisanship, and yadayadayada. (incognitus, for no apparent reason, even raises this about Father David personally.)

And what of the past. I remember the pre-1964 English. I remember first hearing the 1964 English from a young, visiting priest. I don't remember anyone going nuts over the translation revisions, or even the alterations of the music. Oh, but had we been privy to this pre-proposal or that, I am sure we would have manages to become attached to our favorites and fought, ultimately bitterly, for our personal preferences. The scheme here was presentation of a final, developed package - perhaps with some beta testing in key areas, such as the seminary.

And what is the point really? I think the the discussion here has been poor. Apart from numerous errors of fact on translation, the feedback was rancorous - replete with accusations of ignorance, bigotry, latinizing, denial, pretense, sinister agendas, and heresy.

What is ridiculous here is not the so-called called "secrecy" - which seems fairly normal in a long development process. It is the use of "secrecy" as an excuse that justifies the rumor mongering and waxing to partisanship. But such behavior, however, natural, is not caused by "secrecy". It is caused by our decision to indulge in it, and our decision to support it others. The cure is equally clear. Choose not to do it. And choose not to blame other's "secrecy" for it.

It would of course drive away every convert we've had since 1965 and doom the Church to rightful extinction. How in heaven's name does one wish for a split in a 15,000 member Church?

Dan L

I was specifically referring to the part that stated:

"That would have the side benefit of bringing this wearisome discussion to a screeching halt."

But while we're on it I'll write what you want to hear:

Yeah, your're right. The change to English grew our numbers exponentially and we've had a surge in vocations since then. Overall it was a big success.

Also ignoring our Slavic roots. Smashing success.

More funerals than baptisms is a good thing. We're not on the path to extinction now.

Give me a break.

Maybe if we spent more time and effort evangelizing than with this new translation we could reverse the downward spiral we are in.

Michael Cerularius

Unity:
Welcome on your first post.

Huh? Who lied? What was the lie?

MC: Surely you don't think it would have been better the other way! We may be behind in outreach the the EO that are enjoying great success, like OCA and Antiochians, are very Americanized.

But in 1950 the use of English among the Orthodox was negligible.

Dear Incognitus,

I am sure reader Photius can address the issue of this in the ROCOR but I will address it in the OCA. At St. Mary of Egypt [oca.org] in Norcross (north suburb of Atlanta), GA, the troparia on the Beatitudes are taken, I know because the last time I was there as I read them from the kliros (one thing a reader does).

Also, it is my understanding that this is standard practice in some dioceses of the OCA. It does not seem to be in the NE USA however.

Please do visit St. Mary's if you have the chance, it is a lovely place.

I am sure you can find another example but this one doesn't work.

Tony

I was at the OCA Cathedral on 2nd Street in NYC 4 or 5 years ago, and they included the troparia at the Beatitudes. Of course the liturgical style of this cathedral is not typical of the OCA in the northeast.

Dave

It's pretty simple. If you are an ethnic church in America you need to do one of two things.

1) Stay true to your ethnic roots.
You'll get the immigrants from the 'old country' and uniqueness does have a way of making substitution stranger for those raised in the church here.

or

2) shed your ethnic roots and assimilate and evangelize. When doing this you NEED to evangelize because the immigrants aren't going to come. And the shedding of ethnic roots is going to alienate those who don't want it to happen and may leave. If the evangelization is successful then these losses can be overcome of course.

Our church did neither! yeah they did the shed the ethnic roots part but missed the evangelization part.

Which one is better (1 or 2) is left to another discussion. But the salient point is that doing option one rather than none would work out better.

So yes it would have been better the other way.


Michael Cerularius

MC:
We are late to evangleize, yes. But that is the only choice for viability as a church. After a millenium of marginalization, those brave souls who came to the US were not going to stay in the margins. They were determined to be fully Americanized. Assimilation was the program, period, and the mission of the church therefore had to focus on Americans - starting with the Americans that we were fast becoming. That should not be a mistaken as a rejection of patrimony. I cherish my patrimony. But this is done not by hoarding it only for the tribe, but by sharing it, as best I can, and proudly, with all.

Attention Tony and Dave: I wrote - accurately, I trust - that I've never experienced hearing the troparia at the Beatitudes sung in a parish church. I did not write that there is no parish church which does this (the Old Ritualists probably do, some Serbian parishes probably do, some Russian Church Abroad parishes are known to do this . . . and information as to where one might find this in use is of interest).

I've certainly heard these troparia used at Jordanville, and I'm in possession of a recording in Church-Slavonic done by a baroque choir - the recording includes an impressive rendition of the Beatitudes with troparia. But listening to a recording and actually attending a church service are not one and the same activity.

Incognitus

Photius, if you read the liturgical books and music books of the Orthodox from the early 20th century, you will see in the US, English was not the commonly used language for liturgy. Those who proposed to use English were actually being ridiculed. English was not a "holy language." It was not "beautiful." While vernuacular WAS an Orthodox tradition, it was also a tradition in question when it came to English. English was not an Orthodox language, and the English were not an Orthodox enthnicity. Certainly OCA now uses English (but the OCA is also a peculiar Orthodox jurisdiction, and they are influenced by the large number of Ruthenians who left the Catholic communion and became Orthodox). Yet you must not confuse the OCA and what they do now as the historical norm even in the US.

It is not change for change's sake. It is not an "experiment." It is change for the sake of improvement. You may or may not agree with the improvements. But as been pointed out, inclusive language IS used even by those who oppose it to some degree. It has become a norm. So when translation is done, we will see elements of it. Despite the implications, it is not some Satanic conspiracy.

(BTW the "results" of what is done in the "West" -- nice job at poisoning the well. Yet it ignores what has been done: inculturation which allows for a rise in Catholicism in Africa and India. It also ignores the history of US Catholicism before the changes, and assumes some sort of golden age which did not exist. Finally, following the implied logic, one could also say 'Look at the chaos after the changes at Nicea! Let's just get rid of it.')

DJS
judt to clarify the point. In 1964 approval was given by Rome for the celebration of the submitted liturgicon. In a very simplistic way what hapend was we gave a text to Rome and said: "Hey this is what we are going to do." Rome said "OK." A copey of this text sits on a shelf in Rome. If anyone in Rome wants to know what the Byzantines in America are doing they just look up the protocol number go to the shelf and look it up. the 1964 liturgicon is offically what we are doing. Bishop Elko and Kocisko told their priests in essence "I know what we submitted to Rome and I know it was aproved, don't do it." To boil it down, Elko and Kocisko lied to Rome. Priest who celebrated the entire litrugicon were suspended. Men in the seminary who advocated the celebration were not advanced to Holy Orders. Some who supported the full celebration and were ordained had to be silent or at least know who they were talking to in order to avoid trouble. Those priests who were vocal (and I might add from presonal experience) were labled "orthodox," "clerical," or a host of other titles that generally encouraged the guy to either shut up or leave. yes djs there was a lie. We know it was a lie because it gave birth to a host of sins.

You paint with a wide brush, I think we must remember our Church encompasses an area greater than Pennsylvania and Ohio. If one would venture to the eparchy of Van Nuys, one would notice a vibrant Church, struggling to establish outreaches because of a lack of clergy. But this is changing.

Among our clergy (not bi-ritual, mind you) you will not only find a Hutzko and a Pipta, but a Hernandez, an O'Brien, and a Montalvo as well. Within our parishes the families are just as diverse, but I would not say the immigrants from the "old country" left because we are not an immigrant Church.

For those who sound the death knell for our Church, please remember there is a vibrant growing Church in the West.

For those who complain the Church did not evangelize, whose responsibility is it to evangelize? The bishop or priest did not come to my doorstep and invite me to the parish. The invitation came from another parishioner. He certainly did not need an evangelization program to invite me to Liturgy. Evangelization is our responsibility and is just as easy as inviting someone to Liturgy. Even the "immigrant" Church needs to evangelize or die.