www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Who is mandating the "revised" liturgy and rubrics?

My question is, how faithful is the "revised liturgy" to the Greek texts? Since Greek is the original language, I have no problem with accurate translations from it. Is this one accurate?

Well, no one denies that Rome mandated the original "ruthenian recension" service books which began to appear in 1941.

That raises a question worth considering. Since these books were promulgated with the authority of the Holy See, on the request of ALL the Ruthenian hierarchy, it would surely require a similar authority to revoke that mandate. And until the mandate is revoked, one could easily take the position that regardless of whatever the local hierarchs might approve by way of exception, the right to continue to use the original "ruthenian recension" remains in force.

Before screaming, bear in mind that no less an authority than Pope Benedict XVI maintains that the Tridentine Mass has not been abrogated and that every priest of the Roman Rite retains the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. If you wish to hear him say this with your own ears, order the video-recording of the exclusive English-language interview with Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger from EWTN. I very much doubt that the Holy Father is either backtracking on what he said or trying to withdraw that interview from circulation (in the latter event, it would take only one request from the Holy Father for EWTN to stop broadcasting or distributing the interview).

Well, licet jovi, licet bovi. If the Latins may lawfully continue to use the Tridentine Mass, it would appear likely that Ruthenians may continue to use the ruthenian recension as originally published by Rome.

Incognitus

:p

Dear Friends,'

Perhaps this is out of place, but the issue of whether Rome is to blame for this or that, or our bishops, can often be a moot point.

As the incomparable incognitus has said, who is it who appoints the bishops?

Having had the privilege of discussing issues with two such bishops recently, I can say that, yes, Rome now need only sit back and let their bishops do its work for it!

Rome is a master politician, we EC's are really babes in the woods by comparison!

Alex

For those interested, this is the official English text of the Divine Liturgy for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The "inclusive" language in this text is similar to what will be in our revised text. So much for distancing ourselves from the Orthodox.

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

Dear Father Deacon,
Many thanks for providing this useful and interesting text. Your generosity is particularly admirable since this text may turn out to be a two-edged sword in the present discussion! But you have done everyone a valuable service.

Incognitus

A few comments on the text link to the Greek Orthodox translation of the Divine Liturgy posted by Father Deacon Lance:

1. It omits the deacon�s parts (it is an online text and not a formal liturgicon). The official liturgicon is very close to the Ruthenian 1965 edition.

2. The prayers of the antiphons are said in �a low voice.�

3. There is a rubric for the antiphons stating: �(The designated verses from the Psalms are sung with the hymn:) People: By the intercessions of the Theotokos, Savior, save us (3).� [Note that the rubric says �verses� (plural) and not �verse� singular.] Some parishes do omit the verses and just sing the refrain 3 times. Others parishes sing three verses with the refrain. There is no prohibition against singing the traditional verses.

4. The Little Litanies between the antiphons are preserved in full. There is no prohibition against these prayers.

5. The prayers of the Little Entrance and the Trisagion are said �in a low voice.�

6. The litanies between the Gospel and the Great Entrance are omitted from this text. They are often omitted in parochial usage. They are included in the liturgicon and there is no prohibition against praying them.

7. The prayer of the Cherubic Hymn is prayed �in a low voice.�

8. The Litany of Preparation is preserved in full. There is no prohibition against these prayers.

9. The prayer of the Proskomide is prayed �in a low voice.�

10. The Anaphora is prayed �in a low voice.�

11. The �Grant it O Lord� petitions of the Litany before the Our Father are shortened in this text but they are in the Liturgicon. There is no prohibition against these prayers.

12. The prayer at the bowing of the heads is prayed �in a low voice.�

13. The prayer at �One is holy� is prayed �in a low voice.�

14. The Litany of Thanksgiving is included in full.

15. The prayer of the Litany of Thanksgiving is prayed �in a low voice.�

16. The dismissal prayer does reword the text to avoid mention of �mankind� and should be condemned for doing this.

It is unfortunate that this text uses some inclusive language.

We should all thank Father Deacon Lance for providing us with this link. It makes it very easy to confirm that the Greek Orthodox are not changing the liturgy to mandate certain prayers be taken out loud or prohibiting the praying of certain litanies. They have preserved the rubrics of the traditional liturgy.

Christ is Risen!
The synod of 1924, which adopted the new calendar, suggested these be suppressed; where that synod's "reforms" were put in force, these litanies are occasionally used, but rarely, even in monasteries.
I don't believe anyone proposes that this be said out loud.

I very much dislike this translation for numerous reasons, and although used by the largest Orthodox jurisdiction in the USA, it is not typical of Orthodox translations.

Traditional Byzantine translations (whether into Slavonic, Arabic, et cetera) use a stylized form of the language, something that both preserves a bit of the flavor of the Greek and that sets it aside as a sacred text, distinct from the language on the street. Consider, for example, ROCOR's translations:

http://www.orthodox.net/services/index.html#S3

It has a few things that annoy me (and it has ROCOR-specific commemorations worded into the text, but this is consistent with older liturgicons, just not useful to non-ROCOR folk who may want to use them), but it is exact and precise.

Photius, Reader

A few comments on the text link to the Greek Orthodox translation of the Divine Liturgy posted by Father Deacon Lance:

1. It omits the deacon�s parts (it is an online text and not a formal liturgicon). The official liturgicon is very close to the Ruthenian 1965 edition.

2. The prayers of the antiphons are said in �a low voice.�

Further,

The text uses "Orthodox" instead of "right-believing."

The rubrics call for the distribution of antidoron at the end of Liturgy. This presupposes, of course, that the faithful use of prosphora instead of using precut pieces.

Nec

Dear Photius,
CHRIST IS RISEN! Please accept my thanks for that link - I look forward to making much use of the liturgical materials which it has to offer. There's a nice hand-size (duodecimo) edition of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom in English printed at Jordanville a few years ago - a bit pricey, but worth the money and useful to have.

in the Risen Lord,

Incognitus

Apparently an important point was left out of incognitus' post. Latins may only use the Tridentine Mass at the discretion of the local Ordinary. Only the local Ordinary may permit a priest to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass. The Mass celebrated is according to the Johannine Roman Ritual of 1962. John Paul II of blessed memory rightly left that decision to the local Ordinary who is in the best position to decide the pastoral needs of the faithful.

IMHO, incognitus' post is a bit reckless in its veiled inference that a priest may disregard the lawful authority of the Metropolitan and the Council of Hierarchs in liturgical matters.

Vladyka Incognitij,
In Truth He is Risen!
I am heartened that you found that link useful.
I have the Liturgy of Saint Basil in the same format, which was given to me by Father Lawrence on a trip to Jordanville a few years ago. I am saddened to hear that it was pricey. Jordanville used to be very reasonable in the prices of all they printed, but, I suppose, the times are changing everywhere. They have closed down their dairy farm because it ran in the red ... 140 head of cattle are too few to be competative, I suppose ... but I miss that most charming aspect of Jordanville's work ethic, it being the only place in the New World where one could regularly see an archimandrite shovelling cow manure.

Photius

Dear Father Deacon John,
CHRIST IS RISEN! You write: "Apparently an important point was left out of incognitus' post. Latins may only use the Tridentine Mass at the discretion of the local Ordinary. Only the local Ordinary may permit a priest to celebrate the so-called Tridentine Mass. The Mass celebrated is according to the Johannine Roman Ritual of 1962. John Paul II of blessed memory rightly left that decision to the local Ordinary who is in the best position to decide the pastoral needs of the faithful."

Your analysis is not unusual. However, In a lengthy interview given not so very long ago to EWTN, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (better known as Pope Benedict XVI nowadays) stated flatly that the Tridentine Mass has never been legally prohibited and that any Roman Rite Priest who wishes to celebrate that Mass is free to do so. His Eminence (as was) did not add the information that repeatedly over the past 30-odd years local bishops have attempted to suspend priests for celebrating the Tridentine Mass, and Rome has invariably lifted the suspensions (unless, of course, the priest was guilty of other offenses). I have no reason whatever to believe that Pope Benedict XVI has changed his understanding of the situation of the Tridentine Mass.
Moreover, the 1941 Divine Liturgy is published by Rome and issued on the authority of the Holy Father. It is unlikely that the same authority will mandate the revision currently under discussion.

Incognitus

Dear Photius,
Alas, printing and binding are more expensive everywhere these days.

Incognitus

I want to return to the problem of the new "translation" of the Creed in the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. In some cases the translators sought to be more accurate in there rendering of the Creed, but in other ways that have acted more like revisers than translators.

Many Eastern Christians dissaprove of how the Roman Church added a word to the Creed (i.e. filioque), but we now have a revised creed that has a SUBTRACTED of a word from the historic Creed of the Universal Church.

The Greek text says: "For us men (anthropous) and for our salvation..." Men is an english 'inclusive' term which traditionally includes both men and women, boys and girls. It was only in recent times that some have tried to convince us that men only means males. What ignorance of our language!

Here is a Greek transliteration of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: (I don't know how accurate this transliteration is, but I found it elsewhere on the Forum)

Pisteio eis ena Theon, Patera, Pantokratora, Poitin ouranou kai geis, oraton te panton kai aoraton. Kai eis ena Kyrion, Isoun Kriston, ton Eion tou Theou ton Monogenei, ton ek tou Patros gennithenta pro panton ton aionon. Phos ek photos, Theon alethinon, ek Theou alithinou gennithenta, ou poiythenta, homoousion to Patri, di Ou ta panta egeneto. Ton di imas tous ANTHROPOUS kai dia tin imeteran sotirian katelthonta ek ton ouranon, kai sarkothenta ek Pnevmatos Agiou kai Marias tis Parthenou kai enanthropisanta. Stavrothenta te iper imon epi Pontiou Pilatou kai pathonta kai taphenta. Kai anastanta ti triti imera kata tas Graphas. Kai anelthonta eis tous ouranous kai kathezomenon ek dexion tou Patros. Kai palin erchomenon meta doxis krinai zontas kai nekrous, Ou tis Basileias ouk estai telos. Kai eis to Pnevma to Agion, to Kyrion, to ZoOpion, to ek tou Patros poreoumenon, to sin Patri kai Eio simproskinoumenon kai sindoxazomenon to lalisan dia ton Prophiton.
Eis Mian, Agian, Katholikin kai Apostolikin Ekklesian. Omologo en Baptisma eis aphe sin amartion. Prosdoko anastasin nekron. Kai zoin tou mellontos aionos. Amin.

See the above word in all capitals? ANTHROPOUS. This word was part of the Creed of the Church since 325 AD. Now, get your black marker and put a line not under the word but through the word itself. If you have an eraser, erase it. Or just delete it. Anyway, this is what our "translators" have done for us. There is a change of meaning of the text. (A matter worth discussing.) This is an example not of translation but of deletion. The revised Creed is not the Creed I profess, nor has the Church ever professed it. What right do they have to do this? Political correctness should not be a norm for translation.

Oops! I made a few typos in my post above. It should say:

"Many Eastern Christians dissaprove of how the Roman Church added a word to the Creed (i.e. filioque), but we now have a revised creed in which our "translators" have SUBTRACTED a word from the historic Creed of the Universal Church."