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?

I think that Liturgiam Authenticam is theologically driven.

djs,

Your inbox is full and will not receive more messages.

T

Accuracy in a translation - this is not easy, since language involves both science and art (poetry is not exactly a science). Still, one can at least approach this goal, by firm resolution to determine correctness on the basis of scientific criteria, not on the basis of ideological or polemical criteria, nor on the basis of personal preference.

"Inclusive language" is a case in point. Granted that it is POSSIBLE for non-inclusive language to be ideologically motivated, that is not the most likely possibility in most cases. For another example, I would regard any translation which avoids the term "Catholic" even where it clearly occurs in the Greek as ideologically driven and therefore unscientific (this is not hypothetical; I was once disagreeably shocked in a Serbian Church to hear the Creed read in English with this text: "and in one, holy, ecumenical and apostolic Church". That simply isn't the Nicene Creed].

Here's a nasty one: accuracy of TRANSLATION cannot be motivated by musical consideration. Before everyone decides to murder me, I may add that, especially in certain cases where the music of extraordinary importance, it is possible to re-work the text in the receptor language to fit the metre of the music. But one must at least begin with an accurate translation before seeking to alter it on the basis of other considerations.

Here's an example of two different kinds of criteria: I would insist upon the Septuagint as our normative text of the Bible, most especially of the Psalter. I prefer a moderately traditional English (retaining, for example, the second-person singular forms). The first is not negotiable; the Septuagint is, in cold fact, the normative Christian Old Testament in general and the basis of many Byzantine texts in particular. The second is, alas, negotiable - I am entitled to insist on proof that it is possible to produce a genuinely accurate translation without accepting the traditional forms of sacral English, but if someone succeeds in doing it (and I have seen at least one attempt which comes within a reasonable distance of that accomplishment), then I shall have to admit that my preference is not a purely objective criterion.

More could be said, but I'm tired.

Incognitus

Similarly, the avoidance of the use of the word "orthodox" where present in the underlying Greek and Slavonic texts should be looked at as ideologically driven and unscientific, and therefore inaccurate.

Tony,
CHRIST IS RISEN! As regards the employment of euphemisms to replace the word "orthodox" you are, of course, entirely correct. Thanks for pointing it out.

Incognitus

I would still like to hear from someone in the Ruthenian Metropolia to say "We, the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropoliatan Church ARE making these changes, and Rome has approved these changes." Is the truth too much to ask? Enough of the smoke and mirrors already!

Ungcsertezs

UC:

You are the only person to post having heard anything about Rome mandating the translations.
And I thought that Fr. Deacon Lance cleared this up earlier in the thread. I don't get what is still to explain.

Which particular part of the translation was "mandated" by Rome? Inclusive language? I can understand Rome saying "return to an authentic
liturgical celebration according to the Ruthenian Recension rubrics". I don't see Rome saying "We think this is how your English translation should be completed, complete with inclusive language. Here it is, promulgate it in your Metropolitan Church." Is this what has been done?

Ungcsertezs

This is what Fr. Deacon Lance has said.

Who has said this? You are the only one to have suggested this, and Fr. Deacon Lance, if I read between the lines correctly, denied this.

It was mentioned by a priest of the Ruthenian Metropolia after Sunday liturgy, May 22nd after the Archeparchial clergy meetings. That is why I wanted to have this point clarified.

Ungcsertezs

Rome has not directed changes to the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. Archbishop Basil is making these changes on his own authority.

Does this mean the new liturgy will be called "The Liturgy of St. Basil?" Sorry, I am being evil. I couldn't resist. Mea culpa.

Let's reopen this thread on why we must be mandated into this RDL...

Why indeed? Is it not a form of legalism to jam a reformed Liturgy down the throat of an entire Church? Historically, the Eastern Church changes organically and incrementally over long periods of time. Suddenly, we have sweeping changes, instituted by a small group of liberal elite academia, and we are told, "This is the new Liturgy, if you do not like it, tough beans."

There is nothing liberal about this process, and, as I have tried to point out in my book on the subject, precious little of it has any scholarly or academic basis. We have nothing to fear from genuine scholarship.

Fr. Serge