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?

:rolleyes:
"Men" has a usage an inclusive term, but it cannot be said that it "is" an inclusive term (at least, depending on what the meaning of "is" is!) Women and girls would not be appropriate in the men's room, for example. I don't know that anyone tried to convince anyone that "men" only means "males". Only that when the meaning is inclusive and an alternative word without that other, exclusive meaning can be found, then the latter is preferred. incognitus gave a nice example the other day: cleric instead of clergyman (or clergyperson).

I note an interesting "us". Does this phrase apply only to the men present? ...

Lazarenzo,

Please note the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese's English text also does not include "for us men", but simply reads "for us". Again I must state I think this is much ado about nothing. God came down from heaven for mankind, humankind, us. All are pointing to the same reality.

What I find odd is the most debated change in the English Roman Rite text is "given for you and for many" vs "for you and for all" for all is blasted as erroneous or heretical because it is too inclusive for Christ did not die for "all" but only for the "many" that would be saved. We have the reverse going on here with people worried "for us" or "loves us all" is not inclusive enough.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Incognitus, IN TRUTH IS HE RISEN!
Note, however, that the monks do all their own printinng and binding (even making the hard covers), so there's no labor expense.

Photius

It's an odd mixture of Erasmian and modern Greek pronunciation.

But, your point about not altering the Symbol is very well taken; the disputed translation does, indeed, delete a word. If one wanted to be "politically correct", then use "us humans" rather than "us men", although that is not strictly a literal translation, but then again, neither is "ascended into heaven". That the Greek Archdiocese makes the same error is no justification for it.

Photius

Dear Photius,
CHRIST IS RISEN! That the monks do the printing and make their own bindings is correct, edifying and joyful. Alas, though, even monks must eat, wear clothing (despite occasional legendary hagiographies of anchorites clothed only in their own hair), sleep in buildings, and so forth and so on. The result is that the monks must live largely from the work of their hands - which is itself an ancient monastic tradition.
Saint Benedict teaches that the monks should live by the work of their hands and, indeed, should sell their handiwork at somewhat less than the commercial price, as an act of charity. When Saint Benedict wrote this, he did not foresee that the day would come when this simple advice would cause the monks to make more money - I'm not referring to Jordanville, but I know quite a few monasteries who produce this and that by hand, thus making the quality better than what is commercially on offer, and then sell the products at less than commercial prices. As a result, since the word gets around, they find themselves besieged by would-be customers. It's self-correcting, since the monks do not have, e.g., the production of hand-made chocolates as their chief goal in life. But it's a reflection on our mad times.
Back to Jordanville for a second - oops. I was about to give a specific example of a form of charity which the monks regularly practice, but I suddenly realized that I might not be doing the monks any favor, so I won't mention the specifics. Suffice it to say that they do indeed practice exemplary charity.

Incognitus

Here's one more question regarding the new and revised Liturgy:

Who is going to pay for ALL the new books for the people, the cantor and the priest? Will each parish have to buy them or will the diocese send them to each and every parish?

Many of our parishes are small and short on cash. Weekly collections barely pay the REAL bills. How are all these changes supposed to be implemented if we have to decide between "gas and electric" or new pew books, cantor books and altar books?

Dear John K - as to who's paying for all the books - here's a trick that was used by at least one bishop back in the 'fifties: send out the books to each priest, along with a list of "mass intentions" with, of course, no money attached and a form which the priest was supposed to complete to assure the bishop that he had offered the Eucharist for the intentions thus mentioned. The bishop then kept the money as payment for the books (and no, I am NOT making this up). Somehow I suspect that this would not be a successful technique nowadays.

Incognitus

A good point! Also, how much have we already paid for this misadventure? Is there a figure for how much the Archbishop has already paid, for travel, time, accomodation over the past years, while this misguided revision has been thought up? That my donations have helped to support this nonsense, makes me sick.

Has no one heard of the clergy abuse scandal? Have the Bishops learned nothing about how the people feel about their, "I'm accountable to nobody, everybody has to do whatever I say" attitude?

Nick

Do we get to deduct from this "wasted" amount the time and money that was spent on getting Metropolia-wide agreement on a text for the ordinary of Vespers, and the Sunday propers, that does NOT use the "vertical" inclusive language (language related to the Messiah, note!) in the Uniontown books? Or should we continue praying "Blessed is the one" on Saturday evening, to avoid doing anything our bishops might suggest?

Our parish is using books with no music, incomplete festal materials, no beatitudes, that replaces several litanies with "some parishes have a litany here", that STILL has the filioque (even if we don't sing it). I will not like every change if our bishops approve a new book, but IF the bishops promulgate one, I'll pay for the first ten copies in our parish.

Yours in Christ,

Jeff Mierzejewski

My Dad used to say, "A thing worth doing, is worth doing right."

What is so shocking and unreasonable, about producing a careful, accurate, and poetic translation of the ruthenian recension?

....without abbreviations, alterations, innovations, inclusive language, editing or otherwise seeking to 'improve', reorganize, reorder, or rearrange the byzantine liturgy.

An accurate translation!

WHY is that too much to ask? If that is beyond the ability of the committee, then we need a new committee.

Nick

I've heard this recently and some time ago:
What's the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist. You can negotiate with a terrorist.

This might not be totally true, but it does reflect some people's experience.

Nicholas writes:

What is so shocking and unreasonable, about producing a careful, accurate, and poetic translation of the ruthenian recension?

....without abbreviations, alterations, innovations, inclusive language, editing or otherwise seeking to 'improve', reorganize, reorder, or rearrange the byzantine liturgy.

An accurate translation!

WHY is that too much to ask? If that is beyond the ability of the committee, then we need a new committee.

******************************************

A sensible question. One reason is that such a translation is unlikely to be accomplished by any committee. But take heart, such translations are available. With the exception of "poetic", most of your criteria are objective. If some more participants will post more possible criteria, and we can arrive at a consensus, it would not be difficult to take all the criteria into account and produce such a translation.

Incognitus

What do you understand as "accuracy: in a translation?

A translation that is, as Pope John Paul II said, free of "ideological influence."

Thanks. That is one necessary, but hardly sufficient criterion. And it cuts both ways, of course. Resistance to inclusive language may als be ideologically driven.