www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy A comparison

Theophilos

Yes, we are probably talking past one another.

And no, your summary of what I am saying is incorrect.

�The worship of God and the education of man by and through the Liturgy are, as Diak puts it ... �parts of an organic whole.�

Yes, Diak states it very well. Perhaps he can better explain the point I am making since I know he understands and agrees with it.

Liturgy is about worship of God. True catechesis comes from worshiping. The catechesis that comes from studying like in a classroom is secondary, and a care of the earth. Liturgy is arranged for the worship of God. The Revisers openly indicate they wish to make it also about educating man (imparting knowledge as if it were on the same level as participation in the Light).

John

John:

The statement you quote is mine, not Diak's. I was merely using his phrase "parts of an organic whole" to describe my position.

You say that my summary of your position is incorrect. Can you please indicate where I have misrepresented it? Thanks.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Theophilos,

Can you simply read what I have already written? It is all there. I'm not sure I can explain how your summary is incorrect without saying it all over again. Or maybe wait until Diak takes a try. He understands what I am saying and might be able to restate it better then I have.

John

I realized when I read your post that I've been repeating it hoping to hear it from you.

It is never futile to correct, when correction is due.

Too much in this Church is done in the dark. I think. It might have been better to have these kinds of open discussions prior to the printing, rather than between distribution and formal promulgation.

Mary

Fr David ,

I do not often post in this Forum - but I really feel I must here.

Many people are complaining about the language being used in this "Revised Divine Liturgy " . They are complaining that language/terminolgy has been altered to , seemingly make it clearer/ more relevant to ordinary folk - eg 'Mankind' - it seems it has to be spelt out that the term applies to both sexes. Strangely enough I have never had any problem with this , to me and almost everyone that I know , and have asked about their understanding of this term, ' mankind' applies to all human beings.

Having said that now I find I am looking at what you have written above and really I am perplexed. We have someone who wishes there to be no problem with understanding some terms , and yet you use the term "dialogued "

Now that, to my understanding is a conversation / exchange of views between two or more people . Is this correct ? To enable all people to understand , thinking of those who do not have an excellent command of English [ possibly it is not their first language ] would it not have been easier and indeed simpler to say " I talked with him " ? Now - 'argumentation " is this an Americanisation ? I have been a member of Byzcath for several years now , and chat with several Americans on a regular basis - never once have I heard that term being used. I wonder if you meant argument ? This would have stopped me scratching my head as I thought about the meaning you intended.

Here in the UK we have a Campaign for clear English which aims at eliminating tortuous language. I accept that sometines it is not easy to avoid some expressions - but on the whole it is. Liturgical language has its own problems I do admit - some terminology is difficult and has to be explained - I'm still learning - but I really cannot accept that everyday useage has to be in complicated stilted language.

ByzKat,

I was curious if you were able to get the information to the above questions and if you will provide it. I'm assuming that based on your writings that Revised Liturgies must have been shown to grow parishes better then the official recension if they promulgated it. I have yet to see this and that's why I'm especially curious to learn about those that have. If you are unable to provide this info I have to wonder why you are promoting something that is not shown to work when the official recension has been shown to work? Plese clarify?

Monomakh

ajk:

Glory to Jesus Christ!



I see your point, though I would argue that the Greek does support the RDL translation as well as it does the previous translation.

Had it been my choice, I would have kept the 1965 liturgikon version or adopted something like Father Taft's translation, as quoted in Fr. Serge's book.

But, as I have noted before, I don't find this translation to be particularly egregious (aside from the inclusive language).

In Christ,
Theophilos

"Having said that now I find I am looking at what you have written above and really I am perplexed. We have someone who wishes there to be no problem with understanding some terms , and yet you use the term "dialogued "

Now that, to my understanding is a conversation / exchange of views between two or more people . Is this correct ? To enable all people to understand , thinking of those who do not have an excellent command of English [ possibly it is not their first language ] would it not have been easier and indeed simpler to say " I talked with him " ? Now - 'argumentation " is this an Americanisation ? I have been a member of Byzcath for several years now , and chat with several Americans on a regular basis - never once have I heard that term being used. I wonder if you meant argument ? This would have stopped me scratching my head as I thought about the meaning you intended. "



Thank you, thank you, thank you for this post.

This one of the reasons some American clerics and seminarians of the Latin rite opt for the U.K. version of the breviary.

R.

As I review these posts and as I look up the translations of the greek, I agree more and more with what Theophilos has written in this thread. I grow in confidence with the translation.

I will have to read the books of Fr. Serge and Fr. Petras.

I think we all agree that the Greek, Slavonic, 1965 liturgicon and posted Russian version all have the same syntax, and that the RDL version has a different syntax. I have noted that as a result of the different syntax of the RDL version it says something different from the Greek, Slavonic, etc. I don't think this was intended, but I don't know. It is possible to read into the RDL an implied meaning and reclaim the meaning in the Greek, Slavonic etc. Another position is that there is a distinction but not much of a difference; another that there is a difference but it doesn't say anything wrong. If these are acceptable standards for accuracy in translation then, indeed, one may "grow in confidence with the [RDL] translation."

Dn. Anthony

As you grow in confidence, myself and others wane. Such is the division in the Church.

This is an old topic that I was intending to restart as a new thread with a different emphasis, but I think it fits as a continuation of this thread. There are several issues in the translation of this prayer of the liturgy, but I want to call attention (again) to the subtle issue concerning the equivalence in the meaning of a particular phrase in the prayer. The difference is between the RDL meaning on the one hand and a number of others (perhaps all others) -- Greek, Slavonic, other English translations.

The original post compared two versions in terms of their overall impression; I give here only the phrase in question.

The Russian Church Abroad:

vouchsafe us to partake of thy heavenly and dread Mysteries of this holy and spiritual table, ... unto remission of sins, unto pardon...

The RDL:

make us worthy to partake ... of your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual table. May they bring about the remission of sins, the pardon...

I add to this the 1965 Liturgicon version which says the same as the above Russian Church Abroad translation

1965 Liturgicon version

make us worthy to partake with a pure conscience of Your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual altar, for the remission of sins, for the pardon...

I'll use the two BCC translations in the following comparisons.

To clarify my point then: I am not questioning here just some dynamic equivalence of the new translation that creates "they" (the mysteries) as the new subject of an entire clause or a poor but allowable expansive translation choice, but the actual equivalence of the new translation to the other indicated English translations and the Greek and the Slavonic. I am questioning the fidelity even the validity (relative to the original intent and meaning) of the new translation of this text on that account. To demonstrate this I’ll pare the phrase down to the essentials.

Here are the pertinent excerpts above rendered (by me) in sentence form (the complete forms are also given at the end of this post):

NEW
Make us worthy to partake with a clear conscience of your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual table. May they bring about the remission of sins.

OTHER
Make us worthy to partake with a pure conscience of Your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual altar, for the remission of sins.



I contend that there are two different meanings conveyed:

NEW: the mysteries are for the remission of sins

OTHER: we partake (of the mysteries) for the remission of sins

Even more basically:

NEW: mysteries for the remission of sins

OTHER: to partake for the remission of sins

Which is it? What is in the received Slavonic and Greek texts? The question is not if the NEW is correct dogmatically, but is it the same as the OTHER (as presumably in the originals). The NEW gives a static meaning: the mysteries in themselves are for the remission of sins. The OLD allows that meaning but says more, specifically in this case that we partake (of the mysteries) for the remission of sins, something not just static but dynamic, something that directs us to be active. I submit that the two forms convey related but different meanings.

In the new form the agent of the remission of sins is the mysteries. In the old form the prepositional phrase modifies either the verb make or the verb (to) partake, but regardless of the whether make or partake, there is a different agent, the making or partaking in the OLD rather than the mysteries in the RDL.

That the phrase modifies make is really not a possibility on the basis of meaning plus make is more remote than the more proximate partake in the order of the sentence. So the meaning of a phrase can be used to discern the intended syntax, but an altogether different meaning should not result from a change in syntax (here sentence structure simplification in the RDL) in a translation. This is what I contend has happened in the RDL translation.

Here are some simple examples to further illustrate the issue. One facet that must be realized is the extent to which we may read into a text what really isn't there, thus an implied meaning, because we know of certain relationships. Can we unambiguously know, however, the meaning of the sentence (Sentence 1 is the OLD standard form; Sentence 2 is the RDL version.),

Sentence 1 : noun-A verb-B object-C for D

relative to

Sentence 2 : noun-A verb-B object-C. C is for D

just on the basis of proper syntax?

This is my analysis using the basic structure of the phrase/sentences under consideration; I have substituted other words, i.e. eat~partake, bread~mysteries, nourishment~remission as an example. Consider:

Sentence 1: We eat bread for nourishment.

versus

Sentence 2: We eat bread. Bread is for nourishment.

I know the meaning of eat, bread and nourishment so the two seem to say the same thing. But there is a subtle difference in what the two forms say if a meaning is not read into the text. That is, the following example should be just as obvious if the two sentences' structure/syntax were equivalent in meaning and saying the same thing.


Sentence 1 : The dog bit the man for revenge.

versus

Sentence 2: The dog bit the man. The man is for revenge.

On the basis of the PROPER syntax, however, the problem/ambiguity does not arise since there is a correct identification of the agent:

We eat for nourishment.

The dog bit for revenge.

So several questions arise.

1. Do the standard translations convey the proper sense of the Greek and Slavonic?

2. If they do, than is my analysis correct, the RDL translation says something different than in the originals -- the static meaning I referred to above rather than the dynamic meaning in the Greek and Slavonic?

3. If yes, what then was the intent of the IELC etc. in producing this change? Was it done on purpose and if so why? Or was it done without realizing that the meaning of the originals was being changed, and is that result acceptable?

------------------------------------------------

NEW (RDL, 2007 Liturgicon)
To you, O Master who love us all, we commit our whole life and hope, and we implore, pray, and entreat you: make us worthy to partake with a clear conscience of your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual table. May they bring about the remission of sins, the pardon of transgressions, the communion of the Holy Spirit, the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, confidence in you, not judgement or condemnation.

OLD (1965 Liturgicon)
In You, O gracious Master, we place our whole life and hope, and we beseech, pray and implore You: make us worthy to partake with a pure conscience of Your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual altar, for the remission of sins, for the pardon of transgressions, for the communion in the Holy Spirit, for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, for trust in You, and not for judgment, or condemnation.

Father Deacon Tony provides a very solid analysis of the problems in the RDL text. I’m not a language expert but have consulted with several who are, after preparing questions based upon an ongoing review various liturgical translations.

1964 with only necessary corrections:
In You, O Master and Lover of Mankind, we place our whole life and hope, and we beseech, pray and implore You: make us worthy to partake with a pure conscience of Your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual altar, for the remission of sins, for the pardon of transgressions, for the communion in the Holy Spirit, for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, for trust in You, and not for judgment, or condemnation.

A possible more literal version (leaning heavily towards the ROCOR text, which is very literal), and breaking it into two sentences:
In You, O Master and Lover of Mankind, we entrust our whole life and hope. We implore You, we pray You, and we entreat You: make us worthy to receive Your heavenly and dread mysteries from this holy and spiritual table with a pure conscience, for the remission of sins, for the pardon of transgressions, for the communion of the Holy Spirit, for the inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, for boldness to approach You, but not for judgment or condemnation.

A possible update could be:

1964 with several possible changes:
In You, O Master and Lover of Mankind, we place our whole life and hope, and we beseech, pray and implore You: make us worthy to partake with a pure conscience of Your heavenly and awesome mysteries from this sacred and spiritual table, for the remission of sins, for the pardon of transgressions, for the communion in the Holy Spirit, for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, for boldness to approach You, and not for judgment, or condemnation.

I certainly invite review and suggestions to make them as literally accurate and elegant as is possible. At this point in the history of the Ruthenian Church I would recommend the first one (1964 with only necessary corrections) be adopted. Given that the texts are still mostly memorized and a real common translation is a decade or more away the most pastoral approach is to correct what is actually wrong and leave what is memorized alone.