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

Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, 1995
To you, Master, Lover of mankind, we entrust our whole life and our hope, and we entreat, pray and implore you: count us worthy to partake of your heavenly and awesome Mysteries at this sacred and spiritual Table with a pure conscience, for forgiveness of sins and pardon of offences, for communion of the Holy Spirit, for inheritance of the Kingdom of heaven and for boldness before you; not for judgement or condemnation.

UGCC 'Synodal' translation, 1988
We place before You our whole life and hope, O loving Master; and we ask, we pray and we entreat You: Make us worthy to partake with a pure conscience of Your awesome and heavenly Mysteries at this sacred and spiritual table, for forgiveness of since, for the pardon of offenses, for fellowship of the Holy Spirit, for the inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, for confidence before You, and not for judgement or condemnation.

UGCC Eparchy of Parma, 1996
Before you, O kind and loving Master, we place our whole life and hope, and we pray, beg and beseech you: make us worthy to partake of your awesome and heavenly Mysteries at this sacred and spiritual table with a clean conscience, for the forgiveness of sins, pardon of offenses, fellowship with the Holy Spirit, inheritance of the heavenly kingdom, confidence before you not for judgement or condemnation.

Monomakh,

Being FAR from an expert in the Liturgy. When comparing the Liturgies of ROCOR and the Ruthenian Churches don't you need to keep in mind that the Ruthenian Churches have a more "ancient" tradition?

ROCOR is the product of Nikia (spelling) reforms where as the Carptho-Rusyn Church was not.

Do I have my facts correct?

... the Ruthenian Churches have a more "ancient" tradition? ... Do I have my facts correct?

In the first place, the existence of a special Ruthenian Recension has been ascertained older than that which is commonly called the vulgate, because it has not been corrected as this on the Greek Editions printed at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The Ruthenian Recension, then, inasmuch as it is concordant with older texts, deserves to be preferred.

-- EUGENE CARD. TISSERANT
CIRCULAR OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE ORIENTAL CHURCH
TO RUTHENIAN ORDINARIES, Prot. N.: 1219/28, Rome, September 10, 1941
The Ordo, xi.
http://www.patronagechurch.com/Ordo-English-1955/htm/xi.htm

The Archbishop of Lviv, the great Andrew Szeptytsky (1902-1944) became dissatisfied with this latinized Liturgicon and wanted to reform it once again, this time according to true Byzantine principles. Since the earlier reformers, mentioned above, had just achieved their objective of creating a hybrid ritual different from the Orthodox, they were not too receptive to Metropolitan Sheptytsky�s proposals. Again, the story is quite complicated, but it led to a split in policy between Metropolitan Andrew and his suffragan bishops. The split was irreconcilable, so the whole issue was turned over to the new Congregation for Eastern Church, established by Pope Benedict XV in 1917. This office undertook the process of reform, of returning the Ruthenian ritual back to its traditional roots, and to guide the process, relied on the research and advice of Archbishop Andrew�s friend, Father Cyril Korolevsky. (He was actually a Frenchman, Jean-Fran�ois Charon, who changed his name when he joined the Ruthenian Church.) His work was a true reform, returning the rite to its more authentic Eastern form. This was difficult to do, since the Liturgy had been modified for almost three centuries. He used the traditional texts of the Ruthenian Church where there was a unanimous tradition and followed the usage of the Great Russian Church where there were discrepancies, since his goal was to return to the universal Slavonic standards. This work was completed in 1941, and it was a true reform - the restoration of the Liturgy according to its Eastern form. After the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Oriental Congregation also produced the Liturgies of St. Basil the Great and the Liturgy of Presanctified Gifts, along with an Epistle and a Gospel book, a small Books of Needs (containing the sacramental mysteries, blessing and consecrations, the Book of Hours for the Divine Praises and - in 1973 - an Archieraticon, the book of the bishop�s rites. This conscious decision to restore the Liturgy was followed up by Rome in the solemn decrees of Vatican II, then in the Canon Law promulgated for the Eastern Churches, and most recently in the Liturgical Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Churches of January 6, 1996.

It was not followed up properly in the Ruthenian Church, however. The work came to fruition, unfortunately, during the Second World War, and the churches in Europe were suffering. When the Communists came to dominate Eastern Europe, our Churches there came under persecution, were disestablished and had to go underground. In our own Church in America, Bishop Basil Takach was very sick and died in 1948. Bishop Daniel Ivancho was prepared to introduce the reformed Liturgicon, but was removed from office for other reasons. His successor, Bishop Nicholas Elko was unfortunately opposed to the reform, and his successor, Archbishop Stephen Kocisko, was very cautious about introducing any change. Actually a faithful translation of the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgicon was made by Bishop Elko, but he distributed along with it instructions for the celebration of the Liturgy that reverted to the 1905 latinized Liturgicon. Everything was put on hold for thirty years. Bishop Emil Mihalik of Parma was the first to promulgate the reformed Liturgy - albeit it in a pastoral format. There was opposition from the other eparchies, and Bishop Emil�s promulgation had a rough road to follow. Bishop Andrew Pataki followed with another promulgation in 1986, again in a pastoral format, which was accepted by the Eparchy of Van Nuys, and then by the Eparch of Passaic in 1996, when Bishop Andrew was transferred there. I will return to these shortly. Finally, when Judson Procyk became Metropolitan in 1995, his desire was for the true reform that had been prepared for many generations. To this end, he established a Liturgy Commission that was charged with making a translation of our liturgical books that would fulfill the commission of our Church to be faithful to its tradition. This would be a true reform, because it would fulfill the gospel of our Lord as passed on through tradition, as the Decree on Eastern Churches said, �All members of the Eastern Churches should be firmly convinced that they can and ought always preserve their own legtimate liturgical rites and ways of life, and that changes are to be introduced only to forward their own organic development. They themselves are to carry our all these prescriptions with the greatest fidelity. (� 6)�

This is where we are now [ajk added: now = 12-AUG-2006].

http://www.davidpetras.com/download...20Byzantine%20Church%20August%202006.doc

Taking into consideration, from independent experts I have spoken with, the use of "us" and "mankind" is not inclusive but a deficiency or difference in the Greek language. I am not offended by its use.

For goodness sake - Ray - did you ever look at Shakespeare in School - or Chaucer ?

Bishop Emil Mihalik of Parma was the first to promulgate the reformed Liturgy - albeit it in a pastoral format. There was opposition from the other eparchies, and Bishop Emil�s promulgation had a rough road to follow. Bishop Andrew Pataki followed with another promulgation in 1986, again in a pastoral format, which was accepted by the Eparchy of Van Nuys, and then by the Eparch of Passaic in 1996, when Bishop Andrew was transferred there. I will return to these shortly. Finally, when Judson Procyk became Metropolitan in 1995, his desire was for the true reform that had been prepared for many generations. To this end, he established a Liturgy Commission that was charged with making a translation of our liturgical books that would fulfill the commission of our Church to be faithful to its tradition. This would be a true reform, because it would fulfill the gospel of our Lord as passed on through tradition, as the Decree on Eastern Churches said, �All members of the Eastern Churches should be firmly convinced that they can and ought always preserve their own legtimate liturgical rites and ways of life, and that changes are to be introduced only to forward their own organic development. They themselves are to carry our all these prescriptions with the greatest fidelity. (� 6)�

Consider this also from Fr. David Petras:


Dn. Anthony

This has been discussed before but I will note again that there are many (including me) who hold that the promulgations in Parma in 1986, Passaic in 1996 and Van Nuys a few years ago were NOT promulgations of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension.

The Russian Church Abroad:

Unto thee we offer our whole life and hope, O Master, Lover of mankind; and we ask thee, and pray thee, and supplicate thee: vouchsafe us to partake of thy heavenly and dread Mysteries of this holy and spiritual table, with a pure conscience, unto remission of sins, unto pardon of offences, unto communion of Thy Holy Spirit, unto inheritance of the kingdom of heaven, unto boldness towards thee; not unto judgement nor unto condemnation.

One of these prayers feels anciently connected to the Church Fathers, traditional and sacred.

The other feels neutralized, modernized, and generic. [my emphasis]

... the current liturgical hodge-podge that now possesses us.

With your permission for copyright purposes, I may get my aunt to embroider this and frame it, I would only add an Amen to the end of the prayer, yet Amen is too old school. I think the following would be more appropriate for Amen:

1) You got that right!
2) I heard that!
3) True da that!

This has been discussed before but I will note again that there are many (including me) who hold that the promulgations in Parma in 1986, Passaic in 1996 and Van Nuys a few years ago were NOT promulgations of the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension... [And we see that the Pittsburgh Reform of 2007 actually prohibits the full celebration of the official Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension!]

I appreciate the difficulties surrounding the translation of "anthropos" in the creed.

Firs t, I note that the Anglican Church still says "for us men and our salvation"

The issue here is the intent of the word "anthropoi". Is it used the distinguish men from women. Apparently not. The NT uses a different word (aner; plural andres)) when that is the intention.
Cf. the feeding miracles in the Gospels. Is it used to distinguish humans from animals or angels. We have no idea.

Actually the phrase is redundant : "for us men and our salvation" might more economically rendered "for our salvation".It maybe that something vital is sacrificed this way, but it is hard to know what it is.

Ray, with all due respect to your relative, the response is troubling.

cineast post

Date: Sat, 5 Jul 97 13:10:46 EDT
From: "Anthony J. Kotlar"
Subject: Re: translation

In the latest issue of the magazine *Touchstone*, a faculty member of Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology writes a letter defending their translation of the Divine Liturgy, and the translators, from the criticisms voiced in a previous article. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to look up the article (although I was in a library), but if I remember correctly, it was by one of the magazine's editors, Fr. Reardon. Also, I had myself been mulling over the Holy Cross translation, especially since the posts by Daniel Joseph and Stephen (above).

What is the consequence of "dropping" or "altering" a word in translation? Is it good if it is done to be "gender neutral" or "politically correct"? Does it correct a gender bias in our language, or does it "correct" an invented bias that was never there to begin with? Does it, only too often, produce poor theology in bad prose?

Generally, I don't like to see words just go away. The Greek of the Creed could have said *for us*, but it says, literally, *on account of us (the) men=human beings*; that is, *di' humas tous anthropous*. *anthropous*, masculine accusative plural, has gender like *men*, but the Greek has the sense of *human beings* who are either just male or male and female collectively. This was also the customary understanding of the English *for us men*, meaning, *for us human beings*.

The reason I don't like to see words dropped is that, for me, they break links to other references, spawned by these words, in scripture and the liturgy. One of my occasional pastimes is following a word "link". I don't claim this is done in any rigorous way either linguistically, theologically, or exegetically; it's done more in the sense of casual browsing and meditating. A very common and general word, like *anthropos*=man, would, for example, have a great many profound and also mundane "links".

In the case of the creed itself, it seems that a certain closure is lost when the word *men* is dropped and a link is broken. That is, the phrase reads: "Who for us MEN (anthropous) and for our salvation came down out of the heavens and was enfleshed out of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin and BECAME MAN (enanthropesanta). Thus we profess in the creed that Jesus, who consistently referred to Himself as the *Son of MAN*, "for us MEN...BECAME MAN."

Of course, the "link" is still there in the original Greek even if not explicitly in the English translation. But, even prior to Daniel Joseph's post, I had been disappointed by another rendering in the Holy Cross translation (which, by the way, in other aspects I think is very good). It involves a word/phrase that I consider one of the most beautiful in the liturgy (in the Ruthenian translation) and which seems to have been virtually obliterated, or so absorbed into other words in the Holy Cross translation, that it is almost unrecognizable. For me, it is a one word prayer and, coincidentally, it is "linked" to the missing *anthropous* of the creed. That word, which is often present in prayers addressed to Jesus in the liturgy, is *philanthropos* -- Christ our God, the one true and great "philanthropist," so beautifully proclaimed (but not in the Holy Cross translation) as the *lover of MANKIND*.

That said, I am hoping Recluse can explain his issues with the translation of this particular prayer.

I do hope it is more than just a matter of "feeling"

I am absolutely certian that I do not stand alone in this memory of our late Archbishop Judson, and I will not stand by and watch others foul his memory by crediting him with the current liturgical hodge-podge that now possesses us.

In another thread, Father Deacon Anthony provides us with a beautiful explanation of the use of MAN and MANKIND in our liturgical prayer that focuses on our penetration into the Christological mystery of the Incarnation and our direct participation in that mystery, rather than on some secular economy of word or sound, however expert and common to the day.

That you may rest but not sleep through it,

Originally Posted By: Elijahmaria

I am absolutely certian that I do not stand alone in this memory of our late Archbishop Judson, and I will not stand by and watch others foul his memory by crediting him with the current liturgical hodge-podge that now possesses us.

Dear Mary,

Thank you for your heartfelt insights regarding the late Archbishop Judson. May his memory be eternal!

R

Master who love us all: This is particularly disturbing--a neutralized, modernized and generic term.

I appreciate the difficulties surrounding the translation of "anthropos" in the creed.

Firs t, I note that the Anglican Church still says "for us men and our salvation"

The issue here is the intent of the word "anthropoi". Is it used the distinguish men from women. Apparently not. The NT uses a different word (aner; plural andres)) when that is the intention.
Cf. the feeding miracles in the Gospels. Is it used to distinguish humans from animals or angels. We have no idea.

Actually the phrase is redundant : "for us men and our salvation" might more economically rendered "for our salvation".It maybe that something vital is sacrificed this way, but it is hard to know what it is.

Thank you for your response. I certainly understand your point; I just wonder whether the emotions (and senses) are doing a little more work here than the intellect, and whether this is, in fact, a good thing.

One wants a translation to be accurate, faithful to the original text, AND readable/understandable by those for whom the translation is being made, AND able to communicate the authentic meaning of the text.

Perhaps if we kept in mind the difficulty of the undertaking, we might be less inclined to use words such as "despair," "travesty," et al. to describe it.

The prayer in question, however, hardly seems to fall into that category.

Ask yourself an honest question: How many people would actually understand "unto" as denoting purpose or result?

I'm not sure which part of this phrase you are addressing.

Saying that Archbishop Judson's memory is "fouled" if we "place the blame" on his shoulders makes an assumption that the RDL ("Restored Divine Liturgy") is "objectively bad" and that since Archbishop Judson was "good," he could not have supported it! This is circular reasoning, because some think that the 2007 Liturgy translation is a good thing for our Church. Certainly, from personal experience, I know that Archbishop Judson was happy with the Liturgy, and had received the "approval" from Rome and spoke with me in his office about it at some length in the first week of April 2001. Those are the facts and I think they do honor to his memory, to the memory of a fine man who provided leadership for our Church. I think this is necessary for the record.

Here is the response I got back from my family member who is a well respect expert in ancient Greek.

...the RDL ("Restored Divine Liturgy")...

The "R" in "RDL" does NOT mean "Restored Divine Liturgy." The "R" could only stand for "Ruined", "Revolting" or "Repulsive" but certainly not Restored. Some think it might even mean "Rubrically-Challenged" but that would be "RCDL" so don't go there.

"This is precisely the kind of uncharitable hyperbole to which I was referring a few posts ago."

Correct, calling the RDL the Restored Divine Liturgy is uncharitable to the Ruthenian Recension.

the RDL ("Restored Divine Liturgy")

It was also shown that EP approved the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of Great Britain's translation which uses "for our sake" rather than "for us men". Official or not there are versions in use in the GOA that have at least tacit approval that use "for us". One can argue over the appropriateness of this editing of the Creed without resorting to claiming those who would do it are standard bearers of the secular feminist agenda or card carrying members of NOW.

I am against inclusive language myself, if for no other reason it is cumbersome and unlovely but support for mild horizontal inclusive language, some of which is Vatican approved, is not, in my opinion, worth getting upset over let alone leaving the Metropolia.

Fr. Deacon Lance

It was also shown that EP approved the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of Great Britain's translation which uses "for our sake" rather than "for us men". Official or not there are versions in use in the GOA that have at least tacit approval that use "for us". One can argue over the appropriateness of this editing of the Creed without resorting to claiming those who would do it are standard bearers of the secular feminist agenda or card carrying members of NOW.

I am against inclusive language myself, if for no other reason it is cumbersome and unlovely but support for mild horizontal inclusive language, some of which is Vatican approved, is not, in my opinion, worth getting upset over let alone leaving the Metropolia.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Administrator:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Just a clarification:

The only person in this thread who referred to the RDL as the "Restored" Divine Liturgy was Fr. David. I agree that this is inaccurate. What I object to -- but which, given your silence, you apparently think is acceptable -- is the use of pejorative modifiers by certain posters in place of "revised": "ruined," "revolting," "repulsive." Such language is childish, unhelpful, and unChristian.

Can someone post the Greek of the prayer that is putatively under discussion in this thread? Thanks.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Just a clarification:

The only person in this thread who referred to the RDL as the "Restored" Divine Liturgy was Fr. David. I agree that this is inaccurate. What I object to [cut] is the use of pejorative modifiers by certain posters in place of "revised": "ruined," "revolting," "repulsive." Such language is childish, unhelpful, and unChristian.

Can someone post the Greek of the prayer that is putatively under discussion in this thread? Thanks.

In Christ,
Theophilos

I agree, Theophilos.

Is this as childish, unhelpful and unchristian as those Revisionists who believe women are too stupid to understand that �who for us men� includes them?

Dear Administrator:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Just a clarification:

The only person in this thread who referred to the RDL as the "Restored" Divine Liturgy was Fr. David. I agree that this is inaccurate. What I object to -- but which, given your silence, you apparently think is acceptable -- is the use of pejorative modifiers by certain posters in place of "revised": "ruined," "revolting," "repulsive." Such language is childish, unhelpful, and unChristian.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Theophilos,

When I first read the original post I laughed and thought it was good satire (good satire is always based upon the truth). But you are correct and I am wrong, the comment crosses the line into uncharity. I accept your correction, and thank you for it.

Admin

It was also shown that EP approved the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Of Great Britain's translation which uses "for our sake" rather than "for us men". Official or not there are versions in use in the GOA that have at least tacit approval that use "for us". One can argue over the appropriateness of this editing of the Creed without resorting to claiming those who would do it are standard bearers of the secular feminist agenda or card carrying members of NOW.

I am against inclusive language myself, if for no other reason it is cumbersome and unlovely but support for mild horizontal inclusive language, some of which is Vatican approved, is not, in my opinion, worth getting upset over let alone leaving the Metropolia.

Is this as childish, unhelpful and unchristian as those Revisionists who believe women are too stupid to understand that �who for us men� includes them?

Perhaps you should review some of the other messages in this Forum in order to identify for yourself the multiple problems with this theologically mutilated and maimed liturgy.

The prayer you are asking about is the Creed and there are several places in the more recent discussions, where the Greek is offered for examination and comparison.

I am not sure why you didn't look more thoroughly first, before commenting.

By all means, we should loudly and passionately voice our displeasure with the RDL -- but can't we do so in a manner that is befitting our common life in Christ?

In Christ,
Theophilos

[I am deeply troubled by inclusive langauge, whether horizontal, vertical or diagonal, because it (1) suggests that certain non-Christian ideologies or worldviews have successfully imposed themselves upon the Church, and, more important, (2) represents a denial of (or, at least, a worrisome discomfort with) the scriptural norm of male headship.

Can someone post the Greek of the prayer that is putatively under discussion in this thread? Thanks.

Σοὶ παρακατιθέμεθα τὴν ζωὴν ἡμῶν ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν ἐλπίδα, Δέσποτα φιλάνθρωπε, καὶ παρακαλοῦμέν σε καὶ δεόμεθα καὶ ἱκετεύομεν· καταξίωσον ἡμᾶς μεταλαβεῖν τῶν ἐπουρανίων σου καὶ φρικτῶν μυστηρίων ταύτης τῆς ἱερᾶς καὶ πνευματικῆς Τραπέζης, μετὰ καθαροῦ συνειδότος, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εἰς συγχώρησιν πλημμελημάτων, εἰς Πνεύματος Ἁγίου κοινωνίαν, εἰς βασιλείας οὐρανῶν κληρονομίαν, εἰς παρρησίαν τὴν πρὸς σέ, μὴ εἰς κρῖμα ἢ εἰς κατάκριμα. ( source [myriobiblos.gr] )