www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Another "restored" translation

Father Deacon,

I apologize. My quote was from the RSV - Catholic Edition (Ignatius Press).

Jeff

Oddly enough Jesus's response does not vary to reflect the possible variations in meaning of the thief's words.

That to me is the determining factor.

Jesus teaches in that moment that He is the Kingdom, outside of time, eternal, imperishable, realized, though too often, un-recognized.

In his passion death and resurrection, it can be rightly said that Jesus came into His own.

The liturgy as it stands neglects to invoke any of these revealed truths.

The current statement is dull and trite and lifeless by comparison.

Not a true remembrance.

Mary

Hmmm.. We do say "For thine is the Kingdom", not "For Thou art the Kingdom." Following further the lex orandi - if His is the Kingdom, when we say he "comes into it", do we mean this like an inheritance? Or as one enters a conquered country - in which case Christ is conquering... himself? We say His IS the Kingdom, not His WILL BE the Kingdom - hence the motion what would be implied by ordinary usage is a bit jarring.

Again, "when you come into your kingdom", with the ordinary meaning of kingdom, seems opposed to your theological statement; what is Christ waiting for? A king bears a relationship to the territory he rules, and to the rulership. Which is the thief referring to? Which is the Church referring to?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

The text in question is the Communion Hymn from Psalm 111[112]:6, which is used for numerous classes of saints.

The Grail Translation gives this as �The just man will be remembered forever; evil news he will not fear.�

The translation from the LXX given in Holy Transfiguration Monastery�s Psalter is: �In everlasting remembrance shall the righteous be; he shall not be afraid of evil tidings.�

That the altered text has been used and Scripture has had its inclusiveness reduced in the texts offered by the Typicon for several years does not mean that such a revision of Scripture is acceptable (and no one should call it a �translation� because it is not).

The meaning of the psalm verse is clear. �The just man� or �the righteous� is inclusive of any man who is just � male or female from Adam and Eve to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. �Will be remembered� or �in everlasting remembrance� speaks of God�s memory since only He is capable of �Eternal Memory�. �Evil news he shall not fear� or �he shall not be afraid of evil tidings� means that the righteous are not afraid of such things because the Lord delivers the �just man� (the �righteous�).

Scripture should never be rewritten to give it new meaning. When it is rewritten it often limits the meaning of what the Lord breathed into it. The Communion Hymn �The just man will be remembered� (or �In everlasting remembrance shall the righteous be�) has a dual purpose. It raises the life of the saint being remembered at the Divine Liturgy as an example and it teaches the world that each is called to be just (righteous) so that he will be remembered by God. Changing the Scripture to �woman� reduces this call to only females while the inclusive term �man� includes all men � male and female from Adam and Eve to the last child conceived before the Second Coming. There are also other problems with revising Scripture to suit the message the editor wishes to replace the Scriptural message with (such as the instability it brings to the Church�s Liturgy). The Vatican has numerous directives on the need to accurately translate and not rewrite Scripture. There has been such a tremendous effort here to produce new books it is a shame that incorrect agendas of revision have replaced the principles of authenticity and accuracy. I really hope the Vatican strikes down these books before much damage is done to the faithful.

The text used for the intonation of �Many Years� or �Eternal Memory� is not a direct quote from Holy Scripture.

The text used for the Communion Hymn IS a direct quote from Holy Scripture.

There is a qualitative difference between texts used in Liturgy that are Scriptural and Non-Scriptural.

As to the exact translation it would be good if our Slavonic and Greek experts could provide us with a literal translation we can examine. The principle of the translation given to us by the Church applies (i.e., the many Vatican directives). If it is clear in the original it should be rendered clearly in translation. If it is ambiguous in the original then it should be ambiguous in translation. The translators surely mean well but they do not know better than God and have no authority to rewrite the words that God has breathed. If the word �man� is used in the original it belongs in the translation. If indeed the term �man� is not used in this psalm verse then one could render it as �The just will be remembered forever; evil news he will not fear.� Translators should never introduce words that are not in the original text.

It is never acceptable or appropriate to change Scripture.

The Church, in this as in so many other Scriptural tropes, acknowledges more than one meaning. Christ brings the Kingdom of Heaven. Christ is the Kingdom. Christ is the Good News! The Kingdom is the Good News! The Gospel is the Good News! Christ brings the Gospel! Christ is the Word.

You see what I mean.



There really is no "further" in your limited view of that Scripture passage. It dead ends where you leave it.

However the fathers and the Church have taught for centuries that the Church is the Body of Christ and we enter into heaven through the Body, through Christ, which fits very well with a translation of "entering into the Kingdom" as in penetrating the Word.

The Incarnate Christ, second person of the Trinity, son of God, true God, true Man, in the fulfillment of the will of the Father, enters into his eternal inheritance. Interpenetrates the Caritas that is Trinity and redeems the world.

The thief sees Christ as King of the Jews and so imagines a Kingdom, into which he asks our Lord to lead him.

And Christ says that this day the thief will be with him, King and Kingdom, Redeemer and Word of Life, in Paradise.

Your Church's rendition of all that is now lost...tossed out, I believe is the better image.

Mary

Jeff,

I�m not a language expert. That is why I requested someone to post a literal translation from the Slavonic and Greek for us to examine.

I see nothing wrong with �The just will be remembered forever; evil news he will not fear� if indeed the use of the term �man� is not a correct translation to the original. It works nicely with the various melodies normally used by Ruthenians for the Cherubic Hymn. There is nothing lacking in English and there is no difficulty in understanding the text.

Response to your PPS: From what I have read the corrected English texts of the Roman Mass now under review in Rome changes �Lord, I am not worthy to receive You but only say the word, and I shall be healed� to something more accurate. The actual Scriptural Verse is: �Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed.� (Matthew 8:8bRSV) But even here the purpose of the Scripture is different than the Byzantine Communion Hymn. This text is purposely being placed on the Communicant�s lips as both a profession of faith and a request for healing, sort of like: �Lord, I am not worthy that you should come under my roof, but speak only a word, and my soul shall be healed.� [I seem to remember that this was one of the texts under consideration.�]

Again, I pray Rome orders a correction to the errors that have been introduced in the Revised Liturgy and prohibits those texts from being used so as not to mislead the faithful.

John

Dear John,

I see two things got confused here. You stated that Scripture can NOT be changed ("the just woman"); but allow that the Church can change is to reflect particular circumstances ("soul may be healed" instead of "servant may be healed"). But the Church"s commemoration of a particular woman saint is precisely the sort of circumstance that one might claim justifies a clarification - in which case your "Scripture must never be changed" argument is somewhat weakened. Or is it that a woman cannot be an image of Christ, and a Christlike woman MUST be referred to as a man?

Personally, I have no problem with "the just man" OR "the just", and would be happy with either. But the original accusation was that a reference of Christ was changed to be a reference to a human being - which would be a much more significant issue. If the text honors a monastic woman, would saying "the just woman" mislead the faithful, and in what way?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Because that prayer in that place is not a reference to the "saint de jure" but it is a reference to the communion of the faithful!!!!!

The new translation changes the entire meaning of that text in that place in the divine liturgy.

Mary

Mary,

So on the feast of a martyr, when the Church sings "Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of His faithful", we should make sure NOT to connect this with the day's martyr? I would certainly acknowledge several additional meanings, especially the great Archetype of all martyrs, but you seem to dismiss any connection with the liturgical day being celebrated.

Any on feasts of angels, "And his ministers a flaming fire" should refer to.... what? The servers igniting themselves accidentally with the candles on either side of the priest?

The days' liturgical hymns, if they have an obvious connection to the celebration, should be allowed that connection!

Jeff

Non sequitor

Refrain:

Psalms 110 and 111 are paired alphabetical psalms. Together they are a paean to the wonders of Creation. They are traditionally sung at the eating of the Paschal lamb. Some teach that Jesus led the disciples in singing these songs before they went out in the Garden after the Last Supper.

One could argue for an adjusted use of those sense lines for the saint of the day, in male and female terms, and be all right in terms of meaning and tradition in the typical common of saints.

But to use it in that way in the divine liturgy may not be such a good idea, in that the divine liturgy really is for the communion of the faithful, and the reference should be to all of humankind, and evocative of the patriarchal and paschal references of the Psalms from which the lines come.

So in this case it may not be so much wrong or dangerously misleading, as it is a weak approach, inappropriate to the moment, and out of place, to what should be a powerful and evocative small hymn of anamnesis.

We are still a patriarchial people, as well as a hierarchical Church. One should not try to erase that reality but smudging the words. Primarily because it cannot be erased. We are what we are.

Blessings,

Mary

Mary,

Out of curiosity, then, are you in support of singing the psalm itself at Communion, with the triple Alleluia refrain of the Communion Hymn? Of just abbreviating it to the single verse?

Jeff

The paired psalms? Don't you think that would a tad long?

Would not the single line be sufficiently evocative of the traditional patristic use of the Psalm itself, expressed in the New Testament context of the faithful justified through Baptism in Christ, and in the context of the communion of the faithful in the Divine Liturgy?

Mary

Jeff,

The Byzantine Communion Hymn is a purposeful Scriptural reference, intended to be sung together with other verses from that psalm. The Latin Response to the Invitation to Communion is something different, a quote from Scripture rendered as both a statement of faith and as a request for healing. They are two different things. If you wanted a legitimate parallel here it would be: �If I were a just man I would be remembered forever; I would not fear evil news� (but I would never advocate such). Rendering the Latin Rite�s Response in the way done to the Byzantine Communion Hymn (changing it to say �women�) would be: �Lord, that woman is not worthy that you should come under her roof, but speak only a word, and her soul shall be healed.� The problems with changing what is meant to be a quote from Scripture by altering it to limit the Scriptural meaning to only include woman are clear. (The least of which is that one must continue to give new mean to Scripture by revising each psalm verse taken with the Communion Hymn to also be exclusive to the woman saint being commemorated.)

You might also consider that even if you could justify the changing of the text for the purpose you seem to want to change it for, it is not up to the an individual translator to take upon himself the revision of texts which all Byzantines hold common. There are processes to seek common agreement to changes of texts that are held in common by many.

You wrote: �Or is it that a woman cannot be an image of Christ, and a Christlike woman MUST be referred to as a man?�

You are getting all muddled. In the Communion Hymn the woman saint is not being referred to as a man. In Standard English �man� and �he� are inclusive of all men, males and females, from Adam and Eve until the last child conceived before the Second Coming. When the Communion Hymn uses the inclusive term �man� it can be seen as a call to all men present � both male and female and even those growing in a mothers� womb � to be just so that they will be remembered eternally. Changing it to �woman� limits the Scripture and makes the Communion Hymn a false statement. I understand that some people are offended by Standard English and the fact that it uses the term �man� to mean �male and female human beings�. Altering Scripture and other texts is not the answer to their being offended. Education is. All of us who are faithful have an obligation to educate such people as to what Standard English is and what the Vatican directives mean and why they were issued.

You wrote: If the text honors a monastic woman, would saying "the just woman" mislead the faithful, and in what way?

I answered this more than once already. Please read my original post and this one. The Communion Hymn is also an individual call to each man � male, female, Adam and Eve to the last soul conceived � to be just (righteous) so that he will be remembered eternally.

Have you read the Vatican teachings on the dangers of altering Scripture to suit agendas? If not, you really should.

John

Jeff,

Look to your post to find the answer.

When there are several different meanings present in a quote from Scripture it is wrong for the translator to limit these meanings breathed into it by God, and replace them with the preferred meaning of the translator. Making the various connections is the job of the homilist or pastor. It is not the job of the translator.

Correctly translated the Scriptural verses do allow the obvious connection to the celebration. They also allow other connections, some obvious and some not. The translator does a disservice when he puts limits on the meanings breathed into the Scriptures by God.

John