www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Could someone please explain?

Since I am Roman Catholic and married to a Byzantine Catholic, and we did frequent the Byzantine church prior to 3 years ago, I get very confused about the liturgy reforms? I know that our liturgy changed because we got new books but I don't see all this inclusivist language and normally I am keyed into to that sort of thing. Am I just totally ignorant? We are ruthenian Catholics living in CT?

And even if it is not applicable to our diocese...could someone give a brief summary of what is specifically wrong with this new Mass. Brief is the key word.

Thanks,

Holly

Holly,

I hope the reference I provided sheds some light on this debate about the RDL.

Ungcsertezs

That is because there is not much there -- aside from the switch from "lover of mankind" to "lover of us all" and from "us men" to "us," there is little in the RDL that would qualify as "inclusivist language."

In fact, there is so little that I have heard several people complain that the RDL did not go far enough ...

What's there is way more than enough. The RDL did not go far enough for some!? They must be masochists.

As I appraise the situation as it has been discussed on the forum, there are (at least) two issues here.

One is the motivation for the change: was the change needed because the former terms were in fact exclusive; who was requesting the change.

The second is the accuracy and thus the veracity of the translation: in the case of the creed a word has been completely dropped. Is that ok? Is the corresponding word in the Greek original also superfluous? Could it, anthropous, be eliminated there in the Greek just as well without a change of meaning? The Greek would then say exactly what the RDL English says, "for us and..." If that's all that is being professed, what purpose does the word anthropous serve in the Greek?

What exactly did they want to see changed?

Dn. Anthony

So all it took to communicate the Gospel to the literally hundreds of young people that you talked with was a few 'minor' word changes?

When will BCA parishes begin to see the fruit of this bold and progressive move in terms of young people flocking to the BCA? 3 Months? 6 Months? 1 year? 5 years?

For the sake of semantics, what is your definition of a young person, less than 18, less than 25, less than 30, less than 40?

In what way did the RDL not go far enough, what do these 'people' that you've spoke with want in addition to be done and/or changed?

Chopping up the liturgy in the past has never brought success to the BCA, was that because they didn't use horizontal inclusive language? Is that why you think that it will work this time?

Monomakh

Dear Holly,

I would be delighted! We have a Liturgy in Slavonic, which is a great treasure. It is identical (nearly) with the books used by the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It is a great treasure, and a shared treasure.

We need the Liturgy in English. We want a careful, accurate, exact, complete, faithful, and beautiful translation of the Slavonic Liturgy into English.

The 'new Mass' is neither a careful or exact translation, it is incomplete, unfaithful in many many points, invents crazy new rubrics out of thin air, and it is ugly. As a translation, it is a mess, this from here, that from there. It is a serious deviation from our tradition.

What is more, since it is such a departure from our tradition and a corruption of our Liturgical treasure, we now longer share this treasure with the Ukrainian and Orthodox Churches.

Rome has told us to provide careful and exact translation, Rome has told us to cooperate with others who use our Liturgy (Ukrainians etc.), and not to allow our books to differ from our Orthodox sister Churches. In fact, Rome has seriously suggested that wherever possible, we work toward common translations.

But our bishops have a different idea. They want our Liturgy to be different from the Ukrainians, and from the Orthodox. This is what I call an 'agenda'.

Another example of 'agenda' revision of our Liturgy is the use of inclusive language. If I start on that topic, (and the very doubtful sources of this road to nowhere), this response will not be brief, and so....

The short answer, is that by every objective way of evaluating a 'translation' this book is a disaster.

Nick

Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava na Viki!

Dear Holly. The problem is that what you have requested is just about impossible to give. I asked for the same thing several months ago. It simply did not happen. There are too many people with too many different opinions. Each one is entitled to their opinion, nor am I telling anyone they are wrong. But you're asking for a quick summary of some very complex issues.

Nicholas gave you one opinion. I'm sure others will give you others that disagree with his. Or are a variation of his.

Some people say the translation is an abomination. Others say there are very few changes. The biggest change I have seen is in the music. And now on a different thread, there was someone who posted that they began cantoring over 40 years ago and some, I repeat--some, of the music in the new books is very similar to the melodies used in the 1950's and 1960's, before the Liturgy switched from Old Slavonic to English. Remember--when you change a word from one language to another, the number of syllables can change. So the melody that worked with Slavonic might sound strange or wierd when the words are said in English.

I don't have the answers and don't claim to. Some posters say write the Bishops and demand they change it back. Others say write to Rome and have the Pope slap our Bishop's hands and force them to change it back. Others say trust the Bishops. In short, there is no short answer. Sorry. The best advice I can offer is to read the section #8 on the Revised Divine Liturgy as much as possible. Go back as far as you can. Attend Liturgy and make up your own mind.

Sorry, but that's the best advice I can give you.

Tim

At first I like Tim's even-handed, some like it, some don't, make up your own mind about it approach. I know that isn't exactly what he is saying, but there are some here who feel that it is all a matter of personal opinion, and that those who point out the errors in the translation are just 'mean spirited' and have some personal reason for hating it. But I think there is a problem with that approach, and so I am not happy with a 'some like it, some hate it, make up your own mind' approach.

This is a work of translation, of a traditional Liturgical text. So there must be some OBJECTIVE criterea that we can judge it by. It is not simply a matter of opinion, some like it, some don't. That's a very poor standard for Liturgical translation. It's also impossible to satisfy, because you'll never please everybody. So! Pleasing people cannot be what good Liturgical translation is for.

This one pleases feminists and 'men' haters. This one pleases those who like a shorter Liturgy than the full one, and a longer Liturgy than the most abbreviated ones. It doesn't please those who like the full Liturgy and who love all the Litanies, and it doesn't please those who like a really short Liturgy and hate lots of Litanies.

Do you see the problem here. This Liturgy pleases a few priests on the commission (though even some priests on the committee say they hate it!).

So, we cannot use 'pleasing people' or 'see if you like it' as a way to judge a translation. There must be objective, real, tests.

A Liturgical translation meant for public use should be careful, accurate, complete, precise, without additions or ommisions from the approved text in the original language (Church Slavonic). If there is some confusion about the meaning of the Slavonic, consult the Greek one. It should not shorten, lengthen, reorganize or otherwise rewrite the original.

It seems to me, these are objective, standard, accademic, and ordinary ways to judge a translation.

Much better than 'I like this, and you don't' approach, 'you hate this, and I feel hurt' approach; this only perpetuates hurt and disappointment. 'I've won, and you've lost', ha ha, or 'I'm excluded, you have got your way', boo hoo.

The only way out of that rut, is to employ objective standards used for serious translators. In addition, the norms put forth by Rome for the translations of the Latin books, are also full of very good, objective, clear standards.

We really have to get away from this 'I like it, you hate it' discussion. It is not about personal tastes and agendas. Can't we find an objective way forward, and leave the subjective behind?

Nick

Nick,

The fact is Rome approved the RDL, Rome has approved and continues to approve texts with horizontal inclusive language. Most recently the Canadian Corrected NRSV Lectionary, and the English text of the Roman Missal, 3rd edition for example has in the Gloria �peace on earth to people of good will,� the inclusive �people� is retained for hominibus. Which is a text the RDL also uses people in.

I doubt feminist and men haters are pleased with either the RDL or any other Vatican apporved text because radical feminist call for getting rid of any and all masculine reference.

Another thing that some seem to not understand is that only the original language edition printed by the Vatican need be the complete text. Publications of texts by the Eastern Hierarchal Councils and Synods and Latin Episcopal Conferences are translations and are allowed certain adaptations which may differ from the original.

Only Rome can interpret what Rome has written. Since Rome approved the RDL, Rome must obviously think that the RDL meets the criteria of its other documents.

A seperate issue is whether those wishing to use the older and complete translation should be allowed to do so. I think they should and I think Rome will rule in their favor in this regard, if the freeing of the 62 Roman Missal is an indicator.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The missing part of your argument is the letter Rome sent allowing the use of the RDL. What did it say? Did Rome have complete approval, or regretable approval? That's the question that should be asked.

If I remember correctly, there was a post here on the forum a while ago that said Rome was not 100% in favor of the RDL -- something about it being sad that the Ruthenians couldn't make time for all the Antiphons. (Someone correct me on this if I am wrong.) Knowing how the Roman Catholic priests LOVE the Byzantine Liturgy, I just can't imagine Rome agreeing with it 100%.

Just my skepticism.



Fr. Deacon Lance, based upon this statement you would have my vote for Bishop.

Rome's approval of the RDL came from Fr. Taft. A friend of mine asked him who was on the Committee that approved the RDL. He replied, "You're looking at him." So the approval came with whatever was in Fr. Taft's head.

While experts have a place, their decisions can't be made the norm:


Cardinal Ratzinger(My emphasis).

Complete approval or regretable approval is still approval and if Rome entrusted the decision to Fr. Taft, then it did and the apporval still stands.

All this really points to is that the Eastern Congregation should be disbanded and Eastern Catholics left to govern themselves without out Rome's big brothering.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Nicholas, I owe you an apology. I did not explain myself properly. I was not taking a "live and let live" attitude towards the Liturgy. I agree with you that it is too important of a thing to take lightly. There must be a definitive version that is accurate and true and we should all follow. Not because we are told to, but because it is the right thing to do--the translation and music is correct. That's what I want. It seems that is what you want as well.

But there's the issue. Too many people don't know how the translations were derived or why certain words were chosen or how the music was chosen. The people on the Committee don't seem to be talking much about it. The earlier posts in Forum #8 go into this in some detail. One of the main people involved, Father David Petras, has posted a few times on this forum and it seems that everytime he posts, people jump all over him and dissect every word he says. That does not make him want to post very often. It certainly would not want to make me post if everytime I did, I was jumped all over.

There are lots of problems but none of them are impossible to overcome. It would take certain people sitting down and talking. But that doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon.

Some people will say that what you and I want has been done--it's the new green books. Live with it. I want what you want--leave the subjective behind and get on with it. I think it can be done. Let's pray that it will be.

Tim

Deacon Lance,

You know this is a problem... we've been around this before.

You say Rome has approved the RDL. I say, 'Prove it'. There has been no published letter from Rome to this effect, so you cannot claim it is a fact. Some people claim it is true, but that doesn't make it a fact.

There are published letters from Rome which forbid this kind of 'free interpretation' of Liturgical texts. So I take the published letters over 'hearsay' any day.

If you claim Rome has approved this, I say, show me the letter where this is true. Otherwise, you and the committee cannot claim Roman authority has approved it.

Further, you know it is only on the authority of our bishops that this revision has been done. They signed it and promulgated and enforced it with draconian measures and intimidation. And, I claim they have done us a great disservice.

Nick