www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Towards Common Texts (From: Study Text of the Ruthenian DL)

Perhaps this quesiotn has already been asked, but has there been any serious discussion of the possibility of coming up with a common English text of the Divine Liturgy for the three largest Byzantine Churches in America, that is the Ruthenian, Ukrainian and Melkite? I know that back in the sixties there was some common work done between the Melikites and the Ruthenians. Also, has the English text produced by Bishop Ambrose Senyshyn of Stamford (1954 and approved for use by Cardinal Tisserant of the Oriental Congregation) ever been consulted? Sorry if these questions seem basic.

What is now the Orthodox Church in America also expressed interest in common texts back in the 1960s or so, but it never happened.

The 1964 translation is Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown's favorite, and the one he uses.

From what I have heard, no one opposes the idea but it usually follows with "everyone can adopt the one we use". My guess is that it will take either 1) a really wonderful translation that everyone chooses to adopt because it is so good or 2) a directive from Rome to create a common translation.

The Liturgical Instruction encourages common texts among those using the same Liturgy and Section 29 (Liturgical books and ecumenism) encourages it with the Orthodox.

I understand that the people’s texts and music are memorized in many places, so one must be careful not to implement a common translation in an unpastoral manner. However, the texts that belong to the priest and deacon could be implemented, even if just voluntarily over 20 years as new priests are ordained.

The Eparchy of Toronto had its own English translation dating back to 1973 "ad usum privatum" which became very popular. The 1987 text endorsed by the Synod of Bishops of the UCC was made mandatory in Toronto in 2003 and is supposed to be in use throughout North America. However I find it interesting that Bishop Robert of Parma published his own English translation in 1996 with the endorsement of Patriarch Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, who was already in office when the 1987 text was approved. As you may know, a similar controversy ensued when the UCC bishops "corrected" Patriarch Josyf's 1968 translation of the Liturgy into Ukrainian. The 1987 revision was suspended in 1991 and clergy were instructed to use the 1968 version until a final decision was made. That decision came in 1997 when then Bishop Lyubomyr Husar declared the 1987 text binding. Interestingly, that saem year the Ukrainina Orhotdox Church - Kyiv Patroarchate adopted a translation much closer to Patriarch Josyf's 1968 version! Some UCC parishes continue to use his translation. So, liturgical controversy is everywhere. God bless.

Yes, but at least you are not burdened with a lot of "horizontal inclusive" language.

Dn. Robert

The more my wife and I look at it, the more impressed we become. Given the resources at their disposal, and taking into account the liturgical and spiritual state of the Metropolia at the time, it was a brilliant effort, requiring only a light touch with the editor's pencil to correct some minor errors and incongruous language, and to bring it into line with the Ordo Celebrationis. A good translator is a modest translator, who does not attempt to superimpose his own words and thoughts over those of his predecessors, when the earlier work has stood the test of time.

I cannot see any good reason to have just one translation for all Greek Catholic jurisdictions. First, there are major differences in usage and style among the particular Churches, and it would not be easy to shoehorn both the Greek and the Slavic usage (further subdivided into Nikonian and Pre-Nikonian) into a single text. Second, why bother, when historically it is an anomaly to have agreement among liturgical books even when in the same original language? "Typical editions" are a product of the printing press, and since the Church managed to get along for fifteen hundred years with variant manuscript texts, is there really any value added to having everybody "on the same sheet of music"? Third, multiple translations foster a healthy competition and establish a set of checks and balances. It is difficult to get away with the abominations of the RDL when there are alternative English translations against which to compare it. The translators are forced to defend their choices, and explain why their particular choice might disagree with that of every other English translation for the past century or so ("everywhere and always"? Where did you get that?). It's nice to think that a committee might come up with the ideal translation, but experience tells us that committees work by consensus and compromise (except when they are run by bullies who beat down all resistance), which usually results in mediocrity at best. Furthermore the decline of linguistic scholarship over the past generation does not inspire much hope that a group of modern scholars would produce any great improvement over what we have now.

Very well said.

The goal in this current project is to correct only what is wrong (the standard is to make the texts literal / word-for-word / elegant), being very reluctant to change what the people have memorized but reasonably open to changes for the texts prayed by the priest and deacon.

When the first draft of this study text was posted I was told by a Ruthenian priest who printed and reviewed the whole copy that if the bishops had implemented it back in 2007 instead of the Revised Divine Liturgy it would have been very well received. No changes to music would have been necessary. He had two exceptions, the use of “ages of ages” and the restoration of the word “Orthodox”. He supported both but indicated that both the clergy and laity would need to be educated as to why they were correct and necessary. I agree with him on that point.

BTW, the project is still moving along nicely. I do expect to do another update soon but it will certainly not be the final. Basil is almost ready to go, and an update to the Levkulc Pew Book with corrections is underway. We can use good scholarship to encourage the bishops to promulgate something better than the RDL.

When I hear statements like that, it makes me wonder about both the clergy and the laity.

To be fair, people are a product of their eduction. For many years both clergy and laity were taught things that were not correct. Remember that the whole RDL is just a symptom of a Church that really hates itself. The faithful - especially the older ones - know it was not true but still bought into the terminology. Education, example and encouragement can accomplish a lot. That is what is needed now.

What version is used by parishes such as SS. V&O in Chicago and St. Elias in Ontario?

And here we go again - the inevitable results of:

a) purporting to provide "official" translations in the absence of adequate research, and

b) allowing extraneous considerations to take on undue importance in the determination of how texts should be translated (for example: "that text is too Orthodox / too Catholic"; "we've already invested too much time and money in one text; we can't change it now") and so forth).

Fr. Serge