www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy What is changed in Revised Divine Liturgy?

The RDL at least tends towards heresy with the use of inclusive language. It changes the mission of the Second Person of the Trinity from the redeemer of mankind to the redeemer of us. Us who? We (the faithful) shouldn't have to ask that question, as the liturgy used to tell us. One wonders what the next generation that is brought up on this watered down version of the atonement will believe? And what of this generation's faithful that are being scandalized by a PC liturgy? How many souls lost are too many?

It may not have been a heresy to say that Mary was the 'Christotokos,' as she was indeed the Mother of the Christ, but the Church condemned the term, favoring instead the term 'Theotokos,' because it more fully explained who the child in her womb was. Likewise it may not be a heresy to say 'loves us all,' 'who for us, and for our salvation,' etc., etc. but the Church (both the RC and EO) has likewise condemned this expressions because they do not paint the entire picture, and in fact can easily lead to heresy (limited atonement anyone)?

I don't like inclusive language but the RDL does not at "least tend to heresy". Please document where "loves us all" was condemned. Please reread the acts of Ephesus, the term Christotokos was not condemned. And it is an option in the new Chaldean Missal approved by Rome.

I've posted on this numerous times. The closest the Vatican comes to condemning a translation as heresy is to call it "theologically grave". They did so to a proposed version of the Creed that removed the word "men" in "who for us men and our salvation" and the Roman bishops understood and fixed the problem, while the Ruthenian bishops rejected the Vatican's ruling and - six years later - insisted on using improper and incorrect language.

Below is a summary of what I have previously posted:

The newly Revised Divine Liturgies do not preserve doctrinal precision. The use of what is known as “inclusive language” (“gender neutral language”) creates theological confusion in places where the older text provided theological accuracy. There are numerous examples, but one may suffice here. In the dismissal of the Divine Liturgy the wordings used in the 1964/1965 edition (now in common use) were precise and clear: “For [Christ] is gracious and loves mankind.” The Revised Divine Liturgies render this as “For Christ is good and loves us all.” The term “mankind” clearly refers to all men from Adam to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. The term “us all” is potentially exclusive and could easily mean only those people gathered at that point in time. It does not make sense to replace a translation that was inclusive and doctrinally clear with one that is potentially exclusive and doctrinally confusing.

The translations used in the Revised Divine Liturgies of Chrysostom and Basil violate this directive. In the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) they replace the very clear “Who for us men and for our salvation” with the potentially exclusive “who for us and our salvation”. The term “anthropos” is omitted from the Creed, thus changing the Creed. Further, the term that Christ “loves mankind” is reduced to the potentially exclusive “who loves us all”. Similar problems occur through the new texts and it is clear that a simple “find and replace” was done for any term relating to “man” and “men”, changing what was doctrinally precise in the old translation to something that is doctrinally imprecise, potentially exclusive and politically correct in the new text.

The Greek “anthropos” is the exact equivalent of the Latin “homo”. How is it possible that in the year of our Lord 2007 an English translation of any of the Divine Liturgies of any of the Particular Catholic Churches – Eastern or Western – omits the word “anthropos” (“homo”) when the head of the Congregation for Divine Worship has stated that “to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave”? The earlier 1964/1965 edition was correct in using the phrase “for us men and for our salvation”. This error must be corrected.

There are a number of examples of the type of inclusive language prohibited by the Congregation for Divine Worship, not just in the texts of the Revised Divine Liturgies that have been promulgated but also in the changeable texts (the “troparia” and other hymns) for the entire liturgical year that have been rewritten to embrace this type of “inclusive language” (gender neutral language).

The problem now is less that mistakes were made and more that the bishops need to provide a more theologically accurate text. The people deserve good theology in Liturgy and not politically correctness.

Are you fimilar with Calvin's doctrine of the limited atonement? Well, when it comes to the new translation of the Nicene Creed, the RDL drops ‘men,’ from “for us men and for our salvation,” and renders it ‘for us and for our salvation.’ The problem here is one of limited atonement. Did Christ become Incarnate, suffer, die, and rise again only for “us,” or did he rather do it for all of mankind (past, present, and future)? The possible doctrinal error that results from the omission of the word "men" from the Creed stems from the resulting context. The word "men" in this place of the Nicene Creed confesses the fact that Christ came down from heaven to die and atone for the sins of all people, that is, the whole world, since Christ is indeed the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." The omission of the word "men" at this point results in a Calvinistic error, namely, the doctrine of a "limited atonement." Calvinists believe that Christ only died to save those who would end up believing (the predestined for salvation). The revision of the Creed opens the way for this understanding because the removal of "men" makes the context revert back to those who say "I believe.’” Hence, "who for us and our salvation" contextually becomes, "who for us (who are saying this creed) and for our salvation" rather than all mankind.

This is a red herring. Of course this particular phrase hasn't been condemned. However, inclusive language has been, and "loves us all," is not the proper translation.


As I said above Christotokos is a perfectly valid term, but it doesn't give the entire picture. The exclusive use of it was condemned in favor Theotokos for that reason.

What specifically in the oath covers this? Also, in addition to those who left the BCC should be added the case of those who stay but cannot in conscience serve.

Too true. It’s one thing to be different and right, another to be different and wrong. What statement are we making as a church – and about ourselves and our competence – with an admitted particular gender-language-driven agenda in translating. The RDL omits the word men from the creed yet our fellow Catholics -- Roman -- have it retained in their new translation as it was in the old.

link [usccb.org]



Are Latin rite Catholics better able to comprehend the meaning of men in the creed than Byzantine Catholics? Who is hearing and professing the correct and comprehensive theology? Is there such a cultural gap between the great majority, the Latin rite Catholics, and us? Are we at the vanguard of enlightened translations, leading the way, or rather becoming a well-documented example of what should not be done?

It still begs the question then, why did Rome approve it and allow the Ruthenian bishops to promulgate it?

That is a reasonable question, and has been discussed many times.

Firstly, the approval came in 2001 just before Rome got fed up with rotten translations and gave ICEL new marching orders (ICEL stands for "International Committee on English in the Liturgy" - the group that prepared many translations of the Roman texts but were scrapped). The approval came just weeks before "Liturgiam Authenticam" was promulgated (the document that requires accurate translations (replacing what is called "dynamic" or "paraphrase" translations with those generally called "literal" or "formal" translations)).

The larger issue here is that the bishops had six years to edit the texts to meet the new requirements but instead chose the path of revising rather then embracing the Ruthenian Liturgy, as well as that of putting political correctness into the Liturgy.

Another aspect of the reason behind the reform is Bishop Andrew Pataki. He openly disliked both other Greek Catholics as well as the Orthodox. It was partly his idea to revise the Liturgy to make it so different that should the Church get small enough over time that it could not be merged with other Greek Catholics (although that was one of what appears to be many factors). While he would probably not state such an opinion quite so openly he really didn't hide it, either. Add into that quite a bit of Ruthenian self-loathing (he said that restoring the missing litanies in the form given by the official Liturgcion was "going backwards"). I don't know if it was conscious or unconscious, but the bishops (and perhaps some on the liturgical commission - all good men who love the Lord and had good intentions) still see our Liturgy as something quaint that needs to be updated to fit modern society, and they see modern Roman Catholicism as the model.

One thing that Bishop Pataki was certainly talented at was getting what he wanted out of the Eastern Congregation. Guess what? The priests who work there are not the highest paid people in the world. They are mostly Latins and don't understand Eastern Liturgy (which is understandable since they are Latins). When a bishop comes to visit and he is a good politician (taking you to dinner and giving you nice Christmas gifts) you tend to give him what he wants. [I'm not faulting the system, only acknowledging that is how it works, and Bishop Pataki's approach was not unreasonably in the reality.] We do know from Fr. Taft he was not allowed to comment on the revisions, and his review was limited to the text only, and did he consider it to be not heretical.

Then there is the very human tendency that makes one who has paid for a a top of the line Cadillac and discovers that they have purchased a used Yugo to try to justify their action. Plus, there is tendency to not to want to reject the work a number of good and well-intentioned men worked very hard on (even if it is very imperfect) and the huge amount of money they spent on that and hiring a professional Roman Catholic musician to set the music.

As the Yugo was on the cutting edge of Serbo-Croatian automotive technology, so the RDL was at the cutting edge of Carpatho-Rusyn liturgical translation.

For the worse:

1. It gives preference to the Greek text rather than the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension as the primary translation text (but not consistently).

2. It arbitrarily changes the rubrics of the Recension Liturgicon and Ordo, at times introducing novelties.

3. Driven by a preconceived agenda and relying on unverifiable data as a justification, it eliminates man/men/mankind language from the translation at the expense of linguistic and theological accuracy and beauty.

4. It mandates an audible recitation of the Anaphora etc., that is, without allowance for transitioning from or option to follow the Recension's legitimate usage.

5. It has unwarranted translations based solely on scholarly opinion and conjecture.

6. It is an abridged liturgy relative to the full text given in the Ruthenian Recension.

7. It is mandated as the sole English language text for the (Ruthenian) Metropolia of Pittsburgh (BCC), thereby enabling and insuring that the defects and innovations, 1-6 above, are the norm. Thus, an abridged rite with substantial translation issues is now the sole primary liturgical expression in English of the BCC.

In general, the RDL is too much of the translators and innovators and (in too many instances) too little of the actual text.

Regarding the promulgated chant: It has failed to find the needed consensus and is too often unlovely and rigid and incorrect (this according to some long-time and notable practitioners and cantors) in its interpretation of prostopinije. It likely compromises and stifles -- most definitely suppresses in English -- the vitality and legitimate diversity of the oral tradition in which Carpatho-Rusin prostopinije has its roots.

The RDL is a fact for our church and more is on the way: the process, the operation continues, fait accompli. Looking at it as objectively as I can, I can't but conclude (and feel) that the process that brought it to us, and the final product, is sufficiently flawed that it is doing more harm than good, is more a deficit than a benefit. Hopefully it will not be the case that the operation was a success but the patient died.

If the a bishop or Bishops of the BCC are known to have an aversion to the Byzantine Rite, maybe it's time for people to start a campaign to have them deposed. They really have no business serving as bishops in a Church where they are against its own liturgy.

Been there, done that. Read about the unfortunate history of Bishop Nicholas Elko.

The Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs clearly does not think well of the people they are supposed to pastor. Has anyone bothered to read the revised texts of the liturgy and of the troparia? There are quite a lot of them that are not even grammatically correct. And we know that there are lot of translation errors. And the music is really awful. And the scandal around the man they paid a lot of money to who wrote it. $2 million and 12 years for this? Where did the money go?

Bishops:

Why do you believe we not worthy of the whole liturgy?

Why are you so embarrassed of our Ruthenian Rite that you cannot permit it to be celebrated?

Why do you believe not us worthy of accurate translations and good music?


Unfortunately, the bishops do not care about the faithful enough to bother to answer letters. And if you ask them in person they give you strange looks and walk away.

Dear Jason,

I've heard this repeated quite a few times, along with the (untrue) assertion that all the music came from "one collection of music from one parish" in the Old Country.

Could you provide a couple of examples of these troparia that are "not even grammatically correct"? (I would wager that they use the vocative correctly, which a lot of English speakers these days don't, but I'd be interested in any actual grammatical errors you could point out.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Where can we read about Bishop Elko?