www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How Many Are Thinking About Leaving?

This discussion sends shudders down my spine. A Byzantine SSPX group in the making. What next?

Tammy

Tammy - there are already two: the Transalpine Redemptorists and the Society of St. Josaphat who are allied with the SSPX.

Tammy, I am not going anywhere, yet. As far as I am concerned, the revised liturgy is something I haven't even seen so far. When it comes out, I will look at it, then go from there. If it's translated accurately, I will have no problem with it. A bigger problem I see at the moment, is that we belong to a Church that is withering away. A few leave here, a few leave there. How long before hardly anyone is left. What revision of the liturgy we use isn't going to matter when there are no congregations remaining.

Amen to that!
Using that same old worn out analogy >> Lets not allow our eyes to be diverted towards yet another rearranging of the deck chairs when we should be focused on that ICEBERG up ahead!

Sam

I could not agree more!

But not one of you chicken littles have pointed to anything of any substance in the liturgy that none of you have even seen. Those few who have seen it some of whom I know and all of whom I trust say that the changes are few and insignificant. I have no idea why they are even being made. The point is, why cry that the sky is falling when there is no evidence of it at all? Why make veiled threats of leaving to God knows where when you have no reason to even consider it? If you really distrust even dispise Bishop Pataki why don't you tell him to his face? Why even have a thread like this in which you lament what might be when nothing has even been done and no one knows anything? What is the point?

If I had the power I'd just this worthless thread down.

Dan L

Dear Dan,
Forgive me in advance for taking a cheap shot - yesterday was a hard day. But you write:

"If I had the power I'd just this worthless thread down."

And if that's a sample of the standard of English in the new translation/edition, it's no wonder that there are complaints!

Incognitus

If they are "very little changes", why not release the text on the official Archeparchial website (pdf format), where everyone can see what is what? Why all the secrecy? They faithful have a right to be informed. I say to the Council of Hierarchs, put up or shut up already!

Ungcsertezs

OY!!!

Dear Father Elias,

"A quick read of the Liturgy, and I noticed one example of 'he made man and woman in his image' but none of the un-natural and contrived phrases that I consider distractions (or worse), such as replacing 'he' with repeating 'God' or the new words like 'humankind' or odd phrases like "God loves humanity'."

A quick look at the new translation and I can find no replacements of he with God. In fact I can find three instances in which the neutral "who" was in fact changed to "he".

As for the Greek Liturgy they replace "Lover of Mankind" with "loving Master" in most prayers and their dismissal is:
"May Christ our true God, (who rose from the dead)as a good, loving, and merciful God, have mercy upon us and save us, through the intercessions of His most pure and holy Mother; the power of the precious and life giving Cross; the protection of the honorable, bodiless powers of heaven, the supplications of the honorable, glorious prophet and forerunner John the Baptist; the holy, glorious and praiseworthy apostles; the holy, glorious and triumphant martyrs; our holy and God-bearing Fathers (name of the church); the holy and righteous ancestors Joachim and Anna; Saint (of the day) whose memory we commemorate today, and all the saints."

Fr. Deacon Lance

Apotheoun,

"An example of this type of problem took place during the Good Friday / Annunciation services in the Ruthenian Church this year. One of the prayers referred to Jesus as a 'human being,' in order to avoid the 'offensive' word 'man,'"

They can be read in full here:
http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org/sheetmusic/general/HolyFridayAnnunciationLiturgy.pdf

Please provide a reference. Stichera 3 cleary says: "...to become man for the salvation of our souls." Stichera 1 says: "... God beyond words is united with humanity."

Edit: Reference found: it is in the ambon prayer.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Apotheoun,

"One of the prayers referred to Jesus as a 'human being,' in order to avoid the 'offensive' word 'man,' but this alteration is heretical. Christ is not a human being, because there is only one act of being present in the incarnate Logos, i.e., the divine being of the hypostasis of the Son of God. Thus, Christ is not a human being, or a human person; instead, He is a divine being and a divine person, who has assumed a human nature and become man."

One must look at the definition of a word to decide if it has a heretical connotation. Merriam-Webster OnLine gives this definition for human being: human. I don't think it can be said that He did not become human. He became human generally and male specifically. Perhaps "being" should have been left out but given the common understanding of human being=human I do not think the translation is heretical.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

Thanks for the link to the Greek Orthodox translation.

Might I suggest that one should not have to look up a definition of a word to decide if it has a heretical connotation? If we are going from something that is obviously clear to something that is obviously confusing, that alone is enough to reject the translation.

The term �mankind� is inclusive. It includes all men and women from Adam to the final age (even those not yet conceived). �us all� is not even a translation of the original Slavonic or Greek text but a word substitution.

The change of translation of the dismissal from �for He is gracious and loves mankind� to �for Christ is good and loves us all� is a change in theology (even if not actually heretical). Changing �He� to the specific term �Christ� can be seen as a denial of the masculinity of Christ. It harkens back to the 1970s RC liturgists who were running around saying the gobblygook that �Jesus is our sister as well as our brother�. Changing �gracious� to �good� might be correct, but I don�t know the Slavonic and Greek. I do know that �gracious� and �good� are not synonyms. �Gracious� carries with it the connotation of �compassionate� and �kind�. �Good� used to mean �holy� but now carries the connotation �not bad� or �better than some others�. �Who loves mankind� is inclusive of all men and women. �Who loves us all� is neither inclusive nor explicit. It could be limited to just the people in the church at that time or it could be broad enough to include my cat. [I�m sure that Christ loves my cat but that�s simply not what the Liturgy is speaking to in this prayer.] What benefit is there from changing from something that is perfectly clear to something that is both clumsy and confusing? Why introduce theological and anthropological confusion in the new text when none exists in the current text?

I highly recommend that everyone interested in the principles of translation used in this revised text read � Liturgiam authenticam [vatican.va] �. Even a casual read of this document shows that it is attempting to correct the very types of problems that this new revision of the Liturgy introduces. I have great respect for the liturgical commission and for the hard work they have done in preparing this translation. It hurts to disagree with them. But stuff like this is simply unacceptable.

Regarding the whole of the inclusive language agenda, the Latin Church experimented with in the 1970s and has now rejected it entirely. The only exception is some horizontal inclusive (for example: "brothers and sisters" for �brethren� but not Paul becoming �an adult� instead of �a man� in 1 C 13:11). And even here there are strict restrictions on what is acceptable and what is not. Why must we repeat their mistakes and use 1970s approaches to liturgical translation instead of learning from their mistakes and considering what they have learned?

To be fair all around, the liturgical commission did prepare the bulk of the texts prior to the release of � Liturgiam authenticam [vatican.va] �. I hope the bishops put a hold on this translation until it is reexamined and the problems with the translation are addressed. As always, I continue to urge the bishops to prepare a faithful translation of our Liturgy, one that is complete in rubrics and texts, and one which does not accommodate the passing ideology of inclusive language.

Admin

John,

Could you put the new liturgy online for those who are interested? I don't like pc isms nor nuetered language either. I dislike them almost as much as an angry discussion about something we know very little or nothing about.

Dan L

Amen!

This is something that I do agree with. I have always thought that inclusive language was a political agenda. politics need to be kept out of translations.

Sort of like the JW "Bible" if you can't trust the translation, then you can't trust the content.

John Gibson