www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Liturgical Instruction and the Proposed Revision of the Divine Liturgy

Dear Administrator,

The first audible words of the Liturgy, "Bless, Master" is a case in point.

Obviously, the only possible translation of "Evlognson Despota" is "Bless, Master".

"Give the blessing" is an acceptable alternate to "Bless" but (despite my own (verbose) style), I think in liturgical prayer, one word has more power than three. And since one word conveys the meaning, it is better to match the one word of the original text. I would also retain the word order, and wonder why it is often inverted to read, "Master, bless" in so many versions?

But, the word order, or "bless" versus "give the blessing" is a matter of personal opinion.

A test for translators is to reverse the process. How would you translate 'back' the words "Bless, Master". It could only be, "Evlogison, Despota". "Blahoslovi, Vladyko." If as is argued, "Father give the blessing" is the correct translation, then it fails the "translate it back" test. It would be rendered not Despota, but "Patri" (forgive me for guessing the proper vocative form, I haven't my books handy, but you get the idea. It fails my translation test.

Other obvious places, and examples that come to mind from memory, are the proposed renderings of "nun kai aei dai eis tous aiwnas twn eiwnwn", the awesome adjective "orthodoxis" and the rendering that really always most bothered me, and the one that I would really love to discuss "kata panta kai dia panta".

Perhaps I have already spoken too much, or offered more than my share of "discussion". But translation of ancient texts is something that has always fascinated me. I have discussed translation with some great scholars, and have found their ideas stimulating. Like some of them, I like a translation that tells me the most information possible about the original text. If there is ambiguity in the original, then ambiguity has to be found in the translation (and no choice among possible meanings made). If there is a clear meaning, then clarity should be preserved, if it succinct, then direct succinct english should be found, if it is poetic, then a poetic style is necessary.

Of course, when translating a text which is meant to be also used for prayer, then the additional burden is imposed; will this pray, will this sing, will this flow. But the answer to this new added burden does not relieve us of any of the duties of the original accurate translation cited above.

But my worries about the text that has been circulated for our comment, is not so much a question about this word or that one (although as a lover of old and sacred texts, I enjoy such a discussion sometimes).

It does seem that some sections of the Liturgy are missing. Some prayers, litanies, and instructions which form part of the normative Slavonic typical edition, seem to have been missed. The reason that "they are not now taken in most places anyway", is not a reason for leaving them out of a serious and scholarly translation. It does appear that some rubrics have not only been mistranslated, some have been missed out, or replaced with others that bear little or no relationship to either the wording or intent of the original. This is the leap too far.

This offers something of my thoughts about translation, and perhaps this explains in more detail, something of the reason for my questions about the proposed texts.

My thoughts are neither personal nor an accusation against anyone. It just reflects my own differing attitude toward translation of texts. It is an opinion and nothing more. However, I do think there are liturgical, and ecumenical reasons why a more conservative approach to the translation would serve our Church at this time.

Elias

You mean how instead of getting justice and being able to ordain whomever we chose, we got eucharistic ministers? Perhaps that is truly our justice if we are too busy hand-wringing over a word here and a particle fractioning there to see the forest for the trees.

Even if things were being promulgated to our liking, I have a hard time convincing myself anymore that any more than 5-10% of our faithful will even notice any changes or care one way or another. "Bless, Master", "Master, Bless", "Bless, Father", "Father, Bless", what on earth are people's lives like who are going to be bothered by it being one way versus another? It's not the young parents driving their kids to band camp and soccer practice, it's not the babas whose main joy in life is getting together to pinch pyrohy and gossip, it's not the men's club who are going to care about these things. It's the clergy, some of the cantors, and a tiny handful of laypeople.

"Mercy, peace", "A merciful peace", "Mercy and peace", what does that have to do with:
1) Did I talk to God today? Did I listen to what He said today? Did I pray for my needs and the needs of others?
2) Did going to church make me feel better about stuff?
3) Did I see some folks I like to talk to?
4) How's our parish doing financially?
5) Did my kids behave? Were they following or singing along?
6) Is anything going on in the parish that I want to participate in?

That's what our people care about as far as church goes. Except for this tiny percentage who post here.

Nobody else cares!

Dear Lemko,

Right on, Rusyn Man!

And I would even narrow down the percentage you mentioned.

I post here and I don't care!

The points you raised are what we should be truly caring about.

Besides, whenever I try to get involved in liturgical this or that, I get my fingers wrapped by either the Bishops or my parish priest.

Your bishops must be nicer . . .

Alex

Dear Lemko Rusyn,

The things you mention are, of course, important.

The liturgy is the very center of our worship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is important that we take great care to be very accurate in translating it into English and making sure that the way we celebrate it is in accordance with the tradition we have received.

After Vatican II the Roman Catholic translators used a rather liberal style of translation which did not emphasize accuracy. There was also a lot of experimentation of the ways they celebrated the Mass and many of these were not in keeping with their wonderful liturgical tradition. This caused problems to the extent that the Roman Catholic Church is now in the process of modifying liturgical translations to make sure that they are extremely accurate to the normative Latin texts. Since our Church is in the process of producing a new translation of the Divine Liturgy it only makes sense to go to great lengths to ensure accuracy and avoid revising it. This way we learn from their mistakes and not repeat them.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

I agree with you too.

Does that make me schizophrenic?

Alex

I believe that all Byzantine catholics should speak the same language, that is if I go to a Ukrainian church and here the liturgy in English, I think it should be the same in the Romanian, Rusyn, churches etc. The real problem I believe is not so much the translation but the interpretation and consequently the transformation. Translation is not the issue or the real problem but the transformation. Translation and transformation are really different you know.
Lauro