[Back]

Personal notes and reflections of Deacon Anthony

Comments to: liturgy_study

 

MORE INTRODUCTORY NOTES

 

... the key is the 1965 English Liturgikon

First, a brief personal note. Although, for a number of reasons, I don’t post anymore on forums/lists, I do appreciate the effort of those who do. Like some of you I have concerns. One of my chief concerns, for instance, was discussed at some length: It is what I consider to be the ill-advised and unwarranted change to a FORM of inclusive (since it already is inclusive as is) language for "Lover of Mankind" (Philanthropos/ Chelov’ikol’ubec). This is found, for instance, in the recent March 25-Good Friday Priest-Cantor edition, p61: "loves us all." I don’t mean to dwell on this, but just want to indicate a bit where I’m coming from; also, see an old (1997 and therefore unbiased towards the present revision) post of mine on a related issue: CINEAST Archives- Re- translation

Of the many liturgy related posts on the forum and in referenced articles concerning changes in the liturgy and translations, some are certainly valid, but some, though sincere, I think are misinformed (see below). The latter often obscure the force of the former. Unfortunately, the attempt to critique the "new liturgy" is also a catch22 situation, since, as has been noted, we don’t know fully what it entails, and may not until it is a fait accompli. Fr. David, however, has kindly shared with us insights into some of the needed and, it seems, debatable revisions, and I hope he will continue to do so.

My approach, then, as a kind of online workshop on the liturgy, is to start from the other end, the "textus receptus" of the Ruthenian Recension of the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy, and build up from there. Actually, I think the key is the 1965 English Liturgikon. This document needs to be better appreciated. I believe that, though not perfect, it is a very good, very faithful for the most part, but most importantly, COMPLETE translation of the Slavonic recension of the Chrysostom Divine Liturgy that was made available by Rome September 10, 1941. A familiarity with this text can be a real eye-opener as to what actually is the real, whole liturgy, and that we have it already -- have had it since 1965, at least in print -- in English. Since as best as I can determine the IELC’s mandate did not include the production of an updated, complete, version of the 1965 Liturgikon/1941Sluzebnik this exercise has a reciprocal orientation.

Unlike the IELC this study text does not have to be geared to actual use in Church.  It can, for instance, be more literal since notes can be used to clarify the meaning of difficult words or phrases.  The text of the spoken-and-heard celebrated liturgy, like proclaimed Scripture, does not allow for accompanying footnotes and, even though there still may be difficult phrases, it should possess an overall sense that is comprehended upon hearing.  For this study, the maxim in the Preface to the NRSV (would that they have followed it regarding inclusive language) says it well: "As literal as possible, as free as necessary."

Most if not all the primary documents for reference and to accomplish this study and comparison OBJECTIVELY are available online, specifically:

Sluzebnik Roman edition Ruthenian Recension (Cyrillic) for the Divine Liturgy

Greek Divine Liturgy (Greek), Roman edition of 1950 referenced by the 1965 English Liturgikon

1965 Liturgikon (English) in facsimile and text versions

Apostol (three sample pages for now; Lector/Reader/Cantor related scripture and instructions)

----- related documents -----

Archieratikon

English translation of the Ordo, 1955

Sluzebnik Roman edition Vulgata (Cyrillic) - folio sheets

Mikita Tipikon

Almost a year ago I mentioned to some priest friends that my wish was to experience the liturgy celebrated unabridged as in the 1965 Liturgikon. The question is, could we handle it as the regular Sunday liturgy? As has been remarked about Christianity itself, we can’t say it has failed because it hasn’t really been tried. But consider, for instance, the logistics of the distribution of the antidoron (presuming there is some) after the ambon prayer but before the dismissal (Liturgikon, p 45); and what about when there’s the venerable custom of Mirovanije?

The immediate goal is to produce a good, complete and accurate translation that updates the 1965 Liturgikon in that it is a complete version in translation of the 1941 "typical edition" of the Ruthenian Recension published by Rome; only then consider how the rubrics might be modified to address legitimate custom and the present circumstances, and to give greater clarity (for instance when the rubrics of the Liturgikon and the Ordo show variations).

Some examples: ========  will add examples for each

sincere but misinformed ------------

The Tkacz essay :

Rubrics. Generally, of course, most of the italicized comments and directions were taken from earlier liturgical materials. However, some of the rubrics were new. Notably, the new rubrics are all problematic. Specifically, unnecessary remarks were inserted within texts, thus tending to distract the prayer. Also, one rubric shows a surprising ignorance of Byzantine liturgy.

The texts of the liturgy, its psalms and prayers, are to be presented to the clergy and the faithful as they exist now. It is pedantic and intrusive to interrupt psalms or prayers with obscure comments marking (I surmise) the ancient sub-parts of the texts. It is distracting to inject "And again" before the conclusion of a psalm as it is sung today. Quite poor in this regard are the injected remarks and odd layout for the Communion Prayer, Pisteuo, Kyrie ("O Lord, I believe"). As Archimandrite Robert Taft has shown, this prayer has been in use since at least the ninth century; and the Slavic use of it for the entire congregation, clergy and laity, goes back to the tenth century. There seems no merit to interrupting it now with so many blank lines. At the very least, the two Trinitarian series of petitions beginning "Remember me" and "O God" could have been presented with no blank lines between. The new rubrics ("Also: ... Also: ... Also: ...") suggest that the words are being laid out for textual analysis, not for prayer.

Her point may still have merit, but this is not an innovation: here the booklet was just following the layout of the 1965 Liturgikon, 41-42  and the Sluzebnik, 270 itself!

compelling reason to change ----------

very good reason to change ------------

open to interpretation ---------------