29-JUN-2006  Ss. Peter & Paul, Prime Apostles

Updated: 13-JUL-2006

  Translation of the Divine Liturgy
of
St. John Chrysostom

Reflections by Deacon Anthony

These comments are limited to the translation and redaction of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom by the IELC.

They take into account the book by Fr. Serge Keleher, responses by Fr. David Petras, and discussions on the Byzantine Forum.

The IELC version (hereafter ICEL2004) is that contained in the Appendix of Fr. Serge’s book.

An issue about the book: Fr. Serge references Logos, http://www.byzcath.org/news/etc/980617_symposium.htm

 in support of a number of his points. On the level of necessary documentation he has fulfilled the demands of proper scholarship. Since this Journal is not readily available, however, it makes a thorough assessment of his arguments difficult.

Mandates and Methods of the IELC

I am not aware that these were made available to the public, therefore, my remarks are my interpretation based on available information, especially comments by Fr. David on the Forum.

Mandate

One thing that must be kept in mind is that the IELC was constrained by a mandate from the bishops. That mandate did not comprise a complete translation, or refinement or updating of the complete translation of the received text (hereafter Slav1941). [This must be kept in mind in a critique of the IELC’s translation, and regarding Fr. Serge’s book.] A complete translation (though ideally needing correction) does exist in the Liturgicon of 1965 (hereafter Eng1965). Slav1941 here entails the complete Ruthenian Recension books and documents, but for the immediate purpose is limited to the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (including the Preparation Rite), and the impact of the Ordo Celebrationis in further explaining how the liturgy is celebrated

With hindsight, the mandate is problematic.

1. It produces an abridged, redacted liturgy.

2. It intends a liturgicon with official status for the metropolia.

1. and 2. are not unique issues separately, but they are problematic, at best, in combination.

Re: 1. A number of these have appeared in one form or another. They take the form of officially approved books for the people, e.g. the 1978 Levkulic “pew book,” or liturgicons for specific eparchies, e.g. those of Parma 1988(?), and Passaic 1997.

Re: 2. This is to be expected and even desired. Eng1965 would appear to have been just that except that its actual use was filtered through episcopal directives and publications such as the pew book. Nevertheless, whatever convolutions brought it into existence, it still exists. Though Eng1995 is a complete translation and has the highest official sanction it was not, however, the normative way of actually celebrating the liturgy.

Putting 1. and 2. together is the problem. Even if it were agreed that the new translation was perfect, the result is yet another abridged liturgy, but now having metropolia wide recognition and status. This would undoubtedly supplant Eng1965 and therefore disallow any sanctioned possibility of celebrating the liturgy in English as given in Slav1941. No matter how good the intention of moving many in the metropolia forward in terms of liturgical observance, we, at this point in our life as a Church, do not need or deserve yet another impoverished rendition of the liturgy. I would venture that, to a man, our bishops and the members of the IELC (be they male or female!) would either scoff, or smile and shake their heads, at the designations “Low Mass” and “High Mass” that appeared in at least one of the “filter” publications back in the 60's. Those designations were used to indicate that certain items in the liturgy were taken, or not, depending on the intended solemnity. While we distance ourselves from those designations today, in terms of Slav1941 and Eng1965, we have actually had nothing but some form of low mass these past 2006-1941=65 years. And now we have the prospect of having a metropolia-wide official version of a low mass as the recognized and presumably sole functional norm.

Method

I don’t know the method of the IELC, but the result is an admixture of (1) new and to some extent controversial and questionable translations, (2) abridgement of the rite as in Slav1941 and Eng1965, and (3) modification, augmentation, and interpretation of the rubrics. There is nothing wrong per se with these three items understood as: (1) improved translation, (2) parochial allowances that respect the full rite, and (3) expanded rubrics that adhere to legitimate customs.

(2) and (3), however, are only understood in reference to (1); and (1) is properly a complete and faithful translation of Slav1941 into English.

Because of its mandate, IELC2004 is the integration of (1), (2) and (3) where (1), however, is also not a complete translation of Slav1941. This is stated in order to properly appraise Fr. Serger’s comments, especially chapters 8-10.

Questions About Methods and Principles

An introductory consideration:

Touchstone

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r

conveying Taft

http://www.byzcath.org/news/etc/980617_symposium.htm

1998 (emphasis added):

Whatever criticisms might be levied against the current International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) translation of the Latin Catholic liturgy into English, the members of the translation team had clearly set forth the principles on which they were to operate before embarking on their task—a thing unheard of among translators of Byzantine liturgical texts into English.

Method and Principles here applies equally to IELC2004 and Fr. Serge’s critique. I presume the following; each step, except 7 below, in a sense produces a new document but always based on 1., the received text:

Translation Phase

It should be noted that the Archieratikon should also be consulted as the actual norm for celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

1. The primary text is the Slavonic as in Slav1941, not a Greek textus receptus. One should proceed as noted in Eng1965:

This is in contrast with the IELC's work, as noted by Fr. David:

The Byzantine Forum: Serge Keleher: Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy – 1

And in regard to translation, the Liturgy Commission used the Greek text as the basis, and corrected it to the Slavonic only when necessary. The 1964/65 translation used the Slavonic as a basis and corrected it to the Greek - because they didn't know Greek well.

Translations of scripture, especially LXX, should be used as a guide, in addition to the original languages.

2. Amend text based on the latest scholarship and information not available in 1941.

3. Augment the text to accommodated legitimate local custom and developments that are organic to the Ruthenian Recension.

Rubrics Phase

4. Harmonize the rubrics of the Ordo and the Liturgicon.

5. Amend the rubrics to accommodated legitimate local custom

6. Expand the rubrics as needed for special circumstances, e.g concelebration

Promulgation

7. Promulgate with directives and recommendation for use.

Study Comments and Questions

Since notes and comments are provided by IELC2004, use Fr. Serge’s comments, and others, to explore the translation and Slavonic and Greek texts.