C: 1965 Liturgicon has:  Master, give the blessing.

A: Master

Maintaining word order is possible but may sound a bit stiff:  Bless, Master.

Master, bless is succinct especially since this is not public but between priest and deacon.

That “Master” is an (antiquated?) address for young males and therefore should not be used
can not really be an issue. The people are used to the term in addressing God/Christ, for instance
in the “reader prayers,” “O Master forgive our transgressions...”, in the “mercy” Troparion “offer
this supplication to You, our Master” at the very beginning of the anaphora, “With these blessed
powers, O loving and kind Master,” and the Communion prayer “Remember me O Master.” I
don’t think anyone would be taken aback by the deacon’s “Master give the blessing” (is this in
fact the only “public” use of the term for the priest in the liturgy?). Most of the uses of master
by the deacon are a quiet dialog with the priest (e.g. proskomedia). As a deacon, I feel that
“Reverend Father” and worse “Most Reverend Bishop” is an unnecessary complication, a
dreadful mouthful and a pain in the neck --- totally uncalled for wordiness. It is such a relief
when (still kept even in the Passaic liturgikon) I can say “Master bless the warm water.” To me,
Master is efficient, direct, and snappy: as it comes to us it applies equally well to bishop, priest,
and God; and given its use for the latter, the former two should not have a problem with it being
applied to them.  Also, it circumvents honorific titles that are inappropriate in the liturgy.

I wonder too why the liturgy, especially the anaphora, uses it, along with Lord, as the exclusive
address for God. Is the term Father purposely avoided in direct address, except for the
unavoidable use in the doxologies? Is there a deference in not using it, even in the anaphora, so
that we can climactically, say “Our Father”? If so, the use of “Reverend Father” has done the
liturgy a great disservice.

To the above, Fr, David responded (part of the above was part of an email I sent him) that he took exception to my term "disservice"; he further remarked (I use this with his permission):

the reason for "vladyko" in the Slavonic ( = Master) or "Despota" in Greek ( = Master) is because that is how those dignitaries  were addressed in ordinary life.  It is very unlikely that people today will suddenly start calling me "Master" instead of "Father." In regard to liturgical texts, the Byzantines tend to use the address "Father" for the first person of the Trinity for very solemn prayers, it has a kind of exclusivity because it is used in the prayer the Lord taught us, and it was at one time a part of the "disciplina arcana."

What I find most disconcerting by his answer is that he agrees with my analysis about reserving the use of the direct address of "Father."  Why then should we use it in the translation so indiscriminately?

The Byzantine Forum- The Divine Liturgy Translation

Father David
Member # 1376

posted 07-30-2002 03:13 PM

 I would like to make some comments over a period of time on liturgical translation. I hope it will be helpful to all of us, including me, in clarifying what it is all about.
The Liturgy begins with a phrase some have questioned. The deacon says, "Blahoslovi, Vladyko!" (Bless, Master). I think we must follow the more obvious meaning here, that the deacon is addressing the one who presides (bishop - priest), asking him to make the initial blessing, which he does, "Blessed is the kingdom (reign/dominion/sovereignty ?, but again the simpler "kingdom" works best) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever." While some have said that this invitation to bless is actually addressed to God, who alone is Master, this is not too likely, since "Vladyko," Greek, "despota", was an ordinary title of respect for someone who had a position of authority. That "Vladyko" applies to humans as well as God can be seen in the acclamation, "Na mnohaja lita, Vladyko," ("For many years, O Master," you would hardly sing to God, "For many years.") Men are also addressed as "kyrios" "Lord" though this title originally indicated God alone, e.g. "Jesus is Lord." In contemporary language, we do not usually call men, ‘Master," and, indeed, "Master" in English has been used for underage boys. Likewise, in earlier centuries, while the bishop would have been called "Master," there was no distinct title for secular priests who would often serve in the place of bishops - indeed, this has become the more common practice now. Therefore, no separate title evolved for priests who would serve the Liturgy. Now, however, its seems separate titles are needed. We first translated the invitation for a bishop celebrant as "Most Reverend Bishop, give the blessing." Perhaps there are problems even with this, but it is quite clear. In the restoration of the Liturgy, it will probably not be used much, since at the beginning of the Liturgy, the bishop sits in the midst of the congregation (he has not yet entered the altar) and the deacon invites the first con-celebrating priest to enunciate the blessing. For the priest, then, we developed the title, "Father, give the blessing." Usually, until now, it has been "Reverend Father ... " but we simplified here. It should be noted that the title "Father" also has some problems. It was in previous times the title for a monastic, not for a secular priest. However, now priest prefer the title "Father," to avoid the more Reform-sounding "Reverend." Interestingly, when I studied in Rome in Latin, as a secular priest, i was usually addressed as "Reverendus Dominus," translating literally as "Reverend Lord," but equivalent in English to "Reverend Mister." Of course, the title "Father" gives problems, too, because Jesus said you are only to call God, ‘Father." (Matthew 23:9). Irenee Hausherr in his book, Spiritual Direction in the Early Christian East, remarks, "The Lord gave this explicit warning: ‘You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.' If such prohibitions did not prevent certain very godly christians from calling mere mortals ‘Father' or ‘Abba', it is because - far from viewing this habit as an act of disobedience to the Lord's admonition - they advisedly saw in it homage to the one fatherhood of God, just as we do not disregard the solemn declaration of Christ, ‘There is one alone who is good,' when we recognize goodness in human beings. Created goodness praises the one source of all goodness." It is interesting, too, that when a priest is asked for a blessing, he immediately defers it to the one who is the fount of all blessings. A person may ask a priest, "Father, bless," and the priest will answer, "Blessed is God ... " So, too, in the Liturgy, the blessing is given to God, specifically here to his dominion (kingdom) among us.
Enough for today - when I can I will give a few of my thoughts on a very controversial translation, "forever and ever," or "ages of ages." Posts: 62 | From: Pittsburgh, PA

The Byzantine Forum- The Divine Liturgy Translation
Member # 841

 posted 08-17-2002 08:54 PM 

 Comparative translations:

Use of Father (as opposed to Master) for translation of Vladyko,

Father is used by the Melkites, Antiochian Orthodox, and even the Hapgood translation. I found a Ukrainian translation that uses "Sir" (I doubt anyone here would vote for that one) and the Hapgood translation notes that "Master" should be used when a bishop is presiding only. I could not find a Greek Orthodox translation that included this request at the beginning of the liturgy.

Re: Mercy, Peace, a sacrifice of praise.

I found a Serbian Orthodox translation that uses "Mercy and Peace, a sacrifice of praise."

Just a few additional points in support.

John

The Byzantine Forum- Proposed Text of the Byzantine Liturgy

Hieromonk Elias
Administrator
Member # 1252

posted 07-12-2002 09:12 PM 

Apart from the very thorny question of "inclusive language", which I fear to comment upon there are also other serious questions.

But the question of "inclusive language" is decided in the decree "Liturgicam Authenticam". I think we should consider carefully what we read there.

I think the revisionist Liturgy, and much of what has been produced by the seminary and the nuns violates the spirit of that instruction.

The "inclusive" question is a symptom. My feeling is that a translation should tell me as much as possible about the meaning of the original text. Where the text is ambiguous, the translation should convey this. (The translation of "o vs'ich i za vsja" is an example). We must avoid "interpreting" or suggesting meanings not justified by the text.

The translation must be accurate and consistent always. Translating "Vladyko" as "Father" is a clear example (there are many, many, many), of translations which are a clear change of meaning. This is unacceptable, and render the entire translation suspect. It is unscholarly and unworthy. "Vladyko" is a title for God the Trinity. Father is clearly only a title for the 1st person of the Trinity. This could be considered heretical, and alters the theology of the Liturgy. I would agree with the esteemed Administrator, that it is God (not the priest) who blesses. This change is a clericalism, and a Latinization...

but then... I return to my general criticism.

I am disappointed in the work of the committee, and now that it has been distributed for comment, I do hope that scholars and interested persons will speak up and be heard, before a decision is made.

Elias

[ 07-12-2002: Message edited by: Hieromonk Elias ]
Posts: 1005 | From: Pennsylvania |