Christ Is Baptised!

Father David,

Please post the creed from the Liturgy Promulgated by the Hierarchs of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh U.S.A.

Christ Is Baptized!

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father; through whom all things were made. For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. He rose on the third day according to the scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. And he is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, who proceeds from the Father. Together with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified; he spoke through the prophets. In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I profess one baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I don't know either Greek or Slavonic, but I think "essence" is a better word to use than "substance." "Substance" seems to have connotations of the physical, while essence is more ethereal.

I also like the present perfect "is coming again" as opposed to the future tense "shall come again," as it's more theologically correct.

I'm not crazy about the "For us and our salvation." "For us men and for our salvation" didn't bother me, as I never thought it referred only to those of the male sex, nor I suppose did anyone else until the 1960s. However, "For us" could be taken to mean only for those who pray the creed--only Catholics (or Catholics and Orthodox? or all Christians?), rather than for all mankind. As such, it leaves the Symbol of Faith open to interpretation rather than making it perfectly clear.

Sophia Wannabe:
"it leaves the Symbol of Faith open to interpretation rather than making it perfectly clear."

And that is exactly why this revision of the Creed is a betrayal of tradition. The Symbol of Faith was formulated precisely for the purpose to clarify and proclaim the orthodox faith of the whole catholic Church.

The Latins once unilaterally added a word to the creed (Filioque - and the Son) to which the Eastern Churches objected. Now we have unilaterally dropped a word from the creed (anthropoi - men).

I agree with Sophia's evaluation.

Certainly a mistranslation in the Creed is more important than other mistranslations (for example, the the missing deacon's prayers or invented rubrics!) The creed does not say "for us and for our salvation".

This is a deliberate agenda driven campaign by the liberals and revisionists, and it is very dangerous. I think this phrase in the Creed is the point on which the Revisionist Liturgy of Archbishop Schott should be appealed to the Pope for a final decision. I cannot believe that our Holy Father, Pope Benedict would agree with this, or demand that we recite this Creed in Church.

The R.C. Church is being torn apart on the question of destructive feminism and contrived feminist language. I cannot believe that Archbishop Schott has chosen just this moment to enter into this dispute. I admire his courage, and the strength of his conviction. However, I think it is reckless, and unfortunate.

Nick

Khristos Rozhdaetsya!

Actually, 'is coming again' is present continuous. Present perfect would be 'has come'.

'Is coming again' sounds like what a Slavic immigrant with a poor grasp of tense and mood in the English grammar would say. Rather like 'I am liking very much again to ask you to dinner' and that sort of thing.

The Latin has 'et iterum venturus est' - a future participle, the Greek has 'kai palin erkhomenon' - a present participle. The Slavonic has 'i paki gryadushchago'- my Slavonic grammar is almost nonexistent, can anyone tell me what tense that is?

Curious, how while a present participle sounds right in Greek, it just doesn't sound right in English.

I do not see any point to revising the Creed. It has withstood the test of time, and prooved its worthiness through the ages. Why change a good thing?

Christ is in our midst!

I have read and continue to read with interest the comments about the new translation. As a recent "addition" to the Byzantine Catholic Church, I have mostly been reading to "learn" and come to understand more.

But I do think I can add something interesting and perhaps informative. When I was living my eastern/orthodox life outside of communion with Rome, I had the opportunity to worship in several different Orthodox jurisdictions. Each one of these jurisdictions has a different translation of the Creed. (The new SCOBA/Greek translation parallels that of our new Revised liturgy for it says: "for us and for our salvation ...") There is NO SUCH thing as an accepted English translation of any part of the Eastern services (not even the Trisagion is said the same anywhere). This is probably because the earliest translations were not made by scholars of the English language (see Hopgood for a good example of a translation made by someone for whom English was a third or fourth language). Most of the "revisions" to this point have been attempts to take these original poor translations and make them better.

Another note that maybe can help our thinking. As heirs of the Eastern spiritual tradition, we should always remember that words are not sacred (Remember, early debates over whether the word 'Trinity' could be used since it did not appear in the Bible). Unlike Protestant fundamentalists and Muslim believers, we do not honor any collection of human words as the infallible or inerrant "Word of God". (Only Christ, the person, is the infallible and inerrant Word of God.) Words always approximate the reality to which they point -- they help to re-present the language of the heavenly kingdom (remember, St Isaac said, 'Silence is the language of the kingdom to come.'). Since, as Fr Taft has insisted, the words of the liturgy are for us (God, Taft reminds us, already knows the reality about which they speak.), then the key point is whether the words help the congregation understand the gospel better. Anything that stands in the way of that understanding, however cherished or tradition, should be abandoned.

Thus, for me as I have examined the new translation (I am not talking here about the ordo -- I think there are two different discussions -- the one is about the ordo and the other about the translation), I like it. I like it first of all because it is based on good scholarship. I like it secondly because it is understandable to the people of today. It communicates the Gospel message in words that people today can understand.

Most importantly, I respect immensely the scholars who were involved and, as one trained in the scholarship of translation, appreciate their attempt to produce a modern English translation that is faithful to the meaning of the original texts. (Anyone who has been involved in translation knows how difficult it is to translate from Greek or Slavonic into good English. As already evident in this string of posts, how do you translate a Greek present participle into English??) In my opinion, over-all this is the best translation available in modern English today.

For the most part, I agree. There are a few things I might have liked worded a bit differently, but nothing serious. To get a Creed that's 100% accurate, we need to say it in Greek.

I have purposely avoided this forum since last September. (I will explain more fully in another post). Yet, this betrayal of the faith represented by this deletion goes beyond the pale. The deletion of "man" is an incredible afront to the faith given what has happened so many centuries ago and given the very purpose for the existence of the Eastern Catholic Church. At least the Latin rite can excuse the addition of the "filioque" as an attempt to deny heresy a footbold. But the translators of this abomination cannot claim such an excuse. It is precisely for the promotion of a heresy that the word "man" has been deleted. The heresy that this one word's inclusion protected us from is the heresy of secularism, humanism, Western Materialism, and Western Rationalism. Why else would deleting this word even be considered if it weren't for the insistence that "truth changes" and the human centered sensibilities of the feminists weren't being offended? There is no theological reason for changing this. The only reason that is possible is that a group of aging feminists ensconsed in Pittsburgh can now claim a political victory.

How will changing the creed bring new people to Christ? How will changing the creed make more 50 year old women wish to join the Church? How will changing the creed inspire our youth to join a Church now surrendering itself to political pressure? How does eliminating a word from the creed acurately translate that creed? How is this action better than Luther's insistence that the word "Sola" be added before "fide" not because it is actually in sacred scripture but because it ought to be? How is this any better than the offense the West promulgated against the East by its insistence upon adding the "filioque"? How will this advance the understanding that we are actually an authentic Church with an authentic vision and not simply just another political movement "moved by every wind of doctrine?"

CDL

Dear Father,

My priest says the revised liturgy is not based on good scholarship. It is based on a very liberal Roman Catholic point of view taught at Notre Dame in the 1970s that one priest took to heart and has been forcing on our church ever since. Now he has succeeded and does not care if the churches are empty because he has gotten his way. My priest told me there is a whole book that was written by a liturgy scholar in Europe that demonstrates the bad scholarship and lists all the mistakes. Our bishops rejected it because they do not really want to be Byzantine. It is a sad day for our church. It may already be too late.

David

David,

You have an astute pastor. Sadly, we had that author, who writes on this forum, booked to speak on the liturgy last September. The effort was stopped.

CDL

Obviously, I cannot and will not comment on what your priest has said.

But, on the bais of my scholarship and a rather intense personal comparison of the text with Greek originals as well as prayer by prayer comparison with the most recent scholarship translation initiated by Greek scholars on behalf of SCOBA, I really believe that this is the best English translation and that, over time, its value as a faithful translation in modern English will be revealed.

Once again, I think various debates are being merged and thus confused. My comments relate to the translation in modern English. I stand by my comments that, over all, it is a good example of scholarship and does stay very close to the intent of the original texts. (Of course, this belies another debate over what makes a translation good -- I, for one, believe that a good translation preserves the intent/meaning of the text but does not necessarily preserve its word order, word choice, etc. Others demand that a good translation preserves original word word order, and seeks to find a word by word equivalent. That is a debate that will probably never end ...)

Now ... the real debate over the translation seems to be aimed more towards whether a modern English translation is desirable. Most people who are objecting to the translation, it seems to me, are really debating whether a modern English version is preferable. (As an example of one extreme, the Antiochians and ROCOR have chosen to preserve hieratic English in their texts; most other eastern liturgical traditions have not. The OCA has tried to split the difference, but using modern English for saints and preserving hieratic for God, like the original RSV. Our new translation opts for modern English.)

Personally, I believe, on the basis of my own personal scholarship as well as my exposure to the various English versions of the liturgy that exist, that a modern translation was sorely needed for our young people. (I say this as the father of three very intelligent young men who much prefer the new translation.) But I can appreciate that there are those who disagree with this decision.

P.S. I think it is also important to note that just because you or I disagree with something does not make it "poor scholarship."

Carson: Who is the author you are referring to?

Father Serge Kelleher.

CDL

P.S. I think it is also important to note that just because you or I disagree with something does not make it "poor scholarship."

Excellent point, and while a discussion may get emotional, most certainly professional respect should be shown to different viewpoints.

It should also be pointed out there are several recent translations which perhaps better keep the letter and intent of the original hieratic language without such a need to fully compromise with modernity (such as anthropos to man and not something both not faithful to the translation and far more ambiguous) while keeping a good balance with more contemporary language and "singability" within the tradition.

I am specifically here thinking of the UGCC and Melkite translations for Greek Catholics and ACROD translation for SCOBA, all of which have been used and generally well received, certainly not with the advance negativity of this translation. Regarding the UGCC translation of 1988, basically none of the issues of that translation had to do with English but rather with the Ukrainian translation. The English translation was in most cases well received.

I too explained to my very intelligent sons the recent development of inclusive language, the problems it has spawned both theologically and liturgically in the Latin liturgy which I personally experienced as a Latin Catholic in the 1970s, and also explained the reasons why Rome is asking for a revisiting of some of those approaches to translation and application in the Roman Rite.

Upon comparison with the Latins rethinking certain liturgical translational aspects, we also looked at Liturgiam Authenticum and other liturgical guidelines of our sister Church of Rome with whom we are in full communion with, and who has struggled with this far longer than we have as Greek Catholics with the experience of the Novus Ordo. It is apparent to me that the modernity and "accessibility" of language has its limits where it approaches an ambiguity as well as a potential desacralization. Where that point is, certainly, will always be debated.

Anyhow, when presented with the scholarship, the history of the Latin liturgical situation, and after showing them a few examples, they opted for a different translation than the New Liturgy when given several options. Just my own observations.
DRLB

I should also say that more considerations need to be taken with any translation than just pure scholarship; historical observations of applied experience in another church or ritual tradition are certainly helpful, sensum fidelium and pastoral considerations are sometimes neglected as well.

The overreaction against the Old Ritualists and lack of pastoral consideration, sensum fidelium, etc. in that unfortunate history should be llustrative that not all of the faithful will positively respond to a modernization or change in worship; likewise the movement by Rome to make the 1962 Mass more available also attests to that.

Let me get this straight.


As of June 29th, it will be wrong to take the little litanies, the litanies of the cathecuems, open and close the Royal doors at the appropiate times, use the word 'men' in the Creed, etc.

But hey, if you don't want to do Vespers, no problem.

If you don't want to do Matins, no problem.

If you don't want to do Proskomedia, no problem.

If your people are kneeling on Sundays, no problem.

If you have statues in your church, no problem.

If you have stations of the cross, no problem.

If you have rosaries, no problem.

If you don't have the faithful kiss the cross at the end of the Liturgy, or sorry, Mass, no problem.

If you don't bring up fasting periods and encourage them, no problem.

If you want to have Mass (got it right this time) on Saturday evenings and tell people that they fulfilled their Sunday obligation, no problem.

If you allow the faithful to receive communion and yet haven't heard confessions in the last 6 months, no problem.

Let's just make sure we are in and out of this church place in under an hour, okay. I've got a life to live.

Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

How do you come to the conclusion that the Litany of the Catechumens (in the new books) is forbidden, or that the Liturgy is supposed to be less than an hour? Similar comments for some of the other points, such as kneeling; it seems that you're conflating quite a number of issues above.

If you want to say, "There were lots of problems before, and there will be new ones now", fine, but some of the old problems ARE being addressed.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

This is great news. So you are saying that after I post this, I can go out into the garge and get my tool box and drive to St. John's Cathedral in Parma to remove the unnecessary kneelers. Even with the snow today, I can be there in 15-20 minutes. If you'll call the chancery and tell them I'm on my way and make sure that you mention that stuff about 'old problems being addressed' I would appreciate it. Also I'm glad to here that our churches will now celebrate the litany of the Catechumens, hey was that a pig that just flew by outside, anyway, that's good news.

I'm curious, you didn't pound your chest regarding Vespers, Matins, royal doors, shall we talk about three verse antiphons?

Also, I was wrong with the one hour comment, I should have wrote 50 minutes.

Monomakh

Monomakh,

There's kneeling during the Great Fast.

Monomakh,

Pardon me, but you posted that as of June 29, the Litany of the Catechumens would be forbidden - yet it's in the new books. (It is NOT in the 1978 book we are currently using.)

As of June 29, the service book will direct that at certain points (where most of my fellow parishioners currently kneel), that the proper posture is to stand. (Our current book directs us to kneel.) This will probably cause some local controversy. Should I advise people to resist?

The bishops have directed the clergy

(a) not to celebrate daily Divine Liturgies during the Great Fast
(b) regularly celebrate the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts during the Great Fast
(c) end the practice of withholding Communion till the age of reason, and commune children immediately after baptism
(d) to install iconostases where they are not present

At the Uniontown pilgrimage, we're now seeing Matins celebrated daily, and last year, compline was added, and the Sisters asked that the Jesus Prayer be sung (to a Galician melody used for the Prayer) over the sound system on the grounds, INSTEAD of the start of the rosary which was taking place, and a number of talks were presented on the use of the Jesus Prayer.

Matins and Vespers? We now have texts with music, which were at best available only in fragmentary fashion in the past. Rubrical and textual errors in the Uniontown books were corrected in the MCI books, and a number of parishes are using them. I personally would have preferred continuing to use "Lover of Mankind", but in this case we accepted the bishops' direction (as Brother Maximos insisted back in the 1990's was a prerequisite if we expected God to bless our efforts to reintroduce these services).

As far as "Mass", rosaries, etc., all the impetus for this I've seen is coming from parish tradition, and not from the bishops, the liturgical or music commissions, or a majority of the clergy.

Finally, I haven't been to a Divine Liturgy under an hour since the 1990's, when Metropolitan Judson started ordering restoration of the litanies that used to be omitted throughout. As the Administrator has pointed out here, NO ONE has suggested a Divine Liturgy should be "under an hour."

My point above was that your complaints are not strengthened by either misrepresenting the liturgical changes, or by accusing the bishops or clergy of being in support of Latinizations like statues, kneeling at inappropriate times, etc.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I accept that you think this is the "best English translation" but I think you need to back up that assertion with more than your 'belief' that it is so.

I think it is the worst translation of the Liturgy I have ever seen. In fact it is not a translation at all but a 'revision'. Whole pages of the original are missing, litanies are missing, prayers are missing. That is not a translation but an agenda driven, ideological, reshaping of the Liturgy. It is nothing other than an assault on the Byzantine Catholic tradition.

It is someone's idea of how our venerable Liturgy should be improved, reorganized, abbreviated and redesigned.

The rubrics are invented, not translated. In fact, some of the invented rubrics are exactly opposite from the original rubrics printed in the offical books published by Rome. I invite you to defend that kind of translating, and I look forward to hearing your argument.

What we need is more fidelity to our inherited tradition, but what we get is more westernized, latinized nonsense.

The removal of a word from the creed is probably heretical, but I think we will have to wait for Rome to finally speak on this question, and they must.

Feminism (I never liked Rush Limbaugh's neologism, femi-nonsense, but perhaps he has a point) is not acceptable, and to have it imposed by a small clique in Pittsburgh, proves that our bishops have lost their senses.


This is the sort of thing that has been pushed by some badly formed Roman Catholic nuns, and certain homosexual and lesbian action groups on the fringe of society.

It is not the sort of thing we want printed in our Liturgical books. It is not the sort of prayers I want my children to memorize.

Nick

Yes Carson. I have been particularly scandalized by this. I have not heard one good explanation for the deletion of "anthropoi" from the creed. And so I must surmise that it is a subtle surrender to the feminist agenda. I have prayed about this for a long time. My conscious consistently tells me that I must join the Orthodox Church. The revision has sparked a disturbance deep within my soul.

Recluse,

I understand your anguish. Yet, I cannot bring myself to wilfully be out of communion with Rome. I wish that our hierarchs weren't making it so difficult to remain in communion.

CDL

I don't really want to get engaged in a debate over the rubrics of the new Liturgy translation. Although I consider myself to be reasonably well-read and well-versed in liturgics and I deeply love the eastern liturgy, I am not a liturgical scholar nor am I an expert on the many permutations of Byzantine liturgical development. Having worshipped in multiple Orthodox congregations in the United States and in England, I know from experience that the Liturgy is celebrated in many different ways with many different rubrics and in many different English translations. (This was confirmed to me recently by a reading of Fr. Robert Taft's newest book--which I highly recommend.)

However, I do know that there is a misunderstanding in your post about the Greek word "anthropos." I have not seen this noted anywhere on the forum, so I will state what is probably obvious to all. According to the Lexica that I possess, the word "anthropos" means "a human being, whether male or female generically" (This definition is taken from Thayer's New Testament Greek Lexicon, but it is not unique to Thayer's).

So therefore, the question is how best to translate this word into contemporary modern English. The question is really only this -- What is the best English word to communicate the essential meaning of "a human being, whether male or female generically"?

Any number of English words can be used -- "man", "mankind", "humankind", "all of us", etc.

None of these are necessarily better than any other and certainly none of these are more theologically correct. Since we all admit they mean the same thing, they are lexically equivalent!

Anthropos is like "men" insofar as it has a unmarked and marked meaning. See, eg:



1 Cor. 7



Ephesians 5

Ah yes, that is why I have not yet come to a final position on the matter. Breaking communion with Rome would be extremely difficult for me. But I do not know if I can, in good conscious, recite the creed in this way every week while maintaining a peaceful state of mind.

Certainly we can agree that the meaning of the word in the Creed is human beings, to include both male and female!

So the question remains, what is the best way to communicate this in English to modern people?

Certainly we can agree that the word "men" includes, as it always has--men, women, children, unborn babies--but it's not being translated for a reason. "Men" does communicate it to modern men, women and children of good will. So why not use it? The burden is on those who want to change the Creed contrary to Rome's expressed opinion.


"...for us men and for our salvation...and became man...

That's poetic, theologically sound and comports with the original text.

"for us and our salvation....and became man...." is not poetic, might be understood by Americans that he became man for "us" (not for Iraquis for instance), is not theololgically sound and does not comport with the original text.

The best way to communicate this is with the words "man" and "mankind". So says Rome.

Why is this even a question?

If someone does not know the correct meaning of the words "man" and "mankind" why not teach him?

It's the politically correct churches that are empty. Those who hold to fast to that which is good are the ones that are full and growing. Inclusive language has been put to the test and it has failed.

They are not lexically equivalent. In Frege's terminology, they have the same Bedeutung, but not the same Sinn. Same extension, different intension. Same denotation, different connations.

Or, put another question, what is the most accurate, faithful, and literal translation?

"who for us men, and for our salvation..."

Some 'modern people' are infected with the feminist agenda, who despise men, and the word 'men', and wish to reform the English language to suit themselves, and score points. I'm not sure we should be looking for an English language creed that will suit these 'modern people'.

We should not modify our translation to be sensitive to their 'agenda'. The Churches should resist such nonsense, and avoid the traps set by these special interest groups. The Church should translate the text of the creed faithfully and accurately.

That is what Rome commands us to do. That is what we should have done.

But Archbishop Basil has chosen another course, and it is a shame. Has the Archbishop not been listening to the discussions going on in the Bishops' meetings? Doesn't he know how controversial this all is? Why is he taking us there?

I can see so many reasons for not promulgating this revision of the Divine Liturgy. I look forward to hearing the Archbishop give his reasons for the Promulgation, I hope they are good.

Nick

As soon as this book arrives in the pews in my parish, I am going to take two home, and highlight all the Revisions, the changes, the latinizations, the errors, and the mistranslations in yellow. I am going to highlight the offensive feminist nonsense in red, and mail one to Pope Benedict, and the other to Patriarch Bartholomew.

I wonder who will answer first?

This are only a few times during the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Mostly, there are prostrations during the Great Fast, for which kneelers are not needed.

I've always been confused by those who go on about kneeling and penitence but then complain if there are no padded kneelers to be penitent upon.

Besides, as a church shouldn't have pews anyway, to what would you attach the kneelers?

Amen. It is obvious that the commission has been influenced by this agenda. It was difficult enough dealing with the Latinizations in our Church. Now the virus of inclusive language is about to seep into the equation. The Pope has said that the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments and Apostolic succession. It seems to me, that if I want to be truly Eastern, there is not much choice. I am so terribly disappointed that our Metropolitan approved this nonsense.

Don't a number of the Orthodox also use an inclusive creed?

Not that I know of.

Greek Orthodox translation:
http://www.goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/creed.asp

OCA translation:
http://www.oca.org/OCSelect-Prayer.asp?SID=2&name=The%20Symbol%20of%20Faith

Antiochian translation:
http://www.antiochian.org/morning-prayers

Yes.

And it rather begs the question: How true is it to Eastern Christian tradition --indeed, how true is it to very structure of the Church-- if a bishop or a collection of bishops can change the Symbol of Faith without an Ecumenical Council ?

For me, this question arose and refused to go away as I studied the word filioque. Perhaps for others, the same issue will come up and refuse to go away by the study of the word anthropos.

-- John

A thought occurred to me: does "for us" refer just to us living, or did Jesus come down from heaven also for those who have gone before us?

"Us" may mean all humans, but it says nothing of the race of man itself, which includes past, present, and future. "For us men" includes all men and women, past, present, and future.

Great point!

I would like to weigh in here for a moment. It has been posted that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America promotes inclusive language. At present that is the furthest thing from the truth. Unfortunately the Goarch and Patriarchal (which is hosted by goarch) websites are undergoing hardware and content management changes which means that updated materials outside of news releases are not being added and will not be for several weeks and possibly to months to come. The head of our IT Dept., states that materials in the online chapel section are going to be replaced with service materials that meet the current standards of the archdiocese.

For the last three years the Holy Eparchial Synod of Bishops has been working on a complete liturgical overhaul for the English used in the Divine Services. The first decision was to purge any and all language that can be deemed inclusive. Parts of the texts are being released and being used. You have to remember that until the complete review and all changes are made, there is no official translations of the liturgical texts into English unless officially endorsed by the Holy Eparchial Synod.

The parts that are now mandated are the attached file, which is a photo copy of the now official Creed and version of the Lord's Prayer that is mandated for use throughout the entire archdiocese. We are expecting that within two to three years that an official complete Divine Liturgy will also be coming out that will replace the numerous efforts that exist now. For those interested, whatever books may be in use in a parish, the enclosed versions of the Creed and Lord's Prayer are mandated to replace what may be in those books. The official endorsement is clearly visible on the Lord's Prayer page.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Thanks for the PDF Father Anthony.

I've seen a lot of talk about the Byz Cath revision being temporary. Maybe we could use the GOA version when it comes out?

Thank You Father. The ArchDiocese will probably grow as a result of your post.

I checked my Liberal Patmos Press Purple "The Akathist Hymn" Book. Even though it has that "humankind" garbage in it, the Creed retains Anthropos. My copy has a 2002 copyright.

Also, unadulterated Matins translations are available, FREE here:
http://sgpm.goarch.org/ematins/

And Yes Mount Athos Bashers, the Hieromonk that works on these translations spent time on the Holy Mountain. A brief example of the Defense of Orthodoxy by Mount Athos Monks can be read in the quote below. (from the e-Matins link above)

"In producing these materials, Hieromonk Seraphim Dedes and George K. Duvall have sought to depart from the stodgy, rote translations that have been in use in parishes to this day. Instead, we have incorporated the natural beauties of the English language to produce texts that are musically sound, poetically enhanced, and doctrinally and historically correct. We have not allowed ourselves to delve into private interpretations or mistranslations based on politically correct or trendy notions, but have attempted to produce accurate renderings of the source materials using modern, conservative, idiomatic English."

I wonder if might not a few of the revisionists feel cold, all alone out there in dark?

Alexandr

Fr. Anthony,

In defense of those who stated the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America promotes inclusive language, the English Divine Liturgy on the GOA website does eliminate men from the Creed, as well as lover of mankind from the Dismissal Prayer using: "May Christ our true God, (who rose from the dead), as a good, loving, and merciful God..." and mankind from the Prayer of the Trisagion using: "You have created man and woman in Your image and likeness and adorned them with all the gifts of Your grace."

My question is where does the inclusive version come from and who authorized it if at all?

I have another question as well concerning the Liturgy on the website. How representative of the Liturgy as taken in Greek parishes is it? Do most parishes take no verses at the Antiphons? Do most not take the Insistent Litany, Litanies of Catechumens and Faithful, or Angel of Peace petitions before the Our Father? Do most take only one Prayer of the Faithful?

Fr. Deacon Lance

I am blessed to have an expert in Old Greek in my family. Although, I don't speak with this family member often I think I will call him and ask him what the proper translation is.

This expert has taught in the school in the seminary located in Athens Greece for the GOC. He taught theology at the University of Boston and has several published books. He was friends with the Coptic Bishop Samuel who was killed along with the president of Egypt. The Bishop personally asked him to teach in Egypt for the Coptic Church. He is Protestant but still a highly respected expert. He has a friend who is an expert in Old Church Slavonic as well.

Since he is an independent source I will get to the bottom of this issue. Can someone please tell me the authentic sources in question and I will get an unbiased translation. If possible I will post his opinion as well.

Ray,

I don't think anyone is disputing that anthropos can be translated as men or as humans, in Greek it can refer to males specifically or humans generically so either is acceptable from the scholarly view of things. The dispute is whether it is appropriate to skip translating it all together, which I think most are in agreement it is not and how grievous this omission is which seems to be disputed.

In addition, even though anthropos it can be translated as humans, Vatican directives state that the traditional translation "men" is to be used. So those objecting to its omission or using humans in place of men do have a valid arguement.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Nicene Creed that was submitted by the USCCB to the Vatican for approval.

http://www.adoremus.org/0706NiceneCreedChanges.html

Fr. Deacon Ed,

I understand that the Roman Bishops submitted the Creed without "men." I doubt, however, that it will be approved given what Rome has said in LA and the fact that Rome is now very serious about correct translations--eg--pro multis, "for many," not "for all."

Nonetheless, since we got "ours" approved first, should we now say that the Romans are involving themselves in "Byzantinization" or is this just another Latinization on our part? I suggest that it is all just Americanization, or Westernization if you prefer, since no one in Greece (in either Church) is proposing to drop anthropos from the Creed.


In Christ,

lm

Fr. Deacon Lance I mean.

oops!

It appears that the Bishops want to avoid "men" "like the plague." Perhaps there wishes will be fulfilled.

I note a little dishonesty there, however. English as "spoken" does not tend to avoid "men" as a universal non-gendered inclusive. Indeed, an adamant feminist (promoter of abortion et al) I once knew had the habit of calling her class of men and women to attention by saying, "C'mon guys." I once suggested to her great dismay, that she should say, "Guys and Dolls."

First Deacon Lance, unless you are blind, and have not read my post, my previous post already has stated that the official English transliteration has never been promulgated for Divine Liturgy. As what has been explained is what is on the website is outdated especially concerning the creed. There are no fewer than six private or semi-official translations, and if you can point to the direct official endorsement (similar to, or exactly like the one that appears on that card) that the translation on the website is the mandated text which will not appear before 2009 to 2010, then you seem to have insider information that no one outside of the Holy Synod seems to possess. The above listed text that appears on the website is one of those unofficial translations.

As far as parts that are taken and not there will be firm directives regarding antiphon verses, the other litanies, etc. if the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateria and Great Britain is any indication in their recently released texts and litugikon, many of these parts will be restored to not only for the sake of appearing in a liturgikon and not practiced, but actually mandated for restoration in parish liturgical life.

If my post sounds a little terse, it is meant to be as I do not like having you speak officially for the Orthodox liturgical norms and standards as it seems to be your constant habit here, and if you like I have no issue about pointing out the numerous times that you have falsely posted misrepresentations about that.

I resent having my posts twisted by you, or trying to have me set up to come in favor of this liturgical catastrophe that is being deemed anything closed to Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I got a response on the "for us men". I know longer have a problem with the translation.



This is an independent assessment.

Thank you, Ray. This is certainly how the scholars I have talked to and interacted with have interpreted this passage in the Creed.

Translation is (as the English say) a "sticky wicket" and decent God-loving (or is "loved by God") men/people can have different opinions. What I object to is the fact that in these discussions so often people/men act as if they know the intents of other people/men. Why do we assume the worst about other people and the best about ourselves?

One wise spiritual father once told me that if I was serious about my spiritual life I should do the opposite: "Attribute the best motives to others and the worst to yourself and you shall be saved". Once again, it is my sincere belief that each and every person involved in the translation truly loves God to the best of their abilities and is trying to do the right thing by that love. While I may disagree with some decisions made, I will not disagree with their motives nor will I assault their character nor will I impugn their serious devotion to Christ and His Church.

Fr. Anthony,

You seemed to take umbrage with the suggestion that the GOA endorsed inclusive language. I wanted it made clear it was an honest mistake to do so considering the text provided on the GOA website is inclusive.

You stated that the Official English text would be promulgated in the furute you said nothing of the status of the text on the site so I asked for an honest clarification as well as for what is common Liturgical practice in the GOA. It has been awhile since I've been to a GOA Liturgy and the parish closest to me uses mostly Greek.

I have never claimed to speak officially for Orthodox liturgical standards, I don't even claim to do so for my own Metropolia. I have spoken to what I know to exist out there in both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox usage. I have never purposely misrepresented or falsely posted about either, but please point out where you feel I do if you wish.

I was not trying to twist your post or set you up.

My concern is I see a lot of people getting upset and talking about leaving my Church when there is no guarentee that priests using the full Red Book are going to comply with the promulgation of the new. I can guarentee those using Grey Book Low Liturgies won't. I bet most using the Blue Book won't. The grass isn't always greener. Nor do I think Rome has had its final say. I hate to see people, people we need because of their passion and commitment to restoration of Eastern Tradition, bail over a small storm they mistook for a hurricane.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon lance,

Yes, I take umbrage, and if you reread the first and second paragraphs especially paragraph 2, there is the statement that there is no official English translation for the GOA. The exact quote is

Now for the following:

I understand your concerns, and how that is handled is a concern for your respective hierarchs. My posts in no way regarding this issue are to be viewed as a matter of trying to "entice" posters to the Orthodox Church. My intention is to clarify what has been erroneously posted as an official position of the archdiocese I serve and work in the administration therof. I would venture to say in live of the resumption of the Catholic-Orthodox dialog, an issue such as this is going to come up sooner than later, and may become an issue that will have to be addressed as a part of these dialogues.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Fr. Anthony,

Thanks for the reference to the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Thyateria and Great Britain Liturgy text. But for some small points it lines up pretty well with our Red Book, more so than Russian books.

I note however that the Creed translators chose yet a new option and render the disputed protion of the Creed: "for our sake and for our salvation..."

They also use "...and created man and woman according to Your image and likeness and adorning them with every gift of Your grace." in the Prayer of the Trisagion.

But everywhere else "Lover of mankind" is retained.

I believe as you say these points should be brought up at the dialog and maybe some translating and rubrical guidelines could be agreed upon.

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/liturgy_of_st_john_chrysostom.htm
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/LIT-ENGF%20WWW.pdf

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

That I am aware as far as how they rendered their translation. I have copies of their materials. I should have been clearer, I was referring to more the liturgical restorations their books have. Our archbishop has made it quite clear, inclusive language is out and it will be expunged in the new materials that the Holy Synod is working on. As far as how much will be restored liturgically, that would be pure speculation on my part. I do know though from what I posted as the attached file, the version of the Creed and Lord's Prayer are finalized and are in use now throughout the archdiocese after being promulgated a little over 15 months back. It is hoped that the complete Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Basil the Great will be officially promulgated and out by 2010, with the other services to follow. This is not going to be a quick project, but from what the clergy have been told, it will reflect a uniform consistency in language.

As far as the inconsistency, I can only venture a guess to the UK publications. I noticed that the translation committee was comprised of some that were not part of the Greek Diocese there, and may have been reflective to materials and usages from their own jurisdiction. Again this purely speculative on my part. As far as guidelines for the translations here in the GOA, I know that what has been mentioned for our archdiocese rests solely with Holy Eparchial Synod. They are the ones doing it and have complete control as to how it is being done.

As to your "red book" I can not comment one way or another. I have an extensive liturgical library that has texts in no fewer than 8 languages, and encountering most traditions. Unfortunately, what I have for liturgical books of the Ruthenian Archeparchy is limited to a few books. The majority of the Eastern Catholic liturgical books in my library are from the Melkites. Maybe sometime soon before they may or may not disappear I might be able to come across one for not only my library but to carefully examine. I have to say though, I have enough variations of the proposed Revised Divine Liturgy in its different working text revisions. It would be nice to have the infamous red book to compare it to.

Well, I have an early day in the morning, and after a full day of meetings at the archdiocese and having to come home in an ice storm, I am quite tired. Good night.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Dear Deacon Lance,

The Orthodox world in North America is currently in a state of flux, involving a return to traditional Orthodoxy. The abuses of the past 30 years involving feminization, liberalization, modernism, and liturgical innovations have, with the exception of the Antiochian Archdiocese, ceased, and the pendulum is returning to the center. This "dream" of some of the hierarchs of that time period was found to be faulty, and now Orthopraxis is returning to the scene. Within the next 10-20 years, I expect to see a standardized Liturgical English text put forth for use by all Orthodox Churches in this country, whether Greek, Russian Serbian or otherwise. Even amongst the very liberal Antiochian Archdiocese, there have been signs of positive change. They have left the NCC, the "looney protestant" influx of the 70's such as the "Order of Mans" and the Episcopalians in Orthodox robes have, for the most part moved on. Once the current hierarchy is replaced, I see nothing but positive change coming to them as well. What all of this boils down to is the fact that within a very short time, your Orthodox neighbors will have consolidated to a position of strength, with a common Traditional Orthopraxis, both spiritually and Liturguically. The proposed revision to the Liturgy does not bring the BCC closer to us, but rather moves it farther away. It is destroying the one basis of commonality amongst us, other than national origin. The Orthodox look at some of the oddities amongst the Roman Church, with the Halloween Mass in California being a very good example, and shake their heads. The Eastern Catholics, while a point of problem for us historically, liturgically have been regarded as conservative and solid. Numerous mention is made in Orthodox literature to the fact that some EC's are "more orthodox than the Orthodox". I will be honest, and state that if not loved by the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic Churches were grudgingly repected by most Orthodox. BUT, and this is a huge but, with the adoption of this revision, you are throwing away that which the Orthodox most respected about you, your Orthodoxy and commitment to Tradition. I see the reaction already from amongst the Orthodox who are aware of the situation in the BCC. The response has been one of sadness on the part of more sober individuals, but ranging from outright laughter by some to a blanket dismissal of the EC's as just another Latin sideshow. (Their words, not mine). I have found myself in the rather odd position as a Traditionalist Orthodox defending the EC's based on their comittment to Tradition and steadfastness to the ways handed down to you. And the reason I do so, is in no small way attributed to the love and comeraderie I have developed with many of you on this Forum. And to see you dispense with that which has always been your greatest strength, well, it not only saddens me, but angers me as well. Many of you know in your hearts that it is wrong. Stand up for what you know to be the truth. Tell your bishops no, you won't stand for the protestantization of your Church. Complain to Rome. Fight for what your Baba's and Dzedo's sweated and bled for. Don't abandon the faith. Remember the New Martyr's who died rather than accept apostasy. And you, good Deacon, as clergy, have an obligation to stand for Truth, as do all parishoners. But the clergy must lead this fight, for the laity have no way to organize without the involvement of the clergy. Think about what you have recieved from your Baba and Dzedo, and compare it to what your grandchildren will recieve from you if you do nothing.

I offer my hand, my back, my knowledge and my resources to you if you wish to stand and fight this transgression of the Faith.

Alexandr

"My concern is I see a lot of people getting upset and talking about leaving my Church when there is no guarentee that priests using the full Red Book are going to comply with the promulgation of the new. I can guarentee those using Grey Book Low Liturgies won't. I bet most using the Blue Book won't. The grass isn't always greener. Nor do I think Rome has had its final say. I hate to see people, people we need because of their passion and commitment to restoration of Eastern Tradition, bail over a small storm they mistook for a hurricane."

Fr. Deacon Lance


What a mess!

I avoided the storm, stayed dry, and went back to pre 1646 Slavic Eastern Christianity. Red book, blue book, green book, no book... Good luck!!!

Fr. Anthony,

Here is the Red Book for your examination, the first link is text, the second link is actual copied pages.

http://www.patronagechurch.com/HTML/DIVINE_LITURGY_SAINT_JOHN_CHRYSOSTOM.htm

http://www.patronagechurch.com/Liturgikon%20E&S/Chrysostom/English/index%20English%20-%20Chrsyostom.htm

Fr. Deacon Lance

"I will be honest, and state that if not loved by the Orthodox, the Eastern Catholic Churches were grudgingly repected by most Orthodox."

I should note that this is totally untrue in my experience.

1. Some Orthodox, especially converts, aren't even aware Eastern Catholics exist.
2. If Orthodox are aware of them they know nothing about them or assume they are just Latins with an Eastern liturgy.
3. Eastern Catholics are almost never respected. Rather, for those Orthodox that take the time to think about it, they are respected even less than Latins because they "sold out" for "political reasons".

"It is destroying the one basis of commonality amongst us, other than national origin."

This statement is so typical and also not accurate. I guess a common theological and spirtual framework doesn't count for much, eh?

In any event, I don't like the liturgical changes, but I don't think they are cause to just give up on Eastern Catholicism. As for reunion with the Orthodox, that probably isn't going to happen in our lifetimes no matter what the liturgy looks like.

Matt

Amen, Matt - especially when such changes and translations violate specific directives from Rome regarding so-called inclusive language and the deference to be given to Orthodox practice. The Metropolia is once again faced with a situation where it commits to a path quite contrary to the nature of the Unia. As in the past the result is always abandonment of the Metropolia which may or may not involve abandonment of full communion with Rome altogether.

But again, my impression is that the hierachy regards this as much ado about nothing.

Gordo

Dear Matt,

I can't speak for what occurs in DC, other than muggings and drive by shootings, but it has been my experience that my statement is quite true.

"1. Some Orthodox, especially converts, aren't even aware Eastern Catholics exist."

You are basing this on what? Every Orthodox I know is fully aware of the Greek Catholics who live next door, work with them, and come to our Church for Russian Christmas. Here, Orthodox and Greek catholics work together to support each other. Go to any parish function in Pennsylvania, whether Greek Catholic or Orthodox, and I guarantee that you'll see both in attendence.
As a matter of fact, my own parish has a beautiful Icon of the Passion Bearer and Martyr St.Czar Nicholas bought for us by a group of Greek Catholics who visited Russia 2 years ago.

"2. If Orthodox are aware of them they know nothing about them or assume they are just Latins with an Eastern liturgy."

Once again, you assume much, even assuming that we are stupid in regards to your faith. We are quite aware of the differences between Roman and Eastern Rite Catholics. Thank you very much.

"3. Eastern Catholics are almost never respected. Rather, for those Orthodox that take the time to think about it, they are respected even less than Latins because they "sold out" for "political reasons".

I frankly, do not see this. This Forum is a mixture of Catholic, Orthodox and Non Chalcedon Christians. I see no overt animosity directed against the Catholics. As a matter of fact, everyone that I know feels the exact opposite of the way you do. We have found the Greek Catholics to be much more involved in their Churches, their kids know how to pray, and regularly attend services, much more so than the Roman Catholics we live with. So I would say that yes, we do respect you.

"This statement is so typical and also not accurate. I guess a common theological and spirtual framework doesn't count for much, eh? "

Once again, I do not see where you are coming from. We do not share a common Theology, or we would not be divided. What we share are a Liturgical Tradition and a Love for Christ.

"As for reunion with the Orthodox, that probably isn't going to happen in our lifetimes no matter what the liturgy looks like."

At last, I agree with something you have said. Change occurs slowly. It took 400 years to even start healing the division with the Old Rite. The differences between East and West are vast in comparison. But just because things won't happen in our lifetime does not mean that we say the hell with them. We need to set the groundwork for our children and grandchildren. And common ground is not gained by moving away from each other.


Alexandr

I don't think there will ever be a common text, as in the exact same liturgy used by each church. Really that shouldn't happen given the differences in traditions between each church. What would be nice is a uniform style of English and standardization of the fixed parts of the liturgy that are the same no matter which church you are in (the creed, pre communion prayers, etc.). This was brought home to me last week when I was out of town and visited the church of another jurisdiction.

Whatever issues there may be with the AOA, I will say they have in my opinion one of the two best English translations of the liturgy in current use.

Of Whom are you speaking? Who do you know is assuming the worst about other people and the best about themselves? What is your evidence?

I don't have the time or the energy to go through all of the posts. It is clear however that in these discussions it has been implied (more than once) that anyone who desires horizontally inclusive language is somehow either a "badly formed Roman Catholic nun" or a member of "certain homosexual and lesbian action groups on the fringe of society." This is what I object to.

On a personal level, I know of several very pious Christians (who pray everyday, willingly go frequently to confess, keep the fasts, etc.) who are eager for a more horizontally-inclusive language liturgy. As far as I know, they are not doing this because of any influence from the people mentioned in the quote.

As an example of this, I found it very interesting to read the last chapter of Markides' last book in which he discusses his wife's confusion over the patriarchal image of the Orthodox Church. (As it has been written elsewhere, I do not deny that Markides certainly is part of the academic intellectual world and approaches spirituality from within that framework.) As I have read his books, he is quite sympathetic to Orthodox spirituality and very respectful of our/his tradition. (In fact, I have given his books to some of my professional colleagues and/or college students and they have been greatly helped by the way in which he explains Orthodox theology and spirituality.) He however acknowledges that aspects of our tradition strike modern people as objectionable.

Undoubtedly, some/most of these cannot be changed without doing damage to the truth. But are all of them necessary? If St Paul could go to Jerusalem and take a vow so that he did not offend pious Jews, can we not make some changes so as not to offend those sincerely seeking truth in our society who are put off by some of our ways of doing things?

Of course, good people can disagree on what I have stated and on how exactly to do what I have proposed. This is why dialogue is so helpful. But (in my opinion) it stops being dialogue when we start accusing people of having ulterior motives or being somehow unfaithful, etc.

RE: "Especially when such changes and translations violate specific directives from Rome regarding so-called inclusive language and the deference to be given to Orthodox practice. The Metropolia is once again faced with a situation where it commits to a path quite contrary to the nature of the Unia. As in the past the result is always abandonment of the Metropolia which may or may not involve abandonment of full communion with Rome altogether."

I have a sincere question. I have been informed (by several very reputable knowledgable sources) that the new translation has been approved by Rome. If it was approved by Rome, how is it violating Rome?

I think I have read almost all of the posts on this subject and I have never seen that, but perhaps its because I assuming the good will of those who post which is of course what you have asked us to do--and I think you're right that we should do that with everyone. That does not mean of course that there can not be honest inquiry that asks why are a few changing the Creed without the assistance of an Ecumenical Council. What is the reason for that? It is not mere speculation that there is a secular influence which is involved and that there are leanings which involve grave theological issues and perhaps, as some have suggested, sociological issues. Since radical changes have been made and we all have a duty, in virtue of our baptism, to contend for the faith, then real dialogue should take place. But the nature of real dialogue is to get to the truth of things--that word logos is there.



If there is damage to the truth, then no, I don't think you can make changes. If the ones who are offended are sincerely seeking the truth, then I think they will not make judgments about the Creed, the Church Fathers or our way of doing things. They won't choose to be offended. Instead, they will look and think, "H'mmmm...why are they doing it that way, when the society at large does it differently?"

Sort of approved. Rome (ie the Oriental Congregation) has apparently approved the changes. This view comes from Fr. Taft who thinks the clergy don't want "inclusive language" because it "empowers the disenfranchised" -- a very poltical and secular comment.

However, Rome has specifically addressed these very issues for the Roman Rite. The argument on the other side is, "We're not the Roman Rite." The response of course is, "What's so Byzantine about these chanages."

The Creed of course, by the very nature of being a Creed, is intellectual. One must submits one's intellect to the truths set forth therein. Rome has said that anthropos should be translated correctly. When Rome said that, it did not appear to be saying something particularly Roman, but it seemed as if it were addressing a universal truth that the Church ought not let the secular world define its liturgical language.

FYI: The words within the quotations in my first paragraph were cut and pasted from actual posts!

Here was one of the quotations. I don't see that the author was implying anything about those who are pushing for the changes in the Byzantine Church other than their judgment may not be very good. He has stated correctly, however, that badly formed Roman Catholic nuns and these other action groups have pushed for these sorts of things. Since they have, I think it is proper to ask the question, "Why have they done that, and ought we to do that?"

Here is another reference to lesbians. It apparently comes from Helen Hitchcock the Editor of "Adoremus," a well respected Roman Rite publication on the liturgy. Cardinal Arinze recently visited the Adoremus' office here in the United States.

That is the problem with inclusive language. The originators mean well but wind up neutering the masculine to favor the feminine. They do it under guise of equality of the sexes. Since women have been mistreated in the past Christians buy into it without thought. Then they attempt to push it within the Church giving reasons of loving one another and tolerance. They don't realize the damage it inflicts on the very core of orthodox Christian anthropology. Praise God the Vatican will have none of it. Now if we could just convince our bishops to follow the Vatican. Or ask the Vatican to direct them to be faithful.

So what is the correct translation of "anthropos" that Rome said we should use? And I'm assuming that Rome gave us the correct English word too? Mother may I?

I don't understand this strong push for appeal to what Rome has said. Constantly on these boards I see Rome's involvement in eastern affairs being excoriated. I think it is much more important what other easterners have said. I will start a thread on that.

Jeff,

When I post on here it's in between doing work and responding to e-mails for work. I incorrectly wrote Litany of the Catechumens, I should have wrote minimal 3 verse antiphons in my litanty of items that were now forbidden. But hey, I typed it wrong. I'll be a man, er I mean human, and say I wrote it wrong plain and simple. You're right it's in the new books. I should have typed it right.

But you can't seriously contest and give me a reason why 90%+ of our churches in Parma and Pittsburgh don't celebrate Vespers (no Vespers with Liturgy doesn't count) or Matins. And don't hide behind that some priests have to serve multiple parishes. Because then you have to answer why priests that have only one parish are and will get away with no Vespers or Matins. You know as well as I do that these services should be taking place. Why doesn't our leadership enforce this? You don't really think that having Matins for 3-4 days in Uniontown is the quota for the year for all of our eprachies do you? Is pastoral sensitivity the reason because these are Traditoinal practices?

I'll go back to the practice of not kneeling on Sundays, which is done at the Cathedral in Parma. I guess we'll see if it is obeyed per the new books (what color are they so we can call them red book, etc.?) If not, then can Traditional parishes do 3 verse antiphons and little litanies? How much leeway is allowed?

You didn't even touch upon the fact that the beautiful fasting cycles that we have in our Tradition are basically ignored. Where are the directives from our leaders regarding Traditional fasting? I've never even heard a rumour of the Dormition Fast for example being practiced.

How is it that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people go to communion on Sundays, yet confessions are minimal. Must be some holy people in our rite. This was one of the items that I wrote previously that should be enforced.

Speaking of confessions, what is a confessional doing at the cathedral in Parma? (left hand side in the back when you walk in)

You haven't seen a liturgy done in under an hour? Go to St. Mary's in Cleveland on a Sunday. 45 minutes tops. I swear to you.

Go to Holy Ghost in Cleveland, around 55 minutes.

Go to St. Gregory's in Lakewood, OH. 50 minutes.

Go to St. Joseph's in Brecksville, OH. 50 minutes.

many more if you want to hear.

suggesting that a liturgy should be under an hour and consistently week after week having them under an hour are two different things. The admin would be correct that no ones advocating this, but action speaks louder than words. It's going on.

Proskomedia is something we could talk about at length. Hopefully it will be practiced the right way in every parish now. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it, but it would be nice if it happened.

Bykat wrote:
"My point above was that your complaints are not strengthened by either misrepresenting the liturgical changes, or by accusing the bishops or clergy of being in support of Latinizations like statues, kneeling at inappropriate times, etc."

When every single time that I've ever gone to the Cathedral in Parma my whole entire life and the people there kneel, what am I supposed to think about the bishop and/or clergy supporting this practice? Have I ever seen a memo by one of our bishops and/or clergy encouraging kneeling at inappropiate times? No.
But come on, it goes on there, plain and simple. Maybe it will change June 29? We'll see.

But many parishes that have a priest all to themselves don't have to wait until June 29th to begin having Vespers and Matins. What date will that start?

Monomakh

The correct translation of "anthropos" in the Creed is "man" and "men." "Who for us men and for our salvation." "and He became man." Rome has clearly stated this.

Mother may I?

Are you saying that it is anti-Eastern for Rome to require that translations be accurate?

Are you saying that it is authentically Eastern to be inaccurate?

Man (s) -- Men (pl).

For us men, God became man.

Sorry but I haven't had time to reply before this. I believe and again, I've not had time to find the quote, but it's been shown that "anthropos" can mean either human being or man. I haven't seen any document coming out of Rome, that says for English speakers anthropos must be translated as "man." If you can show me that I'll eat crow. And also, let's not forget, Rome it was that approved this translation.

Check here for the specific directive not to translate "for us and our salvation...

The middle term is that anthropos and homos are equivalents:

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html



Also see LA at paragaphs 30 and 32

http://www.adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html#anchor6319598

One of problems with the translation "for us humans He became human" is, of course it leaves out the fact that He became man ie, male, the spouse of His Bride, the Church.

The creed in Latin does say "et homo factus est." "Homo" is man, meaning a male, if that were translated as "human" I'd have a real problem! Thanks for the quote. That leads me to ask, "why did Rome approve the creed as translated in the Ruthenian liturgy then?" Something's not right. Who wrote the "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal?" Was that Cardinal Estevez?

John,

If "homo" means man means male (ie. the "male" part is important), then you have to explain how the "homines" in the earlier phrase

Qui propter nos h�mines

does NOT mean males. It doesn't, of course, but the fact that "homo" / "man" is "overloaded" - carries two different senses - is part of the problem. The Church COULD have emphasized Christ's maleness - called him a "vir" - but chose to emphasize His humanity by using "homo".

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

C'mon Jeff,

You're wrong. Homines does mean males...and females, adults and children. In fact it includes all of mankind, even those not yet conceived.

That homo, anthropos, man have several meanings is not the problem, but the VERY ESSENCE of why they are useful terms.

Homo is what is used in the Latin Vulgate in Ephesians...A man (anthropos, homo) shall leave his father and mother.... THE AMBIGUITY, IN ANTHROPOS AND HOMO, IS PRECISELY WHY "MAN" IS THE RIGHT TRANSLATION. Its meaning is more complete and concrete than "human being." It is INCARNATIONAL. To being a human being is not some ethereal Platonic essence--it is to be a flesh and blood man or woman.

ECCE HOMO - BEHOLD THE human being? BUNK!

But again, they're not even translating anthropos. Why? I think I've suggested several answers.

Dear lm,

That's my point on the issue of "inclusive language" and the Creed. I agree with you that the omission is precisely the problem.

But John (above) seemed to be confusing "homo" and "vir", as if "homo" OBVIOUSLY implied maleness. The same argument that "man" obviously implies maleness, and "human being" is inappropriate because it doesn't, ends up allowing secular feminists to say "And that is what makes 'for us men' inexact."

My problem is not with the conclusion, but with the argumentation in the post I was responding to - it concedes way too much to so-called "gender feminists."

Jeff

lm,

You aren't making any sense here. You are stating that anthropos can mean males or males and females but the only correct way to translate it is men. I agree references to Christ should be translated as man because one does not simply become human but must be either man or woman. However, anthropos may correctly be translated as humans. Now, the cardinals in Rome may not like that translation but keep in mind these are the same cardinals that don't like us having married priests either.

I agree it should not have been skipped. You can leave it as men (which is my preference) or change it to humans (I don't like it but can't see that it is wrong despite what the cardinals say.

What I can not agree with is running to Rome to have them force our bishops to reverse their decision because next time it might be the Latin bishops running to Rome to try and get them to force us to stop ordaining married agaian now that one of our bishops has resumed doing so.

We should be consulting with our fellow Greek Catholics but I think the days of Rome micro-managing us need to be over.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I must not understand what you're saying.

Homo, anthropos and man all do imply maleness (ecce homo), but also something broader than maleness, because these terms don't necessarily exclude women or children, those yet conceived, or dead.

Agreed?

I just thought John K's response was a revelation as to why he would not say "for us humans beings, he became a human being." That is incomplete.

Remember, however, Valeris Karras would have us translate it that way. Her scholarship requires turning a blind eye to passages like that in Ephesians.

I am making sense, because "men" like "anthropos" means males, or males and females. Why not be exact when you can be? Or should we say, "for us males, females and children, living and dead."



I am Greek Catholic, orthodox, for a reason. I find comfort and truth in union with the Holy See. I find that Rome's positions on this issue are in fact filled with real wisdom, wisdom apparently which is being overlooked to satisfy someone's agenda. I'll take help wherever I can find it--but especially from Peter.

But what other Greek Catholics were consulted? What Orthodox? And why not consult the West since it involves the Creed which is a heritage of the Universal Church?

True. But, but Christ came for all human beings: women and kids as well as men. And the point of contention isn't references to Christ; it is references to us. I mean no disrespect; your post is quite insightful. I just don't think it is what this whole issue is ultimately about.

I think it is ultimately about how we see ourselves and the Tradition that was handed down from the Apostles.

Anthropos can be translated either as a man (a male human being) or as mankind (men, women, children, "us"). Regarding Jesus Christ, it should be translated as "man."

But what about ourselves? How do we choose to translate anthropos regarding ourselves? If we see ourselves traditionally, we will choose "man." If we see ourselves nontraditionally, we will choose "us".

Eastern Christians generally believe that Tradition is binding.

So, for Eastern Christianity, the question then becomes: Who gets to change Tradition ? Who has the authority? If the Tradition has been to see ourselves as "man" rather than "us" -- who gets to change that ? Who gets to change Tradition ?

In the Orthodox Church, it is an Ecumenical Council or a Holy Synod.

In the Catholic Church, it is the pope or his bishops. That is true whether the issue is the filioque, or other Latinizations, or allowing the BCC a new translation of the Symbol of Faith in its new translation of the Liturgy.

And, I'll go one step further. This issue is not going away for Eastern Catholics. Two generations ago, the issue came up with Rome's refusal to allow Eastern Catholic Churches in North America to ordain married men to the priesthood. Today, the same issue is coming up with the new translation of the Liturgy and the Symbol of Faith.

The ultimate issue in this debate isn't about the things themselves. The main issue isn't about what the word anthropos means. We know what that word means. The issue is: who has the authority to change the Tradition of the Church as it was handed down from the Apostles? Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox have different answers to that question, with different results.

-- John

I think the ultimate issue is about things. Nonetheless, I agree that there are other issues about authority. But authority becomes an issue precisely because there is a disagreement about the the message which in this case is the Creed.




As I see it, the issue is whether, when you change the reference from "men" to "us", will there be a change about thinking about God who became man. If the medium is part of the message, then to change, or in this case delete, a word, is to change the message--ie to change the "thing."

The argument of those who would change the language is that it is only the "horizontal," language they are changing. Fr. Mankowsi deals with that argument quite well:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html

Horizontal Inclusive Language in Operation

The difficulties that result from using inclusive language in translation are patent in all the recently issued versions of the Bible that employ such devices. In every case they have the effect of distancing the reader cognitively from the original text; it should be stressed that this is true even of so-called horizontal inclusive language. The following illustrative passages are taken from the inclusivized New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the Revised New American Bible (RNAB, published by the Catholic bishops of the United States), and contrasted with the very literal Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV). Notwithstanding their manifold deficiencies, the NRSV and RNAB are billed as "moderate" by their respective publishers in their recourse to inclusive language.

(1) The literal (and traditional) rendering of Genesis 1:27 is:

God created man (ha-�adam = homo) in his image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

The NRSV translation gives:

God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27 is a key text for Christian anthropology and plays a central role in the doctrine of sexual complementarity. Of particular importance is the testimony of original unity, expressed in Hebrew by (ha-)�adam, which is realized in two ways, male and female, zakar and neqebah. The circumlocutions and alterations of number in the NRSV put the teaching of the passage beyond the reach of anyone who does not have knowledge of the Hebrew. It was not humankind that God created in his image but man. A kind (or a race) is a collectivity but man is a unity. God could be said to have created man even if Adam died companionless, but he could not be said to have created human-kind in these circumstances.

It is clear that for the sacred author the human race as such begins in the following verse, with the blessing of God and the command "be fruitful and multiply," which is carefully preserved as an event distinct from the creation of the two-in-one. To say that it was humankind that God made in his image is to introduce, gratuitously, a number of uncertainties as to whether and how man�s resemblance to God is to be found in the collectivity, the abstract, the social, etc. The sacred author displays the same precision in the use of the object pronouns: "in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The failure to preserve this shift in translation deceptively suggests that the antecedents are the same in the original; there is no way for the English reader to recover the underlying text.

(2) Consider the RNAB rendering of Romans 5:12 and 15:

[12] Through one person (henos anthropou) sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned. . . . [15] For if by that one person�s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person (henos anthropou) Jesus Christ overflow for the many.

The logic of St. Paul�s argument in one of the doctrinally key passages in the New Testament is here forfeited for the sake of inclusive language. The point is not that one person (one individual, one personal existent) was the source of sin and death and one person is the source of grace, but that both events are effected di� henos anthropou: through one man, one homo. As the patristic formula has it: "What is not assumed [i.e., by Christ] is not redeemed"; we are redeemed in our humanity because God�s Son became man. The Pauline theology of redemption is irretrievable from this translation, even though the tampering is putatively horizontal in scope.

Moreover, the circumlocution "person" introduces a particularly regrettable conceptual anachronism into the text. To use the word "person" for an essential, defining characteristic is to beg confusion with the later notion of prosopon as a person of the Trinity, though of course this meaning is nowhere found in St. Paul. Thus, through the reviser�s avoidance of the only natural equivalent of anthropos, not only is the authentic teaching obscured but false scents are dragged across the trail and the reader is gratuitously made prey to misconceptions that are difficult to put right without access to the original Greek

Dear IM,

I'm impressed with your knowledge about translation, but I still don't think that translation is what this debate is ultimately about.

It's about the hierarchs of the BCC deciding to be politically correct. They chose to express this through the Symbol of Faith and the rest of their New Translation of the Liturgy.

So too have other P.C. "reformers" in other branches of Christianity: Episcopalians, some other Protestants, and large parts of the Roman Catholic Church after Vatican 2 via the "Novus Ordo" Mass.

Whether it's the "New Translation" (by the BCC) or the "Novus Ordo (by the RCC), the effect is the same: trying to change people's faith to a more secularist humanist form of Christianity, starting by negating the most basic of God-given distinctions in human beings, gender. In short, it is an attempt to change the faith by changing the language of faith. Lex orandi, lex credenti.

Now, the question for the membership of the BCC is this: how to handle it ?

Some won't mind, or won't care, or won't notice. Some might even agree. They will stay in the BCC.

Others will disapprove, to put it mildly. They have four options.

[1] Stay put in the BCC and deal with it. (On the one hand, this is noble; and it is a tribute to loyalty and faith. On the other hand, it will be an endless martyrdom for those who cringe at the New Translation of the Symbol of Faith and Divine Liturgy.)

[2] Leave the BCC for another Eastern Catholic Church. (The problem with that is: the bishops of another sui juris church could do the same thing as the hierarchs of the BCC.)

[3] Leave the BCC for the RCC. (On the one hand, under Ratzinger / Pope Benedict the 16th, a restoration of liturgy seems to be starting. On the other hand, what one pope can do, another pope can undo.)

[4] Leave the BCC for the Orthodox Church. (This is very sad because it gives up communion with the Bishop of Rome. However, at least the rest of the Tradition of Eastern Christianity is preserved, maintained and fulfilled.)

Now, here is the real issue in this debate: What about Tradition ? I don't mean customs. I mean the Tradition of beliefs and practices that was handed down by the Apostles. How people value Tradition determines which branch of Christianity they will be in. For Protestants, Tradition is mostly optional: authority in the Church is ultimately the Bible and how it is interpreted. For Catholics, Tradition is mandatory but changeable: because authority in the Church is ultimately the pope and the bishops in communion with Him. For Orthodox, however, Tradition IS the ultimate repository for the Church; and the authority to change how it is expressed is vested in bishops, and only when they are acting in an Ecumenical Council or a synod. Again, how people value Tradition is the real issue in this debate (in my opinion) because that will determine which branch of Christianity they will be in.

Another poster, in another thread, observed that the debate over the New Translation is rivaling the controversy in the BCC over the mandatory priestly celibacy ruling (from Rome) a couple of generations ago. He's right. The New Translation is shaping up to be this generation's issue for schism within the Byzantine Catholic Church. Those who ultimately don't mind the New Translation will stay; those who ultimately can't stand it will leave.

-- John

John, an insightful post as always.

Perhaps there is a perception that those who will walk out with wallets in hand will be statistically insignificant to those who will remain. Surely, our hierarchs have anticipated some sort of reaction from the pew-hampered people of the Metropolia? Everyone can recall the events surrounding St. Alexis Toth and Vladyka Orestes, right?

A key question is whether the BCC can survive another mass exodus. This exodus will likely include the intellectuals, those with young families and the real Vostochniks. The reality is that our church is already withering. Any exodus will be significant. Especially when some parishes only have a few dozen folks that show up on a Sunday -- or for the Saturday evening Mass.

Lord have mercy.

Or they will soon have the cash from all the property they can sell as the pews are emptied. No worries there about $$$'s, unfortunately.

And that is not what I wish for, but it seems to be some of the initial fruit of the promulgation.

And one wonders - do they think "Let's feminize/neutralize the worship so that others will come to our parish!"

My question is: Just what kind of parishioner would such a thing attract? Certainly NOT an Orthodox minded one.

Lord have mercy, indeed.

------

Then death is the goal of our sui-iuris Church?

I don't think it is the goal so much as the fruit.

Let's not forget the power of peer pressure. Even the most passionate orthodox devotee who swings in ecclesial circles associated with modernism (especially modernism dressed in a nun's habit - who could dare say no to a Sister?) suffers the fate of the frog in the boiling pot. The steady pressure to ignore and accept the fatal boil makes one redefine normality, whatever the consequences.

But what of the Church's vocation to be a healing sign of contradiction? Compromise in any form vacates the life-giving power of the Holy Cross. It reminds me of a Jesuit priest who once said to me at a retreat that he doesn't introduce himself as "father" to people because they may have had a traumatic experience with their own earthly father. My response was "But what if your fatherhood is the cure?"

This reminds me of the hijacking of the English language by another "special interest" group.

Try reading any classic literature with children over the age of about 8 these days. If the literature happens to properly use the words "queer" or "gay" you get a ton of snickering and giggling. Why? Because two perfectly acceptable and viable words have been so corrupted by a political/social agenda that they are no longer usable by the majority of society.

The bastardization of the word "man" by the feminists is yet another example of a creeping modernism that the Church should be holding fast against - not collaborating with.

John, I couldn't disagree with you more. As a Catholic I think Tradition is not changable--by anyone-- including the Pope.



Actually I plan on staying in the Catholic Church (exactly what that means these days would be an interesting study), realizing of course that many of my Orthodox brethern are often far closer to to being Catholic than many Catholics! Perhaps God's means of bringing union will surprise us!

While on the topic of the Creed translation I offer the Assyrian adn Chaldean translation which does differ from that used by the Latin and Byzantine Churches in some wording and phrases but not in faith.

Assyrian Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, the First-born of all creatures, who was begotten of his Father before all worlds and not made, true God of true God, consubstantial with his Father, by whom the worlds were fashioned and everything was made, who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven and became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and became man; he was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary; he suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, and was buried and rose on the third day, as it is written, and ascended to heaven and sat down at the right hand of his Father; and he is going to come in order to judge the dead and the living; and in one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, the life-giving Spirit; and in one holy, apostolic, and catholic church; and we confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, and the resurrection of our bodies, and life for ever and ever. Amen.

Chaldean Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, Maker of all that is visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God and First-Born of all creatures, who was begotten from his Father before all the ages and was not made: true God from true God, of the same substance as his Father, by whose hands the world was ordered and everything was created, who, for us men and for our salvation, descended from heaven, betook a body by the power of the Holy Spirit, was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary and became man, who suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, who died, was buried and rose on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures, who ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, and who will come again to judge the dead and the living; and in one Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father: the giver of life; and in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

I am surprised nobody jumped on this yet. We are debating the effect of deleting one word, but the Chaldeans have re-adopted the Assyrian variant of the Creed which has some entirely different phrases that while aren't heretical could be misunderstood, most notably: "the only Son of God and First-Born of all creatures"

Oddly the Catholic Encyclopedia make this odd observation regarding the Assyrian Creed:
"The Creed. This is a variant of the Nicene Creed. It is possible that the order or words "and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost and was made man, and was conceived and born of the Virgin Mary", may enshrine a Nestorian idea, but the Chaldean Catholics do not seem to have noticed it, their only alteration being the addition of the Filioque."

It would seem to me that "the First-born of all creatures" would be much closer to enshrining a Nestorian idea than the above.

In any case, I think if Rome is willing to allow the Chaldeans to return to their ancient creed with different phrases I doubt they are going to reverse the decision to delete men. It would seems as someone remarked earlier, whatever Rome has ordered for the Latin Church it is taking a hands of approach to the Eastern Churches.

Fr. Deacon Lance

It all depends on what "creatures" means. I suggest the clause following it makes it clear: "who was begotten of his Father before all worlds and not made."

"Creature" could mean "caused," in which case it is a perfectly legitimate creed, since the Father is the arche of the Trinity and the cause (in an analogous sense) of the Son and the Spirit.

Which is what the Easterners have been asking for.

Autocephaly is not a suicide pact.

Pseudo-Athanasius,

I have no doubt the Assyrians and Chaldeans mean it that way. It does not however, change the fact that the use of "creatures" is at least as, if not more, confusing than omitting men.

From Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:

"B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text �"For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive."
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

Note that the Cardinal does not state it is heresy to omit men only that it is potentially eclusive and that is fair enough, although I doubt anyone is going to think that "for us" refers only to those standing in the church at that Liturgy.

Again if Rome is going to let the Chaldeans use a Creed with a phrase that some could misinterpret as crypto-Nestorian (and I guarentee the Copts will view this phrase as such as they are always accusing Chalcedonians of being crypto-Nestorians anyway, never mind their disdain for the Assyrians, whom they condemn as Nestorians outright) I don't think they are going to do anything about omitting men, even though they don't like it.

It seems all our complaining about Latin meddling finally gained an ear in Rome. Now we will have to learn how to live with autonomy, even when we don't like it.

Fr. Deacon Lance