I based this off the InterimPewBookNov2006.alt.pdf and the Divine-Liturgy-Book-1997.pdf .. Both found in this forum .. I didn't look at all the musical notes, just the ones that stuck out.

I personally made a post before about how a few words shouldn't matter, but after reading this a couple times, I almost feel like a stranger. I picture myself at the DL and everyone is going to stumble, if we even attempt this as a Parish. Most of us know the mass from heart as it is.
----
First Antiphon:
new: Shout joyfully to the Lord of the earth, sing praise to his name, give to him glorious praise. Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior, save us. Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever. Amen. Through the prayers of the Theotokos, O Savior, Save us.

old: Shout joyfully to the Lord of the earth, sing praise to his name, give to him glorious praise. Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, save us. Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever. Amen. Through the prayers of the Mother of God, O Savior, Save us.


Hymn of the Incarnation:
new: Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever. Amen. O only begotten Son and Word of God, Who being immortal, deigned for our salvation, to become incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary, and became man without change, you where also crucified O Christ our God, and by death have trampled Death, being One of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.

old: Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever. Amen. O only begotten Son and Word of God, Who, being immortal, deigned for our salvation, to become incarnate of the Holy Mother of God, and ever Virgin Mary, and became man without change, you where also crucified O Christ our God, and by death have trampled Death, being One of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.

Third Antiphone:
new: Come let us sing joyfully to the Lord; let us acclaim God our Savior. O Son of god, risen from the dead, save us who sing to you. Alleluia!

old: Come let us sing joyfully to the Lord; let us shout with joy to God our Savior. O Son of god, risen from the dead, save us who sing to you. Alleluia!

Gospel:
Celebrant: Wisdom! let us stand listen to the Holy Gospel. Peace be to all.
new: and to your spirit
old: and with your spirit

Celebrant: A reading from the holy Gospel according to <name>.
new: Glory to You, o Lord, glory to You.
old: Glory be to You, O Lord, Glory be to You

???The whole Litany of Offering is gone???

Celebrant: Peace be with all
new: and to your spirit
old: and with your spirit

Creed:
new: ... begtten not made, one in essence with the Father ...
new: ... for us and for our salvation ...
new: ... He rose not the third day, according to the scriptures ...
new: ... He acended into heaven ...
new: ... and He is coming again in glory ...

old: ... begtten not made, of one substance with the Father ...
old: ... Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven ...
old: ... and He rose again on the third day accordin to the sciptures ...
old: ... and He ascended into heaven ...
old: ... and He will come again in glory ...

Celebrant: Let us stand aright, let us stand in awe, let us be attentive to offer the holy Anaphora in peace
new: Mercy, Peace, a sacrifice of praise
old: The offering of peace, the sacrifice of praise.

Celebrant: Let us lift up our hearts
new: We lift them up to the Lord.
old: We have them lifted up to the Lord.

Celebrant:Let us give thanks to the Lord
new: It is Proper and Just.
old: it is proper and just to worship the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity one in substance and undivided.


Take Eat/Take Drink:
Amens are one note not many as before.

Celebrant: our most holy, most pure, most blessed and glorus Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary..
new: It is Truely Proper to glorify you, O Theotokos, the ever-blessed, immaculate and the mother of our God. More honorable then the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious then the Seraphim, who, a Virgin gave birth to God the Word. you truely the Theotokos, we magnify.

old: It is Truely Proper to glorify you, who have born God, the ever blessed, Immaculate and the mother of our God. More honorable then the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious then the Seraphim, who, a Virgin gave birth to God the Word. you truely the Mother of God, we magnify.

Celebrant: Peace be with all
new: and to your spirit
old: and with your spirit

Celebrant: Bow your heads to the Lord
new: To You O Lord.
old: To You O Lord. To You O Lord.

Celebrant: Approach with fear of God and with faith
new: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. The Lord is God and has revealed himself to us.

old: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. God the Lord has revealed himself to us!

Celebrant: Blessed is our God always now and ever and forever.
new: Amen. May our mouth be filled with your praise O Lord, so that we may sing of your glory, sing of your glory. For you have deemed us worthy to partake of Your holy , divine, immortal, pure, and life creating mysteries ...

old: Amen. May our lips be filled with your praise O Lord, so that we may sing of your glory, sing of your glory. For you have deemed us worthy to partake of Your holy, divine, immortal and life creating mysteries ...

Dear brother in Christ, Matthew:

Most of the changes you point out can be summarized as 3 items, used consistently in the new translation:

1. "Glory BE to the Father..." in our current translation came most likely from the translation of the doxology that had been used by Latin Rite Catholics, and thus was used by Eastern Catholics as well. Almost all Orthodox translations I have (including very conservative ones) use "Glory to the Father...". Similarly, "Glory to You" rather than "Glory BE to you."

2. Similarly, Latin Rite Catholics used "Peace be WITH you", "And WITH your spirit (old)" to translate "Pax vobiscum" / "Et cum spiritu tuo", and "with" was correct. But the literal words in our Liturgy are "Peace be TO (you or all)", "And to your spirit." Again, by using "to", we are both being more literal and conforming more closely to Orthodox practice.

(By the way, the invocation and response are parallel: the priest says "Peace be TO all", and we respond "And TO your spirit." So it shouldn't be hard to pick up if we are actually listening to what the priest says."

3. We have two different pairs of words in Greek and Slavonic to refer to the Most Holy Virgin Mary: "Bearer / Birth-giver of God" (Theotokos), and "Mother of God." In our current translation, BOTH are translated as Mother of God; sometimes the former is translated as "Godbearer", which leads to confusion with the "TheoPHOROS", which means "One who carries God" and is used to refer to a different set of saints. So the translators, like most Orthodox who celebrate in English, left "Theotokos" in Greek. (There is precedent for this - whether in Slavonic on English, we still sing the Hebrew words "Amen" and "Alleluia" rather than translating them as "So be it!" or "Praise God!")

I found all of these a bit jarring at first, as you did, but understood the reasons once they were explained. I think these three points account for much of what you are seeing, and may make it easier to address the more substantive issues in the translation. I hope this helps!

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

It struck me today as odd that a Greek word, Theotokos, has been used in the Divine Liturgy. Not too many meodern people know Greek. And yet, to make the Creed understandable to the modern mind, we have deleted a word from the Creed. Hmmm....

Interesting observation.

I am having a hard time working up a sense of outrage over this.

I suppose the Creed is a major point of concern, as well as abbreviations, but the rest of it (of what I have read so far) seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Michael, that sinner

By the way - it's probably worth point out that the opening words (old AND new translations) of the first antiphon are "Shout joyfully to the Lord, ALL the earth" - not "Shout joyfully to the Lord of the earth", which might have disturbing connotations... (see "Prince of this world", etc.)

Jeff

It seems to me that the new Creed is like the pinch of incense which was given to the pagan gods in the early days of Christianity. We have taken our most sacred Symbol and run it through the grist mill of modern secular academia to make it comport with the feminist agenda. But fear not, it's only a pinch.

"Lord of the Earth..." it sounds like a Marty Haugen or David Haas song!

*shudder* Which it why I pointed out the typo in Matthew's transcription. It's tricky because the Psalmist says speaks of the "presence of the Lord of all the earth", meaning the Lord God. But then there's Msgr. Benson's "Lord of the World", which means someone else entirely.

"Almost all" may be a bit of a stretch - Archbishop Kallistos Ware's translations are in widespread use and contain "Glory be".

The new hymn of the incarnation you have above is incorrect. The new translation consistently uses "Glory to" and not "Glory be to." You can hear it here.

Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever. Amen. O only begotten Son and Word of God, Who being immortal, deigned for our salvation, to become incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever Virgin Mary, and became man without change, you were also crucified O Christ our God, and by death have trampled Death, being One of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us.

As pointed out above, the introduction to the Creed is incorrectly transcribed above. You can hear it here.

Priest: Peace be to all
All: And to your spirit.
Deacon: Let us love one another that with one mind we may profess.
All: The Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, one in essence and undivided.
Deacon: [The doors! The doors!] In wisdom let us be attentive!

You also missed a couple changes in the Creed, which you can hear here. Mary the Virgin is now the Virgin Mary. (and with your Spirit) is now not an option and is removed. And I want to point out your typo as it does not say "He rose not" but "He rose on the third day," which is obviously a big difference.

Lastly, I think another typo might make the change in the Hymn to the Theotokos make more sense. I believe it previously said, "Who have borne God" not "born God." The emphasis was on her having carried God in her womb and that Christ was God and divine while there. The same misunderstanding you had is the very reason they chose to keep Theotokos instead of trying to translate it. You can hear that here.

A quick comment from a resident Latin...a majority of english texts used by the Latin Rite since VII read " Glory to the Father etc "...

Just a teeny note...

james, on the sidelines

You write "Not too many meodern [sic] people know Greek." There are scores upon scores of folks who know Greek, including the 12 million living in Greece. There are people that participate on this forum that know Greek!

But in Greece they haven't taken anthropos out of the Creed!

How many potential Byzantine Catholics in the United States know Greek? They will feel excluded when we use words they don't understand.

Don't know what I was thinking. Obviously I meant the filioque (and of the Son) is not an option any longer. Thankfully, the filioque doesn't appear to be in my vocabulary.

Aside from the mis-translation of anthropos, the changes are a mixed bag, some awkward but more precise and some definite improvements.

Re: Theotokos. This is the term used by the Council of Ephesus and in fact "mother of God" is less precise. Theotokos means the one who gave birth to God. I think the uncommon Latin word Deipara corresponds directly to Theotokos.

I believe the changes is the music will be harder to adjust to than the changes in the words.

Of course my point was putting Greek words into the Liturgy doesn't make it more understandable to the modern mind, but making things more understandable is one of the arguments of why "men" had to be removed--because some people thought that it only meant adult males. I think this argument about men not being understood is really facetious and the real problem is that some have chosen to be offended by the term "men" when it is used to mean human beings without respect to age or sex. Fr. Petras has indicated that the problem is "men" is considered a sexist term.

There is an interesting old article which I will need to dig up on "Mother of God" vs. "One who gave birth to God." The author maintains that "Mother of God" is in fact the more precise meaning. Of course, a female who gives birth is "a mother." It should be noted that Deipara is, as you say, uncommon and not generally used by the Latin Church. Instead, Mater Dei, Mater Ecclesiae, Mater Christi, etc. is used.

Using Theotokos with those who do not know Greek will not be more precise because they will not know what it means. Its usage nonetheless is part of the ancient text and so that is a good thing.

It will be interesting to see the fruit of using ancient words, ie, "Theotokos," with modern biases, i.e. the removal of "men." I just can't see that this is a marriage made in heaven.

"There is an interesting old article which I will need to dig up on "Mother of God" vs. "One who gave birth to God." The author maintains that "Mother of God" is in fact the more precise meaning. Of course, a female who gives birth is "a mother."

We went through this a while back as well. Mother of God is not in any way a precise rendering of Theotokos. Mater Theo is Mother of God. Theotokos is Birthgiver of God. The Byzantine Church uses both titles of the Virgin but Theotokos was the title bestowed by Ephesus to refute Nestorius, not so much to honor Mary but to make clear that God was one person both God and man. Mary gave birth to God, she was not only his mother. Nestorius did not object to the title Mater Theo this he could accept, for obviously he believed Christ was God and obviously Christ had a mother. He rejected Theotokos because he did not believe Mary gave birth to the Word but only the Man. Of course this seperated Christ into two persons, hence the need for Ephesus.

"Using Theotokos with those who do not know Greek will not be more precise because they will not know what it means."

They will if they are told. It is not hard. Theo=God tokos=birthgiver. Do they know what Christ means? Only if they are told.

But as far as omitting men you are correct. Nobody in their right mind thinks that "for us men" means only males. Some women are offended that a word that most ordinarily means males is used to refer to a mixed group. I would also note thta nobody in their right mind thinks that "for us" refers to only those standing in Church reciting the Creed.

The difference I see is that for all the arguements about the Creed I cannot see that dropping men is as serious as mistranslating Theotokos but nobody has seemed to mind it for 40 years.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

The problem with Nestorius was that he accepted the term Mother of Christ, Christokos, but not Theotokos. Christ, the man, had to have a mother--no contradiction there.


I believe that he rejected Theotokos, because he did not think that Mary could be the Mother of a Divine Person, ie, of God. That appears to be a contradiction. This went to the heart of his error -- that there were two persons in Christ, a Divine and human person-- which is an attempt to explain away the Incarnation -- one Person with two natures.

Nothing hinges on "bearer" vs. "mother" which is why it went unnoticed for 40 years. But I do not object to using Theotokos.

What strikes me as remarkable about what we believe, that God became man, is that unlike individual men, whose personhood is very much related to being male or female, His personhood, even though he was a male, was not tied up with his sex because He is a Divine Person.

I think it is very likely for us Americans to think that "us" excludes foreigners.

I also think it is very likely for us modern Americans to think that we are far superior to the founders of our nation, the Fathers of our Church and almost anyone who has come before us, often in fact, including our own parents. Being part of the novus ordo seaculorum, we continually see ourselves as making "progress". Leaving men out of the Creed is a perfect example of this attitude. No one but Americans is proposing this change to the Creed.

I actually think that in dropping men from the Creed, there is an implicit attack on motherhood. Those who find "men" to be a sexist term, and whom we are attempting to please, have little or no respect for motherhood. They see a power struggle between sexes. They see the distincition between male and female, not as part of God's plan from "the beginning" but as a mere accident of evolution which has only been exploited by men.

"Nothing hinges on "bearer" vs. "mother" which is why it went unnoticed for 40 years."

I believe it does and so did the Council of Ephesus. First the title in question is not bearer but birth-giver. That is the only correct literal translation of tokos, birth-giver=tokos, bearer=phoros, mother=mater. Each has a distinct meaning in Greek and there is a reason the Council of Ephesus decided Theotokos is an even more important title than Mater Theo. The wished to make clear the Word became flesh and was born like any other man.

If we are to insist on correct and literal translation we should be consistent.

As for modern misunderstanding, in today's society a woman may well be someone's mother without being their birth-giver.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This discussion has arisen several times before on the Forum. In the churches of Slavic tradition, Mother of God has been a common historical way of rendering Bohoroditsa/ Bogoroditsa, and not only by Greek Catholics.

The Old Rite translations in English from Erie use "Mother of God", and certainly no one would deny these are "traditional" translations in terms of English language. Fr. German Ciuba of the Old Rite maintains that this phrase is not only acceptable but is easily understood by English speakers relative to the teachings and intent of Ephesus. While I am not opposed to the use of Theotokos I also agree with the observations of Fr. German, and would not discount any usage of Mother of God as inferior.

Bravo! I agree also! When I received the original translation of the Jordanville prayer book, "Mother of God" was used instead "Theotokos" (which is in the new translation).

Fr. Deacon Randy,

"traditional" does not mean correct. Mother of God is not inferior, it is simply an incorrect translation anyway you slice it according to the criteria set forth by those insisting on the correct translation of ages of ages or Orthodox Christians. I would agree Birth-giver of God is clumsy so Theotokos is the best option.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Theotokos may be more correct, theologically. But "Mother of God" is still okay to use, it is warmer sounding, and it is near and dear to my heart.

First of all, I don't understand what "criteria" you are implying or what they have to do with my post, which focused on the usage of "Mother of God" and nothing else. Anyway, which is the "best" option is debatable, but there are (and should be) options.

I rather think "Mother of God" is the best option, if given a choice and I agree with Fr. German. Our received English usage has been "Mother of God" in nearly all English translations of Greek Catholic usage. And not just Slavic, as Archbishop Raya also chose that ("Mother of God" or "God's Mother") for the original Byzantine Daily Worship . It is certainly the most "customary" version of the term in historic Greek Catholic English usage. And as any cantor knows, sometimes the most "correct" or "precise" option does not necessarily sing or pray in a better or smoother way.

Several months ago a copy of the new liturgy was presented on this forum. It is authentic, it is a weekday liturgy (which differs only in the antiphons). Why go to some other source when the real deal was posted here months ago?

What is a visitor to think, when he comes to the Church and hears greek words, in an English language Liturgy? It is like there is a secret word, code words, words that have to be explained.

Let us offer the "Anaphora"? Again, why a Greek word? They are saying that the Greek text is untranslatable. So, we have to keep Greek words in the English Liturgy.

I don't think so. This is a great step backward.

"Mother of God" is good enough for me, I don't want to pray in Greek words.

Visitors will hear Hebrew words like Amen, Alleluia, and Hosanna, why should they be disturbed by a couple of Greek words? Should they be disturbed by a couple of Slavonic hymns?

Christ is Greek, shall we call him Jesus the Anointed so we don't have to explain that Christ is a title not a last name? Yes, some words will have to be explained because some words are better left untranslated. Shall we change Catholic to Universal. The majority of Orthodox translations use Theotokos. Most leave Lord God of Hosts as Lord God Sabaoth. We call them the Anaphorae of St. John Chrysostom and St. Bail the Great in any other context, why not in the Liturgy?

We often use Kyrie Eleison and Agios O Theos, these are connections to those who gave us the Gospel.

We've changed Orthodox to "of the true faith." It would follow that Catholic would be "universal." Consistency apparently isn't the main issue in the translation, though.

We already had "of the true faith" in the 65 translation and that was done because of the reaction that the word orthodox would have got at the time and would probably still get in some places. I don't agree with it but I understand the reasoning.

Because these are words that are ingrained in history. Christ, Amen, Alleluia, Hosanna. They are universal in most religions and are accepted without thought. These new changes introduced, Theotokos, Anaphora, and the others, if any, are very foreign to Americans, who by birth right, speak English.

Yes, these words will be ingrained in our children now that they are implemented and the old Liturgy terms forgotten. This might sound rude, look at it very honestly and bluntly, if we push away people who don't understand the words and there will be no children to learn this.

Most people in life want consistency. Most people in life want a routine which faith can be placed in and an understanding formed. I'm under the assumption these Greek words are meant to help the Byzantine Rite secure their own identity, but in reality we are losing more people then gaining as a whole. Do you honestly think making the Liturgy oblique by using direct Greek translations instead of words which each and every person already knows helps us grow? It's almost like the whole Eparchies lost WHO this Liturgy is for. It isn't for the know-it-alls on this website and it isn't for the Priests that the parishioners support with weekly donations of money and time. It is for the people to come closer to God, and 95% of the people on the street do not know Greek or how it even relates to everyday life, WHICH, is what the Church should be concerned about--How to impact everyday people, everyday in positive ways.

Matthew,

I am sorry but that is a bunch of bolonga. By your standard, we shouldn't change anything because people will always complain about change whether it is good or bad, because change is uncomfortable. Your absolutely right they want consistency, they want exactly what they are used to having. How many times has it been said on this forum that the Liturgy is not about the lowest common denominator? The Liturgy is literally the work of the people. It is work, it should be hard, it should challenge us. Does Greek relate to the everyday life of the average parishioner? No, of course not. But the Liturgy is not about everyday life, it is about heavenly realities. Even many of the English words we use in the Liturgy don't relate to everday life. They aren't supposed to. They are to point us to the sacred not the secular. On the practical side, I seriously doubt anyone is going to leave over the inclusion of two Greek words. Where are they going to go? The Orthodox where they will still hear Theotokos and probably a few more Greek words? The Latin Church so they can here Latin?

How many times have the documents of the Latin Church been cited here? The Latin Church is insisting on the use of at least some Latin, as Vatican II always envisioned.

What we are doing is far less drastic. What gets me is some of the very same people who gripe about our using "forever" rather than "ages of ages", or "Christians of the True Faith" rather than "Orthodox" are also complaining about using "Theotokos" rather than "Mother of God".

Fr. Deacon Lance

Since we seem now to be hung up on a few 'foreign' words rather than the whole disaster of the new Liturgies, lets take a closer look.

Theotokos Agreed, this is 'new' to most 'Ruthenians' (BCC & UGCC). Want to use English for Bohoroditse? Get your mouth used to "Birthgiver of God" or similar. "Mother of God / Matir Bozha / Miter Theou" is a different construct. If you want accuracy, do not use the same word/phrase for two separate terms.

Anaphora This is a new term?! Are the faithful of the BCC that separated from their Slavic roots? I'm fairly certain all Eastern Christian Slavs have in their native tongues the term &#1040;&#1085;&#1072;&#1092;&#1086;&#1088;&#1072;. It may only appear liturgically (BTW, that's from a Greek term as well), but it's been there for centuries.

Liturgikon This one is bound to come up soon. Taking a look at my Ruthenian (Latinised derivative of the name Rus' / &#1056;&#1091;&#1089;&#1100;) Recension (another Latin word) "Priest's Service Book" I see that it is called a "Liturgikon" (please note: this book, published in Rome, has as it's title a 'Slavonicised' Greek term) .

No one has ever stated that the changes brought in with the new Liturgies are 100% rubbish. I will admit that one can find the odd improvement. In terms of rubrics (if followed) there will be considerable improvements in some parishes. But this does not make up for the much greater number of shortcomings.

Do not give up the fight now that the Revision is 'official'! The Church is not required to accept/keep that which is of poor quality simply because "the work has already been done and money has been spent". If so, where is the cut-off? At what point do we cross from an 'acceptable loss' to the 'point of no return'?

Teach those who do not know. Write to those who can affect change. Pray!

OK now let the totally non Ukie speaking person who attends a completely Ukrainian languge Church get involved in this.

I have sat back and listened to all these moans - and to me many of them seem perfectly reasonable.

Your Liturgy has survived the test of time - and it gives a sense of timelessness.

Oddly enough I was talking about this sort of thing to the wife [ non-Ukie speaking , Non Ukie comprehending ] of one of our Members after Liturgy on Sunday.

She was complaining how difficult it was to cope - but then I realised that she was not using a bilingual book - which certainly makes my life easier and I tried to explain what it was that so enthralled me about the Liturgy - and I came out with timelessness, the beauty of the language, the poetry , the depth of meaning etc etc.

She started to look thoughtful - obviously these had never crossed her mind . I was asked how I coped - did I read cyrillic - of course I don't - I have enough of a problem with transliterated Ukrainian - but I'm beginning to recognise some words.

SO what has this to do with the topic in hand ??

Is it really necessary to stop using a word in Slavonic/Ukrainian/Russian or whatever and start using a term which is clumsy in English - or even worse is not an accurate translation of its meaning ?

Why use three words when one will do perfectly well ?

Even the dumbed down RC Liturgy still uses Greek - though many folk think it's Latin

A little education can help .

What has driven so many RCs away ? Yes they tell you it's the dumbed down Liturgy - described to me by one Priest [ and he is a most charitable man too ] as watered down , and banal - devoid of all beauty and he no longer enjoys it.

Are you really wanting to head that way ?

if not - well do something - let your voices be heard.

Since we're speaking of language, when will the Church Slavonic and Spanish language editions of the new Divine Liturgy, pew book, priest's book and cantor's book be released?

Has anyone officially contacted the Metropolia and asked this question?"

If so, what was the reponse? Can a scan of the response be posted please

John,

The Slavonic hasn't changed so there would be no need to re-publish the Liturgicon or Cantor Book. The Blue Book with Slavonic in Slovak alphabet could still be used by the people, but how often is there going to be an All-Slavonic Liturgy? The Hymns that are most often sung in Slavonic like the Trisagion, Cherubic Hymn, Many years, Eternal memory, Christ is Risen are known by heart although it wouldn't hurt to have a sheet with the Slavonic transliteration on them.

As for Spanish, I don't think there is large enough need to justify publishing all the books in Spanish. The Ukrainians and Melkites already have approved Spanish translations so those could be used. I think Holy Resurrection Monastery did an approved translation too. I know some parishes in Van Nuys chant some things in Spanish, but I am not aware of any Spanish only Liturgy being offered.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Pardon me, but you are either in a comical mood, or you are blind to what has been going on the the Pittsburgh Metropolia! How many English translations of the Liturgy have been published? The Ukrainians alone have a handful. Did the Metropolia use one of those? NO. So why would they change policy now? That would seem a bit hypocritical, to say the least.



OK, so only some parts of the Liturgy may be offered in Spanish. Are you saying that until there is a need for a full Spanish DL the Metropolia will offer no text? Do parishes do their "own thing"? Can they dare follow the " Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the CCEO" and use texts prepared by Orthodox Churches?

Then again, using Spanish might be pandering to "ethnicity" and we all know what the opinion of that is in the Metropolia.

Oh my, we do live in interesting times...

Fr. Lance--


You're right, the wording in OCS has not changed, but the Liturgy itself has. The old books don't have the music, just the wording. Quite honestly I am surprised that there was not even ONE setting of each of the major hymns frequently taken in Slavonic, in the new pew book ie. Our Father, Cherubic Hymn, Holy God, All you who have been baptized, We bow to your Cross, Lord have mercy (from the Litanies), festal tropars for Christmas, Easter, Many years, Eternal Memory, etc. Even if they were relegated to the back of the book, at least they'd be there for people to use. As for Spanish, we have a number of neighborhood folks attending our Liturgies. We've had baptisms, chrismations, DLs, and even a quinceneria all in Spanish. The need is there. We have more taken in Spanish on a Sunday than in Slavonic.

I understand that this was not directed at me, but considering that only three posts above it I commented on "Christians of the True Faith," I want to point out that I am consistent in my preference for ages of ages, Orthodox or an accurate translation of it (which would mean an accurate translation of Catholic as well), and Theotokos (or an accurate translation of it, which I do not believe Mother of God is). I have seen this phenomenon you are speaking of and commented on it elsewhere. The impression I get from some people is that they simply do not want change, whether that change is to make the text more or less accurate.

I agree with you on all three, Wondering.

Fr. Deacon Lance wrote:


Well, I can only speak for myself. I am NOT complaining about Theotokos. Bohoroditsa would work too. Using the original Greek word can't be incorrect because that's the original word. Some Greek words don't lend themselves to be translated easily. Orthodox should be Orthodox. Theotokos should be Theotokos.

However, Father Deacon, at least those who are against 'Theotokos' being used aren't being coy and disguising their reasons, they're coming out and saying what they dislike it and why. Yet the powers to be in our church can't bring themselves to say why they don't like the word 'Orthodox'. They either ignore the question or dance around the real answer. You know as well as I do that there are many in our church that harbor negative animus towards the Orthodox and the word 'Orthodox'. That's a shame.

Monomakh

As I think I stated above, I am not opposed to using "Theotokos." I simply pointed out that the principle of making the Liturgy "understandable" to English speaking men of the 21st century (which was the reason for the "inclusive language") was not followed here. I also pointed out that Mother of God has been an acceptable translation of Theotokos ("Birth-giver" of God) for a long, long time. One who gives birth to another is indeed that one's mother.

The article to which I was refering states:



The online Britannica states



[my emphasis]

Let me reiterate that I don't have any problems with Theotokos. In fact, I'd be happy as a clam if the whole Liturgy were in Greek, then we wouldn't have the difficulties we are now having unless of course anthropos was dropped from the Creed.

Does this mean that if the liturgy is said in Slavonic, then all the verses can be taken at the Antiphons?

Wouldn't some catechesis on this have helped? In many places the word "orthodox" could have been allowed at least as an option. If it takes our Metropolia over 40 years to produce new translations does that mean we have to wait until nearly 2050 for a chance again to restore the word "orthodox" to the Liturgy?

All the while, the Melchites and Ukrainians have had us beat on this one for quite awhile.

[quote=ByzKat]Dear brother in Christ, Matthew:

Most of the changes you point out can be summarized as 3 items, used consistently in the new translation:

1. "Glory BE to the Father..." in our current translation came most likely from the translation of the doxology that had been used by Latin Rite Catholics, and thus was used by Eastern Catholics as well. Almost all Orthodox translations I have (including very conservative ones) use "Glory to the Father...". Similarly, "Glory to You" rather than "Glory BE to you."

We really don't know what "most likely" influenced the translation.

Latin often does not use the verb, "to be," which is just like many Slavic languages (e.g., Ukrainian and Russian). However, we aren't talking about Old Church Slavonic or Ukrainian here; we're talking about an English translation. In English, it is more common -- and, hence, I would say more appropriate -- to include the gerund: "Glory BE to the Father, etc."

From my own experience, the whole "Glory to the Father"-thing arose in the 1970's when there was a tendency for a "poetic hyperliteralism." This can be seen especially in the New American Bible translation, like Baruch 5:5 "Up, Jerusalem! stand [sic] upon the heights" instead of "Rise up, Jerusalem, etc."

If you like it, that's fine. I wouldn't fight to the death over it.


2. Similarly, Latin Rite Catholics used "Peace be WITH you", "And WITH your spirit (old)" to translate "Pax vobiscum" / "Et cum spiritu tuo", and "with" was correct. But the literal words in our Liturgy are "Peace be TO (you or all)", "And to your spirit." Again, by using "to", we are both being more literal and conforming more closely to Orthodox practice.

(By the way, the invocation and response are parallel: the priest says "Peace be TO all", and we respond "And TO your spirit." So it shouldn't be hard to pick up if we are actually listening to what the priest says."



Admittedly, the whole phrase, "And to your spirit," might grate on someone who doesn't know what that means. Nevertheless, I think that it grates even more on the English-speaking person because it's not clear what the preposition "to" is trying to convey: Neither peace nor a spirit is TO someone; they're WITH someone.

Expressions like "Peace to you" in the liturgy seem to me to imitate similar Semitic expressions from Sacred Scripture (3 John 15). How 'bout that alliteration!


3. We have two different pairs of words in Greek and Slavonic to refer to the Most Holy Virgin Mary: "Bearer / Birth-giver of God" (Theotokos), and "Mother of God."

Theotokos = God-bearer or God-bearing One

Mother of God = Mother of God

I really don't see the big translational quandary here. Either keep Theotokos as a traditional term for the Blessed Virgin Mary or establish a consistent translation for the word. But, to jump from Theotokos to "Mother of God" to Theotokos . . . what's the point of that?

Dear Matthew,

It's a pleasure to read your post, even though I am about to disagree with a couple of things - because your knowledge of English is obviously good, and you seem able to grasp some distinctions.

Actually, there are two points (at the beginning and the conclusion of the Anaphora) when the Byzantine Liturgy does use the phrase "and with thy spirit". The rest of the time, our Liturgy properly uses "and to thy spirit". The grammatical reason is simple: when addressed in the dative, we respond in the dative.

Theotokos does not mean "God-bearer" or "God-bearing one"; God-bearer is an honorific attributed to many Saints, beginning with Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who is often called Saint Ignatius the God-bearer.

As to calling the Lady in question both "Theotokos" and "Mother of God", check a strictly accurate translation of the hymn usually sung to her during the Anaphora. The difference is subtle - but subtle distinctions are characteristic of patristic Greek.

Again, thanks for your posting. Language is a pleasant discussion.

Fr. Serge

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the point you're making. But, I don't think that that was necessarily the point I was making.

Perhaps, in the Ukrainian liturgy we are addressed and respond in the dative case at certain times (I dukhovi tvoyemu vs. I z dukhom tvoyim). But, not in English: We are addressed with a prepositional phrase, which may or may not make sense from our linguistic background.

On the one hand, I have no problem with doing a literal translation. In fact, as I intimated above, the greeting "Peace to you" appears to mirror exactly the same greeting given in some of the letters of the New Testament. "Our liturgy," as you say, is very comfortable with imitating the tenor of Sacred Scripture. So, I don't object.

On the other hand, the phrase "Peace to you/And to your spirit" sounds odd to my English-speaking ears, especially the response. And, as nice as it might be to have the literal, I don't see anything lost by translating it as "and with your spirit."\





As I'm sure you know, the verb "bear" can mean either to bear a child by giving birth, as the holy and immaculate, blessed and glorious Virgin did with Christ our God; or, to bear something, as in to carry it. (Obviously, the Holy Fathers bore Christ in a less literal way than Mary.)

Nevertheless, the result is the same: In English, "God-bearer" properly translates both words, Theotokos and Theophoros.

The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship put out by the Sheptytsky Institute in Ottawa, Canada, seems to use both "Mother of God" and "God-bearing One" for the Ukrainian equivalent of Theotokos. In fact, "God-bearer" is used in preference to Theotokos in several places. I think the Institute's theologians are probably familiar with the "subtleties" of Patristic Greek as well as the meaning behind Theotokos.

just to be an English teacher for a moment: "Be" is NOT a gerund. It's the base form of the verb. "being" would be the gerund. Gerunds end in -ing.

"Glory BE to..." then seems like a subjunctive form, as in "let glory be ascribed to you" or something like that. "Glory" is not the verbal form, it's a noun. Nouns are only followed by base form verbs in the subjunctive. So WHY do we use "BE" then?

However, if we DON'T use "be", it can't be subjunctive. We don't use "glory to you" in real English, just like we don't use "peace to you" or "hope to you" or "happiness to you", because the WISH requires us to use the "BE" form.

I think I just argued myself into disagreement with "Glory to you"... how about that.

"The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship put out by the Sheptytsky Institute in Ottawa, Canada, seems to use both "Mother of God" and "God-bearing One" for the Ukrainian equivalent of Theotokos. In fact, "God-bearer" is used in preference to Theotokos in several places. I think the Institute's theologians are probably familiar with the "subtleties" of Patristic Greek as well as the meaning behind Theotokos. "

Please don't attribute the translation used in "The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology" either to the Sheptitsky Institute's theologians or to the members of the committee who worked on the Anthology. The base translation of the "Anthology" is the 1988 "Synodal" Ukrainian translation and is NOT the work (either to praise or to blame) of those people.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

According to the letter, only the new text may be used. No exception is made for Slavonic (or Spanish or any other language). Only the new text may be used.

Nick

I would surmise (though I may well be incorrect) that this is a poorly-worded attempt to make this the exclusive translation into English.

"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile"

Ungcsertezs (TNG and Voyager ophile)

This revision of the Divine Liturgy (and the response thereto) makes me recall a story which a priest told me about the Latin reform. He had a grandmother who, upon going to Mass on the first Sunday of Advent, 1970, called this priest's mother. "Father got the Mass all wrong to-day!" quoth she, "He had two readings and he read the Canon (Eucharistic Prayer) in the wrong order!"
To which the mother replied, "No, no, they changed the Mass; now there is more than one Canon."
"That's impossible. You can't change the Mass!"
The story resolved with the grandmother following her Tridentine missal until her dying day.

I have two points that follow this anecdote:

1) It could be so much worse! (I'm Latin Rite, I know! ;))

2) It is good that Byzantines have such love for their Liturgy that they do raise such a row over so few changes.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

-Uspenije

Thank you, Professor, for your comment.

I don't dispute that the English translation of the Divine Liturgy found in the Anthology comes from that published in 1988 by the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

I don't believe I wrote explicitly that the theologians of the Sheptytsky Institute translated the liturgy afresh. Though, I can see how my comments make that implicit connection, for which I apologize.

I am a bit more puzzled by the latter part of your comment which appears to distance yourself and the other members of the committee from the translation used in the Anthology. That you just cannot do: You may not have made a new translation; but, the synodal translation is indeed your work, at least, by being associated with the anthology of texts compiled by the editorial committee. As far as I know, you and the other committee members accepted use of the synodal translation and, hence, may properly be assumed to support its readings. The Anthology not only bears the imprint of the Sheptytsky Institute on the title page, but it is also still for sale by the Institute.

So, if I'm interpreting the negative "feel" of your comment above correctly, then I have to admit I just don't understand it.

All that having been said, I was being challenged above (I believe) about the appropriateness of using the title, "God-bearer," as another way of saying Theotokos. I think my own anecdotal experience as well as a paraliturgical book like the Anthology back me up as to the point that it is an appropriate term for the immaculate and glorious Virgin.

My original point, however, was that, if one is going to translate the title Theotokos, then do it consistently, i.e. don't vacillate between Theotokos/God-bearer/Mother of God. The Ukrainian liturgy sometimes says Bohorodytsyu, sometimes Matir Boha. Does the typical edition always use Theotokos? Frankly, I don't know. But, I would prefer a consistent translation if possible.

Check the Greek liturgical texts. You will find that both Theotokos and Mother of God appear quite frequently, even in the same troparion or verse.

The use of "Godbearer" as a translation for Theotokos is an illiteracy to anyone who understands the Church's liturgical and theological vocabulary. Some individual might think that the distinction between &#959;&#956;&#959;&#965;&#963;&#953;&#959;&#963; and &#959;&#956;&#959;&#953;&#965;&#963;&#953;&#959;&#963; [sorry about the bad Sigma; this program is limited], but the Church repudiates that opinion - the iota makes a very big difference.

Fr. Serge

I make no pretense to be an expert on the Eastern liturgies. So, perhaps, I'm not understanding you correctly; or, we are talking at cross purposes here.

I think I see now ByzKat's original point, namely, that whereas the old translation had just translated both Theotokos/Mother of God as "Mother of God," the new translation more literally retains Theotokos untranslated, while translating "Mother of God" as (well) "Mother of God." I'm okay with that, and revise my previous comment accordingly.



In the Sheptytsky Institute's The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship, the hymn to the glorious Virgin Mary during the Anaphora calls Her "God-bearing One," which is a translation of the word Bohorodytsyu. (And, as Prof. Thompson in this group has pointed out to me, that translation was approved by the Synod of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church). Now, unless I'm mistaken, Bohorodytsyu is the Ukrainian translation of the Greek Theotokos. But, I could be mistaken. Theotokos is again rendered "God-bearer" in the title for the Feastday of St. Anne on July 25th.



Illiterate and possibly heretical?

What can one say to this, except to respond with the holy tradition of my Church:

"O Lord and Master of my life! Take away from me the spirit of laziness, despair, lust for power, and idle talk. Instead, grant me the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love. O Lord and Master! Grant me the grace to see my own shortcomings and not to judge my brother or sister, for You are blessed forever and ever. Amen."

Amen.

You're right. I think I should have written "copulative" instead. Thanks.

These days there is a great need for the anti-phone: when peoples mobile phones ring in church we should all sing an anti-phone with great gusto and enthusiasm!

Fr. Serge

Perhaps it's time for our nap!

Dn. Robert

We all sang the anti-phone or rather the Troparion of the Ascension very loudly yesterday. It was glorious and we would have drowned out any cell phones present if they had been ringing.