Do you get the feeling there is one of those old-timey English teachers lurking behind the forum somewhere? You know the kind, big-chested, broad-shouldered, and with a bun.

So in the end both are correct. This is just another example of unnecessary change.

I would think that Byzantine Christians would be cautious about the choice of words. It is more than mere grammar.

If you Byzantines wanted to be more ancient you would have returned to the pre-Basilian "Glory to the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit". I haven't heard anyone demanding a return to those particular choice of words. But it was you Eastern Christians who departed from this richer teaching of the Most Holy Trinity and now use "Glory to the Father, to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit". Even I've been reading your theologians!

So Eastern Christians, Orthodox and Catholic, have adopted the "Glory BE", adn the Byzantine Catholics have dropped the "BE" part. Personally, I believe that neither the Orthodox nor the Byzantine Catholic (and their fellow Roman Catholics) are correct. both versions are combatting a problem that was long ago, a way of addressing God in praise that is egalitarian respective to the Trinitarian persons and how we really relate to God. why do the words of worship have to be watered down out of fear of promoting heresy - even though the words are not heretical in the first place? I call this politically correct theology. Byzantine Catholics, it would seem, have kept up this PC custom by changing Holy Writ too ("children" of God rather than "sons" of God in the Beatitudes). But what do I know? I am just a ignorant Protestant English teacher who wears a bun.

Eddie

Why do you wear a bun?

It seems a bit disingenuous to insist on complete Eastern theological independence from the West while simultaneously claiming some right to approve and disapprove Western translations and liturgical texts.

God Bless,
Arthur

My last post here was misplaced. Apologies.



I am very pleased with this thread. It has discussed history, grammar and translation issues. Excellent.

Now my question is more about the initial question than the responses? Does it never become tedious to see every matter as a refraction of a greater East-West conflict and animosity? Much of the ills of latinization have been or are being corrected. It appears that some have become so wedded to conflict that they are unable to enjoy the fruits of their struggles. Clearly, not every question of liturgy and theology has to do with East-West differences.

Arthur

Not on this forum, or so one might think!

Slava Isusu Khrestu

I wonder if God has an English grammar book in His hands when we pray to Him because He may not understand!

"Ah reckons He don't much kares if'n we all don't tahlk curectly 'caus He hankers more to hear whats all go-in in ar heats ... but do ar hears beat differently. Ah y'all know what, Ah speks Lutheran hearts and Catlic hearts and Orthodox hearts beat the same so He kin understand us just fine!!!!

Z Bohom :0

Nycholaij

Better yet,I hope He has a Pittsburghese dictionary:

"Yunz all needs to be yakkin' good, 'cauz maybe He ain't goina understand yinz-i'nat. But yinz don't godda have a canipshun abaut't cauz yinz gofur church on Sundee, and apost tu be prayen' right? Yinz all tahk a same back'air in yir hart, huh?"

"Blehsh yinz all!"

GOOD GRIEF

Translations are needed

Boy this is a tough one! There are many Latinizations that crept into the Orthodox churches below the radar. Such as numbering the Mysteries to seven. Prior to the western church's strict set of 7, the Orthodox didn't get so hung up on fitting Holy Mysteries into a nice neat number. Also, the fact that some Orthodox describe the Eucharistic miracle in western terms such as "transubstantiation." When the DL was originally translated into English, who did it? Was it a westerner or someone from the east?