Someone here said that the change from "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son...." to "Glory to" (without the "be") was because "Glory be" was a latinization.

Is this really true?

I went to the vigil over at Holy Archangels Russian Orthodox Church and they say "Glory BE." Is this really a latinization?

The full wording they say is: "Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, both now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

Can someone please explain?

I really like the services at Holy Archangels. We could join there but will probably register at St. John of the Desert.

It's not so much a Latinization (the Latin text doesn't have an explicit verb either!); what I said was that Western Catholics and Anglicans had for centuries translated Gloria Patri... as "Glory be to the Father", and when the Russian Orthodox borrowed Anglican modes of English, and Eastern Catholics borrowed Douai-Rheims English and the text of the Rosary from Latin-Rite Catholics, they often ended up with "Glory be to the Father".

Let's face it - if every Slavonic Liturgy is preceded by a Rosary at which one has just said "Glory be to the Father" repeatedly, it's not at all surprising that translations of the Liturgy for liturgical use will end up having "Glory be to the Father" as well.

On the other hand, my copy of the Guardian Angel: Children's Prayer Book (1921, impr. Bishop Gabriel Martyrak, and published by the Greek Catholic Union) uses "Glory to the Father", so it's not an entirely new translation. The OCA uses "Glory to the Father" as well, as did Isobel Hapgood in her day. Most services I have attended with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia used "Glory be," as did the books of Archbishop Joseph Raya, which had a good deal of influence on Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic translations.

Jeff

Is either rendering then, "Glory to...", "Glory be to.." an equally acceptable translation of the Greek or Slavonic?

I would think so- the Slavonic verbiage is more economical:

Slava Otcu, i Synu, i Svjatamo Duchu...

I like "glory to" better; adding the "be" just seems unecessary.

Lance,

I quite agree.

BTW, if someone says to me, "Glory be to Jesus Christ," am I expected to reply, "Glory be forever"?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Rev. Martyak was an Apostolic Administator and not a bishop.

Ungcsertezs

It sounds like everyone is saying that both are acceptable translations from the Slavonic. I know the Russian Orthodox would not use "Glory be" if it was incorrect.

So this is just another unnecessary change!

I, unfortunately, can only agree.

It's amazing (to me) that we have a whole committee to revise, delete, reshape, or replace words and phrases in the Liturgy (in the hopes of evangelizing?), but we have one lone priest actually doing something about evangelization and begging for help. And begging for help from the Laity!

Please see Father Thomas' post in the Parish Life and Evangelization Forum.

The Greek text also just has "Glory to the Father ...". But in the Greek--and I presume, also in the Slavonic--it is clear that "glory" is a noun and the relationship between it and the following three nouns is represented by the grammatical case of those three nouns.

Perhaps "glory be" was used in early translations to distinguish clearly between the verbal and nominal senses of "glory".

To call "Glory be to the Father..." a Latinization is to trivialize the damage done to the Byzantine tradition by really serious Latinizations, such as "First Communion," forced celibacy if parish clergy, and Stations of the Cross in Byzantine churches.

Latinization diminishes the unique heritage of Eastern Christianity. This "tempest in a teapot" is about grammar and style and I will be posting a much longer response on that subject when it is ready.

For the moment suffice it to say that "Doxa Patri, kai ..." is perfectly good and beautiful Greek* just as "Glory be to the Father, and ..." is good and beautiful English.

Jim

*Before someone jumps down my throat for an audacious assertion, let me say that my undergraduate degree is in Classical Languages from the University of California, with study abroad in Greece and special studies with a Greek Orthodox priest (with a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania). My graduate studies were in England and the US with particular emphasis on ascetical theology.

I wouldn't call it an unnecessary change rather one which didn't mean much...I think it was a good step, although a small one, which puts at least, some part of the translation of the RDL closer to most Orthodox Churches. Although, some Orthodox use "Glory be..." my experiences have been that most utilize "Glory to..."...although I know of two of the local parishes in ACROD...both utilize "Glory to..." in the DL...however, one says "Glory to Jesus Christ!" one says "Glory Be to Jesus Christ"...it's minor and pretty insignificant...

Chris

When I was in Byzantine Catholic parochial school, we were taught "Glory be to Jesus Christ, Glory be to him forever".

Now in the OCA, everyone says "Glory to Jesus Christ, Glory to him forever".

There is a difference between "Glory be" (two verbs - one of praise and the other of existence) and "Glory to" (one verb - praise being directed).

Is praise an opportunity to state the existence of God? or the existence of the one praising God?

Does "Glory to" need any other word, verb or otherwise, to help make the statement?

Eddie

In both cases in English (i.e., "Glory be to" and "Glory to", the word "Glory" is a noun, translating the Greek noun.
The verb "to be" is acting more as a copula. To read into it a denotation of existence is adding meaning that is not present in the original Greek.

Here we go! Its back to grammar again!

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?