Since the Council of Constantinople I (and Nicaea before it) sanctioned the use of the term homoousios to describe the dependent relation of origin of the Son to the Father, it follows that this term should no longer be translated into the various vernacular languages but should simply be expressed in the original Greek.

Possibly. It is perhaps ironic that the Old Believers use "consubstantial", which other Orthodox theologians have assured me causes them to have grave concerns about Latin theology based on such an (ahem) misleading, if early and oft-used, translation.

ALL of these discussions are conditioned by the fact that the Roman Catholics translated Latin liturgies into English, and translations of Eastern liturgies came on the scene much later and borrowed already-used patterns of speech. For example, there is no regularly-used and easily distinguished English translation of Deipara; but this term and its cognates are used seldom enough in Roman prayers, and the term does not carry quite the same historical weight, so that both Mater Dei and Deipara can both be read as "Mother of God." This situation with Byzantine (and perhaps other Eastern) liturgies is different; the parallel terms are sometimes used in close conjunction, and in some case in VERY particular ways. It is completely reasonable for translators to try and distinguish them in "destination" languages.

Put it another way - it's not that a new term is being introduced, so much as that fifty years ago two terms were conflated; and the translators (like those in most Orthodox Churches) now consider the terms worth distinguishing. I would bet that fifty years ago, such a terminology would have been considered "too Orthodox", in contrast to "good Roman Catholic terminology" like a consistent "Mother of God."

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

technically the area that the antiochians ethnically come from (syria, etc..) would have used greek for centuries as the daily language so the Theotokos issue isn't negating their heritage. People tend to forget for many centuries after Christ's acension the roman empire spoke koine greek (kloine meaning common) as the day to day language. sure there were many other languages but greek was understood and spoken by many.


the term theotokos theologically is the correct term, do some ecumenical council history.
So be it.
ameen is the correct way to say amen in slavonic, why no uproar about the english amen being used?
when they start singing here i am Lord and having liturgical dancing replacing the small entrance i would worry

I'm quite aware of the widespread use of koine Greek in the Roman Empire of the time of Christ. However, it ceased to be the common language in Palestine well over 1,000 years ago. My experience with the Antiochian Church in the USA (which I admit is limited) is that there is more of a sense of Arabic identity, linguistically speaking, then there is a sense of identity with Greek.

Ryan

Please chant the Necessary Wisdom in the Seventh Tone.

Read up and see Father Serge's post on the term Theotokos and Ephesus. I fail to see your point as an ecumenical council carries enough weight to convince me. ethnicity has nothing to do with what term to use, Theotokos is the correct term. As it has been hashed out a million times, no english words can match it. Perhaps some of our british isle friends can tell us about the debate that I heard is going on about this very fact. Theotokos IS an essential part of Christianity, defined by an Ecumenical Council and the usage has nothing to do with stepping on anyone's ethnic toes. This is one of the positive aspects of the rdl, the usage of Theotokos.

You have completely misunderstood my intent. I am not among those arguing against the use of Theotokos, and if you read through my posts in this thread, you will see that I have also said that the use of Theotokos is one of the revisions that pleases me.

Ryan

Excellent, Todd. This term is far more subject to difficulties (and even some controversy) in translation (substance, constubstantial, essence, being, etc.) relative to the similarities between Mother of God and Theotokos. It would make far, far more sense to render homoousios literally before anything else.

Having been a diak for a long time, I have to admit that much of this is also in the respective merits of the poetic-musical as well. I'm sorry, but in the Midwest hearing "Thayyy-oooh-toe-kusssss" just does not go over when "Mother of God" cannot be decimated in that way and is much easier to keep in metre.

"Mother of God" was also how Fr. German chose to translate in the Old Rite Prayerbook. He does mention Theotokos, but only a few times. He uses "Mother of God" as far and away the standard reckoning of the term. Knowing his familiarity with the corpus of Old Rite texts, that to me is far more compelling of being part of the translational heritage of our Slavic usage.

Go through your favorite text of the Divine Liturgy and count the number of Greek words that turn up - there are quite a few.

Fr. Serge

Dear FAther Deacon Lance,

Good try, but that's not what "the Bi-wajib" means!

Fr. Serge

While being quite obvious to anyone who has looked at very many Divine Liturgy texts, I'm not sure what that has to do with discussing the translational differences from Greek in one particular term. One would expect some Greek influence in a liturgy of Constantinopolitan provenance...

Father Deacon,

The original poster's question was why the translators didn't use "our people's term" instead of Theotokos. I have had several people tell me that we NEVER used non-English words in the Divine Liturgy till now, so Father Serge's point is germane.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I've not heard anyone say NEVER in that way, but point taken, although certainly the Archimandrite is free to clarify as well. I do think Todd's point is very insightful and appropriate considering the general topic.

OK, I'll bite, in the Chrysostom Liturgy, what are they? I'm not talking about English words that have a Greek origin (vestment names, diskos, deacon, presbyter, liturgy etc.), obviously, but words that are transliterated in the liturgical text from the Greek. The RDL has introduced two of which I'm aware: Theotokos and Anaphora. (The word catholic in the Creed I take as a special case.) For both these words there are Slavonic expressions, which are properly ours, and which yield in English as equivalent forms Birth-giver of God and oblation. Were those who gave us the Slavonic liturgy remiss in not using the canonical designation Theotokos? [As for the use of Hebrew terms, how about Sabaoth which the Greek, Slav and Latin liturgies retain. Why not, a forteriori, change it from the 1965 version to bring it into conformity with what has been transmitted in the original liturgical texts?]

It is one thing to have no choice and to have to go to the Greek. We have a choice, it is the Ruthenian Recension. So I ask again, is our primary point of reference regarding the "Rite" (Чинь, Διαταξις) what is given in the Ruthenian Recension, or as it is found in the 1950 Greek edition by Rome, or scholarly speculation that then becomes liturgical expression?

Dn. Anthony

I don't understand this. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, was promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI On December 4, 1963. It only guardedly advanced the use of the vernacular for the Latin rite. I would have thought, by comparison, that the 1965 liturgicon translations was at the vanguard for the common use of English in the celebration of the liturgy.

Consider also, for instance: Isabel Florence Hapgood, tr., Service Book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic (Greco-Russian) Church. Compiled, translated and Arranged from the Old Church Slavonic Service Books of the Russian church, and collated with the Service Books of the Greek Church (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1906).


Dn. Anthony