www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Please Post the Creed from the Promulgated Liturgy Father David

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