www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Archeparchy of Pittsburgh Metropolitan Cantor Institute Website

Dear Joseph,

The UGCC English translation uses "God-loving Bishop."

And all other Orthodox translations use that as well "Boholubivoho" or "Bogolubivago."

Alex

Joe, I posit there is a great difference between "God loving" and "loved by God". Obviously he who loves God implies a completely different meaning, with all kinds of connotations of fidelity, example, demeanor, public charity, etc. etc. involving a conscious decision followed up by action.

As for "loved by God", that translation baffles me. Who isn't loved by God?

The disciple whom He loved ... Whom didn't He love?

Orthodox translations I have seen are: simply Bishop- GOA, our father and Bishop-AOA, our lord the Most Reverend Bishop-ROCOR and OCA.

Of course God loves everyone so what is the problem with saying he loves our bishops? Personally I think God loved Bishop N. flows better, but nobody asked. Since everyone agrees God loves us all, I hope I don't here complaining that "...for He is gracious and loves mankind." has been changed to "... for He is gracious and loves us all." People we need to worry about graeter things than this.

Fr. Deacon Lance

StuartK made the suggestion, in the last go 'round, of "God-beloved", IIRC. Too bad this euphonious suggestion fell on deaf ears.

Fr Deacon Lance,

thank you for your comments. The MCI website will prove to be an important resource for those who wish to serve the parishes of our Metropolia.

Thank you, Professor Thompson and Jeff.

"Bohol'ubivim Jepiskopi na�em Kir..." is, AFAIK, unique to the Ruthenian recension; I don't know if it is used in the Old Rite texts or Ukrainian Orthodox texts. The Russian Synodal editions and the Greek versions don't include it, so Orthodox translations into English usually do not include it.

The exception, of course, is the ACROD, which uses "God loving."

Dave

Perhaps I misread your comment as a trivialization of liturgical language. Please forgive those of us, Fr. Deacon, who do take it seriously. Words do have meaning, and that is especially true in our Holy Liturgy.

Is making any comments on liturgical translations "complaining"? If it is, I have even graver concerns. Why the need to continue to modify them, when some parishes have just become accustomed to some practices?

Someone loving God is simply not the same as being loved by God, would you not agree? There is a wonderful communal and hierarchal dimension with "the God-loving Bishop" that is non-existent the other way.

No extant Slavonic or Greek text is in agreement with that translation AFAIK. But no one asked me, either.

I apologize for sidetracking the discussion, and ask forgiveness if I have offended anyone.

I congratulate Professor Thompson and Jeff on an excellent job the the MCI webiste and their hard work on the corpus. I hope the texts will receive the usage they justly deserve. Many years to both of them and the MCI.

Subdeacon Randolph,

By no means do I mean to trivialize liturgical language. My concern is that often we get hung up on minor matters. This is an example I believe since everyone varies on this.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Okay, I'll throw something else into the ring.

In the Ruthenian recension of the Great Litany (in the Roman editions I see online), we have:

"O bohol'ubivim Jepiskopi na�em Kir..."

The following petition then says:

"O bohochranimim Imperatori/Koroli na�em..."

If you translate the second "God-protected Emperor" or "God-guarded Emperor" or whatever, then, for consistency, the first would have to be translated "God-loved Bishop" or "God-beloved Bishop." Eh?

If you translate the first as "God-loving Bishop" then would the second have to be "God-protecting Emperor"? If so, does that make sense?

Yay? Nay? I really don't know Slavonic grammar, so I'm just guessing here.

Dave

I was not trying to stir a hornets nest. I first heard this new phrasing at the 75th anniversary liturgy for the metrolpolia and was kind of taken aback. As it's already been stated, "God-loving" is very different from "Whom God loves." When heard in context it does sound very "exclusive," ie. God loves the bishop but not the priest and not me (laity). Whether it's a more accurate translation of the Slavonic, I don't know.

What kind of catechesis to the average person in the pew (sorry that I didn't phrase it well to be inclusive of those pewless parishes ;-) ) will there be if these texts are ever rolled out in every eparchy?

I do credit the work of the MCI and applaude their new website. Preserving and fostering the use of the Carpatho-Rusyn prostopinije is extremely important in sharing the history and heritage of the church. This will certainly help to disseminate the music to more people and give those who don't know about our chant tradition a place to learn. Mnohaya l'ita to all involved!

I agree. There are many possible solutions, "God-loving" (which maintains a nice abiguity and possible double meaning), "God-loved" or God-beloved" are also reasonable choices. The one in the proposed liturgical translation from the Cantor Institute, "whom God loves" is just pedantic and a bit silly.

But Deacon Lance is right, the new website is very helpful, and I'm sure it will be very helpful. It is certainly good that the proposed translations are being published for us all to see. It is time that the air of 'mystery' about the proposals is finally lifted, and we can all judge the material on its merits, instead of suspicion.

Nick

Diak,

If the Liturgy is the work of the people (literal definition) then what you say above is true. The "other way" severs that communal aspect of God's love and the bishop can boast about hogging all of God's love. Does he need to work for it anymore? I think we have a latent bout of Phariseeism going on here. I'd rather hang around the Publicans.

Joe

Perhaps "whom God loves" could be seen as a not so subtle reminder that while some may disagree or not show proper love for the bishop, [in a historical sense, too, not implying anything in a modern context]God loves him as He loves us all.

Perhaps it is my simplistic view of the subtlety of the phrasing. Just a thought.

Steve

Can anyone give me one good reason for all of these changes?

In the last Horizons Bishop John talked about the need for unity. Shouldn�t we all be working together to be unified in liturgy? Why is our liturgy so different from the one at the Ukie church? When they were both in Slavonic 20 years ago they were identical.

Why is anyone even considering changing a term like �God-loving bishop� to anything else if the Ukies have already adapted our old translation?

The Titanic is sinking and the bishops are too busy inventing a new liturgy to notice. Or maybe they want the church to fall apart.