www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How Many Are Thinking About Leaving?

Dan,

Might I suggest that it might not be appropriate for me to publish texts that the bishops have not chosen to make public? I understand that the clergy received their first copy of the texts of the Revised Liturgy only in the past few weeks. Perhaps your pastor has a copy and would be willing to duplicate one for you? If the texts are made public and if there are no publishing restrictions, I will be happy to host them here.

Admin

Dear Friends,

This thread reminds me about how the common people in the 14th century in Eastern Europe, who were not all that well catechized in their faith, heard about the "Svyataya Troytsa" in Church or the Holy Trinity - and thought that this was a female saint . . .

In fact, in the Slavonic, "Svyata Troitsa" is of the feminine gender . . .

Alex

Admin,

"Might I suggest that one should not have to look up a definition of a word to decide if it has a heretical connotation? If we are going from something that is obviously clear to something that is obviously confusing, that alone is enough to reject the translation."

You may, but if one is going to get into technical theological definitions as Apotheoun did then we will have to delve in to the etymology of the words being used to convey that theology in order to evaluate it.

"Changing �gracious� to �good� might be correct, but I don�t know the Slavonic and Greek. I do know that �gracious� and �good� are not synonyms. �Gracious� carries with it the connotation of �compassionate� and �kind�. �Good� used to mean �holy� but now carries the connotation �not bad� or �better than some others�. "

I would contend he most common understanding of gracious is kind and courteous in our present day. In what context is gracious used today besides calling someone a gracious host or winner or loser. Good on the other hand in a religous context would commonly be understood as kind, virtuous, and benevolent. Not to mention Christ himself declares God is good.

"The term �mankind� is inclusive. It includes all men and women from Adam to the final age (even those not yet conceived)."

I would agree, and even prefer mankind. But synonyms for mankind are humankind and humanity which are aslo be complained about. Since they mean exactly the same thing I fail to see the problem.

"�us all� is not even a translation of the original Slavonic or Greek text but a word substitution."

True but in the context of the prayer what is it we are saying? The current text reads:

"Christ our true God, (risen from the dead), through the prayers of His most Holy Mother, and of the holy, glorious, and illustrious apostles; and of our holy father, John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, and of Saint N. (whose church it is) and of Saint N. (whose day it is) and of all the saints, will have mercy on us and will save us for He is gracious and loves mankind ."

Christ will have mercy on us and will save us. Why? Because He loves us. While changing "mankind" to "us all" is a change in reference it is not a change in theology. For clearly we are saying Christ has mercy on and saves those present at the Liturgy because He loves them. This is a dismissal prayer for those in attendance, not a prayer of blessing being invoked on all mankind. Christ does love mankind, yet not all mankind will be saved or receive Christ's mercy. Some will be thrown into the darkness where there will wailing and nashing of teeth. If anything it could be argued the new transaltion is more theologically accurate and approriate in this setting. "Us" is used throughout almost every prayer of the Liturgy in the old and new texts, including the Anaphora, so I don't think any arguement against its use here will stand scrutiny. That said I still prefer "loves mankind" because of the poetic value, but will not protest the decision of the hierarchs.

"Changing �He� to the specific term �Christ� can be seen as a denial of the masculinity of Christ."

Throughout the text "He" and "his" is used and again I state "Who" in the original text was changed to "He" in the new text so I don't think we can see one instance of "He" to "Christ" as a denial of his masculinity.

"I highly recommend that everyone interested in the principles of translation used in this revised text read �Liturgiam Authenticam�. Even a casual read of this document shows that it is attempting to correct the very types of problems that this new revision of the Liturgy introduces. I have great respect for the liturgical commission and for the hard work they have done in preparing this translation. But stuff like this is simply unacceptable.'

I cannot see where the new translation violates Liturgiam Authenticam and obviously neither did the Eastern Congregation. In fact unlike the Greek Archdiocese text which does use "men and women" which LA discourages, our text uses "us" as do almost all the prayers in the original text and corrects: "Also all men and all women." to "And remember all your people.", something the Blue Book did already I think.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Lance, Christ is Risen!
FYI, the OPxford English Dictionary has an example of "humankind" from 1708 and "humans kind" from s 1645.

Although I am very conservative in my views on liturgical language, I must admit that "humankind" is a reasonable synonym for "mankind" and it is not a "new word"; however, I must agree that "humanity" and "us all" do alter meaning, and I would strongly object to their use as substitutes for "mankind" if it were my prerogative to object.

Photius

O.K., I admit it - I really don't understand what this is all about . . .

Alex

"Trinity" is feminine in Greek, too.

Photius

Administrator,

In the dismissal "Christ" is used once, as in, "Christ our true God..." there is no pronoun (or even a verb for that matter) repeated at "for (He is) good and loves Mankind" it is understood, of course ecclesiastical Greek and Church Slavonic work differently than modern English.

The "good" is agathos in Greek and blag/blah in Slavonic, I can't see "gracious" as an accurate translation coming from either, can you?

Philanthropos/chelovekol'ubets seems to be the problem. Philanthropic is humanitarian. Anthropos is a man, as in human, not a male, aner is male, this distinction is preserved in Slavonic as well, chelovek and muzh. The Holy Scriptures use both terms selectively and it seems we should too.

A translation that is as accurate as possible only reduces the theological and anthropoligical confusion that can easily arise from a misunderstanding of the imprecise English.

Tony

Deacon Lance,

"Who" in the original text? To which original do you refer?

Tony

"Who" as a pronoun refering both to Christ and the Holy Spirit in the 1964 English Liturgicon text published by Byzantine Seminary Press is changed to "He" in the new text. This occurs several times.

Fr. Deacon Lance

PS. Congratulations on earning your M.Div. Many years!

Dear Photius,

That's right - Aghias Trias!

But, of course, you would know . . .

Alex

Deacon Lance,

Thank you for your good wishes.

However, "who" remains problematic. There is no "who" in Greek or Slavonic.

Tony

Here the argument is not about the Greek (anthropos), but about the English translation of the Greek. Is the generic masculine no longer valid in the English language? I hold that it is perfectly valid, as do many other people. Thus, to arbitrarily translate the term in a new way divorces the Christian faith from the Church's traditional use of English in liturgical and theological texts. Moreover, as a Catholic I am bound by Vatican instructions, and the Vatican, as I indicated above, calls for the translation of words like "anthropos" and "homo" in the traditional manner (see the quotation I've already provided from Liturgiam Authenticam). The instruction then goes on to require that proper catechesis follow so that people understand the nature of the words used. The generic masculine is still acceptable in Catholic worship, no matter what feminists say.

"He love us all," and "He loves mankind," are not equivalent phrases. Does the paraphrase, "us all," refer to those present in that particular congregation at that particular moment, or does it refer to the whole of the Church, or does it refer to all mankind? The new "translation" is ambiguous.

Tony,

Perhaps if I provide an example.

From the Anaphora in the old text:
... Who so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but should have life everlasting; Who, having come and having fulfilled the whole Divine plan...

The new text:
... You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but should have life everlasting; He came and fulfilled the whole Divine plan...

Fr. Deacon Lance

Apotheoun,

"He love us all," and "He loves mankind," are not equivalent phrases. Does the paraphrase, "us all," refer to those present in that particular congregation at that particular moment, or does it refer to the whole of the Church, or does it refer to all mankind? The new "translation" is ambiguous."

In the context of the prayer what is it we are saying? The current text reads:

"Christ our true God, (risen from the dead), through the prayers of His most Holy Mother, and of the holy, glorious, and illustrious apostles; and of our holy father, John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, and of Saint N. (whose church it is) and of Saint N. (whose day it is) and of all the saints, will have mercy on us and will save us for He is gracious and loves mankind ."

Christ will have mercy on us and will save us. Why? Because He loves us. While changing "mankind" to "us all" is a change in reference it is not a change in theology. For clearly we are saying Christ has mercy on and saves those present at the Liturgy because He loves them. This is a dismissal prayer for those in attendance, not a prayer of blessing being invoked on all mankind. Christ does love mankind, yet not all mankind will be saved or receive Christ's mercy. Some will be thrown into the darkness where there will wailing and nashing of teeth. If anything it could be argued the new transaltion is more theologically accurate and approriate in this setting. "Us" is used throughout almost every prayer of the Liturgy in the old and new texts, including the Anaphora, so I don't think any arguement against its use here will stand scrutiny. That said I still prefer "loves mankind" because of the poetic value, but will not protest the decision of the hierarchs.

I would alos point out LA was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments for the Latin Church. It has no jurisdcition over the Eastern Churches. The Congregation for the Eastern Churches which does have jurisdiction did review and give recognition to the new text.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Tony, Christ is Risen!
That's not right; there definately is a relative pronoun ("who" or "which") in both Greek and Slavonic! In Greek, its form is the same as for the definate article; in Slavonic, its form is "zhe" appended to the (short form) pronoun.

Photius