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

Christ Is Baptised!

Father David,

Please post the creed from the Liturgy Promulgated by the Hierarchs of the Byzantine Metropolitan Church Sui Iuris of Pittsburgh U.S.A.

Christ Is Baptized!

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father; through whom all things were made. For us and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. He rose on the third day according to the scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. And he is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, who proceeds from the Father. Together with the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified; he spoke through the prophets. In one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. I profess one baptism for the remission of sins. I expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I don't know either Greek or Slavonic, but I think "essence" is a better word to use than "substance." "Substance" seems to have connotations of the physical, while essence is more ethereal.

I also like the present perfect "is coming again" as opposed to the future tense "shall come again," as it's more theologically correct.

I'm not crazy about the "For us and our salvation." "For us men and for our salvation" didn't bother me, as I never thought it referred only to those of the male sex, nor I suppose did anyone else until the 1960s. However, "For us" could be taken to mean only for those who pray the creed--only Catholics (or Catholics and Orthodox? or all Christians?), rather than for all mankind. As such, it leaves the Symbol of Faith open to interpretation rather than making it perfectly clear.

Sophia Wannabe:
"it leaves the Symbol of Faith open to interpretation rather than making it perfectly clear."

And that is exactly why this revision of the Creed is a betrayal of tradition. The Symbol of Faith was formulated precisely for the purpose to clarify and proclaim the orthodox faith of the whole catholic Church.

The Latins once unilaterally added a word to the creed (Filioque - and the Son) to which the Eastern Churches objected. Now we have unilaterally dropped a word from the creed (anthropoi - men).

I agree with Sophia's evaluation.

Certainly a mistranslation in the Creed is more important than other mistranslations (for example, the the missing deacon's prayers or invented rubrics!) The creed does not say "for us and for our salvation".

This is a deliberate agenda driven campaign by the liberals and revisionists, and it is very dangerous. I think this phrase in the Creed is the point on which the Revisionist Liturgy of Archbishop Schott should be appealed to the Pope for a final decision. I cannot believe that our Holy Father, Pope Benedict would agree with this, or demand that we recite this Creed in Church.

The R.C. Church is being torn apart on the question of destructive feminism and contrived feminist language. I cannot believe that Archbishop Schott has chosen just this moment to enter into this dispute. I admire his courage, and the strength of his conviction. However, I think it is reckless, and unfortunate.

Nick

Khristos Rozhdaetsya!

Actually, 'is coming again' is present continuous. Present perfect would be 'has come'.

'Is coming again' sounds like what a Slavic immigrant with a poor grasp of tense and mood in the English grammar would say. Rather like 'I am liking very much again to ask you to dinner' and that sort of thing.

The Latin has 'et iterum venturus est' - a future participle, the Greek has 'kai palin erkhomenon' - a present participle. The Slavonic has 'i paki gryadushchago'- my Slavonic grammar is almost nonexistent, can anyone tell me what tense that is?

Curious, how while a present participle sounds right in Greek, it just doesn't sound right in English.

I do not see any point to revising the Creed. It has withstood the test of time, and prooved its worthiness through the ages. Why change a good thing?

Christ is in our midst!

I have read and continue to read with interest the comments about the new translation. As a recent "addition" to the Byzantine Catholic Church, I have mostly been reading to "learn" and come to understand more.

But I do think I can add something interesting and perhaps informative. When I was living my eastern/orthodox life outside of communion with Rome, I had the opportunity to worship in several different Orthodox jurisdictions. Each one of these jurisdictions has a different translation of the Creed. (The new SCOBA/Greek translation parallels that of our new Revised liturgy for it says: "for us and for our salvation ...") There is NO SUCH thing as an accepted English translation of any part of the Eastern services (not even the Trisagion is said the same anywhere). This is probably because the earliest translations were not made by scholars of the English language (see Hopgood for a good example of a translation made by someone for whom English was a third or fourth language). Most of the "revisions" to this point have been attempts to take these original poor translations and make them better.

Another note that maybe can help our thinking. As heirs of the Eastern spiritual tradition, we should always remember that words are not sacred (Remember, early debates over whether the word 'Trinity' could be used since it did not appear in the Bible). Unlike Protestant fundamentalists and Muslim believers, we do not honor any collection of human words as the infallible or inerrant "Word of God". (Only Christ, the person, is the infallible and inerrant Word of God.) Words always approximate the reality to which they point -- they help to re-present the language of the heavenly kingdom (remember, St Isaac said, 'Silence is the language of the kingdom to come.'). Since, as Fr Taft has insisted, the words of the liturgy are for us (God, Taft reminds us, already knows the reality about which they speak.), then the key point is whether the words help the congregation understand the gospel better. Anything that stands in the way of that understanding, however cherished or tradition, should be abandoned.

Thus, for me as I have examined the new translation (I am not talking here about the ordo -- I think there are two different discussions -- the one is about the ordo and the other about the translation), I like it. I like it first of all because it is based on good scholarship. I like it secondly because it is understandable to the people of today. It communicates the Gospel message in words that people today can understand.

Most importantly, I respect immensely the scholars who were involved and, as one trained in the scholarship of translation, appreciate their attempt to produce a modern English translation that is faithful to the meaning of the original texts. (Anyone who has been involved in translation knows how difficult it is to translate from Greek or Slavonic into good English. As already evident in this string of posts, how do you translate a Greek present participle into English??) In my opinion, over-all this is the best translation available in modern English today.

For the most part, I agree. There are a few things I might have liked worded a bit differently, but nothing serious. To get a Creed that's 100% accurate, we need to say it in Greek.

I have purposely avoided this forum since last September. (I will explain more fully in another post). Yet, this betrayal of the faith represented by this deletion goes beyond the pale. The deletion of "man" is an incredible afront to the faith given what has happened so many centuries ago and given the very purpose for the existence of the Eastern Catholic Church. At least the Latin rite can excuse the addition of the "filioque" as an attempt to deny heresy a footbold. But the translators of this abomination cannot claim such an excuse. It is precisely for the promotion of a heresy that the word "man" has been deleted. The heresy that this one word's inclusion protected us from is the heresy of secularism, humanism, Western Materialism, and Western Rationalism. Why else would deleting this word even be considered if it weren't for the insistence that "truth changes" and the human centered sensibilities of the feminists weren't being offended? There is no theological reason for changing this. The only reason that is possible is that a group of aging feminists ensconsed in Pittsburgh can now claim a political victory.

How will changing the creed bring new people to Christ? How will changing the creed make more 50 year old women wish to join the Church? How will changing the creed inspire our youth to join a Church now surrendering itself to political pressure? How does eliminating a word from the creed acurately translate that creed? How is this action better than Luther's insistence that the word "Sola" be added before "fide" not because it is actually in sacred scripture but because it ought to be? How is this any better than the offense the West promulgated against the East by its insistence upon adding the "filioque"? How will this advance the understanding that we are actually an authentic Church with an authentic vision and not simply just another political movement "moved by every wind of doctrine?"

CDL

Dear Father,

My priest says the revised liturgy is not based on good scholarship. It is based on a very liberal Roman Catholic point of view taught at Notre Dame in the 1970s that one priest took to heart and has been forcing on our church ever since. Now he has succeeded and does not care if the churches are empty because he has gotten his way. My priest told me there is a whole book that was written by a liturgy scholar in Europe that demonstrates the bad scholarship and lists all the mistakes. Our bishops rejected it because they do not really want to be Byzantine. It is a sad day for our church. It may already be too late.

David

David,

You have an astute pastor. Sadly, we had that author, who writes on this forum, booked to speak on the liturgy last September. The effort was stopped.

CDL

Obviously, I cannot and will not comment on what your priest has said.

But, on the bais of my scholarship and a rather intense personal comparison of the text with Greek originals as well as prayer by prayer comparison with the most recent scholarship translation initiated by Greek scholars on behalf of SCOBA, I really believe that this is the best English translation and that, over time, its value as a faithful translation in modern English will be revealed.

Once again, I think various debates are being merged and thus confused. My comments relate to the translation in modern English. I stand by my comments that, over all, it is a good example of scholarship and does stay very close to the intent of the original texts. (Of course, this belies another debate over what makes a translation good -- I, for one, believe that a good translation preserves the intent/meaning of the text but does not necessarily preserve its word order, word choice, etc. Others demand that a good translation preserves original word word order, and seeks to find a word by word equivalent. That is a debate that will probably never end ...)

Now ... the real debate over the translation seems to be aimed more towards whether a modern English translation is desirable. Most people who are objecting to the translation, it seems to me, are really debating whether a modern English version is preferable. (As an example of one extreme, the Antiochians and ROCOR have chosen to preserve hieratic English in their texts; most other eastern liturgical traditions have not. The OCA has tried to split the difference, but using modern English for saints and preserving hieratic for God, like the original RSV. Our new translation opts for modern English.)

Personally, I believe, on the basis of my own personal scholarship as well as my exposure to the various English versions of the liturgy that exist, that a modern translation was sorely needed for our young people. (I say this as the father of three very intelligent young men who much prefer the new translation.) But I can appreciate that there are those who disagree with this decision.

P.S. I think it is also important to note that just because you or I disagree with something does not make it "poor scholarship."

Carson: Who is the author you are referring to?