www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy New Pewbook: Compare/Contrast changes found

Aside from the mis-translation of anthropos, the changes are a mixed bag, some awkward but more precise and some definite improvements.

Re: Theotokos. This is the term used by the Council of Ephesus and in fact "mother of God" is less precise. Theotokos means the one who gave birth to God. I think the uncommon Latin word Deipara corresponds directly to Theotokos.

I believe the changes is the music will be harder to adjust to than the changes in the words.

Of course my point was putting Greek words into the Liturgy doesn't make it more understandable to the modern mind, but making things more understandable is one of the arguments of why "men" had to be removed--because some people thought that it only meant adult males. I think this argument about men not being understood is really facetious and the real problem is that some have chosen to be offended by the term "men" when it is used to mean human beings without respect to age or sex. Fr. Petras has indicated that the problem is "men" is considered a sexist term.

There is an interesting old article which I will need to dig up on "Mother of God" vs. "One who gave birth to God." The author maintains that "Mother of God" is in fact the more precise meaning. Of course, a female who gives birth is "a mother." It should be noted that Deipara is, as you say, uncommon and not generally used by the Latin Church. Instead, Mater Dei, Mater Ecclesiae, Mater Christi, etc. is used.

Using Theotokos with those who do not know Greek will not be more precise because they will not know what it means. Its usage nonetheless is part of the ancient text and so that is a good thing.

It will be interesting to see the fruit of using ancient words, ie, "Theotokos," with modern biases, i.e. the removal of "men." I just can't see that this is a marriage made in heaven.

"There is an interesting old article which I will need to dig up on "Mother of God" vs. "One who gave birth to God." The author maintains that "Mother of God" is in fact the more precise meaning. Of course, a female who gives birth is "a mother."

We went through this a while back as well. Mother of God is not in any way a precise rendering of Theotokos. Mater Theo is Mother of God. Theotokos is Birthgiver of God. The Byzantine Church uses both titles of the Virgin but Theotokos was the title bestowed by Ephesus to refute Nestorius, not so much to honor Mary but to make clear that God was one person both God and man. Mary gave birth to God, she was not only his mother. Nestorius did not object to the title Mater Theo this he could accept, for obviously he believed Christ was God and obviously Christ had a mother. He rejected Theotokos because he did not believe Mary gave birth to the Word but only the Man. Of course this seperated Christ into two persons, hence the need for Ephesus.

"Using Theotokos with those who do not know Greek will not be more precise because they will not know what it means."

They will if they are told. It is not hard. Theo=God tokos=birthgiver. Do they know what Christ means? Only if they are told.

But as far as omitting men you are correct. Nobody in their right mind thinks that "for us men" means only males. Some women are offended that a word that most ordinarily means males is used to refer to a mixed group. I would also note thta nobody in their right mind thinks that "for us" refers to only those standing in Church reciting the Creed.

The difference I see is that for all the arguements about the Creed I cannot see that dropping men is as serious as mistranslating Theotokos but nobody has seemed to mind it for 40 years.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon,

The problem with Nestorius was that he accepted the term Mother of Christ, Christokos, but not Theotokos. Christ, the man, had to have a mother--no contradiction there.


I believe that he rejected Theotokos, because he did not think that Mary could be the Mother of a Divine Person, ie, of God. That appears to be a contradiction. This went to the heart of his error -- that there were two persons in Christ, a Divine and human person-- which is an attempt to explain away the Incarnation -- one Person with two natures.

Nothing hinges on "bearer" vs. "mother" which is why it went unnoticed for 40 years. But I do not object to using Theotokos.

What strikes me as remarkable about what we believe, that God became man, is that unlike individual men, whose personhood is very much related to being male or female, His personhood, even though he was a male, was not tied up with his sex because He is a Divine Person.

I think it is very likely for us Americans to think that "us" excludes foreigners.

I also think it is very likely for us modern Americans to think that we are far superior to the founders of our nation, the Fathers of our Church and almost anyone who has come before us, often in fact, including our own parents. Being part of the novus ordo seaculorum, we continually see ourselves as making "progress". Leaving men out of the Creed is a perfect example of this attitude. No one but Americans is proposing this change to the Creed.

I actually think that in dropping men from the Creed, there is an implicit attack on motherhood. Those who find "men" to be a sexist term, and whom we are attempting to please, have little or no respect for motherhood. They see a power struggle between sexes. They see the distincition between male and female, not as part of God's plan from "the beginning" but as a mere accident of evolution which has only been exploited by men.

"Nothing hinges on "bearer" vs. "mother" which is why it went unnoticed for 40 years."

I believe it does and so did the Council of Ephesus. First the title in question is not bearer but birth-giver. That is the only correct literal translation of tokos, birth-giver=tokos, bearer=phoros, mother=mater. Each has a distinct meaning in Greek and there is a reason the Council of Ephesus decided Theotokos is an even more important title than Mater Theo. The wished to make clear the Word became flesh and was born like any other man.

If we are to insist on correct and literal translation we should be consistent.

As for modern misunderstanding, in today's society a woman may well be someone's mother without being their birth-giver.

Fr. Deacon Lance

This discussion has arisen several times before on the Forum. In the churches of Slavic tradition, Mother of God has been a common historical way of rendering Bohoroditsa/ Bogoroditsa, and not only by Greek Catholics.

The Old Rite translations in English from Erie use "Mother of God", and certainly no one would deny these are "traditional" translations in terms of English language. Fr. German Ciuba of the Old Rite maintains that this phrase is not only acceptable but is easily understood by English speakers relative to the teachings and intent of Ephesus. While I am not opposed to the use of Theotokos I also agree with the observations of Fr. German, and would not discount any usage of Mother of God as inferior.

Bravo! I agree also! When I received the original translation of the Jordanville prayer book, "Mother of God" was used instead "Theotokos" (which is in the new translation).

Fr. Deacon Randy,

"traditional" does not mean correct. Mother of God is not inferior, it is simply an incorrect translation anyway you slice it according to the criteria set forth by those insisting on the correct translation of ages of ages or Orthodox Christians. I would agree Birth-giver of God is clumsy so Theotokos is the best option.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Theotokos may be more correct, theologically. But "Mother of God" is still okay to use, it is warmer sounding, and it is near and dear to my heart.

First of all, I don't understand what "criteria" you are implying or what they have to do with my post, which focused on the usage of "Mother of God" and nothing else. Anyway, which is the "best" option is debatable, but there are (and should be) options.

I rather think "Mother of God" is the best option, if given a choice and I agree with Fr. German. Our received English usage has been "Mother of God" in nearly all English translations of Greek Catholic usage. And not just Slavic, as Archbishop Raya also chose that ("Mother of God" or "God's Mother") for the original Byzantine Daily Worship . It is certainly the most "customary" version of the term in historic Greek Catholic English usage. And as any cantor knows, sometimes the most "correct" or "precise" option does not necessarily sing or pray in a better or smoother way.

Several months ago a copy of the new liturgy was presented on this forum. It is authentic, it is a weekday liturgy (which differs only in the antiphons). Why go to some other source when the real deal was posted here months ago?

What is a visitor to think, when he comes to the Church and hears greek words, in an English language Liturgy? It is like there is a secret word, code words, words that have to be explained.

Let us offer the "Anaphora"? Again, why a Greek word? They are saying that the Greek text is untranslatable. So, we have to keep Greek words in the English Liturgy.

I don't think so. This is a great step backward.

"Mother of God" is good enough for me, I don't want to pray in Greek words.

Visitors will hear Hebrew words like Amen, Alleluia, and Hosanna, why should they be disturbed by a couple of Greek words? Should they be disturbed by a couple of Slavonic hymns?

Christ is Greek, shall we call him Jesus the Anointed so we don't have to explain that Christ is a title not a last name? Yes, some words will have to be explained because some words are better left untranslated. Shall we change Catholic to Universal. The majority of Orthodox translations use Theotokos. Most leave Lord God of Hosts as Lord God Sabaoth. We call them the Anaphorae of St. John Chrysostom and St. Bail the Great in any other context, why not in the Liturgy?

We often use Kyrie Eleison and Agios O Theos, these are connections to those who gave us the Gospel.