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

Does this mean that if the liturgy is said in Slavonic, then all the verses can be taken at the Antiphons?

Wouldn't some catechesis on this have helped? In many places the word "orthodox" could have been allowed at least as an option. If it takes our Metropolia over 40 years to produce new translations does that mean we have to wait until nearly 2050 for a chance again to restore the word "orthodox" to the Liturgy?

All the while, the Melchites and Ukrainians have had us beat on this one for quite awhile.

[quote=ByzKat]Dear brother in Christ, Matthew:

Most of the changes you point out can be summarized as 3 items, used consistently in the new translation:

1. "Glory BE to the Father..." in our current translation came most likely from the translation of the doxology that had been used by Latin Rite Catholics, and thus was used by Eastern Catholics as well. Almost all Orthodox translations I have (including very conservative ones) use "Glory to the Father...". Similarly, "Glory to You" rather than "Glory BE to you."

We really don't know what "most likely" influenced the translation.

Latin often does not use the verb, "to be," which is just like many Slavic languages (e.g., Ukrainian and Russian). However, we aren't talking about Old Church Slavonic or Ukrainian here; we're talking about an English translation. In English, it is more common -- and, hence, I would say more appropriate -- to include the gerund: "Glory BE to the Father, etc."

From my own experience, the whole "Glory to the Father"-thing arose in the 1970's when there was a tendency for a "poetic hyperliteralism." This can be seen especially in the New American Bible translation, like Baruch 5:5 "Up, Jerusalem! stand [sic] upon the heights" instead of "Rise up, Jerusalem, etc."

If you like it, that's fine. I wouldn't fight to the death over it.


2. Similarly, Latin Rite Catholics used "Peace be WITH you", "And WITH your spirit (old)" to translate "Pax vobiscum" / "Et cum spiritu tuo", and "with" was correct. But the literal words in our Liturgy are "Peace be TO (you or all)", "And to your spirit." Again, by using "to", we are both being more literal and conforming more closely to Orthodox practice.

(By the way, the invocation and response are parallel: the priest says "Peace be TO all", and we respond "And TO your spirit." So it shouldn't be hard to pick up if we are actually listening to what the priest says."



Admittedly, the whole phrase, "And to your spirit," might grate on someone who doesn't know what that means. Nevertheless, I think that it grates even more on the English-speaking person because it's not clear what the preposition "to" is trying to convey: Neither peace nor a spirit is TO someone; they're WITH someone.

Expressions like "Peace to you" in the liturgy seem to me to imitate similar Semitic expressions from Sacred Scripture (3 John 15). How 'bout that alliteration!


3. We have two different pairs of words in Greek and Slavonic to refer to the Most Holy Virgin Mary: "Bearer / Birth-giver of God" (Theotokos), and "Mother of God."

Theotokos = God-bearer or God-bearing One

Mother of God = Mother of God

I really don't see the big translational quandary here. Either keep Theotokos as a traditional term for the Blessed Virgin Mary or establish a consistent translation for the word. But, to jump from Theotokos to "Mother of God" to Theotokos . . . what's the point of that?

Dear Matthew,

It's a pleasure to read your post, even though I am about to disagree with a couple of things - because your knowledge of English is obviously good, and you seem able to grasp some distinctions.

Actually, there are two points (at the beginning and the conclusion of the Anaphora) when the Byzantine Liturgy does use the phrase "and with thy spirit". The rest of the time, our Liturgy properly uses "and to thy spirit". The grammatical reason is simple: when addressed in the dative, we respond in the dative.

Theotokos does not mean "God-bearer" or "God-bearing one"; God-bearer is an honorific attributed to many Saints, beginning with Saint Ignatius of Antioch, who is often called Saint Ignatius the God-bearer.

As to calling the Lady in question both "Theotokos" and "Mother of God", check a strictly accurate translation of the hymn usually sung to her during the Anaphora. The difference is subtle - but subtle distinctions are characteristic of patristic Greek.

Again, thanks for your posting. Language is a pleasant discussion.

Fr. Serge

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate the point you're making. But, I don't think that that was necessarily the point I was making.

Perhaps, in the Ukrainian liturgy we are addressed and respond in the dative case at certain times (I dukhovi tvoyemu vs. I z dukhom tvoyim). But, not in English: We are addressed with a prepositional phrase, which may or may not make sense from our linguistic background.

On the one hand, I have no problem with doing a literal translation. In fact, as I intimated above, the greeting "Peace to you" appears to mirror exactly the same greeting given in some of the letters of the New Testament. "Our liturgy," as you say, is very comfortable with imitating the tenor of Sacred Scripture. So, I don't object.

On the other hand, the phrase "Peace to you/And to your spirit" sounds odd to my English-speaking ears, especially the response. And, as nice as it might be to have the literal, I don't see anything lost by translating it as "and with your spirit."\




As I'm sure you know, the verb "bear" can mean either to bear a child by giving birth, as the holy and immaculate, blessed and glorious Virgin did with Christ our God; or, to bear something, as in to carry it. (Obviously, the Holy Fathers bore Christ in a less literal way than Mary.)

Nevertheless, the result is the same: In English, "God-bearer" properly translates both words, Theotokos and Theophoros.

The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship put out by the Sheptytsky Institute in Ottawa, Canada, seems to use both "Mother of God" and "God-bearing One" for the Ukrainian equivalent of Theotokos. In fact, "God-bearer" is used in preference to Theotokos in several places. I think the Institute's theologians are probably familiar with the "subtleties" of Patristic Greek as well as the meaning behind Theotokos.

just to be an English teacher for a moment: "Be" is NOT a gerund. It's the base form of the verb. "being" would be the gerund. Gerunds end in -ing.

"Glory BE to..." then seems like a subjunctive form, as in "let glory be ascribed to you" or something like that. "Glory" is not the verbal form, it's a noun. Nouns are only followed by base form verbs in the subjunctive. So WHY do we use "BE" then?

However, if we DON'T use "be", it can't be subjunctive. We don't use "glory to you" in real English, just like we don't use "peace to you" or "hope to you" or "happiness to you", because the WISH requires us to use the "BE" form.

I think I just argued myself into disagreement with "Glory to you"... how about that.

"The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship put out by the Sheptytsky Institute in Ottawa, Canada, seems to use both "Mother of God" and "God-bearing One" for the Ukrainian equivalent of Theotokos. In fact, "God-bearer" is used in preference to Theotokos in several places. I think the Institute's theologians are probably familiar with the "subtleties" of Patristic Greek as well as the meaning behind Theotokos. "

Please don't attribute the translation used in "The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology" either to the Sheptitsky Institute's theologians or to the members of the committee who worked on the Anthology. The base translation of the "Anthology" is the 1988 "Synodal" Ukrainian translation and is NOT the work (either to praise or to blame) of those people.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

According to the letter, only the new text may be used. No exception is made for Slavonic (or Spanish or any other language). Only the new text may be used.

Nick

I would surmise (though I may well be incorrect) that this is a poorly-worded attempt to make this the exclusive translation into English.

"You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile"

Ungcsertezs (TNG and Voyager ophile)

This revision of the Divine Liturgy (and the response thereto) makes me recall a story which a priest told me about the Latin reform. He had a grandmother who, upon going to Mass on the first Sunday of Advent, 1970, called this priest's mother. "Father got the Mass all wrong to-day!" quoth she, "He had two readings and he read the Canon (Eucharistic Prayer) in the wrong order!"
To which the mother replied, "No, no, they changed the Mass; now there is more than one Canon."
"That's impossible. You can't change the Mass!"
The story resolved with the grandmother following her Tridentine missal until her dying day.

I have two points that follow this anecdote:

1) It could be so much worse! (I'm Latin Rite, I know! ;))

2) It is good that Byzantines have such love for their Liturgy that they do raise such a row over so few changes.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

-Uspenije

Thank you, Professor, for your comment.

I don't dispute that the English translation of the Divine Liturgy found in the Anthology comes from that published in 1988 by the Synod of Bishops of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church.

I don't believe I wrote explicitly that the theologians of the Sheptytsky Institute translated the liturgy afresh. Though, I can see how my comments make that implicit connection, for which I apologize.

I am a bit more puzzled by the latter part of your comment which appears to distance yourself and the other members of the committee from the translation used in the Anthology. That you just cannot do: You may not have made a new translation; but, the synodal translation is indeed your work, at least, by being associated with the anthology of texts compiled by the editorial committee. As far as I know, you and the other committee members accepted use of the synodal translation and, hence, may properly be assumed to support its readings. The Anthology not only bears the imprint of the Sheptytsky Institute on the title page, but it is also still for sale by the Institute.

So, if I'm interpreting the negative "feel" of your comment above correctly, then I have to admit I just don't understand it.

All that having been said, I was being challenged above (I believe) about the appropriateness of using the title, "God-bearer," as another way of saying Theotokos. I think my own anecdotal experience as well as a paraliturgical book like the Anthology back me up as to the point that it is an appropriate term for the immaculate and glorious Virgin.

My original point, however, was that, if one is going to translate the title Theotokos, then do it consistently, i.e. don't vacillate between Theotokos/God-bearer/Mother of God. The Ukrainian liturgy sometimes says Bohorodytsyu, sometimes Matir Boha. Does the typical edition always use Theotokos? Frankly, I don't know. But, I would prefer a consistent translation if possible.

Check the Greek liturgical texts. You will find that both Theotokos and Mother of God appear quite frequently, even in the same troparion or verse.

The use of "Godbearer" as a translation for Theotokos is an illiteracy to anyone who understands the Church's liturgical and theological vocabulary. Some individual might think that the distinction between ομουσιοσ and ομοιυσιοσ [sorry about the bad Sigma; this program is limited], but the Church repudiates that opinion - the iota makes a very big difference.

Fr. Serge

I make no pretense to be an expert on the Eastern liturgies. So, perhaps, I'm not understanding you correctly; or, we are talking at cross purposes here.

I think I see now ByzKat's original point, namely, that whereas the old translation had just translated both Theotokos/Mother of God as "Mother of God," the new translation more literally retains Theotokos untranslated, while translating "Mother of God" as (well) "Mother of God." I'm okay with that, and revise my previous comment accordingly.


In the Sheptytsky Institute's The Divine Liturgy: An Anthology for Worship, the hymn to the glorious Virgin Mary during the Anaphora calls Her "God-bearing One," which is a translation of the word Bohorodytsyu. (And, as Prof. Thompson in this group has pointed out to me, that translation was approved by the Synod of the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church). Now, unless I'm mistaken, Bohorodytsyu is the Ukrainian translation of the Greek Theotokos. But, I could be mistaken. Theotokos is again rendered "God-bearer" in the title for the Feastday of St. Anne on July 25th.


Illiterate and possibly heretical?

What can one say to this, except to respond with the holy tradition of my Church:

"O Lord and Master of my life! Take away from me the spirit of laziness, despair, lust for power, and idle talk. Instead, grant me the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love. O Lord and Master! Grant me the grace to see my own shortcomings and not to judge my brother or sister, for You are blessed forever and ever. Amen."

Amen.

You're right. I think I should have written "copulative" instead. Thanks.