A Troped Gloria that is "too Roman Catholic" ? (can it be)

[Christopher McAvoy]

Upon my mentioning of the concept of a troped gloria to a certain Orthodox priest, who shall remain anonymous (he is a nice man), and them hearing what exactly the trope was, came the comment "that trope is too Roman Catholic". The concern was also that these particular tropes may suggest that Mary is a co-redemptrix, which is apparently undesirable ? (This is a term that was used without controversy by at least one of the Orthodox Latin Church Fathers.)

What thinks the average Orthodox lay man of this view? Are these tropes too "Roman Catholic" ?

You will seem them on the end of page two for the most part, there are not very many in this Gloria.
Keep in mind that this trope and gloria setting is only intended to be used for either Feasts of the Blessed Mary or else the Nativity of Our Lord.





12th c. Latin version for comparison:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-MOduv_UdU
audio recording of the latin version.

[Romaios]

What thinks the average Orthodox lay man of this view? Are these tropes too "Roman Catholic" ?

Roman Catholics don't do tropes any more. The Orthodox have troparia. You could find much more daring imagery in the Byzantine hymnography on the topic of Mary co-redemptrix. I'd say, go for it!

Or maybe just sing it in Latin - that should ease up any shock for most people attending.

The title in Latin should be "In festis Beatae Mariae Virginis et Nativitatis (Domini Nostri Iesu Christi)".

[arimethea]

My 1st issue is with translation, and maybe this is true in Latin but not the Greek, Christ does not take away the sins of the world twice, he first takes away the sin of the world, then he takes away the sins of the world.

My biggest issue is the misappropriation of titles. MARY DOES NOT SIT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER!!!! Only Christ sits there.
Christ is not the paraclite - the Holy Spirit is.

Also not comfortable with this "first born son" language. It it infers that Mary had other children.

[theistgal]

But ... He WAS her first-born Son.

[Romaios]

My 1st issue is with translation, and maybe this is true in Latin but not the Greek, Christ does not take away the sins of the world twice, he first takes away the sin of the world, then he takes away the sins of the world.

Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνός του Θεοῦ, ὁ Υἱός του Πατρός,
ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν του κόσμου, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς
ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας του κόσμου, πρόσδεξαι τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν,
ὁ καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

It appears twice in our own Doxology. It's not really a statement, but a title Christ is addressed with (the subject is a participle - "[Thou] who takest...") repeatedly, with different requests. Interestingly, the first time it's "the sin of the world" (singular), the second - "the sins of the world" (plural).

My biggest issue is the misappropriation of titles. MARY DOES NOT SIT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER!!!! Only Christ sits there.

The text does not imply that she does. The farsing is weaving Christ's relationship with his Mother, the Theotokos, in an ancient text that deals with his glory in the Trinity and his role in our salvation, but it's not mixing or confusing the planes.

Christ is not the paraclite - the Holy Spirit is.

That verse deals with the Holy Spirit, although the English translation is ambiguous and indeed allows one to understand that Christ would be "Spirit and protector of orphans, the Paraclite". Even that would not be wrong altogether - in the Gospel of John the Holy Spirit is called 'the other comforter' (allos parakletos), implying that Christ was the first. Maybe if the text was altered to "and Holy Spirit, protector of orphans, the Paraclite", it would make more sense. The Latin could afford to play with the et ('and') putting it after instead of before "Spirit" (although that's already departing from normal syntax, a sort of poetic license) - the English can't.   

Also not comfortable with this "first born son" language. It it infers that Mary had other children.

That's St. Matthew for you! If we can't erase prototokos from his Gospel to make ourselves more comfortable, there's no point in mistranslating it anywhere.

[Shanghaiski]

Are the original texts pre-schism?

[Romaios]

Are the original texts pre-schism?

About 95 % of it is for sure. The tropes might not be, although the ideas they contain are hardly innovations of the 12th century.

Of course, given the Filioque Trojan horse of a trope, that might not be a satisfactory answer before the tribunal of Orthodox Inquisition.

These Latins and their penchant for farsing ancient Orthodox texts with their heresies! 

[arimethea]

My 1st issue is with translation, and maybe this is true in Latin but not the Greek, Christ does not take away the sins of the world twice, he first takes away the sin of the world, then he takes away the sins of the world.

Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνός του Θεοῦ, ὁ Υἱός του Πατρός,
ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν του κόσμου, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς
ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας του κόσμου, πρόσδεξαι τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν,
ὁ καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

It appears twice in our own Doxology. It's not really a statement, but a title Christ is addressed with (the subject is a participle - "[Thou] who takest...") repeatedly, with different requests. Interestingly, the first time it's "the sin of the world" (singular), the second - "the sins of the world" (plural).

I think we agree here, and the Greek matches what I was trying to convey.

My biggest issue is the misappropriation of titles. MARY DOES NOT SIT ON THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER!!!! Only Christ sits there.

The text does not imply that she does. The farsing is weaving Christ's relationship with his Mother, the Theotokos, in an ancient text that deals with his glory in the Trinity and his role in our salvation, but it's not mixing or confusing the planes.

I might have misread it, looking at it again I see what you mean. Still the wording is confusing.

Christ is not the paraclite - the Holy Spirit is.

That verse deals with the Holy Spirit, although the English translation is ambiguous and indeed allows one to understand that Christ would be "Spirit and protector of orphans, the Paraclite". Even that would not be wrong altogether - in the Gospel of John the Holy Spirit is called 'the other comforter' (allos parakletos), implying that Christ was the first. Maybe if the text was altered to "and Holy Spirit, protector of orphans, the Paraclite", it would make more sense. The Latin could afford to play with the et ('and') putting it after instead of before "Spirit" (although that's already departing from normal syntax, a sort of poetic license) - the English can't.   

Also not comfortable with this "first born son" language. It it infers that Mary had other children.

That's St. Matthew for you! If we can't erase prototokos from his Gospel to make ourselves more comfortable, there's no point in mistranslating it anywhere.

Prototokos has a unique meaning, that being the heir. In Matthew's gospel, if he did mean Mary's first born son, in that she had other children, prototokia would have been used, since he would not have be an heir, that would have been Joseph's prototokos.

[Romaios]

Κύριε ὁ Θεός, ὁ ἀμνός του Θεοῦ, ὁ Υἱός του Πατρός,
ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν του κόσμου, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς
ὁ αἴρων τὰς ἁμαρτίας του κόσμου, πρόσδεξαι τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν,
ὁ καθήμενος ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ Πατρός, καὶ ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς.

It appears twice in our own Doxology. It's not really a statement, but a title Christ is addressed with (the subject is a participle - "[Thou] who takest...") repeatedly, with different requests. Interestingly, the first time it's "the sin of the world" (singular), the second - "the sins of the world" (plural).

I think we agree here, and the Greek matches what I was trying to convey.

We do, indeed. Only the Latins lost this detail in translation. They have qui tollis peccata mundi ("who takest away the sins of the world") twice here and thrice in the Agnus Dei acclamation before communion.

The original saying from the Gospel of John (1:29 ἴδε ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου) has "sin of the world" in the singular. I wouldn't make much of it though - a Latin might think of original sin when it's singular and of individual sins when it's in the plural.  

Prototokos has a unique meaning, that being the heir. In Matthew's gospel, if he did mean Mary's first born son, in that she had other children, prototokia would have been used, since he would not have be an heir, that would have been Joseph's prototokos.

I'm sorry - I meant Luke:

Luke 2:7 καὶ ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, καὶ ἐσπαργάνωσεν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀνέκλινεν αὐτὸν ἐν φάτνῃ, διότι οὐκ ἦν αὐτοῖς τόπος ἐν τῷ καταλύματι.
 
He literally says that Jesus is 'her first-born', not Joseph's - who probably fathered other children in a previous marriage ('the brethren of the Lord'). One isn't compelled by this to admit that Mary bore other children. As you say, it deals with the special privileges that the first-born enjoyed.

The form prototokos is common for both masculine and feminine (cf. Theo-tokos is feminine) - only the definite article would mark the difference. Prototokia does not exist - prototoka would be the neutral plural.

[Nephi]

I don't see anything not Orthodox about it.

[orthonorm]

Very nice stuff Romaios. Thanks for taking the time.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Liturgy > Western Rite Discussion (Moderator: arimethea) > Topic: A Troped Gloria that is "too Roman Catholic" ? (can it be)