What Was the Christian Arab Word for G*d?

The name of God in the Quran is Aḷḷāh, that much is clear. We also know that the Quran explicitly equates its God with the God the Christians and Jews follow. Today Arabic Christian and Jews alike will indeed call their God that. But where does this name come from? 🧵 pic.twitter.com/KolqWmXVPz

— Marijn "i before j" van Putten (@PhDniX) October 19, 2021

"Till It"?

An appropriate translation of וְכִבְשֻׁ֑הָ? Or a prejudice of a civilization based upon tillage agriculture? Heaven forbid that such a translation would be used as an argument against the truthfulness of Revelation...

Just as conservatives insist on a rightly ordered sexual ethic, so should we insist on a rightly ordered “land ethic.”https://t.co/a1wswZicqg

— First Things (@firstthingsmag) February 20, 2021

The Eucharist and the Real Presence

Is the same old catechesis coupled with more second millennium Latin (paraliturgical) Eucharistic devotions the answer?

Latin traditionalists might say yes, it is a partial solution. (A return to the EF would be an additional part.) I suppose the Latin bishops in the U.S. have a few years to try before they are overwhelmed by other developments.

Freskenzyklus mit Szenen aus dem Leben des Hl. Martin von Tours, Kapelle in Unterkirche San Francesco in Assisi, Szene: Die wundersame Messe des Hl. Martin

Master of the Rio Frio. Altarpiece of St. Martin (Spanish; c. 1500). Musée de Cluny, Paris.

Oxford. Bodleian Library. Psalter.

I think it is the typical representation of the Mass, choosing the elevation of the Host during the Consecration as the key or representative moment, and this is undoubtedly linked to the Latin notion of sacrifice as it is applied to the redemptive work of Christ, focused primarily (though probably not exclusively) on Christ's death on the cross. Even if the elevation was originally modified to a greater height for the purpose of affirming the Real Presence and showing the Gifts to the people so that they may adore Christ, in response to heresies denying the Real Presence of Christ in the Gifts, I think in the "traditional" popular Latin understanding of the Mass offering/"sacrifice" has impacted how the elevation is understood. We can see this mentality present in the association of the elevation (both before and after the reform of Eudes de Sully?) with the elevation of Christ in the cross in allegorical explanations of the Mass. Or in the theological explanation (one seemingly warranted by the liturgical texts themselves) that the Church offers Christ to the Father.

See the "Mass of St. Gregory":

End of 15th century

1490

Diego Huanitzin

The new offertory prayer in the Pauline/Bugninian reform was probably invented and not recovered from the Roman liturgical tradition, but it does seem to be more in accord with the Eucharist being a development and perfection of Jewish Thanksgiving/korban. Who was responsible for its creation? I am not sure if Bouyer addressed that part of the reform specifically.

If sacrifice were understood instead as Thanksgiving for the gifts we receive from the Father (and ultimately the Thanksgiving of the Son to the Father), what would be the best pictorial representation of the Eucharist? The presbyteros at the altar united with the Christian people in prayer (and all facing East)? (How would this be distinguished from some other prayer service, except by inclusion of the Holy Vessels and Holy Gifts in the picture?) The reception of the Holy Gifts by the people?

See for example, this image from the 15th-century Calderini Pontifical:

The elevation could be understood as an affirmation of the Real Presence in this particular Holy Mystery (Sacrament), and one necessary component of the Son's Thanksgiving, the Son Himself, who desires that we share in His life by receiving Him in the Holy Gifts, which have been given to us by the Father. This is the core of the (Christian) Mystery, the Gospel, but I think a new catechetical explanation of the Eucharist would be required for Latins to modify their understanding.

I am curious as to how old the offertory prayer is in the DL of St. John Chrysostom, and if there are analogues in the other rites and how far back they date.



Can someone really render thanks to God if he does not respect or have holy fear of God? How many have received a counterfeit Gospel and heresy instead of the authentic Saving Message Who is Christ?

A Review of The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter

First Things: Word for Word by Paul V. Mankowski

The Pope as Language Scholar

The prophet is not guaranteed to be an oracle or a prophet, in the sense that every utterance is directly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Even in the first millenium, there were misunderstandings about Greek, which arguably was the lingua franca of the early Church. Now, when the bishop of Rome no longer speaks Greek fluently, and many of the apostolic Churches do not use it? At least they have been able to avoid misunderstandings so far in the joint statements that have been released.

Why should we understand the successor of St. Peter as having a special competence as to determining the orthodoxy of some definition of faith or statement in Greek or any other language not his own?
What special competence has he received to ensure that his statements are translated properly into the languages used by the other apostolic Churches for communication? He must rely and trust what scholars and representatives of those churches tell him.

Even when everyone was using Greek, Chalcedon would have not been such a big problem if charity was being exercised in all things, with a prayer for a strong dose of patience with one's brothers, and bishops humbly asked for clarification when in doubt. Now when the representatives of the Apostolic Churches speak other languages (I don't think English is a lingua franca for them but I could be wrong)? This is even more true.

Instead of determining that only one formulation is orthodox, might it be that the bishop of Rome is merely expressing a preference for one statement rather than another, which must be coupled with the fixing of terms and their definitions at that time , or at least including some sort of terminological appendix to any statement so that readers in the future know what the word means? And thus the bishop of Rome plays a role as the final arbiter?

In a Church in which many languages can be used, can any statement of faith be free from problems of translation?

Charlotte Allen on the Change to the Italian Translation of the Lord's Prayer

First Things: THE POPE AND THE LORD’S PRAYER by Charlotte Allen (via Fr. Z)

Except... aren't there other things in contemporary Latin popular piety that should be corrected first?

An apologist for Pope Francis.

NCReg: Popular Piety and the Our Father by Peter Brown
COMMENTARY: Pope Francis’ recent suggestion can serve as a great moment to spotlight the true meaning behind this foundational prayer of the Church.

Doesn't the Patriarchate of Rome Have More Pressing Issues?

One would think that the various explanations given by scholars and theologians about the validity of current translations would have been sufficient to give this a rest.

"Pater Noster," No Peace. The Battle Begins Among the Translations

More from David Clayton on "Writing"

David Clayton on "Writing" Icons

Shema Israel

Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic

Is it integral to monastic or religious life as such?

the use of liturgical texts in Greek, Latin, Church Slavonic,or Syriac/Aramaic? How much of Coptic is intelligible to the average Coptic Christian?

Is it the case that the use of such languages is not essential to monastic life and to most forms of religious life -- except those religious communities that seek to specialize in learning Greek/Latin/etc. for the sake of study, knowing the roots of their theological tradition, and theological dialogue. Indeed, to have certain orders or religious houses dedicated to the study of important texts in their original languages would be of great service to the Church, I would think. For them, to be so familiar with the language that they are able to pray (and converse) in those languages would be an ideal standard, and this could be a component of their identity or charism.

A Chinese Catechism

Vatican Radio

Kyrie Eleison

Archimandrite Ephrem Lash has reposed in the Lord.

His website.

A Young Person's Guide to Religion

OTRF 2011 4-Fr. Ephrem Lash from James Hyndman on Vimeo.

Archimandrite Ephrem (Lash) on the translation of church services

Eastern Christian Books: "A Bible Study Followed by a Meal": Ephrem Lash on the Eucharist

Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great
The Akathist Hymn to the Mother of God
In which the author laments the state of English language liturgical books

A New Understanding of Anselm

Silverio Rebelo, Le Sacrifice du Christ chez Saint Anselm de Cantorbery, Le noveau visage du Cur Deus Homo, Irenikon, LXXXVII, 2014, 5-46

Summary of Silverio Rebelo:
"The Sacrifice of Christ according to Saint Anselm of Canterbury - A New Look at the Cur Deus Homo." According to the current interpretation of the Cur Deus Homo, Anselm explained the redemptive function of the sacrifice of the Cross in accordance with the basic perspective of the theory of vicarious satisfaction, the classic design of a legal-term replacement of the work of Christ. However, a closer examination reveals a theology of redemption of a very different type, deeply rooted in the patristic tradition, whose basic idea is that the sacrifice of Christ is a life-giving event. According to this interpretation of the mediation of Christ, faith allows believers to share in the perfection of his obedience unto death, which becomes the basis of their life of obedience to God. This leads to a veritable revolution in the understanding of the relationship between God and humanity: the sacrifice of Christ is not a condition of the grace of God for humankind, but a work that renews their way of living, and is an expression [of] God's unconditional will to save."

The article contains a discussion of merit in CDH 2.19 - is this the source of Aquinas's teaching on merit re: Christ's redemptive work in ST III? Or is it mediated by other sources? From a completely unrelated work? Wholly "original"?

The dominant understanding of Anselm's teaching among Latins, transmitted in academic settings, is probably familiar to those who have studied Latin theories of atonement. It is a representation put forth even by Joseph Ratzinger and Louis Bouyer. I assume that both read Anselm's CDH, either in Latin or in translation, so that their representation is confirmed by their reading of the primary source and not based solely on secondary sources. So why did the theological giants of yesteryear fail to get Anselm right (assuming this revised understanding of Cur Deus Homo is the correct one)? Did they lack access to the requisite scholarship for properly understanding how the terms satisfaction and honor were being used by Anselm, definitions that could not be uncovered until they were situated within the historical and theological culture in which they were used? Was it a problem of translation (and the interpretation that precedes translation)?

The Spirit of the "Innovators"

Pray Tell: Archbishop John Quinn in Interview

What are your thoughts on liturgical translations?

I think, first of all, I would raise the question why we need translations. Why is it not possible to have liturgical books fashioned in the country itself? Now I realize that in a world of rapid travel there have to be some common formulations that are used, and that certainly should be kept in mind. But I don’t see why, for example, the prayers of the Mass (e.g., the Collect) have to be a translation of a Roman prayer. They could be formulated in the language of the country. English speakers could prepare their own prayers. If we have to have translations, they should be done and approved by the English-speaking episcopates themselves.

What do you think of our new 2011 missal translation? What are its strengths and weaknesses?

Well I myself, and it is my personal view, think it is not English as we use it. It’s too complicated, it’s very difficult to speak. People can’t understand what is being said, I don’t think. I don’t know that is has any strengths. I find it hard to think of its strengths.

My idea of translation is that you take something in a text and say it the way we say it in English, not that you try to retain the style and structure and flavor of another language.

Dialects of Differeing Mutual Intelligibility? The Solution: Use Latin!?!

FIUV Position Paper: The Extraordinary Form and China

Instead of creating a different missal for Cantonese speakers, for example. Or a restoration of a Missal using literary/classical Chinese (which can be spoken in the local Chinese dialect), but that has a problem of making it potentially difficult for speakers of all Chinese dialects/languages to comprehend? Bet it is still a better solution than the use of Latin.

(Or maybe the Chinese should do what some of the 20th century reformers suggested and give up their language in favor of one that is not limited by phonographs and tones.

The Plurality of Ecclesial Traditions

Post by Orthodox Christian Network.

The Dominance of English

The Chant Café: The World Vernacular Is English, Korean Edition by Kathleen Pluth

More on Icon "Writing"

A Symptom of Modern Blindness – Further Thoughts on the Phrase “To Write an Icon” by Andrew Gould