"born of the Father before all ages"

[bartimaeus79]

I am quite relieved to read this thread as I have encountered more than a few similar discussions among members of the congregation since the institution of the new Missal. In my experience the word “born” has proven to be the source of great confusion - more so even than the inclusion of the word consubstantial!

The question I often receive as a lay minister and catechist is, “didn’t Mary give birth to Jesus???” The language of the “old” creed said that very thing: “born of the Virgin Mary…” Now the Son is presented to us as being born of the Father and incarnate of the Virgin. This shift in language, while being more in-line with the language of the universal Church, seems to be fertile ground for misinterpretation . . . and Arianism, as the OP has suggested

Language has power and influence. For the people in the pews who do not have an extensive knowledge of Greek, Latin, or the history of Christological controversies, this change - perhaps more than any other in the Creed - has (in my experience) opened the door to error. Among English speakers, associations with creation and the beginning of life are intimately tied to the word “born” thus making it a seemingly poor substitution for the more specific word, “begotten.” Problems with literal translation, indeed.

In Christ.

 

[japhy]

The question I often receive as a lay minister and catechist is, “didn’t Mary give birth to Jesus???” The language of the “old” creed said that very thing: “born of the Virgin Mary…” Now the Son is presented to us as being born of the Father and incarnate of the Virgin.

The Nicene Creed addresses the Son’s eternal nativity from the Father as well as His temporal nativity from Mary through the Holy Spirit. The old translation used “born of the Virgin Mary” incorrectly, because while the Apostles’ Creed says Jesus was “natus” (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Nicene Creed, while not denying the Apostles’ Creed, goes even further to state that Jesus was “incarnatus” (incarnate, took flesh) of the Virgin Mary.

There was a heresy at the time that Jesus was “born” of Mary but did not have a true human body like you and me. The Nicene Creed put that to rest by stating that He did indeed become incarnate.

I wonder whether the average Catholic knows what is meant by saying Jesus is the “only-begotten Son of God”.

 

[ProVobis]

There was a heresy at the time that Jesus was “born” of Mary but did not have a true human body like you and me. The Nicene Creed put that to rest by stating that He did indeed become incarnate.

I wonder whether the average Catholic knows what is meant by saying Jesus is the “only-begotten Son of God”.

Probably about as much as “Round yon Virgin, Mother and Child,” I’ll bet.

 

[ProVobis]

“Born” is used because the Latin word is “natus”. “Begotten” is used elsewhere in the translation when the Latin word is “(uni)genitum”.

FWIW, the English word “nature” also comes from the word “natus.” So “birth” or “born” isn’t necessarily a human trait, although that’s what it’s commonly used as.

nature
c.1300, “essential qualities, innate disposition,” also “creative power in the material world,” from O.Fr. nature, from L. natura “course of things, natural character, the universe,” lit. “birth,” from natus “born,” pp. of nasci “to be born,” from PIE *gene- “to give birth, beget” (see genus). Original sense is in human nature. Meaning “inherent, dominating power or impulse” of a person or thing is from late 14c. Nature and nurture have been contrasted since 1874.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I have a trouble with the word “born”. Because those who are not well catechized will fall victim to the anti-Catholic rhetoric from neo-Arians who claim Christ was not eternal but rather created by God the Father at some point in time. While “begotten” may be archaic to most, its a less common word that cannot be spun to mean something else. And its a catechetical opportunity for people to learn what it means.

 

[Contarini]

I have a trouble with the word “born”. Because those who are not well catechized will fall victim to the anti-Catholic rhetoric from neo-Arians who claim Christ was not eternal but rather created by God the Father at some point in time. While “begotten” may be archaic to most, its a less common word that cannot be spun to mean something else. And its a catechetical opportunity for people to learn what it means.

I take the point that the Latin and Greek have separate words, though. I had not realized or had forgotten this.

I do question the pastoral wisdom of the choice, but I understand it better.

Myself, I would prefer the traditional BCP translation!

Edwin

 

[japhy]

The Creed already clarifies that Jesus is begotten, not made, so the phrase “born of the Father” is expressly forbidden, by the Creed itself, from being interpreted as meaning “made/created”.

 

[SFH]

“Eternally begotten” is less precise. Does it mean that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is begotten over and over again or does it mean He was begotten from all eternity? “Eternally” also means “perpetually” or “endlessly,” hence the ambiguity in the phrase “eternally begotten.” The new language clarifies that there was one single act of begetting the Son, not multiple generations.

The same can be said of the other changes. Is Christ “one in being with the Father” like we are one in being together at Church (i.e., one because we are with each other) or does it mean He is one substance with the Father. The new language resolves the ambiguity.

 

[SonCatcher]

“Eternally begotten” is less precise. Does it mean that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is begotten over and over again or does it mean He was begotten from all eternity? “Eternally” also means “perpetually” or “endlessly,” hence the ambiguity in the phrase “eternally begotten.” The new language clarifies that there was one single act of begetting the Son, not multiple generations.

The same can be said of the other changes. Is Christ “one in being with the Father” like we are one in being together at Church (i.e., one because we are with each other) or does it mean He is one substance with the Father. The new language resolves the ambiguity.

Eternity is completely timeless. It is both and neither shorter than a nanosecond and longer than the time from the Big Bang to the Big Rip (or Big Crunch depending on which theory is considered more strongly today ). We have no real way to understand eternity in this life.

 

[RyanBlack]

“Eternally begotten” is less precise. Does it mean that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity is begotten over and over again or does it mean He was begotten from all eternity? “Eternally” also means “perpetually” or “endlessly,” hence the ambiguity in the phrase “eternally begotten.” The new language clarifies that there was one single act of begetting the Son, not multiple generations.
The same can be said of the other changes. Is Christ “one in being with the Father” like we are one in being together at Church (i.e., one because we are with each other) or does it mean He is one substance with the Father. The new language resolves the ambiguity.

Yes, there is one begetting of the Son by the Father, but it is an eternal begetting in that the relation that exists eternally between Father and Son is that of Begetter and Begotten. BTW, do I prefer the language of “born of the Father before all ages.” However, my preference is because I believe it is a more faithful rendering of the original text, not because I believe it is less ambiguous.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Creed already clarifies that Jesus is begotten, not made, so the phrase “born of the Father” is expressly forbidden, by the Creed itself, from being interpreted as meaning “made/created”.

If they can slice and dice Scripture, I’m sure they’ll slice and dice the Creed.

 

[23Nathan]

As the Church attempts to translate the Mass again She needs to remember the main precepts of Vatican II in regard to translation: the text must be understandable and beautiful. Phrases like “born of the Father before all ages” achieve none of these principles.

Whether or not it is intended “born” in English means born. Therefore “born” will mean that Jesus is not omnipresent-that he has not always existed. The phrase can never be understood by itself in true meaning presented through modern day English if “born” is used.

An earlier post said that “natus” can also be translated as “nature.” This makes sense. Maybe the phrase should say “Of the same nature of the Father before all ages.” Although it is not a literal translation it does convey the meaning of the phrase.

My prayer is that the Church will gain wisdom to translate the Mass better and in a shorter amount of time. I also pray that it will solve other issues simultaneously and in an effective manner.

 

[DaveBj]

If someone had asked me, I would have stated a preference for “begotten” rather than “born,” since the concept of “bearing” is usually associated with females. However, no one asks me. There may be a reason fort that

 

[TheMc]

As the Church attempts to translate the Mass again She needs to remember the main precepts of Vatican II in regard to translation: the text must be understandable and beautiful. Phrases like “born of the Father before all ages” achieve none of these principles.

Hmmm… That’s odd. I always thought one of the main precepts was the text being translated accurately, what the latin actually says.

When the VII document Sacrosanctum Concilium clarified by Liturgicam Authenticum, that’s what was said

Now we can have legitimate debate on this translation. It isn’t perfect. But that’s not the point. We’re talking about principles here. And to say that the text must be easily understandable is not one of them. If you want to make the text easily understandable, petition the church to modify the latin. Don’t dumb down the Mass via “translation” and call it translation. And don’t forget that if the english is too hard to understand, you’re always free to just use the latin, as Vatican II also taught. In fact, Vatican II taught that latin should continued to be used, with some vernacular, if you want to start bringing up what VII did and didn’t teach.

 

[ProVobis]

Hmmm… That’s odd. I always thought one of the main precepts was the text being translated accurately, what the latin actually says.

I agree with you but Nathan makes a good point. The Latin says what it says. Literal (word for word, I presume) translations, it appears, look for some English word that best approximates each Latin word. Although cognates don’t always work, it’s probably best to go with the cognate, except in this case “nature” requires additional words to make grammatical sense in the English to try to preserve the same nuance as the Latin. In a sense, the literal translation is compromised but it does not take away from the meaning. However, in the end, the translation process is still subjective and end result will not please everyone. Even in the English there are places where “assume” cannot be exactly synonymous with “presume,” for example, though each is usually the first definition of the other.

you’re always free to just use the latin, as Vatican II also taught. In fact, Vatican II taught that latin should continued to be used, with some vernacular, if you want to start bringing up what VII did and didn’t teach.

Precisely. The Latin is much more maintainable and sustainable than translating and retranslating into 500 changing vernaculars and changing philosophies of translations.

 

[jimrob]

The Church has been tying itself in knots over the Trinity for as long as we’ve been in existence. The Pope and the Oecumenical Patriarch excommunicated each other over it in 1054.

The Nicene Creed was written in Koine Greek which is a nice vague language. It’s only when we insisted on translating it into Latin - a bureaucratic officious language - that the trouble began. Then when we try translating the Latin into English - the language of people who think they can know everything - we come up against expressions we can’t analyse. Try as we may, there is no satisfactory English translation of “ante omnia saecula”.

Our puny brains are quite incapable of understanding the detail of how the Trinity works - that’s why we call it a mystery. Jesus told us that he came from the Father and that he shares in the Father’s existence which is not bounded or governed by time. That’s good enough for me.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Translation is always an issue wrought with great challenge - science and linguistic art must be brought to bear.

In some of the Eastern Rite Churches (mine included), it has also become a big issue in recent years in the context of revision to our Divine Liturgy. In our case, you also have issues in translation through two languages - Greek and Old Church Slavonic. These challenges and inherent sensitivities become very acute in something as dogmatic as the Creed, so the comments in this thread come as no surprise.

That said, as you may be aware, the Eastern Churches use the Nicene Creed exclusively in the Divine Liturgy. For as long as I can remember, “born of the Father before all ages” has been in use in our English version (the first English translation was introduced and the use of vernacular language began in 1965). It so happens that the long-standing usage of this particular verse (“born of the Father before all ages”) in the Byzantine Rite is now consistent in the Latin Church’s vernacular English translation.

If it helps at all, we are often reminded in Eastern catechesis that the Creed must be reflected upon in its entirety to be fully appreciated and understood. It is acknowledged that Christ was “begotten, not made”, so He was not created as we were - He is truly Divine. This is our belief at the core. That He was “born of the Father” simply means that He is of the Father, which we also believe. Born in this usage means “deriving or resulting from”.

We are also always cognizant in Eastern thought of the Mysteries of the Church, both in the Sacraments (which we call Mysteries) and the underlying concepts in dogmatic teachings, the essence of the Trinity being perhaps the greatest of all such Mysteries.

It may be worthwhile to continue to encourage the priests in the Latin Church to provide instruction and feedback to all on the recent liturgical changes, as change is always unsettling at first. It will take some time you absorb it all …

Peace be with you!
And also with you!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Church has been tying itself in knots over the Trinity for as long as we’ve been in existence. The Pope and the Oecumenical Patriarch excommunicated each other over it in 1054.

The Nicene Creed was written in Koine Greek which is a nice vague language. It’s only when we insisted on translating it into Latin - a bureaucratic officious language - that the trouble began. Then when we try translating the Latin into English - the language of people who think they can know everything - we come up against expressions we can’t analyse. Try as we may, there is no satisfactory English translation of “ante omnia saecula”.

Our puny brains are quite incapable of understanding the detail of how the Trinity works - that’s why we call it a mystery. Jesus told us that he came from the Father and that he shares in the Father’s existence which is not bounded or governed by time. That’s good enough for me.

You’ve summed it up rather well, mate!

 

[ProVobis]

In some of the Eastern Rite Churches (mine included), it has also become a big issue in recent years in the context of revision to our Divine Liturgy. In our case, you also have issues in translation through two languages - Greek and Old Church Slavonic. These challenges and inherent sensitivities become very acute in something as dogmatic as the Creed, so the comments in this thread come as no surprise.

I would agree to some extent but the Polish IMO is not much of an improvement over the English.

et ex Patre natum (“który z Ojca jest zrodzony”/“who from the Father is born”)

ante omnia saecula. (“przed wszystkimi wiekami”/“before all ages”)

jozefow.nazwa.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Itemid=180

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I would agree to some extent but the Polish IMO is not much of an improvement over the English.

et ex Patre natum (“który z Ojca jest zrodzony”/“who from the Father is born”)

ante omnia saecula. (“przed wszystkimi wiekami”/“before all ages”)

jozefow.nazwa.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=332&Itemid=180

My Polish is very rusty, but doesn’t zrodzony translate directly to English most commonly as “begotten” or “originated”? Looks like they may have done it better justice in Polish.