"born of the Father before all ages"

[thomasf]

I looked but didn’t see anything about this change in the creed.

“born of the Father before all ages”

I don’t get this. Doesn’t sound like it matches up with what we’ve always been taught and what we now say with the ‘consubstantial with the Father’ stuff. Sounds like what we’re saying is God the Father created Jesus, not that He is one with Jesus as part of the Trinity.

Anyone have something reassuring to say or explain about this?

 

[WetCatechumen]

I looked but didn’t see anything about this change in the creed.

“born of the Father before all ages”

I don’t get this. Doesn’t sound like it matches up with what we’ve always been taught and what we now say with the ‘consubstantial with the Father’ stuff. Sounds like what we’re saying is God the Father created Jesus, not that He is one with Jesus as part of the Trinity.

Anyone have something reassuring to say or explain about this?

“Ages” refers to the time scale of the world. “Before all ages” means, properly, before time began. Hence, He was born outside of time - therefore, He has always existed with the Father, even though He was born of the Father.

 

[thomasf]

“Ages” refers to the time scale of the world. “Before all ages” means, properly, before time began. Hence, He was born outside of time - therefore, He has always existed with the Father, even though He was born of the Father.

“Born of” suggests creation. Jesus is supposed to be part of the Trinity, one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Not created by the Father.

IMO that wording goes against what we believe.

 

[WetCatechumen]

“Born of” suggests creation. Jesus is supposed to be part of the Trinity, one God with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Not created by the Father.

IMO that wording goes against what we believe.

You’re making the same mistake as Arius, but then reacting against it in order to preserve your orthodoxy, which leads right into Sabellianism.

The scriptures say, in Psalm 110(109):3,

“In splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te.”

“In the splendor of the holies from the womb before the dawn I have begotten thee.”

You are thinking, “This says that God the Son was born, which means there was a time when he did not exist. Therefore, it means he was created.”

The problem is with the logical jump - being born does not necessarily imply creation.

Christ was born of the Father - he comes from him. In fact, in the Greek, it’s aorist tense, not past tense (like in Latin) - Christ is begotten of the Father, but there’s no time specified. It’s just something that happened, and we can’t explain it - but even though he was born of the Father, there was never a time when he was not.

 

[japhy]

First, consider that we already say of the Son that He is the “only-begotten of the Father” in the Mass. We say this in the Gloria and the Creed; we also say that He is “begotten, not made” – that is, He was not created.

Let’s examine the text in Greek, Latin, and the English translations (previous and current) of the particular line in the Creed you’re asking about:
Greek: τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων
(Son of the Father born before all the ages)

Latin: ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula
(Of the Father born before all ages)

English (1973): eternally begotten of the Father

English (2011): born of the Father before all ages
Simply put, the new English means the same as the old English: the Son was eternally begotten of the Father, He was begotten of the Father from all eternity. The new wording is just closer to the Latin (and to many other languages’ translations of the Creed). The particular wording of the statements in the Creed is very important, because Creeds were formulated to express the faith of the Church accurately. This is probably why the new translation of the Creed sticks so very close to the Latin, even though “eternally begotten of the Father” means the same thing as “born of the Father before all ages”.

As for what “born of the Father before all ages” means…

Because the Father begat the Son, that means the Son is of the same nature and substance as the Father: the Son is divine like the Father is divine, and because the Son is divine and the nature of divinity is eternal, the Father begat the Son eternally. If the Father had created the Son, the Son would not – could not – be divine, could not be God, because God is uncreated and eternal, and created things have an origin in time. We really cannot fathom this first amazing mystery of the Trinity: the Father begat the Son eternally, so there was no time (since time did not even exist yet) before the Father begat the Son: the Father was never without the Son. This is what we mean when we say “born of the Father before all ages,” or, as we used to say, “eternally begotten of the Father.”

We, on the other hand, were not begotten by God, we were created by God. God begets eternally, He creates temporally. We are not His begotten children, we are His created and adopted children. Jesus is the Son of God by nature and we are sons and daughters of God by grace. This is why we confess Jesus as the only begotten Son of God.

 

[opus101]

First, consider that we already say of the Son that He is the “only-begotten of the Father” in the Mass. We say this in the Gloria and the Creed; we also say that He is “begotten, not made” – that is, He was not created./QUOTE]

Excellent points!

 

[DebChris]

Those who attended the Deepening the Faith session on the new liturgy in my parish were each given a supplement to The Sunday Liturgy that gives a line by line explanation of the changes.
“I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages.”
The meaning: Jesus is the Son of God the Father as an intentional (begotten) part of the salvation plan. And yet he has existed before all time.

 

[ProVobis]

“Ages” refers to the time scale of the world. “Before all ages” means, properly, before time began. Hence, He was born outside of time - therefore, He has always existed with the Father, even though He was born of the Father.

Exactly. “Ante omnia saecula” as a Christianized Latin expression is outside of time as we know it. We use “per omnia saecula seculorum” to express this infinity as well, but in a stronger sense.

 

[ProVobis]

“Born of” suggests creation.

But you need to take the whole phrase into account. The Latin and Greek nuance is a little different from the English which attempts to analyze every word by itself. Always a danger in literal translations.

 

[Usagi]

That the Son is begotten (or “born”) of the Father is perfectly orthodox, and appears in other places in the Creed. It did before the new translation, too.

I actually liked “eternally begotten,” the previous version, because it conveys the idea that the begetting is not a temporal thing at all, but an eternal element of the relationship between Father and Son. The new translation more accurately reflects the Latin, though, so it can hardly represent a step away from orthodoxy.

Look up the Athanasian Creed, the most complete of the ancient descriptions of the Trinity. The Nicene Creed takes the general structure of the Apostles’ Creed but adds verbiage on the relations between the Persons. The Athanasian Creed vastly expands the detail on the Trinity and the Incarnation, the two key doctrines of Christianity that were being defined, refined, and challenged in those days.

"The Father is God, neither created nor begotten nor proceeding.
"The Son is God, neither created nor proceeding, but begotten.
“The Holy Spirit is God, neither created nor begotten, but proceeding.”

Or something like that.

Usagi

 

[thomasf]

As for what “born of the Father before all ages” means…

Because the Father begat the Son, that means the Son is of the same nature and substance as the Father: the Son is divine like the Father is divine, and because the Son is divine and the nature of divinity is eternal, the Father begat the Son eternally. If the Father had created the Son, the Son would not – could not – be divine, could not be God, because God is uncreated and eternal, and created things have an origin in time. We really cannot fathom this first amazing mystery of the Trinity: the Father begat the Son eternally, so there was no time (since time did not even exist yet) before the Father begat the Son: the Father was never without the Son. This is what we mean when we say “born of the Father before all ages,” or, as we used to say, “eternally begotten of the Father.”

.

This is a very good explanation. Thank you.

I actually liked “eternally begotten,” the previous version, because it conveys the idea that the begetting is not a temporal thing at all, but an eternal element of the relationship between Father and Son.

Usagi

I agree. For some reason I can get with that prior wording, but not so much the new stuff. It just doesn’t look right.

And not to start a big fight about it, because there’s nothing I can do about it, but it’s another reason why I’m not hip to the ‘new’ translation. If it means the same, what does it matter if it’s ‘closer to the latin’?

Here’s the other thing that bothers me: If we don’t understand it, how did someone come up with it without their brains exploding, like mine wants to do right now.

 

[ProVobis]

And not to start a big fight about it, because there’s nothing I can do about it, but it’s another reason why I’m not hip to the ‘new’ translation. If it means the same, what does it matter if it’s ‘closer to the latin’?

Here’s the other thing that bothers me: If we don’t understand it, how did someone come up with it without their brains exploding, like mine wants to do right now.

Fair points. But why translate at all, for that matter? There were just as many questions about this great mystery before the Mass was translated into English. Japhy, IMO, did a pretty good job of explaining. Obviously though, he did it with many more words than a simple translation.

 

[Usagi]

I look at it this way:

Scripture (and the oral teaching that came before and existed alongside Scripture) gives us the “raw data.” But Scripture, for the most part, isn’t laid out like a catechism or a work of systematic theology. Questions arise about the proper way to fit together data that are scattered across multiple works written by different authors to different audiences.

One of the responsibilities of the Magisterium has always been to sift the data, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and develop doctrines that faithfully take all the data into account, even seemingly contradictory data. Heresy commonly arises when an individual or small group latches on to only part of the data and builds a whole theology around it, ignoring or downplaying data that differ.

Especially in the early centuries, the Church’s common response to controversial questions was to convene a council of as many of the world’s bishops as possible and work out the precise boundaries of acceptable teaching. In the course of accounting for all the “raw data” and rejecting interpretations that didn’t fit, the councils would often employ the terminology of Greek philosophy (the best technical language they had for working with ideas and concepts) to give a very precise definition of the true teaching. It’s unlikely that any of the Apostles ever used terms like “substance” and “person” when preaching about God and Jesus, but the goal of using that terminology was to restate the same Apostolic teaching in an unmistakably clear way, so that everyone would know exactly what they were agreeing or disagreeing with, and others could tell the orthodox teachers from the heretical ones by whether they could accept the council’s wording.

Unfortunately, “clear” as in “very precisely stated in technical terms” does not always equal “clear” as in “easy to understand,” especially for those not familiar with the technical terminology and concepts.

The first great question to occupy the Church (and generate heresies) was a very important one: Who, and what, is Jesus?

The “raw data” immediately presents apparent contradictions. Jesus is presented as distinct from God, His Father, yet in some places he claims divine attributes and even the divine Name. From their daily practice, Christians would know that Jesus is truly worshipped, yet the bedrock truth of Judaism, which they were in no way prepared to abandon, is that there is only one true God worthy of worship. Further, if we equate Jesus with God in some sense, how do we account for His obvious human attributes? How can God be born, grow up, suffer fatigue, grief, and terrible pain, and finally die? Yet Jesus is clearly more than just a man, and (as noted before) seems to claim a far closer kinship with God than Israel’s earlier prophets and holy men enjoyed.

Taking any one of the contrasting data points and running with it would produce a coherent theology, but one that ignored some aspect of the apostolic teaching. Perhaps Jesus was the first and greatest of all creatures, far more than human but still no threat to monotheism. Perhaps he was the true God, finally revealing himself through the deceptions of the evil creator “God” of the Old Testament. Perhaps he was a man specially “adopted” by God as His Son in a special sense, just as Paul taught we all would one day be. Perhaps he was God wearing the mere appearance of a human, like the angels mentioned in Scripture, and thus He only seemed to suffer and die. Perhaps God somehow “attached” Himself to the human Jesus, but only in such a tenuous way that His Godhood could not be said to be involved in such ungodlike activities as birth and death.

[continued in next post]

 

[Usagi]

All these ideas and more were believed at one time or another by various groups in various places. Bart Ehrman is not completely wrong when he speaks of multiple competing “Christianities” in the early centuries. We know that; the New Testament itself mentions believers who have gone astray chasing other gospels and other Christs. The difference is that, like the guys who wrote that, we don’t see it as a matter of many equally legitimate variants of which our version just happened to win. We claim there was a real apostolic teaching, and one universal or “catholic” collection of believers (named in contrast to the sects whose teachings could easily be traced to a merely local source) that carried on and refined that teaching in response to the flood of misunderstandings and skewed readings of the data.

In the first few ecumenical councils,the Church tackled the issues of the relationship between God the Father and Jesus as the Son (with the Holy Spirit soon included as well) and the relationship of divine and human within Jesus. In both cases they ultimately chose to employ the Greek philosophical terms ousia and hypostasis, which went into Latin as substantia and persona, and from there (much, much later) into English as “substance” and “person.” Unfortunately, the technical terms don’t mean quite the same thing as the ordinary modern words “substance” and “person,” so we can get into trouble.

The best way I’ve seen it explained (which I’m sure is still just an approximation, but one that works for me) is that “substance” refers to what something is, while “person” refers to who someone is. More specifically, a person is a “who” that one can have a relationship with, and that can stand in a particular relationship with other persons.

God is one substance in three persons – one “what,” but three “whos.” That was the truly great revelation of the Trinity. It’s not just that God takes on different personae or faces when dealing with the mortal world – another popular but heretical view – but that there are actually eternal relationships “inside” God. God is One, in being and mind and will, but God is never singular. Gives a whole new meaning to “God is love,” especially under the common Western interpretation that the Son is the Father’s beloved self-image and the Spirit is the love that flows between Them. God is a relationship, eternally, even without considering His creatures such as ourselves.

“Begetting” and “procession” (or “spiration”) are the terms we use for the relationships between the persons. Aside from the Incarnation, which adds its own wrinkle, those relationships are the only distinction between Father, Son, and Spirit. They are one being with one mind and one will. They are equal (and infinite) in power and knowledge. They are omnipresent and eternal, so there is no separating them by space or time the way we would tell apart different human persons. The only distinguishing point is that the Son and the Spirit “come from” the Father in some way that is real, but does not make them temporally later or lesser in being. (The lover/beloved/love analogy mentioned above is one way of trying to illustrate how that could work.) Since we’ve been given the names “Father” and “Son” for the first two Persons, we use “begetting” to describe the way in which the Father generates the Son. Since the third Person is named as God’s Spirit or breath, we presume that He is generated by a means analogous to blowing one’s breath into the world, and call that “procession” or “spiration.” Of course, we have no idea how well these analogies really work, but we do what we can with the revelation we have.

In contrast to God, who includes multiple “whos” within one “what,” the orthodox resolution to the mystery of divinity and humanity within Jesus proposes that He is one “who” with multiple “whats.” There’s only one person there to have a relationship with – the same person identified above as the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. However, in the incarnation, that purely divine person assumed a second, human nature – a second “what.” The human and divine natures don’t mix or combine, but remain distinct even though they will never again be separated. Thus we say that Jesus is true God and true Man, not some unholy (holy?) amalgam of the two; not God in a human suit; and not a man merely adopted as God’s Son. (Jesus in His human nature did finally, after His ascension, get to assume all of the power and glory He already possessed in His divine nature, handily explaining Paul’s comments about Jesus being rewarded with, or raised up to, His position at the Father’s right hand.) Conversely, we can rightly say that God the Son had a human mother and suffered death on the cross, even though He could only do those things via His human nature, because there’s still only one person in there.

That really rambled and got off-topic. I hope it helped some, though.*

Usagi

 

[japhy]

If it means the same, what does it matter if it’s ‘closer to the latin’?

That’s a fair question. I can think of a few answers:

1. The old translation may have meant the same thing, but in choosing different words it may have reduced the potential meanings of the original to fewer possible meanings. For example, in translating “Et cum spiritu tuo” as “And also with you”, the old translation successfully captured the reciprocal nature of our response to the priest’s greeting (one meaning) but failed to capture the distinct and traditional use of the word “spirit” in responding to the priest (which opens the door to other meanings in the response). Now, to be honest, any translation is going to have that problem, insofar as it cannot capture with a single word or phrase all the nuances of the original language’s word or phrase. But more direct translations tend to be more successful at retaining more of the meanings than paraphrased or dynamic translations.
2. The new translation (re)introduces the Latin and scriptural imagery of our Roman Rite. Instead of merely talking about receiving Jesus, we talk about Him “entering under our roof”. Instead of merely asking the Father to “let His Spirit come upon these gifts”, we ask that the Spirit descend upon them “like the dewfall” (although that’s not the most exact translation of the Latin, which is “the dew of your Spirit”).

Here’s the other thing that bothers me: If we don’t understand it, how did someone come up with it without their brains exploding, like mine wants to do right now.

Just because we don’t understand something past a particular point does not mean someone before us couldn’t understand it more deeply. And just because we cannot understand the whole of some theological concept (e.g. the Trinity) that does not mean that we cannot express what we do know as fully and carefully as we can.

 

[thomasf]

Honestly, I understood it better in the other translation.

 

[Contarini]

I looked but didn’t see anything about this change in the creed.

“born of the Father before all ages”

I don’t get this. Doesn’t sound like it matches up with what we’ve always been taught and what we now say with the ‘consubstantial with the Father’ stuff. Sounds like what we’re saying is God the Father created Jesus, not that He is one with Jesus as part of the Trinity.

Anyone have something reassuring to say or explain about this?

“Before all ages” means “eternally.” It’s a more literal and evocative translation, and I like it, but it does lend itself to misinterpretation (reversing the general trend in the new translation toward theological precision, as well as toward Latinisms–“eternally” is more Latinate than “before all ages,” though it’s a “Latinism” not found in the Latin!).

I find the use of “born” to be particularly unfortunate. “Begotten” is the more traditional translation, and I think it’s better on all counts. I’m not sure why they changed this one.

Edwin

 

[japhy]

I find the use of “born” to be particularly unfortunate. “Begotten” is the more traditional translation, and I think it’s better on all counts. I’m not sure why they changed this one.

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

The Greek uses two different words as well:

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, (monogene = “only-begotten”)
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων (gennethesta = “born”)

You can read a Greek perspective on these two terms here.

It’s important to remember, though, that the Latin text translated those two Greek words differently, despite whatever nuances may exist in the Greek. This is the price of translation, of course, as I mentioned above. The translations from the Latin, then, reflect the Latin word choice. Here are some Roman Rite translations of this line of the Creed from around the world:

Catalan: nascut del Pare abans de tots els segles …
Croatian: Rođenog od Oca prije svih vjekova …
Czech: zrodil z Otce přede všemi věky …
Dutch: geboren uit de Vader voor alle eeuwen …
French: né du Père devant tous les siècles …
German: aus dem Vater geboren vor aller Zeit …
Italian: nato dal Padre prima di tutti i secoli …
Norwegian: født av Faderen fra evighet …
Polish: z Ojca jest zrodzony przed wszystkimi wiekami …
Portuguese: nascido do Pai antes de todos os séculos …
Romanian: care din Tatăl s-a născut mai înainte de toţi vecii …
Slovenian: ki je iz Oceta rojen pred vsemi veki …
Spanish: nacido del Padre antes de todos los siglos …
Swedish: född av Fadern före all tid …

 

[ProVobis]

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

The Greek uses two different words as well:

Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν,
τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, (monogene = “only-begotten”)
τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων (gennethesta = “born”)

You can read a Greek perspective on these two terms here.

It’s important to remember, though, that the Latin text translated those two Greek words differently, despite whatever nuances may exist in the Greek. This is the price of translation, of course, as I mentioned above. The translations from the Latin, then, reflect the Latin word choice. Here are some Roman Rite translations of this line of the Creed from around the world:

Catalan: nascut del Pare abans de tots els segles …
Croatian: Rođenog od Oca prije svih vjekova …
Czech: zrodil z Otce přede všemi věky …
Dutch: geboren uit de Vader voor alle eeuwen …
French: né du Père devant tous les siècles …
German: aus dem Vater geboren vor aller Zeit …
Italian: nato dal Padre prima di tutti i secoli …
Norwegian: født av Faderen fra evighet …
Polish: z Ojca jest zrodzony przed wszystkimi wiekami …
Portuguese: nascido do Pai antes de todos os séculos …
Romanian: care din Tatăl s-a născut mai înainte de toţi vecii …
Slovenian: ki je iz Oceta rojen pred vsemi veki …
Spanish: nacido del Padre antes de todos los siglos …
Swedish: född av Fadern före all tid …

Good work.

The Polish is “from the Father is born before all ages,” although the “z” is flexible and can be “with/off/together.”

Seems the Croatian has almost the same connotation.

 

[SonCatcher]

Being born is not the beginning of one’s life. It is the revelation of life. A child who is born today does not start his life today. Rather, he started his life nine months ago, in the secret of his mother’s womb. Neither of his human parents knew anything of him at all for weeks afterward. They may or may not have shared this information with others. It is often possible in many cases (though definitely not for my petite wife ) to dress and act to hide the pregnancy even until the mother goes into labor. Once the child is born, however, there is no hiding him.

Jesus, being “born of the Father” in Eternity did not find himself created in eternity. Rather, he was revealed in Eternity. There was never any hiding of the Son. We find signs of him scattered throughout the Old Testament. We just didn’t know how to recognize him until his incarnation.