Seems to me there's a question left on the table concerning the use of inclusive language in liturgies. I'm posting this to put it back out in plain sight for those who want to continue that discussion.

I had asserted that there is nothing inherently wrong with inclusive language but that the danger was primarily in how any choice of language serves lex orandi lex credendi most accurately, most faithfully.

Lex , of course, refers to laws and statutes, precepts and principles. I want to state clearly here that being bound by a law, statute, precept or principle is also not inherently an evil thing.

Being bound means being constrained in some manner, for good or for ill. In my usage of the term, it does not mean being hamstrung, crippled, forced against one's will to do evil, etc.

The Church intends her laws to protect her people and leave room for the movement of the Spirit. That statement is made quite clearly in the promulgation of the western Code. There are always legitimate exceptions to the law that can be taken legitimately.

It is always in that way that I speak of being bound by the law. Too often, in the United States at least, the laws of the Church have been observed in the breach. Loose bindings one might say. It has done us no good.

So lex orandi lex credendi is a binding principle of all Catholic liturgy and should not be habitually observed in the breach, or readily and easily observed in the breach, or ignored totally when a favored language form comes into contest with the principle.

Father David has spoken of horizontal inclusive language as the kind of inclusive language used in this current translation. So one might guess that there is a form of inclusive language that is vertical. One might also guess that horizontal inclusive language refers to humanity, while vertical inclusive language refers to divinity.

I think the presumption is that if inclusive language is used horizontally then there can be no fault in it. I would suggest that in speaking of our relationship to the divine that there is plenty of room for error, given man's proclivity and propensity for creating God in man's own preferred image.

Just an idle thought or two.

Eli

Here is an article on the issue by a Jesuit who taught Hebrew at the Pontifical Institute in Rome.

http://www.wf-f.org/MankoSilk.html

if the Pope does not want it in the liturgy then that should be the end of it. When the 'right people' in the "Congo" in Rome realise what has been going on with this liturgy text, there will be hell to play. One can't have no inclusive language for one part of the Church and allow it in another. The pro inclusives will be quiet right in pointing out the inconsistency.

The Holy See will have a chance to look at this issue. In the new translation of the Creed for the Roman Rite, presented by the American Bishops for approval to the Holy See, the Creed has been changed to: "for us and for our salvation," instead of "for us men and for our salvation."

The American Roman Bishops appear to have the same arguments as our own Bishops. The deletion of men was objected to by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and two others and they proposed an amendment to include "men" in the Creed. The principle of ICEL was: "The Committee declines to accept the amendment, suggesting that the avoidance of "men" as a universal non-gendered inclusive, when possible, is a reasonable principle when translating into English as spoken in the United States."

By all means, read the article to which lm has referred us; it's excellent - and that wonderful tag line "timeo peritos, et dona ferentest" is unforgettable!

Fr Serge

Im you forget this book is being solds now. Parishes are being contacted for number of book required. Time is not on the Byzantine people's side. Anyone know the postal address of Pope Benedict's housekeeper?

Not all eparchies have begun canvassing for purchase apparently. Just Passaic and Parma if messages here are correct. If that is the case, it sort of makes me wonder if there is a plan for a gradual distribution nationwide, with the other eparchies, Van Nuys and Pittsburgh archeparchy, coming along later on. Guess we'll know soon enough.

You're right they're being contacted, but how many have actually sent in their order? I for one would not buy anything sight unseen, would you? Hopefully, that's what's been returned on their order forms...when we can see the "product," we'll order the goods.

JMHO,
Cathy

Cathy, the pastors don't have the discretion NOT to buy the books. I know of two cases where the reversion money from the DDA campaigns was debited for the amount before being returned to the parish. Other pastors are under *orders* to send the money. Period.

I'm fully aware of that, however the pastors don't have to make it easy. That would certainly make a statement. Albeit a little late.

I can tell YOU have never dealt with a Chancery Office, Cathy.

Oh, you might be surprised, Starokatolyk! Around here, you never know who you may strike up a conversation with!!!

I think the real issue here is not who works in a chancery or not, but the relationship of bishop to priest and priest to bishop and canon law exercised to the letter, when it suits.

Eli

***SIGH***

Just when I thought my life was going to become a tad easier...............

Brother Ed

Dear All,
I have hesitated to post in this whole topic area, being a Roman, but references to Liturgiam Authenticam (2001) etc have been made which show a lack of familiarity with what the document actually says.
The Congregation has a good grasp of the principles behind translation as a discipline. They further specify certain features proper to Liturgical translation. Here's what they say about "inclusive language".
This indicates that inclusive language is not to be regarded as bad in itself, merely that it is a low priority, and should not override other considerations. I might add that English is poorly provided with words denoting both genders and the problem is not one of changing such a usage, but of trying to provide one where it is felt to be lacking. However, the cure can be worse than the "fault" as with trying to avoid a "split infinitive" as in A below.

On the use of "man"
From "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal
Rome, 16 March 2002"
This treatment is very thorough and shows that the problem has been considered at length, and there are sound theological reasons for retaining "man". In other words, the slight gain in inclusivity from replacing "man" would be more than offset by the multiple loss in connotation and reference.

However, you are not going to like the next bit:
That is an official instruction to retain the Latin version of the Creed as against the Greek, even though in another thread elsewhere (East & West, I think) it seemed there had been an agreement that the Greek was to be definitive.

Finally, the Congregation mainly criticised the translators for re-writing the texts instead of rendering the originals. (Contrary to the impression given by some here, literal word-for-word renderings are not asked for apart from some very specific cases involving points of theology.) Some of the translators' version seems to go beyond paraphrase and into the realm of editing. This of course was not the province of those charged with translating the Latin normative text into English.

It is beyond my knowledge and abilities to say whether the translators of the DL are following the principles of translation or are editing, but those who wish to refer to the documents which concern the Latin Rite will now see the main points.

God bless the work.