I would like to write a unified letter to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches concerning the removal of "men (in Greek, "anthropos")," in "for us men and our salvation..." in the proposed new translation of the Creed for the Ruthenians. If you would be interested in signing such a letter, please contact me through the email in this website. I would hope to include in this letter, your name, profession (and that includes you mothers who work so hard at home rearing children and any students as well), your parish and I think, if you are rearing children, the number of children in your family. You need not provide this information at this time. My sense is that Rome thinks we, the faithful, want the change. In reality the change has been proposed not so much because the Byzantine Catholic faithful have demanded it, but rather because certain intellectuals live in cirlces (often secular) within academia which have insisted on these banal changes. I would like Rome to know that a number of the faithful are not amenable to the use of so called "inclusive language" but that we would like to remain faithful to Rome as set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam:

"30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word ’adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission."

I ask for your prayerful support.

Thank you.

It might be wise to petition the hierarchs of the Metropolia first, since I am hearing that formal promulgation might be imminent. Perhaps a groundswell of opinion from the laity will further delay implementation,and bring about a re-thinking on the issue. Besides, it is more proper to go to them first, before you "go over their heads".

Dn. Robert

Thank you Deacon. Your comment is well taken. I and several others have written (and I have spoken with one of) the hierarchs.

What response have you gotten?

Andrew

Dear lm,

Strictly speaking this is none of my business, not being byzantine, but ISTM that the whole point of dropping "men" from the translation is precisely to "maintain this property of the language of the original text" since English lacks a difference between the inclusive meaning of "the Hebrew word ’adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo" and the exclusive forms (ish, aner and vir, respectively). Inclusive language is a feature of the original, and accurate translation should follow that IMO, even if it happens to suit certain other agendas.
Sorry to disagree with you, but my interest in this is purely linguistic.
Best wishes for your desire to see a fitting translation in use.

I think linguistically, "men" is in fact just like "anthropos" and "homo" which also have a certain ambiguity to them as well. For example consider the following:

Matthew 19:5 "Therefore shall an anthropos leave his father and mother, and hold fast to his wife." (also in Ephesians 5:31)
Matthew 19:10 "If such is the case of an anthropos with his wife, it is better not to marry."
I Corinthians 7:1 "It is good for an anthropos not to touch a woman."

True enough, and after all "homo" replaced "vir" in all the modern neo-latin (Romance) languages.

Isn't it great, BTW that Pilate introduced our Lord as "Ecce homo" not "vir". The inclusive word, like "man" in "Son of Man". I think English is the poorer for the loss of the difference.

Wonderful observation about what Pilate said. But what is the loss of difference in English of which you speak?

I know that there are people who have contacted our bishops but the bishops seem to be snubbing people's misgivings about the text and are intent on following their course of imposing this defective text (and other parts of the Liturgy) on all the clergy and faithful.

Rilian,

The response has been less than encouraging.

I still think an appeal to the Oriental Congregation might be our only recourse.

I just meant a simple noun for "man woman or child" like anthropos in Greek which would not cause possible confusion with "male". However, we're stuck with English the way it is.

According to the 1971 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1982 reprint), the most authoritative dictionary of the English language, the word, "man," means a human being irrespective of sex or age. It is, like anthropos and homo, somewhat ambiguous in meaning and hence a perfect translation for these terms.

lm said: <<I just meant a simple noun for "man woman or child" like anthropos in Greek which would not cause possible confusion with "male".>>

What real confusion is there? I have never thought that the phrase "for us men" meant only males. Are males the only one's who should watch out when a "man"-eating tiger approaches?

Sorry, the quote I referred to was not from lm but from our friend in Christ "Highlander".