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".

I know of many women who take offense at this idea.

As if they can not under stand the difference of when the word "men" is used to speak of mankind and when it actually means the gender man.

They see it as an insult.

For me, it is PC gone wild.

But if it seems insulting to some . . . ?
The problem here is that English is evolving (like every spoken language). "Man" as generic was unexceptionable as recently as 50 years ago. Now some are more sensitive and there are questions about its suitability.
There have been similar problems in translating other expressions. "It is I" sounds archaic and pretentious to some, while "It's me", which everybody actually says, seems ungrammatical to others. You don't need to be a linguist to see where that one is going.
Personally I particularly resent the hijacking of the word "gay" which renders useless a word for a particular carefree attitude for which there is no other exact equivalent. That one is definitely lost.
Ideally a word would stand or fall on its own merits, but if "man" has developed exclusivist connotations, these might have to be taken into account. The argument here seems to be political/cultural rather than lexical.

Words undergo shifts in meaning, and if "the gender man" means "the male sex" you have already accepted the semantic shift principle since "gender" properly belongs to grammar, not biology. See what I mean?

Best wishes for Divine Guidance in this thorny problem.

From what I understand the pew books have been on order for some weeks. I believe we will be working after the fact on any petition.

Eli

Sadly the new translation also changed the prayer at the end of the liturgy; so that the priest no longer sings, ". . . for He is gracious and loves mankind," but sings instead, ". . . for Christ is good and loves us all."

The new version sounds pedestrian, not poetic...like a USA Today version of liturgical prayer.

How sad...

I think it's a done deal. It is obvious that the Liturgical Commission is not listening. I am sure they are aware of the postings on this subject and plan on proceding with the new translation, ignoring all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Call me crazy, but when the new translation come in, I'm out!

Harrison, it is pretty safe to say you are not alone in your thinking or what you intend to do. I believe, based upon what I've been hearing from others, there will be many who will leave. It just appears that those in decision making positions haven't got a grip on reality.

Let's see, Vatican II came around and after upteen years of that nonesense and the loss of many, many souls, the Latins are trying to correct their mistakes. And here we go, trying to reinvent the wheel, that admittedly the Latins say is the wrong road to take....but hey, who cares, we need to "implode" first, then "explode," according to one poster. Who cares if we lose any souls in the process???

And, unfortunately, this isn't the only mistake taking place right now. We truly need to pray for our Hierarchs right now.
JMHO, Cathy

Sounds like another Johnstown in the making!

Fasten your seatbelts and blessed Theodore Romzha pray for us.

Before people decide to "jump ship" to whatever jurisdictional shore happens to be closest to their liking or residence, might I recommend waiting for a bit until the liturgy is fully implemented and then making a prayerful decision in consultation with one's spiritual father?

Yes - I too will miss "the God who loves mankind", but we do not know yet about all of the pending changes. There might be some which are favorable.

I obviously have no inside track here, but I think it sounds rash to plan to leave before anything happens. It may end up being like the Y2K bug - a huge build up of anxiety to a non-event...a social fizzle.

And personally, I feel that the Johnstown schism was far more justifiable than this would be...and even then, it was regrettable.

May God have mercy upon our Metropolia and grant us peace!

Gordo

Dear ebed melech,

You are assuming that we don't already know what changes have been made. Personally, I have been praying for well over a year that this Liturgy doesn't get handed down. I have seen it, and just from the inclusive language stand point, never mind all the Litanies & Antiphons being made "optional," it doesn't do the Byzantine Church justice. Why, oh why, can't we learn from the Latins???

After having been to a church that celebrates the full Ruthenian recension, then participating in the Pitaki Liturgy, trust me, there's a huge difference. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to stand or sit for the IELC taking out the people's prayers. It just doesn't feel right -- the mysticalness will be lost.

I'm sorry but I guess I'm simple that way ...I believe St. Thoephan the Recluse when he says: "Praying does not mean repeating a certain number of words of prayer; praying is reproducing the contents of the prayers within ourselves, so that they flow as if from our own mind and heart."

The Litanies and Antiphons are what makes the Byzantine and Orthodox Churches special, and when you take them out, you stop the flow of prayer that leads you to the mysticalness. I don't think I'm unique in finding it prayerful to take all the Litanies and Antiphons, in fact there's quite a following. We'll just have to wait and see how large that following is.

JMHO, Cathy

I understand the urgency and reason for contacting the congregation for oriental churches. However, I sadly don't think it will do much. Has there been an example in the recent or not so recent past when they have overruled a Rite of the Catholic church. I think that this will be settled internally in our church and sadly it looks like to stone is cast and feminization and liberalism is on it's way like even more than in the past.

Monomakh

Cathy,

I still stand by my recommendation. And despite the fact that many have seen the text with its inclusive language, there may be other aspects of the implementation unknown to many of us. I do know that Professor J. Michael Thompson has spearheaded a tremendous effort to restore many of the lost aspects of Ruthenian plain chant. There may be other requirements for the celeration that eliminate some of the Latinizing tendencies of some of the clergy. That, of course, is my hope, but as I said, I am not sure.

But I agree with you - the elimination of the prayers or the designation of them as "optional" does not help restore our tradition...nor does the use of inclusive language for that matter. But from what I have read here, some aspects of the translation seem to be a more accurate rendering than the one currently in use. As I am not a linguist, I can only trust what has been shared.

And we do need to enter into the fulness of the mystery the worship of God, which, as I understand the Byzantine tradition, precludes any minimalism. Perhaps there will be additional directives attached which help suport this? Again, I do not know...only hope.

But this drive to leave is troublesome and seems imprudent given the fact that nothing has been done and we are not sure of everything that will be done. I think that we should give our hierarchs and clergy the benefit of implementing the liturgy first before making any decisions. To do otherwise seems rash and undiscerning.

As for me, I plan to stay to work for and hope for the best. I still believe in our mission to be an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome.

Many years!

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

this is exactly the main point for me and what I have perceived others to be saying. This is being 'spun' as a 'new translation'. Are there translations that needed to be improved, yes. But there are other areas and items that will make calling us 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome' a stretch. Heck, this lot is afraid to even use the word 'Orthodox'.

If this new Liturgy goes into effect, we will be so far from it, it won't be funny. The Orthodox will look at us, and tell Rome to keep us! Which could be, afterall, the point of the new Liturgy.

But I'll throw this out here....a friend in the Roman Catholic Diocese told me that ordained or near ordained men in the Roman Catholic Church are being discouraged from bi-ritual faculties. Maybe they're giving us back......we can only pray!

An aside in this area of English language in the Liturgy.

This weekend our parish hosted a missionary priest from Liberia. They use English in the Liturgy there. They are one of the nations termed "anglophone" in that they use English in the Liturgy but their own native dialects in day-to-day conversation.

One of the big problems that people in these areas have is with feminist language since it makes no sense to them. They can see the plain political reason that it is used but feel that it does nothing for the furthering of the Faith. It's also interesting that Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has indicated that if the bishops' conferences don't get it right that there is the possibility that Rome will just give us the translation of the latest liturgical books.

It's interesting to note that the translators are hung up on some of the simplest items. For example, the Gloria has been translated into English for centuries and we even have an approved translation from 1964 (one of the first approved prayers rendered into English from Latin for use in the public Liturgy), but we can't seem to get the Gloria translated in 2006--and Heaven forbid we just use the one from 1964!!

The best offering I have in this area, however, is a lament that a priest made to me not long ago about the upcoming generation wanting to go--as he put it--backward. The young seminarians don't want to put up with the political correctness of feminist language, the abuses in the Liturgy, or so many things that the '60s generation holds so dear. Gee, guess the pendulum does swing back in the other direction.

ISTM that you have a similar problem. There are plenty of translations of the Divine Liturgy in English. So why are your bishops reinventing the wheel--starting from scratch?

In Christ,

BOB

That's simple, they want their names published in the Liturgicon...until ages of ages! In simple terminology, pride, one of the seven deadly sins.

And this is simply the judging the motivations of people you have no way of knowing. Which could be Pride, Evny, or even Anger.

But if it isn't one of the seven deadly sins, it sure is very uncharitable.

Cathy and all,

The original post of this thread suggests appealing to the hierarchy. Although anybody who feels moved to appeal to the hierarchy certainly should, I wouldn't hold my breath while/if they come to the rescue. They have left the Latins hanging for 40 years and then persecuted those who stood up to them.

Like you say, Cathy, why don't they learn from the Latins? Below I will give my attempt to answer that question.

I one time heard a definition of insanity to be "to do the same thing and expect different results". I believe it applies in this case. The hierarchy is truly nuts if they think they are going conduct a reform and get different results from those who have tried it before.

But then again, they may not be the idiots we think they are. I am reminded of Dietrich Von Hildebrand saying in his book The Devastated Vineyard about the Novus Ordo "...if one of the devil's in C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters were entrusted with the ruination of the Liturgy, he could not have done a better job." My point is that there may have been inspiration for this new liturgy but the one who sows discontent and division is behind it. This would explain why they don't care.

So there you have it. I think they are either nuts, or inspired by the evil one, or maybe some of both.

Does anybody else have any ideas as to why they have not learned from the Latins?

Cathy,

good post, sometimes the truth hurts.


David B,

I'll give you an example of what uncharitable really is:

Forcing secular feminist inclusive language upon our Church anytime, but especially when we are fighting for survival.

monomakh

Dear Cathy,

The proposed Divine Liturgies book ADDS antiphons and litanies, compared to the 1965 and 1978 people's books, and does not print four optional psalm verses - while including these verses AND the litanies you NEVER saw in these books, in a supplement to come from the Metropolitan Cantor Institute. You will NOT need to experience a shorter liturgy than you do today.

In the 1965 people's book for the Divine Liturgy:

The first antiphon had one verse.
The little litany between the first and second antiphons was MISSING.
The second antiphon had one verse.
The third antiphon was MISSING.
The Typical Psalms and Beatitudes were MISSING.
The Entrance Hymn was OPTIONAL.
(The prokeimenon, Epistle and Alleluia were OPTIONAL.)
The Litany of Supplication was OPTIONAL.
The Litany of the Catechumens and the First and Second Litanies of the Faithful were MISSING.
The Creed contained the Filioque.
The Litany over the Gifts was MISSING.
The Petition for the Pope and bishop after "It is truly proper" was OPTIONAL.
The Litany before the Our Father was OPTIONAL.
The Litany of Thanksgiving was MISSING.
The service ended in the Latin style, with the blessing after the dismissal.


In the 1978 "pew book" that Monsignor Lekvulic prepared, and the Seminary Press published:

The first antiphon had one required verse, and two optional verses.
The little litany between the first and second antiphons was STILL MISSING.
The second antiphon had one required verse, and two optional verses.
The third antiphon was OPTIONAL (and not provided).
The Typical Psalms (abreviated) were present, but the Beatitudes were STILL MISSING.
The Litany of the Catechumens and the First and Second Litanies of the Faithful were STILL MISSING.
The Litany over the Gifts was OPTIONAL (and not provided).
The Creed contained the Filioque.
The Litany before the Our Father was OPTIONAL.
The Litany of Thanksgiving was OPTIONAL, and the "Grant it, O Lord" petitions are MISSING.

In the proposed Divine Liturgies book:

The first antiphon has one required verse.
The little litany between the first and second antiphons is STILL MISSING.
The second antiphon had one required verse.
The third antiphon is REQUIRED (and provided for Sunday and each feast).
The Typical Psalms (abreviated) AND THE BEATITUDES are given; the Beatitudes are required if the Typical Psalms are used.
The Litany of the Catechumens is OPTIONAL, and is followed by the Second Antiphon of the Faithful. (Both were MISSING before.) The First Antiphon of the Faithful is STILL MISSING.
The Litany over the gifts is REQUIRED.
The Creed does NOT contain the Filioque.
The first part of Litany before the Our Father is REQUIRED (with two petitions combined into one). The second part of the Litany before the Our Father is STILL OPTIONAL.
The Litany of Thanksgiving is REQUIRED, and the "Grant it, O Lord" petitions are OPTIONAL (and provided).


So on the upside, compared to the 1978 "pew book" which is still standard in most places:

One antiphon and two litanies, formerly optional, now MUST be said.
The Beatitudes, which were missing, are now required if the Typical Psalms are used.
The Litany of the Catechumens and the Second Litany of the Faithful, which were missing, are now provided and optional.

The downside? Two petitions at the first and second antiphon, formerly optional, are not in the new book. And you know what?

The missing verses, AND the litany between the antiphons, AND the First Litany of the Faithful, will be available in booklet form for the priest and cantor to use when (if) the new Divine Liturgies book is published.

On the other hand, the new book restores the (UNabbreviated!) prostopinije melodies, as well as a host of other traditional melodies, includes nine pages of pre- and post-Communion prayers(with the three preparatory psalms), the services for the days of the week, the common weekday services for saints, and the liturgies for special intentions (general, thanksgiving, for the sick, for the help of the Holy Spirit, for the departed. Oh, and the Panachida and the General Moleben. With music.

I agree - I will miss "who loves mankind", and I don't know why the Oriental Congregation in Rome had a problem with using those words to translate celovikolubce. And I would rather see "us men" in the Creed, but then again, the Greek and Romanian Orthodox omit it to, so we're not breaking new ground there. (Has anyone seen any other "inclusive language", or is that it?)

I would wager money that more than half the parishes in the Pittsburgh eparchy will have to celebrate a LONGER service with the new book than they do now. Will you support them in doing this, or encourage them to disobey, and DEMAND the shorter liturgy they are used to, just as you are prepared to DEMAND a longer liturgy than was congtained in the 1965 and 1978 books - when the new book will require parishioners to memorize precisely four psalm verses in order to have all the same Sunday litanies and antiphons you have today? Will you still help them protest a longer liturgy when you find out that the new liturgy is (if the priest wishes) just as long as you were used to?

If you have questions, send me e-mail (ByzKat@stny.rr.com); I'd be happy to correspond. I'm sorry if this is rough, but you will lose little or no liturgical material with the proposed book, and gain a lot. I wish the translation could be common with the other Eastern Rites, and perhaps slightly more polished - but we HAVE to end this situaton where two pairs of eparchies celebrate with different liturgikons, and the largest one STILL has massively abbreviated services.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
ANOTHER set of kneeling prayers today! YAY!

Oh, by the way - the proposed book includes full indications of the deacon's parts, AND has the correct dialog before the Gospel from the 1942 Liturgikon, which was abbreviated in the 1965 and 1978 people's books, and restored incorrectly in the Passaic / Parma changes some years back. So sometimes problems DO get caught and fixed. - Jeff

God Bless You, Jeff.

There will still be parishes in the Pittsburgh Ruthenian Metropolia that will have truncated liturgies just as there will still be churches without icon screens. The idea of pastoral "exemptions" will continue as they have in the past.

Ungcsertezs

Dear ByzKat,

The problem with "for us and for our salvation" is that it isn't a translation. "For us humans and for our salvation" would be acceptable and inclusive. Why not use that?

By dropping "for us _men" we lose the link with Christ becoming _man_ for us _men_. Christ becoming _man_ or _human_ for us _humans_ would keep it.

I asked Fr. Petras for an answer to this question, but he must not have seen my post. There are accurate inclusive translations of the creed, but we choose an inaccurate inclusive translation. Why?

Several points for consideration:

1. The new books containing the Revised Divine Liturgy will make it impossible for parishes to celebrate the fullness of the Ruthenian recension Divine Liturgy. Both the Liturgicon and the people’s edition take away parts of the official Liturgy. In any event, there are books in use in many parishes that do contain every word of the public part of the Divine Liturgy (editions with and without music). This means the three traditional verses to the three antiphons, the options of the typical psalms (longer versions), the beatitudes, and all the little litanies (and, yes, even the litanies between the antiphons and those of the catechumens and the faithful). No one can legitimately claim that the proposed new books for the people contains more than books already in print and are actively being used by many of our parishes (even if – sadly – the priest does not always celebrate everything in these books).

2. A mandate stating that something “MUST” be done does not mean it will happen. Priests who would not celebrate the full Ruthenian recension Divine Liturgy (1942) are not about to celebrate the proposed Revised Liturgy. Anyone who thinks that these clergy will embrace the proposed lower standard simply because it is mandated is fooling himself. [Mandates directing revised rubrics over the last 25 years in various eparchies have never brought about uniformity and have only caused division. Doing the same thing again will not bring about a different result.]

3. The idea that we need to return to unabbreviated Prostopinije melodies is pastorally unwise. We now have a 40 year tradition of singing the fixed parts of the Divine Liturgy a certain way. Like it or not it is a legitimate and accepted tradition in our Church. Changing it now will be like trying to change the texts and melody to “Silent Night”. Think, for another example, that the Roman Catholic Church changed the text of the “Hail Mary” to switch from “blessed art thou amongst women” (and etc.) to “blessed are you among women” in the late 1960s and the new text has still not been embraced by the faithful. Think also how the text of the “Lord’s Prayer” still employs Elizabethan English, all because the Church respects that people are generally unwilling to change something that they know and love. Like it or not most of our texts and fixed musical settings are now memorized. Changing them does violence to the spiritual lives of the faithful. Only those changes that correct actual errors should be attempted.

4. Of course, the changes to the rubrics and the inclusive language are enough to reject the Revised Liturgy. We see Rome being much more traditional in liturgy. We see Rome instructing the Latin Church in Liturgiam Authenticam to be authentic, not innovative, and to refrain from embracing gender inclusive language. Why our bishops seemingly desire to challenge this wisdom is sad. Why we wish to repeat their mistakes and expect a different result is sad.


It is clear that there is no “sense of the faithful” embracing anything about the Revised Liturgy. Surely there will be an appeal to Rome (hopefully by a coalition of clergy and laity). Does anyone really expect an ever more traditionally oriented Vatican to side with liturgical liberals? None of the arguments for change has even come close to justifying embracing the revisions.

If one wants change (either towards tradition or away from it with the proposed revisions) the only way to accomplish it is in the marketplace of ideas. If you present change that is good people will embrace it freely. Mandating something that is not good will not lead to acceptance. It will only lead to chaos.

That is truly presumptions on your part as well. How do you know how well I know these people or don't? You don't, and I won't comment further on that matter.

Thank you for your "rough" post. You see my pew book from my parish is the Liturgy approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, dated Dec. 10, 1964, and no joke, it includes ALL the verses of the three Antiphons, the litanies between each, the Typical Psalms and the Beautitudes. Additionally, it includes the Litany of the Catechumens. ALL the other items you say are missing from that pew book are in mine.

Is this, as they say, the full Ruthenian Recension? Hmm, I guess I'm lucky. Now you know why I'm upset.

You know anything that is marked optional will not take place in most parishes. So, figure those items gone for good, unless you are lucky enough to visit Fr. Elias in Aliquippa.

Have you ever experienced the Liturgy as I have described? It's truly beautiful and holy. Why it has to be monkeyed with is beyond me, other than to correct any mistakes that are present. We do need something common between the Eparchies, and I would never ask anyone to disobey their Bishop. I keep hearing about pastoral sensitivity with regard to the word Orthodox, and wonder who will pull this card when they get their new books. Who will enforce this Liturgy, when others have not been enforced in years past. It sounds great on paper, but really what consequences will there be if a church choses not to obey?

John, the problem with your post is - it makes sense.

Why can't we just go back and make a pew book with everything in it reflective of the 1965 Liturgikon, fixing the typos and the minor errors as need be? No one has yet stated with convincing reasons why the 1965 Liturgikon and the 1942 Ordo are defective. How about actually implementing the Ordo as Rome intended us to?

Sensus fidelium - now there is a novel idea.

Your fan,
FDD

Dear P-A:
What is a translation? One thing it is not is word-for-word substitution, like Babel fish at its worst. I am interested in the grammar, in Greek and Latin, of this phrase. Does it analyze as formal language? I have previously asked anyone to analyze the "us men" sentence in formal English.

It is, of course, "understandable" - and we have been treated to the idea that understandable utterances from the schoolyard, prisonyard, and even from the mouths of babes are somehow the standard for liturgical language, but I think that idea is dead wrong. So I wonder if the word-for-word rendering, which has been termed "accurate" (apart from natum/born), is just bad Babelfish, rather than a good translation.

I am also intrigued by the interesting slipping between "man" and "men" in this discussion. I don't think that "men" is the plural of "man"-as-genus; we don't talk about "mankinds". Because of these two problems, FWIW, I have advocated previously the translation "for man...". "Man" without an article is, I think, unambiguously (not just "understandably") inclusive; it is, moreover, the word that - following the often quoted paragraph from Lit.Auth. - embraces the same interplay between genus and individual as "anthropos".

I like to point out, btw, that "mankind" does not; it is strictly generic. ISTM that "loves mankind" misses the L.A. mark, as does "loves us all". FWIW, I had advocated "is the Lover of man". I am bemused by the fact that "loves mankind" is accepted by those who also like to bring up the the L.A.

A translation is a text that properly relays the precise wording of the original text and grammatical / personal style (including all overtones and idioms) of original text as is best as possible in the new language. It does not just relay the original thought and bring it into the spirit of the new age but it is transparent to the original, including the original context. Translations should be literal while providing clarity.

A translation is not merely a representation of the original thought given anew in contemporary culture and idiom. That is, however, a good definition of a paraphrase.

In translations of the Scriptures we see two distinct approaches – “essentially literal” and “dynamic”. The “dynamic” is very often a paraphrase, which is one of the reasons that the Vatican will not allow the publication (as a whole Bible) of the Revised Amended Revised New American Bible.

So yes, a translation is pretty much a word for word substitution given as literally as is possible while allowing for clarity of expression and grammatical correctness and readability. The Church is on record as favoring this literal style.

I don’t recall that anyone here has made such a suggestion – I certainly haven’t. Those who insist on gender inclusive language claim as one of their reasons that the general public does not (or is incapable of) understanding traditional language. RC Bishop Trautman of Erie uses this reason as justifying his demand for gender inclusive language. The point of my story in the other (Kliros) thread (and which has been discussed before) is not that the child provides the standard for literary language. He doesn’t. The example demonstrates that the reasoning that many do not (or are incapable of) understanding the received text (so they must be changed) is faulty. Clearly even the child in my example was able to use the received language coherently. Even if were true that some do not understand current literary English the answer is not to change the language but to educate those hearing it.

To re-give an older example, during a previous discussion on this topic I mentioned that Howard Dean, the current chairman of the Democrat Party, used the term “mankind” in a Saturday radio address. Everyone knew what he was talking about and there were no protests about his not using gender neutral language. Indeed, the only reason that some want to ban terms like “mankind” from our language is that they have chosen to be offended. This is mostly confined to liberal teaching establishments where secular feminists hold sway.

I don’t know if anyone has issued a serious study of “lover of man” as an alternative. “Lover of mankind” is more inclusive. It includes not just every man from Adam and Eve to the last man conceived before the Second Coming but also the very nature of man (human nature). “Lover of man” does not seem to carry all of this. “Loves us all” and such wording cannot properly be called translations as they lack the quality and clarity of the original meaning. Such wordings are merely paraphrases. At best they introduce confusion were clarity reigned. At worst they introduce theological inaccuracy.

Don’t be intrigued by the introduction of the discussion of forced gender inclusive language into the discussion. It is only one of numerous valid reasons why the Revised Divine Liturgy must be opposed.

As always, I call for a new printing of the current text. One that corrects only those texts which were inaccurate.

It does not matter how well you know these individuals, you still have no right to make such uncharitable remarks. It is gossip. Even if they told you such, it would still be gossip.

Several posts ago, someone asked "Has there been an example in the recent or not so recent past when [the Oriental Congregation has] overruled a Rite of the Catholic church".

Yes: The Eparchy of Preshov published an unbelievably horrid Liturgicon - I have one on my shelf. It took several years and many insistent protests, but the approval was withdrawn and now the Eparchy of Preshov has published a reasonably respectable Slovak translation of the 1941 Ruthenian Liturgy.

The squeaky wheel gets oil!

Incognitus

Dear David,

You did make your point earlier. We all saw it took note, understood Cathy's frustrations and let it -all- go on a wing and a prayer.

What you do here is essentially badgering. Carrying a fraternal correction out a bit too far, at least far enough so that it, in itself begins to look more self-serving than in the service of the good.

If I didn't know better I'd almost be getting the feeling that you won't rest till she crawls in abject mortification or till the rest of us turn on her to your satisfaction.

That kind of badgering and agitation happens far too often in the kind of public medium. It's as though one shark draws the blood while the rest steadily circle to feed. Is that the kind of thing you want to set up here? I didn't think so. Not a good Carmelite.

So it is best sometimes to just say your piece and then take a breather. Like me, here. :rolleyes:

Eli

Dear Father,

This is quite good news!! The only really nasty situation that I was thinking of after the books had been to the printer was the Canadian Lectionary that all of our progressive US pastors raced out and ordered as soon as it was banned in all places but Canada, and all because to redo the Lectionaries would have been an undue hardship financially.

Of course that was not the purview of the Oriental Congregation so maybe they are wiser and less succeptible to episcopal whining I didn't say that. Really I didn't. It was my evil twin.

Eli

This is a good starting point, but its application to the issue at hand is not so clear: what literal substitution "is possible" given the need for grammatical correctness, readability, and clarity. As I've mentioned before, no one would translate "Comment vous appelez vous?" as "How do you call yourself." On the other hand, if someone were to translate Proust into Western PA, and usher in the flood of memories with a bite into a "gob" - that is a very free paraphrase - albeit a nice, equivalent one. The latter issue is like that which was written about "hyssop"; the former is what is relevant to the "for whom" issue which involves question about grammar, usage, and even clarity.

This suggestion emerged in discussion of an article of Fr. Mankowski (?), and came up again with your mouths of babes anecdote. I've re-read the comments of Bishop Trautman quoted in previous discussion here, as well as others quoted on the net. I cannot find what you are attributing to him. This idea of "can't understand" is a straw man, but a popular one, as many have wasted bandwidth in posting to knock it down. What I've read from the Bishop is not that the constructions in question cannot be understood, but that it can be misunderstood. There is a world of difference.
This issue pertains to the idea clarity in writing - why write ambiguous sentences rather than unambiguous, clear ones? There can be good reasons for opting for an ambiguous construction, but the reasons really ought to be compelling, or the passage re-written.

I chanted "Lover of Man" from OCA texts for the all-night vigil of Pentecost. I think that your discussion of the merits of "mankind" versus "man" is perhaps interesting, but your choice here is at odds with Liturgiam Authenticam; why do you recommend a choice at odds with Rome?

After so many threads, that introduction is not surprising, and I didn't suggest that it was. It's still discouraging, however, to see people interjecting their secular politics into the discussion rather than sticking to objective merits.

I disagree and would suggest that if we are going to the expense of printing new books, let's do as much as we can in correcting texts, and improving, where possible, translations and music.

I would say it is not discouraging at all - I see any semblance of open dialogue, even if in disagreement and encroaching on tangents on this issue, as actually encouraging rather than a fait accompli with hung heads - that is discouraging.

I do agree with your observations here - I also chanted from the OCA texts at the Vigil of Pentecost and it worked very well.
FDD

There are two distinct translation methods for Scripture, and they can be extended to translations of liturgical texts. Both methods attempt to be grammatically correct, readable and clear, so that is not the issue here.

In addition to grammatical correctness, readability and clarity the “Essentially Literal” or “Word for Word” method strives to be faithful to the words of the original text. It lets the translation give the original structure, meaning and context (including the nuance and understanding of idiom and shades of understanding).

The “Dynamic Equivalent” or “Thought for Thought” attempts to represent the original meaning in contemporary understanding. “Dynamic Equivalent” very often means paraphrase. One need not paraphrase in order to provide a faithful translation of the original.

The difference between the two can be summed up with “this is what was said” compared to “this is what they meant”.

An example of translations of 2 Cor 5:7 suffices to demonstrate:

YOUNG’s LITERAL TRANSLATION: For through faith we walk, not through sight.

RSV: For we walk by faith, not by sight.

MESSAGE BIBLE: It’s what we trust in but don’t yet see that keeps us going.

The Message Bible is certainly an extreme example (it purposely uses simplified contemporary language). Yet anyone can easily see that the Message Bible is lacking, as its paraphrase simply does not convey the original context and meaning. It can never pretend to be a serious presentation of the Holy Scriptures.

Fr. Richard Neuhaus in the January 2006 edition of First Things magazine noted something similar about the Revised Amended Revised New American Bible’s translation of part of the Parable of the Prodigal Son: ”[T]he RSV, following the English-language tradition and the Greek text, says ‘he came to himself.’ NAB says ‘he came to his senses.’ No, he didn’t just become more sensible. He came to himself; he returned to who he truly was, the beloved son of the loving father.” The words “he came to himself” carries with it shades of the original context that are easily understood, shades that “he came to his senses” cannot convey.

As I have often noted, no translation can be perfect and most every translation needs balance. But there is a difference in goal that really affects the outcome. The Church is on record as favoring word for word literacy over the dynamic method.

You might try a web search. There is much material on the web about Bishop Trautman’s push for gender neutral language. He routinely claims as one of the major reasons for the need for reforming English is that young women do not understand that the term “man” is inclusive. It matters not whether one believes that young women can’t understand the term “man” when used in a sentence or whether some in today’s society find the term to be easily misunderstood. The answer to the issue (where it exists) is education, not forcibly changing the language.

Yes, I have been advocating clarity all along. No one has advocated otherwise. I’m not sure why you brig this up.

Where clarity exists in the original text it should be given in the translation.

If, however, the original text is ambiguous then the translators should render an ambiguous translation. They should not “read into” the text any meaning not found there or present it in a different context to the original.

Changing a text that is clear (like “lover of mankind”) to something that adopts the secular politics of the feminists (like “loves us all”) does not render the original more clearly. It introduces confusion where there was originally clarity.

In what way is my stated preference at odds with LA?

I noted that I had not seen a serious presentation of the merits of “lover of man” but that I believe that “lover of mankind” is more obviously inclusive of all men than is “lover of man”. Obviously you’ve seen an authoritative discussion of this in a Church source? You’ve moved very quickly from “ISTM” to an accusation that I am at odds with Rome.

Please explain and cite the relevant passage from LA to support that “lover of man” is more accurate than “lover of mankind”. If the Church has spoken to this I would like to learn from it.

Or were you speaking to my main comment, that “loves us all” is theologically inaccurate? Are you suggesting that the Church has stated “loves us all” is theologically more accurate and clearer than “lover of mankind” when defining one of the aspects of Christ?

Either way you need to clarify and provide the relevant documentation for your claims.

I’d especially like to understand your claim with respect to section 30:

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.

Gender inclusive language originated in the secular world, a world that LA teaches us not to embrace. Pretending that there is not a push from secular feminists to influence language and culture is not at all objective. The idea that one must embrace gender neutral language in order to provide grammatical correctness, readability, and clarity is a highly subjective one, one born of secular politics. A suggestion that you, djs, are approaching this discussion objectively while others (especially me) are approaching it subjectively is disingenuous. You are perhaps one of the most subjective posters on the Forum.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

There are some obviously mistakes in the current text of the Liturgy (for example, where a different saint was named in English from that given in the original Slavonic text).

Most everything else is subjective. “One in essence” is commonly agreed to be more accurate than “one in substance”. Other changes are less clearly improvements to the original translation. Oftentimes they seem more like change for the sake of change. Overall the text of the 1964/65 Liturgicon gets high marks for clarity, readability and grammatical correctness (the rubrics are sometimes less clear). I would really like to see the commission present a side by side comparison of the old and revised texts with an explanation of what was wrong with the old and why the new is better.

“Improving translations” and music is totally subjective. Those who advocate change must first demonstrate that such change is good and then demonstrate that it is pastoral. Here the pastoral dimension is paramount.

One person’s subjective idea of perfection is very often the enemy of something long demonstrated to be excellent.

Dear Administrator:

"Man" expresses this interplay - it has both individual and generic meanings. "Mankind" has only the generic meaning, not the individual. ISTM that L.A. thus instructs against "mankind" and for "man".

Of course, my interpretation of what LA says is, like that of the many posting here, is of no real significance. If the translations are, ultimatley, accepted or rejected by Rome, that will prove or disprove their adherence to the instructions of Rome.

I agree absolutely that the phrase "loves us all" at the end of the liturgy is not good grammar. Pronouns in English should follow an antecedent noun, to which they are unambiguously linked.

But the point of clarity extends beyond indefinite antecedents. It includes the amibguity of inclusive/exclusive meanings. Where such ambiguity is used to express the interplay noted above, then of course it should be, as much as possible, retained in a translation; but if this interplay is not intended, then, in the interest of clarity, the ambiguity should be avoided.


Dear FDD:
But FDD, those are clearly not the only alternatives. It is possible, to advocate for good language without these tangential issues, which, as I've said before, are likely to be counterproductive. It has been suggested, previously, that our Bishops are trying to cater to the demands of the secular feminists. I would hazzard a guess that our Bishops don't see themselves this way, and thus will not attach very much credibility to those who make such suggestions. It has also been stated that those involved in promulgating the new books are motivated by pride, and are either insane or in league with the evil one. Not exactly from the pages of "how to ... influence people". The tone of the discussion is discouraging.

Dear Administrator:
I agree with the first and last sentence. I think that those with authority from God are responsible before God for their conclusions as to what changes should or should not be made. The idea that this has to be "demonstrated" is problematic, and has no basis. Any such conclusion is at best a conjecture that can only be demonstrated after the fact. Moreover, there will always be some for who the demonstrations is deemed inadequate. What are the criteria and norms, then, of "demonstrated"?


(ps, I did search on Bishop Trautman, as I noted above; maybe you or others can find the quotes you have in mind.)

djs,

You wrote:

I agree that the Bishops do not see themselves as catering to the demands of the secular feminists. They may be catering to the feminists within the Church or perhaps may, through the advice of the experts, believe that there is a trend towards this type of language. The issue is, what is the source of this trend? Is it from an authentic Catholic source or is it of the world? If it is of the world, ought we to bend the Creed (and other texts) to fit what the world is doing?

I quote John Paul II to the Bishops of the United States (California, Neveda, and Hawaii) on ad limina visit in 1993

"You are presently involved in a revision of some liturgical texts...One of your responsibilities in this regard, as stewards of the grace of the supreme priesthood (cf Lumen Gentium, 26), is to make available exact and appropriate translations of the official liturgical books so that, they may be an instrument and guarantee of a genuine sharing in the mystery of Christ and the Church: Lex orandi, lex credendi.

The arduous task of translation must guard the full doctrinal integrity and, according to the genius of each language, the beauty of the original texts...When the faithful gather to celebrate the work of our redemption, the language of their prayer --- free from from doctrinal ambiguity and idealogical influence -- should foster the dignity and beauty of the celebration itself while faithfully expressing the Church's faith and unity."

The translations which we are about to begin using are in accord with the opinion of the "Reverend Professor Robert Taft, S.J., of the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome (himself an Eastern Catholic) [who] dealt with translation problems with respect to liturgy, language, and ideology. He made known his dislike of “sacral,” “numinous,” or “archaic” liturgical English (as confusing obfuscation with mystery). He endorsed “horizontally” inclusive language, on the grounds that liturgical translations are for “people of today” and should be in an idiom and style most readily comprehensible to them."

See the 1998 article, East Meets English in Touchstone magazine:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r

The arguments made by Fr. Taft are similar to the arguments made by Bishop Trautman. Fr. Taft's expertise [or Bishop Trautman's] expertise, however, does not extend to linguistics. His comments should have carried no more weight than my own. In fact, they should have carried less weight. I think I have more contact with the "people of today" (I'm one of them) than he does. I live in the world. He has lived in academic circles. Fr. Taft's views have been formed predominatantly within the university setting which has been devoted to the use of horizontal inclusive language and the feminist influence. The academic world is not reflective of "the people."

In any event, I do think we, "the people" have a duty to speak our mind that we don't want this fluffed over language in the ancient liturgy. For one thing, the entire matter is bad instruction (lex orandi, lex credendi) for my children (I have nine). One of the reasons for putting "for us men and our salvation" in the Creed was to combat Origen's heresy that even the demons would be saved. It is now ambiguous who "for us" is referring to.

If Rome does nothing, so be it. But as I understand the issue from Rome, they've been told that "we the people" want horizontal inclusive language. I did not formally return to the Church of my mother for these innovations.

My wife, prior to our changing rites, asked Bishop George, if she was going to find the same problems in the Byzantine Church as in the Roman Church. He said, "Let me say that the Roman Bishops are concerned with political, no, social issues; we're interested in having a beautiful liturgy and the social issues will take care of themselves." I believe that he meant that the we the laity would be spiritually fed to do the Catholic social work in the world.

Many of the Ruthenian Churches here in the Western United States are filled with Roman Catholics who have adapted to and come to love the Eastern Church. Many of these, however, have not formally changed rites. One of the concerns here is what will happen as the Latin indult becomes more available. I suspect that when the new translations are put into use, there will be many Latin Catholics who might otherwise continue within our Church, who will certainly not change ritual Churches and who will drift away to the indult Mass. I also suspect that this issue will drive away some vocations. Why become a priest in a Church that is willing to bend to the world on these issues? The places where vocations are flourishing are not bending to the world.

Rome at least ought to hear from me and any others who think that what is about to be done is at best silly and possibly destructive of the faith.

I have only received one response from this site of those who would like to join my letter. Once I have finished it, I will make it available to you for comment so that you know what you would be affixing your name to.

Thank you.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Here is another comment from Fr. Taft as reported in the article in Touchstone:

"On the issue of gender-inclusive language, he [Fr. Taft] ended with the statement that it is because it gives power to the disenfranchised that it is feared and resisted by the clergy."

That comment suggests that the Politics of Prayer (I recommend the book from Ignatius Press) entered into the discussion of the translation very early on. That accusation was made against the clergy who opposed "gender-inclusive language" and suggested that if they resisted the poltically correct langauge, they were the very voices of oppression. And that comment came from the world's foremost expert on the Divine Liturgy.

Im: Of course the "source" is not the Catholic church; the church naturally has nothing to do with determining usage in vernacular English. But the church has decided to use vernacular language in the liturgy. This use does not imply any bending of Creed, but it does mean that there will be challenges in arriving at good translations, and even disagreements. I think we agree that such disagreements need not be taken as acts of bad faith/morals. And I would suggest that it is incumbent upon to avoid such conjectures.

I have linked/quoted this remark of Fr. Taft on previous threads. You may remember that I criticized it. But I've gotten some education on these threads. Btw isn't Fr. Taft the one in Rome who would be signing off on our liturgical text?

I believe that it would be Cardinal Daoud to whom I would send the letter. The issue would be whether Fr. Taft would be involved in any decision to approve or disapprove of the translation.

I don't think we can ignore the fact that Fr. Taft made the issue political from at least 1998. I really do believe that if it weren't at heart a political issue, the current translation, "for us men and our salvation" would not have been tampered with. I really don't know anyone or even heard of anyone (male or female, young or old) who doesn't know that men in that context means, "men, women and children". In any event, there is a disregard for Rome's express wish about proper translations. This is particularly disturbing because it is in the Creed.

In fact one might now conclude, that men did only mean men, since it is now being removed.

Dear LM,

I already sent my letter. I got a response saying that they were taking my argument under advisement.

One can hope.

Karl--er--Pseudo-Athanasius.

Not so fast. Is it he that "made the issue political" or was he just recognizing the politicization of the issue including the backlash?

lm, I suspect many either have or are going to write independently (present company included), seeing the post of Karl above. Don't take a lack of response as a lack of interest - some if not many of us want to forge our own responses in a more private way to make sure the arguments are coherent, charitable, and the words our own.
FDD

This rendering, "for us" is another example of a personal pronoun with no antecedent nearby; the phrase admits problems in clarity because of this poor construction. The case against this translation thus made is stronger than one made on the basis of anti-feminist politics, I think.


Im, the "innovation" here is the liturgy in the vernacular. For some, perhaps, looking through a Latin prism, this idea is an aberration tracable to VCII and solved, for example, by a Latin Mass. But I think people know our history better.

With the use of the vernacular comes problems in translation. But there has been no indication whatsoever of bending faith, dogma, doctrine, morals to the world. There has only been, in this context, the inevitable difficulties in making the best translations using the languages of the world. Why do you, IM, choose to characterize what is happening as "bending to the world"? Are you suggesting that anyone involved in this process wants anything other than a beautiful liturgy?

The issue of the perceived connection between what our church is doing and the post VCII history of the Latins I think needs further comment. Some, who again perhpas view things through a Latin prism, may see this undertaking as following the trends of the Latin church (NO, 15 years later - as one poster remarked).

I think that perspective ignores the history of the Eastern Churches. I link again to the article of Schmeemann, in which just about every aspect of what we are doing - litanies, antiphons, secret prayers, contermporary vernacular - is traced back to the early 1900's in Russia. It is a negation of the history of the Eastern churches to view these developments as derivative from the Latin church.

I like the vernacular in the Byzantine Church. It's just that leaving out anthropoi in the Creed isn't using the vernacular.

Sometimes I'm a little slow. We're changing the words in the Nicean-Contantinoplitan Creed too???

That's news to me as well...

Now we can all suffer with the "grand swallow" as I call it whenever I visit a "liberated" Latin parsh.

"For us (gulp) and our salvation..."

I think I too will be writing my letter to the Congregation.

Gordo

This board should know that the patron saint of Liberalism in Orthodoxy, Alexander Schmemann, is rolled out by the the New Liberal Liturgy's Amen Choir in order to prove that sickness and illness has also infiltrated Orthodoxy as well as the Byzantine Catholic Church of America. Misery loves company.

Here is an article speaking about Schmemann that all should read.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/schmem_men.aspx

monomakh

Monomahk,

So you respond by posting an article by a schismatic, Old Calendarist bishop from a jurisdiction known not only for its dislike of the Catholic Church but the true Orthodox Church. The greatest sickness and illness in Orthodoxy are these pseudo-traditionalist schismatics running about and an article by one of their bishops is not worth reading.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Amen.

I think this statement is largely incorrect.

The “greatest sickness and illness in Orthodoxy” is not the presence of traditionalist Orthodox Christians (of which I don’t consider myself one). The greatest sickness and illness is indifferentism, nominalism, disinterest, the importation of secular values in to the church, etc. Something I am guilty of myself. The traditionalist Orthodox do not represent a manifestation of this sickness, in many ways they represent its cure, though I do not agree at all times with all of their conclusions. I recall reading things like what was said above about the ROCOR.

Regarding Archbishop Chrysostomos, I believe is a bishop in an Old Calendar synod regarded as legitimate by the state church of Greece. Unlike the true extremists, they do not deny the validity of the mysteries of other Orthodox churches.

I read the article posted to and I actually find there are a number of valid and insightful points. I find it well worth reading, as I have the other materials I have from the Center for Traditionalist Orthodox studies that my priest has suggested to me. Either way, agree or disagree with them, you should read and understand what they have to say.

Andrew

Dear Monomakh:

Schmeeman's comments about the ideas within Orthodoxy over the past century are either true or false. To the extent that they are true they make an important point to those who see these reforms as following the dreaded NO Latin model. "Are we going through all that again?" There are good reasons to think that that ain't necessarily so. If you want to challenge Schmeemann seriously, challenge his history not his person.

As to the "Amen choir". :rolleyes: I have made suggestions here to improve the provisional texts. I have made extensive comments to Fr. David in writing. On the use of "for us" I have been consistently negative. How is this "Amen"?

I take issue with aspects of the discussion here. I think that the "sky is falling" vision of what is happening is wildly wrong. I object to the politicization of this discussion. And I object to the bashing of the bishops et al. involved in this work.

If you are referring to my "Amen" :rolleyes: , it was in reference to Father Deacon Lance's comments. I have read and heard things from those who look with disdain on Father Alexander Schmemann, but to me he is one of the great lights of Orthodoxy and liturgical reform in the 20th Century.

I disagree with the "bishop bashing" as well, and do not intend to do anything of the sort in my letter to both the Congregation and to the Metropolia.

I wonder if part of the rationale for the use of "gender-neutral" language is the belief that people will be more inclined to attend our church if we make our worship "inclusive". (I have heard as much from a priest, who already incorporates such language in his liturgical prayers.) Although I do not have any statistics to support this, it seems as though efforts by churches such as the ECUSA at gender-neutrality have not had the desired effect (granted, the issues with churches such as ECUSA are decidedly different on a number of levels). Where traditional forms and language are used, there appears to be greater interest, especially among the "new faithful" generation.

My concern, which I also intend to express in my letters, is also with the jumping-jurisdiction tendencies of those who threaten to leave (or at least infer that they will) for Orthodoxy over this. To me, you stay with your church to work out issues like this through dialogue-especially with people such as yourself, FDD and the Administrator who deeply know our tradition and the difficulties of rendering an accurate translation. I can be in a church and disagree with certain practices without feeling a compulsion to take off for greener pastures. (Abusive situations are another matter.) I would much prefer to be in an ideal parish with ideal texts and ideal music, but then again, isn't that what the New Jerusalem is all about? I hope to get there and find out...

Our Metropolia has known far too much schism in its short history. To my mind, what harm would be created by leaving the so-called "gender-neutral" language out of the new translation? I think the greater risk is to leave the language in and have many of the faithful who take offense leave.

Gordo

How does Schmeemann's article demonstrate that we should leave out men in the Creed?

Gordo, I was responding to Monomakh "Amen Choir" remark, not your Amen, the meaning of which was clear. I appreciate your restraint in these discussions.

Im, Schmeemann said nothing about the Creed. (I did note that he comments on just about every aspect of our discussions, not every aspect.) Bear in mind, however, that the "for us" rendering of the Creed in English is found in EO churches. It certainly can be criticized and may ultimately be rejected by Rome, but it is not alien to Orthodoxy, and cannot, ISTM, be taken to mean that we are having anywhere close to "the same problems in the Byzantine Church as in the Roman Church".

Thanks. Sorry I misunderstood.

Gordo

Eastern Catholic are just as easily influenced by the modern world as Roman Catholics.

Here is some more guidance from LA

LA paragraph 32.

The change in the Creed is at least alien to orthodoxy, for its roots are political and idealogical. How ancient is the change in EO (30 years)?

Here is a quote from APPLYING THE LITURGICAL PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE CODE OF CANONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCHES from the Congregation for Eastern Churches.

Sounds a lot like LA to me.

I can only surmise that the mistranslations have been thought to be required for serious pastoral reasons. But then there is that most fortunate quote from Fr. Taft in 1998:

The Creed, by the way is common to East and West, and so the principles set forth in LA should apply.

Intereparchial Commission of Sacred Liturgy

Chair Bishop Andrew Pataki
Reverend Monsignor Alexis E. Mihalik (Pittsburgh)
Reverend Elias L. Rafaj (Pittsburgh)
Reverend John S. Custer (Passaic)
Very Reverend Michael J. Mondik (Passaic)
Very Reverend Archpriest David M. Petras (Parma)
Very Reverend Michael Hayduk (Parma)
Reverend Robert M. Pipta (Van Nuys)
Rt. Reverend Mitred Archpriest Stephen G. Washko (Van Nuys)


Intereparchial Commission on Sacred Music

Chair Bishop Andrew Pataki
Dr. J. Michael Thompson (Pittsburgh)
Professor Daniel Kavka (Passaic)
Nicolette Boros (Parma)
Reverend Robert M. Pipta (Van Nuys)

Cathy,

Knowing the poster who made this comment gives me confidence to say that his intent was not to say that the new translation was good because it would cause our Church to implode. In fact, his comment about imploding had no relation to the new translation. I believe his thinking goes something like this. We are imploding. Perhaps we ought to see the implosion in a positive light. The theory goes that some of our congregtions have a vision for the future that will make them thrive in the future. Most do not and is obvious in the fact that we have huge buildings serving 15-20 people and often concentrated in a handful of geographical areas. To be specific Cleveland and Pittsburgh. We can still make a choice. Do we continue to watch them die a death that may pull the entire archeparchy down? Or do we assist the smaller congregations to obtain a grander vision for the future? The grander vision includes uniting many congregations into more appropriate temples for Eastern worship and distributing some resources in areas of growth. We can have a controlled implosion which will eventuate in growth (an explosion). Or we can have continued chaos in which there is no vision as we have now in which we impose a liturgy, drain resources from healthy congregations to unhealthy ones, and all die. There would be no explosion because we would cease to exist.

The choice is before us. So far we keep making the wrong one.

CDL