Can anyone provide a short digest (list) of what is wrong with this new "translation." What parts are omitted, words changed, etc...what has been retained?

Can anyone here supply this?

1. The Creed should have "for us men and for our salvation" rather than "for us and for our salvation." While the theological intent may be the same, the expression "for us and" is ambiguous, and gives the _appearance_ that this is ideological rather than a translation issue.

2. "Lover of Mankind" should have been translated in a way that includes both the personal and collective, as the Greek and Slavonic do - and "Lover of us all" does that, but has the same problem as #1. It is less clear, and is open to the change of ideological bias. (NOTE: knowing some of the translators, I honestly think they viewed this as a translation issue, and had no particular "agenda." But the RESULT is unfortunate.) Other possibilities include "Lover of man" (which sounds quite abrupt in English), "Lover of men" (I have a homosexual debating-opponent who would LOVE to see our Lord with that title!), "Man-befriending God" (which could be confused with "Man, befriending God"). Given all of these, it might have been best to retain "Lover of Mankind", with the understanding that ist is not a very good translation.

3. The address "Brothers and sisters" is used before epistle readings that have no other formal address, rather than "Brethren" or "Brothers". I have no particular problem with this either way, since it is in essence an ecclesiastical gloss when reading, but some do.

To my knowledge, these are the only "inclusive language" issues in the new translation. Certainly, the tone of the language in the new translation is not particularly "dumbed down", nor are terms like "He", "His", "Father" or "Son" omitted. The actual fraction of the text that changed is not that large, and no prayers were re-written as happened in the Roman Rite.

4. I have heard some complaints about language that was "too Orthodox" ("essense", "mercy, peace" rather than "the offering of peace", "Theotokos"), but I certainly have no problem with it.

5. My only other issue with the translation is the use of lower-case letters for pronominal forms referring to deity ("he" rather than "He", etc.) Admittedly, this is an orthographic preference, but I did prefer the older style.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. Since the title seems to have been more general, I will add the following non-translation issues (all of which are my own opinions, but many seem to share them):

6. It would have been better to include the optional antiphon verses and litanies.

7. It would have been better to allow and perhaps recommend that the Anaphora (eucharistic prayer) be taken aloud, while permitting it to be said silently as was formerly the case.

8. Where local practice (e.g. with the Royal Doors) conflicted with the Ordo and the 1996 Liturgical Instruction, it would have been better to instruct priests to follow the norms of the official books, rather than standardizing on local custom. Doing the latter makes it harder in the future to correct more obvious problems (such as the use of pre-cut particles), since priests can simply claim privilege of local custom.

9. While it is good that the new books completely omit instructions to kneel and indicate where the proper posture is to stand, it would have been better to indicate that standing is proper _on Sundays and days of Pascha_, preserving the ancient distinction.

The last is not a problem, but an opportunity missed due to timing:

10. The Psalms were standardized on the Grail Psalter before the new translation of the Septuagint from the Holy Myrrhbearers was completed; had that translation been available five years earlier, and if permission to use it could have been obtained, this VERY clear translation might have been a better alternative to the Grail (which is usable, and certainly better than some I have heard in church, but not ideal).

Father Keleher has written a whole book on the problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy. Go to this link and order it. Get copies for your parish bookstore.

Jeff routinely understates the problems with the Revised Liturgy because he had a hand in creating the music.

It is time for the people to act to save this Church from this non-orthodox and feminist liturgy. Write letters today!

Dear DJ,

For the record, I had nothing to do with the music for the Divine Liturgy until it had already been completed by the Music Commission and was being taught at the Metropolitan Cantor School; nor was I one of the cantors who received draft copies in the 1990's.

I did ask several times over the past year, and no one answered: ARE there any other "inclusive language" translation issues besides the two I mentioned above?

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

Draft copies were not distributed to cantors for review in the 1990s. Quit trying to spin that. Mr. Thompson did not "move in" to the seminary and chief liturgical musician positions until after Metropoltian Judson died in April 2001. There was a small group of hand-picked priests and cantors who did review the music. They were chosen because it was thought they would offer favorable opinions. Almost all of them objected strongly. Their objections were almost totally ignored.

Do not believe the propaganda regarding the changes to the Liturgy. Get a copy of Father Serge Keleher's book and read it. Our bishops are killing our Church.

Dostojno Jest

Jeff,

What I have made bold above, is a strange statement. I can't quite put my finger on it, but to say that one can leave out a word in "translation" but nevertheless, the intent is the same seems very dubious. It is words which show what our intent is, which is probably the reason why the Fathers of the Council attached anathemas to those who would alter the Creed.

The word that was not translated reveals not the intent which you speak of, but some other intent. My suspicions which I have set forth in the other thread, and backed up by evidence, is that the intent which is expressed by the new Creed is a step toward's women's ordination, which as Catholics we simply cannot consider as a real possibility.

I have found others, but I have not made a list. The great doxology, "Glory to God in highest, is now, "and peace to his people on earth." So there is another mistranslation. I will now keep tabs, on the others I find.

In Christ,
lm

lm,

If it were truly directed toward the ordination of women to the priesthood (and please let's be clear; for US, "ordination of women" is ambiguous), then the operative word to change is not "men", but "man". The former refers to the ecclesia, without distinction; the latter to Our Lord. If the translators had said, "and became a human being", THAT would be been consonant with advocacy of presbyteral ordination of women.

It seems much more likely to me that "for us and" comes from a desire not to place unnecessary barriers to spreading the Gospel is a world where such language is non-standard (even a priest posting here to vehemently oppose the new translation used such language in his post!); while this desire is laudable - did not Saint Paul indicate as much? - the word substantive "men" should have been retained, rather than either being omitted, or replaced with an adjectival-sounding "human beings" or "humans", or the theological incorrect "people".

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Dear Jeff,

Why do I cringe every time I read (hear) "who loves us all"?

However, where the inclusive language is most consistenrly offensive and contrived, is in the text of the troparia and kontakia. These hymns are distorted in order to make them gender neutral, it is astonishing. I refer you to the website of the Cantor Institute, where these texts are available. A read through just a few of them will give more than enough examples of agenda driven translation.

This year, did you celebrate the Sunday of the Ancestors, or of the Forefathers?

Nick

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but if you are saying that we might have female deacons in the same sense as male deacons, you're incorrect. Canon law for the Orietnal churches forbids it. It's a red herring which is used by the St. Nina group to promote women's ordination to the priesthood.

Pax,

lm

I believe I misunderstood your distinction. I apologize.



I do note that Fr. David, in his response to Fr. Serge, indicated that what you propose above would be a better translation but he knew that there would be an outcry against it. So there are concerns.

I will grant you then, that it appears that the translators were not unanimous in their decision--which is hopeful--if we speak up. But we still have the problem that the Creed was changed to "become all things to all men?"

Nick,

I would actually be interested (probably in a separate thread or in a private message) to see which troparia and kontakia you are referring to. As I mentioned above, the translation of celovikolubce is one of the two "inclusive language" issues I've seen, and I have not yet heard of a third, which is why I asked.

Well, rather than following those arch-feminists Father Lev Gillet and Archbishop Joseph Raya, and celebrating the Second Sunday before the Nativity as the Sunday of the Ancestors, I followed the Typikon for our metropolia and celebrated the Sunday of the Forefathers - which is also what it is called in the new books. Now, the FOLLOWING Sunday, called either the Sunday of the Fathers (inviting confusion with the preceding Sunday, as many over the years have noticed) or the Sunday of the Geneology, and which Father Lev says is a continuation of the previous week's theme - THAT Sunday is referred to in the new books as the Sunday of the Ancestors. It's admittedly inconsistent, but that Sunday certainly commemorates the ancestors of Christ, so I didn't feel a need to shriek in horror at the idea that the Gospel mentions our Lord's female ancestors along with his male ones

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff, I find the dismissal troubling beyond the "for he loves us all." It begins as it currently is translated: and then finishes:

While it sounds harmless enough, it unfortunately smacks too much to me of the current trend in many mainline protestant services where the use of "he/him/his" is greatly diminished by repeatedly replacing the offending male pronoun for God with the word "God" or "Christ."

An example of this was recently heard at a Christmas celebration at a local Congregational/UCC Church where my son was hired to play: "God so loved the world that God gave God's only begotten Son..." Get the drift?

John K

lm,

And that appears to be precisely why it was NOT used. I said it was CONSISTENT with advocacy for women's ordination - making its use controversial, and thus undesirable. But by itself, it is not proof of such advocacy (consistency and implication are two different things). And it is not at all incorrect to say that the Son became a human being. The problem is that "man" includes a number of connotations, and any translation ought to catch as many of these as possible, except where they would lead the hearer into error.

Yours cordially in Christ,
Jeff

"and please let's be clear; for US, "ordination of women" is ambiguous"

Indeed!

Sam

Sam,

I would add that Creeds are not written to be ambigous but to bind us to the Truth.

lm

John, I agree. I heard from a number of priests over the years (quite Orthodox ones) who had problems with a VERY long explicative text leaving it unclear who the pronoun referents at the end denoted. Were it NOT for the sort of silliness you mention, this would be a simple matter of style; but it would be better if it has been left as is, and simply explained as needed.

("He" and "him" are used quite regularly in the new translation, but this one, being an exception and coming at the end, will certainly "sound" less harmless than it might otherwise have been.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff--

Unfortunately, that's how it looks, coming at the very end of the mass! And yes, I agree, the dismissal is a run-on, explicative sentence. However, I think that even the most unlearned and pious Baba or coal patch Hunkie knows that it's Christ, and not St. John Chrysostom, or one of the Apostles, or the male patron saint of parish who "is gracious and loves us all!"

John K

Jeff,

Is it then your honest opinion that the changes are only to make the liturgy better understood by the world and that there is no agenda lurking behind the errors?

This theory would be more palatable if Rome weren't in the process of correcting all of the same translation errors in the Roman Rite, and if Fr. Taft hadn't made it such an issue at the 1998 meeting in Ct. and if Fr. Petras had not made the arguments he did about certain language being labeled as "sexist".

It would also be more palatable if the world weren't so driven by the pc agenda which is not really an issue of understanding but of poltics.

There is an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Yours sincerely, in Christ,

lm

The changes such as "Lover of us all" and "for us"? Yes, that is my opinion; I don't think it was the best solution, but I think that was the intent.

On the other hand, for all the problems, there are quite a number of things that ARE "broke" and which are addressed by the new books: loss of the third antiphon, neglect of psalmody, neglect of the sanctoral cycle, Divine Liturgies "for the departed" on Sunday, services without singing or with singing only by a cantor, kneeling on Sundays and during the Paschal season, inconsistencies between the different eparchies, a few significant differences from Orthodox usage (lack of "Theotokos", "substance" as opposed to "essence", God grant him many _happy" years), etc.

Although I hope that some of the problems will be corrected, I also hope that many of the problems for which the new books DO provide a corrective, will be resolved as well.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Is there anyone, anyone in the world, who really believes "Lover of mankind" doesn't apply to women?

I would like to know if such a creature exists. I've certainly never met one.

How did you determine that this was the intent?

lm

P-A,

The problem with "Lover of Mankind" is that, unlike, say, "Lover of man", it really refers to the collective much more than to the individual. I have actually heard someone say, "Well, God may love mankind, but <personal tragedy> shows he doesn't care about me."

(This is adverted to in C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet, where one character is asked why, if he is devoted to mankind, he is willing to murder one of his fellow travellers. The answer is that he does not care about men; he cares about Man in the abstract.)

"Lover of man" or "Man-befriending God" more clearly indicates that God loves each man, and by extension, all men (including, naturally, women and children). But neither is very felicitous in English. It may be that "Lover of mankind" is the best we have, but is does not capture all the facets of the Greek or Slavonic.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

(a) Because both Father David and Father Jack Custer explained a number of the translation issues some time ago; and they appeared to be sincere in their separate (and different) arguments, none of which touch on gender issues themselves, but rather on how English is used and heard today.

(b) Because there are MANY, MANY places where a thoroughgoing secular feminist would have made changes (e.g. the references to "our fathers", "he"/"his", etc.)that the translators left undisturbed. In fact, the Liturgy commission corrected a number of problems in the Uniontown texts where the sisters had used "vertical" inclusive language ("Blessed is the one"), as well as unwarranted "horizontal" inclusive language ("bread that strengthens the heart of all").

In short, the concerns I have heard expressed were with English usage, and NOT with gender roles themselves, the place of Christ, women's ordination as either deacons or priests, etc. And the choices made seem to bear out that there was an exaggerated sensitivity, perhaps, but not an agenda for change in the church iteself.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

I think you are wrong. Father Petras has attacked the Vatican document Liturgiam Authenticam on this very forum. He said that the feminist inclusive language is part and parcel of true Eastern spirituality. He is wrong and his ideas are doing great damage to the Church.

Dostojno Jest

I have not seen that Fr. Custer has addressed the issue but I would like to see what he has to say.

Fr. Petras has said this:



Honestly, that's not a problem of understanding but a comment that recognizes that there individuals who will choose to be offended by use of the term, "mankind". Because certain individuals whould choose to be offended, no translation was provided.

So what is sincerely held?

"I would add that Creeds are not written to be ambigous but to bind us to the Truth.
lm "

I am with you, man.

Sam

That's a very strong statement. Could you please find the thread to support your accusation? I am unaware of these incidents. I find this very shocking to say the least!!!

Using this site's search engine for a search on "Liturgiam," I found this:




As to sociological concerns, Fr. David has written in his response to Fr. Serge:



It does not appear that the reason for inclusive language given by Fr. David at least, is that the Church's tradtional language was misunderstood. Rather, it appears that Fr. David holds that there are massive sociological realignments which demand that texts be changed. I think the issue remains, "Is what Genesis says about man and woman, the most important fact about human nature or not?" If so, then we shouldn't take the secular view about changing texts. If not, then by all means, bring on more inclusive language.

Paragraph 32 of LA states:



Inclusive language just might be part of a politcial or idiealogical program or a passing fashion.

Jeff, you are correct about some people believing God loves in the collective but not necessarily the personal. I actually argued with a friend who didn't believe that God loved her. She said she could find nothing Biblical to prove it. "God so loved the world ..." did nothing for her, nor did "Neither pray I only for these but for those that come after."

However, personally, I would not see "Lover of man" as both collective and individual. To me, it resonates the same as "Lover of mankind," i.e., collective only. "Lover of everyone" and "Lover of all people" are both collective and individual, but I certainly wouldn't advocate for either. The former sounds "mushy" to me, and I wouldn't want to sing the latter.

Sophia,

Oddly enough, "Lover of man" DOES sound to me like it covers both cases - and come to think of it, all the individuals who have said, as you do, that is is collective only, were women (and none of those were feminists). Maybe I was wrong in assuming that they were exceptions, and that men and women heard the phrase the same way.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

To clarify - all the individuals who have told ME (in discussing this over the past year or so) that the phrase "Lover of man" is collective only, were women. I didn't mean to speak more generally than that.

Jeff