The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W., Ramon, PeaceBeToAll
5,982 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 246 guests, and 55 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,388
Posts416,719
Members5,982
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
I am currently teaching two catechetical classes at one of our two parishes. One of the groups consists of high school students. We just finished using an excellent text for high schoolers published by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (it's "Eastern with an attitude"). Now, I am going to complete the year by reviewing, with the students, the Compendium of the Catechism Of The Catholic Church , which, as most of us are aware is a recently-published compacted, question and answer version of the larger Catechism. It was commissioned by the late Pope John Paul II, and promulgated and approved for circulation by Pope Benedict XVI. I was reviewing it this morning, and lo and behold, the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed reads, in part,: "WHO FOR US MEN AND OUR SALVATION.......". I guess the Pope isn't "with it". Somebody from our God-saved Ruthenian Church is going to have to straighten him out.

Dn. Robert

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
Good one there biggrin

Now silly question from this Brit

Are you all going to lie down and accept this Revision ?

mebbe I should start a new thread - but when I do they seem to collapse swiftly

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by Jessup B.C. Deacon
It was commissioned by the late Pope John Paul II, and promulgated and approved for circulation by Pope Benedict XVI. I was reviewing it this morning, and lo and behold, the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed reads, in part,: "WHO FOR US MEN AND OUR SALVATION.......". I guess the Pope isn't "with it". Somebody from our God-saved Ruthenian Church is going to have to straighten him out.
And the plot thickens! eek

Last edited by Recluse; 01/31/07 04:15 PM.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,177
The Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Church sui iuris - why should it care what other Churches do?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by KO63AP
The Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Church sui iuris - why should it care what other Churches do?

No doubt a "tongue in cheek" comment.

Dn. Robert

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,595
Likes: 1
who knows ????

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 156
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 156
Here is a Vatican document on the subject

Here are the Vatican's instructions to the Latin Church on the matter

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html


Quote
III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

Generally, it's a condemnation of the use of "us all" as "us all" is generally construed to mean only those present at the time.





Last edited by Scotus; 02/02/07 04:09 PM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Scotus
Here is a Vatican document on the subject

Here are the Vatican's instructions to the Latin Church on the matter

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html


Quote
III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

Generally, it's a condemnation of the use of "us all" as "us all" is generally construed to mean only those present at the time.

Good point. "Us all" is also an ambiguity. Those who argue for "inclusive" language will contend that some will understand "for us Men" to mean that women aren't saved. If people are that dense, then we could also argue that, depending upon who or what is present in the room, or in the case of an outdoor celebration of the Liturgy near a barnyard, the use of "for us all" might even be construed to include non-human creatures (cows, pigs, chickens, horses-now,that's inclusive!). Ambiguity can be a very destructive thing when it comes to Liturgy.
Some years ago, one of our more prominent priests commented to me that our Metropolia is in somewhat of a "time warp". When the Latins do something silly, or something which is good, we will usually follow their lead, but about twenty years later. Does this mean that we have to wait twenty years for bad translations to go away? Now that "inclusive" and faddish translations are being rightfully suppressed in the Western Church, we now begin to indulge in such stupidity? God have mercy on us!

Dn. Robert

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
Dear Deacon Robert:
Might I humbly suggest that you not call "dense" those who hold an opinion contrary to your own. I really think that such languages is in opposition to Christian charity and is insulting. While their reasoning may fail to persuade you, there are respectable arguments for the use of horizontal inclusive language. They may ultimately be insufficient for changing the liturgy, and they obviously are insufficient for persuading many people. However, I don't think that people who espouse such arguments deserve to be labeled as "dense."
Sincerely,
Ryan

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
I am very, very sad.

I truly believe that the revised Liturgy would have been widely accepted if not for the inclusive language issues.

However, the deed has been done, and there are those--myself included--who cannot compromise. I may never understand the reasoning. There was no need for this.

The Orthodox do not use this language. The Roman Catholics are not promulgated to use this language. Other Eastern Catholics do use this language. Only the protestants and the Ruthenian Catholic Church! Ouch!!!

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Dear Ryan,

I have yet to meet anybody who really thinks that the term "mankind" or "for us men and our salvation" as used in the Creed, actually excludes women. BTW, I did not say that those who disagree with me are "dense",i.e. those who argue for "inclusivity" in Liturgical language, only those who would actually come to the above conclusion. On second thought, maybe "dense" is too strong a word. Perhaps, "invincibly ignorant" (in the true sense of an innocent lack of knowledge, like when the Church says someone can be saved by virtue of "invincible ignorance" of the True Faith-not in the perjorative sense that many would take it) might be the more charitable word to use. We are talking about people with a serious lack of knowledge of the tenets of the Faith. A little catechesis would cure that. No need to change the historic language of the Liturgy. My original intention was not to cast aspersions on anybody, but to underline the absurdity of conforming Liturgical translations to the latest fad in the ever-changing mass culture. The above-cited instruction to the Latin Church also points out that a lot of this "inclusive" language distorts the intended meaning being conveyed in the original language.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 117
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 117
Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe that the issue of inclusive language points to three very serious matters that I pray our Church will be honest enough to confront so that our Church can indeed be renewed and revitalized. But before I go further I want to be clear that because I have a problem with inclusive language it does NOT mean that I am "against" women or their concerns. In fact, the opposite is actually true. I am so FOR women and their concerns that, along with the mind of the Church, I cannot accept so called "inclusive" language because this language and all that is behind it actually ends up committing the very thing it purports to be against: In its own way inclusive language becomes a strike against the intrinsic dignity of women. This of course needs explanation but at another time. The imporant thing is this: I am against inclusive language because (among MANY other things) it ultimately works against women, their dignity and their equality.

Now for my 4 areas of concern in regard to the issue of inclusive language in our liturgy:

1. The lack of a correct understanding of the theology of gender (a "theological anthropology") and its revelatory value as lived out in the very character of the Church and especially in the Church's liturgy. John Paul II's 'theology of the body' provides an adequate framework in which to pursue this discussion because the theology of the body is primarily a "liturgical worldview" and one in which JPII reached into the mystical foundation of Divine Order of creation. Both the "mystical" and the "liturgical" are things that ought to peak the interest of us as Eastern Christians. (To obtain mine and others presentations on such matters you can go to www.theologyofthebody.net [theologyofthebody.net] or contact: taborlife@earthlink.net)

2. I believe that the "Original Sin" of the "Uniate" Churches
has been our inferiority complex. We operate from an ethos that "everyone else has a better idea." Our tendency is to look horizontally around us at whatever the secular world, the Latin Church or Protestants are doing and to ape these things or import them artificially because surely they must be better ideas than ours. This horizontal gaze deflects our gaze from moving vertically as it should, down into the riches of our own identity. To me the push for inclusive language is another example of our inferiority complex and of our deflected gaze. Consequently, with all other arguments aside, inclusive language becomes problematic.

3. Not all parties involved in the formation of the new translation of the liturgy were in favor of the inclusive language. The fact that the inclusive language did win out indicates that there was some senase of an imperative for inclusive language to be a part of the new translation, that this was perhaps some burning issue in our Church and there was some significant demand for inclusive language in our Church. This imperative does not exist in our Church, certainly not on the level of the rank and file where things matter the most. The fact that the inclusive language, therefore, was part of an agenda on the part of some might possibly leave a taste of resentment in the mouths of some of our rank and file and thus hamper what otherwise could have been a fuller acceptance of the new translation.

4. It raises a question of credibility both of the messages from Rome to our Church but also in terms of our own Church itself.
Why would Rome approve of something for us that they would not approve for their own Church? The excuse cannot be used that it is two different Churches becase inclusive language is not something specific to Eastern Christian worship. Furthermore,
Rome DOES in fact express concern and exert influence on other parts of what is indigenous to the Eastern Churches when it sees fit such as in the "case by case basis submitted to
Rome" in regard to married candidates for the priesthood.

For its part, our own Church has to be careful about "picking and choosing" its sense of obedience to Rome? We say on one hand, that "Rome approved" the new translation even with the inclusive language but on the other hand are we taking as seriously other things from Rome such as the "Instuciones,"
"Orientale Lumen" or even "Humanae Vitae?"

I present these concerns as challenges to our Church in what I believe is a kind of "Judgement Day" for our Church. I believe we will serve ourselves better by looking at ourselves more honestly, by asking ourselvews who we REALLY are, what we are actually doing or not doing and why? An honest look can be at times painful but I believe it is necessary to become a thriving Church.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.MA.
Member: (TOBIA-Theology of the Body International Alliance)
Memeber: Tabor Life Institute for formation in T.O.B.


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
OP Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Fatherthomasloya
Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe that the issue of inclusive language points to three very serious matters that I pray our Church will be honest enough to confront so that our Church can indeed be renewed and revitalized. But before I go further I want to be clear that because I have a problem with inclusive language it does NOT mean that I am "against" women or their concerns. In fact, the opposite is actually true. I am so FOR women and their concerns that, along with the mind of the Church, I cannot accept so called "inclusive" language because this language and all that is behind it actually ends up committing the very thing it purports to be against: In its own way inclusive language becomes a strike against the intrinsic dignity of women. This of course needs explanation but at another time. The imporant thing is this: I am against inclusive language because (among MANY other things) it ultimately works against women, their dignity and their equality.

Now for my 4 areas of concern in regard to the issue of inclusive language in our liturgy:

1. The lack of a correct understanding of the theology of gender (a "theological anthropology") and its revelatory value as lived out in the very character of the Church and especially in the Church's liturgy. John Paul II's 'theology of the body' provides an adequate framework in which to pursue this discussion because the theology of the body is primarily a "liturgical worldview" and one in which JPII reached into the mystical foundation of Divine Order of creation. Both the "mystical" and the "liturgical" are things that ought to peak the interest of us as Eastern Christians. (To obtain mine and others presentations on such matters you can go to www.theologyofthebody.net [theologyofthebody.net] or contact: taborlife@earthlink.net)

2. I believe that the "Original Sin" of the "Uniate" Churches
has been our inferiority complex. We operate from an ethos that "everyone else has a better idea." Our tendency is to look horizontally around us at whatever the secular world, the Latin Church or Protestants are doing and to ape these things or import them artificially because surely they must be better ideas than ours. This horizontal gaze deflects our gaze from moving vertically as it should, down into the riches of our own identity. To me the push for inclusive language is another example of our inferiority complex and of our deflected gaze. Consequently, with all other arguments aside, inclusive language becomes problematic.

3. Not all parties involved in the formation of the new translation of the liturgy were in favor of the inclusive language. The fact that the inclusive language did win out indicates that there was some senase of an imperative for inclusive language to be a part of the new translation, that this was perhaps some burning issue in our Church and there was some significant demand for inclusive language in our Church. This imperative does not exist in our Church, certainly not on the level of the rank and file where things matter the most. The fact that the inclusive language, therefore, was part of an agenda on the part of some might possibly leave a taste of resentment in the mouths of some of our rank and file and thus hamper what otherwise could have been a fuller acceptance of the new translation.

4. It raises a question of credibility both of the messages from Rome to our Church but also in terms of our own Church itself.
Why would Rome approve of something for us that they would not approve for their own Church? The excuse cannot be used that it is two different Churches becase inclusive language is not something specific to Eastern Christian worship. Furthermore,
Rome DOES in fact express concern and exert influence on other parts of what is indigenous to the Eastern Churches when it sees fit such as in the "case by case basis submitted to
Rome" in regard to married candidates for the priesthood.

For its part, our own Church has to be careful about "picking and choosing" its sense of obedience to Rome? We say on one hand, that "Rome approved" the new translation even with the inclusive language but on the other hand are we taking as seriously other things from Rome such as the "Instuciones,"
"Orientale Lumen" or even "Humanae Vitae?"

I present these concerns as challenges to our Church in what I believe is a kind of "Judgement Day" for our Church. I believe we will serve ourselves better by looking at ourselves more honestly, by asking ourselvews who we REALLY are, what we are actually doing or not doing and why? An honest look can be at times painful but I believe it is necessary to become a thriving Church.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.MA.
Member: (TOBIA-Theology of the Body International Alliance)
Memeber: Tabor Life Institute for formation in T.O.B.

Dear Fr. Thomas,

You offer some very solid observations. Alhough I was born into the Latin Church, I've been around the Ruthenian scene since 1970. We are absolutely "on the same page". This "inferiority complex" is mind-boggling to me. I am not shy about saying that I fled the liturgical, catechetical, and theological madness which was inflicted upon the American Latin Church in the aftermath of Vatican II. What I found in the patrimony of Carpatho-Rusyn and Ukrainian Greek Catholics was, in my opinion, a far superior "product" to that which I was fleeing (i.e, the bad music, bad liturgical translations, the desacralizations, etc.). If I may continue the business analogy, the problem with our Church is that the "product" has not been properly marketed. This, of course, is a byproduct of that "inferiority complex". I have taken note from afar that you are actually trying to do something about that, and I pray for your ultimate success.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert Behrens
Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church
Jessup, Pa.

Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by Fatherthomasloya
Glory to Jesus Christ!

I believe that the issue of inclusive language points to three very serious matters that I pray our Church will be honest enough to confront so that our Church can indeed be renewed and revitalized.
Bless Father,

Your post almost made me cry. It expresses how I feel about inclusive language and the dynamic of our Church (but much more eloquently than I could have stated it).

Yet I am still lost. My conscience is pierced. I feel like I cannot participate in this inferior compromised liturgy. I do not know what to do. I do not know where to go.

Please pray for me,
Recluse

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
I am very, very sad.

The inclusive language nonsense is deeply upsetting. It is such a terrible mistake, and I cannot say how much I am disappointed with our bishops for not standing up for the faith, and defending the truth, and the Byzantine Liturgy from this nonsense.

But you are right, the deed has been done, and they have to accept the responsibility for what they've done. I'm so very very sad.

Nick

Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5