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.

The Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Church sui iuris - why should it care what other Churches do?

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.

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




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.

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 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.

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.