This was posted elsewhere, and I think there are many points in it which are important for this forum. Moreover, I think it shows how easy it is to go looking for a way to define someone as a heretic, but yet neglects to understand the real definition of heresy: willful and continued error in belief when the Church as an authority hears what you believe and tries to correct you through its official authority, telling you that your error is theologically wrong. In other words, there are many levels needed for something to be a heresy (unlike the ideology of heretic hunters, who seem to follow a Protestant understanding of heresy).

There is a warning: this post is written in the style of those who contend against the Hierarchs. This has implications as to how you should read this comment.
——-
There has been considerable debate about how one is to translate the Nicene Creed (or any religious text) into English. Because of the diversity of meaning behind English words and the connotations given to a specific word in English differs from what is said in the original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Aramaic text, the first thing people need to realize is that there is no one for one translation possible. Moreover, one must realize what is acceptable as a translation in one time period might no longer be acceptable in another because of the evolution of the English language and the change in connotations a word may have.
Look for example at the so-called King James translation of the Bible. As literature, it is beautiful. As a translation, it had problems. These problems I will not address here – but it is clear that it was not an ideal translation of the Scripture. However, as time has moved on, more problems have developed. While the words seem to be recognizable in modern English, their meanings are often contrary to how we would read the text now. Some people argue against newer translations of the Bible because it differs from the King James Bible; the same way some people argue against new liturgical translations because they differ from older translations. Well, that is going to happen, because words have changed their meaning. You can’t stop the English language from changing, and you can’t just assume that everyone will read the words the same way as you do.

Probably one of the great debates I have seen is the debate over so-called “inclusive language.” The first thing I always notice is that no one is really against inclusive language—or I should hope they are not. The question is – what words best assert the inclusiveness. Some people think we can still use masculine terms to imply this inclusiveness – God became “man,” and we are to be “sons of God.” Fine, if this is read inclusively it is possible, but the question we must ask – does our current use of the English language really imply this inclusiveness the same as it did a hundred years ago?

The answer has to be no – as can be seen by those who are arguing against inclusive language. They are fighting against themselves. On the one hand they say inclusive language is not needed, on the other hand they imply it is already there.
There is a danger, unforeseen, in this argument. What if we take them seriously and agree there should be no inclusive language. What if we continue this further and say a one for one translation of “uios” is son. Thus, this word is seen to be non-inclusive and say one is to become a son of God. What does this mean for women?! They are either not to be a child of God or they are to become male?

This problem is exactly one of the many problems we find in Gnostic texts. They say “Scripture only uses masculine language, and it means completely the masculine, and not the implied possibility of masculine and feminine which is possible in the plural state.” So women were said to be saved – only if they become men! We find this statement for example in the so-called Gospel of Thomas.

“114 Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

That is what many of the women who are suggesting we must use inclusive language are concerned about. They are concerned this denial of inclusive language and then saying one must only use masculine words in English because the Greek is masculine suggests that women only take part in the eschaton by rejecting their gender and becoming men.

It is interesting to note that the people making the charge against Bishops and the new translation act like they are special people in the know, who can and do live and thrive outside of the Apostolic tradition and the succession of the Apostles through and in our Bishop. This connection to Gnosticism is something we must search out. While arguing for “orthodoxy” they are arguing for their own specific, private interpretation and knowledge, and arguing for a masculine-only interpretation of orthodoxy, just like the Gnostics.

More frightful, this is also the dream of the radical feminists, who have wanted to change women into men all these years. So we see their liturgical assertions fits a feminist, Gnostic ideal.
Of course if one knew Greek and knew that a masculine plural can be either a group of men or group of men and women, then translating it as a group of men and women is faithful as translations go; and in English “us” is capable of being “us humans” without the awkward language that it is a faithful, even if different, translation (many translators remove redundancy when bringing it into English) So much for the Gnostic feminists who hate noting women in their feminine side can be saved.
—-
Now there is a little tongue in cheek in this commentary. Do I think they are truly Gnostics feminists who hate women? No, but I am arguing like those who contend against the new translation to show one can follow their methods to charge them with heterodox opinions

I do not think that anyone here has called another a heretic. The strongest commentary here has been that it is incorrect to remove the word anthropos from the Creed, something that can be supported by Vatican documentation.

It seems that much of the rest of ByzAcademic's post is to set up a straw man so that it can be knocked down. Incorrectly stating the position you disagree with never works no matter which position you yourself are advocating.

The following was posted in another thread by 1 Th 5:21 (which he seems to have gotten from www.adoremus.org ) and is worth consideration and respect (I have added this to the quotes for future letters to those in authority asking for accuracy in translation without the unintentional embracement of political agendas):

The omission of the word "men" in the Creed turns the inclusive statement "who for us men and for our salvation" into a potentially exclusive statement. "Who for us and our salvation" is theologically inaccurate and could potentially mean only those gathered in the room at the time. It is far better to preserve theological clarity and retain the inclusive term "men" (even if some education is required about standard English) then it is to introduce theological inaccuracy (which would take even more education to explain).

But this has been discussed ad nauseum. I will not close this thread but I will insist that the next person to post quote from Church documents (Catholic or Orthodox). If ByzAcademic (or anyone else) wishes to support the use of gender-neutral language then they must start by quoting an official Church document that rescinds or somehow changes what I have quoted above from Rome. www.adoremus.org notes that the translations requested by the RC bishops in America also remove the word "men" from the Creed and that the Rome has shot it down more than once (which is where the quote above comes from.

Now that I think about it I will close this thread since the original post is really about accusations of heresy and not about gender-neutral language. The discussion probably could not recover from that.

I invite those who wish to respond to the content of the original post regarding the use of gender-neutral language in the Revised Divine Liturgy to do so in one of the many threads already open on that topic.

As has been seen with the closing of a thread, where I made it clear how one was to read what I posted (that I followed through with the strategy of those who criticize the Byzantine Catholic Hierarchy, and indeed they create willful misinterpretation of the liturgy to declare all kinds of errors which are not within the liturgy), the administrator proved incapable of understanding the point (that those who go against the liturgy are doing so with false arguments and one can do it both ways) and actually lied (said no one has accused anyone of heresies -- but I've seen all kinds of charges there in this forum).

He then makes a demand -- for Byzantines to discuss rescinding of a document which -- DOES NOT AFFECT BYZANTINES. Which has been shown throughout the debates here; it does not affect us. There are questions one can raise, but just because one can misinterpret a text does not mean the text is in error (otherwise we should get rid of the Bible).

So while "for us" could be read exclusively, if the interpretation of the Hierarchs is that it is not, then that solves it. Just as the filioque can be quite orthodox or heretical -- the way one MUST read the text is in the most charitable of ways unless the other person has made statements which proves that is not the case.

So why does the administrator on a so-called Byzantine Forum allow all kinds of unfounded attacks against the Byzantine Church and her Bishops, but immediately closes a forum which shows that one can make reverse arguments for those who oppose inclusive language? Afraid of what a conversation on the matter -- with one who knows the connotations of Greek and English -- could do to show how silly this debate actually is?

Once again, if you say inclusive language is to be denied, then "for us men" is not inclusive. If it is not inclusive, then it means only men. Exclusive. I am not the one who denies inclusive language and so do understand how men could be used for "men and women," especially at an earlier stage of English history. This connotation has slowly evolved out of the language; it can still be used, even as gay can still be used for "happy." But it would be silly to translate the Beatitudes as "Gay are...." even though gay had the connotation of blessed happiness at one time and still can.

Technically, ByzAcademic is correct that the document I quoted from is not addressed to Byzantine Catholics. That has been noted repeatedly in these discussions. Yet accuracy and clarity in translation is something that concerns all Churches. The principles that apply in Cardinal Medina Estévez's letter are valid for all Churches, even if the letter is not specifically addressed to Byzantines. One cannot appeal to the idea that Byzantines have different principles of translations since the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese has purposefully promulgated the Creed with the phrase “who for us men and our salvation” (thus replacing the versions which omitted the term “man”).

I agree with ByzAcademic that “for us” could be read a number of ways, and that the bishops mean it to be read inclusively. I do not think anyone has accused them of intentionally meaning anything else. He seems to be setting up a straw man by making accusations that cannot be substantiated and then trying to shoot them down. The discussion is not and never has been about what the bishops meant but rather about how people understand the text. The discussion is about accuracy of translation.

The problem here is that because “for us” can be read a number of ways it becomes potentially exclusive and needs a lot of catechesis. “For us men” has the advantage of being both inclusive and accurate (it includes every man from Adam and Eve until the last conceived soul before Second Coming).

I ask ByzAcademic to provide to me or to the moderator of this Forum specific examples of his accusation that we allow unfounded attacks against the Byzantine Church and its hierarchs, accusing them of either heresy or meaning something the Creed does not mean. It seems to me that the posts on this topic – while at times very emotional - have been charitable overall in noting the good and honest intentions of the hierarchs, while also noting that they believe the hierarchs have made mistakes. Nothing that you believe that someone who is well-intentioned has made a mistake (even a grave one) does not equate to an attack.

And the kicker that takes the slats out of Academic's entire so-called argument is that "man" as a universal has not at all fallen out of disuse in my lifetime. Most of my women friends, and many of the women authors that I know up close and from a distance, use the universal "man" in many varied and appropriate ways.

If that use were not alive in English speaking societies, nobody, but students of dusty tomes, would know what the dickens the Academic is talking about, but we all do know and recognize the universal use of "man."

No. The universal "man" was scheduled to be driven out by 20th century feminists who, I suppose, will keep something of their aging following and gain a few new recruits as well.

But to presume that this includes the majority of Latin or eastern Catholic women, or Orthodox wome following the "good old girl" line is simply false. Worse it is a known falsehood. A set-up.

That is why the Vatican is able to speak so clearly against horizontal inclusive language. It is not the language that resonates among the faithful. It only really resonates among...Academics.

Mary

I believe you're talking about the feminist "womyn"... I knew some womyn in college but wasn't all that attracted to them. "Womyn's Herstory Month" used to knock my socks off. Like they never looked up the derivation of "history", being feminine in both Greek and Latin.

But why let scholarship ruin a perfectly good men-bashing session.

but I digress... and quite a lot at that.

Which is exactly why there is no need to drop "men" from the Creed or the Bible. Catechize, don't sanitize.

Christ is Risen!

It has been determined that ByzAcademic had already lost his posting privileges a year ago (under a different display name) due to continued uncharity (in posts about other topics and towards others). Since he has violated Forum rules by registering after loosing posting privileges he immediately has lost his posting privileges permanently. He did respond to the Administrator's request via e-mail but he only offered one "proof" and that proof was a comment by a poster that most readers would have understood as "the bishops meant well but made a mistake".

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator