When one reads the instruction Liturgiam Authenticam issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and The Dicipline of Sacraments,a Roman congregation,to the Latin Church on the issue of liturgical translations, it would appear that the term "Mankind" is not at all any kind of a problem.

But the above would seem to imply that "mankind" is NOT the word to be used for philanthropos, Father Deacon, since it lacks the sense of the individual, and stresses the collective in a way that, say, "Lover of man" does not. I can love all men, or there can be three men in Church. The same interplay is not present in mankind. ("Mankind" may still preferable simply because it is widely used, but it DOES violate the second part of your quote above.)

In any case, I too would like to see an answer to your questions, Recluse.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Greetings Fr Deacon,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Yes. I am familiar with this document--thus the confusion. I am ultra curious as to where Fr Petras as gleaned the understanding that the word "mankind" is a sexist term.

Separate from these issues, I would add a persoanl reflection. I have become convinced that the reason "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" is that before the 20th century, "women" simply had no standing in the body politic of "mankind." They did not vote and were not expected to take part in public affairs, therefore, their status was "meaningless." In the context of the late 18th century, therefore, the statement "All men are created equal" means exactly what it says.

It should be obvious that there are some people in favor of some "inclusive" language, though I think the questions were more of a challenge to me personally than to opening a dialogue on the subject.

I am at a disadvantage, because "recluse" knows who I am, but I have no idea who is challenging my position on this point.

My basic premise is - "without extreme emotion" - that we should occasionally say explicitly that women can be saved too.

"any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social conditions, race or other criteria ... has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy."

LA goes on to say that if exact literal translation can be misunderstood, it is the duty of the catechist and/or homilist to explain the text.

I do not want to appear confrontational but I must say that the original questions seemed straight-forward enough and I would be interested in answers or explanations from anyone with pertinent input. So let me rephrase the two questions in the original post:

1. Was there an actual problem that arose with having "men" in the Creed and using "Mankind"?

2. Who thinks "men" in the Creed and/or "Mankind" are sexist or not inclusive and why?

Deacon Anthony (Kotlar)
patronagechurch.com

My basic premise is - "without extreme emotion" - that we should occasionally say explicitly that women can be saved too. I will add one reflection, many have cited Liturgiam Authenticam as being opposed to "inclusive language." LA is not opposed "ex professo" to inclusive language, but supports literally accurate translation. Cf. paragraph 29: "any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social conditions, race or other criteria ... has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy." LA goes on to say that if exact literal translation can be misunderstood, it is the duty of the catechist and/or homilist to explain the text.

Liturgiam Authenticam:

29. It is the task of the homily and of catechesis to set forth the meaning of the liturgical texts,29 illuminating with precision the Church's understanding regarding the members of particular Churches or ecclesial communities separated from full communion with the Catholic Church and those of Jewish communities, as well as adherents of other religions and likewise, her understanding of the dignity and equality of all men.30

Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy. Although considerations such as these may sometimes help one in choosing among various translations of a certain expression, they are not to be considered reasons for altering either a biblical text or a liturgical text that has been duly promulgated.

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.

Letter from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, entitled Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:

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.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

Father David has been asked a number of times to respond to paragraph 30. He never responds. I ask him again to respond to paragraph 30 in the context of the explanatory letter of Cardinal Estévez.

Father David might consider that “who for us men and our salvation” already and specifically includes women. The intent of paragraph 29 becomes clear in paragraph 30. Here they are together:


Or maybe Father David is accusing Rome of teaching that women are not saved because of Rome’s insistence on using only the term “men” in its official English translations of theological documents?

Here’s more:


Rome has clearly stated that when we say “who for us men and our salvation” we include women.

Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship has clearly stated that “to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave.”

How could anyone not understand this clear teaching?

Father David has been asked a number of times to respond to paragraph 30. He never responds. I ask him again to respond to paragraph 30 in the context of the explanatory letter of Cardinal Estévez.

Surveys among Catholics indicate that there is no demand for inclusive language in the liturgy. Accuracy is in. Agendas are out. The 1970s are gone. The Church has moved on from such things.

For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.

I do not see how "knowing my identity" would make a difference? I am the "average joe" in the pew. Again, this is not a challenge, Father. I do not wish for you to be paranoid.

No one who is a member of the Church - the body of Christ - and receives Holy Communion is any longer an "average Joe." St. John Chrysostom was eloquent on many occasions on how we all become equal when we are united in Christ.
I ask only that you do not interpret my emotions. I don't feel "paranoid." but I am weary of an exchange that is not going to go anywhere in this Forum.

No one who is a member of the Church - the body of Christ - and receives Holy Communion is any longer an "average Joe." St. John Chrysostom was eloquent on many occasions on hpw we all become equal when we are united in Christ.
I ask only that you do not interpret my emotions. I don't feel "paranoid." but I am weary of an exchange that is not going to go anywhere in this Forum.

I did not reply, I have been out of town.

Nor shall I reply, make of it what you will. It should be obvious that there are some people in favor of some "inclusive" language, though I think the questions were more of a challenge to me personally than to opening a dialogue on the subject. I am at a disadvantage, because "recluse" knows who I am, but I have no idea who is challenging my position on this point.

I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship (logiki latreia);

Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved.

How does "us" in the Creed explicitly say that women are saved?

Dear Karl,

Thank you for your response.

It is certainly not my intention to “pour gasoline on the fire,” but it seems the only way to avoid this result would be to agree unequivocally to oppose any inclusive language. Some members have judged this decision a priori. Note your own statement, the “poison pill” of “controversial” bits of inclusive language. [I don’t know what you think about this, but I do not share the impression given by some posters that there is “nobody” that really supports “inclusive language” - at least, nobody in their right minds! - I say obviously there are some - and in their right minds! - who do support this decision.]

My position has been clear from the beginning - I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church. My opinions are not. There is also no reason to believe that they made this decision only on my recommendation, and my opinion only shows up in isolated minutes of the IELC, and I have never argued the case before the Council of Hierarchs directly. Since the promulgation, I have spoken to the presbyterates of Parma and Passaic, and to some lay groups. In these presentations, I have spoken at the invitation of and at the request of individual bishops, and have given support to their decision. However, when I communicate on the Byzantine Forum, I speak only for myself and express only my personal opinions.

What if the only people at worship are men? Then "us" takes on a new meaning.
Eddie

I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church.

Their decision is magisterial for our church.

It is certainly not my intention to “pour gasoline on the fire,” but it seems the only way to avoid this result would be to agree unequivocally to oppose any inclusive language. Some members have judged this decision a priori.

Separate from these issues, I would add a persoanl reflection. I have become convinced that the reason "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" is that before the 20th century, "women" simply had no standing in the body politic of "mankind." They did not vote and were not expected to take part in public affairs, therefore, their status was "meaningless." In the context of the late 18th century, therefore, the statement "All men are created equal" means exactly what it says.

... "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" ...

My position has been clear from the beginning - I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church.

but it doesn't take an assumption of chauvinism to consider the "ordinary connotation" or a word, and under what circumstances different meanings are assumed.

If I say I was attacked by two men, and later said during a trial that my attackers were female, wouldn't that be considered a recantation? Or for that matter, would you consider it possible for two men to be married?

"All men may be saved" does NOT explicitly declare the possibility of salvation of women;

"it is NOT clear on the face of it which meaning is meant, outside of the context of Christian teaching.

Dear Karl,

Thank you for your response.

It is certainly not my intention to “pour gasoline on the fire,” but it seems the only way to avoid this result would be to agree unequivocally to oppose any inclusive language. Some members have judged this decision a priori. Note your own statement, the “poison pill” of “controversial” bits of inclusive language. [I don’t know what you think about this, but I do not share the impression given by some posters that there is “nobody” that really supports “inclusive language” - at least, nobody in their right minds! - I say obviously there are some - and in their right minds! - who do support this decision.]

My position has been clear from the beginning - I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church. My opinions are not. There is also no reason to believe that they made this decision only on my recommendation, and my opinion only shows up in isolated minutes of the IELC, and I have never argued the case before the Council of Hierarchs directly. Since the promulgation, I have spoken to the presbyterates of Parma and Passaic, and to some lay groups. In these presentations, I have spoken at the invitation of and at the request of individual bishops, and have given support to their decision. However, when I communicate on the Byzantine Forum, I speak only for myself and express only my personal opinions.

At these presentations, I have pointed out paragraph 29 of Liturgiam Authenticam, because it shows that the import of this document was not opposition to inclusive language as such, but for literal accuracy in translation. LA is a magisterial document of the Roman Catholic Church, but many members of the academic community have opposed it very strongly for various reasons. Cf., for example, Peter Jeffery’s Translating Tradition. Dr. Jeffery is a conservative, almost “traditional” Catholic, but is quite critical of the document. “Inclusive language” is not his main problem. Jeffery says (p. 105), “As I interpret LA, therefore, its main motivation is not opposition to inclusive language as such - that is only a symptom of what its authors really want. What they really want is a more profound sense of the sacred, an experience of connection to what seems age-old and eternal, uniting past and present in an unchanging rite that is above the ebb and flow of ordinary history.” Despite this, Dr. Jeffery holds that LA is deficient on many counts, which space does not permit me to summarize here.

I have been accused of not answering “Recluse’s” questions. In reality, I have answered them many times. I likewise do not think that this issue of translation has yet been adequately answered. We must remember that LA speaks to the universal Church, with its myriad linguistic traditions, but the English language, which lacks a “grammatical gender” has particular problems of translation. Like many anglophone church leaders - bishops and theologians - I believe the English term “men” is ambiguous enough to justify seeking a different translation so that the texts say what they mean - that all “human creatures” are saved by God’s saving activity and grace. Many posters on this Forum will judge my answer “inadequate.” I cannot help this. I only hope that they will admit that it is an answer, and “agree to disagree” on this point.

But if am considering only human beings to begin with, then "For us men" SOUNDS limiting. So if one said "I prefer to have men for employees, since they are more inventive", it is the IMPLICIT context (we are discussing humans) that indicates that "men" means "adult male human beings". If I were taken to task for such a statement, it would do little good to say "but men includes women, too!" - unless I could make a convincing argument that I was also hiring animals or rocks.

But the context is NOT always so clear. If a Muslim woman arrives in church and hears "For us men", she may KNOW that women are treated differently from men before Islamic law, and wonder if Christian salvation follows the same distinction. Unless context is provided by the speaker, the listener will derive one based on experience and state of mind.

Saying "the context is clear" is NOT enough

a Muslim who says "Men are equal" does not include me in that statement;

what do Christians believe?" will NOT have those concerns answered by hearing "For us men". It is not sufficient for you to say what is obvious, if it is only obvious to you!

So certainly we need catechesis, IN ORDER THAT the words we use make sense. That context must be GIVEN;

P.S. I agree that "inclusive language" is problematical, but it addresses a real issue which you seem to be side-stepping by claiming that the content of Christian teaching is SO well known that those hearing the Creed can assume it. That is more than a bit circular.

P.P.S. The real problem with "for us and for our salvation" is that it takes the problem with "for us men" and makes it WORSE.

P.P.P.S. This still doesn't answer the question of who was offended by the old phrasing; or provide a justification for the particular choices made.

But if am considering only human beings to begin with, then "For us men" SOUNDS limiting. So if one said "I prefer to have men for employees, since they are more inventive", it is the IMPLICIT context (we are discussing humans) that indicates that "men" means "adult male human beings". If I were taken to task for such a statement, it would do little good to say "but men includes women, too!" - unless I could make a convincing argument that I was also hiring animals or rocks.

But the context is NOT always so clear. If a Muslim woman arrives in church and hears "For us men", she may KNOW that women are treated differently from men before Islamic law, and wonder if Christian salvation follows the same distinction. Unless context is provided by the speaker, the listener will derive one based on experience and state of mind.

My basic premise is - "without extreme emotion" - that we should occasionally say explicitly that women can be saved too. I will add one reflection, many have cited Liturgiam Authenticam as being opposed to "inclusive language." LA is not opposed "ex professo" to inclusive language, but supports literally accurate translation. Cf. paragraph 29: "any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social conditions, race or other criteria ... has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy." LA goes on to say that if exact literal translation can be misunderstood, it is the duty of the catechist and/or homilist to explain the text.

Liturgiam Authenticam:

29. It is the task of the homily and of catechesis to set forth the meaning of the liturgical texts,29 illuminating with precision the Church's understanding regarding the members of particular Churches or ecclesial communities separated from full communion with the Catholic Church and those of Jewish communities, as well as adherents of other religions and likewise, her understanding of the dignity and equality of all men.30

Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy. Although considerations such as these may sometimes help one in choosing among various translations of a certain expression, they are not to be considered reasons for altering either a biblical text or a liturgical text that has been duly promulgated.

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.

Letter from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, entitled Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:

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.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.

since the person hearing the Creed believes himself entitled to (and does it fact have) his own context

"Get thee behind me, radical pro-homosexual modernist abortion-loving perverted feminist! Everyone KNOWS what men REALLY means!"

The problem, lm, is that it takes a lifetime of work to see things from God's point of view - in other words, to interpret all we experience in the same way God would. And even then, our ignorance may make this impossible. I know holy monks who, if the word, "Ukraine" is mentioned, canNOT interpret the next few sentences equably. For others, "men" is such a word.

I am talking about the subjective context to which each of us is limited by experience and culture. Some, chained by the world, WILL HEAR "for us men" as sexist. It is a problem THEY have, but our reaction to it conditions how we can lead them toward God and right belief. Denying that it is a problem FOR THEM, or telling them that they are some kind of subversives, is not likely to help them. If by "let God lift men up to Him" you are forswearing any responsbility on your part, and will just let God do with them what He wants, then I think you run into real problems with the Great Commission. Are we really teaching confused moderns by telling them "We're right, you're sick and manipulative, and we pray that God will fix you good!"?

Does any of this mean we should omit "men"? By no means! But we HAVE to accept that it is a real problem for some before we can expect to help them make progress against it.

Jeff

The fact that nascent Russian Orthodoxy translated "catholic" as "conciliar" doesn't mean that I'd accuse modern Orthodox of being duplicitous in using it - for that matter, I doubt I'd accuse the original translators. Its a skewed translation with political advantages. Same situation here with "men" as only meaning "males". Some feminists avoid "men" because of its ambiguity, some out of distaste. Some moderns simply avoid its use as a generic out of custom. The last are almost surely the majority, and they need to be evangelized. Should our evangelization START with "You talk funny, you don't use proper English, and you're probably a man-hating pervert bend on destroying our church!"? Yet this is the sort of rhetoric that we devolve into here, even when talking about our own priests and bishops.

You need not attribute to malice whatever could just as well be laid at the door of a misreading of the situation. You don't do anyone much good by accusations - ESPECIALLY if they're off base; and if you refuse to acknowledge a problem some people really do have, others will ignore you when they seek a resolution of that problem.

Jeff

Should our evangelization START with "You talk funny, you don't use proper English, and you're probably a man-hating pervert bend on destroying our church!"? Yet this is the sort of rhetoric that we devolve into here, even when talking about our own priests and bishops.

You need not attribute to malice whatever could just as well be laid at the door of a misreading of the situation. You don't do anyone much good by accusations - ESPECIALLY if they're off base; and if you refuse to acknowledge a problem some people really do have, others will ignore you when they seek a resolution of that problem.

Well...we know about the Byzantine Magisterium from Father David so I suppose we're not obliged.
Mary

But one cannot ignore the fact that those who made "men" a dirty word, did have an agenda. They were not innocent parties claiming, "Gosh, we don't understand that includes us."

The situation is made worse by

(a) a language which does not have separate single nouns for "human being" and "male human being"

(b) general lack of familiarity with languages that do make this distinction, leading to differing expectations between those who do have such familiarity and those who don't

"All men may be saved" does NOT explicitly declare the possibility of salvation of women; it includes it as one of two possible interpretations ...

My basic premise is - "without extreme emotion" - that we should occasionally say explicitly that women can be saved too.

I am talking about the subjective context to which each of us is limited by experience and culture. Some, chained by the world, WILL HEAR "for us men" as sexist. It is a problem THEY have, but our reaction to it conditions how we can lead them toward God and right belief. Denying that it is a problem FOR THEM, or telling them that they are some kind of subversives, is not likely to help them.

In this way, the Church correctly interpreted the primitive Christian heritage: the Eucharistic liturgy, as such, is not directed toward the non-believer, but, as a Mystery, presupposes an "initiation": only someone who has entered into the mystery with his life can participate in it; someone who knows Christ from the outside only, like "the people," whose opinions Peter refers to the Lord near Caesarea Philippi just before his Christological confession (Mark 8:28), cannot participate in it. Only he can communicate with Christ in the Sacrament who, in the communion of faith, has already reached a profound agreement and understanding with Him.

I will ask Fr David one last time.

Was there a considerable and substantial voice within the Ruthenian Catholic Church, (laity and clergy), who were demanding inclusive language in the Liturgy, which prompted the decision to use it?

This is a simple and straight forward question.

Let's go back to about 1963. The top ten hit was "Silence is Golden" by Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons.

Question: Was there a considerable and substantial voice within the Ruthenian Catholic Church, (laity and clergy), who were demanding inclusive language in the Liturgy, which prompted the decision to use it?

Answer: Yes.

There will be no further response, as this thread has lost all pretense to polite discussion.

I would be very curious to know if there was any systematic evidence behind the claim of a priori support for inclusive language, such as a survey.

Question: Was there a considerable and substantial voice within the Ruthenian Catholic Church, (laity and clergy), who were demanding inclusive language in the Liturgy, which prompted the decision to use it?

Answer: Yes.

There will be no further response, as this thread has lost all pretense to polite discussion.

I would be very curious to know if there was any systematic evidence behind the claim of a priori support for inclusive language, such as a survey.

Boy, would I love to see a Church-wide survey on this issue!

Recluse,

at the end of the day we agree on this.

But the real question isn't how many people agree or disagree with inclusive language. Inclusive language is wrong whether one or one thousand people think it is needed.

The question for Father David is why do we have to give into the secular and feminist whims of modern society who have nothing but negative animus toward Christiany and organized religion in general?

Monomakh

I agree with the principle of the necessity of adapting the liturgy to changing conditions of place and time. I shall make, however, two remarks on this subject:

a) The first is that the Eastern Catholic Church should, for more than one reason, renounce at this time making any change in its rites independently of the corresponding Orthodox branches, to avoid creating new differences with our separated brothers. Liturgical adaptation should be made only in concurrence with them.

b) The second remark is that we should not exaggerate to an obsession our concern for liturgical adaptation. Liturgical rites, like the inspired texts, have enduring value in spite of the circumstances which brought them into being. Before making any change whatever in a rite, we must be sure that this change is absolutely necessary. Liturgy has not only an impersonal character, but also a character of universality both in space and time.

But one cannot ignore the fact that those who made "men" a dirty word, did have an agenda. They were not innocent parties claiming, "Gosh, we don't understand that includes us."