In my studies, I stumbled across the following translation that is used in the Syriac Catholic Church. You will notice the same translation (i.e., "for us ...") as the new translation of the Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Eparchies.

The Syriac Catholic Church:
We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.



For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.

We believe in One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the Resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. AMEN.

I wonder if the Syriac Catholic Church has completely fallen apart over the "for us..."

I'm beginning to believe there's much more going on over this contraversy than the accuracy of the new translation.....

Alex - that is not the translation I have in my English/Syriac pew book which was used when I last attended Quorbano at Our Lady of Deliverance celebrated by Mar Ephraim Joseph several years ago. The English text on the website that is referred to does not appear to have any approbation of Patriarch Ignatius, Mar Joseph, the Synod nor has it been recently updated, either.

The Armenian, Malankara, Chaldean and Maronite Catholic English translations in use all retain "men". I don't have a Malabar text so I can't speak to that, but the clear majority usage of Oriental Catholics speaks for itself.

The Filioque is retained in that version cited as well - so hardly something to be held up as an example.

Fr. Deacon-

Good point on the Filioque. I have yet to see any absolutely convincing (convicting) evidence that the usage of "for us" is a result of gender neutrality (or inclusiveness), as opposed to a more modern English translation indicating the original intent. I have read most of the arguments on this thread.

Once we have gone beyond the general hysterics, at least we can agree that some of the wording in the liturgy is stilted, at best, in spite of what were perhaps the best intentions.

Hardly something by which to lose one's faith. I've seen it happen to a few in my parish, and its disappointing - the reaction is somewhat similar to the knee-jerk reactions of politicians I despise - but there's not even any votes for which to pander!

All the best,

I would note: the Maronite's Qurbono: The Book of Offering's Scripture citations are from the NRSV: Catholic Edition and the Psalms from the Revised NAB. The Lectionary is NRSV as well.

But also let us not forget what literally one iota did to the Church as well.

Now that it is more readily available, I was wondering if you have the same reaction to Father Serge's published response to the Byzantine RDL?

Mary

Well, let's see...

The Liturgy has been truncated (antiphons etc), questionable translations in many areas, inclusive language, confusing books, awkward music in places, chaotic rubrics......

I would not say reasons to lose one's faith, but perhaps reasons to find another Eastern Catholic or an Orthodox Church.


R

One thing to be kept in mind. The Syriac Catholic Church is truly a very small operation.

Dn. Robert

And you don't think the Ruthenian Rite in North America is? Which statistical numbers do you follow?

One can find nearly anything if one looks hard enough.

Since the BBC is keen on showing "Church A follows practice Z which we've instituted, Church B follows practice Y, etc.", perhaps someone should do a comparison of the English translations of the Creed from various Churches, showing how many say "for us" and how many "for us men".

Or maybe even, get the major Churches with English translations to hammer out a single version for use by all?

A nice idea, but that's all.

At one time the "Ruthenian" bishops (i.e. Ukrainians, the BCC, et al.) requested an authoritative set of liturgical books from Rome. The Holy See produce the Recensio rutena series of books, including the Ordo celebrationis - books which most people continue to ignore.

Certain people need to deal with some serious issues regarding 'those others' and co-operate for the good of the Church.

Sadly, we have no need of enemies - we have each other.

As small as we are, they are much smaller, even, from what I am told, in their homeland.

Dn. Robert

Just did a line-by-line comparison of this translation and, except for the deletion of "men," it is exactly the same one used in the Latin Church. It's ICEL's version from the 1974 Roman Missal.

Thought I felt a little deja-vu.

BOB

Is there some amount of prestige I am unaware of that the Syriac Catholics hold in translation to make their practices worthy of notation?

Or is the point that if other people make the same mistake it becomes OK for us? I can't help but hear my mother in my head, "If the Syriac Catholics jumped off a bridge would you do it, too? You know that two wrongs don't make a right!"

This says to me that it is all the more important that we get things right because others out there are not going to do it for us.

I think you are missing the point I was trying to make. No one could accuse the Syriac Catholic Church of being unduly influenced by modern feminist agendas. Let me rephrase that -- it would be hard for me to imagine someone honestly thinking that the Syriac Catholic Church is on a feminist road-map to feminist heresy (you have to know something about the Syriac Catholic Church and its adherence to tradition to understand how absurd that kind of objection would be) -- so therefore it is quite possible that the translation "for us ..." is the best translation and not an indication of some "feminist" take-over of the Ruthenian Church.

Bob, that is correct - and as I mentioned my little Syriac-English pew book also includes "men".

Indeed - and using that logic perhaps we should also use "we believe", and also add the Filioque since they are both included in this particular unofficial English translation.

I don't think so - nor do I think anyone outside of a few (and most of those involved in developing the New Rite) really think the new translation to be the "best" in any sense of the word. Grasping for one obscure usage to justify in a larger context as normative just doesn't carry much water.

I agree with PrJ that the Syriac Catholic Church has probably not been unduly influenced by modern feminist agendas. But the translators may think that such ways are acceptable (or even preferred) given that ICEL spouted such nonsense for years. [Praise God that Rome fixed the problem with its reconfiguration of ICEL and creation of the Vox Clara Committe!]

Bob (theophan) has pointed out that it is ICEL�s version from the 1974 Roman Missal with the removal of the word �men�. This suggests to me that it is far more likely that whoever prepared the text for the web simply took ICEL�s working text for the Latin Church and went with it. If translated it is also possible the translators fell into the same error that our translation committee and PrJ have fallen into. I am saddened to find that some clergy (and even our bishops) continue to reject Vatican teaching on this issue since it only adds to the myriad number of problems with this Revised Liturgy that is forcing me and so many others out of the Ruthenian Church. [I know that there was leeway before Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001 but things are very clear now and the texts should have been made accurate.]

I think it is unwise to draw any conclusions about the intent of the translators without asking them (or their bishops).

I did a quick search and found that the Syriac Catholic website ( http://www.syriac-catholic.org ) uses the same text (maybe PrJ can tell us where he got his text from?) and there is nothing to indicate it is an official text. We recently had people claiming that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese had embraced gender-neutral language when someone posted the Creed from their website with �for us and our salvation�. I understand that when it was brought to the attention of the webmaster he immediately replaced it with the official text (which correctly states �who for us men and our salvation�). I also found the Syrian Orthodox website ( http://sor.cua.edu ) and it does include the word �men� in this context.

http://www.syriac-catholic.org is the source of the text I was referring to in my posts (sorry for not being more specific) as having no indication of being an official one by Mar Ephrem Joseph or Patriarch Ignatius. It is also not the version in my pew book (which includes "for us men").

I suspected that site to be the source of the discussion on this thread as the Syriac Orthodox texts available on their website read "Who for us men" at http://sor.cua.edu/Liturgy/Anaphora/PubCeleb.html

"I know that there was leeway before Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001 but things are very clear now and the texts should have been made accurate."

Even after LA the Vatican approved the Corrected Revised NAB lectionary which still has some inclusive language and the American Latin Bihsops have sent to to Rome for apporval of their revised Missal which also has "for us". If this gets approval, and at this point I see it as 50/50 chance if they got to keep inclusive language in the Lectionary, people who kept harping about LA are going to appear unsupported in their criticisms. On the other hand they may be vindicated, but if inclusive language survived LA in the Lectionary I think it has a good chance in the Missal.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, the Vatican did allow approval for some texts using gender-neutral language through. But they did make it clear they were not happy with it. We see it in that the Vatican will not allow the USCCB to print the �Revised Amended Revised New American Bible� as a complete Bible and that the current lectionary used in the U.S. RC parishes will get another review. We also see that in Canada the Vatican disallowed their use of the NRSV because of the doctrinal problems with the gender-neutral language it employed (Canada has fixed it and supposedly corrected the problems and won Vatican approval but now there is the question of whether the National Council of Churches (which holds the copyright) will allow it). I do know there is a significant push in the USCCB to allow the use of the RSV-CE Lectionary (the one approved by the episcopal conference in the Antilles). But the issue here is the $$ the USCCB makes from copyright royalties. It looks more and more like they will simply correct the RAR-NAB so as not to loose $$. But the Vatican has been pushing for a single version of the Scriptures for each language and we know that Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) personally insisted on the RSV for almost all the Scripture quotes in the Catholic Catechism and chose the RSV-CE2 for his excellent book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" (2000). There is plenty of fuel for hope of orthodoxy!

But even if Rome finally approves the removal of the English word for �anthropos� (which is "men") from the English translation of the Creed that does not mean people like me will appear unsupported in our criticisms. It is all but impossible to appear unsupported when you have people like Cardinal Est�vez in the corner of orthodoxy:

I thought the USCCB was the one refusing to print the Corrected Revised NAB as a Bible because while they had to accept the corrections for Lectionary use they weren't going to allow the corrections into the Bible for general use.

Yes, the Vatican is insisting on corrections they don�t want to make so they can't publish what they want. You�re saying the same thing.

But don�t miss one of the main points I made. Even if Rome finally approves the removal of the English word for �anthropos� (which is "men") from the English translation of the Creed that does not mean people like me will appear unsupported in our criticisms (as you stated). It is all but impossible to appear unsupported when you have people like Cardinal Est�vez in the corner of orthodoxy. And the Church will always be open to making corrections in translations. Many of us have already appealed the problems with the new Ruthenian Revised Divine Liturgy.

John,

Maybe unsupported is the wrong word. As I see it, if LA is cited as the reason why men should'nt be dropped and then the Pope who gives LA its authority and has the right to interpret it approves dropping men, then it appears Cardinal Estevez and other haves wrongly interpreted LA, as far as the Creed is concerned.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Hmmm. Let me see if I got this right.

Pope Benedict seems relatively clear about inclusive language in LA. However, he either was not serious about what he wrote, or multitudes are misinterpreting it. If the document means what it says, and the Pope approves inclusive language, then he has done 180 degree reversal. If he meant what he says and does not approve inclusive language, then our hierarchs are being disobedient. If LA does not mean what it says, then Cardinal Estevez has completely misunderstood the document.

Holy Orthodox keeps looking better everyday.

I see the but let me say that my first encounter with the dropping of men/Mankind involved a translation by Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary. For the record, I include below (since it and its archives are no longer active) my post to the old cineast list. Note the date -- coming up to the 10th anniversary!

Dn. Anthony

Well. An old friend told me that it was Tony Kotlar I was talking to on the Forum, but I had nearly forgotten all but the old familiarity of the name.

Now my memory is refreshing.

That is quite a tragedy that those old cineast archives are gone, or inaccessible. There was a wealth of information that was lost on that sad day of removal, not the least of which being the human connection.

There is great irony in your post, Deacon Anthony, for all that you call our attention to has been distorted in the Ruined Divine Liturgy of the Byzantine Metropolia.

God's blessings, and forgive my weak memory. I'd like to blame it on age or the speed with which life carries us along, but I am afraid it is a weakness that is without excuse.

Mary

Father, Bless.

I've been looking all over the place to find the history of the Syriac Catholic Church in America; I've also been trying to contact the mission in Chicago, but have so far been unable - there is no contact information.

I have a question though - are the Syriac Catholics a good example of sticking to their liturgical Tradition? Aren't they heavily latinized, as well as francocized?

There is evidence, and there is more substance than hysterics. No one on this forum speaks officially for the Metropolia. Fr. David, a member of the IELC, has expressed his views; he has directly and indirectly addressed inclusivity as an issue. But officially, the following is my excerpted transcription from the DVD Time for the Lord to Act: A video catechesis for the new English editions of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh.



This is the second of the three issues addressed for this question:

1 "same essence"
2 inclusivity: "Men" and "Man" in the Creed
3 the filioque

Dn. Anthony

Dn. Anthony,

Been out of town - sorry about the delay. I guess we are getting back to the question of accuracy and context in translation.

I understand that he used the word inclusive, but only in reference to restoring the original context of the original verbiage.

Thanks for the input-

Alex

I must say that when Fr. Robert in the DVD catechesis says:


I understand him to mean "gender neutrality (or inclusiveness)." And so Fr. Robert is understood differently. But there is an issue with context that is not mentioned in the DVD. Consider that the RDL Creed has "For us and ..." This can be rendered in Greek as

di'(for) hēmas(us) kai(and)...,

words found in the Greek of the Creed. But if the Fathers who composed the Creed wanted to say just that, they didn't; they inserted another word (with its article) tous anthrōpous, i.e.

di'(for) hēmas(us) tous anthropous(???) kai(and)...

Why did they bother inserting the extra word(s) since it is not needed to say "for us and ..." Were they not in fact intending to say more than just "for us and ..."? Then must we not in our translation say more than "for us and ..."?

How can simply ignoring in translation a word that is obviously there on purpose, with a purpose, in the Greek original (and the Slavonic of the Recension) be "restoring the original context of the original verbiage"?

Dn. Anthony

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Without mitigating the value of proper Greek translations, I do not believe that the issue of inclusive language will be resolved strictly through a debate over translation. I believe that the issue of inclusive langauge in worship services points to a need for more exploration in the area of liturgy and the theology of gender. In fact I think that this is a major blind spot or at least a field being left fallow by eastern liturgical theologians. I would like to see eastern liturgical scholars enter more deeply into this area because I believe it is in fact central to liturgy. In fact, as Pope John Paul II said in his theology of the body, it is in fact the "fundamental component of human existence."

Liturgy is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom with His Bride the Church. Our participation in the Heavenly Liturgy is an entrance into the veritable mystical bridal chamber of God, our participation in the "wedding feast of the Lamb." Where there is gender confusion or lack of the revelatory significance of gender there is necessarily theological confusion. In a sense gender IS theology. Precisely via gender we are able to participate in the interior life of the Holy Trinity, to become a Union and Communion of Persons. It is precisely through gender that the Spousal union of Christ and His Church is both signified and participated in. Gender is not blurred in liturgy nor in the eschaton but rather it comes into its full flowering.
Although we are all called, male and female alike, to grow more and more into the image and likness of Christ in order to be saved, nonetheless we do so as gendered persons and there is a profound significance to this.

The resistance to inclusive language in the liturgy is not soley about the correct translation of the Greek, however important that is. It touches upon that which is most central to our being--the spousal mystery, the Divine Order of creation. It is precisely through gender that we can love as God loves. Love comes to its fullest and most eschatological significance in liturgy. I believe that this is why the inclusive language issue is so critical and it is not going to go away. In fact it should not go away because it is tied to the central mystery of our being human and therefore of the mystical reality of liturgy.

It seems that liturgical scholarship, like most scholarship since the middle of the last century is dominated by the historical-critical method. Many leading liturgical scholars in our time have in fact been Jesuits or Jesuit trained and it is my sense that the historcial-critical method of scholarship is the preferred method of research in the world of Jesuit scholarship. This is an observation on my part not a criticism.

The historical-critial method most certainly yields many good things and in fact where would eastern liturgical scholarship be today without the contribution of Jesuits and Jesuit trained eastern liturgical scholars? But the historical-critical method it is not a complete method. I dare to say especially when it comes to liturgy. In fact, no scholastic method can claim to be perfect or complete. This is precisely why I think that there is difficulty in acceptance of aspects of the revised translation of the Liturgy. The historical-critical method tells us what the "ancients" did during liturgy and it uses that knowledge to determine what is good for the current times. This is of course very necessary. But there is so much more to liturgy than historical development, as crucially important as that is, and I think that this is where the problem lies. Until this area is properly explored the resistance to new translations will continue and perhaps with good reason because something very important and comprehensive is being overlooked.

The changes and discussions regarding the new translation of the liturgy should not be reduced to "conservatives versus liberals" or anything of that sort. I believe that oppenents to the new translastion are perhaps groping to express something that is almost inexpressible but something that lies deep within the human spirit. It is something that has gone overlooked in this whole process and in the subsequent discussions. It is something that goes far beyond the exact translation of a Greek word, however valuable that truly is in regard to Liturgy.

Liturgy, more than any other scholastic discipline in the Church seems to be greater than the sum of its parts. It is primarily mystical. By "mystical" I mean therefore what is most real. It is an area powerfully explored by John Paul II in his "Theology of the Body" which, when faithfully read, accurately understood and practiced, is in fact the convergence point of eastern and western theological anthropology. I believe that the concern over inclusive language is really a concern about overlooking, distorting, trivilizing and the consequent disruption of the Divine order of things as expressed and lived out through our gendered persons. I believe that it is precisely in liturgy that the value of gender is revealed in all its signifance rather than rendering gender insigificant. I think that this forms the basis of the real concern that opponents have over the issue of inclusive language in liturgy. If we get gender wrong in liturgy we get everything else wrong in life. Liturgy is life. Life is Liturgy. Liturgy informs our life. If the significance of gender is not understood, preserved and lived in liturgy then it becomes insignifcant in ever other aspect of life. We can see the destructive consequences of this in our sexually confused world today.

Another point that I believe could be helpful in this is if the "Sensus Fidelium" was factored more into the considerations of liturgical worship and translations. I am not advocating liturgy by vote or by the whims of those less educated in liturgy than our liturgical scholars. What I am saying is that liturgy needs to be "rescued" in a sense from the confines of academia. Liturgy is greater even than academia. With all due respect, and speaking as a pastor on the front lines of the liturgical life of parishes, academia, by its nature, can sometimes exist in its own world. Issues that are imporant in academia may not be in the world of the rank and file.

The inclusive langauge contained in the revised translation of the liturgy was thankfully kept "horizontal." For those bothered by inclusive language we must be fair to the Liturgical Commission and admit that it "could have been much worse." I think that the problem lies in the fact that there was a sense of a certain inclusive language "imperative" among the scholars working on the new translation. Inclusive language issues and the whole world of so-called "PC" as a point of fact is very heavy in the world of academia. However, as I approach my 25th annivesary of being a pastor I have seen no such imperative among the rank and file of our Church where the revised liturgy will be implemented and lived. In fact, there was no clamoring, no one leaving our Church in a huff because we still used "mankind" in our liturgy.

The questions raised then become: Where did this inclusive language imperative come from? Was it the insistence of a few? Who were they? Why them over and above the rank and file? If in fact it was the insistence of a few could this be perceived as a sort of elitism and end up committing the very "ex"-clusivity, insensitivity and dictatorship that the whole "inclusive" spirituality purports to be against? Conversely, pastors, are now saddled with battles, clamoring and even loss of parishioners because of an imperative for inclusive language that was deemed necessary for parishes by academia. Had a more definitive rank and file input been invited in the process of the new translation I think that much of the difficulties that pastors now face could have been avoided. In saying this I am not slamming academia. I am merely pointing to, as in the case of the historical-critical method, the inherent incompleteness of a predominantly academic approach to liturgy that if taken into consideration would make the transition smoother. I know that there was "pastoral representation" in the process but it was apparantly not complete or representative enough and I say this as a pastor with what I believe is sufficient pastoral experience. I also offer these remarks in hopes that they will be helpful in the continued work of the Commission on our other worship services to which I look forward (funerals, weddings, etc.)

Finally, I think that it is the task of the Church to promote and preserve culture and all that is the best of "mankind."
(Sorry, I am not trying to be a wise guy. Personally I just think that "mankind" is warmer, richer, more poetic and inclusive than other choices.) I think that as Church we have to be careful when we say that we are using inclusive language because the English language has changed. Yes, it has changed: It is in a freefall to utter banality. The Church is not supposed to be a party to the decline of language and culture but to stand against its decline and to remind and model for the world that which is of the most digified nature. We are supposed to give our best to God. In this the Church is the teacher and the world is the classroom, not the other way around.

I hope to make my own attempt at a more comprehensive presentation about the theology of gender and liturgy since I do alot of work in the theology of the body. I truly believe that the Church, in fact civilzation rests upon the appropriate understanding of gender especially as lived in liturgy. I truly believe that our liturgical theologians would really serve our church and humanity well by taking up this more mystical dimension of liturgy.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB,MA.

Father, bless

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for posting again. Your words always ring true.

This paragraph has moved me. "It is something that lies deep within the human spirit." That is why it is so difficult for me to express my opposition to inclusive language--it is almost inexpressible!

Dear Fr. Tom,

Well spoken! We need to hear more voices like this!

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

Given the emotions involved over the issue of "inclusive language" I can accept that this may prove to be a correct assessment. I still have the conviction (the hope), however, that at least a limited scholarly consensus can be reached, objectively, based on the merits of the specific translation issues. Let me give it one more try.

First, with reference to my previous post, a clarification: I was responding to the assertion that inclusivity is not the issue, context is the issue: " ... he [Fr. Robert Pipta] used the word inclusive, but only in reference to restoring the original context of the original verbiage." I do not think this is the case but, for the sake of the argument, ok, ignore, forget inclusivity as a factor. My analysis above starting with "But there is an issue with context" is based solely on context and does not invoke any consideration of inclusivity. So, from here on also, forget the "i-word" issue - context only.

1. I point out that a rather substantial word in the Greek (and Slavonic) is not explicitly translated in the RDL Creed and I question why it is not translated and indicate why it should be.

2. Elsewhere I have pointed out what I see as a very strong rhetorical reason indicating that the word not explicitly translated in the RDL Creed is in fact an essential word for the overall context: for us XXX(plural)... He became XXX(singular but with a collective, "corporate" meaning).

I am a seeker here and ask questions. Please, if you find that my analysis is off, respond, and let me know why. I promise I will not offer a response unless asked to do so.

Now we all know the difference in the translations, how XXX is treated. [remember, ignore the "i-word"] In one:

"for us Men ... He became Man"

in the other

"for us ... He became Man."

3. Elsewhere I have put forth this challenge which I repeat: to those who accept the translation "for us ... He became Man" why is it necessary or proper to drop the previously used word "Men" from the translation but it is ok to retain the word "Man"?

One further question: Based on considerations of "the theology of the body" and "the spousal mystery, the Divine Order of creation" what is considered the proper translation of the phrase in question?


Dn. Anthony

The issues raised by Fr. Loya and Deacon Anthony are not mutually exclusive. In fact they both raise similar issues, but on different levels�-Deacon Anthony at the scholarly level of translation, Fr. Tom at the deep level of conscience or truth. Both are asking the question, �Is this �translation� true?�

With respect to Deacon Anthony�s question, he asks, �Why is it necessary or proper to drop the previously used word "Men" from the translation but it is ok to retain the word "Man?�
The simple answer to this question is that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us as a man but not a human person.

Deacon Anthony was also asking for possible alternatives. I will give two and show why they are false.

First the fathers might have said, �for us...He came down to earth.� This is insufficient because even the Greek and Roman gods appeared as men on earth, but these were only appearances. It does not get to the truth of the matter that God truly became man so that both God and man could be predicated of Him, and so that man might became god.

Second, some have suggested alternatives such has, �for us human beings...He became a human being.� This also is insufficient because it fails to recognize that Christ was a male�a man, even though the assumed nature is not a �someone� as is the nature of a male or female person. In Jesus Christ the nature is a �something.� That Christ is a male, however, is vitally important because it reminds us that He is the Bridegroom. St. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Ephesians says that He left His Father in heaven, and His mother, the synagogue, to be united to His Bride the Church. If the Church is truly a Bride, and the old testament certainly provides us with this image of God�s people, God must have become a man to preserve the economy of that image which finds its fulfillment in the Book of Revelation:


Revelation, ch 21.

This takes us back to Fr. Loya�s point that this is not simply an issue of correct translation. Certainly having a mistranslation can help us to ask the simple question, �Why is this mistranslation incorrect?� The simple answer is that anthropos, even in the new testament, often means a �male human being� as well as �human being� without regard to sex or age. But the more important answer is because translating anthropos (or its plural) is in clear opposition to the confusion of the modern secular culture.

The dispute which has arisen because of the failure to translate anthropos leads us to ask whether we should imitate the secular culture which does in fact frequently refuse to use words like man and mankind. Fr. Robert Pipta has noted that it seems that certain words are exclusive. The question is, �Are they really exclusive?� Furthermore, what is the message behind this seeming exclusivity? What we do know from the secular culture is that in matters of human sexuality, of the fundamental relationship between male and female, the culture has lost its bearings. This is most evident when we now have legal recognition of homosexual marriages, but it is evident in so many other ways as well. It is not the time to change our Creed or Divine Liturgy on what seems to be true to the secular culture. Rather, we need to reflect more deeply on the why the Fathers phrased the Creed as they did and why John Paul II has given the Catholic Church this great gift of the theology of the body. In short we need faith seeking understanding. I look forward to Fr. Loya�s exposition on how the theology of the body is reflected in the Eastern Liturgy.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

IM,

Thank you for your fine remarks. I am so glad to see you touch upon THE fundamental mystery of liturgy, in fact of our very existence. If we understood this we would not only solve most of the problems of the world and of the Church but also issues such as inclusive language would not even come to our mind for consideration.

The fact that the inclusive language issue was even a consideration at all reveals the deep, deep spiritual renewal that our Church must undergo because it reveals that we have completely lost our sense of Mission as Church. The Church does not take its marching orders from the secular world. Rather it it is the other way around. The world is there for the Church to sanctify-to bring to the world the Church's vision--dare I say, indeed the LITURGICAL vision which is the only correct vision of reality. It is the vision that Adam and Even had before the Fall. It is the vision that was restored and taken to new heights with the Incarnation--when the Bridegroom "married" HIs Bride.

With all due respect to our marvelous liturgical scholars, in our day and age, in all of the discussions about translation, rubrics, revisions, etc. liturgy is practically being reduced to history. But this is because, as I mentioned, the historical-critical method has been enshrined in the world of scholarship since the middle of the last century. We take nothing away from the immense merits of this method and also from our liturgical scholars. However, there is a deep, fundamental oversight here which is the root of our problems in the Church and in the world. Until we explore this there will be no peace in the Church, in Liturgical discussions, in the world, in marriage and family, in vocations, betwee nations, etc. etc. Why? Because Liturgy is life! And life finds its meaning in the Spousal Mystery--the interior life of the Holy Trinity the Second Person of which "espoused" Himself to us and this Spousal Mystery is the DNA of the created order. And it comes to it fullest expression PRECISELY in Liturgy.

There is a deep, fundamental revelatory value to gender and this value comes to it fullest expression in Liturgy. This is what I belive, deep down inside all of us is what we find unsettling about the inclusive language consideration. It is not because we are chauvinists or "conservative" or any other type of insensitive name calling. In fact (at least speaking for myself) we are "pro" woman, but also pro man, pro children, pro nature, pro life, etc. etc.

It is not so much the words themselves but rather resevoir out of which this whole consideration springs. It is resevoir that sees gender as insignificant and this is simply sharing with the secular world a non-sacramental, non-liturgical worldview. Liturgy is more than rubrics, translations and the continual rediscovery of what the ancients did. It is life. It is Mystical. It is poetry, art, music, culture, truth, theology, unity, and ultimately a participation in the wedding feast of the Bridegroom. Liturgy is the one thing that belongs to everyone yet to no one--no, not even bishops, priests, scholars, nor cantors. Liturgy is greater than all of us and maybe what we really need is to keep our hands off of it in a manner of speaking.

I wince deep in my soul to see our Liturgical Church look horizontally to what others are doing and then mimicing them rather than looking vertically into our deep authentic selves. To me it is like when African Americans refer to one another with the "N" word. We have become masters at looking disparagingly at ourselves as somehow innately deficient;the world outside of us always has a better idea. They must. Afterall how could little 'ol us possibly have anything to offer? The "Ruthenian" Church, for instance, may be in its roots or even charcter or charm a "peasent" Church as I keep hearing these days. But at the same time the Ruthenian Church is the Church of St. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, the desert Fathers and of Ss. Cyril and Methodius. This is not a Church that has to have an inferiority complex. My attitude: The world is our classroom and WE are the teachers. WE set the standard. The world does not have a clue so they had best shut up and listen to the Church of Chrysostom and Basil.

As an Eastern Church we alone possess a special genius for expressing the liturgical worldview to a world that so sadly needs it. Yet, rather than really explore the depths of this and be true to it (as the Church has called us to be) we leave our riches fallow and imitate the west and the secular world in attiude (secular feminisim, inclusive language, etc.) and in dress, in fact in so many ways. This stands as a testimony to what I believe is the "original sin" of Eastern Catholicism---a fundamental sense of inferiority. And we sometimes mask our mimicing of those outside of us by saying we are "enlightened", more sophisticated, more tuned to our times. "This is America, not the old country." These are simply instruments of denial that seek to justify our sense of inferiority. We have hardly begun to discover who we really are and our enormous riches and this goes for our rediscovery of Liturgy as well.

I am working on what will be a more comprehensive presentation of the theology of the body (gender) and the Liturgy. But it is my hope that liturgical scholarship will move in this direction with earnest.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB,MA.

Just pointing out that both of the comments from Fr. Loya and Dn. Anthony are the best explanations I have read so far of the complications over the RDL and the language/translation question. Thank you both for your insights and clarification; they have proven edifying.

Alex