Well the English translation of the Ordinary of the Roman Missal was approved by Rome with horizontal inclusive language.
In the intro to the Pentitential Rite and at the Offertory: "brothers and sisters"
In the Gloria: "peace on earth to people of good will"
...
Perhaps no we can dismiss the idea that Rome did not approve of the RDL or that our hierarchs disobeyed Rome in allowing horizontal inclusive language.
I think the issue is not so straight forward. There have been various news reports that Rome allowed some gender neutral language to be retained from the existing translations for pastoral reasons (i.e., that it was already committed to memory by the faithful). We also saw that in Canada the one bishop noted that neither Rome nor the Canadian Bishops got what they wanted with the approval of the Canadian NRSV-Based Lectionary. It is not really correct to say that because Rome approved or compromised, such compromise now constitutes the new standard. I have not see explanations for each translation change, but it seems reasonable to consider that the retention of “brothers and sisters” might fall into this category. I don’t know about the Gloria. “Peace on earth to people of good will” might have been chosen as a compromise since the people already know “peace to his people on earth.” Explanations for the changes seem to be forthcoming.
As far as the RDL, it remains confusing. The three books that were approved and mandated carried an approval number from the Oriental Congregation (99/2001). But it is customary that such approval carries with it no authority unless made public. So it is very reasonable to suggest that the bishops promulgated the Revised Divine Liturgy on their own authority. One could also note that Father Taft has told more then a few people that he was the only one that reviewed the RDL texts submitted to Rome, that he checked them only for heresy and not accuracy. And we have seen his published statements rejecting
Liturgiam Authenticam. But, as I have noted before, the approval letter from the Orientale dated 31 March 2001 is just a month before the promulgation of
Liturgiam Authenticam (7 May 2001). That was followed by the reorganization of the International Committee on English in the Liturgy and it was clear that direction was given to return to translations that were both authentic and accurate. Then came the creation of the Vox Clara Commission in 2002. I think it is very fair to state that in the six years between the 2001 approval letter and the 2007 promulgation the Council of Hierarchs had a responsibility to direct that the texts be reviewed to ensure conformance to the new directives that they be accurate.
Finally, note that removal of “men” in “for us men and our salvation” in the RDL is not an example of “horizontal inclusive language”. “Anthropos” and its English translation “men” are inclusive of all men from Adam and Eve forward until the final soul conceived before the Second Coming. Removing the word “men” potentially excludes all men from Adam and Eve forward excepting those physically present at that particular celebration. This type of language cannot really be called "inclusive" as it does not include anyone who was not already included. It is more correctly termed "gender neutral language".
It is not too late for the bishops to correct the problems with the RDL. I have spoken to this elsewhere but they could restore to themselves a large amount of good will from the clergy and laity by rescinding the Revised Divine Liturgy, making the official Ruthenian recension books normative, reprinting the old books with only the necessary corrections (respecting what has been memorized), and allowing freedom in music.
Please remember to pray for the Ruthenian bishops, for all bishops everywhere, and for all our clergy.
Previous Topic
Index