Father Deacon,

I disagree with your assessment.

I speak of the possible lost pastoral dimensions from changing what is reasonably accurate and is already very well known to what is literally accurate and generally unknown. What you call “horizontal inclusive language” seeks to take what is accurate and inclusive and make it less accurate so that it becomes politically correct. “Who for us men and our salvation” and “For [Christ] is gracious and loves mankind” are already inclusive of every man from Adam and Eve to the last child conceived before the Second Coming. “Who for us and our salvation” and “For [Christ] is gracious and loves us all” are neither more accurate nor more inclusive because they potentially exclude anyone not in the room at the time. It will always beg completion of “who for us X”.


You sum up the problem well. The change to so-called “inclusive language” is not because people are not capable of understanding Standard English (which uses a single noun (or pronoun) to designate both genders). The change is demanded because a tiny number of people are offended by the language. These women who are offended may not be radical feminists themselves but they most certainly are getting the idea that they need to be offended from such people. Is the language of the Liturgy really to be determined by what is profane (outside the temple)?

I have not spoken to all the refugees from the Ruthenian parish in Northern Virginia who now worship at the Melkite parish (where the words “man”, “men”, and “mankind” are not just allowed but used). Five of these (3 of who are women) told me that they could no longer worship in the Ruthenian parish even if the “gender neutral language” were the only changes that had been made. Over at adoremus.org they have articles and polls showing that the numbers of people offended by Standard English are really very small and that far more people are offended by the use of so-called “inclusive language”.

I apologize to readers for allowing Deacon Lance to change the topic of the thread.

I would still welcome specific responses to the question I raised regarding the terms “Theotokos” and “Mother of God”.

John

Part of the problem lies in the, for lack of a better description, the inexactness of the English language. In this case "to bear" can have multiple meanings, as in to bear a child, to bear arms, to bear across a river. In the case of Theotokos being translated as God Bearer, can cause confusion with Theophoros which literally means God Bearer in the sense of to carry, not to give birth.
Because of this inherent deficiency in the English language, confusion has arisen. A much better option, in my opinion is to simply refer to the Theotokos as Bogorodice, which is a precise translation of Theotokos, and in line with the tradition of the BCC. An even better option is to do it all in Slavonic, but that's only my opinion.

Alexandr

The traditional equivalent of Theotokos in the Latin Church is Christifera, though it has gone out of common use since the 18th Century.

I don't think so.
Theotokos

Uh, no. That's Deipara. Christifera is the Latin for Christophora.

While Deipara may be a more accurate translation as Birth-giver to God', it is rather obscure. Christifera was used in the Middle Ages, most especially in England. While it may not have the same exact denotation as Theotokos it was cetrainly used with the same connotation. Dei genetrix was and is still used in the same way and perhaps this is the best translation to agree upon.

I beg to differ on the point that 'Christifera' is far more common. I've been singing liturgical and paraliturgical stuff from England of the Middle Ages, as well as the Franco-Flemish repertoire, for about 15 years now, and I haven't found 'Christifera' that much more common than 'Deipara'.

'Christifera' is pretty far from 'Deipara/Deigenitrix' in meaning - 'Christifera' is more like 'Christophoros'.

And as far as its use in England - John Henry Cardinal Newman certainly used Deipara in his sermons and addresses as an equivalent to Theotokos.

Then there is no need for reasoning over the issue since they already understand correctly. So what's their purpose, their motivation; what's their point?

Dn. Anthony

I'll let you have this one. I don't have time to dig through all my books.