Recently I have heard that the Creed (along with a whole series of other prayers and psalms) will be newly translated and that it will be changed to accommodate what has become, in recent years, known as “horizontal gender inclusivity.” As I understand it, one of the changes in the Creed will be “for us and our salvation,” leaving out the word, “men,” despite the fact that the Greek word, “anthropos,” is in the original Greek text.

First of all, to consider that “for us men” is non-inclusive is to misunderstand the English language. The word, “man,” according to the 1971 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1982 reprint), the most authoritative dictionary of the English language, means a human being irrespective of sex or age. Therefore the notion that the term, “men,” is not inclusive of women is simply false. The idea that the word, “men,” is non-inclusive has been conjured up within the last thirty years and is based upon a claim by feminists that the word is sexist. See for example the most current edition of the Oxford English Dictionary which states: “The generic use of man to refer to “human beings in general” is now widely regarded as old-fashioned or sexist.”

A recent survey, as reported by Catholic World Report, provides interesting statistics in regard to the use of gender inclusive language.

In February 1997, the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut surveyed a thousand Catholic Americans concerning the use of inclusive language. (A poll this size is considered reliable to an overall accuracy of within three percent.) The results of the survey, published in the March 1997 Catholic World Report (CWR), revealed the following:

Most Catholics sense no need for new liturgical translations.

The overwhelming majority of Catholics are unfamiliar with the term "inclusive language."

When the rationale for inclusive language is explained to them, most Catholics reject it.

When asked to choose between two sets of actual Biblical texts-one drawn from a standard translation, the other from a new inclusive-language version-Catholics choose the standard translations by comfortable margins.

The preference for standard English holds for all demographic groups: men and women, old and young people, daily communicants and lapsed Catholics.

The preference for standard English is strongest among the people who adhere most closely to Catholic teaching and practice; it is weakest among those who rarely receive the sacraments and those who reject Church teachings.

What strikes me the most about the proposed change in the Creed is how western and secular the change is. Why worry about correcting the Latin uses which have crept into the Byzantine Church such as the filioque, when this proposed change is a marriage with modernity and modern feminism?

The proposed change to the Creed also makes no sense in light of the recent instruction on translations for the Roman Liturgy:

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.

While I understand that Liturgicam Authenticum does not apply to the Eastern Churches, nonetheless why should the guiding principles be any different?

The phrase in the Creed, "for us men and our salvation came down from heaven...and was made man," seems to correspond directly to the reference in 1 Timothy 2:5. If the Church is to be consistent, it should seek to make the same changes in Scripture itself. For example, 1 Timothy 2:5, " For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...," in a Protestant Bible, is being rendered, "For there is one God and mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human.." Moreover, the Creed as set forth in “The Catechism of the Catholic Church” uses the phrase, “for us men.” Because this catechism is normative for the entire Catholic Church, are we to assume that the Church has there erred? And of course, what are we to assume of all of Scripture where the terms, man or men, are used to represent human beings irrespective of sex or age? This of course is most evident right from the beginning wherein we learn that God created man; male and female he created them.

Sadly, it looks like we're entering a new era in which we are concerned with being politically correct rather than making correct translations of our ancient liturgy and creed. These changes may also further the divide with our Orthodox brethren.

Cardinal John Henry Newman, in a sermon, “The Gospel, a trust committed to us,” wrote:

The grant of grace in Baptism follows upon the accurate enunciation of one or two words; and if so much depends on one sacred observance, even down to the letter in which it is committed to us, why should not at least the substantial sense of other truths, nay, even the primitive wording of them, have some special claim upon the Church’s safe guardianship of them? St. Paul’s Articles of Belief are precise and individual; why should we not take them as we find them?

Here is a link to that sermon:
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/parochial/volume2/sermon22.html

Dear lm,

Are you speaking about a new traslation of the Roman Catholic Liturgy?

the unworthy,
Elias

I have seen the Creed read, "For us and our salvation" in a UGCC.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lm:
[QB] While I understand that Liturgicam Authenticum does not apply to the Eastern Churches, nonetheless why should the guiding principles be any different?

Thank God this doesn't apply to the Orthodox Churches!

My understanding is that these changes in translation may occur in the Ruthenian Church. lm

Frankly, I’m tired of feminism changing the words of our Liturgy and Holy Bible with their gender neutral vocabulary. This brings to mind the damage (and massive loss of members) that liberals and feminists have inflicted upon the mainline Protestant Churches in the U.S. Are the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic Churches soon to follow? Thank God there is an alternative: The Orthodox Church Welcomes You!

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese uses horizontal inclusive language in its English translations.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Like "Blessed is the one" rather than "Blessed is the man" at Vespers? (cf. The Office of Vespers, Sisters of St. Basil the Great, Uniontown, PA).

So?

Well, one of the reasonings against I have seen put out is the Orthodox don't do it. They do. Personally I don't like inclusive language, on the otherhand I don't see the big deal changing brethren to brothers and sisters or mankind to humankind.

The Metropolitan Cantor Institute materials have Blessed is the man... Since the Byzantine Church has interpreted this as a Christological Psalm this is important. But if you don't interpret this Psalm Christologically, like for example Theordore of Mopsuestia or the Syriac Churches who use his exegetical tradition, man or one or those is probably not important.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The OCA, Antiochians, and the RCOR do not use horizontal inclusive language in their English translations. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the GOA suffers from many problems - pls add this to the list!

My understanding is that they will not.

the unworthy,
Elias

There's an interesting article, which I'm guessing most here have read, in the Touchstone archives called East Meets English .

Personally, I have an intense dislike of inclusive language and prefer what would probably be termed sacral English (which luckily enough my church uses).

Andrew

In the OCA, the official Liturgy translation was issued in 1967 - it is still the norm, and
it is not gender neutral. There is no movement or even discussion concerning employing gender neutral language in the OCA. THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WELCOMES YOU!

Elderly puzzled person here would very much like to know exactly what

I'm absolutely sick and fed up of all this jargon that is being used now.

Why can't folk use clear English ?

Anhelyna

Horizontal inclusive language represents replacing mankind with humankind or brethren with brothers and sisters, etc, as opposed to vertical inclusive language which changes Father, Son and Holy Spirit to Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier, or Parent, Child, Force, and any other way of avoiding refering to the Father as Father, or the Son as Son and often going out of ones way to identify the Holy Spirit as female.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The proposed revision to the Divine Liturgy (for the Ruthenians) includes some translations that go way beyond ‘horizontal inclusive language’ and embrace what can only be called ‘vertical inclusive language’.

In addition to being inaccurate, replacing “for he is gracious and loves mankind” with “for Christ is good and loves us all” is an example of ‘vertical inclusive language’. Replacing “he” with the specific name “Christ” might have been done with the best of intentions, but it can be seen as a denial of Christ’s maleness, as if it were part of the whole liberal “Jesus is our sister as well as our brother” attitude. Also, replacing “mankind” with “all of us” can be seen as exclusionary (He saves only those gathered here but not necessarily all men). The replacement of “gracious” with “good” appears to be a legitimate change for accuracy.

The Roman Catholic Church is racked with hosts of problems because of the introduction of inclusive language, which in itself is nothing more than catering to the secular feminist agenda. Why our bishops and liturgical commission would introduce this fight into our Church is a mystery. Even a cursory read of the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam show that the proposed revisions take our Church in the wrong direction. One can argue that the letter of LA does not apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches but one cannot argue that the principles it provides do not apply to all Catholics.

Admin,

While I dislike that translation myself, I think ones must look at the entire translation to determine if it does "embrace what can only be called ‘vertical inclusive language’ or 'can be seen as a denial of Christ’s maleness, as if it were part of the whole liberal “Jesus is our sister as well as our brother” attitude."

Nowhere in the translation is Jesus' maleness denied. The pronoun He is used numerous times in reference to Christ and most notably the masculine pronoun He replaces the neutral pronoun Who where ever it occurs in the translation in reference to any member of the Trinity.

I think therefore your accusation of vertical inclusiveness unfounded.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I never suggested that there was an overall intent to deny Christ’s maleness. In fact I specifically noted that the change was done with the best of intentions. I only suggested that inaccurate translations can cause confusion. If the translators were afraid that “he” might be thought to be referring to one of the saints that might be mentioned in this dismissal prayer, they could simply have capitalized it (“He”). There seems to be no justification for not being accurate in this instance. What is so horrible about “he” (or “He”) that it was decided to be unacceptable?

I disagree. But you might indeed be correct. We will have to wait for Rome to rule on whatever appeals come from the clergy and the people should this revision to the Liturgy be promulgated. I, as a faithful Byzantine Catholic layman, am praying earnestly that the Lord lead our bishops to produce a new Liturgicon that makes only minor edits to the text for accuracy (and not political correctness), as well being faithful to the rubrics of the Ruthenian recension (rather than a small group’s personal tastes).

Fr. Deacon,

What are the reasons for making the translations politically correct even if they are merely horizontal? Certainly the Creed ought not to be tampered with. Cardinal Newman, in the same sermon referenced in my original post, suggests that there are serious problems with not delivering the Mysteries as they have been received:

"The teacher of Christianity, instead of delivering the Mysteries, and (as far as may be) unfolding them is taught to scrutinize them, with a view of separating the inward holy sense from the form of words, in which the Spirit has indissolubly lodged them...Lastly, he reconstructs the language of theology to suit his (so called) improved views of Scripture doctrine."

God help the Ruthenians! I hope this whole thing fails, for the good of your Church.

Even the Creed in the Novus Ordo Mass of the Latin Church includes "for us men and for our salvation."

Logos Teen

Well there is some progress since the last go round with the administrator accepting that "good" is the accurate word. But how is "He" more "accurate" than "Christ"? Which of these two words is in the quoted phrase in the Greek and Slavonic?

No it cannot reasonably be seen this way, inasmuch as a masculine pronoun is used for Him in the exclamation.

Let us imagine that the use of horizontal or vertical inclusive language expands someone's understanding of God to the point of imaging God as "neither male nor female" and as Mystery. And let us imagine that this helps to create a path to monasticism and the convents, or at least a deeper spirituality. And let us imagine that some people--and particularly people who have to deal with forms of oppression--start learning of Christ as Friend or Companion, as having a human and immediate nature. Would it not be worth it?

I recently was in a group of people who were discussing how we image God. The women and the young people, hopeful and compassionate, all said that God is "someone" who is concerned with them as individuals. Us older working class guys found it difficult to make that leap. We could have used inclusive language as kids to help get us to the point reached by the women and youth. Its healthier, isn't it?

When people talk about "secular feminist agendas" and "political correctness" they're usually using code words to mask privilege. Discussion stops when people do this, doesn't it? And human privileges and power relationships seem to go very much against the faith, don't they?

Or are there still people who feel that God made them white and male so that they could exercise power over the rest of us?

Faithfully,

bob

Dear Snydersquare,

I am sure that you did not have the intent to prosletyze, but the above remark came across that way. That would be an absolute act against good conduct and decorum on this particular forum. Thank you.

In Christ,
Alice, Moderator

bob:

You posted:

"Let us imagine that the use of horizontal or vertical inclusive language expands someone's understanding of God to the point of imaging God as "neither male nor female" and as Mystery."
_________________________________________

Unfortunately for this idea, it flies in the face of Revelation. God specifically revealed Himself to us as Father through Our Lord Jesus Christ. To move back to "Mystery," we approach the far-removed ideas found in other religions, such as Islam. Our God has revealed Himself as Father specifically to reach into our world and relate to us as the father in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which fits each of us all too well.
__________________________________________

You followed with:

"And let us imagine that this helps to create a path to monasticism and the convents, or at least a deeper spirituality."
__________________________________________

Anything can create a "deeper spirituality" and that includes the New Age movement which this sounds all too much like. You have to remember that feminism, as it comes to us in the culture, is at root a radical hatred of God the Father and a hatred that deep and perverse comes certainly from the spriitual world, but it does not come from the path that Our Lord would have us travel nor the one traveled by the saints in the Church.

There are several books written about the language wars when it comes to translation, but, unfortunately, some of them are now out fo print because this issue is not new.

Fortunately for those of us who are Catholic, the late Pope John Paul II in "Authentic Liturgy" seems to point to the idea that only standard, non-feminist English can convey the truths of the Faith.

It seems from some of the posts on this and other threads that these wars have just now come to the BCA. In the Latin Church it has gone much farther with many groups refusing even to use the feminized translations that we currently have. One Bible study group that I left insisted on using a "Psalm" book that is a completely rewritten production. They said it was because authroized translations didn't "go far enough" in being inclusive. The point being that if one did not know the Psalms one would not recognize this volume as even being Christian.

BTW, those of us who have had our language training and degree work prior to the feminist attack on language and culture refuse to use the word "inclusive" to describe what this phenomenon is. The English language has been inclusive from its earliest forms and doesn't suddenly need political correction from radical feminists.

In Christ,

BOB

HOORAY

A man after my own heart You know this is so very very true

Dear Alice - I enjoyed (I usually do) your comment on the announcement that the OCA does not use "inclusive" language and that THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WELCOMES YOU! That is a bit shrill, to put it mildly, and your criticism is well taken.

But it moves me to invent a new catch phrase of my very own (which anyone is welcome to use at will): Proselytism by Pronouns!

Incognitus

Bob: You may find Fr. Taft's comments in the article linked above interesting. In effect, he considers those who object to horizontally inclusive language as having the political agenda.

I see that perspective as a little strong, but still have the sense that there is more at work in these discussions than just ideas on good translations. We should IMO focus on the suitability of the translation on its own merits: is it literate English; does it properly capture the meaning, nuances, and theology of the original text. Plenty of room for discussion on these points. We should avoid, IMO, the politics of the evolution in English usage - as detailed in Im's comments from the current vs thrity-some year old editions of the OED. Arguments that introduce the politics sometimes sound like this: since that evolution is part of the feminist agenda, and since that agenda includes a number of things that we absolutely oppose, then we must oppose this evolution of language also. (With the likely success of King Canute in opposing the tides.) Framing the issue in such terms sounds like a reactionary response to feminism, and doesn't really help advance the the goal of having the most suitable translation.

Excellent! I wonder if there are sheep stealing forays between "Thee" and "You" jurisdictions?

How sad that the "Ruthenian" Byzantine Catholic hierarchs in the USA decide to rework the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on their own.

Instead of striving toward unity among the Eastern Christian - Ukrainian, Melkite, Russian, Rusyn, etc. Catholic and Orthodox - they draw us further apart. We all celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

It is outrageous for one small branch of the Eastern Church to behave in such a self-important manner. Brotherly trust and ecumenism are being set back by their actions. How very unfortunate!

I take it there are no provisions for "now unto the ages of ages, Amen" to replace now and forever and ever."
The decision to 'dox should be based on more than a flight from externals. If you away from your wife everytime she forget to empty the dishwasher...

Bravo Pyrohy!

But to finish the thought, ... you will wind up having a whole series of wives and no marriage.

Uprooting and lack of commitment feed on themselves. This is why, in the US, half of all marriages end in divorce, but over 80% of first marriages endure until death.

Externals represent what you believe. The liturgy is not a show, it's the primary practical application of the church's theology.

Watch where gender inclusive language spreads, and follow what the people end up believing.

You'll probably notice a trend.

Andrew

djs:

"Fr. Taft's comments . . . he considers those who object to horizontally inclusive language as having the political agenda."

Doesn't that beg the question?

Why would I or others like me have the political agenda when it is for those who are pushing this false "inclusiveness" to justify why they are doing it? It's not the people who object to the politicization of the language to show why they object; it's for those who suddenly have found this new "revelation" to demonstrate the why they should be listened to or accepted.

An article that is long since gone from me, written by a Benedictine priest who had been a university-level professor of English for 50 years by the late 1960s when I was but a neophyte in language studies, made the point that English was an inclusive language from its origins and that the then-fledgling feminist claims that it was not were ridculous on their face and politically motivated. The problem is that communication runs the risk of being completely shut down since no one knows what is acceptable usage. It has become a moving target.

For the Latins, there is hope, though. There is a private translation of the Liturgy of the Hours that is being published in parallel English and Latin form to demonstrate that it is possible to render liturgical books accurately without resorting to the linguistic gymnastics of feminist language. There is also a non-feminist translation of the Scriptures that still has official approval: the Ignatius Revised Standard Version of 1965/66 with the imprimatur of Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston.
____________________________________________

On another tangent--if you will indulge me--

Am I off the wall again--been accused of that many times --or does it seem that the BCA is on a mission to self-destruct?

I won't even begin to completely catalogue the many things that people post about here that are driving people out. But things like forced church closings, entirely new music imposed, and translation wars don't exactly fill the pews. They do serve to alienate those filling the pews. It's a little different in the Latin Church--we seem to be big enough to have these types of wars and still hold enough options to give people a chance to go elsewhere before jumping ship. But in a smaller house . . . !?!?!

In any event, don't think that I don't sympathize, empathize and pray for those who must struggle in their pilgrim journey with all these issues. You're not alone. When you think that things are beyond your strength, remember that there is one man out here who includes all of you in his daily prayers--that each of you will have the grace of perseverence to the end (that the Lord says will make Him recognize you as one of His own).

In Christ,

BOB

Oh, make no mistakes. I think even horizontal inclusive language is a joke (look at what it is called, a joke on its own).
The last court document I saw was for a women and it said her name and below it it said he. The court here doesn't make concessions for what gender the recipient of the summons is.

Not really. As Im's quotes from he OED suggests, whatever the case in the late 1960's or the 1970's, the present situation is that the use of exclusive language, absent a compelling rationale, is sub-standard in formal English. Whether one likes it or not. So the burden is on those who would like to deviate from from present, standard, formal English.

There are reasonably reasons to justify the use of archaic forms. Most importantly I think is the capture of the overtones of typology. On the other hand, some of the claims along these lines seem to be mostly linked to trying to fight feminism and to deny this change of standard English. If concerns were expressed with specificity and cogency they would likely have more impact than they do when given as broadsides against feminism. What does that fight have to do with our translations? Do you really think that the broad feminist agenda has traction in our church?

I don't see a need for war on the translation. If anything I would wish for a better literary style and more antiphon verses. And Fr. Petras thanked me for all of the comments that I passed along to him; I assume that anyone who wants to give serious input can. The "entirely new music" I welcome with great enthusiasm. Because that music is a better representation of our tradition, from Slavonic into English, than the earlier (1960-70's) attempts. And I convinced that anyone who wants to take a red pen to settings coming out of the MCI will, like me, receive a hearing. Finally, I think that church closings are a tragedy. At the same time I realize from experience that those involved are very emotional about it - so much so that it is hard to get a good read on all the factors in play from early, first-person accounts.

A mission to self-destruct? Well I suppose that you might think so from the kvetching that goes on here. But there are far more folks are trying to contribute whatever they can toward building up, than the few who are stuck on their own way and think the worst evil of anyone who has any other perspective. One thing we would all agree on, however, is to appreciate your sympathy, empathy, and most of all your prayers.

And "Blessed is the three" - use of a singular verb with a plural noun intentional!

As I posted back during the original discussion, I spoke with several experts in Slavonic who indicated that “good” is a more accurate word, so I recanted my support for “gracious” and embraced the word “good”. “Gracious” comes from “gratia” which is “good will” and related to “grace”. “Good” comes from “holy”. They are not unrelated and one can perhaps see why the 1964 translators used the term “gracious”.

As always, I am open to being shown that my position is incorrect. If you can show me that 1) the phrase “for He is good and loves mankind” is unintelligible by most Americans; 2) that the other Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) are incorrect in using “for He is good and loves mankind”; and 3) that, if their decision to use “for He is good and loves mankind” is a legitimate translation, there is a compelling reason for us not to match the translations of our fellow Byzantines, I am willing to listen.

Regarding “he” being replaced with “Christ”, the experts I have consulted have all said the same thing. “Jako blah” is definitely masculine and would normally translate with the pronoun “he” in a prayer like the dismissal prayer we are discussing. Again, I am open to hearing your reasoning that the use of “he” is not acceptable and that is so unacceptable that a change is required. When one examines this suppression of Christ’s masculinity together with many of the other places (especially in the troparia translations) where Christ no longer becomes “man” but only a “mortal” (which could mean not a man but merely a monkey or a human) it is absolutely necessary for the translators to defend their suppression of the word “he” in this phrase, as well as their suppression of the inclusive “loves mankind” with the arbitrary and potentially exclusive “loves us all”. When one examines all of the changes together it certainly seems like there is a political agenda to suppress masculine references to Christ.

[Theophan offered an excellent response but I would like to add my own response.]

No, it would not be worth it. There is a major problem with inclusive language that seeks to feminize (or at least neuter) God. God has revealed himself in a male context. Divine Revelation cannot and should not be brushed aside in favor of agendas, even those that claim to be compassionate. We do not reinvent God in an image to present to people “where they are at”. We lead people from where they are at to God as He has revealed Himself to us.

The Father has revealed himself as “father”. Masculine. No one has seen the Father so we do not apply to him race or ethnicity. Christ – God the Son – was born in the flesh and walked among men. He was revealed as a Semitic male. Truth and accuracy trump everything. Even the false privilege that Bob is creating so that he can knock it down.

Those who are interested can study the writings of Pope John Paul the Great on Christian feminism (which is entirely different than secular feminism), as well as those of those who have become known as “John Paul Feminists”. There is a huge difference between secular feminism and Christian feminism.

Father Robert Taft, SJ, is a very talented individual and has done much for the Church. He is very much a “liberal Jesuit” in the 1970s style. Like many other good people, he seems to have bought into the politically correctness from that era that Rome is trying to correct with directives like “Liturgicam Authenticam”.

I am not sure that I agree with djs that Fr. Taft accuses people who object to horizontally inclusive language as having a political agenda. My conclusion from what he has written and spoken on the topic is more along the lines that he embraces it only because he believes that the English speaking world has embraced it. People isolated in academia always seem to believe such things, but they simply are not true.

This discussion about the meaning of words and the agendas of various groups is very much part of the whole process of translation. Those who push the inclusive language agenda buy into the idea that a translation is good not when it accurate and understandable, but only when it is not offensive to whatever society is offended by at the moment. Since DJS has indicated clear support for many forms of inclusive language it is not surprising that he would advise us to go the way of the secular culture with our liturgical translations. His call not to be political is really a call to accept his politics as the starting point for a quality translation. I invite him to consider that it is those who are introducing inclusive language into the Ruthenian Church who are the ones introducing politics.

djs’ statement is incorrect. Only people in certain parts of academia who are isolated from the real world think that people actually speak like that (or demand such accommodation of language to agenda). One can see the secular feminist agenda at work in the re-labeling of traditional inclusive language (like “man” and “mankind”) as somehow now exclusive. One updates translations for accuracy and understandability (as language progresses). One does not update them because some with agendas choose to find perfectly good words as somehow offensive. No, the claim that traditional language has overnight gone from inclusive to exclusive comes from the same camp that claims that “Merry Christmas” ought to be banned from our schools and society because it excludes non-Christians.

While there are certainly some in our Church who embrace the broad secular feminist agenda there is a small but growing number who embrace the Christian feminist agenda. [Catherine Tkacz is a Byzantine Catholic who has written extensively on this issue.] The major example of buying into the feminist agenda is the liturgical books produced by the Sisters of Saint Basil. One can easily see that they purposely replaced the term “man” with either “one” or “all” (and sometimes “human”, and etc.). One can only assume that at least the editors of those editions bought into the secular feminist claims that “man” and "mankind" has gone from including women and children to excluding them.

What does this have to do with our translations? I do not believe that any member of the translation committee has knowingly and openly embraced the secular feminist agenda. But I do believe that there are a few members of that committee who wrongly believe (like djs) that we ought to accommodate this agenda and embrace it. I’d have to think about it and it is a good question. I wonder how much the translation commission’s embracement of inclusive language is a capitulation to the secular forces and how much is rooted in the desire of ‘second-class Catholics’ to be accepted by what is perceived 9wrongly) to be the way of the larger society? Perhaps they will stop and study both the “Liturgical Instruction” as well as “Liturgiam Authenticam” and rethink their position. I support a new edition of the Liturgicon, but one with only necessary changes to the text to correct errors and together with the traditional rubrics.

Brother Theophan,

Could you identify this source ? I am very interested.

"For the Latins, there is hope, though. There is a private translation of the Liturgy of the Hours that is being published in parallel English and Latin form to demonstrate that it is possible to render liturgical books accurately without resorting to the linguistic gymnastics of feminist language".

I was going to add the "Benedictine Daily Prayer" to my collection...until I found that it uses the inclusive Grail Psalter and NRVS text...I would expect more from the Benedictines...

james

I am glad that you remember the previous discussion. In that discussion, the same person who pointed out your error on gracious also indicated that in the Slavonic and in the Greek there was neither the noun Christ nor the pronoun He in the quoted part of the exclamation. You now criticize the use of "Christ" over "He" as somehow being inaccurate. But if indeed neither word is in the Greek or Slavonic this criticism is hollow. You also state that the use of "Christ" be seen as a denial of Christ's maleness". But as I said, this argument is specious given that Mary is referred to as "His mother" in the same sentence.

I am not taking up the issue of which word choice is better. I am merely objecting to your claims about it, in particular the claim that "be seen as a denial of Christ's maleness". I think it is important to vitiate this claim and any correlate suggestions raised on this thread that those working on the liturgy have any such clearly heretical agenda.

I have? I think that you are utterly mistaken on this point. IIRC the only specific personal preference that I have given is to prefer "Lover of man" over both "loves mankind" or "loves us".

What I support, absent a compelling reason to oppose, is the work of our bishops, scholars, and rank and file on the liturgical commision. I think that they are working as best as they can for all of the souls in this church. And if what they come up with goes against my personal preferences, then I expect that I will be able to develop the serenity to accept it anyway, and not try to work my own will. Especially by, for example, baselessly raising the specter of theological error.

My statement was a reprise of what Im quoted from the OED, which tends to monitor English usage rather carefully. On the last go round, I looked on line at a large number of writing manuals for publications, corporations, etc. Didn't find any that advocated against the use of "inclusive" language. I don't know what informs your opinion, but I'd be interested in hearing it.

More importantly, my comments have been about standard, formal, written English. Not how people speak. What an idea! In previous discussions the notion has been raised that the spoken language (of the playground and jailyard no less) provides the proper indication of "usage". Great. Wouldn't "yinz" be just perfect for the liturgies of Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. Let's stick to how people write, formally; not how "people actually speak".

I hope all such people will leave their political agendas out of the liturgics.

There is some, but not much, of the broad feminist agenda that I would embrace. I don't believe that we should accomodate anything other than the actual vernacular in translating into the vernacular. I am not interested in people of either side trying to twist the translation for political purposes. And I am opposed to people puffing up their political agendas to wondeer about the bad faith of those who come to different conclusions.

The idea of "capitualtion to secular forces" is an interesting one. The moment that one accepts the idea of translation into the vernacular, then one has to accept this captitualtion at some level, since secular forces contribute heavily toward driving the evolution of the vernacular language. This problem was deflty avoided in the past by sticking to languages that had, at most, limited secular use. Administrator: if you want to know my true preference, it is to go back to OS and avoid all of the problems of translation into a rapidily evolving language like English. That would solve the "new music problem", handily too.

Yes, I believe it is inaccurate. One Slavonic scholar I have consulted has told me that (as I pointed to above) that in a translation of a lengthy passage (in this case a prayer) the words “jako blah” are usually translated with the pronoun “he”. What is the justification for changing from “he” to the proper name? Standard English does not usually repeat the subject twice in the same sentence. It uses pronouns when needing a reference to the subject.

Since I have made no charges of heresy against anyone it seemed logical that you were supporting the revisited language. In rereading my posts I think the harshest thing anyone can accuse me of is criticizing the replacement of clear and concise language with language that may be misunderstood in a manner which is heretical. Christ becoming a “man” is clear and understandable. Christ becoming a “mortal” introduces arbitrariness where there was none before. And that’s a bad idea.

First, your suggestion that I am somehow accusing the commission of not working as best as they can for all the souls in the Church is offensive. Nothing I have written condemns anyone. In at least every third post on the topics touching on the Revised Liturgy I have praised the commission members for their hard work and good intentions. I only seek (at great length) specific reasoning for the proposed changes. As a member of this Church I have such a right. There are too many people in our society who equate intellectual disagreement with condemnation of individuals. There are also too may people who purposely seek to stop intellectual discussions with accusations that they somehow are attacks on people.

Regarding personal preferences, it seems that the whole proposed revision to the Liturgy is nothing more than the personal preferences of a few forced upon the many. Those proposing the revisions have yet to provide any compelling explanation that supports the revisions. The explanations provided so far rise no higher than personal preferences. Are you really suggesting that those of us who seek to embrace a very full Ruthenian recension (as we have received it) are guilty of personal preference that can be easily dismissed while those seeking revision have motives that cannot possibly be rooted in personal preference?

A reasonable point about spoken language. I jumped to my conclusion before I laid the groundwork. The point I was making is that there is an influence of spoken and written language on each other. People outside academia are just not embracing such things as using “he or she” the first time round and then “she or he” the second time round (and etc.). Most people still write pretty much as they speak but add the formality of written English. And written English is far from rejecting the expressions the secular feminists find so offensive (and which the Christian feminists do not find offensive).

I read quite a bit – including newspapers, magazines, engineering/computer journals, medical journals (mostly pub med type stuff), theological and philosophical journals, literature and even fiction (classic and modern mysteries). There are a few writers who show an obvious bent towards the secular feminist inclusive language, but for the most part I see almost exclusively continued use of “man”, “men” and “mankind”; “man hours”, “man power” and etc. (including writers and speakers who happen to be female). [Except, of course, in San Francisco, where I understand they are using tax dollars to replace manhole covers because they had the word “manhole” on them and someone found it offensive.]

I’m glad you find the idea interesting! I highly recommend learning about it and looking for it. Those pushing it include groups like the teacher’s unions (who have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for many teachers to wish their students a “Merry Christmas!”). The fight on this issue is, it seems to me, still very much in the early stages. It makes no sense to abandon a perfectly intelligible translation for one in a style of English that is highly controversial. If we had some words (or phrases) that were simply unintelligible I could understand and support some of the changes. But that is not what we have with the proposed Revised Liturgy.

I can sympathize. Sometimes I pop in a tape of one of the Divine Liturgies I made in my home parish when I was a kid. They were in Church Slavonic until I was a senior in high school and they were wonderful. [I would choose the “Slavonic High Mass” over the current liturgical rubrics anyday.]

If there is a ROCOR parish in your area I highly suggesting visiting it. I try to keep the old calendar fixed feasts at the parish in Washington, DC (or wherever I happen to be traveling). The Vigil (Vespers & Matins) is a wonderfully prayerful service. I always chuckle because I can sing all the common parts in Slavonic yet often stumble when it’s in English because their translation is noticeably different that the OCA versions I am used to. Maybe we can all move to Moscow, Idaho and take over the ROCOR parish and celebrated all the Divine Services in Slavonic with Prostopinije!

Then let's refrain from wondering who is advancing a subversive agenda, who feels second class and has to ape the Latins (or the EO's for that matter). I think that it is worthwhile to be careful about these things so that folks like Bob and others don't get a bad and IMO very wrong impression about what we are doing liturgically.

The problem is that the tactic of attacking indviduals to win an argument, although old, has been raised to an art form in the age of mass communications.

No. I don't think that much of anything can be "easily" dismissed within our tribe. I think, however, that the preferences, however informed, of those on the liturgical commission, are, by virtue of their position, going to prevail. And that absent flat-out error (like denying the maleness of Christ), I am prepared to accept the results - even the pedestrian language; even strange words like "allurement", which I think means "allure". And I will work as much as I can to make our liturgies wonderful and, as incognitus allowed, fun.

LOL. I have had this same experience. And still can't keep straight the English for Chestnishuju... or the things we never said in English, like "Jelicy", "Velichanije", etc.

Hold on with this revisionism. The earlier suggestion - I distinctly recall it - was that we all move to Montana. And my personal preference happens to be that we keep to that original idea.

I agree - I don't like inclusive language, horizontal or vertical, either. Why don't we just use "she" and "her" to refer to women AND men? It would make life a lot simpler. And "she" includes the word "he" so no problem, right?

I have a few comments from quickly reviewing the board on this issue.

First, it has been suggested that my motive for thinking that the so called inclusive language is not a good idea is sexist, ie, I am a white male who oppresses those not like me. Let's suppose that could be my motive (although my wife resented that comment!) Are the Vatican's reasons (as set forth in Liturgiam Authenticum) for not wanting those changes also sexist? Was the Apostle Paul sexist? Were the Fathers of the Church from whom we received the deposit sexist. I assure you that the feminists who began taking objection to the "sexist" language in the secular society think the Popes, Paul and the Fathers were all sexist.

However, since Rome does not want these changes in translation in the Roman Rite, what distinguishes us from them, so that we Byzantines should have them?

I don't agree that inclusive language is common usage. That is a debatable question. So if it is not common, why do you want to adopt it? If you think it is common, then it seems you must agree that the entire Scripture ought to be translated because it too is being misunderstood.

Here is an example why not to make the change in Scripture. The passage below is from Galations.


"Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. 24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28* There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


According to St. Paul, we are now all sons, and therefore heirs with the Only Son! Was Paul sexist? No. We are all sons because we have put on Christ (who is the only Son of God) and therefore, there is no longer male and female. Because all who have put on Christ are sons of God, Paul can refer to the Galatians, throughout his letter, as brethren. The Catholic Catechism makes the same point.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians...they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

If you correct this language, you miss a big point. Furthermore, you will also change the deposit of faith in some way. What we have received in this deposit, we are not free to tweak. The question is, therefore, are we tweaking the language or is this an authentic development of the Christian message? Paul has told us that in Christ there is no longer male or female. The feminists are telling us that male and female are not different. Those two claims are not the same.

It also seems that there was an acknowledgment that this modern change in language started with the feminist movement. Because that movement has brought us wholesale abortion and contraception, I think it wise to look at it and its "fruits" with a little suspicion, and with Rome in Liturgiam Authenticum (LA) , I hesitate to adopt its language, however prevalent it may be. LA stated: "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."


Fianlly, are those orders in the Church who are pushing for the adoption of inclusive language reproducing themselves spiritually? Look at the Jesuits. I don't see that they are attracting many new vocations. I don't think this is accidental.

Dear Im,
I'd like to suggest that you make a lengthier review. I think your claim about suggestions about your motives are a little hasty; and the issues of "common" versus formal usage already addressed. I think that all who have written would agree that there are situations in which inclusive language is just theologically wrong. But those situations do not make inclusive language wrong in every case: as LA indicates, you can't just undertake translations on auto-pilot. Finally, I am not sure why the Jesuits as a whole are brought up instead of considering Fr. Taft's comments and expertise in liturgy on an individual basis.

I don't disagree with the raised suspicion, but the suspicion, the poisoned well as it were, cannot be considered as a probative argument. After all, even a watch stopped dead has the right time twice a day. As I suggested, an argument of this type raises suspiscions of its own that detract from the serious arguments involved in working out the best translation.

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Christologically or not, what is the original wording in the Scriptures? What is important is that we get the Scriptures right and not cherry pick what we want to change.

Was it important to use the LXX wording for "virgin" instead of the Hebrew preference of "young woman"? Probably not too important. What word should our liturgy use?

Joe

djs,

That a watch only has the right time twice a day indicates something very significant. It is quite unreliable.

What was Bob Rossi suggesting then?

My arguments are quite serious. I think it is extremely probative to examine where the movement to change the English langauge originated.

Taft's expertise on the English language is no more (admittedly I can't spell anymore) than my own. That his order lacks vocations is extremely significant.

Finally, the primary change to which I objected, is leaving, "men," (anthropoi) our of the Creed in "for us men...and was made man" (anthropos). This is the type of change directly rejected in LA and I have yet to see a real argument why leaving out "men" in this instance is good, for it certainly is not a translation. The burden to leave something out of the Creed is not on those who oppose leaving it out.

So what is the theological reason for leaving out "men?"

John, I actually don't need to say anything on this thread as it seems you have amiably made the relevant points quite well.


Again, what more needs to be said, other than do you need a deacon there already well familiar with ROCOR English translations?

Well, in a way, so does the anti-inclusive-language movement ("AILM), doesn't it? I mean, for purposes of language, isn't the AILM saying that male and female are not different, that "men" and "he" and "him" all refer to males and females, with no difference?

Joe,

"What is important is that we get the Scriptures right and not cherry pick what we want to change."

That depends on many factors as I am sure you know. Following literal or dymaic equivalence or a balance of both. What you are using as a base text, LXX, Peshitta, Masoretic. What codices or manuscripts you are cross referencing

"Was it important to use the LXX wording for "virgin" instead of the Hebrew preference of "young woman"? Probably not too important. What word should our liturgy use?"

I thought I made it clear by posting: "Since the Byzantine Church has interpreted this as a Christological Psalm this is important."

The LXX, as well as the Byzantine text of the New Testament, has (or should have) pride of place in Byzantine Churches.

Obviuosly the use of virgin is important and is agreed upon by all Churches. I am not convinced interpreting Psalm 1 Christologically is as crucial as interpreting say Psalm 22 that way. If the Psalmist was prophecying about Christ in Pslam 1 thatn man is very important. If he is simply refering to anyone use of one is not that important unless one believes in translating literally as opposed to dynamically.

Fr. Deacon Lance

A lack of reliability is cause for suspicion. It is not, however, probative of whether or not a given item is correct or not.


Ditto. Significant to the lack of vocations, but not to his understanding of liturgical translations.

Such arguments eptimoize the ad hominem fallacy. They are not logically valid and detract from otherwise sound arguments.

I completely agree that, to my theologically uneducated mind, this is a clear case of typology. I am a little distracted, however, by the use of "us" as a demonstrative pronoun/adjective. In addition, while "man" in English clearly carries the generic, "men" is rarely used in this way. (I.e., a salient characteristic of man is advanced use of language and tools; a salient characteristic of men is the inability to ask for directions. Genus in the former, male in the latter.) So my preference would be to emphasize type (and English) and have it: "For man ... was made man", and leave the "us" understood.

Perhaps it is fortunate that I am not on the liturgical commission.

Funny that you said that I was making an ad hominem attack on the feminists - and I knew exactly what you were saying!

The only thing I know about Fr. Taft's opinion is what was reported in Touchstone magazine, " East meets English:" "He endorsed “horizontally” inclusive language, on the grounds that liturgical translations are for “people of today” and should be in an idiom and style most readily comprehensible to them." The CWR survey which I cited in my first post, suggests that he was wrong. Moreover, if he or the Bishops wanted to know what's comprehensible to the people, why not ask the people who fill the Byzantine Churches? But more importantly why ignore LA on this important issue.

As to my arguments as to feminists and vocations, you're right there are no perfect syllogisms there. However, the facts are that the orders (this is an ad ordinem attack) which are concerned with inclusive language, by and large, have few vocations and the feminists who started making the complaints about sexist language, by and large, weren't having children and were advocating the right to kill them. It seems, therefore, before the Bishops introduce the inclusive langauge (an issue which is closely associated with the culture wars) changes into the Creed or elsewhere in our ancient liturgy, those important facts should have been closely studied and LA ought to be faithfully followed in the meantime.

Below is one attempt at giving reasons for inclusive langauge by Bishop Donald Trautman of the Roman Rite and head of the Liturgy Committee of the USCCB. As to the issue of anthropos below, I think he is wrong. See for example: Matthew 19:5 "Therefore shall an anthropos leave his father and mother, and hold fast to his wife." (also in Ephesians 5:31)
Matthew 19:10 "If such is the case of an anthropos with his wife, it is better not to marry."
I Corinthians 7:1 "It is good for an anthropos not to touch a woman."

Here is a portion of Bp. Trautman's text which is an attempt to justify the changes within the Roman Rite:

How important an issue is inclusive language? Is it much ado about nothing? Consider the experience of two college girls who attended mass in their parish church. Recall that they have grown up with textbooks, newspapers, television and songs that use "man" to mean male. This is what they heard on the Fourth Sunday of Ordinary Time in the Opening Prayer at Mass: "Lord our God, help us love you with all our hearts.. and to love all men as you love them." Then came the Scripture reading from I Corinthians 1,26-31 (Year A): "Brothers, you are among those called..that many of you are wise, as men account wisdom..let him who would boast, boast in the Lord." Then came the Prayer of the Faithful, a petition "that all men might discover peace and happiness in their faith, we pray to the Lord." The priest prayed the Fifth Preface for Sunday's Ordinary Time: "You chose to create man in your own image, setting him over the whole world. You made man the steward of your creation to praise you day by day." The priest celebrant chose Eucharistic Prayer IV and prayed: "Father, we acknowledge your greatness. All your actions show your wisdom and love. You formed man in your likeness and set him over the whole world to serve you, his creator..even when he disobeyed you and lost your friendship, you did not abandon him to the power of death, but helped all men to seek and find you. Again and again you offered a covenant to man and through the prophets taught him to hope for salvation." In eleven lines of this Eucharistic Prayer, the words "man, he and him" occur seven times. One girl turned to her friend and said, why should I come to church when all I hear is language that excludes me?


If those girls attended Mass before 1981, they would have heard these words spoken by the priest over the chalice at mass: "This is the cup of my blood. The blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men." In 1981, the Apostolic See permitted the dropping of that one word "men" making the text inclusive. For those opposed to inclusive language, is there anyone who would go back to restoring the word "men" to the words of consecration?


Inclusive language is a complex and sensitive issue which has ramifications far beyond translations. It has become the focal point for judging continued liturgical progress or retrenchment. It is a major pastoral concern for the Church in the United States.


There has been a noticeable loss of the sense of grammatical gender in the American usage of the English language. Modern English does not have grammatical gender the way French, German and Spanish do. With the course of time and the influence of culture, the meaning of words have changed. Words that once referred to all human beings are increasingly taken as gender specific and consequently exclusive. Words such as "man, brethren, forefathers" which were once understood as inclusive generic terms, today are often understood as referring to only males. Certain usages of "he, his, and him" once were considered to be generic and included both women and men, but today, in contemporary American usage, refer to only males. For more and more people, generic language no longer works. To refer to women using masculine language appears to many to be unjust and inaccurate. It does not promote full participation in the liturgy. The Church today must grapple with the gender specific singular pronoun.


It is important to distinguish vertical inclusive language from horizontal inclusive language. Vertical inclusive language is God language, and the bishops of the United States have stated: "In fidelity to the inspired word of God, the traditional biblical usage for naming persons of the Trinity as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is to be retained."(19)

9 Horizontal inclusive language refers to the use of inclusive or gender neutral phrasing for references to humans, that is terms which are intended to refer to both men and women. Today, major newspapers, magazines, television, textbooks used in schools employ sex inclusive language. Continued use of terms which are interpreted as sex exclusive will harm the Church's pastoral mission. Our younger people are taught routinely in their secondary and college education to use sex inclusive language.

In many instances, a more inclusive translation will actually be closer to the original Greek or Hebrew text. For example, consider Mark 8:36,37: "For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? For what can a man give in return for his life?" This is the Revised Standard Version translation. However, if you consult the original Greek text, you will find that the word "anthropos" is used for "man". That Greek word does not mean a male human being, but rather a human being in general. In this instance, inclusive language actually corrects a distorted translation and accurately brings out the meaning of the inspired text.

Addressing women, using male language, denies women their own identity. When women are not named specifically, they are excluded from full participation. This diminishes the Church. It is a problem for the whole Church, for men and women alike.

While we all admire and welcome the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is regrettable that it does not employ inclusive language. In paragraph 1579, the Catechism deals with celibacy, and states: "Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to the affairs of the Lord, they (the ordained ministers of the Latin Church) give themselves entirely to God and to men." This is a most unfortunate translation in view of pedophile behavior in our society. This is not the language to promote celibacy in the contemporary culture of the United States. This is a dramatic example of why exclusive language is unacceptable.

The longer the confirmation of the new Lectionary is delayed, the greater difficulty we will have in preventing people from changing biblical texts on the basis of their own personal likes and dislikes. Great havoc is being done to the inspired word by people not trained in Scripture. There is an urgent pastoral need for an approved scripturally- sound Lectionary with the use of horizontal inclusive language.

We have a number of very loaded political statements here---"politically correct," "secular feminist agenda," "...whole liberal 'Jesus is our sister as well as our brother'...," "feminism is a radical hatred of God..." and "the feminists are telling us that male and female are not different." So it must not be that people who make these statements object to politics in the Church, or a politicized Church, but a specific kind of politics. Correct?

These are very vague terms and assumptions, all made without definition or attribution.

And politics is always about power, so these vague and unattributed turns of phrase have a distinct relationship to power. The question is what this relationship is and in what context it occurs. What is really being attacked and defended here?

For my part, I can think of nothing more political than feeding the hungry, visiting people in prison, supporting the widows, clothing the naked, driving moneychangers from temples, being executed by the state, taking seriously the thousands of times wealth and its misuse are mentioned in the Bible, a call to voluntary poverty and thinking of the Trinity as a model for how society can work. Nothing new here; if you're interested you can read "Theology of a Classless Society" by Metropolitan G. Mar Osthathios as a starting point.

Thanks!

Faithfuly,

bob rossi

I think that everyone who participates here agrees with the need to take care of those in need are are (hopefully) already doing their part. Are you suggesting that those of us who do not support the introduction of inclusive language into the Liturgy are refusing to follow the Lord’s command to feed the hungry, visit those in prison and the other tasks the Lord expects from us? I do not understand the connection and ask you to please explain the connection between your comment and the topic of inclusive language.

Most of Bishop Trautman’s comments are specious. But the one I quoted above shows that he is not approaching the issue evenly. He has defined an embracement of inclusive language as “progress” and the opposition of inclusive language as “retrenchment”. He does not seem to be using the term “retrenchment” correctly but from the context he appears to mean curtailing progress or cutting back progress.

In the end what he is arguing is that because some people do not have an accurate understanding that the term “man” is inclusive of all male and female human beings then we should dumb down the language. Does the Church dumb down the technology of the Eucharist because people might not understand it? No. The Church calls for people to learn theology so that they might understand. The same goes for language. People need to learn what words mean.

I disagree. It is offensive for you to assume because I ask questions I am accusing people of attempting to advance subversive agendas. Did you realize that just after you re-labeled a legitimate question about the intent of the translators as a personal attack you then condemn the practice?

Translation style guides are the product of many things. The translators bring to the task of translation their own personal preferences. Since the translators have not published their written translation guidelines (and probably will never do so) we can only look to the proposed translations together with our knowledge of the translators to see where they are coming from and what they are trying to do with the Liturgy.

Individual Byzantine Catholics (both laymen and clergy) who have major disagreements with the revisions to the Liturgy (both rubrics and texts) have not only the right but also the responsibility to challenge these changes. This forum is nothing more then the church steps or church hall and the discussions that take place in those places every Sunday. Those who disagree with the revisions also have the right and the responsibility to raise their concerns until they are addressed – even by the Holy Father himself.

There is also another problem with calling for the people to meekly accept whatever the commissions produce (with the best of intentions). The real world just doesn’t work like that. When people come across change they don’t like they leave and go someplace else. I was talking with someone at my own parish a few months back who helps keep track of attendance. Since the time the revised rubrics were introduced participation in Sunday Liturgy is down by almost a third. Participation at Lenten Presanctified is down about 65%. While there are many factors at play here (and the new texts have not been used) there is still a regular litany of people who are complaining that the Liturgy is not the same. People tend to stay away from things that they don’t enjoy, especially those that commute from distances as far away as 60 miles.

Exactly! I don't accept the inclusive language because it takes away from the original languages..and I don't like the paraphrasing versions of the Bible either... e.g. The Living Bible

We don't need to water down the scriptures. My entire life I have always recognized that "mankind" includes all of us women too. And although God is pure spirit...it does not bother me to refer to God as He. Also, I think something is really lost if we don't recognize God as Father.

In Christ,

Porter.

In regards to so-called 'horizontal inclusive' language, I would recommend a book that has over a dozen essays on the matter from various authors commenting from different religious and academic disciplines. The matter is serious. The Book is entitled THE POLITICS OF PRAYER - FEMINIST LANGUAGE AND WORSHIP (Ignatius Press). http://www.aquinasandmore.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/Store.ItemDetails/sku/421
The articles deal not only with the more radical attempts at changing liturgy & scripture, but also with the effects of "minor" adjustments in the attempt to make our worship language more "inclusive".

This matter is less an issue with the general public as it is with academics, women religious, and liturgists.

I want a translation not a revision based on ideology.

My thanks for the recommendation of the book on THE POLITICS OF PRAYER - I shall buy myself a copy ASAP.

Attention IM: Congratulations on the wonderful comment "Funny that you said that I was making an ad hominem attack on the feminists - and I knew exactly what you were saying!" I only wish that I'd said that (and I will, I will!).


In response to another posting: would I wish to restore "all men" instead of "all" at the Institution Narrative? No. I would wish to restore "many", which is what the Latin, the Greek and the Aramaic actually say.

Incognitus

Nonsense.

First, this:
is not a question; it is an accusation, that, at least, as applied to me is baseless.

And while this:
may be a simple question, this:
cannot be called an accusation. It is a suggestion that we refrain from such speculative wondering. If you do not feel that you wish to make an accusation - great. But such suggestive questions - that raise suspicion without foundation, albeit indirectly - I just can't see the point. What does that contribute?

Challenges of this sort - whether on liturgical language, music, parish closings, missions, etc. - can be done in various ways. Some ask for too much, on this and other threads, I think, if they indulge in speculation about possible ill-motives of people involved, but expects that whatever cogent points are embedded in the criticism be diligently consider. It's a lot to ask, for example, for people to put aside accusations of embracing the broad feminist agenda or acting second-class, and give serene consideration to the other, good points. Just my opinion, but I think it's easier to get a hearing if one sticks to point and avoids the overheated rhetoric.

IM wrote:
Also reported in the article was this comment:
This is the remark that I felt was too strong.

I disagree totally. I advocate that translations be made on the basis of scholarship, not politics, and, moreover, that the sterotyping of someone making an argument be avoided - that the focus be fixed on the merits of the argument. And I am puzzled by arguments against these simple points.

I very much disagree with what djs has posted.

When one sees an embracement of inclusive language – which has its origin in the politics of secular feminism – one has a responsibility to question those who within the Church who are advocating such language and set them aright. Such questions can greatly contribute to the discussion because it may help those who advocate inclusive language to see that it is really rooted in politics and not in true inclusiveness.

Inclusive language is all about politics. Many good people embrace it because they falsely believe it to be inclusive. They most likely do not see the underlying politics of those promoting the secular feminist agenda.

Those who demand the use of inclusive language are the ones you should be condemning for translating on the basis of politics. Integrity of language needs to replace false agendas of inclusiveness.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone who advocates of the use of inclusive language - horizontal, vertical, or sideways - to hear their rationale, rather than only hearing the rationales imputed to them by its opponents.

Some choose to see a poltical battle here, and of course make their vision self-fulfilling. I don't think that such fractiousness helps our church.

This we can agree on. And this is something I have asked about before, both here and to several members of the commission. I have never received an answer beyond “the commission voted for it”. I still would very much like to see the bishops publish the translation guide that would have been the basis for all translations.

It is better to see a battle that is real and engage in it than to pretend it doesn’t exist, or that it doesn’t affect us.

I just read the link that Larenzo provided: The Politics of Prayer - Feminist Language and the Worship of God . The general description of the book provides a very good summary of the issue and is must reading for anyone concerned about integrity of language. Accepting the secular feminist demands for inclusive language can do great damage to the Church in the long run. Calls that those opposing what is wrong are being ‘fractious’ must be rejected. This book will certainly be on my 2006 reading list.

It seems to me that there is no one in our Church demanding that we embrace inclusive language. It logically follows that a challenge of “fractiousness” can properly be made only against those advocating the adoption of inclusive language (or any controversial change).

Dear Friends,

All I can say is I hope I never become a member of any commission that either the Administrator or djs would have something to say about!

That would really cause undue stress for me . . . (unless, of course, either person agreed with me or the commission . . .)

Alex

djs,

____________________________________________
It would be interesting to hear from anyone who advocates of the use of inclusive language - horizontal, vertical, or sideways - to hear their rationale, rather than only hearing the rationales imputed to them by its opponents.
I also agree.
______________________________________________

One would think that Fr. Taft would be the one to have provided that argument and especially at that conference as reported by Touchstone. What did you think of Trautman's arguments?

But the most learned, Fr. Taft, has given us an explanation that is primarily political, hasn't he?

-----------------------------------------------
I disagree totally. I advocate that translations be made on the basis of scholarship, not politics, and, moreover, that the sterotyping of someone making an argument be avoided - that the focus be fixed on the merits of the argument. And I am puzzled by arguments against these simple points.
------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm all ears. However, I don't think it is steroetyping to observe the facts as they are. If the facts are not as I have said, then by all means show me and I shall stand corrected!

Does radical feminism distnguish between scholarship and politics? If the answer to that is, "no," then you may be limiting them in their ability to answer.

Alex,

Are you suggesting that people with opposing opinions cannot be friends? I am sure that djs knows that if he were passing through my neighborhood I would insulted if he did not stop for some pirohi and beer. I suspect that if I were ever in his neck of the woods he would feel the same. [I am even willing to consider his idea of a new parish in Montana! I might be willing to move and be a founding member of St. Nicholas of Myra Greek Catholic Parish of Red Lodge – one of the most beautiful places in the world.]

I live near Washington, DC. I see a few people on either side of the aisle who will not associate with people who think differently and denigrate them. But, for the most part, people agree to disagree and work together where necessary and possible. And, in truth, once the steaks are done on the grill they all gather together and eat at the same table.

Admin

From the general description:

Having been accused by you of embracing the feminist agenda, and now seeing that you feel that a very good summary of the issue includes a description of it as including "an all-out attack on the Scripture and on the core beliefs it incorporates which are common to both Christianity and Judaism", I am more than a little shocked.

This description is not, by any resonable measure, a good summary of the issue facing us. This agenda is not our that of our bishops. It is not of our sisters of Saint Basil. It is not of our scholars. It is not of our commission. If you engage our people as though they are part of this current, then it's no wonder at all that you have never received an answer.

Im posted:
Definitely. And I have expressed criticism of it for that reason. (I haven't had the time to read back over the article or the rest of your long post in detail, and don't want to be hasty, on the other comments.)

I do not object to the facts that you state, rather your use them to poison the well regarding other issues - your drawing an inference about some other issue on the basis of these not logically connected facts, that's what I object to. And since there is so much discuss cogently, why lapse into fallacy?

From your lips to God's ears!

Dearest Administrator,

I would love to join both you and djs for a steak barbecue!

As long as my goose wouldn't be cooked as well . . .

Alex (who belongs to no commission of any kind)

Why are you shocked? I do not doubt that you have no intention of purposefully advocating such things. They are, however, the result of inclusive language. When you let the camel’s nose in the tent you always wind up with the whole camel (or at least you will have a major job keeping him out). It’s better not to let the camel’s nose in the tent at all.

See my response immediately above. Such things affect us and we must be willing to realize it. When we buy into the language of the secular feminists we make the fight outlined in the book much more difficult to those who are willing to fight it.

I have only spoken to help people realize that such things do affect us and that we ought not let the camel’s nose into the tent.

I have not raised the issue of this book with the members of the commission that I am acquainted with. My questions have always been raised politely.

And I would love to have you both for dinner!

djs,

Did you notice that, while we are offering grilled steak, Alex is requesting a cooked goose? I wonder if he'd turn down some sautéed po-pinkis?

Admin

This issue is one that always has emotions running high. This is probably a good thing because it shows the importance that the liturgy plays in the lives of people. Father Taft's words are being used by some as divinely inspired words that must be followed and these same words are undoubtedly disappointing others who hold his views in high regard. The important thing to remember is that this is simply one man's opinion. Unlike his scholarly work, which he offers with a great deal of research to back it up, it seems to me that he is simply offering his opinion on the subject. I personally disagree with his opinion but I still respect him. I think the important factors in making a change such as this should be if it is good for the church at the present time and if it truly serves the needs of the people. I believe that it is neither good for the church nor serves these needs. I say this not only from my opinion but as a result of conversations with many well educated individuals, especially women, who see no gain by such actions. This issue has greatly lost momentum in our society as women find that it is not words that make them equal but their respect for themselves and knowledge that they are equal. The only place that there still seems to be this push for changing words to make one feel better is in some religious communities, who are, in my opinion, chanelling their energies in the wrong direction. I hope that this issue can soon be put to rest so that we can focus on the more important problems facing the church.

Inclusive Language

The common practice of English historically has been to use male nouns and pronouns (man, mankind, he) when referring collectively to human beings, regardless of sex. In recent decades some feminists have claimed that this is offensive to them, as it represents a "patriarchal worldview" in which men are superior to women. Through their media influence they have effectively ended such use in publishing, academia, television and movies, as well as in common speech. Within the Church, through the well-oiled machinery of dissent, the rejection of such "non-inclusive" language has been applied to the use of male terms in connection with God.

Whether in the secular arena or in the Church, almost no resistance has been offered to this forced development of language, and few are even aware of what is at stake, seeing it only as a matter of fairness to women. Thankfully, the Holy See has resisted the tide and clearly drawn the lines between what is an acceptable use of inclusive language and what is unacceptable. Acceptable use would include those collective expressions for human beings which today a speaker or author would be expected to use, such as "ladies and gentleman" or "brothers and sisters". It is unlikely that any one would use "brothers" or "brethren" for a mixed audience today. Thus, there is nothing wrong in principle to this kind of horizontal inclusive language.

What is unacceptable to the Magisterium, however, is the use of inclusive language in collective terms for human beings which have an anthropological significance, or, in terms for God or Christ (vertical inclusive language). The collective term man, for example, is both a philosophically and theologically appropriate term for the human race. Just as there is a certain precedence within the Trinity, by which the Father is God, the Son is God by generation and the Holy Spirit is God by spiration, Sacred Scripture reveals that an image of this Trinity of equal Persons in God is reflected in the creation of woman from man. Adam (which means man) is a man, Eve is a man (since she shares his nature), and each of their descendants is a man. This expresses equality, NOT inequality, as feminists claim. Whatever injustices men have perpetrated on women through the millennia, Adam's sin is the cause, not God and His wise created design.

So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)

The problem with vertical inclusive language with respect to Christ is similar. Destined to be the New Adam Christ is prophetically anticipated in certain Hebrew texts which play on the word adam as both the name for the human race and the name of the first member of that race. A good example, which can be a test of a text to see if it has objectionable inclusive language, is Psalm 1. It should read "Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked" (or similar). Inclusive language versions will replace "man" with "one" or "mortal" or some variation. The Holy See has rejected this as contradicting the messianic references to Christ implicit in the text, where man refers not only to David the author of the psalm, but back to Adam (the man) and forward to Christ (Son of David and Son of Man).

Finally, the use of vertical inclusive language for God is likewise unacceptable. No one should understand that God is male or female. He is not. God is pure spirit, whereas masculinity and femininity are the properties of animal bodies. In man these bodies are united to a soul, and thus we can also speak of spiritual characteristic of men and women - a way of loving others, for example, that is characteristic of women, versus men, and vice versa. Such spiritual characteristics, whether of men or women, must be rooted in some way in God, who is the source of all good. Thus, in the Old Testament the love of God for his people is sometimes referred to as a "womb-love" (rahamim), a clear reference to the love of a mother for her child. Similarly, Jesus in the New Testament speaks of wanting to take His People under His wings like a mother hen. Thus, Scripture shows us, and the Church teaches, that all that is good in man and woman, save the purely material sexual distinctions proper to bodies, comes from the Author of all that is good.

However, is this a warrant to speak of God as Father and Mother, and to avoid the use of male terms with respect to God (Father, Son, Him, He etc.)? While it is certainly just to speak of what is motherly or feminine in God, in the sense described above, it is nonetheless certain that God has revealed Himself in a certain way and that we must first respect His sovereign decision, and second try to understand it. One of the difficulties is that as the debate has gone forward, it has become clear that many Catholic feminists do not respect the Word of God, but see it the word of men re-enforcing an unjust patriarchal order. Since this overthrows Divine Revelation's authority, and many dogmas of the faith with it, it cannot and should not be dialogued with or accommodated in any way. Certainly, the Holy See has taken that stance. Unfortunately, many others who do not intend such a vast rejection of Tradition have been duped into believing in the bias of translations and the influence of patriarchy on the transmission of Revelation in the Church, and so need a good explanation of the reasons for the usages of Scripture and Tradition.

A direct understanding of God is not accessible to human reason. Spirit cannot be perceived or tested experimentally, and so God must speak in analogies familiar to our experience. In choosing which analogs to use in reference to Himself He chose those most suitable within creation. Unlike the Shamrock of St. Patrick, which has a certain similitude to God, there was and is nothing more suitable for explaining God than the creatures He made in His image and likeness, both as God and as Trinity. Thus, He chose the human race to explain Who He is. Man is both the creature in the visible creation most like God, and the creature most understandable to man.

by Colin B. Donovan, STL

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm

"Uncle"!

(er, excuse me - "Aunt"! )

Deacon Lance:

You quote Colin B. Donovan, STL--

One of the difficulties is that as the debate has gone forward, it has become clear that many Catholic feminists do not respect the Word of God, but see it the word of men re-enforcing an unjust patriarchal order. Since this overthrows Divine Revelation's authority, and many dogmas of the faith with it, it cannot and should not be dialogued with or accommodated in any way. Certainly, the Holy See has taken that stance. Unfortunately, many others who do not intend such a vast rejection of Tradition have been duped into believing in the bias of translations and the influence of patriarchy on the transmission of Revelation in the Church, and so need a good explanation of the reasons for the usages of Scripture and Tradition.
_____________________________________

Part of my own objection to feminist language is that, theologically, it has separated men and women by insisting that everything be horizontally made into "brothers and sisters" where the word has been either "brethren" or "brothers." This flies in the face of St. Paul's instruction that "in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male or female." It seems to imply that there is a second category for those who are incorporated into God's family. The beauty of what St. Paul is trying to say is that IN CHRIST we are all made equal heirs of the Kingdom; equal heirs of God the Father with Our Lord Jesus Christ; raised by Baptism to become like Christ--God-like.

HOWEVER, the idea that women cannot be termed as "brothers" of Christ, but must be termed "sisters" raises, for me, a question. Do women not want to be in this exalted relationship with God? Are the feminists saying that they want to be in some lesser relationship?

God has revealed to us how He wants the relationship between mankind and Him to be. And it seems to me that we have failed to evangelize this great truth by backing away from it when we succumb to accepting the feminist arguments about language.

As with so many areas of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith, we must assume nothing. Ideas and doctrines that may seem to use the same terms as ideas in the secular world do not necessarily carry the same meaning in the Church. And it seems to me that we need to be constantly teaching the meanings that the Church intends the words to carry in order for us to understand the ideas and doctrines she teaches.

In Christ,

BOB

What I don't understand about this new translation of the Liturgy with respect to the horizontal gender inclusive language is that during the final blessing and several other places in the Liturgy word 'mankind' or 'man' is not stated. However, during the Incarnation Hymn and the creed it still says 'and became man.' So why is it ok to use 'man' or 'mankind' in one place in the Liturgy, but not in another? There seems to a contradictions going on with this new translation. The main reason, from what I have heard, for the horizontal gender inclusive language is that in the modern english speaking mind the word 'man' or 'mankind' no longer is a gender inclusive word. Thus, the words 'man' and 'mankind' now only refer to male human persons. Therefore, what the new translation is saying in the Incarnation hymn and the Creed is that Christ became a male human person (which he historcaly did), however it is my understading that these prayers a not talking about Christ becoming male, but becoming human. So it seems to me that there is some inconsistencies in in the new translation that according to their reasoning will be misleading to the english speaking mind.

Jesse Venner

Father Deacon Lance, thanks for the post. I think that Fr. Donovan touches on a number of interesting points.

He gives a clear articulation of the position of Magisterium on what makes sense and is permitted in gender neutral language, and what does not make sense and is not permitted. It is worth keeping in mind that even with his perspective on the origin of inclusive language he does not articulate a reactionary position: although he sees the origin in the feminist agenda, that does not mean, ipso facto, that it is wrong, and must be opposed, in every aspect.

I think he draws the lines in the right places. I think that allowing "brothers and sisters" for example in the conversational introduction of the epistle makes sense - just as we say, in English, ladies and gentlemen (even though man is generic). I think (presumably with Fr. Donovan) that it would be a stretch to see "type" here (what is the context for it, here?). And Bob do you really mean to take the position that sister is a lesser, less exalted position than brother? Please explain that one!

In other situations, as the theological/anthropoigical context would clarify, the "brothers and sisters" might not be appropriate; case-by-case discernment is necessary. Ditto with "man" or "mankind". One cannot expect a word-by-word subsitution scheme to give a good translation. And LA makes it clear that this error is to be avoided.

I do think, however, that politics of "feminist claims" and "patriarchal worldview" is a little overdone by Fr. Donovan. The degree of impact, if any, that the use of masculine generics has had on "patriarchal worldview" is debatable. But what is not debatable is the fact that not so long ago women were subject to invidious discrimination.

When I was young this was a riddle:

A boy is seriously injured in an accident in a car driven by the boy's father. The father is killed in the accident. The boy reaches the hospital and is prepped for surgery. The attending surgeon walks in, sees the boy, freezes, then says: "I can't operate on him, he is my son". How can that be?

I hope that for today's youth those words are not puzzling at all. I don't know how much the "feminist claims" including discussions of language had to do with changing the "worldview", so that that women can pursue secular professions without inane prejudicial restrictions, but I think they did some good work, which I certainly support.

Those who oppose language presumably hatched feminists, as reaction against feminism: do you similarly oppose the other gains attributed to that movement, such as the waning of invidious discrimination?

We discussed this last night in our group. The discussion began with us looking at places in the Bible where God has an identity where He is masculine, above or beyond gender and feminine. The nun present asked us which images we most wanted to hold on to. I talked about the discussion in this group and she then took a strong position in favor of the inclusive language where it makes sense. I've been thanking God for her and her comments all day. Another woman in the group spoke to how non-inclusive language had hurt her and how she holds on to an image of God Who is always present and above or beyond gender; she did this when she was close to death and made it through. A sweet working class guy who now works as a prison guard, a former Marine, talked about how on burial detail they hear most often requests for readings which image God as a God of justice, redemption and forgiveness. After they spoke none of us had much to say...

There is a young guy in our group, a seminarian, who is still learning how to work with people. He's strong on doctrine and dogma but still getting his peole skills down. When all else fails--when he can't respond to a question or doubt or counter-argument--his answer inevitably is to point to something in the Catechism or to quote the Holy Father; thus, all arguments are settled. It is a poor substitute for creative thinking and active listening and doesn't approach how things change.

Faithfully,

bob rossi

Bob, you make a most interesting point!

We have Paul teaching us in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither “male or female” but that we are “all one in Christ Jesus” and then we go right along and ignore this teaching and re-divide people according to male and female by using “brothers and sisters” in a greeting.

Did the Apostle Paul use the term “brethren” because he did not wish to include women?

Or did he use the term “brothers” to include all men, that is: Jews and Greeks, slaves and free, and male and female?

Does re-dividing (or continuing to divide) people according to gender reduce Paul’s message in anyway? Such questions are very real and should not be dismissed casually.

Father Donovan’s words are most interesting. I wish, however, that he had gone on to specifically address the problems with the Revised New American Bible (Father Richard Neuhaus makes some very interesting comments on this issue in the January 2006 issue of First Things magazine). Rome has allowed the U.S. Bishops to promulgate a lectionary containing that version of the Holy Bible (which embraces horizontal inclusive language) but that permission is in the nature of experimental or temporary. Rome has refused to allow the bishops to print the RNAB because of continuing problems, including problems with inclusive language. And we know that Rome has directed changes to the proposed translation of the Roman Mass because of issues (some of which include problems with inclusive language). There are numerous RC bishops who are petitioning the Holy See to either replace the NAB Lectionary with one based upon the RSV-CE or to remove the restriction that there be only one Bible version in use at Divine Worship so that those wishing a more traditional language might choose a lectionary based upon the RSV-CE. Since the USCCB is still split, and since Rome has not yet issued a final ruling in the matter, there is hope and we have a responsibility to pray that our bishops make responsible decisions and to contact them with our opinions.

One almost thinks that those pushing inclusive language would be screaming against “brothers and sisters” and demanding that the epistles begin with “My siblings in Christ”.

Admin

djs:

You posted:

And Bob do you really mean to take the position that sister is a lesser, less exalted position than brother? Please explain that one!

____________________________________________

We need to understand what St. Paul is saying in his epistle and what the Church teaches in this regard.

We are incorporated into Christ by Baptism and made part of God's family. He makes us brothers of Christ and heirs of the Kingdom. The relationship is one of adoption but it makes us Christ's brothers. There is no question of sisters being lesser since the category does not even enter into this profound truth. There is one category here and it does not carry a sexual label.

We not only have to understand this singular relationship that God has revealed through the Apostle, but also to understand that the attempt to redefine it does violence to it because it tends to divide the very creatures He wishes to draw to Himself and to each other. God intends to draw us all into a singular relationship that He has revealed as He willed. Maybe it had more impact in the early centuries when women were considered to be chattel property. To have men in that situation understand that women and children, once baptized, were equal to them in the redeemed reality of the Church and the Kingdom that it brought to life liturgically must have been radical. But it is just as radical today without the intrusions of secular feminist politics.

The poor man with worn clothing coming into the church for Liturgy is equal to the well-dressed one. The employee is equal to his boss. A woman is equal to her husband, her father, her grandfather and to everyone else there. Our whole understanding of the unconditional value of every human life springs from this understanding.

On the other hand, since we are tampering with revelation here, the question still comes back to where does this new category fit? God has defined what the "brothers in Christ" category means and how He intends it to be in relation to Himself. So how does another, separate categery fit? By analogy, I understand this relationship as being a straight line: God to us through Christ. Does this new category run parallel or is it a tangent?

God intends that there be one category of heirs of the Kingdom. How does our inserting a second one fit His plan?

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,
I think that what you say theologically certainly has its merit but you are driving a bit far with it in the language issue. There is a hint in what you write that "sister" is now just obsolete. But is it some sort of theological error to talk of the sisters of Saint Basil? the myrhhbearing women? the Mother of God? I think the answer is of course not. I think morevoer that your point is a paradoxical one. Is there is no more male and female, then what on earth is the invalidity of "sister"? How is sister an new category and how is it less exalted?

When the context is, for example, the universal brotherhood of man, it kills the language to hack in inclusiveness, but when the context is simply address, then, as compared to the absolutely normal construction in English (e,g, ladies and gentlemen), it seems natural to be inclusive. And, as with the examples above, it's a stretch to try to see a theological error in this.

djs:

When we speak of the theology of the Church, we are not speaking about forms of address or categories or religious orders or even of the Theotokos.

The Church has categories for our orthopraxy--putting the Faith into action--but has no categories when it comes to the Revelation that she has received.

When we walk into the liturgical assembly, we have no categories. We leave them at the door. When we leave the assembly, we walk back into the world we live in and in which we leaven what we find with what we have received.

I think that the whole feminist argument is that the Church has failed to be absolutely and perfectly here in this world what she is in the Kingdom. And that is true. We struggle with grace to become what we already are configured to by our participation in the Mysteries. But that doesn't mean that we must "reimage" the Divine Revelation that we have received.

Sister is not obsolete. I don't understand your posing this idea in realtion to this profound theological concept.

When we are in the liturgical assembly, we have opened the door into eternity and participate with the Heavenly Church in the eternal liturgy wherein God the Father looks with favor on the Passion, Death, and Resurrection of His Only Begotten Son. By this Saving Set of Actions, Christ has accomplished the Father's Will and that is to make us sons by adoption--all of us. It is hinted at in the Gospel where the Lord tells the Jewish leaders that in Heaven we neither marry nor are given in marriage--it is an existence of equality that we can only dimly grasp at here where it seems that people are divided over everything that comes along.

Further, when the theologians speak of the Church, we are all in a relationship with God wherein we are the feminine part. We speak of God "espousing" us, His Church. Similarly, we speak of our need here to "know," love and serve God in this world in order to be with Him forever at the end of our lives. The word "know" carries the old definition in this context of the intimate relationship that a man and a woman have in marriage. We are to have an intimate spiritual relationship with our God, something that goes beyond merely following ritual--though these help us form this relationship--to a deep in the heart bond where He is first in all our thinking, acting, and speaking.

Language in the Church is extremely important because every word carries meanings that are not apparent on the surface. Part of our process of evangelization is in making these meanings part of the consciousness of the People of God. That's why the Church repeats her liturgical lessons each year in a regular cycle--because we all have a tendency to forget and fall back into worldly ways of thinking, speaking, and acting: what a fundamentalist minister once called "backsliding." It's VERY important to remember that IN CHRIST there is no Jew or Greek (or Slav or Swede or African or Asian or Oriental Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic or Latin Catholic or any other dividing category) and there is neither male nor female nor child. All, by Baptism, are adopted sons of God and heirs of the Kingdom.

I suppose that given the last 30+ years of the feminist movement in our secular society that this language sounds alien. And I'm sure that to many it is. But the language of the Church is not the language of society. The language of the Church is the language of the revelation she has received from her Spouse.

There are many things about the Church that I have yet to understand. But I have come to the place where I can wait to have God explain the "whys" and the "wherefores" to me in the Kingdom. As for this present age, I very much like the Orthodox response to the Latins centuries ago: "We have kept the Faith handed to us by our Fathers, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it." My own father, before he died, told me that a man's success in this life would be to arrive before the Judgment Seat of Christ and be able to say that he had not compromised the Faith handed on to him but had lived it as best he could and handed it on to his children as he had received it. that's where I'm at here.

In Christ,

BOB

Actually Bob what you written, taken to its natural conclusion, is a strong argument against the use of the vernacular in the liturgy. The use of sacred language not used in secular discourse consolidates the temporary separation for the secular world, having "opened the door into eternity"

For better or worse, however, that church has opted to use the language of society even in the liturgical assembly. This use requires some care to discern, when we the usage is theological versus it is conversational, etc. I think it is simply wrong to assert that every occasion of "brethren" is theological, just as you stipulate: when speaking of forms of address we are not talking aboout theology.

I think that making good translations is fraught with difficulties. For those that have a mind to do it, any solution proposed to any difficulty could be represented as a challenge to, or a compromise, of the faith. But that attitude is not a part of what I received and is not something that I would like to see passed along.

For those interested in this issue, I recommend reading Dr. George Vall's article entitled "Inclusive Language and the Equal Dignity of Women and Men in Christ," which can be found in The Thomist 67 (2003) pages 579-606.

The article, which I think is really superb, can be read on-line here .

One point that the author doesn't address, however, is this: to what extent does Paul's deliberate use of "son", "with a certain irony", as inclusive tend to be unappreciated, if not lost, on us.

Perhaps it would have been rather nonsensical at that time to speak of inclusively, or specifically of daughters, as heirs, or as having "the great dignity and free status of these 'sons [i.e., full citizens] of the kingdom' (Matt 13:38)". By contrast, ISTM, that it would now be considered peculiar to write this way. Not so even fifty years ago, but certainly odd today.

One might suggest that with proper catechesis the point would be recovered. But curiously, the author doesn't even raise this point. So is there (again) an implict suggestion that daughtership is second, lesser class, less exalted than sonship? That ISTM would be a big stumbling block that would interfere with the good news getting thorugh. Here the issue is perhaps less a matter of inclusivity, per se, but of the stylistic choice in Paul's writing to the Galatians that is anachronistic in a way that would hint of sexism in contemporary writing.

djs,

The article was quite good. I respond, I think, to some of your concerns in your last post.

Let's suppose that St. Paul's use of sons is anachronistic and is lost on the comtemporary reader. However, just maybe the comtemporary reader should put himself under the tutelage of St. Paul and not demand that St. Paul be made to conform to his worldview.

I think it is quite true to say that the Divine Liturgy and the Roman Mass are lost on modern man because he no longer has ritual sacrifice. Nonetheless, by reading, studying and contemplating the Scriptures, he can learn to think as the ancients about these matters, provided he is willing to submit his intellect to the fullness of Scriptures.

In my original post, I linked to a sermon from Cardinal Newman, "The Gospel, A Trust Committed to Us."

He wrote:

The grant of grace in Baptism follows upon the accurate enunciation of one or two words; and if so much depends on one sacred observance, even down to the letter in which it is committed to us, why should not at least the substantial sense of other truths, nay, even the primitive wording of them, have some special claim upon the Church’s safe guardianship of them? St. Paul’s Articles of Belief are precise and individual; why should we not take them as we find them?

Those who want to translate the Creed, the Bible and the Divine Liturgy in a new way to make it "relevant" and "inclusive" are certainly dismissing Newman's admonition. And in dismissing Newman's point, they are not allowing the reader (or the hearer) to be fully informed by the Scriptures and Creed, for they are changing (perhaps only in a small way) the deposit of faith. That is something they have no right to do. And I for one, want all of my own children, sons and daughters, to receive the deposit as was given to the Church and not through the lens of moderns exegetes (with all of their prejudices).

Ah this draws the issue nicely. What does one consider to be the teaching? Is it the theology and soteriology spoken in an idiom effective at the time, albeit arguably anachronistic now? Is a teaching about a worldview, to be held as fastly as the faith itself, in which daughters are of lesser dignity? Etc.

Is as been said, here, that one cannot really understand Byzantine Christianity without knowing Greek. Not just the words, but the manner of philosophy, the concepts and categories. Maybe this also applies to Paul. And maybe the Newman passage could be construed in this way.

I disagree with such a perspective, I think that the fundamental teaching can and should be done without in words and ideas immediate rather than anachronistic (even though, at another level, it is interesting to try to "get into" their heads - in the same manner that one approaches foreign cultures or ancient ones in museum.) The words are important for their meaning, not as some kind of talisman.

Would you correct Paul?, or do you make straw men only to beat them!

Are you certain what the deposit is in all its intricacies and therefore know Paul's meaning in Galatians to translate "sons" as "children? Or do you know the meaning of the Fathers in the Creed to leave out men in "for us men?" (Those who argue that anthropos simply means human being, are mistaken or aren't being honest.)

Seems to me that those who desire these new innovations must state authoritatively that they do know. If not, then better let Paul and the Fathers speak for themselves and follow Paul's admonition which was as true then as it is today: "Do not conform yourselves to this age, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind."

The only place that I have seen the mind of the Church expressed on this particular translation issue, is in Liturgiam Authenticum and it is quite clear. The solution is not catachresis, but it is catechesis.

Huh? I might get your question if you would you answer mine about the content of the teaching.

I am not certain on any of these points which is why I have proposed almost nothing. Talk about straw men! And if you read my posts you will see specifically that I do not propose leaving out "for us men". But prefer "for man" specifically to emphasize the anthropolicigal point.

Now please tell me how certain you are about claiming others as being dishonest. That, I think, you must be absolutely certain about - otherwise your judgment is rash.

I have no idea what authority you think you have to delineate the terms of discussion, but your admonition is wasted on me; you should be giving to those working on texts. In any case, there is an obvious problem with your suggestion. Paul wrote nothing in English. So we are faced with the problem of translation, and as English evolves with revision of translation. (I am assuming of course that you don't think that the quotation above means stick to the Greek not English.) ISTM that your words hint that the very act of doing/revising tranlation is tainted. I disagree. We need to address the fundamental issues of what is a good translation - about which we may disagree - and not simply conjure suspicions about those whose perspectives are different than yours. You might consider accepting that there are good and reasonble who might see this matter differently than you.

I think that you have misread LA; it is far more nuanced on these points that you are - in fact it demands nuance and very specifically objects to translation o n auto-pilot. And with your use of "catachresis" you again make an assert what ought to be being discussed.

I am not certain of the intricacies of the content of the deposit of the faith and therefore I am certain that Newman's admonition is correct. Hence, I am against revisions which are set forth as mere translations. I would just like good translations. That is possible even though there may be some differences of opinion, see, e.g. the article on Galatians regarding rendering tekne as, "minors," rather than, "children." However, leaving out men is not a good translation, just like brothers and sisters is not a good translation for adelphoi.

I do not say others were dishonest. I said they were mistaken, or dishonest, because anthropos, like the English word, man, means a male. Anthropos, like man, can also mean male and female. Some, like Valerie Karras, assert that it only means a human being. A survey of its usage in Scripture and secular Greek literature shows that that assertion is incorrect.

Show me where I have misread LA on this particular issue. There is nothing nuanced there about this issue:

"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."

Why must I consider accepting that there are good reasons for seeing this particular matter differently when I haven't come across one yet? But I'm still listening...

For reasons which are not entirely clear to me, the discussion is reminding me of the debate at VAtican II on Latin vs. vernacular languages. Many of the vernacularists were able to speak nearly flawless Ciceronian Latin while making their points in favor of the vernacular, while Cardinal Spellman and others, demanding that Latin should be retained unchanged, spoke the most execrable version of that classical language, to the point of being incomprehensible.

This time, however, the shoe appears to be on the other foot. Those arguing against so-called "horizontally inclusive" language seem, on the whole, to write better English than those arguing in favor of this particular innovation. Somewhere in all this there is probably a lesson to be learned.

Incognitus

That statement is clearly nuanced, first of all, by the introductory clause. It means that in some situations that "anthropos" should certainly be rendered "man", but that in others, that might not be the best translation. It also leaves open the question of the what to if the target language doesn't have the "property", i.e., the same layers of meaning.

In the case of the Creed, I have said that IMO that the poetry, theology, and soteriology all point to: for man, He became man. Personally, I am not so happy wth "men" because the generic use of "men" vs "man" is more limited and less clear. And FWIW I find totally unconvincing the idea that this quote from LA applies to the Bratije before the epistle, or that every adelphos should be rendered as male in English.

Overall, I don't have a position on "horizontal gender inclusive language in the liturgy". I haven't been able, on this thread, to eke out an idea of what motivates those who do. I think that the important task is good translation and language used should service this task.

Anghela this is where we who use more British English depart from our north American brethen. I will wait for the translation. Hence the different translations of English language service books for different countries. I compared the Roman Brevary texts with the American and it is very different from the one approved for use in Australia and the UK. I must admit the other English text approved for use in England itself was an improvement on the main text approved for use in the UK.