Another thread has talked about the cutting of the antiphons, and the litanies between them. But that is not the thing that disturbs me most about the proposed new translation. I find it very worrying, and I wonder if there is an agenda behind some of this translation work?

Why are we embracing "inclusive language" at a time when the Roman Catholic Church is being instructed to step back from this experiment?

Rome doesn't approve of contrived "inclusive language" in the Liturgy, and has issued very concrete prohibitions against it, this can be found on the Vatican website.

I have the official book distributed this year for Good Friday, and it contains some examples of what worries me, these are only a few illustrations, but there are many more.

I compare it to a copy of Mother Mary & Bishop Kallistos Triodion, and Menaion, which I am told, is a very faithful translation. I compare them with the new official texts put out by the Archbishop, for the Byzantine Catholic Church.

Mother Mary.
"...and he who loves mankind is raised upon the Cross."
New Liturgy.
"...and the Lover of us all is lifted up on the wood."


Mother Mary.
"Lo, our restoration is now made manifest to us: God is ineffably united to men."
New Liturgy.
"Behold our restoration is now revealed. God beyond words is united with humanity."

Mother Mary.
"Down from the Tree Joseph of Arimathea .... 'Glory to Thy self-abasement, O Thou who lovest Mankind'."
New Liturgy.
When the Arimathean took you.... O lover of humanity, glory to your condescension."

Dismissal of the current Liturgy.
"... for He is gracious and he loves mankind."
Dismissal of the New Liturgy.
"...for Christ is good and loves us all."

Why for example has the second Sunday before Christmas (formerly the "Sunday of the Holy Forefathers, the Patriarchs") become the "Sunday of the Ancestors"?

The question of "Inclusive Language" raises red flags in the Church, and is very controversial. Without going into all the reasons Rome has forbidden translators to go that way, is it enough to know that Rome forbids it?

Nick

Nicholas,

Rome has not forbidden horizontal inclusive language, i.e. changing brethren to brothers and sisters, mankind to humankind, etc. It does forbid vertical inclusive language like changing Son of God to Child of God, Father to Parent, or changing things like Psalm 1: Blessed is the man to Blessed are those, since the Psalm is messianic and refering to Christ.

Personally, I can't stand inclusive language of any sort and think it silly to change mankind to humanity but I will live with it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

So-called "inclusive language" is a debasement of language, and goes hand in hand with other linguistic debasements which certain translations resort to. This is a serious matter, since the gift of intelligent speech is one of the most important differences between mankind and the animals.

Incognitus

inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy - I am speachless!

Orthodoxy here we come,
Right back where we started from....

Is outrage!

Dear Brethren and Sistern, Christ is Risen!
I concur with Incognitus in his opinion, expressed below. Having to play endless games of politically correct speech in secular life, it would grieve me greatly to see the sacred dragged down to this level. I do hope that no one proposes to change the wording in the Greek or Slavonic versions of the divine services to be gender neutral, or whatever is the term de'jour!

Photius, Reader

Christ is Risen! To Incognitus and Photius who have greatly illumined these question threads, be assured of my heartfelt Paschal greetings and assent to your posts.

Dear Diak, In Truth He is Risen!

While I appreciate the compliment, please be aware that it is through no virtue of my own; rather, my name takes the credit for illumining!

Likewise! Let us embrace one another ... and sing, "Christ is Risen from the dead ..."!

Hoping to exchange more enlightening posts with you on this earth,

Photius

The use of inclusive language is one of the most tragic and embarrassing elements that will haunt the "new translation". Rome has been very vocal over the years in its disapproval of this phenomenon. It spoke, of course, basically to the Latin church because no one could have truly forseen that such practice would enter into the Eastern churches. The use of such language has not been introduced by the will of the majority people or the majority of the clergy, but in most cases by nuns who remain among the very few in this country still holding on to this sixties notion of eliminating all pereceived male reference in speech, thus proverbially oppressing the oppressors. Intelligent, successful and powerful women have long ago abandoned this notion realizing that if one has to go about saying he/she is equal or change language to somehow prove it it only shows that there really is no equality. Equality only comes about when an individual is confident that he/she is equal and shows it in action, not by trying to change the world to conform to whatever minority view is held. Attempts to change language prove nothing other than a few individuals are still insecure in the fact that they are equal. Sadly, it is this insecurity that will keep these individuals prisoners of their perceived injustice and no change in language will ever be of help.

MJ, I would also posit that these sorts of innovations will also insure that the gulf between Greek Catholics and Orthodoxy will remain if not widen. That is not what it is supposed to be about.

Are we really being faithful to the Holy See as expressed in Orientale Dignitas, Orientale Lumen, and Orientale Ecclesiorum, to restore a more traditional practice and praxis in our Churches? Or are we, as in many things, simply lagging behind the Romans in taking some of the worst aspects and approaches of their "liturgical reform" and just getting to them now?

Why am I not surprised by this outrage against inclusive language? I for one, am delighted to hear that someone in the Catholic Church has the courage to stand up for women, and women's rights.

Byzantine rite Archbishop Schott is to be praised for standing up to the right wing lunatic fringe so vocal in the Catholic Church today. Somebody in the Catholic Church has to take a stand, and it is refreshing to find a bishop who is supportive of women.

I am very surprised and saddened that these innovations (mainly inclusive language, can't really comment on the liturgy...yet) that have been a thorn to many of us Latins have reached my Eastern brethern.

Be patient and careful when dealing with them, once embedded they are difficult and painful to remove, leaving wounds and divisions.

james

Political correctness has no place in the Church.
Why should the Church bow before this form of secularism?

God help us all!

Ungcsertezs

Christ is risen!
That sediment is exactly what I posted earlier concerning reciting the Anaphora aloud ... it is widening the gap, which is quite obvious to me; as an Orthodox Christian, I perceive that many Byzantine Catholics wish to play experimentation ... go though the immeadiate post vatican II stage of their Latin bretheren ... and have no interest in the Byzantine Rite in any meaningful usage of that phase.

Photius, Reader

That doesn't sound too bad.

In fact, there is a http://www.acrod.org about 2 miles from my house. I have met the priest and his wife they are lovely people.

Perhaps God is calling me in another direction.