I am asking that we address the question whether dropping ANTHROPOUS from the Nicene creed in the new Ruthenian version is heretical. This topic was touched on on the “Please post the creed” thread in the Revised Divine Liturgy forum. That thread, however, is really all over the map and not dedicated to this particular question. I have placed this question in the Faith and Worship forum because I really hope to restrict the discussion to the question of heresy. It is irrelevant to this question whether the Ruthenian bishops are well-meaning or diabolical or partners in a vast femino-secular conspiracy or holy men uniquely sensitive to pastoral needs or simply unmanly cowards. Issues merely of English language style or issues with the entire Liturgy translation or musical reform are also irrelevant.

I will begin. It seems to me that to change “for us men and our salvation” to “for us and our salvation” is presumptively heretical. When I was a Calvinist, we were taught the doctrine of limited atonement, that Christ died only for the elect. It seems to me that our tradition teaches instead that Our Lord died to redeem all humanity. The Ruthenian creed presents the incarnation-life-death-resurrection of Our Lord as for us Christians or us Catholics or us Orthodox rather than as a redemption of all it is to be human.

Am I correct? Please defend the Ruthenian creed and correct me or point out other reasons for a verdict of heresy.

It is dangerous, at least. Not even us, Latins, have gone so far.

Shalom,
Memo

Some have: not in the Creed but during the Liturgy of the Eucharist in the Novus Ordo Mass. I have witnessed, several times, the language of the Liturgy changed in a very specific, heretical way. At a certain point, the people are supposed to say: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at *your* hands, for the praise and glory of *His* Name, for our good and the good of all *His* Church.” Instead, I have heard the people recite it deliberately changed to this: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at *our* hands, for the praise and glory of *God’s* Name, for our good and the good of all *God’s* Church.” It might seem to be a superficial change to sound more "inclusive." In reality, it denies the uniqueness of Christ's priesthood (in Himself, in history, and in His priests and bishops); and it denies the specificity of His revelation: God as Father, He as the only way, tuth and life to the Father, etc. That is heretical because it deliberately changes what the Christian religion has taught since Pentecost.

As for changing the translation of the word "anthropos / anthropi," I think that has been discussed in other threads.

I am not a scholar of Greek, so I am relying on the posts of others who do know Greek. Apparently, according to them, it is technically acceptable to translate "anthropos" either as male human beings (man / men) or as all of mankind (mankind, human beings, us).

So, the issue has less to do with those words than what those words mean in modern English. "Men," "Man" or "Mankind" connotes a strongly traditional view of things. "Us" or "humankind" connotes a strongly nontraditional view of things. Put another way, the former implies traditional religion; the latter implies political correctness and (hence) secular humanism.

Orthodoxy and Catholicism supposedly esteem tradtion and traditional religion. Hence, they should translate "anthropos" in the Creed as "men" and not as "us" --

"for us men and our salvation."

That is accurate; that is traditional; and that includes not only the Christians in a particular temple or group, but all of mankind.

Just my 2 cents worth.

-- John

Was it not Pope Paul the Sixth who said something about the "breath of satan has entered the Catholic Church" ?

Alexandr

I know of a RC church where everything is inclusive and has been for over a decade. They have RC pew books and in those books men is not in the creed. Every hymn is also changed to inclusive language in the books (in its original printing--someone didn't come along with a marker). For it to go on this long, this bishop surely knows about it. So it is in some RC churches.

Isn't this the organic, bottom up liturgical change that we hear of so often? That the people start the change or canonized the saint and then the hierarchy have no choice but to put the stamp on it and call it official?

So was Protestantism.

MR,

While I don't care for the omission it can hardly be called heretical. The same Roman Congregation that worries that dropping "men" makes the Creed potentially exclusive does not have the same worries about the "for many" vs "for all" debate in the Words of Institution, insisting that "for many" is the only correct translation of "pro multis" (which they are right) and that the people will have to be made to understand through catechesis that Our Lord died for all, but only many (not all)receive the benefit. Why is catechesis all right for the Words of Institution but not the Creed?

I would also note that the Latin Bishops of the US have also dropped "men" in the Creed in their recent submitted text sent to Rome for approval.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I asked a "Greek Scholar" about this issue. This scholar is 100% indepedent on the issue. He said the translation can go either way. This settled the issue for me.

I attend a Latin Rite parish once or twice a month and they've definitely dropped "men" from the Creed. This parish is otherwise very orthodox and has a vibrant community, full of young and old families, and very diverse ethnically.

I still say "men" out of habit, though, but I also fumble over the Creed there anyways as I'm used to saying the version found in the Levkulic book.

anthropos=man

This isn't heresy though since there is no intent to change the content of the faith.

It is the deliberate choice of an inferior, imprecise translation to humor the feminist enemies of Christ and those who have bought their arguments.

While it would not be right to turn the liturgy into a battleground, we should make sure we use a correct translation in speaking, writing and in our personal prayers.

For he truly loves Man and for us men and for our salvation he did come down from heaven and himself become man so that all men could become sons of God.

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

I'm certainly not a scholar, far from it, but it seems to me that people can't realize the extent of differences between languages. In order to translate some things 'exactly' from one language to another, requires volumes. One word in one language, may require a whole sentence in another in order to be exact, and sometimes the emotion simply doesn't exist within the other culture.

An example to me would be the word 'nous' in Greek. Frankly I don't understand it completely, and assumed it would be translated as the heart. Yet when we say the heart, what do we mean by the heart. I know a hard hearted person would be one that reacts to their base passions...so it must be one's 'reasoning' in deference to one's passion. Yet in Greek, one's reasoning would be misinterpreted as 'logic', and so on and so forth.

I love to go on and on.....

Zenovia

As a "fallen away" Presbyterian I would have to agree 100% with Maccabeus Rising. The Calvinist is almost obsessed with limited atonement.

If the translation on the Greek word could go either way than why hasn't anyone thought of it before? Why hasn't the GOC done this?

MrsMW

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Great Britain uses "for our sake and our salvation".

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

You are partially correct. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Great Britain has authorized the use of this translation. (primarily the work of Archimandrite Ephrem). However, it is not correct to say that the Archdiocese uses it. It was approved for use, but never mandated. There is some opposition, and I understand many parishes that use English, use other translations. I do know some clergy of the Archdiocese who refuse to use it.

the unworthy,
Elias