www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Please Post the Creed from the Promulgated Liturgy Father David

Here is another reference to lesbians. It apparently comes from Helen Hitchcock the Editor of "Adoremus," a well respected Roman Rite publication on the liturgy. Cardinal Arinze recently visited the Adoremus' office here in the United States.

That is the problem with inclusive language. The originators mean well but wind up neutering the masculine to favor the feminine. They do it under guise of equality of the sexes. Since women have been mistreated in the past Christians buy into it without thought. Then they attempt to push it within the Church giving reasons of loving one another and tolerance. They don't realize the damage it inflicts on the very core of orthodox Christian anthropology. Praise God the Vatican will have none of it. Now if we could just convince our bishops to follow the Vatican. Or ask the Vatican to direct them to be faithful.

So what is the correct translation of "anthropos" that Rome said we should use? And I'm assuming that Rome gave us the correct English word too? Mother may I?

I don't understand this strong push for appeal to what Rome has said. Constantly on these boards I see Rome's involvement in eastern affairs being excoriated. I think it is much more important what other easterners have said. I will start a thread on that.

Jeff,

When I post on here it's in between doing work and responding to e-mails for work. I incorrectly wrote Litany of the Catechumens, I should have wrote minimal 3 verse antiphons in my litanty of items that were now forbidden. But hey, I typed it wrong. I'll be a man, er I mean human, and say I wrote it wrong plain and simple. You're right it's in the new books. I should have typed it right.

But you can't seriously contest and give me a reason why 90%+ of our churches in Parma and Pittsburgh don't celebrate Vespers (no Vespers with Liturgy doesn't count) or Matins. And don't hide behind that some priests have to serve multiple parishes. Because then you have to answer why priests that have only one parish are and will get away with no Vespers or Matins. You know as well as I do that these services should be taking place. Why doesn't our leadership enforce this? You don't really think that having Matins for 3-4 days in Uniontown is the quota for the year for all of our eprachies do you? Is pastoral sensitivity the reason because these are Traditoinal practices?

I'll go back to the practice of not kneeling on Sundays, which is done at the Cathedral in Parma. I guess we'll see if it is obeyed per the new books (what color are they so we can call them red book, etc.?) If not, then can Traditional parishes do 3 verse antiphons and little litanies? How much leeway is allowed?

You didn't even touch upon the fact that the beautiful fasting cycles that we have in our Tradition are basically ignored. Where are the directives from our leaders regarding Traditional fasting? I've never even heard a rumour of the Dormition Fast for example being practiced.

How is it that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people go to communion on Sundays, yet confessions are minimal. Must be some holy people in our rite. This was one of the items that I wrote previously that should be enforced.

Speaking of confessions, what is a confessional doing at the cathedral in Parma? (left hand side in the back when you walk in)

You haven't seen a liturgy done in under an hour? Go to St. Mary's in Cleveland on a Sunday. 45 minutes tops. I swear to you.

Go to Holy Ghost in Cleveland, around 55 minutes.

Go to St. Gregory's in Lakewood, OH. 50 minutes.

Go to St. Joseph's in Brecksville, OH. 50 minutes.

many more if you want to hear.

suggesting that a liturgy should be under an hour and consistently week after week having them under an hour are two different things. The admin would be correct that no ones advocating this, but action speaks louder than words. It's going on.

Proskomedia is something we could talk about at length. Hopefully it will be practiced the right way in every parish now. I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it, but it would be nice if it happened.

Bykat wrote:
"My point above was that your complaints are not strengthened by either misrepresenting the liturgical changes, or by accusing the bishops or clergy of being in support of Latinizations like statues, kneeling at inappropriate times, etc."

When every single time that I've ever gone to the Cathedral in Parma my whole entire life and the people there kneel, what am I supposed to think about the bishop and/or clergy supporting this practice? Have I ever seen a memo by one of our bishops and/or clergy encouraging kneeling at inappropiate times? No.
But come on, it goes on there, plain and simple. Maybe it will change June 29? We'll see.

But many parishes that have a priest all to themselves don't have to wait until June 29th to begin having Vespers and Matins. What date will that start?

Monomakh

The correct translation of "anthropos" in the Creed is "man" and "men." "Who for us men and for our salvation." "and He became man." Rome has clearly stated this.

Mother may I?

Are you saying that it is anti-Eastern for Rome to require that translations be accurate?

Are you saying that it is authentically Eastern to be inaccurate?

Man (s) -- Men (pl).

For us men, God became man.

Sorry but I haven't had time to reply before this. I believe and again, I've not had time to find the quote, but it's been shown that "anthropos" can mean either human being or man. I haven't seen any document coming out of Rome, that says for English speakers anthropos must be translated as "man." If you can show me that I'll eat crow. And also, let's not forget, Rome it was that approved this translation.

Check here for the specific directive not to translate "for us and our salvation...

The middle term is that anthropos and homos are equivalents:

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html



Also see LA at paragaphs 30 and 32

http://www.adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html#anchor6319598

One of problems with the translation "for us humans He became human" is, of course it leaves out the fact that He became man ie, male, the spouse of His Bride, the Church.

The creed in Latin does say "et homo factus est." "Homo" is man, meaning a male, if that were translated as "human" I'd have a real problem! Thanks for the quote. That leads me to ask, "why did Rome approve the creed as translated in the Ruthenian liturgy then?" Something's not right. Who wrote the "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal?" Was that Cardinal Estevez?

John,

If "homo" means man means male (ie. the "male" part is important), then you have to explain how the "homines" in the earlier phrase

Qui propter nos h�mines

does NOT mean males. It doesn't, of course, but the fact that "homo" / "man" is "overloaded" - carries two different senses - is part of the problem. The Church COULD have emphasized Christ's maleness - called him a "vir" - but chose to emphasize His humanity by using "homo".

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

C'mon Jeff,

You're wrong. Homines does mean males...and females, adults and children. In fact it includes all of mankind, even those not yet conceived.

That homo, anthropos, man have several meanings is not the problem, but the VERY ESSENCE of why they are useful terms.

Homo is what is used in the Latin Vulgate in Ephesians...A man (anthropos, homo) shall leave his father and mother.... THE AMBIGUITY, IN ANTHROPOS AND HOMO, IS PRECISELY WHY "MAN" IS THE RIGHT TRANSLATION. Its meaning is more complete and concrete than "human being." It is INCARNATIONAL. To being a human being is not some ethereal Platonic essence--it is to be a flesh and blood man or woman.

ECCE HOMO - BEHOLD THE human being? BUNK!

But again, they're not even translating anthropos. Why? I think I've suggested several answers.

Dear lm,

That's my point on the issue of "inclusive language" and the Creed. I agree with you that the omission is precisely the problem.

But John (above) seemed to be confusing "homo" and "vir", as if "homo" OBVIOUSLY implied maleness. The same argument that "man" obviously implies maleness, and "human being" is inappropriate because it doesn't, ends up allowing secular feminists to say "And that is what makes 'for us men' inexact."

My problem is not with the conclusion, but with the argumentation in the post I was responding to - it concedes way too much to so-called "gender feminists."

Jeff

lm,

You aren't making any sense here. You are stating that anthropos can mean males or males and females but the only correct way to translate it is men. I agree references to Christ should be translated as man because one does not simply become human but must be either man or woman. However, anthropos may correctly be translated as humans. Now, the cardinals in Rome may not like that translation but keep in mind these are the same cardinals that don't like us having married priests either.

I agree it should not have been skipped. You can leave it as men (which is my preference) or change it to humans (I don't like it but can't see that it is wrong despite what the cardinals say.

What I can not agree with is running to Rome to have them force our bishops to reverse their decision because next time it might be the Latin bishops running to Rome to try and get them to force us to stop ordaining married agaian now that one of our bishops has resumed doing so.

We should be consulting with our fellow Greek Catholics but I think the days of Rome micro-managing us need to be over.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I must not understand what you're saying.

Homo, anthropos and man all do imply maleness (ecce homo), but also something broader than maleness, because these terms don't necessarily exclude women or children, those yet conceived, or dead.

Agreed?

I just thought John K's response was a revelation as to why he would not say "for us humans beings, he became a human being." That is incomplete.

Remember, however, Valeris Karras would have us translate it that way. Her scholarship requires turning a blind eye to passages like that in Ephesians.