www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy For Us MEN And Our Salvation-Compendium of the Catechism

Right. Part of the problem is that "mankind" does not incorporate BOTH the individual and the totality, as do the Greek and Slavonic. I believe this was a subject of the Roman documents on translation, and also a previous thread here discussing people who honestly said "Well, God may love mankind in general, but that doesn't mean he loves me."

In this sense, "Lover of Mankind" is NOT really an adequate translation of Celovikol'ubce. But unless we settle on "Man-befriending God" or "Lover of men" or "Man-loving God", it may be the best we have. I believe that that is why we see "who loves us all" - it would be readily understood to include each individual (pace the understanding that it includes all human beings) as well as each one. I don't particularly LIKE it, but it is one solution to a thorny translation problem, and partisans of "Lover of Mankind" (I count myself as one!) need to understand that that translation has problems as well.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

This reminds me of the baptists and other protestants who profess a "personal Lord and Savior".

What do you say to those Orthodox, (ROCOR comes to mind), who use the translation "O only Lover of Men".

Dear Recluse,

I would have been perfectly happy with it 10 years ago (though I think "Lover of man" is more exact). Then I met a homosexual activist who REALLY like the idea of "Jesus, Lover of Men", and was all in favor of it. I guess to some extent it depends on whether the faithful, and newcomers, can simply ignore changes that take place in our language outside church.

I really believe that "Lover of mankind" / "who loves us all" and "for us men" / "for us" involve separate issues, whose only common feature is that they both could look like giving in to pressure from secular feminists. (The Liturgy Commission DID keep quite a few occurences of "man" / "men" in the texts, and removed the "red flag" of "humankind" that the Basilian Sisters used at Vespers.) "Lover of mankind" seems to involve a substantive translation issue in the current text, while the "for us men" does not.

Jeff

P.S. The first quote above has little to do with Protestants, and everything to do with the abstract nature of "mankind". I have met many over the years who professed to be working for "the good of mankind" who had no problem sacrificing individual human beings, and a variety of people who simply did not FEEL that anything that applied to "generic mankind" applied IN PARTICULAR to them. A regular poster on the forum commented from personal experience to this effect a few weeks ago.

Jeff, could you identify the Roman document to which you refer. I think Rome has been rather definitive on this issue or is there something new out. If "Lover of Men' was the proper translation, then why didn't we use it. I will suggest for the same reason that men was dropped from the Creed.

When the indefensible is defended, it just drives a further wedge between those who are willing to accept a revised Creed and those who want an orthodox one.

In Christ,

lm

PS - Can you tell me whether "The doors, the doors" has been dropped? And do the orthodox still use it?

I personally believe this is what has happened--a surrender to the secular feminist movement and a time for the revisionists to make their "claim to fame".

Peter Kreeft's introduction to his book Philosophy 101 by Socrates [amazon.com] (Ignatius, 2002):
Agenda driven gender neutral language is poor theology. No one takes it seriously except liberal academia and some in the media.

Traditional inclusive language is good theology. �Man�, �Mankind� and �Lover of mankind� have the advantage of being accurate AND inclusive.

Isn�t it odd that our hierarchs have chosen to go the route of 1960�s feel-good agenda theology instead of accuracy?

Maybe we should have copies of Liturgicam Authenticam printed and sent to them?

Dear lm,

From Liturgiam Authenticam 30:

[qb]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.[/qb]

The recurring reference in our liturgy is to the "Lover of man" - where both the individual and universal senses are intended and understood. We have used "Lover of mankind" for years; I don't think there is an overall BETTER translation, not least because setting "Lover of man" or "Lover of men" to an end-phrase in our chant can be quite problematical. I wish I know of one I could propose.

I think "Lover of us all" SOUNDS less political than "Lover of human beings" or "...of humankind", but even if commonly understood in the correct sense can be claimed to be ambiguous.

The new text contains "[The doors, the doors!]" in the proper place. I hear it in some Orthodox parishes locally, and not in others.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Indeed! And this is where I cannot rest at ease. My conscience screams out in agony. An injustice has been done here. The cracks in the foundation have begun to widen. Lord have mercy!

In Greek Orthodox churches, 'ta stiras/the doors' is still used.

Having read all this translational controversy, I am wondering if everyone may be getting too upset? In my archdiocese, the translations are not that always that exact, but we are just happy to be able to hear them in our native language of English..which is , unfortunately, not always the case.

You are fortunate that when you are at DL, you and your children atleast know what is going on and what is being prayed.

Just a thought from the outside,
Alice

I've never been in an Orthodox Church that doesn't conclude the service of the catechumens with that.

Let me preface my argument by saying that I'm perfectly content with "for us men and our salvation" and "lover of mankind" as opposed to "for us and our salvation" and "lover of us all." I think that the number of those who are being scandalized by the changes exceeds the number of those who are scandalized by the traditional language, so from a pastoral perspective, I would leave the language as it is and concentrate on helping those (and it seems to me that there really aren't that many of them) who are in some way offended by the traditional language of the liturgy understand 1)why it is that when we call God "Father," it does not mean that we should understand God the Father in terms of our human fathers, but rather, that we should re-learn what true human fatherhood should be by our experience of God the Father, 2)why it is that "mankind" is inclusive and why their rejection of it as an inclusive term is based on their acceptance of secular teaching and not on the teachings of the Church, and 3)why one particular Church does not have authority to alter the universal Creed. However, I suggest that we be more charitable in our comments toward those who are advocating for these changes. I think it is not at all the case that "liberal academia and some in the media" are the only ones who take gender neutral language seriously. My own personal experience tells me otherwise. I would also suggest that it is probably best not to attribute particular motives to people when those motives have never been explicitly stated-I'm thinking particularly of the accusation that what lies behind all of this is advocacy for the ordination of women to the priesthood. I really think that those who make that accusation do so with little foundation and run the risk of being guilty of making false accusations. I would also add that I think greater sensitivity should be shown towards those who are troubled by the traditional language. They may be mistaken, but, unfortunately, there is this long, troubling history of abuse of women and children by men. Many people who are crying out for so-called "inclusive" language, or gender-neutral language, do so because they have been scandalized by despicable conduct on the part of fathers, husbands, and brothers. Instead of maligning them, we should pray for them and seek to help them find healing and help them come to a place where they can forgive those men whose conduct has scandalized them.
In peace,
Ryan

Very well stated! Educate the faithful. Don�t dumb down the Teaching.

Stating that some people have fallen into error with their advocacy of a style of language rooted in secular feminism is not uncharitable.

Lots of good, well meaning men fall into error.

Accusations of uncharity and hate is an old method to shut down discussion. It doesn�t work any more because people see it for what it is.

Hiding truth to be sensitive to those who have been harmed never works.

Yes, you are correct Ryan. There has been a deception, and we must address this deception in a charitable and loving way. My apologies to all I have offended. Please forgive me.

Recluse

Dear Ryan:

From experience, I have spent months and even years trying to share some particular truth with a freind. I have found even when I speak with the utmost tenderness, they still don't hear me.

We need to define what speaking charitably really means. I think we can look to the Saints, and find some unlikely examples of charitable dialouge/teachings. Let us look at a few examples of charity (which some might not view as very charitable in this day and age):

Let us call to mind a great Saint of our times St. Padre Pio. St. Padre Pio could be very harsh AND very kind (but in order to shorten this reply I will only include the harsh statements. But in each case, kindness or harshness, charity is the motive).

"My child, if you want to go to hell, you don't need my signature." AND

"Women who satisfy their vanity in their dress can never put on the life of Jesus Christ; moreover they even lose the ornaments of their soul as soon as this idol enters into their heart."
(I think I recall stories of St. Pio chasing women out of his confessional if their skirt was too short! NOW, IS THAT VERY CHARITABLE??!!)
AND
"I beg you not to criticize me by invoking charity, because the greatest charity is to deliver souls held fast by Satan in order to win them over to Christ."

And a warning to priest from St. John Vianney �If a priest determined not to lose his soul, so soon as any disorder arises in the parish, he must trample underfoot all human considerations as well as the fear of the contempt and hatred of his people. He must not allow anything to bar his way in the discharge of duty, even were he certain of being murdered on coming down from the pulpit. A pastor who wants to do his duty must keep his sword in hand at all times. Did not St. Paul himself write to the faithful of Corinth: �I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls, although loving you more, I be loved less."

Oh, yes! Last but not least we forget the charitable references in the Bible. Here is one:
St. Paul, "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" Titus 3:10

I could go on and on, but I think this is sufficient. Do we think these Saint were rude or uncharitable? No, we know they spoke the Truth.

I think some of us "see" a different picture than others. Maybe some of us are just plain "SICK OF IT"! We are not sick of any person specifically. One may think another is speaking uncharitably and these are personal attacks. But ideas are being attacked NOT people? I believe people are being passionate. And maybe some irritability can arise in replies. I really don't believe the point of the replies is intended to be personal attacks. (And if we are offended, let us suffer this for Jesus quietly, after all, what did He suffer for us. If we are offended let us humiliate ourselves just a little, for how Our Precious Lord was humiliated during His Passion, and we think we are above HIS example of silence.) I believe in evil times like these (and any other age) we are fighting real battles against power and principalities and not individuals. Some speak in a tone which is forceful, not because they want to be boastful/prideful/agrumentative/rude/arrogant etc. But because they see real danger lurking.

What is charity? Charity is the virtue by which we love GOD above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves, for the love of GOD. from My Catholic Faith.

I cannot even begin to love my neighbor until I love GOD first. And we live in such a secular society, how often we don't even see the attacks against GOD. We fight against the spirits which are against GOD. Some may take personal offense in commentary, but it REALLY IS NOT THE POINT! A more important principal is being attacked. Let us focus on the issues and at least pray (penance, and sacrifice too) to GOD for reparation for the sacrilege and blasphemies done to HIM.

Let us unite not in our own egos, but in the defense of Faith. It is going to take each of us all we have to sustain in this battle ahead. Let us know/expose who the enemy is and his attempts to derail the TRUTH! Let us be watchful and learn his tricks and traps, so we might not fall prey.

Blessed is our GOD!
jody

Dear Jody:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. My concern is not so much that I might be offended-I get offended rather easily, and I get over it easily as well. Rather, my concern is has to do with offense that might be given to those who are unbelievers or who are weak in faith. Keep in mind, we don't know who might be reading this thread or any other thread on this forum. As far as ideas being attacked and not people, well I think that is normally the case, but there certainly are instances when the attack on the ideas turns into personal attacks, and if you don't believe me, then I can point you to specific posts. I'm also concerned that there should be a bit more care used in how this problem of so-called inclusive language is addressed-and in spite of the accusation made against me by 1 Th 5:21, I'm not attempted to halt the discussion; in fact, I encourage a defense of the use of the traditional language of the liturgy. I agree that what lies behing the push for "inclusive language" or "gender neutral" language is a particular brand of feminism that is secular. I encourage you (as you have done in some of your posts) and others to speak the truth against the falsities of secular feminism. I especially welcome such challenges when they come from women who are busy in the most noble vocation of raising a family. I also think that we need to approach that defense of the traditional and honorable role of women with a very sobering reality in mind-part of the blame for the rise of secular feminism is the very unfortunate history of the abuse of women and girls by men and that unfortunate history is one that is ongoing. The secular feminists themselves are children of God and are loved by God just as those of us who do not subscribe to their ideas. Yes, let's continue to speak the truth and defend the traditional teachings of the faith-even (perhaps especially) when it is not popular to do so. As we do that, let us take great care to avoid the appearance of personal attack and hatred. Also, let us take great care to make clear that in our defense of the truth against secular feminism we do not intend to condone the abuse of girls and women by men.
Blessed is our God indeed!
Ryan