|
0 members (),
89
guests, and
25
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
OP
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
While it is true that this 2001 instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worhip and The Dicipline of Sacraments was intended specifically for the Latin Church, its principles can be easily seen as universally applicable. As I read this instruction, I am interpreting it to mean that our Metropolia should not have re-translated Anthropos in the Creed, and Philanthropos elsewhere throughout the Liturgy using modern "inclusive" language, but should have engaged in a catechesis showing how terms like "Mankind" are, indeed, inclusive. Of course, critics of my analysis will say that our new translation was "approved by Rome". That was in 2001, at roughly the same time that this document was promulgated for the Latin Church. Perhaps "one hand was not quite sure what the other was doing". I wonder, in light of the above instruction, along with the fact that "inclusive" language is definitely NOT used in the recently issued Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if our new Divine Liturgy translations would be approved if they were presented to the Congregation For Eastern Churches today? Please enjoy reading this excerpt, which I "copied and pasted" directly off the Vatican website.
Dn. Robert
Liturgiam Authenticam
30. 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.
Last edited by Jessup B.C. Deacon; 03/22/07 03:41 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
Quite honestly, I use inclusive language almost exclusively  in my everyday speech. It is the way that American English is evolving and I like to say exactly what I mean. That being said, I am an advocate of a "church English" so to speak. A higher and lofty form of language used only for liturgy. It just sounds better to me, not awkward or contrived, which unfortunately, is how much of the language in the revised DL sounds. The Anglo-Catholic church that I've been attending the last few months uses "Rite I" Elizabethan English for most all their liturgies and services. This church is in the midst of Yale University, which I'm sure that most of you will realize is not exactly a hot bed of any kind of conservatism. It's attended by many students and faculty and no one seems to bat an eyelash or stomp out because "man" or "mankind" is repeatedly used in the Mass or Evensong. My point? The language is not relevant to today's moderns, but people come and no one complains. Were we losing folks because we had exclusive language in the old DL? What was the impetus???
Last edited by John K; 03/22/07 04:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
|
|
OP
Jessup B.C. Deacon Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346 |
John
We are losing folks, not because of liturgical language, but because we don't see ourselves as a Church that should evangelize and grow. Too many times, I've heard cradle Greek Catholics who now go elsewhere say things like "that was my grandmother's church". The perception is one of an ethnic club, rather than a real Church. The children and grandchildren have been "mainstreamed" and either attend a Latin Church, or no Church at all. There is also the big problem of the inferiority complex of many Greek Catholics (which should have no basis in reality).
You mention the Anglo-Catholic Anglicans. I recently attended an Anglican-Use Catholic Mass (in communion with Rome) in Scranton. The former Episcopal priest (married) is to be ordained to the Catholic priesthood. Prior to his ordination, several RC Scranton Diocesan priests have obtained special permission to celebrate according to the Anglican-use rite in order to serve the group (some 20+ families) which has entered the Catholic Church (they all followed their pastor-they constitute a large portion of a former Episcopal parish). The Liturgy is a thing of beauty. It appears that large excerpts of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer are being used, along with some "Catholicizations" (i.e.the Roman Canon, etc.). The language is 16th century Elizabethan English, including a lot of "man" and "mankind" words. They use a traditional Anglican hymnal for music (no St. Louis Jesuits!!!!-thank God!). I find this to be very appealing. Interestingly, their pastor converted to Catholicism because of it's "hard" teachings, such as "Humanae Vitae". He has always been active in Pennsylvanians for Human Life, the local pro-life group. They cite as the reason for their existence, as an Anglican-use group, their perception of a calling to bring non-Catholics into the Church (in other words-evangelize, grow, and save souls). We need to take a page from their book.
Dn. Robert
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
I wonder, in light of the above instruction, along with the fact that "inclusive" language is definitely NOT used in the recently issued Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, if our new Divine Liturgy translations would be approved if they were presented to the Congregation For Eastern Churches today? Please enjoy reading this excerpt, which I "copied and pasted" directly off the Vatican website. Yes. I wonder the same. The letters I sent to Rome cite this document as the basis as to why I felt the revision should be retracted--or at the very least inclusive langauge should be retracted. However, it will soon be a moot point for me as I begin my journey toward the Holy Orthodox Church. Inclusive language seems to be the last straw for me. Here is something for all Ruthenian Catholics to ponder. In 1995 the Sisters of St Basil published the Lenten Triodion with horizontal inclusive language. Every instance of the word "mankind" had been changed to "humankind". Furthermore, I have discovered on page 429 of the Akathist to the Mother of God in Ikos 14 the following words: Indeed it is for this that the God Most High appeared on earth as a lowly "human".Here now you have vertical inclusive language where the word "man" has been changed to "human". I see this as borderline heresy. So you see this has been a gradual campaign for quite some time and it has now infected the Liturgy. I do not believe it will end here. As I have said many times before. BE WATCHFUL. May the Lord protect all Ruthenian Catholics--for He is gracious and He loves mankind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 75
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 75 |
Were we losing folks because we had exclusive language in the old DL? What was the impetus??? Of course, there is no problem loosing people to exclusive language. Modern man seeks novelty, and calls/believes it progress. Don't get me wrong. I am not against change. I believe there can be organic growth in the DL. "When one lives by novelty, there will always have to be a new novelty." - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
The Anglo-Catholic church that I've been attending the last few months uses "Rite I" Elizabethan English for most all their liturgies and services. If people are willing to give up the very source and summit of our faith--the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist--over inclusive or exclusive language, we have much bigger problems and need to concentrate on evangelizing ourselves before we could ever evangelize others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
If people are willing to give up the very source and summit of our faith--the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist--over inclusive or exclusive language, we have much bigger problems and need to concentrate on evangelizing ourselves before we could ever evangelize others. Inclusive language defines who you are, and the church has made accomodations and has broadcast it lound and clear. Now that it has begun, where will it end? In the Divine Liturgy inclusive language reads/sings like a lyrical train wreck. I think it's uncomfortable to say/sing for a reason -- it's God's way of telling us it doesn't belong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,390 |
Inclusive language defines who you are, I disagree. I would agree with the statement that language defines who we wish to be. I believe that no amount of language can change the actual truth of the matter which is that we were created male and female in the image and likeness of God. It doesn't matter what anyone says or how they say it, that reality will never change. I think it's uncomfortable to say/sing for a reason -- it's God's way of telling us it doesn't belong. I disagree with this as well. There are a number of people who are comfortable with doing things that are very wrong. There obviously is a group who are not uncomfortable with these changes. Among that group are God-loving men who are trying, in the way the feel they are being led by God, to respond to the needs of the church. I respect these men even if I disagree with them. I do not believe that the Lord has given me any greater insight or knowledge than he has these men. As a matter of fact, I don't think my opinion matters at all. Our feelings don't determine Truth. No more do the feelings of those who don't feel like it determine Truth than the feelings of those who do. I believe the fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter what we feel like, that there is an objective and determinable Truth which was established by God, and that is no less true whether I feel like it or not. This Truth has been handed down to us, and I believe we have a responsibility and obligation to do that which has been handed down to us because it is God's will, and our feelings have nothing to do with that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
Dear Wondering,
It was really unfair of me to participate in the discussion on inclusive language because no matter who argues what to me, I will not drink the Kool-Aid where this is concerned. And, I want you to try to explain it the 80+ year old grandmothers' sitting in the pews. Because you won't fool them, they believe in the truth too.
The truth is: "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. Genesis 5:2
May the rest of your Lent be blessed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231 |
The Anglo-Catholic church that I've been attending the last few months uses "Rite I" Elizabethan English for most all their liturgies and services. If people are willing to give up the very source and summit of our faith--the True Presence in the Holy Eucharist--over inclusive or exclusive language, we have much bigger problems and need to concentrate on evangelizing ourselves before we could ever evangelize others. Believe me Wondering, I am quite evangelized.
Last edited by John K; 03/23/07 01:15 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 75
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 75 |
The truth is: "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. Genesis 5:2 Thanks Stephanie Kotyuh! Here is the Douay-Rheims translation: "He created them male and female; and blessed them: and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
The demand within parts of the Catholic Church for inclusive language for use in the Bible, the Mass and other parts of the liturgy has increased in recent years. However, this demand has not come from the pews or from any groups representative of the Church's grass roots. Rather, it reflects the efforts of well-placed people within the Church's local administrations to bring religious practices into conformity with questionable policies in the secular world. http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/jul1998p8_549.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Here are some other paragraphs from Liturgiam Authenticam which are very interesting: 4. A certain stability ought to be maintained whenever possible in successive editions prepared in modern languages. The parts that are to be committed to memory by the people, especially if they are sung, are to be changed only for a just and considerable reason. Nevertheless, if more significant changes are necessary for the purpose of bringing the text into conformity with the norms contained in this Instruction, it will be preferable to make such changes at one time, rather than prolonging them over the course of several editions. In such case, a suitable period of catechesis should accompany the publication of the new text.
75. The translation of liturgical texts requires not only a rare degree of expertise, but also a spirit of prayer and of trust in the divine assistance granted not only to the translators, but to the Church herself, throughout the whole process leading to the definitive approbation of the texts. The readiness to see one's own work examined and revised by others is an essential trait that should be evident in one who undertakes the translation of liturgical texts. Furthermore, all translations or texts prepared in vernacular languages, including those of the praenotanda and the rubrics, are to be anonymous with respect to persons as well as to institutions consisting of several persons, as in the case of the editiones typicae.52
* * *
80. The practice of seeking the recognitio from the Apostolic See for all translations of liturgical books56 accords the necessary assurance of the authenticity of the translation and its correspondence with the original texts. This practice both expresses and effects a bond of communion between the successor of blessed Peter and his brothers in the Episcopate. Furthermore, this recognitio is not a mere formality, but is rather an exercise of the power of governance, which is absolutely necessary (in the absence of which the act of the Conference of Bishops entirely in no way attains legal force); and modifications even substantial onesmay be introduced by means of it.57
For this reason it is not permissible to publish, for the use of celebrants or for the general public, any liturgical texts that have been translated or recently composed, as long as the recognitio is lacking. Since the lex orandi must always be in harmony with the lex credendi and must manifest and support the faith of the Christian people, the liturgical translations will not be capable of being worthy of God without faithfully transmitting the wealth of Catholic doctrine from the original text into the vernacular version, in such a way that the sacred language is adapted to the dogmatic reality that it contains.58
Furthermore, it is necessary to uphold the principle according to which each particular Church must be in accord with the universal Church not only as regards the doctrine of the Faith and the sacramental signs, but also as regards those practices universally received through Apostolic and continuous tradition.59
For these reasons, the required recognitio of the Apostolic See is intended to ensure that the translations themselves, as well as any variations introduced into them, will not harm the unity of God's people, but will serve it instead.60
81. The recognitio granted by the Apostolic See is to be indicated in the printed editions together with the concordat cum originali signed by the chairman of the liturgical commission of the Conference of Bishops, as well as the imprimatur undersigned by the President of the same Conference.61
Afterwards, two copies of each printed edition are to be sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.62
82. Any alteration of a liturgical book that has already been approved by the Conference of Bishops with the subsequent recognitio of the Apostolic See, as regards either the selection of texts from liturgical books already published or the changing of the arrangement of the texts, must be done according to the procedure established above, in n. 79, with due regard also for the prescriptions set forth in n. 22. Any other manner of proceeding in particular circumstances may be employed only if it is authorized by the Statutes of the Conference of Bishops or equivalent legislation approved by the Apostolic See.63
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
I just read an article today that quotes Pope Benedict as saying, "...the Christian faith is not imposed on anyone, it is a gift, an offer to mankind."I wonder why he did not say, "an offer to us all"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Well, at least we know Americans won't understand or listen to what he is saying.
|
|
|
|
|
