The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 255 guests, and 47 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
See for yourself:
http://www.acrod.org/prayercorner/textsresources/divineliturgy

No inclusive language but the Liturgy itself is what has been the standard in the ACROD and the Byzantine Metropolia for sometime: 1 verse Antiphons, no Little Litanies, no Litanies of the Catechumens and the Faithful, no Litany of Supplication after the Great Entrance, i.e. the memorialized truncated celebration
The "standard" for the Johnstown Diocese is essentially the 1942. As of last year Metropolitan Nicholas uses the Pittsburgh 1964 on the holy table of his personal chapel.

The "as celebrated" text for the Johnstown Diocese in many (most) but not all parishes are close to the link Deacon Lance posted. Some parishes take fuller liturgies. What is allowed (even if it is the "as celebrated" in most places) should never be confused for the "standard".

The referenced text does not contain rubrics. The "as celebrated" in the Pittsburgh Archeparchy prior to the RDL was far closer to Johnstown's "as celebrated" than is the RDL (anyone can compare the rubrics and see how the RDL changes the Liturgy). Parishes are free to take multiple verses of the antiphons, all of the little litanies, the Litany of the Catechumens and of the Faithful, the Litany of Supplication before the Creed, and before the Lord's Prayer.

There is no prohibition in the Johnstown Diocese against the full 1942 in either Slavonic or English as there is in the Pittsburgh Metropolia.

Father Deacon confuses standards with the "as celebrated". One compares official standards. The 1942 remains the standard for all Ruthenians, Catholic and Orthodox, and for Ukrainians and the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension EXCEPT for the Pittsburgh Metropolia, which appears to have rejected it.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by ajk
So why all the stink now? Official; "At the direction of the Council of Hierarchs"; Metropolitan Liturgical Commission; for the Metropolia; making it a statement about our Church; and even accompanied by a video (catechetical DVD) that misinforms us about the justification based on the original language in order to convince us the "inclusivity" is desired and linguistically correct.

'"softened" the language' -- Not really, but it did make it official.
To say such things is either not to be aware of Liturgiam Authenticam or to reject it. But we know from Father David's posts on this forum that at least he rejected LA as bad theology. [And he is a good man who is mistaken on that point.]

I would ask them to provide specific references to support their claim (using both Vatican directives and Standard English Grammar & style guides, etc.). They won't because they can't. The use of "man" and "mankind" remains Standard English.

We have seen numerous times how "man" and "mankind" remain inclusive and how "all of us" is very potentially exclusive (so says the Vatican). Simply put, good men have made mistakes in both English grammar and theology. Mistakes happen. It is persisting in the mistakes that causes problems. The problems with the RDL translation and music can be easily fixed.

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Fr. Deacon,

See for yourself:
http://www.acrod.org/prayercorner/textsresources/divineliturgy

No inclusive language but the Liturgy itself is what has been the standard in the ACROD and the Byzantine Metropolia for sometime: 1 verse Antiphons, no Little Litanies, no Litanies of the Catechumens and the Faithful, no Litany of Supplication after the Great Entrance, i.e. the memorialized truncated celebration

Fr. Deacon Lance
Dn. Lance,

Thanks much for the resource. You will notice that the Anaphora is prayed silently, there is no "feminist" language, there is no "always and everywhere", there are no brackets around "dveri, dveri", or around the petitions prior to "Otce Nas". Even with the aforementioned truncations, this is a translation which is , in my opinion, much preferable to the RDL. If I had my way (but I'm not stubborn about this), we'd use OCA's English translation, but then again, I have a great love for Great Russian usage. Given that ACROD and the Carpatho-Rusyn Greek Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh are truly "sister" Churches, one would think that, in this age of "ecumenism", and given the growing good relations between these jurisdictions, that a common English translation of the Liturgy for use of both Churches could be produced-one which truly follows the stated intent of the 1996 instruction, the spirit of "Liturgiam Authenticam", and which is acceptable to Eastern Orthodoxy. Guess we'll have to wait for that.

BTW, my original question was intended to determine if Met. Nicholas had any comments about the use of "inclusive" language in the RDL text, along with the truncations, the "always and everywhere" at the elevation of the Gifts, and the praying aloud of the Anaphora. My guess is that he, being very kind and diplomatic, has chosen not to speak.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by StuartK
[
Aren't they just awful, though? We used their translation of Great Compline every year at the March for Life service at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. I basically said, "There is no way I am going to sing 'O God of our ancestors'--and I did not. There were several other places where the inanity went beyond tolerable levels.

"Gut-wrenching" might be the appropriate adjective.

Dn. Robert

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,760
Fr Deacon Lance,

I appreciate the correction about the Uniontown Basilian Office books. I apologize to those I may have misled.

I believe it was about 1997-1998 when "humankind" replaced "mankind" in the Akathist and other services as printed for the Otpust for the good Sisters.

Fr Deacon Paul

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
So, why again is illiterate English tolerated in our liturgical texts? I have missed any attempt at a justification or rationalization.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 22
Originally Posted by StuartK
So, my daughters and wife ask, what is wrong with the word "mankind"?

Nothing in my book.

Fr. Deacon Lance


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Apparently, they asked the wrong women.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
I suspect that the rage for inclusive language is driven more by the desire for academic "respectability" (and possibly the need to propitiate certain nagging nuns) than by a desire to do justice to women. By the nature of their existence, a very high proportion of these men have very little experience of ordinary women, for whom inclusive language is nowhere near the top of their list of priorities (power washing the deck probably ranks higher, if my household is any indicator). On the other hand, the women for whom inclusive language is important are likely to have issues with many of the fundamental aspects of Christianity, so why bother with them in the first place?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
D
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
Offline
Jessup B.C. Deacon
Member
D
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by StuartK
I suspect that the rage for inclusive language is driven more by the desire for academic "respectability" (and possibly the need to propitiate certain nagging nuns) than by a desire to do justice to women. By the nature of their existence, a very high proportion of these men have very little experience of ordinary women, for whom inclusive language is nowhere near the top of their list of priorities (power washing the deck probably ranks higher, if my household is any indicator). On the other hand, the women for whom inclusive language is important are likely to have issues with many of the fundamental aspects of Christianity, so why bother with them in the first place?

My sentiments exactly!

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Originally Posted by StuartK
So, my daughters and wife ask, what is wrong with the word "mankind"?

Nothing in my book.

That book can't then be the RDL liturgicon, or the "Teal Tyrant", or, it seems, books reflecting the official stance of the Metropolia.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
There is nothing wrong with the word "mankind". Personally, I think using words like "humankind" or "us all" are more demeaning. I KNOW that, as a woman, I am included in the term mankind. Mankind isn't being used in the liturgy as a gendered term. It is being used to reference a people. We need to stop being PC and start being BC, Biblically Correct.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,231
Originally Posted by Katie g
There is nothing wrong with the word "mankind". Personally, I think using words like "humankind" or "us all" are more demeaning. I KNOW that, as a woman, I am included in the term mankind. Mankind isn't being used in the liturgy as a gendered term. It is being used to reference a people. We need to stop being PC and start being BC, Biblically Correct.

English changes and evolves. Mankind seems to be one of the words that has become a "victim" of this of this evolution. Is it a bad thing? Perhaps, perhaps not. Obviously it sounds better or more normal to Greek Catholics in the context of the DL, because that is what they have been used to hearing since the DL began to be celebrated in English.

But look around, it's not just in church that mankind is no longer used. Other terms have become the norm in it's place everywhere. It's not a crime. We don't speak English the same way that Americans spoke it even 100 years ago. It's not a bad thing that our living language continues to grow and change. The change of "mankind" to other terms has nothing to do with being Biblically correct, unless you think that the Bible was written in English. smile

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by John K
English changes and evolves. Mankind seems to be one of the words that has become a "victim" of this of this evolution...But look around, it's not just in church that mankind is no longer used. Other terms have become the norm in it's place everywhere... The change of "mankind" to other terms has nothing to do with being Biblically correct, unless you think that the Bible was written in English.

Here then are the justifications for dropping mankind: unsupported pronouncements and fantasy. There is no such evolution; there is an agenda to fabricate an evolution, but it is really a forced manipulation. That is what I observe and hear, without making any effort to prove what I want. What I wrote above is a factual observation, and I am gratified by the number of instances where mankind is currently used without apology or controversy, and effectively:

Originally Posted by ajk
Although I routinely hear it on the TV, in popular movies, and in commercials that are surely trying to sell to both sexes, and of course, in classic English literature -- in church it is banned, and we must become enlightened that MANkind is "noninclusive" but huMANkind is not.

I considered some time ago starting a thread to document all the times Mankind is still used, freely and effectively in all sorts of situations, by males and females, by liberals and conservatives. I should have done it for situations like this.

And I have challenged, and challenge anyone again, to produce a better word combination than Man/Mankind to give us the best biblical translation and allusions, maintaining the integrity of the Hebrew Adam and the Greek anthropos, and also capturing the theological interplay of the one and the many.



Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309
Likes: 2
Abusus non tollit usum--"Abuse does not take away use".

That everyone uses improper, illiterate English is no for us to tolerate it, nor is ubiquity a justification for linguistic sloppiness.

Page 3 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5