www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy The First Reform of the Liturgy

The point is that we are trying to translate the Greek δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ("for us men and for our salvation"). In Greek it says "us men" (or "us human beings"), it does not say just "us." It's supposed to be a translation, and it is supposed to be accurate and faithful to the original.

That language embeds anthropology is a given. That there is a specifically Christian--and an even more specifically Eastern Christian--anthropology cannot be ignored. Therefore the language of the Liturgy, more than any other language, should embrace and manifest that anthropology as closely as possible.

Yes, and if some people find Christian anthropology offensive, then so be it. After all, we have been warned by our Lord Himself that faith in Him is bound to give offense.

I am not trying to be a pain here, but "for us men" can be as potentially as excluding, as you say, as just saying "for us." What men? Only the men here? The men in the parish, the country, the Church? What men? I don't see how dropping "men" potentially excludes all those not present at that particular Mass. Can you clarify how it excludes those not present? Was that clear in 325 and it's lost it's meaning now if men is taken out?

As far as "yunz," it is a slang or perhaps a Pittsburgh dialetical anomaly. I don't see it as any less incorrect than, "are you going..." or "art thou going..." or "y'all goin..." It's how some speak in Pittsburgh. Is it the Queen's English? No, but it is, none the less, an American dialect of English. My whole point of that sentence example was not the beginning of it, but the ending. I left off the word men after us, but it is entirely understood. It's how our language has changed and morphed and continues to change.

So, if both are equally confusing, then the change is not an improvement, but merely a change. A basic principle of translation is not to change things for the sake of change, particularly when there is an established and customary reading.

So, what is your dog in this fight, anyway?

And still waiting to hear from a woman--any woman-- who feels the need for inclusive language in order to feel like part of the Church.

The use of “men” in “for us men” is Standard English. My Webster’s Dictionary is from 1996 and it has as its three of its first four definitions (for use as a noun) are inclusive of all men (consisting of all human beings). So the idea that the use of “for us men” can be as potentially as exclusive is simply not justified by the rules of Standard English. It is possible that there might be adults who do not understand this, but the answer there is to educate them in understanding Standard English, not in reducing the language used to a lower level one might find on the street.

Both I and others have clarified how the omission of “men” potentially excludes those 1) who are not physically present and 2) those who are not Byzantine Catholics. Bob did so just again in his recent thread. “Who for us” demands “what” in grammatical correct Standard English (relevant to the above my cat did not inherit original sin and Christ did not become man for her, even if she managed to be present at a Divine Liturgy and you included here in “us”). And refusing to translate a term found in the Creed is just plain wrong (not to mention that translating "who for us" back to Slavonic or Greek does not give the same rendering as they both have now). Further, Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship said in 2002 ruled that omitting “the term ‘men’ has effects that are theologically grave.” And surely the Church should not be endorsing secular feminist politics by adopting the language style they demand. Best to stick with Standard English, where Byzantine Christian anthropology can be stated clearly and correctly. Not sure how you could have missed all those posts. [There are numerous discussions on this if you search the archives.]

Consider another example. If one left out the term “one” from “I believe in one God” there are probably a few who would say we know there is only one God so no need to say it. But it would be just as wrong since it would also be a change to the Creed. Keeping accurate texts is important. Not sure why you reject this?

People spoke a hundred years ago exactly as you spoke in your example. There is a difference between formal English and informal English. You speak to your family and friends in very informal manner (and very often that speech is interpreted from the way you speak, as well by your facial expressions and hand gestures). You write a book or a term paper in another way, using more formal English. You might say “Peter is going to the ballgame with us." Another might say “Peter gunna come to the ball game.” Both of you might mean that Peter is coming with “us” (and in both cases you would surely mean those going with you, and not that all 35,000 who are going to the game are riding with you in your car) but for the other person he was even more informal than you and left out the “us”. It’s just another step into very informal English. The inaccuracies and ambiguity of informal English might be OK for conversations with family and friends (they know you and know how you speak) but Statements of Faith (and the text of the Liturgy) need to be exact and clear. Standard English can be exact and clear in ways that informal English cannot be.

The notion that the written word should conform to changes in everyday speech has wrought havoc in English literature, especially poetry. This attitude, far from "evolving" the language, has made contemporary English increasingly inflexible and limited in vocabulary and expression. No matter how many words are in the dictionary, if they sound too obscure or archaic, or if they jar with modernist political sensibilities, they are effectively off-limits according to the modern rules. On the other hand, our best writers of past centuries routinely reached for obscure or archaic words or even coined their own if the occasion demanded it, and their readers were not afraid of a challenge every now and then. As with poetry, in liturgy one should select language that carries us to the sublime. This language will often be strikingly different from that employed in everyday conversation, both in syntax and in diction.

Cromulent words should embiggen our lexicon just as my cromulent posts embigen this forum.

Or, to render Father Deacon's post in more formal English without the slang of the Simpson's (we now know Father Deacon's favorite tv program):

"Acceptable words should enhance our lexicon just as [Father Deacon's] acceptable posts enhance this Forum."

But that makes me wonder what Father Deacon thinks about his non-cromulent posts?

Actually the prefered translation would read:
"Excellent words expand the greatness of our lexicon just as [Fr Deacon's] excellent posts expand the greatness of this forum."

The nuance of the Simpsonese was lost in your translation, even though it was a cromulent attempt.

Non-cromulence is the hobgoblin of ensmallened minds. It is my great hope that my posts are absent such hobgoblinry.

John--I do understand what you are saying about "standard" American English. However, I don't think, no matter what the dictionary may say, people today perceive "man/men" as being the best word to use in English for all humanity. I see that in my sons schools, school books, even books that they read for pleasure. And it's not necessarily lowering the level of our language. I can equally say that I find "for us men" as "potentially exclusive" as you find "for us" potentially exclusive. We're just going in circles now and I think it best for us (men) to agree to disagree.


I will agree that leaving out a word that is in the original language version of the Creed is probably not the best way translation technique. ICEL left out or combined entire phrases in their translation of the Roman mass and now the whole English speaking Roman church will be up-ended because new translations will be coming in a year or so and 40 years of what they've used, learned, and memorized will be changed and gone.


I don't reject keeping texts accurate. I honestly do not believe that leaving out the word "men" makes the text less accurate or changes the meaning. I think that it is disingenuous to use the argument that not having the word "men" in that phrase excludes anyone. That is what I reject or rather take issue with. I don't see a real, valid argument for it.
Leaving out "one" is not an good or equal example, IMHO, because it does matter that we say "one God" and make that clear, that is a statement of who God is. Leaving out "men" is not the same. It doesn't change the faith we profess when we say the Creed.


For the second time I will say, my example of "Peter is going to the ballgame with us" had nothing to do with the first part of the sentence but the ending. I was not trying to make a point of formal vs informal English, that's what you did. How can informal English not be clear?

Finally, Stuart, I have no real stake in this. After 12 years, I no longer attend a Ruthenian GC Church. I am just still trying to understand John's argument. That's all.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. But you seem to have ignored almost all of the points I have made to replace them with your own perceptions. One just does not revise the language based on individual experiences. There has been no issue in the Church with anyone thinking that “who for us men” excludes anyone. They’ve even done studies showing that most people are offended by the dropping of the term “men” (and, in general, the political push for potentially exclusive gender neutral language). You’ve accepted the politics of the secular feminists. I could only recommend that you study the issue and realize what you’ve embraced. As to your son’s books, check them carefully. Very often the books used in our public schools (and even some Catholic schools) are not acceptable to Christians.

Yet you advocate leaving out the term in the Creed? That makes no sense at all!

Yes, the English speaking Roman Church is going to have a change. But people do accept change more easily when that change is towards more accurate translations. For the Ruthenian RDL the change was toward less accurate translations. I have no doubt that the RDL will be short lived.

So a translation that is missing a word from the original is not disingenuous?

Again, we will disagree but since the Council that taught the Creed “who for us men” meant all men from Adam and Eve to the last child conceived before the Second Coming. If someone does not understand the proper response is not to change the Creed but to educate them. Not sure if you find that objectionable?

But it is a good example. “I believe in one God” is a clear statement that there is one God. If you leave it out (like omitting “men”) one could assume that there is one God but it is not clear (just like it is no longer clear that Christ came to save all men when “men” is omitted from the Creed).

I was speaking to the ending. Who is the “us” going with you to the ballgame? Are all 35,000 people riding with you in the car? Those who know you (and most people) would assume that the group going with you (and Peter) is a small group and not the full 35,000 people going to the game. Likewise, the tendency with “us” (which is informal English) in the Creed is to think of only those who are present, or only those who are Byzantine Catholics. Again, informal English is not clear because it often relies upon the fact that those hearing it know you and know how you speak. Not so with Statements of Faith. That is why we use Standard English. Look around you. See even the way the differences between the way President Obama will speak “off the cuff” at a news conference and more formally (when giving a speech). The logical conclusion of what you are saying is that formal English should be abandoned and each person should re-write the Liturgy in a style they personally believe that is best for them.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Translations need to be accurate and complete. Should someone misunderstand we need to raise them up through education, not dumb down the translation to informal English.

JOHN K:

That's precisely the point. The attempt to take generic "man/men" out of standard usage has created the confusion people have about its use. The enforced political correctness found in texts for our students and others just multiplies the problem.

This is a tangent, but the results of the textbooks' political correctness is that our students do less well on standardized tests such as the College Boards simply because they have not been taught and have not seen in print the kind of Standard American English tested for on the exams. And even though I have not been in a classroom for some years, the teachers my children have had have borne out my thesis and have told me theirs is an uphill battle to form the young in the kind of language needed for higher education.

Liturgy, on the other hand, is far more important than taking the college boards or writing a termpaper. Liturgy both forms us and deepens our spiritual life. Correct theology is far from something that can be taken lightly or slipped over. Correct theology--orthodoxy--is a matter of life and death, spiritually. We have been given the Faith and it is a sacred trust. To add to it or subtract from it to satisfy some passing language fad in a finite part of the world for a really finite bit of time is to do great danger to the ones who do it and to endanger the faith lives of those to whom we pass the Faith. Liturgy is the most important acitve experience that we have in this passing pilgrimage. I believe that wholeheartedly. I go back time and again to the admonition my pastor gave me one-on-one when I was a senior in high school: "The attention to detail that a man brings to his liturgical practice is a direct measure of his faith." As the words of a Latin hymn put it, "we hold a treasure, not made of gold; in earthern vessels, wealth untold." This Faith in Action, this Divine Liturgy, wherein we are invited to be part of Christ's Saving Action brought back into living experience, this Liturgy is vitally important. It is not something to be left to experts who think they need to be relevant to the world and to its passing fads in language or political correctness.

To me, this tampering with the Liturgy is like daring the Lord to do something about our tampering with the treaure He and His Holy Spirit have developed through the centuries. If this were merely some text that didn't matter, what would be the point of even talking about all this. But the fact of the matter is that this is the work and inspiration of the Holy Spirit Who worked with the Byzantine peoples over centuries, as He lead them further into the Truth of the Faith. And the Truth of the Faith is Christ Himself--it is how these ancestors of these peoples encountered the Truth, encountered Christ. And that is vitally important. It seems to me that "experts" who do this type of tampering are men who have lost their faith in the pursuit of some other agenda of their own. It also seems to me that men who pray their faith day-in and day-out dont' come along and do this sort of thing.

That's my two cents and a gallon of gasoline for the fire.

In Christ,

BOB

"It maybe a matter of an inch, but an inch is everything when you are balancing." - GK Chesterton

I must confess that I am troubled by the removal of 'men,' from the creed. I believe that it effectively alters the creed, which was forbidden by the councils to do. Are we now above the ecumenical councils? If so why do we still commerate them? I hope that doesn't sound flippant. I don't believe the translators think that they are, but it just begs the question as to why it was seen as okay to simply not translate such a key work in the creed?

It has been pointed out repeatedly to defenders of the RDL translation that there is a word in the Greek (and Slavonic), anthrōpous, that means men. If one drops it from the Greek text of the Creed, the result in Greek is exactly the RDL translation. But it is not dropped in the Greek and one should not do so, and one should not do so via a translation. That's what the RDL does --drops it-- and RDL defenders need here, already, after this is repeatedly brought up, to take serious and concerned notice.