I hesitate to post this, inasmuch as some postings on this Forum seem to generate more heat than light, but I am struck by the absence of posts on any topic on this forum since September 9. If this means that all that can be said has been said, so be it (although I find that hard to understand). If it means that members have come to see the merits of viewpoints other than their own and are content to let things rest a bit, that seems a happy development. If it means that members find further dialog on this contentious theme no longer worthwhile, I am sorry that is so. If there is some other reason (other than "poster fatigue"), I would be interested in knowing what it is.
The discussions posted here would seem to be entirely academic since the Bishops have made their decision regarding the RDL and are obviously not going to review or revise it based upon the discussions here or via any other forum. Unfotunately, this is the way the BCC has operated since its establishment. Essentially "poster fatigue" would best describe the drop in postings.
Actually, though there is not much left to say (and no, there are NOT two sides to this issue), it does not mean there is no progress towards repeal of the unspeakable atrocity inflicted upon the Ruthenian Catholic Church by its own overseers. Rather, the matter has moved off of the internet and into the parishes, where priests have, without much fuss or bother, decided to do what they must to save their churches from implosion. Thus, a number have returned to the old red book (assuming they ever adopted the Teal Terror in the first place), while others have returned to the old familiar music with a modified text. The bishops themselves, in their own cathedrals, do not seem to be adhering to the rubrics or the texts that they themselves promulgated and made the exclusive liturgy of their Church.
Reality intrudes upon the fantasy in which the Intereparchial Liturgical Committee was living. Thus, we have not seen promulgation of Basil, nor of the Presanctified, nor any progress towards formal issuance of the Archieretikon, nor of new texts for Orthros and Vespers (though the point of doing so in a Ruthenian context is puzzling). Rome has upbraided the Metropolia for its efforts, and made it clear that a new direction is required.
I do not expect the Teal Terror will ever be repealed. Our bishops do not admit to errors, nor do they ever explain anything. And, besides, they laid out good money for those books--but do not expect a second printing. Instead, one can expect a gradual fragmentation of liturgical usage within the Metropolia as each bishop goes his own way with regard to policy, and each priest does what he must to hold his congregation together.
In a few years, only a minority of parishes will even be attempting to use the RDL, and we will have returned to status quo ante--but with many fewer active members of the Church.
Another self-inflicted wound as the Ruthenian Church dies the death of a thousand cuts.
It looks like the BC faithful have just decided to ignore the mistake the bishops made, and have gone back to doing things the way they were before the RDL mistake. Better just to keep quiet and do what is right.
By the way, I drove past the local BC Church this morning, and I distinctly heard Slavonic singing.
Some parishes are moving into the teal book, comfortably, and without fuss.
There are multiple positions. In any case, the proper route of complaint is to your bishop. Should a bishop be ordained and enthroned who objects to it, he can appeal to the synod, and then on to the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy and/or the Sacred Congregation of the Eastern Churches. And they can order changes, or acceptance.
But the appropriate congregations in question do not take complaints from non-clerics under normal circumstances.
Should a bishop be ordained and enthroned who objects to it, he can appeal to the synod, and then on to the Sacred Congregation on the Liturgy and/or the Sacred Congregation of the Eastern Churches. And they can order changes, or acceptance.
Not necessary. The bishop is liturgicarch of his diocese, so he can pretty much do what he wants within certain limits. So, if a bishop came along who said "I'm not going to use this green abomination", that would be the end of it in his eparchy. No appeal to anywhere is necessary. He just has to have the gumption to stare down the other three bishops (and, of course, the Bishop Emeritus of Passaic, which is the crux of the matter).
I am curious how different the RDL is from the ACROD liturgy. Does someone know where an online version of the ACROD liturgy might be found? Failing that does anyone know how much and from where I can buy the text?
I listened to some bits from the ACROD website and, while the melody sounded very similar to what I was used to, the words were very very different.
I have a copy of the "Johnstown Liturgicon". It is official but not used everywhere (or even in most places). As I have noted, Metropolitan Nicholas uses the 1964 Ruthenian edition on his holy table (with some mark-ups), as do many of his clergy. Certainly there is no prohibition against the full Ruthenian Divine Liturgy as there is among the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholics in the Pittsburgh Metropolia.
Originally Posted by Byzantine TX
I am curious how different the RDL is from the ACROD liturgy. Does someone know where an online version of the ACROD liturgy might be found? Failing that does anyone know how much and from where I can buy the text?
I listened to some bits from the ACROD website and, while the melody sounded very similar to what I was used to, the words were very very different.
Most Johnstown parishes take the Divine Liturgy more-or-less in the way it was in the Levlukic Pew Book. The online version Fr. Deacon Lance linked is close, but lacks decent rubrics (but rubrics don't always make sense on a website).
Yes, the melodies are similar. There is a cross between setting them closer to "as they were sung in Slavonic" and "as they are given in Boksaj". For the most part the settings they use favor retaining the Slavonic melody more literally than worrying about providing good accents of the English text. In a lot of cases they seem to have taken the draft English settings from the late 1950s and early 1960s (before Pittsburgh came out with official settings for the fixed texts) and ran with them.
Most people I have experimented with tell me that one listens to our 1965 settings in English being sung they can easily understand the words. Not so with the Johnstown settings or the RDL / Thompson settings.
But back to the original post.
Originally Posted by Tim
I am struck by the absence of posts on any topic on this forum since September 9. If this means that all that can be said has been said, so be it (although I find that hard to understand). If it means that members have come to see the merits of viewpoints other than their own and are content to let things rest a bit, that seems a happy development. If it means that members find further dialog on this contentious theme no longer worthwhile, I am sorry that is so. If there is some other reason (other than "poster fatigue"), I would be interested in knowing what it is.
Different reasons for different people. But some of us are working in the background. I have an ongoing project to update the 1964 Chrysostom translation to make it more literally correct when compared to the official Slavonic editions of the Divine Liturgy (with Basil and the other books to follow). It's had a good deal of interest and is progressing nicely to the final review stages. But, frankly, discussions of how a term should be correctly translated don't generate a lot of interest. Most aren't interested in such details - they just want the final product!
Steve might be correct in that the bishops are probably not going to review or revise it based upon the discussions here or via any other forum. But I'm not sure that is it. And I have had many tell me that the bishops themselves don't follow the RDL they promulgated (slipping into the old words or rubrics, or inventing entirely new things). And we see some parishes throwing the green books in the closet and making their own 'text only' pew books because they find music is so difficult and unsingable.
Further, A number of priests, cantors and laymen speak of a great lethargy in the Ruthenian Church since the implementation of the RDL. The bishops hurt a lot of people. Sometimes one recovers. Sometimes one does not. Some priests have described the implementation and nastiness of the bishops on the topic as the equivalent of being on pilgrimage, and while walking down the road having the bishop attack you with a 2x4 and walking away. And then being in that stage where you sit there hurting and trying to catch your breath. Even when you are able to stand again you are not ready to respond or, sometimes, even speak.
But there are appeals still before Rome. And Rome is sometimes slower then a snail. I am still confident that Rome will at some point openly direct the bishops to fix the issues and to promulgate a full and accurate translation. So there is still lots of work to be done, and all of it not on the internet.
Also, recordings of ACROD Divine Liturgy can be watched here. [acrod.org]
I watched one of the ACROD sunday D/L on their website recently, broadcast from The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Johnstown, PA. Some observations:
There were no little litanies between the antiphons. There was no third antiphon. There were no litanies of the faithful or of the catechumens. The creed was read and not sung. The anaphora was read aloud. The priest had a mic and could very clearly be heard, even over the choir singing when they were singing.
I just want to take a moment to share my recent experience regarding the RDL. We have a new priest in our parish, newly arrived from Slovakia. He strongly dislikes the RDL, as does every priest I know. He also finds the "Teal Terror" to be quite useless. He is in the process of developing a small, text-only book for use in our parish, as so many other parishes seem to have done. We were going through some old books in his office the other day. The cantor came across a book and said "We could just use this." Father looked at it and shook his head, saying "its the wrong translation." I said, hopefully, "We could use it anyway." Father said "Yes, but then we'd have to start our own church. There is great Grace in obedience and the Bishops will have to answer to God for their own actions, we for ours."
Now, I know that he dislikes the RDL and I know that he is going through the appropriate channels to have his dislike noted. I just really appreciated his humble obedience and the example of his leadership in this way, even while I wish he would just do it the old way.
A friend of mine says she believes in God, Christ, the Church etc. IN SPITE OF the hierarchy. I see her point.
The Emperor Napoleon I had a contentious relationship with the Catholic Church. At the time he was negotiating the Concordat that restored the Church in France after the Revolution, Napoleon threw a major temper tantrum at the Pope's representative, Cardinal Fesch (who just happened to be Napoleon's uncle). Beside himself with rage, Napoleon expostulated, "If you do not give me what I want, I will destroy the Church!" Cardinal Fesch just smiled wearily and said, "Sire, we bishops have been trying to do that for eighteen hundred years, without success".
I watched one of the ACROD sunday D/L on their website recently, broadcast from The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Johnstown, PA. Some observations:
There were no little litanies between the antiphons. There was no third antiphon. There were no litanies of the faithful or of the catechumens. The creed was read and not sung. The anaphora was read aloud. The priest had a mic and could very clearly be heard, even over the choir singing when they were singing.
True. I wonder how much diversity there is in ACROD parishes? My understanding is that these abbreviations are not mandated. Are there parishes which include additional litanies or that sing the Creed?
I am curious how different the RDL is from the ACROD liturgy. Does someone know where an online version of the ACROD liturgy might be found? Failing that does anyone know how much and from where I can buy the text?
I listened to some bits from the ACROD website and, while the melody sounded very similar to what I was used to, the words were very very different.
The ACROD uses the Presov version of Prostopinije, the Greek Catholics use the Mukachevo "dialect" of prostopinije.
I watched one of the ACROD sunday D/L on their website recently, broadcast from The Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Johnstown, PA. Some observations:
There were no little litanies between the antiphons. There was no third antiphon. There were no litanies of the faithful or of the catechumens. The creed was read and not sung. The anaphora was read aloud. The priest had a mic and could very clearly be heard, even over the choir singing when they were singing.
True. I wonder how much diversity there is in ACROD parishes? My understanding is that these abbreviations are not mandated. Are there parishes which include additional litanies or that sing the Creed?
When I visited the Hawk Run, Pa ACROD parish, the priest told me that any parish may take the full liturgy, but most don't.
In getting back on topic, its interesting to remind everyone that apathy is the opposite of caring and love. It appears that the finality of the RDL has set in for everyone and that truly a great deal of apathy exists to it and the BCA in general.
For those who disagree, I sadly think that the closing of Holy Ghost in Cleveland in the upcoming couple of weeks is just the beginning of more to come. What proof do I have, none other than looking at the lack of congregations at BCA churches in general in Northeast Ohio, looking at the demographic make up of the congregations, adding 15 years to the folks in the pews and then visualizing what the church looks like then. In spite of advances in science, older people don't reproduce, that's just the way it is..........
When the general exodus from Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and the other states of the Homeland stops, then the exodus from the Byzantine Catholic Churches in that area will also stop. When there are no jobs, who leaves and who stays? The young and the old respectively. So congregations will shrink and get older, too. On the other hand, congregations outside the traditional Homeland will tend to be younger, larger and more dynamic. The old parishes were likely to die because of shifts in demography combined with an attitude that discouraged evangelization. The RDL is only accelerating that process. On the other hand, the RDL has had a devastating effect on younger parishes that still had growth potential. The Byzantine Catholic Church could stand the loss of many of its older parishes, but it cannot stand the loss of its newer ones, because they were the seed corn.
"On the other hand, the RDL has had a devastating effect on younger parishes that still had growth potential. The Byzantine Catholic Church could stand the loss of many of its older parishes, but it cannot stand the loss of its newer ones, because they were the seed corn."
Wasn't one of the heresies accepted by bishops but denounced by the people? Had the people just obeyed... Even with obedience it's necessary to discern when and how to do so.
Well, there are a lot of heresies that were accepted by the bishops and rejected by the people, particularly the monastics (who, interestingly, take vows that include "obedience"). As I alluded, the classic example is St. Maximos the Confessor, who was not even an ordained minister, but just a monastic. He opposed the monothelite heresy, practically alone, when the entire synod of the Church of Constantinople had accepted that error.
He is used as a exemplar in Shown to Be Holy: An Introduction to Eastern Christian Moral Thought, one of the God With Us catechist preparation monographs:
Quote
Thus, the monk St. Maximos the Confessor opposed the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria almost singlehandedly during the sixth century Monothelite controversy. He rejected his own Church's bishops, saying, "When I see the Church of Constantinople as it was formerly, I will enter into communion with it without any exhortation on the part of men. But while there are heretical temptations within it, and while heretics are its bishops, no word or deed will ever convince me to enter into communion with it" (Anathasius of Rome, The Life of Our Holy Father, Maximos the Confessor). Within a short time, the Church reversed itself and accepted Maximos' teaching.
An new volume of the Roman Rite Liturgy of the Hours has been completed for the English-speaking nations of Africa. Of particualr note:
"MAIN FEATURES Several features make this new edition of The Liturgy of the Hours unique and outstanding:
The Revised Grail Psalter
It is the desire of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that the Revised Grail Psalter should be the official translation of the Psalms to be used in all the liturgical texts (Lectionary, Liturgy of the Hours, Sacraments, etc.). This translation, approved for use in the Liturgy, is faithful to the Hebrew text, and it has been recommended by musicians for its musicality, as it can easily be sung, chanted or recited. At the same time, it is already “somehow familiar” to those who pray The Liturgy of the Hours. The Old Testament Canticles (prayed at Morning Prayer) have also been revised.
Biblical Texts
The biblical texts (except the Psalms and Morning Prayer Canticles) are taken from the New American Bible (The African Bible) of the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops).
Liturgical Texts
The liturgical texts are taken from The Liturgy of the Hours of the ICEL (International Commission for English in the Liturgy) edition."
Now I don't know what corrections were made to the Revised Grail Psalter or NAB (I presume the RNAB) were made but I am willing to bet a certain amount of horizontal inclusive language made it through just as it did for the CCCB's USCCB's new Lectionaries.
Given that Rome keeps giving its approbation to texts that don't rigidly adhere to the oft cited Liturgium Authenticam what use is it to appeal to this document which appears to be a dead letter? I mean if Rome won't enforce LA on the Latin Church what hope is there it will enforce it on an Eastern Church?
Except that the Grail translations are probably the least felicitous I have ever read. Did the translators realize they were doing poetry? By the way, the fact that it is "faithful to the Hebrew text" is precisely why we, as Eastern Christians, cannot and should not use it. We should rely upon the Septuagint Greek translation, and derivations thereof.
Given that Rome keeps giving its approbation to texts that don't rigidly adhere to the oft cited Liturgium Authenticam what use is it to appeal to this document which appears to be a dead letter? I mean if Rome won't enforce LA on the Latin Church what hope is there it will enforce it on an Eastern Church?
Interesting points.
Rome has approved the Revised Amended Revised New American Bible for use in the Latin Rite Lectionary, but has denied a blessing for the USCCB to publish a full Bible version with this text. I would think that means the issue is not yet settled, but that in the meantime Rome will continue to approve other publications using this and other texts with past approvals. I have personally communicated with several Latin bishops in this past year, with each assuring me that for the Latin Rite any new translations would fully adhere to Liturgiam Authenticam, so I doubt it is a dead letter. There are many opponents of LA and of literally accurate translations in the Church, so the struggle will continue.
Will Rome ever enforce LA on the Eastern Churches? If we keep asking them to eventually they will, if nothing else to keep us quiet. If not we can worship in parishes that use translations that adhere to LA.
Among other things the RDL texts have doctrinal problems. They need to be corrected.
--
The publication Father Deacon references says it uses the Revised Grail Psalter. I find this very interesting since the Vatican has not given approval to it yet. Conception Abby says that it has not yet been granted formal approval by the Vatican (it is expected later this year). So I wonder how this publication could already be using it?
I am excitedly looking forward to seeing the Revised Grail Psalter. The original Grail was very singable but not overly literal. What I've seen of the Revised Grail Psalter suggests it might be as literal as, for example, the RSV. But no one will know until the Vatican is done with it. Will the Vatican make thousands of changes like in the RAR-NAB Lectionary? Or will they make no changes at all like in the RSV-CE2 Lectionary? Several friends of mine have copies of the "working draft" of the RGP that went to Rome, but none have given in to my begging to send me a copy!
Well, there are a lot of heresies that were accepted by the bishops and rejected by the people, particularly the monastics (who, interestingly, take vows that include "obedience"). As I alluded, the classic example is St. Maximos the Confessor, who was not even an ordained minister, but just a monastic. He opposed the monothelite heresy, practically alone, when the entire synod of the Church of Constantinople had accepted that error.
Forgive me for my ignorance, but what possible comparison can there be between this issue of the RDL and the heresy that St. Maximos battled? Can you please lay out for us exactly what is the heresy that is being promulgated by the Ruthenian Church that her laity and clergy are supposed to reject?
I just want to take a moment to share my recent experience regarding the RDL. We have a new priest in our parish, newly arrived from Slovakia. He strongly dislikes the RDL, as does every priest I know. He also finds the "Teal Terror" to be quite useless. He is in the process of developing a small, text-only book for use in our parish, as so many other parishes seem to have done. We were going through some old books in his office the other day. The cantor came across a book and said "We could just use this." Father looked at it and shook his head, saying "its the wrong translation." I said, hopefully, "We could use it anyway." Father said "Yes, but then we'd have to start our own church. There is great Grace in obedience and the Bishops will have to answer to God for their own actions, we for ours."
Now, I know that he dislikes the RDL and I know that he is going through the appropriate channels to have his dislike noted. I just really appreciated his humble obedience and the example of his leadership in this way, even while I wish he would just do it the old way.
Surely, your priest is a saint in God's eyes. And so are you for following his example in holy obedience. I believe we are to follow are bishop in all things except heresy.
Surely, your priest is a saint in God's eyes. And so are you for following his example in holy obedience. I believe we are to follow are bishop in all things except heresy.
Blessings
Dear Marduk,
While I firmly believe that my priest is a saint (I see evidence of his holiness all the time, I am not quite there yet and I find his example inspirational, but frustrating.
While the bishops have a charism to pass down the Tradition and teach true doctrine, the faithful have a responsibility and obligation to protect the Tradition from any who would distort it. Regardless of their status and standing.
Stuart, please explain. We are pretty much where? Heresy? If so, what is heretical about the Divine Liturgy as celebrated in the Byzantine Catholic Church?
All of the changes of the RDL may not have been ideal, but besides the questionable points which have been raised, there are positive things documented over the past couple of years which are improvements. This has been ongoing for the past 20 centuries and will undoubtedly continue as long until the Kingdom of God is completely established here on earth.
1. Recommendation to stand during consecration 2. Larger variety of tones for the hymns (especially the Lord's Prayer) 3. Full documentation of a deacon as a con-celebrant (properly including deacon parts...not listing them as priest's parts) 4. Elimination of the filioque 5. Allowing full understanding (by the lay participants)of former "secret" prayers of the priest instead of covering them with singing. 6. More complete documentation of troparia 7. Universal inclusion of the third antiphon
These are just from the top of my head. Some of the above may be negative to some people, but positive by others.
2. Larger variety of tones for the hymns (especially the Lord's Prayer)
Could have been handled just by giving cantors the music--better and singable music, too. At Epiphany, we had already begun singing Otce Nas, the Creed and other hymns in a variety of tones. No drastic overhaul was required. Now, of course, nobody sings at all. Big improvement.
Quote
3. Full documentation of a deacon as a con-celebrant (properly including deacon parts...not listing them as priest's parts)
Could have been written into the book without any change in the text of the Liturgy.
Quote
4. Elimination of the filioque
Just where have you been living? I joined in 1995, and it was already gone. But if you wanted it out of the Red Books, then get a black magic marker, don't try your hand at wholesale redaction.
Quote
5. Allowing full understanding (by the lay participants)of former "secret" prayers of the priest instead of covering them with singing.
While I am inclined to favor this kind of change, I think it was badly implemented, and should not have been made mandatory. But again, why the need to rewrite the entire Liturgy? The prayers were already in the priests' books (albeit most of them were reading at the speed of light to actually finish the prayers in the time allotted). Also, given the sacrosanct "70-minute rule", nothing is for free: reading the prayers led to the elimination of a lot of other things.
Quote
6. More complete documentation of troparia
You'll have to explain that, since the Troparia and Kontakia are among the worst aspects of the RDL--both badly translated (when not hopelessly paraphrased) and set to utterly unsingable music.
Quote
7. Universal inclusion of the third antiphon
Third antiphon was in the Red Book. All you needed to do was tell people to do it.
So, at the end of the day, nothing you have posited as beneficial could not have been accomplished by going through the Red Book with a sharp pencil. In the course of an afternoon, everything that needed to be done could have been done, and with a lot less damage to the life of the Church. Because, let me tell you, the 1965 translation, with all its flaws, was greatly superior to the work over which the Intereparchial Liturgical Translation Commission labored for so long. But that's committee work for you.
Quote
You avoided my question......
I'm being charitable. There are numerous elements of the RDL that walk right up to the line of heterodoxy, and a few that in my opinion cross over (certain elements of the Creed and the Anaphora come to mind). Overall, however, the effect of the whole is corrosive to the Tradition and to the faith the Tradition encapsulates. The RDL is merely Elkoism with a human face, as explicit an example of "latinization of the mind" as one could ever hope to find. It also strikes me as merely another effort at setting the Ruthenian Church aside as some sort of "Third Way", putting distance between itself and the Latin Church on the one hand, and the Orthodox Churches on the other. This is, incidentally, contrary to the express desires of the Holy See.
As such, I believe it should have been opposed by the clergy as well as the faithful (many of whom, such as yours truly, have simply voted with their feet). Obedience has its limits. Just because a bishop says "Hop, frog!", there is no reason for everyone to say "How high?" At the very least, the bishops owed the faithful both an explanation of what they were doing, and an opportunity to respond. But no input was sought at all. Repeating the same error as the Latin Church of forty-odd years ago, they imposed change by fiat and expected everyone to fall into line "Because we said so, that's why".
After all the mismanagement to which the Ruthenian Church has been subjected by its bishops since the dawn of the twentieth century, why, exactly, should they have expected the faithful to act as though this was still the Old Country, where they were the aristocrats and we were the serfs?
Seems like, the Ruthenian Church has NEVER done anything right from the moment of its existence.
These issues have been hashed over so many times that I really see nothing constructive by continuing. We just have to agree to disagree and trust the Holy Spirit will guide the Church and its faithful.
I and many others aren't going shopping for a new church but will continue to serve during our time here on earth.
You sweep us away like a dream, like grass which springs up in the morning, In the morning it springs up and flowers; by evening it withers and fades.
"There are numerous elements of the RDL that walk right up to the line of heterodoxy, and a few that in my opinion cross over (certain elements of the Creed and the Anaphora come to mind)."
Seems like, the Ruthenian Church has NEVER done anything right from the moment of its existence.
History speaks for itself. One ought to listen to it.
You should remember, though, that I chose to join the Ruthenian Church, being one of the few adult catechumens to be baptized into it without any prior relationship (e.g., marriage), so I must have seen something good there. In fact, it is the cataclysmic collapse of the Church in the last few years, to say nothing of the utter demoralization of the Eparchy of Passaic under the previous administration, that convinced me the spiritual atmosphere was no longer healthy. I've seen too many good people hounded out, too many time servers promoted.
I have yet to see any proof that the RDL is "heretical" or "heterodox" to the point that you could compare it to the action of St. Maximos when he opposed monothelitism.
Change is often uncomfortable for a lot of people - that's a given - but I would still like to know what changes are prescribed in the RDL that goes against the Eastern Byzantine doctrinal Faith
The numbered points are Deacon Paul’s. My responses to each follow the “>>”.
1. Recommendation to stand during consecration
>> This is not even mentioned in the liturgicon (nor should it be). Pew Books are a different thing, but even here it was not necessary to forcibly change texts, rubrics and music to direct the people to stand during the anaphora.
2. Larger variety of tones for the hymns (especially the Lord's Prayer)
>> The music, per say, is a separate category. It was certainly not necessary to revise the Liturgy to offer parishes additional settings of the Lord’s Prayer.
3. Full documentation of a deacon as a con-celebrant (properly including deacon parts...not listing them as priest's parts)
>>The 1964 translation does not list the deacon’s parts as the priest’s parts. The RDL, on the other hand, seems to demote the deacon as not being a concelebrant with rubrics assigning texts to “Celebrant, Concelebrant and Deacon”. If the deacon is truly a celebrant, then the RDL says he can proclaim: "Take, eat; this is my body" and "Drink of this all of you this is my blood" for it assigns these words not to the priest but to a "Celebrant".
4. Elimination of the filioque
>>The 1964 translation had the filioque in parenthesis and a note in the forward that it may be omitted at the discretion of the local ordinary. In a mission parish I helped start in the middle 1980s it was never used. It was officially dropped in several eparchies in the 1990s. Certainly no revision to the Divine Liturgy was necessary to drop it. The logical way was to omit it the next time the books were reprinted.
5. Allowing full understanding (by the lay participants) of former "secret" prayers of the priest instead of covering them with singing.
>>These prayers are not for our education by hearing but for our salvation by praying. Hearing parts of them at every Divine Liturgy (as mandated) offers no one full understanding of the great Mystery of the Eucharist. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) himself says in his book “The Spirit of the Liturgy” that the praying of the Anaphora “is really more then speech but Actio in the highest sense of the word” (p. 172). He also says that “to the annoyance of many liturgists, I said that in no sense does the whole Canon have to be said out loud.” That “liturgists have explicitly stated that, of all things the Eucharistic Prayer, the high point of the Mass, is in crisis” (because of the custom of saying it out loud). He continues with: “However, as far I can see… the possibility that silence, too, silence especially, might constitute communion before God. It is no accident that in Jerusalem, from a very early time, parts of the Canon were prayed in silence… became the norm.” “Anyone who has experienced a church united in the silent praying of the Canon will know what a really filled silence is. It is at once a loud and penetrating cry to God and Spirit-filled act of prayer.” (pp. 214-215.)
There is absolutely no reason to mandate the praying of the priest’s ‘quiet prayers’ aloud. As I have noted many times, top Roman Catholics (including the pope) say this custom did not and does not enhance the Roman Catholic Mass. My suggestion that the way forward here was with liberty for the priest to pray these prayers quietly or aloud as the Spirit leads still remains the best. I won’t point out again too strongly that the RDL does not even offer the liberty I suggest as it prohibits some prayers from being taken aloud! The ones mandated to be taken aloud were merely chosen by the liturgical commission without any justification or reason being given.
6. More complete documentation of troparia
>> It was not necessary to revise the Liturgy or to translate it in a style that violates Vatican Directives (both the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam) to better document troparia!
7. Universal inclusion of the third antiphon
>> The RDL does not accomplish this. Look at the 1964 Liturgicon page 19. The Third Antiphon has been in the Liturgicon for over 40 years. In 1984 the parish I attended then 'pasted in' the entire Third Antiphon into the Levkulic book (together with expanded versions of the Typical Psalms and the Beatitudes) and sang ever since (until the praying the antiphons past one verse was forbidden). The RDL was not necessary to accomplish this.
--
Deacon Paul asked: Is there anything heretical about the RDL?
Not heretical but certainly doctrinally problematic. In 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (now retired) called the removal of the term “anthropos” (“men”) from the Creed in the phrase “who for us men and our salvation” “theologically grave”. “Theologically grave” is not necessarily heresy (as I doubt the bishops meant it that way) but “theologically grave” is “theologically grave” and the texts should be fixed! Many of the other texts are simply less accurate than those provided in the 1964 Chrysostom and 1976 Basil Liturgicons.
There are other examples. In the 1976 Basil Liturgicon in the First Prayer of the Faithful we find: “...for it is You alone Who works all things in all” (a direct quote of 1 Cor 12:6). Somehow this becomes: “...for you alone empower all we do”, which is no longer a quote from the Holy Scriptures but a touchy-feely cute kind of thing that is wrong (the Slavonic is “vsja vo vsich” / “all in all”). But how wrong is wrong? Not heretical but certainly incorrect and poor doctrine. What justification was there for taking an acceptable translation and rendering it incorrect?
But we’ve discussed and documented well a number of problems with the RDL, and those who wish to find them can do so by browsing this forum.
Originally Posted by Deacon PaulB
Seems like, the Ruthenian Church has NEVER done anything right from the moment of its existence.
I don’t know if I’d go as far as Deacon Paul’s sarcasm but the Ruthenian Church has made lots of mistakes. It seems that there continues to be (among bishops and some clergy) a continuing belief that our Ruthenian Way of Life (as documented in the Roman editions of our liturgical books) is so horrid and unacceptable that it cannot be allowed. The Divine Liturgy is a wonderful gift from the Savior. It has been fine tuned by the Spirit over two thousand years, and our Ruthenian recension is something wonderful we share with others. Why the bishops would prohibit it from being celebrated in the form we officially share with other Ruthenians (Catholic and Orthodox) and reject Rome’s clear directives is beyond explanation.
Quote
From the Liturgical Instruction: 18. Liturgical reform and renewal
The first requirement of every Eastern liturgical renewal, as is also the case for liturgical reform in the West, is that of rediscovering full fidelity to their own liturgical traditions, benefiting from their riches and eliminating that which has altered their authenticity. Such heedfulness is not subordinate to but precedes so-called updating. Although a delicate task that must be executed with care so as not to disturb souls, it must be coherently and constantly pursued if the Eastern Catholic Churches want to remain faithful to the mandate received. It is once again John Paul II who declares: "If, therefore, you must trim extraneous forms and developments, deriving from various influences that come from liturgical and paraliturgical traditions foreign to your tradition, it is possible that, so doing, you will have to also correct some popular habits."[24]
It is perfectly clear to anyone willing to read the Vatican directives that the Ruthenian bishops have rejected the directives from Rome. Pope John Paul directed that they restore “full fidelity” first and only then work with the Orthodox to make alterations. He noted that it is a “delicate task that must be executed with care so as not to disturb souls”. And what have the bishops done? Just the opposite. They have copied Western forms and not just disturbed souls but greatly harmed them.
Originally Posted by Deacon PaulB
I and many others aren't going shopping for a new church but will continue to serve during our time here on earth.
To suggest that the Melkites or Ukrainians or the Roman Catholics are a “new church” is problematic. Any Catholic has the right and freedom to find a parish he feels comfortable in. We are called in our parishes to worship the Savior - not to preserve Ruthenian ethnicity. If there are those who are uncomfortable with the bishop’s Revised Divine Liturgy they have every right and reason to seek a different Catholic parish where the Liturgy is celebrated correctly.
Further, some did not leave willfully. A number of people were told to leave. Some were formally accused of disobedience for asking questions of the bishops. Others were escorted to the door and told not to return (we have had personal testimony on this forum of that).
Ultimately, the faithful have both a right and a responsibility to call the bishops to be obedient to Rome, and to our Ruthenian Church.
But how wrong is wrong? Not heretical but certainly incorrect and poor doctrine. What justification was there for taking an acceptable translation and rendering it incorrect?
Which is why I said the overall effect of the RDL was corrosive to the Tradition. Small errors add up to big ones.
I was responding to Stuart's question below; he give the impression that there was absolutely no redeeming quality at all with the new books; he challenged me to name them and I did. Both you and Stuart seemed to acknowledge that they are valid points, it's just that your preferences were that they be done differently. Taking the existing books and doing cut & paste to each book consistently in every parish is a foolish solution. Remember the people in the pews had the green paperback books, AND there were the blue/brown books, AND some cantors had the black vinyl three-ring binder, AND there was the excellent weekly sheet which you published. When you went from parish to parish you didn't know what to follow.
Though what we have is less than ideal...its better than the hodgepodge that we had before. I'm not speaking liturgically, nor of the liturgikon, but rather about the books in the pews. If you wish to rebut, please contain it to this subject.
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
there are positive things documented over the past couple of years which are improvements
Name a few.
Stuart asked a simple question and I gave a simple answer; I didn't attempt to justify anything; just take it at face value.
Stuart takes every opportunity to jab at the Bishops, our promulgated Divine Liturgy and our Byzantine Catholic Church in general, and it's really wearing thin. He really stuck his foot in his mouth when he strongly inferred that the RDL is heretical and he should be called for that. He has backed off (it appears) but really should apologize out of respect to the readers of this forum whom he misled.
The original question of this thread, "Why the silence?" is, in my opinion, answered here in these last two pages..... A respectful exchange of opinion on the RDL is not possible. It leads to lack of charity, animosity and ill feeling.
Taking the existing books and doing cut & paste to each book consistently in every parish is a foolish solution.
Why? The very notion of "typical editions" only dates to the invention of moveable type printing. Before then, every book was different. In any case, you missed, entirely, my point: if all the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission had tried to do was bring parochial practice up to a particular set of minima, they did not have to promulgate a new (and inferior) translation. Nor did they have to impose a single (and inferior) set of musical arrangements.
Quote
When you went from parish to parish you didn't know what to follow.
I always considered that part of the charm of the Ruthenian Church. If you go to Ukraine or Slovakia, you won't find two parishes, let alone eparchies, that do the same thing. By the way, in what Orthodox jurisdiction do you find any real degree of liturgical uniformity across parishes? The very notion that there is one "right" way to celebrate is a rather "Latin" idea.
Quote
Stuart takes every opportunity to jab at the Bishops, our promulgated Divine Liturgy and our Byzantine Catholic Church in general, and it's really wearing thin.
Well, to quote my daughter, "My Church broke up with me". I'm bitter. I also loathe second-rate academics trying to foist off their pet theories as original research. A good translator is humble, and humility is not evident in the RDL.
As for our God-loving bishops, the history of the Ruthenian Church in this country, since its inception could practically be a clinical example of episcopal malpractice verging on ecclesiacide. Even the "official" histories have trouble papering over just how bad the situation has been. But, if you want or need statistical evidence, how many Ruthenians were there at the beginning of the 20th century, and how many at the end. Account for the delta, please. If the bishops are not responsible, then who is?
Quote
He really stuck his foot in his mouth when he strongly inferred that the RDL is heretical and he should be called for that. He has backed off (it appears) but really should apologize out of respect to the readers of this forum whom he misled.
Not a chance. You just don't accept my explanation, and I can live with that, but I won't change my opinion nor will I apologize.
Quote
A respectful exchange of opinion on the RDL is not possible. It leads to lack of charity, animosity and ill feeling.
Someone once said that the good tree bears good fruit. If the fruit of the RDL has been bitter indeed, then what does that say about it?
A good translator is humble, and humility is not evident in the RDL.
Nor on this forum.
Originally Posted by StuartK
I'm not a translator. But I know enough to listen to people who are very good ones.
Originally Posted by Erie Byz
I'm sorry, I meant only to put the last phrase of the sentence. I was not intending to single out any particular person.
I am never sure what to think about posts like Erie’s. I consider (and routinely state) that the creators of the Revised Divine Liturgy are all good men who love the Lord, had the best of intentions and did what they thought was correct, but that they made mistakes (which have been documented) and that the mistakes need to be fixed (something easy to do). But some who disagree don’t seem to think we (who seek what Rome has prepared and promulgated for us) are likewise incorrect (and don’t bother to provide documentation to show that we are incorrect). They just attack our motives or person.
I was responding to Stuart's question below; he give the impression that there was absolutely no redeeming quality at all with the new books; he challenged me to name them and I did. Both you and Stuart seemed to acknowledge that they are valid points, it's just that your preferences were that they be done differently.
Deacon Paul,
Thank you for your post.
I must have not explained my points very well. What part of “theologically grave” did I not explain well?
The issue is not about personal preferences in Liturgy. The issue is that the bishops rejected the directives given by Rome in the Liturgical Instruction and Liturgiam Authenticam. They (although meaning well) have done something wrong. The corrective active I seek is for the bishops to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and to promulgate (make normative) the Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Recension (all of the official liturgical books promulgated and published by Rome) with translations that are accurate, complete, and in conformance with the Vatican guidelines.
Yes, you named what you believe are improvements. Yet none of your points required a revision of the Divine Liturgy. Do you see this point I am making? No violations of Vatican directives were necessary (and it is very well documented that the bishops violated the Vatican directives and are prohibiting the celebration of the Divine Liturgy in the format promulgated by Rome).
The discussion here is about official standards, how the bishops (though well-intentioned) violated the official standards, and should act to conform to those standards rather than continue to reject them.
Originally Posted by Paul B
Though what we have is less than ideal...its better than the hodgepodge that we had before. I'm not speaking liturgically, nor of the liturgikon, but rather about the books in the pews. If you wish to rebut, please contain it to this subject.
But the topic under discussion is not just pew books. And, besides, some parishes have found the new teal pew books to be so unacceptable to them that they have removed them from the pews and replaced them with ‘text only’ pamphlets. So the issues you suggest are solved with RDL pew books are all back again because of what many parishes see as the poor quality of the new RDL pew books.
Last week Bishop William celebrated a Revised Divine Liturgy in the Ruthenian Chapel at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC. I did not attend but a friend of mine who works in the neighborhood and often attends daily Mass at the Shrine happened upon it. He is very knowledgeable in Liturgy and music and reported that 1) the bishop himself did not follow the new rubrics and 2) the music was not the new music but something between the old and new music. This is the case in many parishes, so the issues you seem to think are resolved are still there. But they are all minor compared to the larger discussion of liturgical standards. The bishops need to respect Liturgy and allow what Rome has mandated. I will refer to my point about “theologically grave”. The points you mention are all unimportant so long as there are doctrinal problems with the RDL. Your points come across as “Well, yes, we are celebrating the Liturgy with texts that have doctrinal problems according to Rome, but look at the pretty books!” See my point?
Forgive me for my ignorance, but what possible comparison can there be between this issue of the RDL and the heresy that St. Maximos battled? Can you please lay out for us exactly what is the heresy that is being promulgated by the Ruthenian Church that her laity and clergy are supposed to reject?
Blessings
Modernism.
PS - I don't ever recall a time when something has been deleted from the Creed.
Modernism as heresy has an actual definition in the Catholic Church. The RDL has nothing to do with any of the 65 condemned propositions. I will agree elements of the RDL are problematic none rise to the level of heresy.
PS - The Byzantine Church deleted the first "God from God".
PPS - I don't agree with dropping "men", I just don't believe it is heresy.
In the name of higher knowledge and historical research (they say), they are looking for that progress of dogmas which is, in reality, nothing but the corruption of dogmas.
Two of the condemned propositions:
58. Truth is no more immutable than man himself, since it evolved with him, in him, and through him.
64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted.
A defense of the RDL by one in the know:
Quote
Chapter 4 addresses what is probably the greatest sticking point among conservative member of the Church, the use of “Inclusive Language.” I personally would prefer to table this discussion, not because I’m right or wrong, but because it is utterly impossible to discuss it in these transitional times without extreme - and I mean “extreme” - emotion. I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point. This is not to criticize the Church, perhaps it just takes more time for the real issue to emerge, there has to be some “text” in which the Spirit can write clearly....[so the Spirit has not written clearly in the Creed....amazing, but when He [she perhaps??] does, the truth about men and women will finally be revealed]. ....What should one say about “feminism.” ....In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments. Whenever this happens, there is social displacement, even violence. When America faced the problem of slavery and thus of social realignment in the nineteenth century, it led to one of the most bloody wars in history. This is perhaps the reason for “extreme” emotion. We cannot have a physical war between men and women. In time, I think, things will settle down again. The world has changed, and the “text,” the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed.
The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.
Quote
The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived.
...and hence the need to drop words from the Creed and Liturgy that do not comport with the modern sense of the equality of the sexes. To put it succinctly, the Fathers of the Council of Nicea are excused for their "sexist" way of putting things.
With respect to deleting "God from God," the analogy simply doesn't apply.
Chapter 4 addresses what is probably the greatest sticking point among conservative member of the Church, the use of “Inclusive Language.” I personally would prefer to table this discussion, not because I’m right or wrong, but because it is utterly impossible to discuss it in these transitional times without extreme - and I mean “extreme” - emotion. I am not sure that the Church has yet given us the guidance that we need on this point. This is not to criticize the Church, perhaps it just takes more time for the real issue to emerge, there has to be some “text” in which the Spirit can write clearly....[so the Spirit has not written clearly in the Creed....amazing, but when He [she perhaps??] does, the truth about men and women will finally be revealed]. ....What should one say about “feminism.” ....In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments. Whenever this happens, there is social displacement, even violence. When America faced the problem of slavery and thus of social realignment in the nineteenth century, it led to one of the most bloody wars in history. This is perhaps the reason for “extreme” emotion. We cannot have a physical war between men and women. In time, I think, things will settle down again. The world has changed, and the “text,” the language by which we govern our relationships, has also changed.
Can you advise who wrote this, or where this defense of the RDL is from? I find this to be a bit offensive, and would like to see the context. It maybe that the author of the quote wants to table the discussion, but after forcing the neutered liturgy upon the people the discussion must happen. It would seem to me that had they wanted to avoid the discussion they could have left the proper translations remain. The author not only offends the laity who are against this imposition, but condemns the Church of antiquity for its own shortsightedness. While it would appear then they those who oppose the feminist encroachment are in good company they are written off as emotional dimwits. Is this really how they see those who want the creed to be translated properly? Who desire for accurate translations of the Liturgy?
Rev. Fr. David makes several intriguing points, but, not having read Rev. Fr. Serge's book (I'd love to, but can't afford it; if someone has a copy to spare...)
On one point, however, I will make a pointed comment for Rev. Father Serge, supporting Fr. David's point: the term village being replaced with community is very sensible for American use. UK English and US English are not truly the same language anymore, and while not as far apart as Scot and English, still not the same. Village in the US has very narrow connotations; in some parts of the US more narrow than others, and intermediate level between City and Village (specifically town, borough, district, section, service area) and non-synonymous parallels (neighborhood, suburb), while a village in the US tends to be a rural subsistence or farming community far from urban life; in Alaska, it refers by law to aboriginal communities, and parallel white communities are all townships.
Community, in the context of the ektenia, is inclusive in the same way as City and Village is in UK English; that is, in common use, the phrase "every city and village" in the UK appears to be understood as including all local communities. In Alaska, it specifically excludes 1/4 of the population, those non-aboriginals in towns, and throughout the US it is certainly at best anachronistic terminology. But "every city and community" works throughout the US. And the 2006 Revision is particular to the US.
Community is lame. The only thing that could be more lame is "for this metropolitan statistical area". There are perfectly good, workaday English words for small conurbations: village, town, county, borough--enough to avoid using the word for "community" which has neither political nor geographical significance. It's also ambiguous, as it can be taken to mean, e.g., the ethnic group that happens to frequent that parish (the Ukrainian community, the Arab community, you name it).
As for inclusive language, my daughters found it equally lame ("It burns with lameness" to quote one). So, again I will ask, does anyone know a real, live woman who actually favors its use? Why are all the people advocating it either men, or liberal nuns, or academics?
See the response to chapter 4 of Fr. Keleher's book.
Thanks for providing the context. Sadly, it didn't help. This part of the defense I found particularly troubling
Quote
"In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term “lover of mankind,” Philanthropos, “mankind” being labeled as a sexist term."
How am I to understand this? "Lover of Mankind," a problem? A problem for who? My wife never complained, nor any other females that I know of be they Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
Are suppose to take comfort in the believing that the goal of inclusive language is evanglical? Rev Petras seems to believe so:
Quote
"The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church’s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church’s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people."
The truth is that this has been a splinter in many peoples sides, and has caused more to leave than ever will come in because of inclusive language. If this was truly the goal then the commission should have looked at what happened to the Anglican Church after it shifted toward inclusive language. It could be the sad truth that people who are offended by 'mankind,' might also be offended by being labled a sinner, and not feel compelled to seek salvation.
This part of the defense I found particularly troubling
Quote
"In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often. In the Byzantine Liturgy, one of the main problems is the term “lover of mankind,” Philanthropos, “mankind” being labeled as a sexist term."
How am I to understand this? "Lover of Mankind," a problem? A problem for who? My wife never complained, nor any other females that I know of be they Eastern Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
The question and issue have been raised several times but, of course, to no avail. What more can be said? Dear bishops and IELC, where's the data? On what premise was this change made? It seems we have no standing to receive an explanation: Indeed, "Why the silence?" On an unsubstantiated appraisal, contrary to the present direction of Catholic liturgical translation, giving into the fashion of the day -- being led rather that leading -- you have dear Fathers, IMHO, cheapened for all the world to see, cheapened our liturgical expression.
Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband. Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody’s tool. This means, on a practical level, we can act for our own welfare in liturgical matters. Don’t worry, it will neither hurt not harm ecumenism. In fact, it might be the best possible course of action, because at least then the Orthodox will see we have a dignity in our faith, that we are a Church that can make Christian decisions.
The two friendly Orthodox priests that I talked to about this were sadden that we have gone the route of liberal liturgy because of their concern for our faithful. Would that commission had shared that concern rather than trying to distance themselves from the Orthodox in order to demonstrate "a dignity in our faith." Rather than prove we can make Christian decisions we demonstrated that we still need parental supervision, but if from Rome or the Orthodox. Has anyone heard that the Orthodox respect us now that we have the RDL?
What more can be said? Dear bishops and IELC, where's the data? On what premise was this change made?
The data is irrelevant if the “text” in which the Spirit writes is not yet clear. This is the theological position behind the changes. Since the spirit uses human texts, and those change, so must the theological language in which the Spirit reveals sacred doctrine:
Quote
We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of “text” in the modern world....
Compare this view with Benedict XVI's Regensburg lecture in which he clearly sets forth the argument that Christianity cannot be "dehellenized."
Or consider the sermon by Blessed John Henry Newman stated:
Quote
It is the fashion of the day, then, [that] [t]he teacher of Christianity, instead of delivering its Mysteries, and (as far as may be) unfolding them, is taught to scrutinise them, with a view of separating the inward holy sense from the form of words, in which the Spirit has indissolubly lodged them. He asks himself, what is the use of the message which has come down to him? what the comparative value of this or that part of it? He proceeds to assume that there is some one end of his ministerial labours, such as to be ascertainable by him, some one revealed object of God's dealings with man in the Gospel. Then, perhaps, he arbitrarily assigns this end to be the salvation of the world, or the conversion of sinners. Next he measures all the Scripture doctrines by their respective sensible tendency to effect this end. He goes on to discard or degrade this or that sacred truth as superfluous in consequence, or of inferior importance; and throws the stress of his teaching upon one or other, which he pronounces to contain in it the essence of the Gospel, and on which he rests all others which he retains. Lastly, he reconstructs the language of theology to suit his (so-called) improved views of Scripture doctrine.
We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people. This might mean some horizontal inclusive language. As much as the Church would like to close the book on this change of “text” in the modern world....
Undoubtedly one of the more fuzzy-minded comments on the subject yet made, by someone who simply does not understand either language or the translator's task.
What more can be said? Dear bishops and IELC, where's the data? On what premise was this change made?
The data is irrelevant if the “text” in which the Spirit writes is not yet clear.
One should consider all data even when there are if's. It's proper to hear what the other viewpoint has to say; the problem here is that they're not saying.
One should consider all data even when there are if's. It's proper to hear what the other viewpoint has to say; the problem here is that they're not saying.
Unless of course, there are not "ifs" in the minds of those who devised the RDL. Apparently there are not. They were so confident that the Spirit did not speak clearly enough in the Creed that they changed it. Doctrine is evolving right along with man. Therein is modernism.
As I have stated several times, I disagree with lm that the removal of the word "man" from the RDL text is heretical ("who for us [men] and and for our salvation"). Rome has reviewed this and ruled it "theologically grave", not heretical. The good men who created the RDL did not intend to deny a Teaching of the Church (that Jesus became man for the salvation of all men), although the text they offer will certainly be understood by some as doing just that. They actually object only to the use of the term "men" (in this case).
lm might be correct that the RDL texts tend towards modernism, but he has not made a case of heresy. He would be better off accepting and using the Vatican's point that the omission of the term "man" in the Creed (as noted) is "theologically grave" and leave it at that. It should not have been done, is wrong, and should be corrected immediately.
Are we suppose to take comfort in the believing that the goal of inclusive language is evanglical? Rev Petras seems to believe so:
Quote
"The problem is not the biblical or theological or liturgical language, the problem is the secular language, and as much as we would like to say that the Church is free from all secular influence, that it is the Church’s duty to preach to the world and not vice versa, this ignores the Church’s mission to proclaim the gospel to all peoples. We just have not become aware yet what it might mean to English-speaking secular men and women in the twenty-first century. I have faith that a road will be found in which we can reach out with the gospel to all people."
The Church spoke to this amply in Liturgicam Authenticam, which Father Petras (a good and talented man) openly rejected on this Forum (saying it was bad theology). But again (and again) there is no problem here with secular language. The term "man" and "mankind" are completely inclusive. It is when one leaves them out ("who for us 'what' in the Creed and "us all" instead of "mankind") that one creates a text that is potentially exclusive and definitely inaccurate. Both "who for us" and "loves us all" could be understood as excluding non-Byzantine Catholics, non-Christians or anyone not currently present. [Or it could be seen to offer salvation to my cat, should she be in the temple at that time!] That's the problem with gender neutral language (in specific) and the style of translation known as "dynamic" (in general), both of which the Church has officially rejected. With those faulty styles one needs to personally know the mind of the translators to understand what they meant, while with formal ("word-for-word") translations one can tell from the words. Further, those who might see the goal of gender neutral language as evanglical need to (finally) look at the evidence. The Protestant Churches that adopted such language style are empty and dying. The adaptation of gender neutral language tells people that those using it subject the Gospel to the political correctness in secular society. In reality, the Church should be leading the language. Look at how the King James Bible changed the way the English speaking world spoke and wrote the words of Scripture on society and put new words into the language.
But we've been there, and the bishops choose to reject and to continue to reject what Rome has told them to do. And not to answer questions.
Dialogue with the Orthodox is very difficult for Eastern Catholics. Sometimes even moderate Orthodox want nothing to do with us, and barely tolerate our presence. Nothing that we can do will help reunion, except for us to voluntarily disband. Why, then, should we be faithful to our Eastern heritage? I find the answer in that all-important second principle: we have the right to act for the spiritual needs and welfare of our people. We should be faithful to our Eastern tradition because it is our heritage. We should be faithful because it is good and true and beautiful and the expression of our spiritual health. Rome has often seen us as a tool, but we have a dignity in ourselves, we are nobody’s tool. This means, on a practical level, we can act for our own welfare in liturgical matters. Don’t worry, it will neither hurt not harm ecumenism. In fact, it might be the best possible course of action, because at least then the Orthodox will see we have a dignity in our faith, that we are a Church that can make Christian decisions.
A few points (again and again):
-Dialogue with the Orthodox would be infinitely easier if Greek Catholics celebrated the Divine Services correctly and relatively completely.
-What exactly are "the spiritual needs and welfare of our people" that are so different from that of other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) that cannot be served with the form of the Divine Liturgy promulgated by Rome (the official, normative Ruthenian Divine Liturgy and other liturgical books)?
-What is so horrible and unacceptable about the full and official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy that there must be a prohibition on its celebration in the Ruthenian Church?
I'm sorry, I see no dignity in the prohibition of one's own Liturgy in favor of a revision modeled on the same principles the Roman Catholics used and have rejected because they did not work. I see in the RDL only a lack of self-worth (by the bishops speaking for their Church), and a lack of pastoral concern for the souls entrusted to their care.
But these questions have been asked numerous times, both here and in writing to he bishops. And these questions have met only with silence. At best that is an admission those being asked have no answer. At worse it is an admission they are wrong, or do not care if they destroy the Church so long as they get their way.
The controversy over the use of inclusive language in the Church has led some to seek refuge in the distinction between “vertical” inclusive language (words referring to God) and “horizontal” inclusive language (words referring to man) in the hope that, by restricting the former and allowing the latter, they might achieve the twin goals of demonstrating sympathy for those who take offense at standard language while avoiding heterodoxy.10 Unfortunately the vertical-horizontal distinction is too facile to preserve the integrity of revelation, of the liturgy, and of doctrine. Once again, this points not to a special characteristic of Catholic doctrine but to the universal nature of language. The propositions that communicate truths about the nature of man and man’s relation to God will be obscured, when not negated, by programmatic avoidance of the unmarked generic.11 This is the case even in those passages where the substitute for generic “man” (e.g., “humanity,” “people,” “persons”) is arguably synonymous.
Why is “man” preferable to “humanity” in rendering Greek anthropos or Hebrew ’adam even in those passages where the meaning is nearly the same? The preference becomes clear in considering “man” as a productive morpheme in contrast to non-productive morphemes. These terms are somewhat forbidding but the concepts they express are straightforward. Suppose we invent on the spur of the moment a completely new English verb to convey the crashing of a computer’s hard-drive. Let us imagine our verb is “to klink.” If I ask any English speaker to give me the past tense of this verb, the response will invariably be “klinked” (e.g., “Yesterday my Macintosh klinked”). We can confidently predict the past tense of “klink” because the morpheme -ed/-d is currently the only productive past-tense-forming morpheme in English.
But this wasn’t always the case, and English still preserves some older vowel-changing verbs like “drink” (past tense “drank”) and “sink” (past tense “sank”). However, this morpheme is no longer productive; it is part of the learned or static grammar of the English speaker but not of the internalized dynamic grammar. The same is true of the vowel-changing plural morpheme by which “mice” is the plural of “mouse.” It too is a non-productive morpheme, and no longer actively operates in the creative grammar of English speakers. Thus, a (relatively) recent addition like the slang noun “souse” has the plural “souses,” not “sice.”
English “man” remains a preeminently productive morpheme. This is obvious from the fact that speakers are continually using it spontaneously and unreflectively in the creation of new compounds, not only in such terms as “hit-man,” “bag-man,” “airman” and “manned flight,” but even in words we have seen emerge in our own adult lifetime, such as “point man” or “pacman.” A few moments’ consideration will show that “humanity,” “people,” or “person” are not productive in this way.
Of course, an agency or a pedant might coin a compound using these morphemes, but it does not arise from the natural, spontaneous grammar that English speakers have internalized; we would need to be coached to say “pointperson.”
Greek anthropos was also a supremely productive morpheme, naturally used in the formation of words like philanthropos, anthropomorphos, etc. Like “man” but unlike “humanity” and “person,” it served as an elementary “building-block” of the language. Hebrew does not form compounds, but mutatis mutandis the same productive status was enjoyed by ’adam and ’îs in serving as nomina recta of construct phrases.
How is this relevant to the question of biblical translation? Every language expresses certain fundamental contrasts or oppositions that belong to its universal vocabulary, and consequently only universal, elemental, productive words will serve; thus: man and God, man and beast, man and nature, and so forth. Suppose, in responding to certain pressures that come from outside the language, we render these oppositions by substituting “humanity” or “human persons” for “man.” It might be argued in a given case that the substitution almost overlaps “man” in the sense of being synonymous with “man.” But are we really translating what the original speaker said? Only in a very limited sense.
This might be clearer if we imagined a translation of theos kai anthropos by “divinity and humanity.” Even if we ignore the fact that the new words are not as universally intelligible as “God and man,” it is still plain that the new wording does not belong to the elementary vocabulary which is the common property of speakers of every age, social class, and occupation, but rather it enters the language (as it were) through a narrow door, through legal and philosophical discourse.
There is an important asymmetry to be noticed here. The phrase “divinity and humanity” is restricted in sociolinguistic terms, but “God and man” isn’t. The former belongs to a particular milieu which the sociolinguist can identify, but the latter does not belong to any identifiable milieu: it is universal.
Now it is a linguistic fact—not merely a subjective matter of aesthetics—that if we put the words “What God has joined together, human beings must not separate” into the mouth of Jesus, we change the language of the gospel, even if we don’t change the meaning of the words, even if we don’t put the doctrine at risk. In the revised English, Jesus is speaking like a lawyer. In the original, he speaks like a man. To repeat, it is not just a matter of how widely the meaning of the new words is known; the point is that in departing from the fundamental lexicon here we are departing from the language we are supposed to communicate by translation.
As noted above, the claim that English “man” no longer means what anthropos means is false. This is demonstrable from the fact that no rival productive morpheme exists. Some words (like “humanity” or “persons”) can be pressed into service to carry part of the semantic freight of “man” in particular expressions, but none is remotely close to filling its place in the active grammar of the speakers. Again, such elemental productive morphemes can and do change over time, but a language can no more “lose” such a building block without compensation than arithmetic can lose an operation like division or multiplication. The scenario in which an English speaker is pictured trying and failing to call to mind the English for dexter or unus or homo is linguistically vacuous.
Horizontal Inclusive Language in Operation
The difficulties that result from using inclusive language in translation are patent in all the recently issued versions of the Bible that employ such devices. In every case they have the effect of distancing the reader cognitively from the original text; it should be stressed that this is true even of so-called horizontal inclusive language. The following illustrative passages are taken from the inclusivized New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the Revised New American Bible (RNAB, published by the Catholic bishops of the United States), and contrasted with the very literal Revised Standard Version of the Bible (RSV). Notwithstanding their manifold deficiencies, the NRSV and RNAB are billed as “moderate” by their respective publishers in their recourse to inclusive language.
(1) The literal (and traditional) rendering of Genesis 1:27 is:
God created man (ha-’adam = homo) in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
The NRSV translation gives:
God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis 1:27 is a key text for Christian anthropology and plays a central role in the doctrine of sexual complementarity. Of particular importance is the testimony of original unity, expressed in Hebrew by (ha-)’adam, which is realized in two ways, male and female, zakar and neqebah. The circumlocutions and alterations of number in the NRSV put the teaching of the passage beyond the reach of anyone who does not have knowledge of the Hebrew. It was not humankind that God created in his image but man. A kind (or a race) is a collectivity but man is a unity. God could be said to have created man even if Adam died companionless, but he could not be said to have created human-kind in these circumstances.
It is clear that for the sacred author the human race as such begins in the following verse, with the blessing of God and the command “be fruitful and multiply,” which is carefully preserved as an event distinct from the creation of the two-in-one. To say that it was humankind that God made in his image is to introduce, gratuitously, a number of uncertainties as to whether and how man’s resemblance to God is to be found in the collectivity, the abstract, the social, etc. The sacred author displays the same precision in the use of the object pronouns: “in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” The failure to preserve this shift in translation deceptively suggests that the antecedents are the same in the original; there is no way for the English reader to recover the underlying text.
(2) Consider the RNAB rendering of Romans 5:12 and 15:
[12] Through one person (henos anthropou) sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned. . . . [15] For if by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person (henos anthropou) Jesus Christ overflow for the many.
The logic of St. Paul’s argument in one of the doctrinally key passages in the New Testament is here forfeited for the sake of inclusive language. The point is not that one person (one individual, one personal existent) was the source of sin and death and one person is the source of grace, but that both events are effected di’ henos anthropou: through one man, one homo. As the patristic formula has it: “What is not assumed [i.e., by Christ] is not redeemed”; we are redeemed in our humanity because God’s Son became man. The Pauline theology of redemption is irretrievable from this translation, even though the tampering is putatively horizontal in scope.
Moreover, the circumlocution “person” introduces a particularly regrettable conceptual anachronism into the text. To use the word “person” for an essential, defining characteristic is to beg confusion with the later notion of prosopon as a person of the Trinity, though of course this meaning is nowhere found in St. Paul. Thus, through the reviser’s avoidance of the only natural equivalent of anthropos, not only is the authentic teaching obscured but false scents are dragged across the trail and the reader is gratuitously made prey to misconceptions that are difficult to put right without access to the original Greek.
(3) A literal translation of Revelation 22:12 is:
Behold, I am coming soon, my recompense [is] with me, to repay each according to his work.
The RNAB says:
Behold, I, Jesus, am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to everyone according to their deeds.
This passage is instructive in showing how even minor departures from natural language have unanticipated consequences for meaning. Here the revisers needed to resort to defective grammar by correlating singular “everyone” with plural “their” so as to avoid the English masculine (unmarked) form corresponding to the original. Less obvious however is the decision to render the Greek hekastoi “to each” as if it were panti “to everyone,” and thus suggesting, wrongly, that the recompense will be the same for all. Small adjustments require other small adjustments, which, taken together, warp the natural way in which languages convey meaning.
(4) The literal (RSV) translation of Psalm 71:11 is:
[My enemies] say, “God has forsaken him; pursue and seize him.”
The NRSV translates:
They say, “Pursue and seize that person whom God has forsaken.”
For Psalm 41:8 the RSV has:
[My enemies] say, “A deadly thing has fastened upon him; he will not rise again from where he lies.”
But the RNAB gives:
I have a deadly disease, they say, I will never rise from my sickbed.
In these passages the Psalmist speaks in the first person, and, in the course of his complaint, he recites the taunting of his enemies—taunts that, in the Hebrew as in the RSV translation, indicate that the Psalmist is male. For the sake of inclusivity the revisers of both the NRSV and RNAB have rewritten the pertinent verses in order to neutralize the masculine pronouns of the Hebrew. Now it is a peculiarity of first-person-singular discourse that the gender of the subject-referent does not need to be made grammatically explicit to the hearer; gender revelation occurs “gratuitously” in languages with composite adjectival tenses (cf. Italian sono andato vs. sono andata) and of course by other kinds of incidental self-reference (“I am a seamstress”).
Accordingly, when we read first-person-singular discourse, we usually have to find oblique clues as to the gender of the speaker. So, for example, in reading a first-person lament such as Psalm 71 (“In thee, O Lord, I take refuge . . .”), we have no clues, grammatical or narrative, as to the gender of the speaker, and the first ten verses could be put into the mouth of a man or a woman indifferently. But beginning with verse 11 we have a gender-specific self-reference: “For my enemies speak concerning me . . . and say, ‘God has forsaken him; pursue and seize him; for there is no deliverer.’” Since this phrase is embedded in first-person discourse, it specifies the gender of the narrative “I” as masculine—as unambiguously as it is specified in the Italian phrase sono andato. A commentator may be entirely justified in believing that the narrative has theological application not only to the speaker but to men and women indifferently, but the translator must be faithful to the device of the author, which (in this case, as in Psalms 35, 27, 41, 42, 109, and 119) is to announce himself as male. When the NRSV writes “Pursue and seize that person” we have circumlocution in place of translation.
The RNAB resorts to another device in rendering Psalm 41:8. Here the revisers change the grammatical person of the embedded quotation from third (“he will not rise”) to first (“I will never rise”) in defiance of the Hebrew. In so doing they have given rise to two further departures from the original text. First, whereas the Hebrew lets us hear the actual taunts of the Psalmist’s adversaries in direct discourse, the inclusivized version changes this to indirect discourse; the literary effect is not the same. Second, the neutralization of gender also constricts the range of intertextual (typological) interpretations beyond that available to the Hebrew text. This subject requires a discussion of its own.
The Preemption of Types
Problems of Christological and other typological interpretation are markedly compounded by application of inclusive-language devices to the translation of the Old Testament. To take an example that has been a recent subject of controversy, should the beginning of Psalm 1 be translated literally (“Happy the man who walks not in the way of the wicked”) or is the inclusivized rendering acceptable here (RNAB: “Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked”)? The patristic exegetical tradition shows some diversity in its judgment as to whether “the blessed man” in question is or is not a typological reference to Christ.12
Yet even if the case for Christological interpretation is put at its weakest, the fact remains that not all translations are equally revelatory of the various possibilities of interpretation. The literal “happy the man” rendering permits the Christological (or another typological) interpretation, but it does not require it; even if the sentiment were general/aphoristic (i.e., a truism about men in general), all readers except the most committed feminists would be able to find that reading in the English. The symmetry does not hold for the inclusivized version, however; “happy those” cannot be given the historical specificity needed to make it typological. The literal translation preserves multiple levels of meaning; the non-literal seals off all but the one before the mind of the translator.
But the problems do not end there. Psalm 119 begins, “Happy are those whose way is blameless. . . .” Here the Hebrew itself is plural; the general application is explicit and no interpretative effort is required to reach it. The prima facie conclusion is that, since the Hebrew authors were capable of expressing a generally applicable truth with the plural, they may well have had a good reason for using the singular in the instances where it is found; even if this reason were purely stylistic, it is reckless to disregard it without compelling arguments to do so. In the RNAB the distinction between the kinds of discourse exhibited in Psalm 1 and Psalm 119 is lost.
Secondary Negative Effects
The use of horizontal inclusive language has a collateral effect that is too seldom noticed. Once the translator eliminates the unmarked generic to a perceptible extent, he paradoxically puts exaggerated and misapplied emphasis on the maleness of the masculine forms that remain: In effect all masculines become marked for gender.
The NRSV, for example, is generally ruthless in excising “man” for anthropos, but retains it in Romans 5—not unreasonably, when one considers the problems with the alternatives (see the discussion of the RNAB version above). But when we read in the NRSV, “sin came into the world through one man,” our confusion is genuine; precisely to the extent that our expectations are based on the NRSV grammar (without generic “man”), we will understand St. Paul to be speaking about one male.13
In introducing exactly the kind of misunderstanding for which they are invoked as the cure, the inclusive devices cut their own throat. The same problem vexes the RNAB, in which male kinship terms are neutralized so often (children for sons, friends for brothers, ancestors for fathers, etc.) that where the direct translation is retained, the semantic stress on maleness is disproportionately great.
Bedrock Terms
The solecisms created by inclusive language in the examples we have discussed are not the kind of problem that a more skillful translator could eliminate. They are a necessary consequence of the program of departing from the “eco-system” of a natural language, in which meanings and stresses are assigned with subtlety and precision by devices native to its genius, in favor of a system of contrived meanings and emphases whose values are laid down by fiat.
In the short term, it may seem prudent and advantageous to employ words like “humankind” and other such devices as interim solutions to a vexed pastoral problem. But in the long term such compromises must change the language in which God has revealed himself. Where the Bible and the liturgy speak to us in the elemental, universal terms of existence, we cannot replace them with legal, philosophical, or political contrivances without changing the nature of the documents themselves.
Rather than manipulate the bedrock terms of revelatory discourse in the hope of hitting a moving target, it is wiser to preserve as carefully as possible the language of the text, trusting in the natural linguistic intuitions of its hearers to find the intended meaning. They almost never fail.
Thanks so much for this. At last a theological and linguistic linking to show the problems of social and linguistic engineering at a very profound level. What many of us have taken as intuition based on less education in these areas is now brought to new levels by a man trained in both areas and who has brought his lights to bear on this problem of translations.
As I have stated several times, I disagree with lm that the removal of the word "man" from the RDL text is heretical ("who for us [men] and and for our salvation"). Rome has reviewed this and ruled it "theologically grave", not heretical. The good men who created the RDL did not intend to deny a Teaching of the Church (that Jesus became man for the salvation of all men), although the text they offer will certainly be understood by some as doing just that. They actually object only to the use of the term "men" (in this case).
lm might be correct that the RDL texts tend towards modernism, but he has not made a case of heresy. He would be better off accepting and using the Vatican's point that the omission of the term "man" in the Creed (as noted) is "theologically grave" and leave it at that. It should not have been done, is wrong, and should be corrected immediately
Fr. Petras' reasons for the relevant changes seem to me to be exactly the kind of thing condemned as heretical by Pius X.
See errors # 58, 59, 62, and 63 in the link above.
The administrator is correct to say, however, that in any case Rome has spoken and said that it is theologically grave to remove "men" from the Creed. It is wrong, should never have been done, and ought to be corrected immediately. Since Rome has spoken and since the corrections have not been made, what should we then think?
We have come to a very low state when a word can be removed in the Symbol of Faith (i.e.,that by which we recognize each other and profess a common belief) contrary to Rome's direction and yet we are to judge not according to the objective truth (that a word has been removed from the Creed), but the good intentions of the ones who have authorized and argued for the deletion.
"Theologically grave" is merely a polite euphemism for heretical. Rome's aversion to schism is so great that it bends over backwards to avoid giving the impression that such a thing as heresy could exist within its ranks, because to do so would require, well, some sort of "grave" response. The problem with being a sovereign state is you have to have a diplomatic corps. And diplomats are in the business of obscuring, not revealing, unpleasant truths.
I do not consider the framers of the RDL a sufficient authority to have authorized the removal of such a key word from our creed. So for my part, I still say "For us men, and for our salvation..." As I'm not the loudest of singers (for which my fellow parishioners are eternally grateful) no one else hears me.
The authority to change a liturgy for a Church Sui Iuris is that Church's synod. The framers may not have been the synod, but the synod universally approved their work.
However, the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church does not have a synod, merely a pathetic "Council of Hierarchs", which, under the canons of the CCEO, has far less authority than a synod, and which is severely circumscribed in what it can do without the approval of the Holy See. One of the things it cannot do is substantially alter the liturgical recension authorized by the Holy See. The 1942 Slavonic liturgy is still normative for all the Ruthenian Churches, both Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn.
One of the things it cannot do is substantially alter the liturgical recension authorized by the Holy See. The 1942 Slavonic liturgy is still normative for all the Ruthenian Churches, both Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn.
So what is going on here? How did they get this RDL approved?
Politically astute bishops in favor of the RDL lobbied shamelessly in the Oriental Congregation. The proper buttons were pushed, and, it is reputed by those in the know, that gifts were given to the proper people, resulting in a cursory review of the translation. Father Taft, given the thankless task, insists he was told not to critique the effort but only to search for overt heresy (whatever that may be). Father Taft has since issued a scathing rebuke to changes in the RDL that were, supposedly, done under the influence of his writings (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, especially in the hands of third rate academic hacks mindlessly mimicking their intellectual superiors). The result is what you see.
Rome is now in the delicate position of having to coerce the Council of Hierarchs to recall the RDL, without being seen as "bullying" a sui juris Church. After all, Rome can hardly tell the Orthodox that communion does not mean submission, if it is delivering marching orders to the Eastern Catholic bishops. So, the behind-the-scenes wheedling will continue, while the situation in the Metropolia continues to deteriorate. It is now a race to see whether the necessary changes will be made before the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church reaches the point of no return. Some think it is already too late. And, for those who think a Church cannot disappear, I call your attention to the fate of the Great Church of Africa, that gave us Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo. It vanished without a trace in the wake of the Muslim conquest. Don't think it takes an external oppressor to wreak that kind of havoc--the Church is quite capable of doing it to itself.
People always say that, particularly when those in power deliberately seek to operate behind closed doors. Transparency has never been a hallmark of the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church, but to believe that it is possible to keep secrets in such a small community is silly. Those who don't know, don't know because they do not want to know.
When confronted by the likelihood of a dark and difficult future for our Ruthenian Church, Bishops Romzha, Gojdic and Hopko responded with faith, humility, love and fidelity. Seems to me they have left us an example to imitate. I can't control the decisions of our Bishops, nor those of the Holy See, but I am able to control my reactions to them. It'd probably be better for me to reject pessimism and choose optimism, charity, kindness and prayer. It may indeed be "too late" for some things in our Ruthenian Church but it's never "too late" to pray, to bear witness and to entrust our future serenely to the loving providence of the Lord.
When confronted by the likelihood of a dark and difficult future for our Ruthenian Church, Bishops Romzha, Gojdic and Hopko responded with faith, humility, love and fidelity. Seems to me they have left us an example to imitate.
It's easier when the enemy is external, and only threatens your physical existence. It's much, much harder when the enemy is within, and threatens you with spiritual annihilation.
Well, yes - what you say savors of the "truthy". I perceive my potential "spiritual annihilation" to be the result of MY negative attitudes and choices. I ain't gonna give no Bishops - nor no one else - the power to destroy me spiritually. Someone went to confession and confessed the sin of viciously criticizing her pastor behind his back. The confessor told her, "If you aren't praying and fasting on his behalf, you're part of the problem".
John Chrysostom disagreed. He wrote "I fear few bishops will be saved", because while a layman has only his own soul to consider, the bishop will be called to account for all the souls entrusted to his care. What then will be the fate of bishops whose decisions drove people out of their Church, many of them falling away altogether? What fate for bishops who managed to oversee the dissolution of their parishes and the dilution of the Tradition they were entrusted to pass on, "adding nothing, deleting nothing, changing nothing"? It is bad enough when ecclesiacide is committed by secular forces, worse when it is committed by one Church against another, but worst of all when the leaders of a Church cause it to commit suicide.
Someone went to confession and confessed the sin of viciously criticizing her pastor behind his back. The confessor told her, "If you aren't praying and fasting on his behalf, you're part of the problem".
I would never viciously criticize anyone. . . behind his back.
By the way, when Paul upbraided Peter to his face for sitting with the Circumcizers in Antioch, was he part of the problem, too?
I can't control the decisions of our Bishops, nor those of the Holy See, but I am able to control my reactions to them. It'd probably be better for me to reject pessimism and choose optimism, charity, kindness and prayer. It may indeed be "too late" for some things in our Ruthenian Church but it's never "too late" to pray, to bear witness and to entrust our future serenely to the loving providence of the Lord.
I agree. Each of us needs to center our lives on worshiping the Lord and working out our own salvation and choosing in prayer and example the traits of optimism, charity, kindness. Doing this, however, does not lessen the responsibility of each to fight for what is right and correct. As we pray for the Ruthenian bishops (that they change course and do what is right) we need also to keep asking them (and to keep asking Rome to help us gain access to our own Liturgy).
However, the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church does not have a synod, merely a pathetic "Council of Hierarchs", which, under the canons of the CCEO, has far less authority than a synod, and which is severely circumscribed in what it can do without the approval of the Holy See. One of the things it cannot do is substantially alter the liturgical recension authorized by the Holy See. The 1942 Slavonic liturgy is still normative for all the Ruthenian Churches, both Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn.
True. But if Rome continues to remain deaf to the protests of the clergy and people there is not a lot we can do. So far the only accomplishment we have heard of is that Rome has told the bishops that they must publish the whole Liturgy. No one knows if that means now or the the the next time they make the translation worse.
True. But if Rome continues to remain deaf to the protests of the clergy and people there is not a lot we can do.
One may always vote with one's feet. Or one's wallet. Guess where my Eparchial Appeal Envelope went this year. . .and last year. . . and the year before that. Good stewardship demands that we ensure our money is put to good and responsible uses. My confidence in the bishop to do so is low, so I divert my donation to other, worthier causes.
As I have stated several times, I disagree with lm that the removal of the word "man" from the RDL text is heretical ("who for us [men] and and for our salvation"). Rome has reviewed this and ruled it "theologically grave", not heretical. The good men who created the RDL did not intend to deny a Teaching of the Church (that Jesus became man for the salvation of all men), although the text they offer will certainly be understood by some as doing just that. They actually object only to the use of the term "men" (in this case).
lm might be correct that the RDL texts tend towards modernism, but he has not made a case of heresy. He would be better off accepting and using the Vatican's point that the omission of the term "man" in the Creed (as noted) is "theologically grave" and leave it at that. It should not have been done, is wrong, and should be corrected immediately.
Hello, I would be interested in seeing where Rome called this 'theologically grave.' Is the document available online or anywhere?
The relevant quote to the removal of the term "man" from the creed (which, by extension also applies to the change from the inclusive Christ as "lover of mankind" to the potentially exclusive Christ who just "loves us all") is:
Quote
In 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, spoke to this issue for the Latin Church in Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:
III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms
A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.
B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.
How is it possible that in 2007 the bishops chose to reject numerous Vatican directives numerous years after they were given? We see the Liturgical Instruction in 1996, Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, this directive in 2002? The bishops knew quite well that they were promulgating a text with potentially theologically grave doctrine as it was brought to their attention by a number of the faithful. They have a moral obligation to fix the problem they created.
This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.
Can it be said any clearer? This quote from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship at the time (2002), is in "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal." It's not just one of us easily ignored peons who's squawking.
And yet, there may be an explanation for the RDL translation. What is it? Is it too much to expect an answer to questions, an explanation for such a contested point? As I've said, the question needs to be addressed to the IELC and the bishops: "Why the Silence?"
Thanks for posting. I didn't doubt that they said it I just need the documentation. This is what I meant when I said that The Archeparhy of Pittsburgh had no authority to make these changes. A Church cannot make its faithful recite a theologically grave translation of the creed. It is our right to be allowed to recite the creed as it was given to us by the fathers at Nicea and Constantinople. It makes me wonder why still venerate the fathers of the 1st seven ecumenical councils since we seem to now think we are above them, but I digress. The Church cannot require us to recite an incorrect creed. It is sort of like the same argument John Paul II made against women's ordination - the Church has no authority to allow it. Authority in the Church comes from the received tradition.
It occurred to me yesterday at liturgy that the problem with 'loves us all,' as opposed to loves mankind is that the former has a sort of a feel good quality to it. It puts me in mind of Barney the dinosaur rather than the Son of God. See for example Loves "mankind," however, resonates more the aspect of God's universal love for man, made in his image and likeness, rather than the feel good - I'm alright you're alright mentality inheriant in 'loves us all.' This ponderance lead me to believe that the phrase 'us all,' focuses on us (whoever the "us" is), rather than on God's graciousness. I might be off there, but that is how it strikes me. It just has a certain narcissistic feel to it.
This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.
Can it be said any clearer? This quote from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship at the time (2002), is in "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal." It's not just one of us easily ignored peons who's squawking.
And yet, there may be an explanation for the RDL translation. What is it? Is it too much to expect an answer to questions, an explanation for such a contested point? As I've said, the question needs to be addressed to the IELC and the bishops: "Why the Silence?"
Fr. Deacon,
To me it is simply a translation issue. There is a word in the Greek creed, anthropos, that is missing from the English. That is not translation but editing. So translate anthropos as men or humans but translate it, don't edit it out.
Now the cardinal says "for us" can be misundertood as "for us" [here present at the Liturgy] as opposed to "for us" [all mankind] and for this reason it is theologically grave. I guess that interpretation is possible, if one is an imbecile, but I believe most people are smart enough to get it since the entire Creed is a statement of universal truths. The problem with the Cardinal's arguement is one can make the same inference with "for us men" [here present at the Liturgy]. So the theologically grave accusation doesn't hold water in my opinion.
I would also ask why we should care what a Latin bishop whose first language is not English has to say anyways? Many cardinals say many things. The late Cardinal Stickler said, to paraphrase, celibacy was a divine mandate and our tradition of married presbyters was based on lies and should eventually be done away with. The Cardinals and the Curia can keep their theological opinions and pronouncements. I would rather hear from Ecumenical Councils and Synods.
Fr. Deacon Lance (who is in favor of the Creed being translated completely)
This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.
Can it be said any clearer? This quote from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship at the time (2002), is in "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal." It's not just one of us easily ignored peons who's squawking.
And yet, there may be an explanation for the RDL translation. What is it? Is it too much to expect an answer to questions, an explanation for such a contested point? As I've said, the question needs to be addressed to the IELC and the bishops: "Why the Silence?"
Fr. Deacon,
To me it is simply a translation issue. There is a word in the Greek creed, anthropos, that is missing from the English. That is not translation but editing. So translate anthropos as men or humans but translate it, don't edit it out.
Fr. Deacon Lance,
I'd say Men, yes; humans, most likely, no. But basically, we agree. Why then does the IELC choose and recommend and the bishops demand/mandate otherwise?
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Now the cardinal says "for us" can be misundertood as "for us" [here present at the Liturgy] as opposed to "for us" [all mankind] and for this reason it is theologically grave. I guess that interpretation is possible, if one is an imbecile,...
There are then a fair number of us in that category. Perhaps only those who fancy themselves to be smart have the necessary hubris to tamper with the Creed, and to do that by subordinating the liturgy to the current fashion, fleeting it seems, in language. I hope for and demand better from our leaders.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
... but I believe most people are smart enough to get it since the entire Creed is a statement of universal truths.
The word anthrōpous/men conveys the universal truth. Why drop it and leave the sense of universal truth only implied (or misrepresented) when one can just as well have it explicit as it actually is in the creed in the Greek and Slavonic? As you say "the entire Creed is a statement of universal truths," so keep the language of universal truths since that's what is intended.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
The problem with the Cardinal's arguement is one can make the same inference with "for us men" [here present at the Liturgy].
Not really. Having the word present as it actually is in the Creed establishes a rhetorical connection: For us Men...He became Man. That connection is gone in saying For us...He became Man.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
So the theologically grave accusation doesn't hold water in my opinion.
I would also ask why we should care what a Latin bishop whose first language is not English has to say anyways? Many cardinals say many things. The late Cardinal Stickler said, to paraphrase, celibacy was a divine mandate and our tradition of married presbyters was based on lies and should eventually be done away with. The Cardinals and the Curia can keep their theological opinions and pronouncements. I would rather hear from Ecumenical Councils and Synods.
There are a lot of native English speakers, such as me, who agree with Cardinal Medina Estévez. I'd credit him as smart and informed enough to understand the concept of the theology of the word Adam/Anthrōpos and the ability a language has to express that concept. In this case of the RDL I, a native speaker, think that fellow native speakers, the IELC and our bishops, have made a big mistake. I would say that the interpretation is that they ought to be ashamed that a non-native speaker has to correct them (indirectly, writing in 2002) to use proper theological English. The point is whether Cardinal Medina Estévez (writing as Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship) is correct or not, and not his fluency in English. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a chicken to know a bad egg. Also, I don't follow the argument about Card. Stickler. Since there is no universal principle about the opinions of Cardinals, the conclusion is that Medina Estévez is right and Stickler is wrong.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
I would rather hear from Ecumenical Councils and Synods.
OK. The Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople has "For (di') us (hēmas) men (tous anthrōpous) and..."
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Fr. Deacon Lance (who is in favor of the Creed being translated completely)
... but it seems not enough to really make it a concern as otherwise "theologically grave."
I believe that the council fathers knew what they wanted to say, and said it. That should be enough for us. I was told by someone in favor of the translation that they context of it made it obvious who the for us was. Of course, that is his opinion after the benefit of many years in the church. What about the next generation? Will it be as obvious? I think not. What about the generation of that? Still less so. When writing about the early church GK Chesteron said that at times it may have only been a matter of an inch, but an inch is everything when you are balancing. The reinventors of the Liturgy either didn't realize who important their task was, or simply didn't care. Had the realized it they would have asked more of themselves, and stayed true to what what was written. If only for one wild moment they thought had crossed their minds that the fathers of the creed knew what they were saying and said it anyway!
The Holy See has announced that the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith. All translations, therefore, must be as faithful as possible to that original. The Slavonic text is quite faithful to the Greek, as might be expected, given its core place in the evangelization of the Slavic peoples.
Aramis is correct that every translation betrays the original to some degree. But the version presented in the RDL commits high treason. Obedience is one thing, but defense of the indefensible is something else.
That I don’t speak Greek is nor more an acceptable excuse to take ‘men,’ out of the creed than it would be a biblical translator to take out ‘man,’ whenever the Greek anthropos appeared in the text. If, for instance Mat 25:31 were translated, “When the Son of comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory,” would that be okay since I don’t speak Greek? Since the majority of the faithful do not speak the original languages it is incumbent upon the translators to be as faithful as possible to the text. We ask of our hierarchs no more than that they give us what they (and we) have received (1 Cor 15:3). The RDL fails in this small task. Further, there was no need to translate the Greek of the creed into English because it had already been done. In other words, they didn’t need to reinvent the wheel – just presenting the agreed upon translation of the phrase would have been sufficient. Since they didn’t we are left to ask why not? There is no theological or liturgical reason since other Churches still employ it. The only possible reason for it is the liberal philosophy of political correctness. PC is a deadly philosophy. We, the faithful, have asked our hierarchs for a loaf of bread, and they have given us a stone (Mat 7:9). We are the Charlie Brown amongst the Churches. “What did you get Charlie Brown?” “I got a rock.”
The Holy See has announced that the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith. All translations, therefore, must be as faithful as possible to that original.
I would be very interested to know which document from the Holy See gave primacy to the Greek text of the Creed. Can you give a reference?
From The Father as the Source of the Whole Trinity: The Procession of the Holy Spirit in the Greek and Latin Traditions, issued by the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity (January 1996), which can be found here. [web.archive.org]
Quote
The Catholic Church acknowledges the conciliar, ecumenical, normative, and irrevocable value, as expression of the one common faith of the Church and of all Christians, of the Symbol professed in Greek at Constantinople in 381 by the Second Ecumenical Council. No profession of faith peculiar to a particular liturgical tradition can contradict this expression of the faith taught by the undivided Church.
The point here is that they didn't translate the word at all. The job of the translator is to translate.
Many times, the word count is going to change drastically in translation. Some words do not translate well; others can safely be omitted in translations due to their meaning being nothing but clarification as to which connotation in the original language, but in the target language, that connotation is already subsumed by the word used in translating.
The creed as traditionally translated by the Roman Catholic Church has major issues, to wit, the greek uses a term which explicitly and implicitly means only "flowing from a source" while the latin use Credo uses procedit, which simply means coming from but lacks source. Procedit should have had a clarifying word added (my latin is too weak to know which one), in order to ensure similarity of meaning.
All credal translations suffer from this; the omission of anthropos is a problem; the replacement with mankind is appropriate, but humankind is both more accurate and more literal.
Many times, the word count is going to change drastically in translation.
Aramis,
My wife has been a professional linguist and translator for three decades. She knows a bad translation when she sees one. The RDL version of the Creed is an example of "dynamic equivalence", as opposed to "word-for-word" translation. The problem with dynamic equivalence is the translator gets to impose his understanding of what the text means, removing all discretion from the reader. In fact, badly done (as in the case of the RDL and the NAB), dynamic equivalence can quickly degenerate into paraphrase.
The danger of word-for-word translation is excessive literalism that results in a stilted and potentially incomprehensible text, which is why the good translator is governed by the principle, "as literal as possible, as loose as necessary". Translation is an art form, and the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission was not staffed by artists.
P.S.: "Humankind" is an awkward neologism. The human race is nicely accommodated by the perfectly good English word "mankind". If my wife and daughters don't object, why do you?
... humankind is both more accurate and more literal.
It is neither; just saying it is doesn't make it so. Human/humankind really falls quite short; Mankind/man does the job, especially where the one must stand for the many. So why impose a square wheel when a round one is already in place? Consider these few examples for a bumpy ride through scripture:
Psalm 144:3 O LORD, what is human that You regard him, or the son of human that You think of him?
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make human according to our image and likeness, and let them have dominion...
Exodus 33:20 "But," God said, "you cannot see my face; for human shall not see me and live."
Mark 10:9 What therefore God has joined together, let not human put asunder."
Mark 2:28 so the Son of human is lord even of the sabbath."
Because too many people in my generation and younger understand mankind as the contrary of womankind. Humankind does not.
Neologism or not, it's the best fit to anthropos. And, considering its age to be at least 70 years, linguistically, it no longer truly is a neologism.
Then they understand incorrectly. Your generation is deluding itself and needs to be educated. The cure is to learn the language rather than insisting it be altered to accommodate your misconceptions. Humankind is an old word -- "Date: 1594" (link [merriam-webster.com]). It just wasn't used much, I'd say, for good reason. Mankind/Man is encountered routinely in current movies, adds, newscasts, etc., and wouldn't be used in those instances if it were not understood. The objection that it is not understood is either a conveniently repeated myth or a serious indictment of contemporary education.
Because too many people in my generation and younger understand mankind as the contrary of womankind. Humankind does not.
I am sorry that so many of your generation and younger have received such an inferior education. I will instruct my children not to be so contemptuous of those who use "humankind" from now on. I will explain it is not their fault--they were victimized by teachers's unions, feminists and media outlets.
I'm sorry, but the fact that "mankind" or "man" is now being replaced by "humankind" or other equivalents, does not make ones education inferior or wrong.
The American language and the understanding and use of it is evolving.
I'm sorry, but the fact that "mankind" or "man" is now being replaced by "humankind" or other equivalents, does not make ones education inferior or wrong.
The American language and the understanding and use of it is evolving.
Language is always evolving. But in this case we need to consider that much of this change is not natural, but driven. There is a whole group of people (secular feminists who are definitely not Christians) who are trying to erase understanding of any innate differences between men and women. Gender neutral everything is part of that effort. Such a radical and anti-Christian effort must be opposed.
Further, the Church has a responsibility to lead. After it appeared the King James Bible radically changed the English language for the good, in a sense Christianizing it. What we have with the RDL is (unintentionally and surely well meaning) the Church leading the people further into secularism. If the Church feels that the language is lacking then it has the responsibility to identify potential fixes (new words, or redefined words) and to introduce them. But really there is nothing wrong with Standard English, and it is a matter of education, and educating correctly (i.e., don't leave it up to the public schools to program your kids to think that secularism is normal and preferred and Christianity abnormal and to be avoided).
Finally, the Ruthenian Church just didn't replace "man" with "human" (as Star Trekki as that sounds). It removed an important word from the Creed and changed its meaning, and changed the meaning of a number of terms in the Liturgy (chasing after secular feminists rather than God, and rejecting several Vatican directives).
Matthew 9:6, Gender Neutral Bible: "But that you may know that the Son of Human has authority on earth to forgive sins”—h/she then said to the paralytic—'Rise, pick up your bed and go home.'"
Son of human? How silly does that sound? I guess that is another example of "Pittsburgese" along with "yuns"?
I'm sorry, but the fact that "mankind" or "man" is now being replaced by "humankind" or other equivalents, does not make ones education inferior or wrong.
I'm sorry, but the fact that "mankind" or "man" is now being replaced by "humankind" or other equivalents, does not make ones education inferior or wrong.
The American language and the understanding and use of it is evolving.
Language is always evolving. But in this case we need to consider that much of this change is not natural, but driven. There is a whole group of people (secular feminists who are definitely not Christians) who are trying to erase understanding of any innate differences between men and women. Gender neutral everything is part of that effort. Such a radical and anti-Christian effort must be opposed.
Further, the Church has a responsibility to lead. After it appeared the King James Bible radically changed the English language for the good, in a sense Christianizing it. What we have with the RDL is (unintentionally and surely well meaning) the Church leading the people further into secularism. If the Church feels that the language is lacking then it has the responsibility to identify potential fixes (new words, or redefined words) and to introduce them. But really there is nothing wrong with Standard English, and it is a matter of education, and educating correctly (i.e., don't leave it up to the public schools to program your kids to think that secularism is normal and preferred and Christianity abnormal and to be avoided).
Finally, the Ruthenian Church just didn't replace "man" with "human" (as Star Trekki as that sounds). It removed an important word from the Creed and changed its meaning, and changed the meaning of a number of terms in the Liturgy (chasing after secular feminists rather than God, and rejecting several Vatican directives).
Matthew 9:6, Gender Neutral Bible: "But that you may know that the Son of Human has authority on earth to forgive sins”—h/she then said to the paralytic—'Rise, pick up your bed and go home.'"
Son of human? How silly does that sound? I guess that is another example of "Pittsburgese" along with "yuns"?
John--language changes, regardless of whether it is driven by a need--example: to clarify an ambiguous term or create a word for a new object or idea; or through natural means, such as a contraction or regional variants. It still is change. Neither of these ways of changing a language is bad are they?
I assume that you know these "secular feminists who are definitely not Christians" and what is in their hearts? It's a new one on me that anyone is trying to erase innate differences between women and men. Can you give an example? How is it anti-Christian to use "humankind, humanity, mortal(s), person, people," in place of "mankind, men, or man" where it means all humanity and not just males?
The Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible "Christianized" English? English was unChristian before 1611? What was the change that the KJV gave to English that it didn't have before this version was published? Interesting that you give so much weight to a Protestant work.
Today's New International Version of the Bible, which definitely has been rendered in gender neutral language gives Matthew 9:6 thusly:
6 But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
Can you give me a link to the "Gender Neutral Bible" you quoted? I Googled* it, and couldn't find such an edition. I also Googled* rules for Standard English and couldn't find any. How can something be standard when there are no rules to define it as such?
And finally, I know what the schools are teaching my children, I am an involved parent. They're being taught and they're learning, not being programmed. They do have reason, intellect, understanding, and thoughts of their own, which I hope that they continue to develop as they mature. But thanks for the parenting advice.
*Just in case that new word is unknown: "The verb to google (also spelled to Google) refers to using the Google search engine to obtain information on the Web. A neologism arising from the popularity and dominance of the eponymous search engine, the American Dialect Society chose it as the "most useful word of 2002." It was officially added to the Oxford English Dictionary on June 15, 2006, and to the eleventh edition of the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in July 2006."
You miss the whole point.... The Church either follows the culture or leads the culture. You have just made a case for surrendering the culture.
You also keep skipping the point that the Council of Hierarchs dropped a word form the Creed....
Do I know what is in the heart of secular feminists? Heavens, no. I only know what they say they want to do. Do some reading [adoremus.org].
Was English a non-Christian language before the King James Bible? It certainly was less Christian, and people had less words from the Holy Scriptures on their lips and in their minds. Do a search on "influence of king james bible on English" and you'll come up with a lot of stuff to read. One article started with: "To put words in his mouth. To see the writing on the wall. The salt of the earth. All are familiar phrases. They also have something else in common: They can be found in the Bible, specifically the King James version. There are many more sayings that have become part of everyday English whose origins can be traced to the King James Bible, and the adages are just one example of the extraordinary influence the King James has had on the English language." The KJV influenced not only the way people speak but the way they think and understand. Whole concepts that are Christian became normative for society, concepts that some are attempting to erase.
What benefit does it serve to embrace and adopt the changes forced upon us by the secular feminists? Why not lead the way by educating? You obvious reject the Vatican directive Liturgiam Authenticam. Can you give us a sound theology of why you reject it? So far you've only offered "the word is going that way and we must go with the world".
And finally, I know what the schools are teaching my children, I am an involved parent. They're being taught and they're learning, not being programmed. They do have reason, intellect, understanding, and thoughts of their own, which I hope that they continue to develop as they mature. But thanks for the parenting advice.
Can you give an example of this from their text book?
You miss the whole point.... The Church either follows the culture or leads the culture. You have just made a case for surrendering the culture.
You also keep skipping the point that the Council of Hierarchs dropped a word form the Creed....
Do I know what is in the heart of secular feminists? Heavens, no. I only know what they say they want to do. Do some reading [adoremus.org].
Was English a non-Christian language before the King James Bible? It certainly was less Christian, and people had less words from the Holy Scriptures on their lips and in their minds. Do a search on "influence of king james bible on English" and you'll come up with a lot of stuff to read. One article started with: "To put words in his mouth. To see the writing on the wall. The salt of the earth. All are familiar phrases. They also have something else in common: They can be found in the Bible, specifically the King James version. There are many more sayings that have become part of everyday English whose origins can be traced to the King James Bible, and the adages are just one example of the extraordinary influence the King James has had on the English language." The KJV influenced not only the way people speak but the way they think and understand. Whole concepts that are Christian became normative for society, concepts that some are attempting to erase.
What benefit does it serve to embrace and adopt the changes forced upon us by the secular feminists? Why not lead the way by educating? You obvious reject the Vatican directive Liturgiam Authenticam. Can you give us a sound theology of why you reject it? So far you've only offered "the word is going that way and we must go with the world".
John--why does it have to be either/or? The church has both led and followed society and culture over time, and it's still here. I think that the church needs to be keenly aware of the society and culture in which it lives and operates, in order to be able to speak to that particular culture. And yes, that can mean conforming in some ways to a particular culture.
I don't see any evil plot in replacing words like man or mankind where they are meant to be inclusive of all people with humanity, etc. I know there are groups that have agendas to over throw patriarchal imagery and even maleness in general, but there are groups in the church with agendas as well, some who wish it to be 1962 or 1563 again. In my opinion, neither are good. And I don't agree that it's only secular feminists foisting this on anyone. It's the way the language is moving. So I'll ask again, how is it anti-Christian to use "humankind, humanity, mortal(s), person, people," in place of "mankind, men, or man" where it means all humanity and not just males?
Yes--the bishops, with Rome's approval, dropped a word in the Creed in the RDL, but I don't think that it changed the meaning of that Creed. I wish that they had used a different word for "men" rather than dropping the word altogether. But I think that the meaning is still clear. I don't think that people are stupid enough to think that if they say "for us and for our salvation" that it means only "us" that are in the church building now, or for Catholics only, etc. If that's they case, then one can present the argument that they can think that saying "for us men and for our salvation" only means males or just the males that are at the service now, etc. We could go on ad nauseum.
One of the good things that the Reformation did was to put Scripture into the language that the people could hear and understand and use. I will agree with you there, but I don't think that it Christianized the language, it just gave the Scriptures back to the people. It took much longer for that to happen for Catholics.
LA wants good literal translations--if that can ever be done, it a tall order. Yet the words that it is guiding those who translate are many and varied, and it's very up to those translators to decide which to use. That is where the church has to regard the culture. I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree.
And finally, I know what the schools are teaching my children, I am an involved parent. They're being taught and they're learning, not being programmed. They do have reason, intellect, understanding, and thoughts of their own, which I hope that they continue to develop as they mature. But thanks for the parenting advice.
Can you give an example of this from their text book?
So Stuart, in your opinion, are those parents who send their children to public schools failing as parents, especially in the area of education?
I'm not Stuart, but I think the answer is "it depends". In some place public schools teach values abhorrent to Christians. If, for example, your public school teaches acceptance of homosexuality (and some public schools use texts like "Heather has Two Mommies" and "King and King" in the elementary grades) and you allow it then, yes, you are failing as a parent. That would be one egregious example. Of course, it could be simply that one's local public school can't manage to teach students basic math and reading (Washington, DC schools continue to graduate kids who cannot manage basic reading and writing despite one of the highest spending per student in the country). If you are a parent in such a school and have the resources to send your children elsewhere but don't, then you are a failing parent. Unfortunately many parents in such areas are too poor to pay for private education. Doing all you can possibly do is not failure. [I always remember the one lady from SE Washington, DC interviewed in support of school choice. She said she was a Baptist who sent her kids to Catholic schools not because she wanted them to become Catholic because she wanted them to learn to read and write.]
I don't see any evil plot in replacing words like man or mankind where they are meant to be inclusive of all people with humanity, etc.
Read the Links I gave. Read Liturgiam Authenticam. Thre is plenty of documentation to demonstrate that many of the changes you embrace are not naturally occurring but driven by secular feminist politics. Your decision not to accept evidence does not make the evidence less true.
BTW, in Standard English terms like "man" and "mankind" apply to all men from Adam and Eve to the last child conceived before the Second Coming.
And consider the slippery slope. Many of terms are not meant to be inclusive but to remove differences between men and women. Again, read the links.
And again, the RDL doesn't replace "man" with anything in the Creed. It simply drops the word entirely.
You think everything taught in public schools is bad Stuart?
Two kids through both private and public schools. Sister who is an active teacher in NYC public schools, father a retired principal in NYC public schools. My observation? Pretty much, yes. And remember, my kids went to what is advertised as "the Best Public High School in America".
So Stuart, in your opinion, are those parents who send their children to public schools failing as parents, especially in the area of education?
Many have no choice (which, I guess, is the point). The system is rigged so that those of modest means have to send their children to public schools, regardless of whether the instruction is good, bad or indifferent. It may just be a coincidence that a very high proportion of public school teachers in places like New York City, Washington, DC and Los Angeles, CA send their kids to private schools. It may just be a coincidence that the children of the President of the United States and the grandchildren of the Vice President of the United States, and almost all the children and grandchildren of the 535 Congressmen and Senators all go to private schools--to say nothing of the children of the upper and upper-middle class. But the middle and lower classes need not apply--to public schools you go. A growing number of brave souls are home schooling, and the results they generate seem much superior to public schools as well.
In the ideal world, there would be free and open competition in primary and secondary education, as there is in higher education. Money would be attached to students, not to specific school systems, and parents could use that to send their kids to the school that best suits their needs. Until that time, the public education monopoly, upheld by the iron triangle of teachers unions, the politicians beholden to the unions, and the ed schools, will ensure that even institutionalized mediocrity remains beyond their capabilities. For, as Albert Shanker famously noted, "When students pay union dues, then I'll represent the interests of students".
By the way, I'm a product of the New York City Public Schools myself. The rot was already setting in when I departed, circa 1972.
I don't see any evil plot in replacing words like man or mankind where they are meant to be inclusive of all people with humanity, etc.
Read the Links I gave. Read Liturgiam Authenticam. Thre is plenty of documentation to demonstrate that many of the changes you embrace are not naturally occurring but driven by secular feminist politics. Your decision not to accept evidence does not make the evidence less true.
BTW, in Standard English terms like "man" and "mankind" apply to all men from Adam and Eve to the last child conceived before the Second Coming.
And consider the slippery slope. Many of terms are not meant to be inclusive but to remove differences between men and women. Again, read the links.
And again, the RDL doesn't replace "man" with anything in the Creed. It simply drops the word entirely.
Again John--I know that the RDL doesn't replace "men" (not "man" BTW) with anything, but simply omits it. Did you read what I wrote? I'll paste it here in case you didn't.
"Yes--the bishops, with Rome's approval, dropped a word in the Creed in the RDL, but I don't think that it changed the meaning of that Creed. I wish that they had used a different word for "men" rather than dropping the word altogether. But I think that the meaning is still clear. I don't think that people are stupid enough to think that if they say "for us and for our salvation" that it means only "us" that are in the church building now, or for Catholics only, etc. If that's they case, then one can present the argument that they can think that saying "for us men and for our salvation" only means males or just the males that are at the service now, etc. We could go on ad nauseum."
All these conspiracy theories, it's beginning to sound like the DaVinci Code in here. Yes, there are liberal women who wish to promote their agenda of male=bad and patriarchy=oppression. Frankly John, most of them don't give a fig about the church. Some may even be in the church or on the fringes. It doesn't matter much to me if they are. They have a place in the church just as much as you or Bishop Andrew or any other Catholic does. BTW, I've read Ms. Hitchcock's 1995 article in your link before. I wouldn't consider the Adoremus Bulletin, the pinnacle of linguistic scholarship however, and they too have their own agenda. The CBMW, is this an Evangelical organization? I've never heard of them before. Their core beliefs are interesting. CBMW Core Beliefs [cbmw.org]
I'll ask again, what is the Standard English that you refer to? What are it's rules? And who gets to decide what it is and where it is used?
And finally, I'll ask you John, for the third time: how is it anti-Christian to use "humankind, humanity, mortal(s), person, people," in place of "mankind, men, or man" where it means all humanity and not just males?
Again John--I know that the RDL doesn't replace "men" (not "man" BTW) with anything, but simply omits it. Did you read what I wrote? I'll paste it here in case you didn't.
And that is an example of "dynamic equivalence" translation. "For us and for our salvation" is not the same as "For us men and for our salvation". The translator has departed from the original text in order to impose his understanding of the text upon us. Liturgical translation requires a word-for-word approach. Omitting something substantive, as is done in the RDL, not only alters the meaning, but is done for a reason, that reason being, in this case, to avoid the offensive word "men".
As I said, it's a third rate translation by a bunch of third rate academic wannabees.
As for the rest of your response, it's pretty clear you don't travel much in academic circles, or none of this would seem at all unusual to you.
"Yes--the bishops, with Rome's approval, dropped a word in the Creed in the RDL, but I don't think that it changed the meaning of that Creed. I wish that they had used a different word for "men" rather than dropping the word altogether. But I think that the meaning is still clear. I don't think that people are stupid enough to think that if they say "for us and for our salvation" that it means only "us" that are in the church building now, or for Catholics only, etc. If that's they case, then one can present the argument that they can think that saying "for us men and for our salvation" only means males or just the males that are at the service now, etc. We could go on ad nauseum."
Well, no. There are plenty of people in the Catholic Church who are uneducated and believe that Christ became man only for Catholics. Incorrect texts transmit incomplete and / incorrect doctrine. Making the language less precise and potentially exclusive by dropping "man" (which was ruled "theologically grave") makes the task more difficult.
Originally Posted by John K
All these conspiracy theories, it's beginning to sound like the DaVinci Code in here. Yes, there are liberal women who wish to promote their agenda of male=bad and patriarchy=oppression. Frankly John, most of them don't give a fig about the church. Some may even be in the church or on the fringes. It doesn't matter much to me if they are. They have a place in the church just as much as you or Bishop Andrew or any other Catholic does. BTW, I've read Ms. Hitchcock's 1995 article in your link before. I wouldn't consider the Adoremus Bulletin, the pinnacle of linguistic scholarship however, and they too have their own agenda. The CBMW, is this an Evangelical organization? I've never heard of them before. Their core beliefs are interesting. CBMW Core Beliefs [cbmw.org]
Well, the Vatican does not consider the issue to be one of the DeVinci Code. Hence directives like Liturgiam Authenticam. I suppose you consider Pope John Paul II a conspiracist?
CBMA is an Evangelical Christian organization. Wayne Grudem's review of the NRSV has been praised by many Catholics. Further, the NRSV is the only Bible to have an approval withdrawn for liturgical use once issued (after the Vatican reviewed it, with reasons that include many of those given in Mr. Gudem's article). True, we as Catholics will not agree with everything in their Core Beliefs (they are Protestant). But a good deal of what you see there can be found in Pope John Paul's Mulieris Dignitatem [vatican.va] (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) (although JPII takes it much farther and is loads better).
Originally Posted by John K
I'll ask again, what is the Standard English that you refer to? What are it's rules? And who gets to decide what it is and where it is used?
Standard English is the normative form of English for writing and speaking. It includes grammar, vocabulary and spelling and (to a lesser extent) pronunciation. I learned about it in elementary and high school. There are lots of resources, including writing guides like Fowler's "Modern English Usage" (they are also called "style guides", "writing guides" and "style manuals").
You are, of course, free to reject Ms. Hitchcock's work. But good men like Cardinal Arinzo (retired head of the Congregation of Divine Worship) has spoken highly of her work. He certainly didn't consider her to be a conspiracist. And there are plenty of others who have spoken to the same problems from within the Church (which is why ICEL was gutted and reformed by JPII). Besides, you don't need to be a conspiracist to see that there are those out to change the language to support their politics. Watch most news casts long enough and you fill find we are labeled as "anti-choice" and "anti-abortion" rather then "pro-life" while those who support the murder of the innocents are labeled as "pro-choice". You simply cannot claim that the whole thing is innocent and naturally developing. The evidence shows it is not. He who controls the language controls much. Using "pro-choice" sends a message that abortion is not a moral issue but really about choice. [Look no further then some of the discussions here where I've been chided for being wrong for referring to the 'forces of death' and 'pro-death' in discussing abortion and euthanasia - when in fact all I have done was to use language I garnered from the Holy Father! What does that say?] When society buys into that and frames the debate about choice rather then life and death it is difficult to win back the argument (and they do teach stuff like this in our public schools).
Originally Posted by John K
And finally, I'll ask you John, for the third time: how is it anti-Christian to use "humankind, humanity, mortal(s), person, people," in place of "mankind, men, or man" where it means all humanity and not just males?
I await your responses.
Standard English has "mankind, men and man" all referring to every man born from Adam and Eve forward. I oppose the forced change to drop these terms because those doing it do so in an attempt make the English language gender neutral because their 'theology' is one where men and women are not just equal (as the Church teaches) but identical (sameness). And the evidence shows the change is forced. [And it further shows that the same thing is not happening in languages with similar equivalents of terms like "men" where there is no political push to do so.] So I oppose the changes because they are not natural developing, and the facts show it.
BTW, listen to Ambassador Hillary Clinton next time she speaks. During last year's campaign whenever she read a speech (or prepared remarks) they were written in that politically correct style. But when she spoke "off the cuff" she reverted to Standard English (man, mankind, etc. - inclusive terms for all men from Adam and Eve forward). The agenda all so forced and unnatural. I'm sorry you are unable to see it.
And others (including Rome) will tell you about the various shades of meaning that can be transmitted with the phrase "who for us men and our salvation He became man" that simply does not get transmitted when you either leave out the term "man" or change it to "human", "humankind" or "humanity".
What does "theologically grav"e mean?? Isn't there supposed to be a noun there somewhere. Pronounced by an expert in the English language?? I don't think so, and neither would any English teacher.
I own a grave but there is nothing theological about it.
The military provides a perfect example of the extremes to which gender neutrality can be taken under the goad of radical feminism. At one time, pilotless aircraft and robotic vehicles were called "unmanned air vehicles" (UAVs) and "unmanned ground vehicles" (UGVs) respectively. Today, the official terminology is "uninhabited air vehicles" and "uninhabited ground vehicles". There is a push afoot to find a way to avoid saying "manpower"; "manning" is already giving way to "staffing", and guns and aircraft are no longer manned, but "crewed".
The entire purpose of this futile exercise is, as John noted, to convince people that men and women are more than ontologically equal before God and the law, but effectively identical and interchangeable in every way.
If some people were better catechized, they would recognize this to be a massive distortion of Christian anthropology. Men and women are not identical, but complementary, otherwise why did God go through the trouble of creating them male and female? Once you accept an egalitarian anthropology, there is no way to defend the Christian definition of marriage or the family, the male exclusivity of the priesthood, or any aspect of sexual morality. In short, this sort of radical egalitarianism is acid corroding the foundations of the Church and society. And the insidious thing is most people don't recognize it for what it is, because, to them, it seems innocuous--"It means the same thing", they say. But, semiotically, they don't. And over time, the implications of such changes become embedded in people's attitude and behavior. By which time it is too late.
JohnK had asked about theological objections to changing texts to embrace politically correct language. In rereading the article I referenced addressing the issues caused by the forced gender neutral language in the NRSV I came across the following. But near the end of the article there is a whole list of examples from newspapers (etc.) with examples of the language that John says people are no longer able to understand. I am also reminded of the way we track labor "man hours" at work. No one seems to think that women workers are not tracked or paid. Further, I work with a number of people who happen to be black. The guy in the next office sometimes uses "Yo! Man!" to get the attention of someone. I have yet to hear him or anyone say "Yo! Human!" to get someone's attention. It's just not natural. ["Yo! Human! It's noon. Let's see if the Klingon wants to go to lunch." ]
In addition, the article does provide evidence that at some schools the agenda is forced, and that students are not allowed to use Standard English but much use politically correct English.
Here's the quote from the article:
Quote
1. Renaming "man." The creation narratives tell us that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27, RSV). This name "man" is even more explicit in Genesis 5:2: "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created" (RSV).
The name "man" is placed on both male and female, as together they constitute the human race. The translation "man" is accurate, because the Hebrew word 'adam is also used to refer to Adam in particular, and it is sometimes used to refer to man in distinction from woman (see Gen 2:25, "the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed"). The English word "man" most accurately translates 'adam because it is the only word we have that has those same two meanings (the human race, or a male human being). We can conclude from this usage of 'adam that it is not wrong, insensitive, or discourteous to use the same word to refer to male human beings in particular and to name the human race. God himself does this in his Word.
But in the NRSV the name "man" has disappeared: "so God created humankind in his image" (Gen. 1:27). And God is suddenly found to give a different name to the race: "Male and female he created them, and he...named them 'Humankind' when they were created" (Gen. 5:2, NRSV). (The ncv, CEV, and NIVI have "human beings" here, and the NLT has "human.") The word "humankind" occurs 34 more times in the NRSV, replacing the word "man" with a new name for the human race.
The problem is that "humankind," "human beings," and "human" are not names that can also refer to man in distinction from woman, and thus they are a less accurate translations of 'adam than the word "man." The male overtones of the Hebrew word are lost.
The name given to a person or a thing has great significance in the Bible. The names of God tell us much about his nature (such as "I Am Who I Am," or "the Lord of Hosts"). The names of God's people are often changed (such as Abram to Abraham) to signify a different status or character. Similarly, the name that God gives to the human race is significant. The word "man" for the whole human race suggests some male headship in the race. God did not name the race with a Hebrew term that corresponds to our word "woman," nor did he choose (or devise) some "gender neutral" term without male overtones. He named the race with a Hebrew term that most closely corresponds to our English word "man."
Then why not translate it "man"? Apparently such a precise English equivalent was thought "patriarchal." The "Preface" to the NIVI explains that "it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit" (p. vii). The sentence implies that there is some "patriarchalism" in the text that is not part of the "message of the Spirit." These "patriarchal" elements can be "muted" and the message of the Spirit, apparently, is not harmed. But what if these very same "patriarchal" elements in the text of Scripture are part of what the Holy Spirit intended to be there? If we hold to the absolute divine authority of every word of Scripture, then we should not seek to "mute" any content that the Holy Spirit caused to be there!
Think of the theology, the multiple shades of meaning that is lost when "who for us men and our salvation He became man" is rendered either without the term "man" or with a word like "humankind" or "human".
What does "theologically grave" mean?? Isn't there supposed to be a noun there somewhere. Pronounced by an expert in the English language?? I don't think so, and neither would any English teacher.
Paul,
FWIW, my English teachers instructed me that "an adverb modifies a noun, an adjective or another adverb." As an adjectival phrase, "theologically grave" makes perfect sense, and is similar in construction to "partly cloudy" and "strongly favorable."
As for the noun of which this phrase is predicated, I believe that is the dropping of the word "men" from the Creed.
People who worry about the Church being patriarchal have a serious problem, because, well, the Church is--and always has been--explicitly patriarchal. Not to worry, though--time is on the side of us patriarchalists, because patriarchy has proven to be a remarkably effective and resilient form of social organization (perhaps because it is divinely ordained?), and generally reasserts itself in the wake of any challenge.
This is probably due to demography: people with patriarchal views tend to have more children than those who don't. Those children in turn tend to have patriarchal views, and have more children in turn. On the other hand, not only are the children of non-patriarchalists likely to reject patriarchy in turn, they themselves will have fewer children. In a couple of generations, patriarchy become normative again.
A long way of saying that the temper tantrum that began in the sixties is running out of steam at last.
Only neutered men do such dumb things like changing the language.
It's embarrassing to find that my church has put the politics of liberal feminism above orthodox teaching. Even to the point of neutering the Creed. Shame on them!
JohnK had asked about theological objections to changing texts to embrace politically correct language. In rereading the article I referenced addressing the issues caused by the forced gender neutral language in the NRSV I came across the following. But near the end of the article there is a whole list of examples from newspapers (etc.) with examples of the language that John says people are no longer able to understand. I am also reminded of the way we track labor "man hours" at work. No one seems to think that women workers are not tracked or paid. Further, I work with a number of people who happen to be black. The guy in the next office sometimes uses "Yo! Man!" to get the attention of someone. I have yet to hear him or anyone say "Yo! Human!" to get someone's attention. It's just not natural. ["Yo! Human! It's noon. Let's see if the Klingon wants to go to lunch." ]
In addition, the article does provide evidence that at some schools the agenda is forced, and that students are not allowed to use Standard English but much use politically correct English.
Here's the quote from the article:
Quote
1. Renaming "man." The creation narratives tell us that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27, RSV). This name "man" is even more explicit in Genesis 5:2: "Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created" (RSV).
The name "man" is placed on both male and female, as together they constitute the human race. The translation "man" is accurate, because the Hebrew word 'adam is also used to refer to Adam in particular, and it is sometimes used to refer to man in distinction from woman (see Gen 2:25, "the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed"). The English word "man" most accurately translates 'adam because it is the only word we have that has those same two meanings (the human race, or a male human being). We can conclude from this usage of 'adam that it is not wrong, insensitive, or discourteous to use the same word to refer to male human beings in particular and to name the human race. God himself does this in his Word.
But in the NRSV the name "man" has disappeared: "so God created humankind in his image" (Gen. 1:27). And God is suddenly found to give a different name to the race: "Male and female he created them, and he...named them 'Humankind' when they were created" (Gen. 5:2, NRSV). (The ncv, CEV, and NIVI have "human beings" here, and the NLT has "human.") The word "humankind" occurs 34 more times in the NRSV, replacing the word "man" with a new name for the human race.
The problem is that "humankind," "human beings," and "human" are not names that can also refer to man in distinction from woman, and thus they are a less accurate translations of 'adam than the word "man." The male overtones of the Hebrew word are lost.
The name given to a person or a thing has great significance in the Bible. The names of God tell us much about his nature (such as "I Am Who I Am," or "the Lord of Hosts"). The names of God's people are often changed (such as Abram to Abraham) to signify a different status or character. Similarly, the name that God gives to the human race is significant. The word "man" for the whole human race suggests some male headship in the race. God did not name the race with a Hebrew term that corresponds to our word "woman," nor did he choose (or devise) some "gender neutral" term without male overtones. He named the race with a Hebrew term that most closely corresponds to our English word "man."
Then why not translate it "man"? Apparently such a precise English equivalent was thought "patriarchal." The "Preface" to the NIVI explains that "it was often appropriate to mute the patriarchalism of the culture of the biblical writers through gender-inclusive language when this could be done without compromising the message of the Spirit" (p. vii). The sentence implies that there is some "patriarchalism" in the text that is not part of the "message of the Spirit." These "patriarchal" elements can be "muted" and the message of the Spirit, apparently, is not harmed. But what if these very same "patriarchal" elements in the text of Scripture are part of what the Holy Spirit intended to be there? If we hold to the absolute divine authority of every word of Scripture, then we should not seek to "mute" any content that the Holy Spirit caused to be there!
Think of the theology, the multiple shades of meaning that is lost when "who for us men and our salvation He became man" is rendered either without the term "man" or with a word like "humankind" or "human".
I am not going to discuss this anymore, as all we're doing is moving in circles. As I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. To make things perfectly clear, I'll state my position one last time:
-I do not see a problem with replacing the words "man, men, mankind, etc" where they are referring to all human beings, male and female, with words such as "humanity, humankind, mortals, etc. It does not change meaning, and does not blurr any distinction between the sexes. If the word "man" refers to a male (and especially to Christ), obviously it should be left, I would never agree with that type of revisionism.
John, I never said that people cannot understand. I said that there is a shift away from using "man, etc." as THE term for all humans, male and female. You are being disingenuous and putting words in my mouth when I clearly spelled out what I meant.
To make things perfectly clear, I'll state my position one last time:
-I do not see a problem with replacing the words "man, men, mankind, etc" where they are referring to all human beings, male and female, with words such as "humanity, humankind, mortals, etc. It does not change meaning, and does not blurr any distinction between the sexes. If the word "man" refers to a male (and especially to Christ), obviously it should be left, I would never agree with that type of revisionism.
[emphasis added]
That is the crux of the problem. That interpretation which is now reinforced in meaning in the creed when one drops "men" is NOT WHAT THE CREED IS SAYING. Although true that Jesus is a male, the creed is saying that He became Man -- Adam: a son of the old Adam so that He could provide us the opportunity to become, like Him, the new, second Adam. Fr. Robert Pipta in the catechetical DVD about the RDL takes pains to make that point, and it is well that he does since it is needed after the wrong message is sent by dropping "men." So all is well in creating a problem unnecessarily by dropping "men" based on a fabricated need that caters to a questionable feminist agenda, but then explaining the real meaning that had been obscured by the unnecessary, ill-conceived dropping of a word that is explicitly there in the Creed. There, it's all ok now -- well, no, it isn't. Did the translators not realize this? If they did and changed it anyway, they have shown poor judgment and should not be translating. If they didn't however, then they're incompetent, and shouldn't be translating.
You also fail to take into account that although the substitutions mentioned may work in specific cases, they do not in general. I've given some examples in a previous post. If the language has a word that does do the work, why not use it? There are any number examples where men, man and mankind are used, again as I noted in a previous post, in areas that appeal to children through adults, and the meaning is clear and not questioned. The problem with we don't understand it anymore the language is changing is not that language changes but that one chooses not to understand the language so that the need for change is created and then serves to foster a fabricated need for change. I call that manipulation, a required subterfuge, trying to create a justification for change that is not natural or needed.
This, to me a glaring example, is unfortunately a vignette of the RDL as a whole. How does one call it? Mediocrity? The Ruthenian faithful deserve better already. Excessive mediocrity? Not that the Anaphora be said aloud -- not necessarily a bad thing -- but that it must be only that way and a precondition that becomes the end itself, the driving principle for change, even that one professes to die for, a kind of zealotry. Is that a trusted guide? Absolute mediocrity? Not just the liturgy but an abridged liturgy with no recourse in English to the full, and mandated as an absolute. And, furthermore, you will sing only this way in English against the fullness and diversity in the oral and written traditions on which the chant is based.
Let me offer an alternative; it is called excellence. Why not the best for the Ruthenian, for the Byzantine Catholic Church?
English usage almost always progresses from longer words and phrases to shorter ones. If “humankind” had been in common use it would normally have progressed to “mankind” – not the other way around. Remember how “cellular phones” became “cell phones”? Pretty much everyone now calls them just “cell phones.” If you study the English language you can see where when there were multiple words for the same thing most often the shortest word is the one we use now.
The whole “inclusive language” thing is a political statement. Nothing more. I’m not surprised the bishops made a political statement with the Divine Liturgy. That is what they believe. Spend a few hours in the seminary at some event and you’ll see. There is no room in the church for traditional believers. Our church is gone and they are intent on keeping it dead. Best to leave and start again elsewhere.
What do you know, Melissa? You're just a . . . girl!
Stuart, did you plant your daughter on the forum? Seriously, though, I completely agree with Melissa about the natural evolution of language and the forced nature of "inclusive" language. I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion that we should jump ship and abandon the Church, but give me time and I might be there.
I remember when I was kid, during the 70s, and the first woman mayor was elected to our city. Her legacy, to this day, is having renamed "manhole covers" to "utility covers". This is a legacy that she is proud of. This sort of language has so obviously been forced on us by a small minority. When the Catechism of the Catholic Church came out in the 90s, I took a class as an introduction, and the (male) instructor started out by apologizing for the "sexist" language. Nobody cared, but his apology surely made somebody feel as if he or she should care.
(On another tangent, when did "they" become singular? As in "nobody cared, but his apology surely made somebody feel as if they should care". Why are we so afraid to use the masculine or feminine forms of words? Oh, that's right, the political correctness police are out there!)
As to the person who claimed that younger people don't understand standard English, I feel sorry for their lack of education. They are apparently unable to read anything written prior to the 1970's and understand its full meaning.
She's been here from time to time, but is far too busy to post. Melissa is just another really smart girl who gets it, even if there are a lot of men around who don't have a clue.
An interesting discussion on this matter within the Lutheran church:
Quote
The doctrinal error that results from this omission of the word "men" from the Creed stems from the resulting context. The word "men" in this place in the Nicene Creed confessed the fact that Christ came down from heaven to die and atone for the sins of all people, that is, the whole world, since Christ is indeed the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world." Hence the omission of the word "men" results in a Calvinistic error, namely, the doctrine of a "limited atonement." Calvinists believe that Christ only died to save those who would end up believing (the predestined for salvation). The proposed revision of the Creed opens the way for this because the removal of "men" makes the context revert back to those who say "I believe" or "We believe." Hence "who for us and our salvation" would be defined as, "who for us who believe and for our salvation" rather than all mankind. The consequences of tinkering with the Creed as with poor Bible translations, and in tinkering around with the liturgy are grave indeed. The Creed may indeed need to be translated again from time to time, but not to change its meaning from the original text or to make concessions to liberal theological ideologies. Such playing around goes against pastors' ordination vows, church constitutions, and the teaching of Scripture, since we do subscribe to these confessions without condition ("quia" and not "quatenus").
But assume now this advice is taken and we agree that the Creed should be simply translated rather than revised, what if we end up with something like, "who for us human beings" or something similar to that? One could argue that it is a translation of "anthropous". Wouldn't it be a good translation that is more "gender inclusive"?
A Creed conditioned by the concerns of modern feminism is anachronistic and very likely an ecumenical fad. We need to think about our language in terms of Genesis 1-2. Adam was created first and then Eve. She was made from the rib of Adam. She is described by Adam as "bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh." It is therefore biblical and expressive of the teaching of Genesis to use the term "men" and "mankind" as expressive our creation as male and female in the image of God. To say "mankind" in many ways is to recall that we are "Adam-kind". Consider this portion of Romans 5 in this regard:
A related discussion by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon. For those who believe that the removal of 'man,' was truly the end game of the PC crowd. That they'll now they'll be happy, and leave the rest of the creed alone, it might be instructive to read what followed at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary in Massachusetts.
He Did Become Man A decade or so ago there appeared a new translation of the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom largely produced by the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Seminary in Massachusetts. It was a dreadful piece of work from every perspective.
As one looks over the names of those credited with the effort, it is not difficult to see why this should be so; it contains scarcely a single person who had any business serving on a translation committee. Indeed, I have heard a couple of those folks speak in public, and their everyday English is not better than barely adequate. Even among those few translators who do speak English comfortably as a native tongue, there is no evidence of developed skills in the more refined rhetorical complexities of the language. So it is not surprising that the Holy Cross translation, now in use for more than a decade in the Greek archdiocese, is positively abysmal, nor is it marvelous that some priests would prefer to stick with the original Greek. Personally, I would.
One could wish, moreover, that mere linguistic ineptitude were the translation’s only shortcoming. The major complaint to be raised is not simply its style, but rather its clear, if still inchoate, adherence to “politically correct” usage. Traditionally, you see, Eastern Orthodox Christians, along with all other bodies that use the Nicene Creed, have proclaimed that in the Incarnation the eternal Son of God “for us men and for our salvation . . . became man.” In the Holy Cross version, however, the word men was dropped from that creedal statement, out of an unwarranted respect for the feelings of those unhappy with the word men being used for human beings.
That was, I submit, a step in the wrong direction. At the very least, it showed some very shallow thinking within the faculty of Holy Cross Seminary and a lamentable inattention to dogma within the Orthodox hierarchy. We are talking here about an actual change in the Nicene Creed, and Orthodox bishops are supposed to be sensitive on that subject. Oh, where was Saint Mark of Ephesus this time around?
Evidently unchallenged, that initial aberration took the next logical step a couple of years ago with yet another translation, a “trial version” submitted to the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA). Invariably copying the crudeness of the Holy Cross version, this one ingressed even further in the direction of political correctness by altering the Creed’s affirmation that the Son of God “was made man” to “became human.” The identical change was made in several other places where the Divine Liturgy speaks of the Incarnation.
Fortunately for the Orthodox Church, however, this time the translators overplayed their hand, for there was spontaneous outrage from both clergy and congregations as soon as the new version became known. Several bishops spoke openly against it, and others, apparently a large number, privately expressed a resolve to kill the thing. Except for a few complaints that I was being too harsh, my detailed criticism in The Christian Activist, with a circulation of 65,000, has so far gone unanswered. The SCOBA project now seems to be dead, a circumstance at which the righteous may rejoice.
Much as I truly wish someone would, I am not overly surprised that no champion has yet come forward, in an Orthodox publication, to defend “became human” as a proper translation. To substitute the feeble adjective human for the powerful noun man represents a major break with the sense of the Creed. The Greek active aorist participle enanthropesanta is a Christian term, unique and specifically crafted to describe the Incarnation. Its faithful translation requires not only a resolve to avoid the faintest influence from any non-Christian ideology, but also the strictest possible adherence to the older, traditional translation of the Creed.
The Latin, for example, broke the Greek word down into its components and arrived at homo factus est. It did not employ the adjective humanus, but the noun homo, “man.” In fidelity to that rendering, the traditional English translations followed suit.
“Human” is a static, descriptive word, while the active participle enanthropesanta is not a description but an identifying deed. Truth to tell, there were early heresies that would have been satisfied to describe Christ as “human” without saying that he “became man.”
The intention of the Nicene Creed is to do much more than describe Christ. It affirms the single and singular divine act by which God’s Word became a specific, individual member of the human race—that God‘s eternal Son is now man—that he has forever entered human history as the defining participant in its destiny.
As one looks over the names of those credited with the effort, it is not difficult to see why this should be so; it contains scarcely a single person who had any business serving on a translation committee. Indeed, I have heard a couple of those folks speak in public, and their everyday English is not better than barely adequate. Even among those few translators who do speak English comfortably as a native tongue, there is no evidence of developed skills in the more refined rhetorical complexities of the language. So it is not surprising that the Holy Cross translation, now in use for more than a decade in the Greek archdiocese, is positively abysmal, nor is it marvelous that some priests would prefer to stick with the original Greek. Personally, I would.
With a few judicious transpositions--Pittsburgh for Holy Cross, Ruthenian and Slavonic for Greek--this bears a remarkably close parallel to the RDL.
So why, once the translations have been put in this rough form--poor English--do the translators not look for people with a background in writing Standard English, people without the bias of feminist language, to bring the final product up to the elegance that liturgical translations ought to have?
So why, once the translations have been put in this rough form--poor English--do the translators not look for people with a background in writing Standard English, people without the bias of feminist language, to bring the final product up to the elegance that liturgical translations ought to have?
Or is that too easy?
BOB
Sadly, I don't think they cared much about accuracy in the translation. The inclusive language is an example of a predetermined agenda. I happen to agree with the Lutheran author I quoted above that the dropping of men from (for us men) tends toward heresy (i.e. that Christ did not die for all).
Way too easy. In the first place, professional translators will tell you the best predictor of aptitude for translation is reading comprehension scores, not in the language one is translating, but the language into which one is translating. That is, a person in the top 5% in reading comprehension in English will make a better translator from, e.g., Russian into English, than someone who is a "native speaker" of Russian who lacks that reading comprehension skill. The situation is worse in the case of a literary language such as Slavonic, which is not spoken, since the skills one brings to learning it are essentially those one has in one's native tongue (e.g., English).
Most people who try to translate have both an exalted opinion of their own felicity in the original language as well as their competence in the language of the translation (e.g., English). Most people, (surprisingly, including a high proportion of academics), are not particularly good writers, largely because they are not particularly good readers. They do not know how to read a document closely, thus they do not really understand what they read. Thus, they cannot grasp nuance, or distinguish between sentences that are similar but which can mean distinctly different things. When translating from one language to another, they are insensitive factors such as word ordering, idiom, metaphor, genre and modalities. On top of this, the inability to grasp the meaning of the original text--or conversely, its ambiguities--results in the erstwhile translator writing down what he thinks the text says (or worse, ought to say), as opposed to what it does say.
The idea of having an English stylist review a translation is an excellent one, which is frequently followed by the best translators even if they have (as the best translators usually do) an excellent grasp of English style. A second, preferably fresh) set of eyes on the material is always a good idea, and can catch some egregious howlers.
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 - 1996-2026 (Forum 1998-2026). All rights
reserved.
]
