www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology horizontal gender inclusive language in the Liturgy

I take it there are no provisions for "now unto the ages of ages, Amen" to replace now and forever and ever."
The decision to 'dox should be based on more than a flight from externals. If you away from your wife everytime she forget to empty the dishwasher...

Bravo Pyrohy!

But to finish the thought, ... you will wind up having a whole series of wives and no marriage.

Uprooting and lack of commitment feed on themselves. This is why, in the US, half of all marriages end in divorce, but over 80% of first marriages endure until death.

Externals represent what you believe. The liturgy is not a show, it's the primary practical application of the church's theology.

Watch where gender inclusive language spreads, and follow what the people end up believing.

You'll probably notice a trend.

Andrew

djs:

"Fr. Taft's comments . . . he considers those who object to horizontally inclusive language as having the political agenda."

Doesn't that beg the question?

Why would I or others like me have the political agenda when it is for those who are pushing this false "inclusiveness" to justify why they are doing it? It's not the people who object to the politicization of the language to show why they object; it's for those who suddenly have found this new "revelation" to demonstrate the why they should be listened to or accepted.

An article that is long since gone from me, written by a Benedictine priest who had been a university-level professor of English for 50 years by the late 1960s when I was but a neophyte in language studies, made the point that English was an inclusive language from its origins and that the then-fledgling feminist claims that it was not were ridculous on their face and politically motivated. The problem is that communication runs the risk of being completely shut down since no one knows what is acceptable usage. It has become a moving target.

For the Latins, there is hope, though. There is a private translation of the Liturgy of the Hours that is being published in parallel English and Latin form to demonstrate that it is possible to render liturgical books accurately without resorting to the linguistic gymnastics of feminist language. There is also a non-feminist translation of the Scriptures that still has official approval: the Ignatius Revised Standard Version of 1965/66 with the imprimatur of Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston.
____________________________________________

On another tangent--if you will indulge me--

Am I off the wall again--been accused of that many times --or does it seem that the BCA is on a mission to self-destruct?

I won't even begin to completely catalogue the many things that people post about here that are driving people out. But things like forced church closings, entirely new music imposed, and translation wars don't exactly fill the pews. They do serve to alienate those filling the pews. It's a little different in the Latin Church--we seem to be big enough to have these types of wars and still hold enough options to give people a chance to go elsewhere before jumping ship. But in a smaller house . . . !?!?!

In any event, don't think that I don't sympathize, empathize and pray for those who must struggle in their pilgrim journey with all these issues. You're not alone. When you think that things are beyond your strength, remember that there is one man out here who includes all of you in his daily prayers--that each of you will have the grace of perseverence to the end (that the Lord says will make Him recognize you as one of His own).

In Christ,

BOB

Oh, make no mistakes. I think even horizontal inclusive language is a joke (look at what it is called, a joke on its own).
The last court document I saw was for a women and it said her name and below it it said he. The court here doesn't make concessions for what gender the recipient of the summons is.

Not really. As Im's quotes from he OED suggests, whatever the case in the late 1960's or the 1970's, the present situation is that the use of exclusive language, absent a compelling rationale, is sub-standard in formal English. Whether one likes it or not. So the burden is on those who would like to deviate from from present, standard, formal English.

There are reasonably reasons to justify the use of archaic forms. Most importantly I think is the capture of the overtones of typology. On the other hand, some of the claims along these lines seem to be mostly linked to trying to fight feminism and to deny this change of standard English. If concerns were expressed with specificity and cogency they would likely have more impact than they do when given as broadsides against feminism. What does that fight have to do with our translations? Do you really think that the broad feminist agenda has traction in our church?

I don't see a need for war on the translation. If anything I would wish for a better literary style and more antiphon verses. And Fr. Petras thanked me for all of the comments that I passed along to him; I assume that anyone who wants to give serious input can. The "entirely new music" I welcome with great enthusiasm. Because that music is a better representation of our tradition, from Slavonic into English, than the earlier (1960-70's) attempts. And I convinced that anyone who wants to take a red pen to settings coming out of the MCI will, like me, receive a hearing. Finally, I think that church closings are a tragedy. At the same time I realize from experience that those involved are very emotional about it - so much so that it is hard to get a good read on all the factors in play from early, first-person accounts.

A mission to self-destruct? Well I suppose that you might think so from the kvetching that goes on here. But there are far more folks are trying to contribute whatever they can toward building up, than the few who are stuck on their own way and think the worst evil of anyone who has any other perspective. One thing we would all agree on, however, is to appreciate your sympathy, empathy, and most of all your prayers.

And "Blessed is the three" - use of a singular verb with a plural noun intentional!

As I posted back during the original discussion, I spoke with several experts in Slavonic who indicated that �good� is a more accurate word, so I recanted my support for �gracious� and embraced the word �good�. �Gracious� comes from �gratia� which is �good will� and related to �grace�. �Good� comes from �holy�. They are not unrelated and one can perhaps see why the 1964 translators used the term �gracious�.

As always, I am open to being shown that my position is incorrect. If you can show me that 1) the phrase �for He is good and loves mankind� is unintelligible by most Americans; 2) that the other Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) are incorrect in using �for He is good and loves mankind�; and 3) that, if their decision to use �for He is good and loves mankind� is a legitimate translation, there is a compelling reason for us not to match the translations of our fellow Byzantines, I am willing to listen.

Regarding �he� being replaced with �Christ�, the experts I have consulted have all said the same thing. �Jako blah� is definitely masculine and would normally translate with the pronoun �he� in a prayer like the dismissal prayer we are discussing. Again, I am open to hearing your reasoning that the use of �he� is not acceptable and that is so unacceptable that a change is required. When one examines this suppression of Christ�s masculinity together with many of the other places (especially in the troparia translations) where Christ no longer becomes �man� but only a �mortal� (which could mean not a man but merely a monkey or a human) it is absolutely necessary for the translators to defend their suppression of the word �he� in this phrase, as well as their suppression of the inclusive �loves mankind� with the arbitrary and potentially exclusive �loves us all�. When one examines all of the changes together it certainly seems like there is a political agenda to suppress masculine references to Christ.

[Theophan offered an excellent response but I would like to add my own response.]

No, it would not be worth it. There is a major problem with inclusive language that seeks to feminize (or at least neuter) God. God has revealed himself in a male context. Divine Revelation cannot and should not be brushed aside in favor of agendas, even those that claim to be compassionate. We do not reinvent God in an image to present to people �where they are at�. We lead people from where they are at to God as He has revealed Himself to us.

The Father has revealed himself as �father�. Masculine. No one has seen the Father so we do not apply to him race or ethnicity. Christ � God the Son � was born in the flesh and walked among men. He was revealed as a Semitic male. Truth and accuracy trump everything. Even the false privilege that Bob is creating so that he can knock it down.

Those who are interested can study the writings of Pope John Paul the Great on Christian feminism (which is entirely different than secular feminism), as well as those of those who have become known as �John Paul Feminists�. There is a huge difference between secular feminism and Christian feminism.

Father Robert Taft, SJ, is a very talented individual and has done much for the Church. He is very much a �liberal Jesuit� in the 1970s style. Like many other good people, he seems to have bought into the politically correctness from that era that Rome is trying to correct with directives like �Liturgicam Authenticam�.

I am not sure that I agree with djs that Fr. Taft accuses people who object to horizontally inclusive language as having a political agenda. My conclusion from what he has written and spoken on the topic is more along the lines that he embraces it only because he believes that the English speaking world has embraced it. People isolated in academia always seem to believe such things, but they simply are not true.

This discussion about the meaning of words and the agendas of various groups is very much part of the whole process of translation. Those who push the inclusive language agenda buy into the idea that a translation is good not when it accurate and understandable, but only when it is not offensive to whatever society is offended by at the moment. Since DJS has indicated clear support for many forms of inclusive language it is not surprising that he would advise us to go the way of the secular culture with our liturgical translations. His call not to be political is really a call to accept his politics as the starting point for a quality translation. I invite him to consider that it is those who are introducing inclusive language into the Ruthenian Church who are the ones introducing politics.

djs� statement is incorrect. Only people in certain parts of academia who are isolated from the real world think that people actually speak like that (or demand such accommodation of language to agenda). One can see the secular feminist agenda at work in the re-labeling of traditional inclusive language (like �man� and �mankind�) as somehow now exclusive. One updates translations for accuracy and understandability (as language progresses). One does not update them because some with agendas choose to find perfectly good words as somehow offensive. No, the claim that traditional language has overnight gone from inclusive to exclusive comes from the same camp that claims that �Merry Christmas� ought to be banned from our schools and society because it excludes non-Christians.

While there are certainly some in our Church who embrace the broad secular feminist agenda there is a small but growing number who embrace the Christian feminist agenda. [Catherine Tkacz is a Byzantine Catholic who has written extensively on this issue.] The major example of buying into the feminist agenda is the liturgical books produced by the Sisters of Saint Basil. One can easily see that they purposely replaced the term �man� with either �one� or �all� (and sometimes �human�, and etc.). One can only assume that at least the editors of those editions bought into the secular feminist claims that �man� and "mankind" has gone from including women and children to excluding them.

What does this have to do with our translations? I do not believe that any member of the translation committee has knowingly and openly embraced the secular feminist agenda. But I do believe that there are a few members of that committee who wrongly believe (like djs) that we ought to accommodate this agenda and embrace it. I�d have to think about it and it is a good question. I wonder how much the translation commission�s embracement of inclusive language is a capitulation to the secular forces and how much is rooted in the desire of �second-class Catholics� to be accepted by what is perceived 9wrongly) to be the way of the larger society? Perhaps they will stop and study both the �Liturgical Instruction� as well as �Liturgiam Authenticam� and rethink their position. I support a new edition of the Liturgicon, but one with only necessary changes to the text to correct errors and together with the traditional rubrics.

Brother Theophan,

Could you identify this source ? I am very interested.

"For the Latins, there is hope, though. There is a private translation of the Liturgy of the Hours that is being published in parallel English and Latin form to demonstrate that it is possible to render liturgical books accurately without resorting to the linguistic gymnastics of feminist language".

I was going to add the "Benedictine Daily Prayer" to my collection...until I found that it uses the inclusive Grail Psalter and NRVS text...I would expect more from the Benedictines...

james

I am glad that you remember the previous discussion. In that discussion, the same person who pointed out your error on gracious also indicated that in the Slavonic and in the Greek there was neither the noun Christ nor the pronoun He in the quoted part of the exclamation. You now criticize the use of "Christ" over "He" as somehow being inaccurate. But if indeed neither word is in the Greek or Slavonic this criticism is hollow. You also state that the use of "Christ" be seen as a denial of Christ's maleness". But as I said, this argument is specious given that Mary is referred to as "His mother" in the same sentence.

I am not taking up the issue of which word choice is better. I am merely objecting to your claims about it, in particular the claim that "be seen as a denial of Christ's maleness". I think it is important to vitiate this claim and any correlate suggestions raised on this thread that those working on the liturgy have any such clearly heretical agenda.

I have? I think that you are utterly mistaken on this point. IIRC the only specific personal preference that I have given is to prefer "Lover of man" over both "loves mankind" or "loves us".

What I support, absent a compelling reason to oppose, is the work of our bishops, scholars, and rank and file on the liturgical commision. I think that they are working as best as they can for all of the souls in this church. And if what they come up with goes against my personal preferences, then I expect that I will be able to develop the serenity to accept it anyway, and not try to work my own will. Especially by, for example, baselessly raising the specter of theological error.

My statement was a reprise of what Im quoted from the OED, which tends to monitor English usage rather carefully. On the last go round, I looked on line at a large number of writing manuals for publications, corporations, etc. Didn't find any that advocated against the use of "inclusive" language. I don't know what informs your opinion, but I'd be interested in hearing it.

More importantly, my comments have been about standard, formal, written English. Not how people speak. What an idea! In previous discussions the notion has been raised that the spoken language (of the playground and jailyard no less) provides the proper indication of "usage". Great. Wouldn't "yinz" be just perfect for the liturgies of Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. Let's stick to how people write, formally; not how "people actually speak".

I hope all such people will leave their political agendas out of the liturgics.

There is some, but not much, of the broad feminist agenda that I would embrace. I don't believe that we should accomodate anything other than the actual vernacular in translating into the vernacular. I am not interested in people of either side trying to twist the translation for political purposes. And I am opposed to people puffing up their political agendas to wondeer about the bad faith of those who come to different conclusions.

The idea of "capitualtion to secular forces" is an interesting one. The moment that one accepts the idea of translation into the vernacular, then one has to accept this captitualtion at some level, since secular forces contribute heavily toward driving the evolution of the vernacular language. This problem was deflty avoided in the past by sticking to languages that had, at most, limited secular use. Administrator: if you want to know my true preference, it is to go back to OS and avoid all of the problems of translation into a rapidily evolving language like English. That would solve the "new music problem", handily too.

Yes, I believe it is inaccurate. One Slavonic scholar I have consulted has told me that (as I pointed to above) that in a translation of a lengthy passage (in this case a prayer) the words �jako blah� are usually translated with the pronoun �he�. What is the justification for changing from �he� to the proper name? Standard English does not usually repeat the subject twice in the same sentence. It uses pronouns when needing a reference to the subject.

Since I have made no charges of heresy against anyone it seemed logical that you were supporting the revisited language. In rereading my posts I think the harshest thing anyone can accuse me of is criticizing the replacement of clear and concise language with language that may be misunderstood in a manner which is heretical. Christ becoming a �man� is clear and understandable. Christ becoming a �mortal� introduces arbitrariness where there was none before. And that�s a bad idea.

First, your suggestion that I am somehow accusing the commission of not working as best as they can for all the souls in the Church is offensive. Nothing I have written condemns anyone. In at least every third post on the topics touching on the Revised Liturgy I have praised the commission members for their hard work and good intentions. I only seek (at great length) specific reasoning for the proposed changes. As a member of this Church I have such a right. There are too many people in our society who equate intellectual disagreement with condemnation of individuals. There are also too may people who purposely seek to stop intellectual discussions with accusations that they somehow are attacks on people.

Regarding personal preferences, it seems that the whole proposed revision to the Liturgy is nothing more than the personal preferences of a few forced upon the many. Those proposing the revisions have yet to provide any compelling explanation that supports the revisions. The explanations provided so far rise no higher than personal preferences. Are you really suggesting that those of us who seek to embrace a very full Ruthenian recension (as we have received it) are guilty of personal preference that can be easily dismissed while those seeking revision have motives that cannot possibly be rooted in personal preference?

A reasonable point about spoken language. I jumped to my conclusion before I laid the groundwork. The point I was making is that there is an influence of spoken and written language on each other. People outside academia are just not embracing such things as using �he or she� the first time round and then �she or he� the second time round (and etc.). Most people still write pretty much as they speak but add the formality of written English. And written English is far from rejecting the expressions the secular feminists find so offensive (and which the Christian feminists do not find offensive).

I read quite a bit � including newspapers, magazines, engineering/computer journals, medical journals (mostly pub med type stuff), theological and philosophical journals, literature and even fiction (classic and modern mysteries). There are a few writers who show an obvious bent towards the secular feminist inclusive language, but for the most part I see almost exclusively continued use of �man�, �men� and �mankind�; �man hours�, �man power� and etc. (including writers and speakers who happen to be female). [Except, of course, in San Francisco, where I understand they are using tax dollars to replace manhole covers because they had the word �manhole� on them and someone found it offensive.]

I�m glad you find the idea interesting! I highly recommend learning about it and looking for it. Those pushing it include groups like the teacher�s unions (who have made it very difficult, if not impossible, for many teachers to wish their students a �Merry Christmas!�). The fight on this issue is, it seems to me, still very much in the early stages. It makes no sense to abandon a perfectly intelligible translation for one in a style of English that is highly controversial. If we had some words (or phrases) that were simply unintelligible I could understand and support some of the changes. But that is not what we have with the proposed Revised Liturgy.

I can sympathize. Sometimes I pop in a tape of one of the Divine Liturgies I made in my home parish when I was a kid. They were in Church Slavonic until I was a senior in high school and they were wonderful. [I would choose the �Slavonic High Mass� over the current liturgical rubrics anyday.]

If there is a ROCOR parish in your area I highly suggesting visiting it. I try to keep the old calendar fixed feasts at the parish in Washington, DC (or wherever I happen to be traveling). The Vigil (Vespers & Matins) is a wonderfully prayerful service. I always chuckle because I can sing all the common parts in Slavonic yet often stumble when it�s in English because their translation is noticeably different that the OCA versions I am used to. Maybe we can all move to Moscow, Idaho and take over the ROCOR parish and celebrated all the Divine Services in Slavonic with Prostopinije!

Then let's refrain from wondering who is advancing a subversive agenda, who feels second class and has to ape the Latins (or the EO's for that matter). I think that it is worthwhile to be careful about these things so that folks like Bob and others don't get a bad and IMO very wrong impression about what we are doing liturgically.

The problem is that the tactic of attacking indviduals to win an argument, although old, has been raised to an art form in the age of mass communications.

No. I don't think that much of anything can be "easily" dismissed within our tribe. I think, however, that the preferences, however informed, of those on the liturgical commission, are, by virtue of their position, going to prevail. And that absent flat-out error (like denying the maleness of Christ), I am prepared to accept the results - even the pedestrian language; even strange words like "allurement", which I think means "allure". And I will work as much as I can to make our liturgies wonderful and, as incognitus allowed, fun.

LOL. I have had this same experience. And still can't keep straight the English for Chestnishuju... or the things we never said in English, like "Jelicy", "Velichanije", etc.

Hold on with this revisionism. The earlier suggestion - I distinctly recall it - was that we all move to Montana. And my personal preference happens to be that we keep to that original idea.

I agree - I don't like inclusive language, horizontal or vertical, either. Why don't we just use "she" and "her" to refer to women AND men? It would make life a lot simpler. And "she" includes the word "he" so no problem, right?

I have a few comments from quickly reviewing the board on this issue.

First, it has been suggested that my motive for thinking that the so called inclusive language is not a good idea is sexist, ie, I am a white male who oppresses those not like me. Let's suppose that could be my motive (although my wife resented that comment!) Are the Vatican's reasons (as set forth in Liturgiam Authenticum) for not wanting those changes also sexist? Was the Apostle Paul sexist? Were the Fathers of the Church from whom we received the deposit sexist. I assure you that the feminists who began taking objection to the "sexist" language in the secular society think the Popes, Paul and the Fathers were all sexist.

However, since Rome does not want these changes in translation in the Roman Rite, what distinguishes us from them, so that we Byzantines should have them?

I don't agree that inclusive language is common usage. That is a debatable question. So if it is not common, why do you want to adopt it? If you think it is common, then it seems you must agree that the entire Scripture ought to be translated because it too is being misunderstood.

Here is an example why not to make the change in Scripture. The passage below is from Galations.


"Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. 24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28* There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.


According to St. Paul, we are now all sons, and therefore heirs with the Only Son! Was Paul sexist? No. We are all sons because we have put on Christ (who is the only Son of God) and therefore, there is no longer male and female. Because all who have put on Christ are sons of God, Paul can refer to the Galatians, throughout his letter, as brethren. The Catholic Catechism makes the same point.

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians...they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."

If you correct this language, you miss a big point. Furthermore, you will also change the deposit of faith in some way. What we have received in this deposit, we are not free to tweak. The question is, therefore, are we tweaking the language or is this an authentic development of the Christian message? Paul has told us that in Christ there is no longer male or female. The feminists are telling us that male and female are not different. Those two claims are not the same.

It also seems that there was an acknowledgment that this modern change in language started with the feminist movement. Because that movement has brought us wholesale abortion and contraception, I think it wise to look at it and its "fruits" with a little suspicion, and with Rome in Liturgiam Authenticum (LA) , I hesitate to adopt its language, however prevalent it may be. LA stated: "Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission."


Fianlly, are those orders in the Church who are pushing for the adoption of inclusive language reproducing themselves spiritually? Look at the Jesuits. I don't see that they are attracting many new vocations. I don't think this is accidental.