I was just reading the article by Father David Petras in the recent paper. He titles it “The First Reform of the Liturgy.” What he writes is really has nothing to do with mandated liturgical reform of a Revised Divine Liturgy that was created by a committee. The early Christians did not look at the political winds and re-write their worship service for whatever the then current Woodstock generation was. They did not take what was sacred and make it profane. They did exactly the opposite. He is right in saying the early Christians were counter cultural. So why is the Petras Liturgy so Woodstock cultural?

We used to talk about the dark days under Metropolitan Stephen. Communicating infants and cross-kissing could get one a priest transferred to the boonies. We carried on hoping for better times. Judson was like a Prague spring. And we know he would not have promulgated the RDL. He exploded in anger the first time it was tried with the horrid Thompson music at the seminary. Now, under Archbishop Basil & the other bishops times are darker still. We pray and wait for a real Spring, when the Liturgy can be Byzantine again. When our Liturgy is purified from the Woodstock generation. When Roman Catholics are not put in charge of our music.

There was nothing wrong with the Byzantine Liturgy that we had. There was no just reason to ruin it. I pray the bishops will fire all involved in manufacturing the Revised Divine Liturgy and replace it with our Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. The 1964 and the music that went with it was perfect when you compare it to what they promulgated.

Oh please! Would you stop with the "Met. Judson wouldn't have" stuff already. Did you go to the 75th anniversary liturgy in Pittsburgh? It was a lot of the RDL already being rolled out. Did you hear the "our bishop X, who God loves" in the litanies and great entrance that was eventually returned back to "our God loving bishop X?" If Met. Judson hadn't died, the RDL would have been out a lot sooner.

I was at the 75th that John K mentions. A few bits from the RDL were certainly used (mostly rubrics). And using the "Whom God loves" in reference to the bishops was so controversial and ridiculed it eventually was dropped (it just wasn't a great translation). [Had the new texts, rubrics and music been available to the Church for review they would not have been promulgated in the form they were promulgated.] But the texts and music used by the people at the 75th were what they knew (the 1965), so his claim that a lot of that was RDL is not accurate. No one really knows what would have happened. I personally believe that Metropolitan Judson would have respected both the Liturgical Instruction (1996) and Liturgiam Authenticam (2001). As it is the bishops have openly rejected these directives. I also believe that Metropolitan Basil would not have promulgated the RDL on his own accord. The force behind it (at the level of bishop) is Bishop Pataki, who wanted a "Third Way" that (among other things) would change our Liturgy so that we could never merge with either other Greek Catholics or the Orthodox. Unity with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox) is important and the RDL destroys such unity. Accurate translations are also important, and we have seen how even the now retired head of the Congregation of Divine Worship noted doctrinal problems with the style of paraphrasing the Commission used.

As to the article I read it last night. I will first give credit to Father Petras for the effort in writing articles for so many years. I often disagree with him (logical since I support o/Orthodoxy in Liturgy by following the Vatican directives and he rejects o/Orthodoxy in Liturgy, and has dismissed the referenced directives as bad theology). I certainly admire his "stick-to-it-ness" over the years.

The title of the article is "The First Reform of the Liturgy" and he includes some interesting bits of history. He does not, however, make any attempt (scholarly or otherwise) to link the current reform that produced the RDL to what he considers reforms of the early Church. Or, to put it another way, after the title he makes no attempt either to state the case or to support such a premise. And in some of the points he tries to make he does so with extreme examples from either end while ignoring the more commonly accepted middle ground entirely (probably because it does not support his goal for the article? - a common tactic of many writers). Indeed, one can look at the way Liturgy developed over time in Byzantium. Yes, you can certainly find examples of where something was mandated (the addition of "Only Begotten Son", for example). But for the most part Byzantium Liturgy developed & changed organically over time, and when the liturgical books were updated they were mostly just documenting what had already been accepted for a long time. To call the development of Liturgy in the early Church "reform" is rather odd (since scholars generally call it "development" or something similar). But one certainly cannot say that such development is the same as Father David advancing his personal agenda for radical change in the Liturgy with the RDL. In the end Father Petras has never offered any serious scholarship for the changes made with the RDL (and I include his book on the matter for it just merely describes the changes without justifying them). His articles come across as from a man who is serious and well-intentioned in his efforts but one who is grasping at straws because he knows scholarship does not support the positions he advances (even Father Robert Taft, SJ has condemned the RDL) and that what he has advanced has greatly harmed the Church.

I will "bite my tongue" regarding Bishop Pataki. But I included it in the quote to state that I agree, he was the driving force in this.

It is interesting, however, that after the promulgation, ACROD had Prof. Thompson at one of their clergy meetings, each priest received one of the "Teal Terror" books, and ACROD discussed utilizing it as well. I know that some of the "outrage" that has been expressed here for translations, was heard.

John--the 75th Liturgy was almost identical to what was being used in Passaic at the time, and what was being used in Passaic ***is not that far off*** from the RDL of today. (I was not talking about the majority of translations/texts or music, just rubrics. I'm sorry that I wasn't clear enough on that.) The Passaic liturgy was certainly not in use in the Archdiocese of Pittsburgh then, so I'm sure that it was a culture shock to people from that diocese who were there. And let's not forget, no matter who translated, collated, revised, reviewed, or corrected the RDL, Rome approved it. Once more for emphasis: Rome approved it, and allowed the bishops to promulgate it. And that is what matters.

There's a lot of personal assumptions, charges, and implied insider knowledge, presented as factual, in your post too, with nothing to back it up. I don't want to get into a tit for tat, but you seem to be doing the same thing that you charge Father David with.

I'll say it again as I have before on this forum, I have no stake in this issue anymore, because, like you, I no longer attend a church in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. I'll also say this, I do understand your hurt and feelings of being betrayed and your loss of what you knew as the Liturgy, but I no longer see anything constructive coming out of these discussions. Any healing of the wound the RDL may have caused some people is constantly being reopened here.

I tried to be charitable, and I hope I succeeded. John K

That's a little bit like Marion Barry's claim that DC was a perfectly safe place, if you ignored all the killings. It's the translation, far more than the rubrics, that are unacceptable in the RDL (the music is another issue, but can be considered separately from the texts).


You assume that anyone in authority even read it. Or that if they did, they had any competence to pass judgment. Father Taft, one man whose opinion I value, has indicated he was instructed only to review the text for "heresy", and not to comment on the accuracy or aesthetics of the text itself. His recent statements on the issue, though guarded and eliptical, leave no doubt that he has serious problems with the RDL.

Note that Rome did not approve any changes to the propers of the Liturgy--the troparia, kontakia, prokimena, irmoi, etc.--which have been promulgated by the Metropolia without formal review (and it is interesting that the RDL versions of the propers show even greater deviation from the Slavonic text than does the fixed part of the Liturgy). Rome also did not approve the music nor the Metropolia's attempt to impose one particular musical style upon all its churches. In short, the RDL was pushed through the Oriental Congregation with heavy lobbying on the part of a few Ruthenian clerics who had a personal commitment to the project. It has never received any scholarly review.


And that's what's wrong with the Ruthenian Church as a whole--like the spinster getting long in the tooth, she's all too "willing to settle". If something is defective, it will remain defective no matter how many times people say, "but Rome approved it". The damage that bad liturgy does will continue to happen whether we acknowledge the elephant in the bedroom or not. Pretending there is no problem does not settle the problem, it only postpones and exacerbates judgment day when it finally arrives.

It (the Passaic liturgicon) is quite far off from the main points of contention concerning the RDL. I'd say I'm very, very familiar with the Passaic liturgicon. In some ways, one should have seen the problems coming, but they were not there yet. To equate the Passaic liturgicon to the RDL is not to know one or the other or the real issues.

ok the same except for all the real issues??? For the record, the rubrics in their details are also a problem -- I made some very specific posts concerning the rubrics.


That's one way to look at it and one would expect the obvious and correct way. Yet on looking at the facts, the texts, the translation, the lack of answers to legitimate questions, the lack of reasoned explanations, I'm finding myself wondering how could 12 years of effort, approval (somehow) by the highest authority, concurrence and promulgation by our bishops -- how, how could this have happened (resulting in the RDL)? This is a real dilemma: Am I to believe the expectation or my own eyes?

The inference of a "third way" is a serious charge and should be a great concern to our church; if verifiable, it is a disgrace.

Consider the truth coming out. Wouldn't full disclosure on the process, the expense, the personal motivations and agendas, the approval process, and specific justifications and explanations for the translation, the chant (and the monopoly mandated thereby) and the abridgement of the liturgy -- wouldn't full disclosure be a good catharsis?

That's not even a funny comparison Stuart. Watch the video of the anniversary Liturgy and tell me that it's not ordered very similarly to what was being done in the Passaic diocese in 1999 and then watch a video of the RDL (with the sound off so you don't have to hear the translation and music) and see how close they are.



Read what I wrote Stuart, not what you want to read. I don't assume anything, I said "no matter who translated, collated, revised, reviewed, or corrected the RDL, Rome approved it." This is a Greek Catholic Church, dependent and answerable to Rome.

Where can I read what Fr. Robert had to say about the RDL? Can you point me to a website? I'd like to read it. When the RDL first came out Fr. Robert was being blamed for being the one that read and approved it for the Congregation, now he's the victim of a conspiracy. Interesting...


I was unaware that the propers were not approved by Rome as well. Is this verifiable? Rome has to approve the music too? Has Rome approved the music that every composer has written to set Mass texts throughout history? Gregorian chant seems to have been THE music of the Latin liturgy to a point and there are those in that Church that are pushing to bring it back as THE music for that rite today, exclusive of everything else, regardless of the language or culture.


Again, do you have some inside information that the rest of us don't have? Does the RDL or any liturgy need any scholarly review to be used, especially if it's approved?


There's a lot more than just bad liturgy doing damage to the Church.

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, Passaic has mandated the first round of changes a few years earlier. But there are huge differences between the Passaic Liturgicon and the RDL Liturgicon. This has been discussed before.

Not sure what this means? Rome appears to have approved the RDL on 31 March 2001. Liturgicam Authenticam was approved on 28 March 2001 and became effective on 25 April 2001. It seems to me that Rome raised the bar for better translations. Given that the bishops didn’t promulgate a translation that violated both the Liturgical Instruction (1996) and Liturgical Authenicam (2001) until six additional years went by they had a responsibility to obey the new and improved directives from Rome and instead chose to ignore or reject them. As faithful Catholics we have both a right and an obligation to ask our bishops why they ignored / rejected these directives, and to insist that they follow them. I intend to spend the next number of years petitioning Rome and our bishops to be obedient to Rome in matters regarding Liturgy. We are not seeking some sort of special permission from Rome for our priests to celebrate an older form of the Ruthenian Rite. We seek permission for the celebration of the ordinary form of the Ruthenian Rite, in accordance with the normative books promulgate by Rome and forbidden by the Council of Hierarchs. This is a very “mainstream” position.

On the specific points I have made regarding Liturgy I have provided ample documentation using quotes from numerous sources: the liturgical texts themselves, the Vatican directives, Orthodox sources, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), Father Robert Taft, SJ, and others. You just don’t see such references in what Father David Petras has offered (read both my posts and his in this forum over the past few years and you can see that quite easily). But if you are only referring to the article in question, it is his article. He has the responsibility to provide the scholarly references and to make his point. My pointing out that he has not done so does not mean I need to do it for him. Your charge does not withstand the evidence posted on this very forum.

I hold a quite different opinion. Healing and new growth in the Ruthenian Church cannot happen as long as the RDL is in effect. As we have discussed numerous times, the RDL is just one more symptom of many issues within the Ruthenian Church. There is a continuing identity crisis, and until things are corrected the best that anyone can hope for is that the bleeding be kept to a minimum. The RDL did not create the wound. It is just salt that the bishops insist on pouring into the wound.

Don’t worry; I don’t consider your comments uncharitable. But telling people to stop working for authentic renewal does not help the cause.

Ah, but that makes my point--rubrics are, for the most part, transparent to the people. Some might notice, but as most of the rubrics concern what the priest does behind the iconostasis, the vast majority will not. And, in any case, rubrics do not hit home with the immediacy of the spoke word. So, my analogy is apt--if you ignore the text and the music, you won't notice many changes in the Liturgy ca. 1999 and the Liturgy ca. 2008. Unfortunately, I am not deaf, and I really got tired of having to hold my hands over my ears.


It was a thread here. I believe the Administrator posted it.


That's an abrogation of responsibility to bear witness to the truth.


Short answer--yes.


But, since Liturgy is what the Church is and does, bad liturgy causes more damage, deeper damage, and more lasting damage. And, if you look at the root causes of the other problems, bad liturgy is at the bottom of it all--and has been, for more than a century.

See this thread. This was a widely discussed topic. I am surprised you missed it as it is still near the top of the listing in this forum. Father Taft is too polite to mention Pittsburgh directly, but since his last book Pittsburgh is the ONLY local Church to issue a revised version of the Divine Liturgy. And others have verified with Father Robert that he was speaking of the Pittsburgh Revision.

If you were to say that the Oriental Congregation is less then optimal in organization you'd probably be correct. My understanding is that under the final years of Cardinal Silvestrini not much happened and under Patriarch Daoud (2000-2007) anything in English was delegated (he was "promoted" from Patriarch of Antioch to head of the Oriental after only three years as patriarch). Rome is not perfect and as a large bureaucracy one hand very often does not know what the other hand is doing. Cardinal Sandri now heads it up and it took almost a year to get a reply to a letter from his office!

And don't forget that Slovak Liturgicon. Rome approved it and then unapproved it when the problems were brought to light. They have a much better one now.

This speaks reams. We have become so alienated from our authentic Tradition that we can no longer be trusted to recover it without adult supervision.

The whole Ruthenian Church must restore the official forms and be formed by them for several generations before our Church is mature enough to speak to issues like Liturgy. Currently our whole Church - from bishops to laymen - are ill formed in our own Liturgical Tradition and cannot speak to many issues competently. Rome is wise to direct us to restore the official forms and to live them, and be formed by them. There is absolutely no pastoral need to update anything. And the more time I spend with the Liturgy (general study, working on translations, etc.) the more I see the Lord's genius at work in them, even in the smallest detail.

In reply to Blessed Theodore:
First, Eternal Memory to Archbishop Judson. He made some difficult decisions and was well respected by the clergy and laity of the Metropolia. I do not judge him; I just want to avoid misconceptions.
I ask you to ponder who was it that purged the old Seminary staff and replaced it with those serving in the time frame of the new translation?
Who was it that approved the radically different "feminist" language of the Sisters of St Basil Matins and Vespers publications. The so-called RDL actually "softened" the language.

That is all that I ask. If you are not fully informed then please don't offer misleading or unfounded information. Thank you.

S'nami Boh!
Fr Deacon Paul

John-

Fr Robert was in Phoenix during January 2008 speaking to the Jesuit Alumni in Arizona, and in a private conversation I had with him about the RDL, I did not come away with the same impression that you have. Father Robert may be polite, but above all else he is quite candid. In fact, in reference to a critic of the RDL, he used the term "loose cannon." Of course, none of this is of any import to Fr Robert. As he stated, he is a liturgical historian, he is not involved in making pastoral decisions which, again in his words, are best left to the bishops.

So he has no opinion to state on the RDL, but did comment with disapproval about a critic of the RDL?

Father Deacon John,

I agree that Father Robert Taft, SJ, seems to stay away from the bishops and their “pastoral decisions”. Yet I think what he actually wrote in a book under his name is what counts:

I strongly agree with Father Taft on this point. The Ruthenian bishops have harmed the liturgical unity of the Byzantine Church. They have violated the Liturgical Instruction. They have violated Liturgical Authenticam. They need to correct their mistakes by repealing the Revised Divine Liturgy and by promulgating the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, in a translation that is complete and accurate, conforming fully to the Vatican directives.

John

Has Metropolitan Nicholas expressed any opinion as to the text of the RDL Liturgicon (i.e. the inclusive language, and the memorialization of a truncated celebration) ? Just curious.

Dn. Robert

You make a good point. I have copies of those Uniontown Basilian translations of the Divine Office. The "feminist" language I find to be quite offensive, and a good example of dragging down the sacred with "P.C.".

Dn. Robert

Aren't they just awful, though? We used their translation of Great Compline every year at the March for Life service at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. I basically said, "There is no way I am going to sing 'O God of our ancestors'--and I did not. There were several other places where the inanity went beyond tolerable levels.

Yes, the language is there in the Sister's books. I am thankful for those books, for the sisters initiative; I am not thankful for that language. Consider, however, that those books were "Compiled from approved sources by THE LITURGICAL COMMISSION of THE SISTERS OF THE ORDER OF ST. BASIL THE GREAT" and the books also note they are "For Private Use."

An interim liturgicon, like Passaic's, did not have the "inclusivity" issue although it had its own innovations, abridgment, and some aspects of the RDL's outlook on the liturgy. But its promulgation states: "This text is approved for provisional use in churches of the Eparchy of Passaic"; and "The text of the Divine Liturgy is the official text of the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia sui iuris of Pittsburgh published in 1965 and approved by the Sacred Congregation for Oriental Churches, Prot. No. 380/62, on December 10, 1964." (The latter statement is not correct since the text was changed somewhat.)

Finally the RDL: So why all the stink now? Official; "At the direction of the Council of Hierarchs"; Metropolitan Liturgical Commission; for the Metropolia; making it a statement about our Church; and even accompanied by a video (catechetical DVD) that misinforms us about the justification based on the original language in order to convince us the "inclusivity" is desired and linguistically correct.

'"softened" the language' -- Not really, but it did make it official.

Fr. Deacon,

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

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

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon Paul,

I sympathize with your concern, but of the 5 Uniontown Basilian Office books 4 were published in the 80s which would mean Metropolitan Stephen approved those. The Triodion alone was published in 1995 under Metropolitan Judson.

Fr. Deacon Lance

There really isn't that much inclusive language in the Uniontown books and it is easily corrected. All I can find is "Blessed is the One" rather than "Blessed is the Man" for Psalm 1 in the Vesper book and "God of our ancestors" rather than "God of our Fathers" in the Great and Lesser Doxologies and "loves humankind" rather than "loves mankind" for the dismissal in the Matins book.

The RDL uses "God of our Fathers" in the Great Doxology. Would that they had used "loves humankind" (if they had to inclusivise it) rather than "loves us all".

Fr. Deacon Lance

So, my daughters and wife ask, what is wrong with the word "mankind"?

I agree, what is wrong with mankind? Every time I get into a discussion with a RDL supporter, they pipe up "it's not a big deal, it's just one word." And I say "exactly, if it doesn't have meaning why change it at all?" The conversation, of course, ends there.

Yes--if you watch the DL broadcast from Christ the Savior Cathedral, it's very much like a DL in a Pittsburgh Metropolia parish. Very similar to the DL in my former parish.

It is true that Johnstown gladly received copies of the "Teal Terror" (as it is now called). They hoped they might use some of it. Then they reviewed the books and saw the music and translations. The idea was quietly dropped. Thompson tried to set up his own little musical kingdom. But everyone disliked his work but Bishop Pataki. Pataki won.

FYI...
The official liturgy "blue" book...does have additional verses (w/music) that are available to be taken with the antiphons...

Although I routinely hear it on the TV, in popular movies, and in commercials that are surely trying to sell to both sexes, and of course, in classic English literature -- in church it is banned, and we must become enlightened that MANkind is "noninclusive" but huMANkind is not. And so we would have (following this movement):

God made Human in God's image
In the image of God, God created...Human(?)... shehim(?)
Female and male God created them.

Some translators have forgotten what should be one of their commandments: Thou shalt not commit adulteration.

But in fairness, that is not as bad as "God made Us-All in ..."

The "standard" for the Johnstown Diocese is essentially the 1942. As of last year Metropolitan Nicholas uses the Pittsburgh 1964 on the holy table of his personal chapel.

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

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

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

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

To say such things is either not to be aware of Liturgiam Authenticam or to reject it. But we know from Father David's posts on this forum that at least he rejected LA as bad theology. [And he is a good man who is mistaken on that point.]

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

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

Dn. Lance,

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

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

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

"Gut-wrenching" might be the appropriate adjective.

Dn. Robert

Fr Deacon Lance,

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

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

Fr Deacon Paul

So, why again is illiterate English tolerated in our liturgical texts? I have missed any attempt at a justification or rationalization.

Nothing in my book.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Apparently, they asked the wrong women.

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

My sentiments exactly!

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Abusus non tollit usum--"Abuse does not take away use".

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

True also. My point is that the term mankind is in fact still being used quite freely and effectively in many common and contemporary venues.

Indeed. And we've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere, otherwise we'll soon be communicating by pointing at things and grunting (reminds me of growing up in Brooklyn). So let's start with rejecting "inclusive language", since it deliberately excludes the literate.

Why, in general, outside of an ecclesiatical setting please, is it so wrong to say humanity/humankind/human beings (or other descriptors), instead of man/mankind??

I'd say there's nothing wrong for that situation, the words are used properly and effectively. I personally think humankind is an ugly sounding word, with superfluous letters, that wants to say the same thing as mankind. Just my opinion and taste.

In a biblical setting, rather than strictly ecclesiastical, I have prayed the Psalms using the NRSV which uses humankind at will. My thoughts: God deliver us from a trendy translation that replaces beauty with the grotesque. Again, my opinion and taste.

But, of course, the problem is a translation, tied to a source text that says something specific, in an ecclesial situation. So we don't need to sing (the inferior) "O Lord Jesus, Lover of Humankind", or (the incorrect and absurd) "O Lord Jesus, Lover of us all" when we have "O Lord Jesus, Lover of Mankind" available and already provided.

Awkward neologisms designed to assuage the tender sensibilities of the easily offended degrade the language and promote the agenda of those whose main objective is antinomian in nature.

But that is not what the revisers of the Liturgy have done. They replaced "mankind" with "all of us", a usage that Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship said in 2002 (5 years before the RDL was promulgated) condemned as "theologically grave" due to the problems with potentially being exclusive. In speaking specificlaly of removing the term "man" from the Creed he said "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."

The point many miss is that the Church has no obligation to adopt the latest street language, especially if such usage is pushed by secular politics. The term "profane" means "outside the temple". One might look at the effect of the King James Bible on the English language. Those translators certainly did not accommodate themselves to the lowest language of the day. They drove the adoption of the terminology they offered in the KJV and it affected English greatly, and still does to this day.

It would be interesting to take an exit poll after church on a Sunday to see if people think that "for us and for our salvation" that they just recited/heard in the Creed only refers to those that were present at that mass.

Well, the very ambiguity of the phrase was one of my initial objections, aside from its awkwardness and general illiteracy (can anyone at the Seminary actually write?). To whom does "for us" refer? All the people in the world? All the people who belong to the Church? All Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics? All the people in the parish? It's just not clear. In the earnest desire not give offense (again, to whom does the word "men" give offense?), the compilers of the RDL created a theological ambivalent (and potentially heretical) interpolation of the Creed.

Similarly, the incredibly banal "Jesus is good and loves us all" (which causes my wife to begin humming "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know") is both illiterate and theologically ambivalent, and does not convey the meaning of "philanthropos" or "chelov'ikol'ubec".

Finally, has anyone else noticed that supporters of this kind of inclusive language are, overwhelmingly, men (or should I say "us all")?

Who does "us men" refer to? All the people present at mass? Everyone of the parish? All Catholics? All English speakers? All males? All male Catholics? It ain't really that much clearer with "men" in it Stuart. All we do know is that it leaves out anyone or anything that isn't a human being.

I think that anyone with a half-baked notion of their faith, knows what this line in the creed means, whether it's says "for us" or "for us men."

To all mankind, of course. Until sloppy, politically correct English began to muddy the waters, everybody understood this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and above all, don't think that you can appease radical feminism by using inclusive language.


The important thing is what it says to those who don't have a half-baked notion of our faith--though, I do note, it was half-baked notions that gave us the RDL in the first place. The unbaked and the half-baked can take sloppy creedal and liturgical formulations and corrupt their meaning--as we have seen all too well in the Western Church. No need for that here.

I'll also ask again: are there any women here who want to stand up for inclusive language, or is this something only men really like?

When I studied the teaching of English just as the feminist movement was beginning its assault on the language, my professors would say that this construction was unfinished. because it lacked the "what" that needed to be the completion of "us." Us what? I'm reminded of the recent story of the priest who takes his dog along with him to Mass. Does the "us" then that is uncompleted include the dog? After all he's part of the group and the lack of "men" means he's part of the group Christ died for. Or another pastor I knew whose cat used to have the run of the sanctuary during Mass. Did that unfinished phrase include the cat?

When people use this "for us" thing, it clunks in my head and I always stop and wonder what group we are talking about. "Us what"? It's more than a bit like the way we used to get the attention of our students by dragging fingernails across the blackboard.

BOB

I, for one, have definitely noticed that it is overwhelmingly men who are determined to use "inclusive" language. I have only met one woman in my life who felt strongly that it should be used, and many who didn't care one way or another. It is a bit ridiculous that all these men tell me that I should be offended or feel not included by "sexist language".

Elizabeth, a female member of the family of Mankind (and a lover of precision in language)

Honestly I've never seen a cat or dog in church other than for the blessing of animals on St. Francis' Day. But the Creed wasn't said so there was no danger of anyone thinking that pets were included. There's got to be some canon about not allowing an animal in the sanctuary during mass, no?

Guess I'm guilty of tons of improperly constructed sentences though, like this weekend when I said: "Peter is going to the ballgame with us." I should have added "men" at the end so that everyone knew what I was talking about.

There are several, because people were bringing animals into the sanctuary.


Well, the real question is why anyone would be so invested in bowdlerizing the English language when there was no hue and cry to do so. Man, men, and mankind were acceptable for century, and remain so. "Us" and "us all" remain grammatically incorrect, awkward and theologically problemmatic. So why press for change?

Correct grammar is important and using it correctly helps to transmit the Faith correctly. I have friends from Pittsburgh who will ask: "Are yuns going to the ball game with us?" I can understand what they mean but such language is profane (meaning "outside the temple"). Even though we can understand what is means who would want such language in the Liturgy? It is not just grammatical incorrect but also not clear.

The Creed is far more important. Dropping the word "man" to potentially exclude all those not present (or maybe all those who are not Byzantine Catholics?) is simply wrong. But, as has been well noted, good men on the Committee to Revise the Liturgy have bought the secular feminist push for such language (it is part of their push to erase all innate differences between men and women).

The Church should be providing a model in language for the society to follow (as did the KJV Bible). It should not be surrendering to and embracing the demands of one group of secularists, and the lowest politics of the day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN K:

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

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

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

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

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

In Christ,

BOB

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

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

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

There is more at stake here than a simple disagreement. There is integrity: the integrity of the language (of the Creed), and the integrity of purpose.

The language of the Creed is that "for us men...He became Man." If "men" is dropped the men-Man connection is broken, disappears. Worse though is that if "men" is dropped because it is cast as "non-inclusive", and "Man" is left as ok, the implication is that the Creed is saying that Jesus became a Man = male of the human race. But that is NOT what the Creed is saying here, rather, it is conveying by the word Man the exact meaning that was just denied its plural form, "as being the best word to use in English for all humanity." That this is so one only has to listen to Fr. Pipta trying to explain this on the RDL Catechetical DVD.

A translation that drops men but keeps Man is convoluted dishonesty. It is convoluted because if it is the case as stated that "I don't think, no matter what the dictionary may say, people today perceive "man/men" as being the best word to use in English for all humanity" then why only is the word men affected, and not man. The explanation, as I noted, is convoluted. Leaving only the word Man, unexplained and giving the impression that man means a male, is dishonest because it allows the English of the Creed to appear to say something different from the original.

The lack of integrity of purpose is that there is an agenda, a manipulation taking place that wants to recast the language to its own purpose. It is being taught in schools: not dictionary-English, standard-English, good-English; not naturally-evolving-English, but agenda-driven-English. It is a shame to see it entering our Church, and the pretext for doing so is a sham. And when kids actually see what would be artificially denied the use of the word "men" -- an inclusive use -- they know it:
[Linked Image]

It's just a real shame that it's proper usage is now to be argued based on comic books rather than classrooms and text books. And speaking of school, what are female freshmen now called?

www.thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm [thenazareneway.com]

There is a page we all might read dealing with this whole controversary.

BOB

Some possibilities:
(1.) Fresh ( a la "Chair" of the Philosophy Dept.)
(2.) Freshgirls
(3.) Freshwomen
(4.) Freshladies
(5.) Freshpersons
(6.) Freshkind
(7.) "Us All"

"Pre-Sophomores"

Real women aren't afraid of real English. We call them freshmen.

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!

OUCH!!!

The problem is that Greek has two words for "man": ἀνήρ ("male person") and ἄνθρωπος ("human being"). It is the second word that is used in the Creed.

Many languages, such as German and Latin, make the same distinction. German has Mann and Mensch; Latin has vir and homo. Therefore, translating this part of the Creed into German or Latin is not difficult: you simply choose the word which means human being, i.e. Mensch or homo.

English, however, does not make this distinction. The word man can mean both "male person" and "human being." The meaning in each case can only be discerned from the context.

It is thus impossible to make a completely accurate, word-for-word translation of the Creed from Greek into English. One can only hope to make a translation which is faithful to the original meaning. Personally I think the phrase for us men should be kept, but it does need to be explained through catechesis.

Of course it is, because the word "man" in English has multiple meanings. Context determines which one applies.

No, it doesn't, because only over-educated idiots (like professors of semiotics) and those who fall under their influence don't know what it means.

As we've discussed, ἄνθρωπος is found in scripture with an exclusively male meaning too; it is not entirely unambiguous.


Yes, but even with the feminist onslaught to manipulate and change the language, one can look currently, online and still find as the primary definitions:

link [yourdictionary.com]

That is one of the problems with dropping men from the Creed in English: it changes the context for the phrase He became Man. That is, the RDL translation says for us...He became Man as opposed to for us men...He became Man. In the RDL rendering the men-Man connection is lost.

Or translations from any language to any language. In a sense, all translations lie, and yet we must translate, and do our best.

A slang answer to the question as to what a female freshman might be called is "frosh". That has been in use since at least the nineteen-fifties, and is perhaps even earlier. "Frosh" is not gender-determined (a male or a female freshman is equally a frosh in circles where "frosh" is in use). I'm not necessarily advocating this, but it's at least more authentic than "fresher", which has been spreading for the past few years. "Frosh", incidentally, does not have differing forms for singular and plural.

Fr Serge (who was a frosh himself many years ago!)

Forgot about that word. But, it was always considered to be a type of slang. However, despite that, it is preferable to any of the "inclusive" usages. BTW, my daughter is in her first year at Seton Hall University. She has no problem with the term "freshman". This only seems to be an affront to certain types of people.

Dn. Robert

Well, UVA is unique in not using the designations "frehsman, sophomores, juniors and seniors" (it never has). Instead, students are designated first year, second year, third year and fourth year.

Of course, the military academies have their own term. West Point first years are Plebes.

I'm astounded by the need to continue to wrestle with translations of the Creed and other liturgical prayers. There have been translations already done for longer than I've been around but it seems that there is a determined bent to re-invent the wheel in this area.

We've had Greek translations, Latin translations, and translations from other languages--I've found an Armenian one on the web. So what's the big deal and what's the point? (Except that the language engineers are trying to recast the language to conform to the passing fad of radical feminism.) It seems to me that before one ought to try to recast the laguage received form one's teachers in the Faith, one ought to dig deeply into the nuances and layers of meaning one receives, internalize them as much as possible, and only then try to see if it is possible to modernize the language. Of course this presupposes that an intensive catechesis is part of this internalization. But it also seems that the people who are so bent on recasting the language are the very people who have not done this. In other words, it's often people who themselves have lost their faith who thrash about trying to rediscover it in the constant recasting of the way in which that very faith is expressed.

Here's the way English takes the Creed from Armenian (from the Eastern diocese website):


I found this quote from the same website in the explanation of the Nicene Creed and the way the Armenian Church views it.


BOB

So the bishops are forcing a version of the creed that is almost but not quite heretical? Why?

To be cool.