www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy All is Quiet on the Eastern Front...

The change in the Creed isn't wordsmithing, it's deleting a word, "anthropos," "men". As for obedience, Rome in "Liturgiam Authenticam" has spoken on this very issue. Where is the call for obedience there? I understand that technically LA doesn't apply to the Eastern Churches, but certainly in principle it does.

If the issue is a matter of community understanding, I have yet to meet a single human being who doesn't know that the term "men" includes men, women and children. I have, however, met many who have "decided to be offended" by the term "men." I have even been publically rebuked by a board member of the national ACLU for reading a common legal text which used the term "men". This same professor found it quite acceptable and was perfectly understood, however, to use the term "guys" to refer to men and women. (The ACLU, as you may have noticed, does not look very favorably on things Catholic or things which are in accord with the moral law established by God for human happiness. )

The issue is whether the changes really are necessary for a proper understanding. No serious scholar or English speaking person maintains that the word, "men" is misunderstood.
Some do maintain, however, that it is not "polite" or "politcally correct." The issue then is, "Do we want to conform ourselves to "the world"? Should we, to use the parlance of St. Paul, "become all things to all men" ( ) even if that means to mistranslate ancient texts.

Jesus, Son of Humankind?
The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations
by Paul Mankowski, S.J.


http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html

If you have the time, the whole article looks worthwhile. Here is his conclusion:


He holds a BA in Classics and Philosophy from the University of Chicago, a MA in Classics and Philosophy from Oxford, a Licentiate in the Old Testament from the Weston Jesuit School of Theology and a PhD in Semitic Philology from Harvard University. He is currently Lector in Biblical Hebrew at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome having been Language Instructor at Weston Jesuit School of Theology, in Massachusetts and Assistant Professor of Classics and Philosophy at Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Excuse me, Im, but nowhere in the IELC translations is the term "Son of Man" turned into anything else. If you have heard so, you have been misinformed.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

You have just made me wonder if the ACLU had a hand in taking the word "men" out of our Creed!

Professor,

I believe LM posted the link to the essay because it talks about the failure of Inclusive Language. It isn't specifically about the phrase "Son of Man."

Glory to Him Forever!

Dear Professor Thompson:

I haven't heard that. But I recommend the whole article to you. Fr. Mankowski deals with the horizontal, vertical distinction. I think his grasp of the subject is the best I have seen -- and he has a pretty tight argument.

The phrase, "Son of Man", I think, demonstrates why the h/v distinction is not a proper principle, but one that is contrived. In fact, Christ was not the son of man, but the son of a woman! That's a clear horizontal usage.

If the h/v distinction is proper and community standards really have changed, then I say that the translation committee hasn't made enough changes. All of Scripture is going to have to be re-translated so that the community can understand -- that has been done (experimentally) with the Roman lectionary and anytime one hears it, it is clear that a political statement is being made. Since the "community understanding" argument is the only principle which has any reasonable basis to make the dramatic changes to exclude terms like "men" and "mankind", then I should be concerned that more changes will be forthcoming (perhaps only when my children are adults but forthcoming nonetheless). I think that argument, however, is fallacious and those who make such an argument in the universities and law schools are bent on destroying the natural order which God created. Not only are they bent on destroying that order, they will be bent on destroying my children as well.

If you don't think things are that bad, take a look at the article by the woman who wrote the ADA (federal law), Chai Feldblum, a professed lesbian who teaches at Georgetown. Her next project is to provide federal legal protection for gays, lesbians and the "transgendered." The law she has written has once nearly passed the Senate, I think. She says it's not a matter of if, but when. (In my state such laws have already been passed without a peep from the Church - in fact with the Church actually refusing to acknowledge what then Cardinal Ratzinger had written about what the Church's position ought to be when such legislation is proposed). She also holds that pockets of religious people who oppose such laws cannot be tolerated or exempted from such laws. You can find her article here:

http://www.becketfund.org/files/92708.pdf?PHPSESSID=4fff34736e6af8885ed8ea15e59e6b23

Is this related to the "inclusive" language? Yes, because the principle at the heart of both is the same, God's natural order about the bedrock relationship between men and women, is not being respected. I think a man already feels it intensely when, in "academic" circles, he feels the urge to use inclusive language so as not to offend those for whom the issue is a point of contention. He wants to use inclusive language not because he won't be understood, but because he will -- he will be the odd man out. (Odd person out just doesn't work).

Am I over stating the relationship? Well Eastern Catholics ought to remember that ideas have consequences - communism was just an idea -- a godless one, which is the problem with inclusive language - implicitly it represents a universe that is not ordered to God.

Fr. Mankowski also does a great job in analyzing whether the community understanding of words such as "men" and "mankind" have really changed. His arguments, that they have in fact not changed, are convincing. Every woman still knows to be fearful of a man-eating tiger.

Never have my wife or daughter thought that when they recite the Creed and say, "for us "men" and our salvation," they were excluded. I understand that some men do feel excluded, but those feelings have been generated by the instruction which has been provided in the universities and schools of the world in the last 30 years, ie, they had to be taught to feel that way. Those who have taught that these terms exclude women are not friends of the faith, and their arguments do not benefit mankind.

And if these changes go through with the use of inclusive language, the Church and Bishops ought to remember that while it will be appeasing a few feminists, it will be offending lots of women like my wife who are in the trenches and are having children (we have nine) who are doing the daily (and thankless) work of building up the kingdom of God by rearing their children in the truths of the faith.

I don't know if our new translation will still have the phrase, "the doors, the doors" but it ought. And the first thing it ought to exclude is the nonsense of inclusive language and every other compromise with modern society which has is roots not in God's order, but in man's.

lm

Perhaps we should take up a collection and send the Bishops this tome.

My Name is Forever [amazon.com]

This book was edited by Alvin Kimmel An Epispocol Priest who couldn't stomach where the Epispocal Church had gone and was heading, and who came home to Rome a few months ago.

I know we have beat this horse to death, but why can't we simply look at our Roman Brethern (yes... not pc... but I don't care) and see the wacked out issues that they have had to deal with.

This is the nose in the tent issue... once you start this you can believe that there will be those out there who want more. Cave on this issue... and you will have to deal with others. It is much easier to defend when you haven't open the doors.

Unfortunally Inclusive langage is an exercise in redefining a langague to suit one's political views, the Church should be above such a thing.

Another thing bothers me about this whole issue.... Just who is insisting on the horizontal langague??? What vocal group in the Byzantine Catholic Church is calling for this??? Is there some hidden Byzantine Call to Action? Some hidden Byzantine group of Byzantine Women's Church?

That book sounds well worth reading. Question: I know a Father Francis Martin, who might possibly have written the final chapter; is the there any identifiying information on this particular contributor? Thanks in advance.

Fr. Serge

Wouldn't it just be better to chant the Liturgy in the original Greek. Then there can be no mistranslation!

Silly question, but how would you propose instituting that without causing further upheaval? From just my observations, strong feelings already exist about the use of English and Church Slavonic. The introduction of Greek may well sink the ship at this point. Just my thought on the comment.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I completely agree with you. The Church is not a democracy. I know there are plenty of good arguments for not changing the translation but then again I also think all priests should have the choice of marriage or celibacy. I can only smile and trust that my Church is being guided by the Holy Spirit. Maybe if they started promoting going back to the original Greek, the people would not be so quick to throw out the Liturgy changes.

Father Kimel used to post on this forum before he "made the jump". I've had some very enlightening discussions with him regarding these issues - and I for one don't mind at all when he or anyone else can say from experience "what is what" (to quote another thread).

I understand he is now waiting for his statikon from Rome. Thanks, John - I'm putting that book on the short list.
FDD

So what's wrong with liturgical Greek? I find that retaining a few pieces in Greek goes over well - there are no Greeks in the congregation, but since contemporary Greeks no longer understand koine, that's of no vast importance. We have to repeat the Cherubikon anyway (so that I am not compelled to rush the prayer, the incensation and the procession with the Gifts, not to mention the setting forth of the Gifts on the Holy Table according to the prescribed order), so we take advantage of this to chant the Cherubikon first in Greek and then in a vernsacular language. Nobody has ever complained about it, and the chanting is good in both languages.

Fr. Serge

Same for us. But we use the vernacular then Slavonic instead of the vernsacular and Greek.

So try the Greek sometime - I'm using a very simple musical setting by Sakellarides. Practice it first, of course, several times and introduce it for some really major feast or similar event.

Fr. Serge