www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Good News for People Concerned about Inclusive Language

To return to the original post, "Good News for people concerned about inclusive language," its all how you phrase things. The revisionists want to say that they have given us the same Creed but with inclusive language. But what are the facts. Facts are very important. (I went to law school in the "show me" state). The facts are that in the Revised Liturgy there is a Creed which no longer comports with the ancient councils and which has not been approved by any Pope.

In one sense, we have become just like the Orthodox, except the Orthodox are far more honest. They reject the Papacy in principle and have principled (wrong I think, but principled) arguments against it. We, however, reject the Papacy in practice by praying a Creed which does not comport with any approved by the Papacy. Those are the facts. But all along we just want to squint our eyes and say, "we really are in union with Rome." Right.

Im -- I think you are wrong. As I understand it, the new Liturgy was approved by Rome.

I came from the show me state. I saw the promulgation letter. I saw that it refers to a document (which has not been released) which is from the Apostolic See (from what has been written by one of the translators, that appears to mean the Oriental Congregation) in March of 2001, just prior to Liturgiam Authenticam and just prior to Observations concerning English Translations of the Roman Missal which says that dropping men from the Creed leads to grave theological error.

If the Holy Father said that dropping words from the Creed is OK, (or if he said that 1 + 1 = 3), then I would have to say that the Holy Father must have been ill that day. I must, therefore, give the same benefit to our Bishops and I do so. So I shall and do pray for them all and in the meantime find another place to pray the Creed as has been prayed by the Church for centuries until they feel well, lest I pick up the same illness.

With all due respect, the Liturgy has been approved by Rome. Therefore, your statement that in praying it, one is being unfaithful to Rome is illogical.

You can disagree with Rome if you like and say that they made a mistake, etc. But you can't accuse those of us who use it of being against Rome in so doing.

Father,

My comments were limited to the Creed. I do not maintain that you or anyone else is being unfaithful to Rome. That is not my job. But I do see that the Creed does not comport with the one handed on to us from the Fathers of the Church or the one now prayed in Rome at St. Peters and squinting doesn't help. Please be assured of my prayers for you and all the priests of the metropolia. I think you are in a very difficult situation.

In Christ,

lm

Just one more note: the Creed has not been changed. This is a fallacy. When I look in the Greek and Slavonic books (take your pick as to which is the original -- I prefer to think it is the Greek since that was the original of originals), they remain the same.

All that has changed is the TRANSLATION. No original changes have been made to the Creed.

So therefore the rhetoric about this clearly outdistances the reality. No changes have been made to the creed, etc. A change has been made to the Translation of the SAME CREED into English.

You can dislike the translations, you can think it is part of a conspiracy by liberal nuns to take over the church, you can think it borders on heresy or is heresy itself... You can criticize the translation all you want. That is your right.

But what you cannot do if you intend on remaining honest is assert that the Creed was changed -- it wasn't. The word "anthropos" has not been deleted -- it is still there.

What has been lost is the translated word "men" because the translators decided the best way to translate the original into English was to use the word "us" without the word "men."

It is a translation issue only.

However, since the translated Creed was changed, i.e. the text that the people sing was changed, this has an inevitable impact on the faith. It's not an academic issue.

Father,

With all do respect, you're squinting.

In Christ,

lm

We don't know that. At the very least, Rome has contradicted itself. The document we have seen (Liturgiam Authenticam) forbids inclusive language and 'revisions' by translators, and demands an exact, careful, literal, accurate and beautiful translation. The revised Liturgy fails on all accounts.

On the other hand, Bishop Schott says Rome has approved of this (but refuses to publish the documents). So, we have a document we have seen that forbids the new revised Liturgy, and a document that we have not seen, that we are told approves of it, with reservations.

So, you can't say Rome approves. It is much more complicated than that.

Nick

This is incorrect. It is claimed that the Liturgy was approved by Rome in 2001. According to longstanding canonical custom approval letters have no force of law until they are made public. Since the bishops have not made this claimed approval letter public they cannot claim approval from Rome. End of that story.

Father David Petras has admitted on this very forum that changes were made to the text even AFTER this claimed approval of 2001. He stated that the changes made after the meaningless approval of 2001 were all in the "spirit" of the 2001 approval. Claims to be in the "spirit" of the approval letter are meaningless.

Write your letters of complaint to Rome today!

Rome is listening.

It is so much more than a translation issue. It is a power grab for the soul of the Church. It is an attack on the Church of my fathers, it is turning our backs on the Ruthenian tradition.

I think you are wrong about this. I think all the revisionists and Bishop Schott (who have forced their strange ideas on all of us) are wrong.

My heart is broken, and Bishop Schott hasn't even given me the courtesy of answering my letters. Even my congressman will send a postcard, saying he got a letter, and has read it. I guess the Bishop is too busy?

Nick

I agree with you completely on this. It is not an academic issue and it speaks directly to the hearts and souls of people today. But if we want to discuss the issues we have to be careful not to overreach or use unnecessary hyperbole. (We have seen several examples of this on the Forum lately.)

What I am saying is that the accusation "They changed the Creed" is false, hyperbolic and misleading to the faithful. The Creed was not changed -- the translation of the Creed was changed. No alteration of doctrine is involved. As far as I have read, every single person involved in translating the Liturgy and every Bishop engaged in promulgating it continues to profess the same Faith they professed before the new Translation. They continue to believe in the apostolic faith and to affirm every doctrine in the Creed "without change or subtraction."

It is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion. Is this a good translation? Does it express the truth of the Creed well? Etc.*

But to suggest that there is an issue of fundamental faith involved is just wrong; it is to use fear as a weapon to "frighten" people away from the Church. The Creed has not been changed -- just go check the Greek and Slavonic. It is the same!

** As I publicly stated several times, I believe it does. Although I would agree with Fr. Petras, I wish they had stated "for us humans" but I like the new translation far better than "for us men". My mind on this issue was convinced several years ago when my young daughter asked me why Jesus only came to save her brothers and not her and "Mommy". When I asked her why she thought that, she stated "It says, 'for us men--it doesn't say for us women or girls.'"(True Story!) I give thanks to God for it and for the joy my daughter now has in saying the Creed.

From Rome 16 March 2002:

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

"In the Creed ... the above-mentioned tendency to "omit" the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave."

(my emphasis)

Romans must be affected by these matters in a way we Byzantines are not.

It is interesting who you claim the fear mongers are. I believe Fr. Petras was drawing from the slavery issue in the 1800s and talking about "wars" between "men and women" (which he says cannot be "physical" ) "social displacement" and " violence", in defending, against Fr. Serge's criticisms, the revolutionary and new language.

And how shall we determine what men believe, what we believe, except by the words we use?

Words are signs of things. Fr. Petras has argued that "The world has changed and so must the language." Has it?

Perhaps the young lady should have been taught proper usage in the English language.

Man-eating tigers, after all, still eat women and girls.

I would argue that this is the case. As I have tried to indicate in other posts, eastern approach to language, the kingdom, eternity, etc. is different than the western.

A good example is the iconography we use -- there is no question about Christ's maleness in our tradition and never will be because of the central role of the icon -- We see Christ as a man. Visual language is granted an equal status (perhaps a greater role) than spoken language in the east -- this is not true in the west where statuary and iconography play a less mystical role, etc.