www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Two questions for Fr Petras

What if the only people at worship are men? Then "us" takes on a new meaning.
Eddie

I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church.

Their decision is magisterial for our church.

It is certainly not my intention to �pour gasoline on the fire,� but it seems the only way to avoid this result would be to agree unequivocally to oppose any inclusive language. Some members have judged this decision a priori.

Separate from these issues, I would add a persoanl reflection. I have become convinced that the reason "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" is that before the 20th century, "women" simply had no standing in the body politic of "mankind." They did not vote and were not expected to take part in public affairs, therefore, their status was "meaningless." In the context of the late 18th century, therefore, the statement "All men are created equal" means exactly what it says.

... "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" ...

My position has been clear from the beginning - I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church.

but it doesn't take an assumption of chauvinism to consider the "ordinary connotation" or a word, and under what circumstances different meanings are assumed.

If I say I was attacked by two men, and later said during a trial that my attackers were female, wouldn't that be considered a recantation? Or for that matter, would you consider it possible for two men to be married?

"All men may be saved" does NOT explicitly declare the possibility of salvation of women;

"it is NOT clear on the face of it which meaning is meant, outside of the context of Christian teaching.

Dear Karl,

Thank you for your response.

It is certainly not my intention to �pour gasoline on the fire,� but it seems the only way to avoid this result would be to agree unequivocally to oppose any inclusive language. Some members have judged this decision a priori. Note your own statement, the �poison pill� of �controversial� bits of inclusive language. [I don�t know what you think about this, but I do not share the impression given by some posters that there is �nobody� that really supports �inclusive language� - at least, nobody in their right minds! - I say obviously there are some - and in their right minds! - who do support this decision.]

My position has been clear from the beginning - I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church. My opinions are not. There is also no reason to believe that they made this decision only on my recommendation, and my opinion only shows up in isolated minutes of the IELC, and I have never argued the case before the Council of Hierarchs directly. Since the promulgation, I have spoken to the presbyterates of Parma and Passaic, and to some lay groups. In these presentations, I have spoken at the invitation of and at the request of individual bishops, and have given support to their decision. However, when I communicate on the Byzantine Forum, I speak only for myself and express only my personal opinions.

At these presentations, I have pointed out paragraph 29 of Liturgiam Authenticam, because it shows that the import of this document was not opposition to inclusive language as such, but for literal accuracy in translation. LA is a magisterial document of the Roman Catholic Church, but many members of the academic community have opposed it very strongly for various reasons. Cf., for example, Peter Jeffery�s Translating Tradition. Dr. Jeffery is a conservative, almost �traditional� Catholic, but is quite critical of the document. �Inclusive language� is not his main problem. Jeffery says (p. 105), �As I interpret LA, therefore, its main motivation is not opposition to inclusive language as such - that is only a symptom of what its authors really want. What they really want is a more profound sense of the sacred, an experience of connection to what seems age-old and eternal, uniting past and present in an unchanging rite that is above the ebb and flow of ordinary history.� Despite this, Dr. Jeffery holds that LA is deficient on many counts, which space does not permit me to summarize here.

I have been accused of not answering �Recluse�s� questions. In reality, I have answered them many times. I likewise do not think that this issue of translation has yet been adequately answered. We must remember that LA speaks to the universal Church, with its myriad linguistic traditions, but the English language, which lacks a �grammatical gender� has particular problems of translation. Like many anglophone church leaders - bishops and theologians - I believe the English term �men� is ambiguous enough to justify seeking a different translation so that the texts say what they mean - that all �human creatures� are saved by God�s saving activity and grace. Many posters on this Forum will judge my answer �inadequate.� I cannot help this. I only hope that they will admit that it is an answer, and �agree to disagree� on this point.

But if am considering only human beings to begin with, then "For us men" SOUNDS limiting. So if one said "I prefer to have men for employees, since they are more inventive", it is the IMPLICIT context (we are discussing humans) that indicates that "men" means "adult male human beings". If I were taken to task for such a statement, it would do little good to say "but men includes women, too!" - unless I could make a convincing argument that I was also hiring animals or rocks.

But the context is NOT always so clear. If a Muslim woman arrives in church and hears "For us men", she may KNOW that women are treated differently from men before Islamic law, and wonder if Christian salvation follows the same distinction. Unless context is provided by the speaker, the listener will derive one based on experience and state of mind.

Saying "the context is clear" is NOT enough

a Muslim who says "Men are equal" does not include me in that statement;

what do Christians believe?" will NOT have those concerns answered by hearing "For us men". It is not sufficient for you to say what is obvious, if it is only obvious to you!

So certainly we need catechesis, IN ORDER THAT the words we use make sense. That context must be GIVEN;

P.S. I agree that "inclusive language" is problematical, but it addresses a real issue which you seem to be side-stepping by claiming that the content of Christian teaching is SO well known that those hearing the Creed can assume it. That is more than a bit circular.

P.P.S. The real problem with "for us and for our salvation" is that it takes the problem with "for us men" and makes it WORSE.

P.P.P.S. This still doesn't answer the question of who was offended by the old phrasing; or provide a justification for the particular choices made.

But if am considering only human beings to begin with, then "For us men" SOUNDS limiting. So if one said "I prefer to have men for employees, since they are more inventive", it is the IMPLICIT context (we are discussing humans) that indicates that "men" means "adult male human beings". If I were taken to task for such a statement, it would do little good to say "but men includes women, too!" - unless I could make a convincing argument that I was also hiring animals or rocks.

But the context is NOT always so clear. If a Muslim woman arrives in church and hears "For us men", she may KNOW that women are treated differently from men before Islamic law, and wonder if Christian salvation follows the same distinction. Unless context is provided by the speaker, the listener will derive one based on experience and state of mind.

My basic premise is - "without extreme emotion" - that we should occasionally say explicitly that women can be saved too. I will add one reflection, many have cited Liturgiam Authenticam as being opposed to "inclusive language." LA is not opposed "ex professo" to inclusive language, but supports literally accurate translation. Cf. paragraph 29: "any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social conditions, race or other criteria ... has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy." LA goes on to say that if exact literal translation can be misunderstood, it is the duty of the catechist and/or homilist to explain the text.

Liturgiam Authenticam:

29. It is the task of the homily and of catechesis to set forth the meaning of the liturgical texts,29 illuminating with precision the Church's understanding regarding the members of particular Churches or ecclesial communities separated from full communion with the Catholic Church and those of Jewish communities, as well as adherents of other religions and likewise, her understanding of the dignity and equality of all men.30

Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy. Although considerations such as these may sometimes help one in choosing among various translations of a certain expression, they are not to be considered reasons for altering either a biblical text or a liturgical text that has been duly promulgated.

30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the "inclusive" sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. 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.

Letter from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, entitled Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:

III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms

A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.

B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.