www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Urgent Questions for the Very Rev. Archpriest David M. Petras, SE

I think the point of the critics of Fr David's example is that people can easily figure out the context and understand that Christ came to save not just guys.

Fr David may be familiar with this counterexample as well, which I borrow from Fr Paul Mankowski, SJ [touchstonemag.com]. Consider the stick figures on the men's room and women's room doors. Their meaning is obvious, right?

Now consider a sign with a stick figure on it, one arm raised at the end of which is a white diamond, and around this figure is a red circle with a red diagonal slash through it. Does the latter sign mean that women may litter? If the stick figure wore a stick dress, would it mean that men could legally litter? Everyone can understand the context of a simple stick figure drawing, whether it means man=person or man=male human.

People are not idiots. No ordinary person thought that "for us men" excluded women. The omission of "men" was simply too clever by half. The word "men" needs to be reinserted. If the Greeks could do it, we can do it too.

This is simply not true. Homo is just like man. If it isn't, then,



should be translated,


Since the translation is clearly inaccurate, there must be some deeper reason you want to follow the secularists down this idealogical path. It's too simple of a mistake to be an honest one.

I'd more readily welcome and be glad to know of instances of any of the Orthodox anglo-translations using this styling of language.

Having been excoriated for the creation of a very distinctive "hybird" type of Latinized liturgy in the last century - with their distinctive liturgical sensibilities from ripped out icon screens to pre-liturgy rosary, statuary and stations, to side altars and altar rails, and first communion for 7 year olds - we are now standing out as the Eastern community that has replaced our Latinisms of the 1890s with Latinisms of the 1990s.

The further irony of it is, at least in the days of the "old style Latinisms" we more closely were looking and acting like Latins. In adopting this new trend of western sensibility, we seem to be running to the end of the dock for a ship that has sailed. And sailed some time ago. From everything I have read about the coming re-translation of the Roman English-language litrugy, they are not even following this styling any more. (In fact when they WERE it was often in illicit or unapporved fashions!)

I open myself up to being decried as a "Latiniac", but if we are going to ape trends of the Latins, give me supplicatio, moleban to the Sacred Heart and pre-liturgy rosary ANY sunday before this new style of "inclusive speak".

I am still at a loss to understand why or how it was pressing for us to move forward unilaterally - not as a pan Greek Catholic effort, not as a joint effort with the Orthodox - in undertaking this expensive and (very apparently now) devisive move.

I am not trying to be funny or sacracstic. I am just confused.

That is probably THE biggest question that I have remaining on my mind. Why did Archbishop Judson feel that the Ruthenian GC Church needed to do this alone? Or did the other Greek Catholic hierarchies here in the USA just not want to revise their Liturgies too, and refused to join?

That question is one I had posted in another thread...

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/18919/Number/245972#Post245972

Don't anybody pin this fiasco on Archbishop Judson. Anybody who knows him would know that he never would have tolerated this disaster, and had more concern for his people than to ever have allowed this.

This is the work of the liturgy revision committee, and its chairman, Bishop Andrew.

Archbishop Judson never would have allowed this.

Nick

I agree with Nick.

I have it through a reliable source that this is not the kind RDL that Metropolitan Judson had in mind.

There are other interesting facts that are not public knowledge, so I won't disclose them in this forum.

And then some, we have yet to see how the implimentation of the motu proprio goes for the Latin Church, but it is a start to correct something that should not have been done the way it was done in the first place, IMO.

While I agree with you and Rusyn31, that the final product may not be exactly what the late Archbishop invisioned, two facts are very plain, 1) the new translation was finished and received back from Rome with her approval, pending some changes, before the repose of Archbishop Judson, and 2) a lot of what is now the RDL for the Metropolia was used at the 75th anniversary celebration Liturgy in Pittsburgh in 1999. Remember? "May the Lord God remember in His kingdom, Bishop So&So, whom God loves" over and over and over at the Great Entrance. I thought that I was going to fall over. Thankfully that one was changed, and then we find out that now, God "loves us all!"

As a woman I have no confussion about when a man is a man and when a man is not a man and refers to either men or women, a genric representative of mankind; not some crazy humankind;I mean, what is the point of adding hu- if -man- is still there. Humynkind! That should solve everything!

More seriously, I am very careful in how I use words, and I love useing the word man for all men. Human being is useful when I am talking speacifically about the being of man, which is a human being, and what makes him a human being is that he has human nature. (he/she stinks obviously, because it is akward and unnecessary) So I rarely have need of "human being" when I write. Humankind should only be used as human being is used (see my technical use rule), and not in place of mankind when mankind is clearly meant.

So, when it comes to translation, it is important to be true to the vocabulary structure used in the original text as the author(or authors) intended the text to be understood. Hence, besides the fact that I find inclusive language to be just plain wrong-headed, inclusive language translations unnecessarily misrepresent the text. Conversely, if someone were to be translating an author who originally used so called gender-neutral language as a matter of technical vocabulary, it should be represented acurately in a translation as "this-generic-man-being" or something.

My question is on this point. Given my point above that gender-neutral translations obsure the original meaning of a text, how is inclusive laguage a restoration of anything in the liturgy? Has this been answered anywhere else on the forum? I am new.

God Bless,
Rosemary

Short memories! As John K points out, Archbishop Judson did receive the approval from Rome of the basic Liturgy we have promulgated. Bishop Andrew did not become moderator of the Inter-eparchial Committee until after Bishop George resigned. Follow the reasoning: since some accept as a proven fact that the Liturgy is bad, then they come to the conclusion that Archbishop Judson could not have had anything to do with it. The fault in this reasoning is that the Liturgy may not be bad! If the Liturgy is not bad, then there is no fault from Archbishop Judson. In any case, I personally spoke with Archbishop Judson after the approval from Rome was received, this is a reliable source.

IM
Re: homo
"Homo" is not "just like" man. I did not say it could not mean "male human being," only that its "range" of meaning is different than English. (cf. "Cassell's New Latin Dictionary," New York, 1960 American edition - well before these controversies), p. 277, under "homo." And, moreover, in your quotation you are not dealing with a Latin original, but a Latin translation of the Greek (Matthew 19:5, which is "anthropos"). At any rate, I am not going to change a stock phrase from a "dead" language!!!
I am not a "secularist." Any reading of my articles will show that I know the reality of the sacred, and the necessity of affirming the "sacred" against the "secular." St. James told us to "keep yourselves unstained by the world." (James 1:27) and the Liturgy tells us to "set aside all earthly cares." Good advice - what it means is to stay away from the false values of the world that would smother and choke off the true values of God's message. St. Paul tells us that the wisdom of the world is foolishness, but he also tells us that God is reconciling the world, that we do not have to leave the world (1 Cor 5:10), and St. John tells us that God loves the world. The world, too, is created by God and it is full of wondrous and magnificent things. Why do we have to see everything as black and white? Why does Jesus Himself tell us: "For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light." (Luke 16:8) I do see sometimes less edifying behavior and words in people of the Church than in people of the world. Is there, by the way, any discussion on this forum of the atheist attacks on faith by people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Michael Onfray?

Fr. David:

You certainly gave the impression that homo did not mean "male human being":


As you now admit, however, homo (like anthropos) has the additional meaning of "male human being." Man, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable translation of homo as it is of anthropos. In the Creed, when I say "for us men...he became a man," I assert that Christ really did became a male human being. That is important. He is the bridegroom. Moreover, this translation is consistent with the Greek terms (and Latin in the Roman Rite) and it accurately reflects the fact that for men, God became man.

Man of course can do double duty and also be used like vir or aner. So it is actually richer and more complex in meaning than homo or anthropos.

I did not call you a secularist. I asked why you would want to follow the secularists down this idealogical path of refusing to translate anthropoi in the Creed. Even Fr. Taft sees this type of agenda driven distorting of ancient texts unacceptable:


In 1960 "man" was an acceptable translation of anthropos and still is today. Why drop it and distort the Creed?

Beyond this, of course, is the ordinary magisterium's decision in Liturgiam Authenticam, by whch we, as Catholics, are bound.

Finally, while a I agree that we need not fear the world, neither ought we to change our Creed to fit the world's idealogical agenda. If the Fathers of the Church would not accomodate Arius, what good will come from accomodating the world?

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/225621/page/1/fpart/8#Post226221


???????????????????????

I have no idea if you are, but the above quote may have confused some here.





I don't recall anyone quoting these names, all I've seen with atheists has been one of our Deacons referring us to the works of the well known feminist Alice S. Rossi (https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=246246#Post246246) and one of our priests praising the works of Eric Foner (https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=226285#Post226285). I'll do some more searching.

All of this inclusive language talk still has me wondering:

Genesis 5:1-2

"This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them man."

Have the scriptures that will be read in our churches been updated with the enlightenment that even Thomas Jefferson lacked?

If not why? If not, is the new liturgy the first step towards changing this as well?


All those scripture quotes got me thinking about these:

"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (II Thess. 2:15).

"I commend you because you . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (I Cor. 11:2).

And all of this discussion regarding this being a restoration has me wondering, if this is a restoration could someone ask Archbishop Basil to have Vespers instead of evening liturgies on Saturday evenings at the Cathedral in Pittsburgh?

Monomakh

I don't believe this is the intent of that association in the Creed, but it is unfortunately an understanding reinforced by dropping the word "men" but retaining the word "man"; that is, "man" is ok and can not be criticized as exclusive because he was a male. Thus I think the RDL translation of the Creed, in dropping "men", may be inadvertently promoting the non-inclusive understanding of the retained word "man".

Dn. Anthony