www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy I guess they are right again

But the rock-n-roll and guitar Masses are a meaningful communication vehicle for the the Roman Catholic youths! Why do you not like them?

Prophetic insight? Please explain.

Really? The Ruthenian Church did not feel this way for many years. The other Eastern Catholic Churches do not feel this way. The Orthodox Churches do not feel this way. Real problems? According to who?

Since the bulletin states something like "no Vespers service until further notice" at the parish home, the parochial center which should be the spiritual center of the community, it is a net reduction in the parish services at the church itself at least since I was there.

This is a parish that now has two priests and a deacon. While I understand there is some sort of outreach, and am pleased to hear that, it should not take place at the expense of a reduction in the life of the mother parish. We had Vespers regularly scheduled when I was there even as a subdeacon and we only had one priest - and I often drove one and a half hours one-way both Saturday and Sunday or stayed over to celebrate the full cycle.

According to the principles of Liturgicam Authentican. Since this phrase doesn't follow those principles (i.e. mankind does not refer to both the individual and collective), and yet is "generally used" in English, I'm trying to find out where people here presume LA to apply - only to new translations? translations people don't like? Or are existing translations excluded from following these principles?

Jeff

P.S. I agree that "Lover of mankind" is probably the best translation we have, even though it DOESN'T follow the principles in LA. Do we follow LA for this text, or "most Orthodox Churches"?

You are saying that it refers soley to the collective, correct? I was raised to understand the term "mankind" as being all inclusive. And outside of the radical feminist movement, I have never heard objections from women about the use of this word as an all inclusive understanding.

Of course it refers to the collective, in the ordinary sense. "Many men come through my office each day." I could be speaking of specific individuals, or specific males (if the context made that clear - "but women and children just look in the door", etc.), or most likely to some undefined number, a dozen or a thousand. But to say "Mankind comes through my office each day"? Would anyone actually say that in an ordinary, non-poetic sense? One might say "Examples of mankind", but "mankind" AS USED IN ENGLISH has the strongest possible collective connotation; it is not used when referring to an individual or individuals. Instead, it is used to qualify ANOTHER word that refers to the individual(s), to make it clear they are part of the collective.

My wife and children are examples of mankind, but in having supper with them, I am not having supper with mankind. One could say "Men sit down together to break bread and praise God" and see an image of this in our family meal, but to say "Mankind sits down together" would imply something MUCH broader.

That's why "Lover of mankind" violates the guideline in LA. "Lover of mankind" and "Lover of us all" each break one guideline in LA, and "Lover of man" (which breaks neither) is simply not widely used in Orthodoxy. So saying "We must follow LA, and reject 'Lover of us all' in favor of 'Lover of mankind'" is a specious argument.

Jeff

I certainly think our ancestors of Rus' and those evangelized by Sts. Cyril and Methodius understood "chelovik" to have a collective meaning as well.

About two weeks ago I broached this issue in my Benedictine College class, populated by junior and senior theology students. All without exception were pleased in the direction the Latin liturgy was going under the leadership of Pope Benedict. And although only one student in the class of 29 had a Latin Mass background, all applauded the Motu Proprio and the freeing of the use of the Latin Mass.

When I discussed the adoption of horizontal inclusive language in the RDL, one young man stated "Didn't those guys learn anything from us?" From the mouths of the innocent...

I also recall reading an interview with Fr. Louis Bouyer in the early 1970s after the tide of experimentation was underway in the Latin church. He stated the point that the "obsession with horizontality in liturgy takes us away from God, not closer".

The problem that I have with this type of analysis (it having been offered before in other threads) of the translation of the philanthropos/chelov'ikol'ubche words is that it, in effect, magnifies the splinter in "Mankind" while dismissing the beam in "us all." With respect to the motivation for the switch, it has been my (perhaps mistaken) understanding that the change from "Mankind" to "us all" was not for linguistic or theological precision, a better conveyance of biblical allusions, accuracy, rigor, or an improvement in the vocabulary dealing with the classic interplay of the "one" and the "many" and the "many who are one": the so-called collective or corporate person, the "catholic person". Rather, that it simply, and admittedly, came from a desire/need to sound inclusive.

Dn. Anthony

I couldn't have said it better.

Plus common sense speaking, 'loves us all' starts even more confusion. Is all of 'us' just those here, what about the guy that darted for the parking lot right after communion?, what about those down the street?, is it the whole human race?, etc. Mankind just works better and doesn't have a secular agenda attached to it. Is mankind perfect, no, that's why Slavonic is so nice

Monomakh

I must admit that I haven't kept up with the terminology as meticulously as I should: what is the "significant difference"?

Amen Fr Deacon. I was trying to find the words to express my understanding. But you have done that for me. Many thanks.

And to you also my good friend Monomakh!

The translation �lover of mankind� is inclusive and in no way violates the terms presented in Liturgiam Authenticam. It refers both to the individual and the collective. The phrase �for [Christ] is good and loves mankind� indicates that Christ loves all men (each and every man), from Adam and Eve to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. One might argue that there is a more accurate translation of the original Slavonic and Greek terms but one cannot claim that �lover of mankind� is either inaccurate or unacceptable. It remains a very good translation (and is incredibly accurate when compared to the potentially exclusive and definitely ambiguous �all of us�). And we know that the switch was made not because �all of us� is more accurate but because certain people were offended by the term �mankind�.

The problem here is that some wish to present the Liturgy in politically correct street language (profane or �outside the temple�). But the Church has always aimed higher. If we look at the English language, any one familiar with history knows that when the King James Bible was produced some complained that the language was too �churchy� (or confusing) and that ordinary men would never understand it. Yet the King James Version wonderfully formed the English language and culture in a very Christian manner. It did not attempt to embrace the politics of those opposed to the Church�s mission (as do the well-meaning people who mistakenly impose secular feminist language upon Christians). The Church uses language to form each man. It does not adapt Christian theology to be acceptable to the secular feminists.

The Latin Church tried the gender neutral stuff. It didn't work. They are returning to accuracy and authenticity. We should learn from their mistakes. Traditional language allows for both accuracy and exclusivity.

This is very good. I think it aptly describes the situation that led to the creation of the RDL. Good men who meant well falsely concluded that picking and choosing customs from the past would create a purer form of the Liturgy. But to do so - especially in isolation from the larger Church - ignores the Holy Spirit's role in guiding liturgical development.

I'm still puzzled about the title of the thread.

In what framework are they right again?

Was the original poster excluding the periods when the BCA had bishops that took down icon screens?

Is 90%+ of parishes not celebrating Vespers and Matins today being excluded as well?

Is the fact that 98%-100% of BCA parishes not ever celebrating the Great Canon of St. Andrew excluded in this as well?

Is Proskomedia being ignored for decades including today in parishes being excluded as well?

Is attendance and vocations being down being excluded in that statement?

Is the lack of any evangelizing plan and results from it being excluded as well?

Is wasting time and money on unnecessary revising instead of evangelizing being excluded as well?

Or is the point of the thread that the original poster is pleased that the chopped up version of the Liturgy is official throughout the land and now has a feminized agenda to it thus taking us further away from our Orthodox brethern and even our own Greek Catholic brethern. From what past success stories of chopping up and liberalizing can the original poster point to?

The salient point is that if we as Greek Catholics can't admit and agree that we are far from the necessary progress and steps that are needed to survive and thrive, then the same mistakes will continue to be made.



Monomakh