|
0 members (),
746
guests, and
101
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,510
Posts417,514
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1 |
I have yet to meet one person who thought "mankind" was offensive. I know and have met alot of people. Any Orthodox or Greek Catholic I have talked to about this thinks mankind is okay. My question is where does one find these people? Is there a major cluster of offended souls roaming around who only come out at night? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 856 |
Dear Administrator,
I am afraid we will have to disagree - but I would like to see your evidence that "mankind" can mean "a human being".
LA directs that where a source text refers to BOTH the individual and the collective, it should be translated using terminology which does the same. It COULD have said "May be translated using a purely collective term as long as it is understood that this includes the individual", but it didn't. Can you find a single dictionary definition that gives one meaning of mankind as being an individual human being? This is what "man" does; mankind does "not".
On the face of it, "mankind" fails this test. It may still be the best translation, but it does not MEAN an individual man - and thus fails one of the criteria of LA. That does not make it a BAD translation - but it means that those who call for absolute adherence to LA in English have to pick and choose which parts of LA to follow most closely, or whether to abandon common Orthodox usage and adopt a text (such as "Lover of man") which DOES meet those criteria.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32 |
... I would like to see your evidence that "mankind" can mean "a human being". Growing up I knew him as Everyman. Mankind (play)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mankind is a medieval morality play, written c. 1475. ... The play is a moral allegory about Mankind, a representative of the human race, and follows his fall into sin and his repentance... [ en.wikipedia.org] Dn. Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
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 Very well stated, Fr. Deacon. I can't say that I have seen any compelling scholarship regarding liturgical anthropology that would lead one to believe that the insertion of such language is based on anything other than a modernist sense of "inclusivity". As a previous poster noted, I also am having difficulty seeing a significant distinction between "gender neutral" and "inclusive", at least regarding how the RDL language is concerned and applied (a sort of verbal emasculation, perhaps).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,763 Likes: 29
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,763 Likes: 29 |
Jeff, Yes we will have to disagree. The collective "mankind" is made up of men (i.e., all individuals from Adam and Eve until the last soul conceived before the Second Coming). "Lover of Mankind" has been employed by the Church in English translations for about a century now. By long standing usage together with context it speaks of both the individual man and the collective man. There may be more accurate translations but "Lover of Mankind" is not an incorrect or unacceptable translation. I am not and have never argued that there are not better translations. I am arguing that "all of us" is not an acceptable translation while "lover of mankind" is. If the Church rules that "lover of mankind" is incorrect and should not be used I will both stand corrected and respect the decision. But it has not made any such decision on the term "mankind". It has, however, made such decisions regarding gender neutral language (sometimes mistakenly called "inclusive language"). And we see that some of those involved with the new texts have admitted that the goal was not solely to create a more accurate translation but rather to "improve" the Liturgy according to the personal taste of a few. John 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 33 |
Greetings from Florida! I am a computer semi-literate cantor, transplanted from Pittsburgh about 13 years ago. I was blessed, when I moved here, to find a Byzantine parish about 20 miles from my home; I've also been cantoring here at All Saints' parish. It took me s while, but finally I have a "user name" here at the forum.
A few weeks ago, as I commemorated my 60th birthday, I realized that I have been cantoring for about 47 years -- I started as an apprentice when I was in 8th grade, and have been singing ever since!
I have seen a lot of changes in 47 years. I actually remember when the first English Liturgy came about. I remember the "competition," as it were, between Passaic and Pittsburgh to see who could get the best book prepared. I can appreciate the work of then Bishop Elko, and Auxillary Bishop Kocisko, in the initial phases of introducing the vernacular. Even as a youngster, back then, I was a bit concerned -- I knew the "Slavonic" liturgy off by heart, and was concerned that I would not be able to adapt to the changes.
I can also remember, even into my seminary days (1965 to 1968) the complaining over the "new" Liturgy. It went something like: "Why can't there be one version of the Liturgy, so that when we go from parish to parish, or diocese to diocese, that we could still know we were in the Byzantine Church?"
Guess what, folks? The hierarchy has produced a unified Liturgy -- They took 40 years of working, retuning, hammering out the music and rubrics and language. For all of their efforts, what have they received? Insults, more complaining, name calling -- and unproven allegationg of supposed threats they made!
It is amazing to me how much energy has been directed the wrong way in the current "new" Liturgy controversy. We seem to have forgotten the basics of Christianity. The Liturgy is a living, growing, work of the people. We do not go to church to be entertained; we are not all accomplished singers and musicians. We go to church to participate in the Divine Liturgy, handed down to us by God Himself. What are the basic parts needed for Liturgy? Offertory, Consecration, and Communion. Music adds to the beauty of the service, and gives all the participants a common connection. But I do not think that the Good Lord will punish us if we miss a note, or take a while to learn something "new" for His sake.
Take it from someone who has seen plenty of changes -- pay more attention to the meaning of this "work of the people," listen to the prayers and responses. Let's be Christians, and pray for our church leaders, and have a little bit of faith that the Holy Spirit knows what's going on! Then we can truly offer an acceptable sacrifice to God, with a "humble and contrite heart."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
Guess what, folks? The hierarchy has produced a unified Liturgy And sadly, it was done in secrecy, with agendas, and forced on the people--without regard for the Ruthenian recension. The Liturgy is a living, growing, work of the people. Exactly. Organic change is inevitable. The RDL is anything but organic. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134 Likes: 1 |
Guess what, folks? The hierarchy has produced a unified Liturgy And sadly, it was done in secrecy, with agendas, and forced on the people--without regard for the Ruthenian recension. The Liturgy is a living, growing, work of the people. Exactly. Organic change is inevitable. The RDL is anything but organic. This is why many have left, and will probably continue leaving for other BC or Orthodox churches.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
[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? Probably because I am almost 44 years old ... 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491 |
As far as people actually doing the VII "full and active participation" thing, the conciliar reforms led primarily to full and active participation in sleeping in on Sundays. While still claiming to be Catholic. Please furnish the data for these claims. If you look at the data that I supplied recently, you will see that the Catholic frequency of Sunday worship mirrors that of the other religious traditions in the USA. I do wonder (and I will be starting this discussion as another thread later today) about the standard of "weekly Sunday attendance" as the barometer of success or failure. As a social scientist, I also wonder about the "cause-and-effect" conclusions that many have drawn about the liturgical changes of the '60s and the current state of Catholicism in North America. There are so MANY variables at play -- I wonder how one can isolate one ... I also would be VERY interested to see statistical data that confirms the anecdotal stories floating around about the demise of Catholicism in North America. The statistical data I have seen leads me to other conclusions ... but I would be interested in looking at the published data and especially at looking at the methodology that was used to discover and compile the data.
Last edited by PrJ; 10/30/07 01:07 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
The Rolling Stones are all pushing AARP ages, aren't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,392 Likes: 32 |
As far as people actually doing the VII "full and active participation" thing, the conciliar reforms led primarily to full and active participation in sleeping in on Sundays. While still claiming to be Catholic. Please furnish the data for these claims. If you look at the data that I supplied recently, you will see that the Catholic frequency of Sunday worship mirrors that of the other religious traditions in the USA... I'm not sure of the question here: Catholics may be on a par with other religions for participation, but does that mean an enhanced Catholic decline or a general, proportional decline? The following doesn't answer that question but is just another, hopefully relevant fact. Counting heads � Four sources note decline of Catholics at Sunday Mass By Carol Ann Morrow 2/22/2007 St. Anthony Messenger ( www.americancatholic.org [ americancatholic.org]) CINCINNATI, Ohio (St. Anthony Messenger) � Is it true that Sunday Mass attendance has fallen? Four sources � Gallup, the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), USA Today and the National Catholic Reporter - say �yes� and can document the decline in numbers... link [ catholic.org]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 560 |
Slava Isusu Christu!
Slava na Viki!
This is for pilgrimcantor--I'm am so glad that you posted and I hope you continue to post. The more people who speak out (regardless of their opinion) the better.
You mentioned that you cantored before the switch to English. One of the many complaints against the Revised Divine Liturgy is the melodies and tunes are different. Some people say the elder members of their parishes remember those melodies and welcome them back. Others have said the opposite. What is your opinion? Are the new melodies familiar to you at all? Do you remember them? Or are they totally unfamiliar with them?
I am not asking you to trick you or set you up in any way. I am truly curious. Some of the people on this forum are younger and don't remember or have never experienced the full Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in Old Slavonic. I was an altar boy and did Divine Liturgy in Slavonic five days a week. But at this point it has been so long ago that I don't know if I can trust my memory. You are much more familiar with the music. Is the music in the new pew books closer to the original that you grew up with as a child, or is it different?
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 40
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 40 |
The drop in RC Mass attendance is well established. A great source of data and stories is Rod Stark and Roger Finke's _Churching of America_ (Rutgers UP, 1992); see pp. 259-260 on RC Mass attendance. Also, Andrew Greeley (whatever you think of his bodice-rippers, he's a great sociologist) in America here [ americamagazine.org] : Here [ boston.com] 's a newspaper article estimating 20% in Boston. Yes, there are other variables--Greeley continually hammers on the proclamation of Humanae Vitae. But to view Mass attendance patterns, the timing of the decline, and the timing of the conciliar liturgical changes--Occam's razor indicates the causal relation. Mass attendance may not be the best measure either, but if you use vocations, parish or school openings and closures, etc., it's all going in the same direction. Besides, how else can you interpret a drop from 3/4 to 1/4--there are no qualitative measures to call on that would neutralize the bad news behind that trend.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 55
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 55 |
I also deeply appreciate the adoption of elements of horizontal inclusive language and find it both theologically correct and pastorally sensitive. From my personal dialogue with literally hundreds of young people, I can honestly say that this Liturgy communicates the Gospel effectively to today's youth in a way that the older form of the Liturgy does not. Liturgiam Authenticam
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.
31. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation. Some particular norms are the following:
a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.
b) Particular care is to be taken to ensure that the fixed expression "Son of Man" be rendered faithfully and exactly. The great Christological and typological significance of this expression requires that there should also be employed throughout the translation a rule of language that will ensure that the fixed expression remain comprehensible in the context of the whole translation.
c) The term "fathers", found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church.
d) Insofar as possible in a given vernacular language, the use of the feminine pronoun, rather than the neuter, is to be maintained in referring to the Church.
e) Words which express consanguinity or other important types of relationship, such as "brother", "sister", etc., which are clearly masculine or feminine by virtue of the context, are to be maintained as such in the translation.
f) The grammatical gender of angels, demons, and pagan gods or goddesses, according to the original texts, is to be maintained in the vernacular language insofar as possible.
g) In all these matters it will be necessary to remain attentive to the principles set forth above, in nn. 27 and 29.
32. The translation should not restrict the full sense of the original text within narrower limits. To be avoided on this account are expressions characteristic of commercial publicity, political or ideological programs, passing fashions, and those which are subject to regional variations or ambiguities in meaning. Academic style manuals or similar works, since they sometimes give way to such tendencies, are not to be considered standards for liturgical translation. On the other hand, works that are commonly considered "classics" in a given vernacular language may prove useful in providing a suitable standard for its vocabulary and usage. Rome has clearly stated that gender neutral language is theologically incorrect. Are you, Father Mack, stating that Rome is wrong and you are right? How can you call for obedience to Rome and then promote disobedience yourself? Are you, Father Mack, stating that Rome is wrong and you are right? How can you call for obedience to Rome and then promote disobedience yourself? I thank God you have embraced the Byzantine Catholic Church. I pray that you will also accept her theology.
|
|
|
|
|
