www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Feminism and the English Language

This is an patent untruth -- I have repeatedly shown how my support for the revision flows out of my deep commitment to the Gospel and to the Church Fathers. So either you are calling me a liar or you are speaking in generalities that obscure rather than enlighten the discussion.

Obviously, no Church Father discussed the question of which English word would best express the teaching of the gospel. However, if you are talking about the theology that men and women are equal before God, that men and women both have equal access to the Father, that our God loves men and women equally and that in the heavenly kingdom the differentiation between genders will be no longer present -- then there are ABUNDANT sources from the Fathers that confirm these points.

Furthermore, recently there have been several academic studies which have shown the unique position on gender shown by the ancient Syriac tradition in which the feminine pronoun was repeatedly used to refer to the Holy Spirit.

This is just one of many studies that show how later generations missed important insights of the fathers on the radical equality between men and women that was taught both in the New Testament and in the Fathers.

I would also note that Cardinal Newman's theology of doctrinal development only necessitates that a doctrine be found in seed form in the fathers and scripture for it to be accepted in its full flowering form.

Again, I think a review of history is important. Throughout its history, the Christian Church has been a leader in the feminist movement. It was Christians who asserted a woman's right NOT to be married. It was Christians who asserted a woman's right to study Scripture. It was Christians who asserted a woman's right to leave an abusive husband. It was Christians who stopped the binding of feet in China. Etc.

Father, if you're as good as you say you are, I can't imagine who could better explain it to me and other "people who have not studied Greek as long or as in as much depth as [you] have." So please give it a try: Three easy questions requiring three straightforward answers.

While you're at it, please answer this too. Do you think there is an intended link between τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους and καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα?

You see I've asked before, why is it that, as in the RDL translation, men must be dropped from for us men yet it is OK to then say and became man?

Detailed explanations are not necessary to my first four questions; yes or no type answers are fine, I'll try to figure out the rest myself. Any insights on the last question could clear things up for me a lot. If you could please answer those questions, us simple folks would sure be most appreciative.

Dn. Anthony

Yes, Deacon John has a valid point and this should be set right:

"The term "humankind", coined" in the 16th century, still "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."

Having cleared that up, it is nice that we're all in agreement.

Dn. Anthony

PRJ:

With all due respect, there was never anything in history called the "Christian Church." The body we speak of in the Creeds has been termed the "Catholic Church" throughout history, as early as the second century.

With all due respect there was never a "feminist" movement in the history of the Catholic Church, and, indeed, the feminist movement is a creature of the English-speaking world and the radical secular feminists during the 1960s--the era of the flower children, the birth of dissent in all areas of life, and the radical rejection of anything and everything that came before that era.

That the Church has been at the forefront of understanding and proclaiming the dignity of women is not in dispute. That it can be attributed to a "feminist" movement that extends prior to 1960 is a lie of huge proportions, not worthy of Catholic or Orthodox Christians of any stripe.

Unfortunately the many academic studies that have tried to bolster the feminist arguments have done little but discredit the authors as being anything more than social engineers in clericals.

Rome has consistently taught that the threats to womens' dignity in the world are a sin. But she has also taught that secular feminism, its agenda, and its mindset has no place in the life of the Church because it tends to divide rather than unite.

Cardinal Newman is one cardinal. The Magisterium is much larger than he alone. There are those who have expanded the idea of the development of doctrine to include everything that comes along and, again, Rome has come along and instructed us that much of what we have been taught is development in the last 40 years has been either a mistake, a misinterpretation, or flat out wrong.

It's instructive that one very faithful Catholic woman would do a critique of the feminist movement and agenda but it has received very little notice by the hierarchy which has bought into the lie that feminism represents women as a whole.

In Christ,

BOB
In Christ,

BOB

Indeed the correct translation according to the principles set forth by PrJ should be "for us human beings and for our salvation, he became a human being." But of course there is a problem with this translation for Christ became man, the bridegroom of the Church. It is precisely because of the ambiguity of anthropos--man, that the language of the Creed, as approved by the Church Fathers, and received by the Church thoughout the centuries, is both beautiful an true:


St. Ambrose taught that we should have faith seeking understanding. In the case of the new Creed, we have a modern understanding altering the faith (perhaps ever so slightly--but indeed altering it) of generations. And while I do know if PrJ falls in this camp, there are those who seek to make the change I mentioned:



http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/1.2.11

PS - As to the slavery issue, one must remember that Lincoln when he referred to the Declaration of Independence for the proposition that "all men are created equal" did not merely seek to abolish slavery only for black males.

Dn Anthony,

Your Greek got all "messed up" and try as I might, I cannot find four questions in your posts.

There would be no theological problem with this translation. Christ indeed did become a human being. And, yes, I believe that this is the intent of the Creed at this point. The Creed is not affirming Christ's maleness at this point; if that was the intent, another Greek word would have been used. The Creed is affirming Christ's humanity. That is the theological point being made.

At the same time, I have no problem with the statement "and became man" because quite clearly the maleness of Christ was a given and is the way in which he demonstrated his common bond with all of humanity.

Precisely my point: when Lincoln said "all men" everyone understood "all human beings." Today when people say "all men" most of the young people understand "all males." Therefore, what they hear you saying is theologically incorrect. We CANNOT re-educate all of the students in America. What we can do is communicate to them in a language they understand. Hence the need for the RDL.

It seems very simple to me -- you can moan and groan and complain all you want about how young people today are being poorly educated, about how the language is degenerating, etc.

But you are still faced with a choice -- stick to your antiquated way of speaking and lose the chance to communicate with the young people OR change the way you talk to communicate effectively.

I choose the later.

I stand corrected and apologize for my mistake. I thought you were serving at Sugar Creek.

Commitment to the Gospel and to the Church Fathers is no guarantee of Christian orthodoxy. Good and well intentioned people can miss the mark and I believe that you and those who support the Revised Divine Liturgy have indeed missed the mark, despite your love for Christ and His Church. Regarding my words you have quoted above I reference the rest of my post:

The fact remains that you (and most of those who support the RDL) appeal for the acceptance of your arguments based on your good intentions rather than on good scholarship. As I have repeatedly pointed out, provide the scholarly support from Church sources � Catholic and Orthodox � for your positions. A few extensive quotes from Pope Benedict XVI or other liturgical heavyweights East or West would indeed be powerful. I have certainly provided such documentation to support my position, and based on my study of the various Catholic and Orthodox theological source material I have even altered my own position to conform to the mind of the Church.

I agree that everyone should strive for accuracy and Father Deacon makes a valid point. Still, the larger point holds. The term "humankind" was embraced by the secular feminists in the 1970s and 1980s not because no one was capable of understanding the term "mankind" but because they chose to be offended by a perfectly good word.

But this is interesting. Father David Petras said somewhere in these discussions that the bishops purposely chose not to use "humankind". I'd have to hunt down the exact quote but I seem to remember it was simply along the lines of that it sounded strange. "For us humans and our salvation he became human" does sound strange but it is far more accurate then "for us and our salvation". The commission of the term "man" and rendering it as "for us and our salvation" is potentially exclusive and far less inclusive then "for us men and our salvation."

For the record, I checked with Deacon Nicholas of St. Luke's in Sugar Creek this evening. He assured me that no one has left St. Luke's because of the new translation of the traditional Liturgy. He was quite certain and emphatic in his response. He also wondered why people who have not contacted him or the priest of the parish were spreading false rumors about the Church?

Just because something is misused does not make the proper use improper.

Ironically however this thread is in response to the article of a Computer Science professor at Yale. Hardly a heavyweight in the Church.