www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy The sociological nonsense behind the new language

My (former) Ruthenian parish was one which was reduced by the RDL. It was very sad.

I would disagree, He came to offer salvation to all, but salvation, and the Creed, are only for Christians.

So the RDL version actually clarifies the words of the Creed which only seem to imply that God became Man so that Man could become God, i.e. for us Men (anthropous) and for our salvation ... He became Man (enanthropesanta), to the proper understanding that for us (Christians) and for our salvation ... He became Man? Is that closer to what is actually being professed in the RDL translation? And that it is not the case, as I have maintained before link, that

Intimately linked with these two differing doctrines of soteriology in the Creed is the translation of philanthropos/chelovikolubets, formerly rendered Lover of Mankind, now in the RDL as lover of us all [each in their various forms]. In line with your understanding of the Creed as clarified by the RDL translation, how do you contrast and interpret the us all of lover of us all as different from Mankind?

I haven't missed anything. What I was referring to, were those who left over this revised liturgy, but keep complaining - and with drama galore. Some of my good friends are traditional Latins who have fought for around 40 years now to get their liturgy back. Thanks to Pope Benedict their efforts finally have paid off. I haven't seen much of a fight put up by some of our complainers, current and former, to preserve what was supposedly so important to them. But they surely do keep complaining. What about prayer? Wouldn't it be more productive to organize prayer for the intention of revising the revised liturgy?

What a good idea! Do you think they would allow us to pray our old Liturgy for this intention?

Nick

I would agree that, here, mankind would be a better choice than "us all" as it is inclusive of those outside of the group. I never said that proper choices were made everywhere, in the Creed "us" is appropriate because it is written to be exclusive of those outside of the group.

Part of the problem is that the DL was written by, and during, a patristic age, where women were not considered equals. The NT itself seems confused on the status of women in the church, and even today we practice very patristic attitudes. Converting text is a very difficult thing to do, and the NRSV shows just how badly it can be done.

This is incorrect. When we profess, in the Creed, “who for us men and for our salvation He became man” we are professing the truth that Christ became man and suffered crucifixion for all men, that is every man from Adam and Eve forward to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. [Whether an individual accepts that salvation is a different question.] To suggest that the Creed was “written to be exclusive of those outside the group” is heresy. [And I do not for a moment believe that the bishops considered this interpretation when they removed the term "man" ("anthropos") from the Creed, or that Proskvnetes intends to speak heresy!]

The above text was a response to an earlier draft of the English text of the Creed in the Roman Catholic Church were the translators embraced political correctness by omitting the word “men” in “who for us men and for our salvation”. The Roman Catholic Church has kept the clarity of doctrine in its new translation by leaving the text as “who for us men and our salvation He became man”. [The same problem is found throughout the RDL in texts which formerly were inclusive ("who is gracious and loves mankind") but are now, at best, doctrinally imprecise.] I pray daily that the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs will correct this mistake in translation, since here in this discussion we have a clear example of the doctrinal problems that come with the adoption of politically correct “gender neutral language”.

Most who have left (including myself) still have friends and/or family in the Byzantine Catholic Church. Most who are displeased with the RDL (including myself) have written polite letters to Rome explaining their disatisfaction with the RDL. Most who are displeased with the RDL (including myself) continue to pray for the Church.

So your continued accusations of bitter complainers is completely unwarranted.

I have obviously not succeeded in demonstrating to you otherwise. It is ironic to me that those who, I would say, tortured the language and the content of the Creed in order to impose an ill-informed solution to the questionable agenda of gender "inclusivity," have produced in your understanding an exclusivity, "those outside of the group" as you say. Christ is only the new partial-Adam. Once again, it would be good to know just what was intended by the RDL translation. But the failure to simply teach what is objectively there, what that word men/anthropous in the Creed means -- that it is very inclusive, that it is there for a good reason and on purpose, that it is necessary -- has produced instead a basic confusion about the significance and scope of the Incarnation in that sarkosis-theosis is professed to be, in your interpretation of the RDL version, intrinsically exclusive by divine intent.


Within the Church, whatever the deficiencies in its application, the teaching is actually quite clear: RSV Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Unfortunately, lured by the fashion of the times, and based on an alleged need or demand for "inclusive" language -- a need that has never been substantiated -- someone or ones who will not step forward to claim credit and explain their translation, now are "mute as fish" and are hidden in anonymity. Apparently confusion on the part of the faithful, as witnessed by our disagreement over a significant dogmatic issue, is not provocation enough for the someone or ones who fostered this translation to go on record with an explanation.

I stand corrected, after re-reading with your explanation in mind I see that you are correct. apologies to all.

Sadly, the teaching is not consistent, I wish that teaching was the standard of the churches, so much would be different. However, in 1Cor 14:33 we read:
Were women truly considered equals, then they would not only be permitted to speak in the church, but to offer teaching as well. Did the Holy Spirit, in their thinking, limit His gifts to men only, or did He provide only certain gifts to women? Both teaching and practice are inconsistent.

Women were equal with regards to salvation, but full equality was not given to them.

This is what happens when one reads a 1st century, even inspired writing, with a 21st century outlook. Why limit the understanding of equality to speaking and teaching? How about the priesthood -- why limit that to only males; etc.? What does it take for full equality in your concept of the Church?

How unfair of St. Paul and the Church all this time in limiting women as only "equal with regards to salvation" and not the important stuff.

What is your conclusion then about the translation of the Creed concerning the RDL's "for us and for..." versus "for us men and for..."?

This points to the fact that the Bishops who approved the new version of the Creed are banking on the fact that the faithful will supply in their own minds, the missing word - men. It is not the meaning which the Bishops wanted to get rid of, but just the word. But we humans can't escape the fact that it is through words that we understand, and ultimately through the Word made flesh that we are united to ultimate meaning in God Himself.

One then has to ask the question, "Is it legitimate for some strange notion of the common good - not to upset certain women, to arbitrarily dismiss words from the Creed which was formulated by an Ecumenical Council?" For no other reason than the fact that word, 'anthropous - men" is in the Creed, this new version is not authentic or true. That's dangerous ground to be on when it is the Symbol of Faith that one is dealing with. Another question that must be asked is, "Whether four Bishops have the authority to change the Creed?" They most certainly do not. Finally, Bishops and faithful alike must approach the Creed, the Symbol of Faith, with faith seeking understanding.

I would say, and have said, that "for us men and our salvation....he became man" is the best translation and withour error. It is beautiful and theologically sound. For example, to say "for us human beings and for our salvation...he became a human being," while perhaps less offensive to some, is not elegant, is too abstract, and ignores that the Word became man -- a male human being. Because of the many meanings of the word, "men" does the job very well. For men, without regard to sex or age or anything else, God became man -- a man who is the Bridegroom of the soul and of the Church.

Bishops must always be careful when relying on the experts to make their judgments for them. In the case of the RDL, sociological nonsense trumped sound Christian doctrine. The wolf has obscured the truth and the sheep have scattered.