www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy The First Reform of the Liturgy

True also. My point is that the term mankind is in fact still being used quite freely and effectively in many common and contemporary venues.

Indeed. And we've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere, otherwise we'll soon be communicating by pointing at things and grunting (reminds me of growing up in Brooklyn). So let's start with rejecting "inclusive language", since it deliberately excludes the literate.

Why, in general, outside of an ecclesiatical setting please, is it so wrong to say humanity/humankind/human beings (or other descriptors), instead of man/mankind??

I'd say there's nothing wrong for that situation, the words are used properly and effectively. I personally think humankind is an ugly sounding word, with superfluous letters, that wants to say the same thing as mankind. Just my opinion and taste.

In a biblical setting, rather than strictly ecclesiastical, I have prayed the Psalms using the NRSV which uses humankind at will. My thoughts: God deliver us from a trendy translation that replaces beauty with the grotesque. Again, my opinion and taste.

But, of course, the problem is a translation, tied to a source text that says something specific, in an ecclesial situation. So we don't need to sing (the inferior) "O Lord Jesus, Lover of Humankind", or (the incorrect and absurd) "O Lord Jesus, Lover of us all" when we have "O Lord Jesus, Lover of Mankind" available and already provided.

Awkward neologisms designed to assuage the tender sensibilities of the easily offended degrade the language and promote the agenda of those whose main objective is antinomian in nature.

But that is not what the revisers of the Liturgy have done. They replaced "mankind" with "all of us", a usage that Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship said in 2002 (5 years before the RDL was promulgated) condemned as "theologically grave" due to the problems with potentially being exclusive. In speaking specificlaly of removing the term "man" from the Creed he said "the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive."

The point many miss is that the Church has no obligation to adopt the latest street language, especially if such usage is pushed by secular politics. The term "profane" means "outside the temple". One might look at the effect of the King James Bible on the English language. Those translators certainly did not accommodate themselves to the lowest language of the day. They drove the adoption of the terminology they offered in the KJV and it affected English greatly, and still does to this day.

It would be interesting to take an exit poll after church on a Sunday to see if people think that "for us and for our salvation" that they just recited/heard in the Creed only refers to those that were present at that mass.

Well, the very ambiguity of the phrase was one of my initial objections, aside from its awkwardness and general illiteracy (can anyone at the Seminary actually write?). To whom does "for us" refer? All the people in the world? All the people who belong to the Church? All Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics? All the people in the parish? It's just not clear. In the earnest desire not give offense (again, to whom does the word "men" give offense?), the compilers of the RDL created a theological ambivalent (and potentially heretical) interpolation of the Creed.

Similarly, the incredibly banal "Jesus is good and loves us all" (which causes my wife to begin humming "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know") is both illiterate and theologically ambivalent, and does not convey the meaning of "philanthropos" or "chelov'ikol'ubec".

Finally, has anyone else noticed that supporters of this kind of inclusive language are, overwhelmingly, men (or should I say "us all")?

Who does "us men" refer to? All the people present at mass? Everyone of the parish? All Catholics? All English speakers? All males? All male Catholics? It ain't really that much clearer with "men" in it Stuart. All we do know is that it leaves out anyone or anything that isn't a human being.

I think that anyone with a half-baked notion of their faith, knows what this line in the creed means, whether it's says "for us" or "for us men."

To all mankind, of course. Until sloppy, politically correct English began to muddy the waters, everybody understood this. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and above all, don't think that you can appease radical feminism by using inclusive language.


The important thing is what it says to those who don't have a half-baked notion of our faith--though, I do note, it was half-baked notions that gave us the RDL in the first place. The unbaked and the half-baked can take sloppy creedal and liturgical formulations and corrupt their meaning--as we have seen all too well in the Western Church. No need for that here.

I'll also ask again: are there any women here who want to stand up for inclusive language, or is this something only men really like?

When I studied the teaching of English just as the feminist movement was beginning its assault on the language, my professors would say that this construction was unfinished. because it lacked the "what" that needed to be the completion of "us." Us what? I'm reminded of the recent story of the priest who takes his dog along with him to Mass. Does the "us" then that is uncompleted include the dog? After all he's part of the group and the lack of "men" means he's part of the group Christ died for. Or another pastor I knew whose cat used to have the run of the sanctuary during Mass. Did that unfinished phrase include the cat?

When people use this "for us" thing, it clunks in my head and I always stop and wonder what group we are talking about. "Us what"? It's more than a bit like the way we used to get the attention of our students by dragging fingernails across the blackboard.

BOB

I, for one, have definitely noticed that it is overwhelmingly men who are determined to use "inclusive" language. I have only met one woman in my life who felt strongly that it should be used, and many who didn't care one way or another. It is a bit ridiculous that all these men tell me that I should be offended or feel not included by "sexist language".

Elizabeth, a female member of the family of Mankind (and a lover of precision in language)

Honestly I've never seen a cat or dog in church other than for the blessing of animals on St. Francis' Day. But the Creed wasn't said so there was no danger of anyone thinking that pets were included. There's got to be some canon about not allowing an animal in the sanctuary during mass, no?

Guess I'm guilty of tons of improperly constructed sentences though, like this weekend when I said: "Peter is going to the ballgame with us." I should have added "men" at the end so that everyone knew what I was talking about.

There are several, because people were bringing animals into the sanctuary.


Well, the real question is why anyone would be so invested in bowdlerizing the English language when there was no hue and cry to do so. Man, men, and mankind were acceptable for century, and remain so. "Us" and "us all" remain grammatically incorrect, awkward and theologically problemmatic. So why press for change?

Correct grammar is important and using it correctly helps to transmit the Faith correctly. I have friends from Pittsburgh who will ask: "Are yuns going to the ball game with us?" I can understand what they mean but such language is profane (meaning "outside the temple"). Even though we can understand what is means who would want such language in the Liturgy? It is not just grammatical incorrect but also not clear.

The Creed is far more important. Dropping the word "man" to potentially exclude all those not present (or maybe all those who are not Byzantine Catholics?) is simply wrong. But, as has been well noted, good men on the Committee to Revise the Liturgy have bought the secular feminist push for such language (it is part of their push to erase all innate differences between men and women).

The Church should be providing a model in language for the society to follow (as did the KJV Bible). It should not be surrendering to and embracing the demands of one group of secularists, and the lowest politics of the day.