I can't control the decisions of our Bishops, nor those of the Holy See, but I am able to control my reactions to them. It'd probably be better for me to reject pessimism and choose optimism, charity, kindness and prayer. It may indeed be "too late" for some things in our Ruthenian Church but it's never "too late" to pray, to bear witness and to entrust our future serenely to the loving providence of the Lord.
I agree. Each of us needs to center our lives on worshiping the Lord and working out our own salvation and choosing in prayer and example the traits of optimism, charity, kindness. Doing this, however, does not lessen the responsibility of each to fight for what is right and correct. As we pray for the Ruthenian bishops (that they change course and do what is right) we need also to keep asking them (and to keep asking Rome to help us gain access to our own Liturgy).
However, the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church does not have a synod, merely a pathetic "Council of Hierarchs", which, under the canons of the CCEO, has far less authority than a synod, and which is severely circumscribed in what it can do without the approval of the Holy See. One of the things it cannot do is substantially alter the liturgical recension authorized by the Holy See. The 1942 Slavonic liturgy is still normative for all the Ruthenian Churches, both Ukrainian and Carpatho-Rusyn.
True. But if Rome continues to remain deaf to the protests of the clergy and people there is not a lot we can do. So far the only accomplishment we have heard of is that Rome has told the bishops that they must publish the whole Liturgy. No one knows if that means now or the the the next time they make the translation worse.
True. But if Rome continues to remain deaf to the protests of the clergy and people there is not a lot we can do.
One may always vote with one's feet. Or one's wallet. Guess where my Eparchial Appeal Envelope went this year. . .and last year. . . and the year before that. Good stewardship demands that we ensure our money is put to good and responsible uses. My confidence in the bishop to do so is low, so I divert my donation to other, worthier causes.
As I have stated several times, I disagree with lm that the removal of the word "man" from the RDL text is heretical ("who for us [men] and and for our salvation"). Rome has reviewed this and ruled it "theologically grave", not heretical. The good men who created the RDL did not intend to deny a Teaching of the Church (that Jesus became man for the salvation of all men), although the text they offer will certainly be understood by some as doing just that. They actually object only to the use of the term "men" (in this case).
lm might be correct that the RDL texts tend towards modernism, but he has not made a case of heresy. He would be better off accepting and using the Vatican's point that the omission of the term "man" in the Creed (as noted) is "theologically grave" and leave it at that. It should not have been done, is wrong, and should be corrected immediately.
Hello, I would be interested in seeing where Rome called this 'theologically grave.' Is the document available online or anywhere?
The relevant quote to the removal of the term "man" from the creed (which, by extension also applies to the change from the inclusive Christ as "lover of mankind" to the potentially exclusive Christ who just "loves us all") is:
Quote
In 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, spoke to this issue for the Latin Church in Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:
III. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms
A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", 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. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.
B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, 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.
How is it possible that in 2007 the bishops chose to reject numerous Vatican directives numerous years after they were given? We see the Liturgical Instruction in 1996, Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, this directive in 2002? The bishops knew quite well that they were promulgating a text with potentially theologically grave doctrine as it was brought to their attention by a number of the faithful. They have a moral obligation to fix the problem they created.
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.
Can it be said any clearer? This quote from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship at the time (2002), is in "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal." It's not just one of us easily ignored peons who's squawking.
And yet, there may be an explanation for the RDL translation. What is it? Is it too much to expect an answer to questions, an explanation for such a contested point? As I've said, the question needs to be addressed to the IELC and the bishops: "Why the Silence?"
Thanks for posting. I didn't doubt that they said it I just need the documentation. This is what I meant when I said that The Archeparhy of Pittsburgh had no authority to make these changes. A Church cannot make its faithful recite a theologically grave translation of the creed. It is our right to be allowed to recite the creed as it was given to us by the fathers at Nicea and Constantinople. It makes me wonder why still venerate the fathers of the 1st seven ecumenical councils since we seem to now think we are above them, but I digress. The Church cannot require us to recite an incorrect creed. It is sort of like the same argument John Paul II made against women's ordination - the Church has no authority to allow it. Authority in the Church comes from the received tradition.
It occurred to me yesterday at liturgy that the problem with 'loves us all,' as opposed to loves mankind is that the former has a sort of a feel good quality to it. It puts me in mind of Barney the dinosaur rather than the Son of God. See for example Loves "mankind," however, resonates more the aspect of God's universal love for man, made in his image and likeness, rather than the feel good - I'm alright you're alright mentality inheriant in 'loves us all.' This ponderance lead me to believe that the phrase 'us all,' focuses on us (whoever the "us" is), rather than on God's graciousness. I might be off there, but that is how it strikes me. It just has a certain narcissistic feel to it.
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.
Can it be said any clearer? This quote from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship at the time (2002), is in "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal." It's not just one of us easily ignored peons who's squawking.
And yet, there may be an explanation for the RDL translation. What is it? Is it too much to expect an answer to questions, an explanation for such a contested point? As I've said, the question needs to be addressed to the IELC and the bishops: "Why the Silence?"
Fr. Deacon,
To me it is simply a translation issue. There is a word in the Greek creed, anthropos, that is missing from the English. That is not translation but editing. So translate anthropos as men or humans but translate it, don't edit it out.
Now the cardinal says "for us" can be misundertood as "for us" [here present at the Liturgy] as opposed to "for us" [all mankind] and for this reason it is theologically grave. I guess that interpretation is possible, if one is an imbecile, but I believe most people are smart enough to get it since the entire Creed is a statement of universal truths. The problem with the Cardinal's arguement is one can make the same inference with "for us men" [here present at the Liturgy]. So the theologically grave accusation doesn't hold water in my opinion.
I would also ask why we should care what a Latin bishop whose first language is not English has to say anyways? Many cardinals say many things. The late Cardinal Stickler said, to paraphrase, celibacy was a divine mandate and our tradition of married presbyters was based on lies and should eventually be done away with. The Cardinals and the Curia can keep their theological opinions and pronouncements. I would rather hear from Ecumenical Councils and Synods.
Fr. Deacon Lance (who is in favor of the Creed being translated completely)
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.
Can it be said any clearer? This quote from Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship at the time (2002), is in "Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal." It's not just one of us easily ignored peons who's squawking.
And yet, there may be an explanation for the RDL translation. What is it? Is it too much to expect an answer to questions, an explanation for such a contested point? As I've said, the question needs to be addressed to the IELC and the bishops: "Why the Silence?"
Fr. Deacon,
To me it is simply a translation issue. There is a word in the Greek creed, anthropos, that is missing from the English. That is not translation but editing. So translate anthropos as men or humans but translate it, don't edit it out.
Fr. Deacon Lance,
I'd say Men, yes; humans, most likely, no. But basically, we agree. Why then does the IELC choose and recommend and the bishops demand/mandate otherwise?
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Now the cardinal says "for us" can be misundertood as "for us" [here present at the Liturgy] as opposed to "for us" [all mankind] and for this reason it is theologically grave. I guess that interpretation is possible, if one is an imbecile,...
There are then a fair number of us in that category. Perhaps only those who fancy themselves to be smart have the necessary hubris to tamper with the Creed, and to do that by subordinating the liturgy to the current fashion, fleeting it seems, in language. I hope for and demand better from our leaders.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
... but I believe most people are smart enough to get it since the entire Creed is a statement of universal truths.
The word anthrōpous/men conveys the universal truth. Why drop it and leave the sense of universal truth only implied (or misrepresented) when one can just as well have it explicit as it actually is in the creed in the Greek and Slavonic? As you say "the entire Creed is a statement of universal truths," so keep the language of universal truths since that's what is intended.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
The problem with the Cardinal's arguement is one can make the same inference with "for us men" [here present at the Liturgy].
Not really. Having the word present as it actually is in the Creed establishes a rhetorical connection: For us Men...He became Man. That connection is gone in saying For us...He became Man.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
So the theologically grave accusation doesn't hold water in my opinion.
I would also ask why we should care what a Latin bishop whose first language is not English has to say anyways? Many cardinals say many things. The late Cardinal Stickler said, to paraphrase, celibacy was a divine mandate and our tradition of married presbyters was based on lies and should eventually be done away with. The Cardinals and the Curia can keep their theological opinions and pronouncements. I would rather hear from Ecumenical Councils and Synods.
There are a lot of native English speakers, such as me, who agree with Cardinal Medina Estévez. I'd credit him as smart and informed enough to understand the concept of the theology of the word Adam/Anthrōpos and the ability a language has to express that concept. In this case of the RDL I, a native speaker, think that fellow native speakers, the IELC and our bishops, have made a big mistake. I would say that the interpretation is that they ought to be ashamed that a non-native speaker has to correct them (indirectly, writing in 2002) to use proper theological English. The point is whether Cardinal Medina Estévez (writing as Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship) is correct or not, and not his fluency in English. As the old saying goes, you don't have to be a chicken to know a bad egg. Also, I don't follow the argument about Card. Stickler. Since there is no universal principle about the opinions of Cardinals, the conclusion is that Medina Estévez is right and Stickler is wrong.
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
I would rather hear from Ecumenical Councils and Synods.
OK. The Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople has "For (di') us (hēmas) men (tous anthrōpous) and..."
Originally Posted by Fr. Deacon Lance
Fr. Deacon Lance (who is in favor of the Creed being translated completely)
... but it seems not enough to really make it a concern as otherwise "theologically grave."
I believe that the council fathers knew what they wanted to say, and said it. That should be enough for us. I was told by someone in favor of the translation that they context of it made it obvious who the for us was. Of course, that is his opinion after the benefit of many years in the church. What about the next generation? Will it be as obvious? I think not. What about the generation of that? Still less so. When writing about the early church GK Chesteron said that at times it may have only been a matter of an inch, but an inch is everything when you are balancing. The reinventors of the Liturgy either didn't realize who important their task was, or simply didn't care. Had the realized it they would have asked more of themselves, and stayed true to what what was written. If only for one wild moment they thought had crossed their minds that the fathers of the creed knew what they were saying and said it anyway!
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights
reserved.
