www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Man, Mankind, etc. - regarding so called 'inclusive language'

MC:
I honestly thought your question was a rhetorical one. But am happy to give the obvious response. Of course people could figure it out. Now what?

As far as my backpedaling goes. We have had these discussions many times. So I am fully aware of relevant writings by serious people - several articles have been discussed previously on this topic on other threads. As to the article you borrowed from - its scope includes God as She, and at least in going to this extreme loses relevance to the discussion our liturgy.

Just a little lazy. I recalled the facts from previous threads, but didn't take the time to search for the reference. Your second post, however, gave the background. It's not a matter of pride but just a matter of fact. I cannot admit to an error that I didn't make: in direct contrast to what you wrote, there were different words for genus and male-person in early English.

I remain steadfast in what you consider to be audacity: you made a general charge of rank dishonesty that, in its generality, includes your fine bishop. Please take the opportunity to clarify your meaning as soon as possible.

I think St. Athansius states it best, "do not let anyone amplify these words with the persuasive phrases of the profane, and do not let him attempt to recast or completely change the words, rather let him recite and chant, without artifice, the things written just as they were spoken by the holy men who supplied them".

He wrote this in reference to the Psalms, but I apply it to Holy Scripture etc.

Again, what more proof is needed than the turmoil, confusion and division of the Latin Rite in the US ?

Be patient and cautious...do not be anxious for innovation and novelty.

james

Nice quote, brother Yacoub! I think these words are very fitting from Holy Father Athanasios. Thanks, I'll use them.

A friend has prompted me to clarify with what I agree. It is the following:

question:
What do you agree with?

reply:
I agree w/MC that everyone can understand the word man is inclusive. History demonstrates this.

question:
Do you agree that "brothers and sisters" is not inclusive?

reply: I agree it is. But I disagree with the idea of changing historic words and terms in order to meet the demands of heretics and non-believers. Standard english should be retained, not the new feminized artificial form of English.

question:
Do you agree with plagarism?

reply:
No... well, maybe a little. What am I saying? Of course not! but maybe a little copyright infringement in some cases.

question:
Do you agree with "the idea of claiming that those with a different perspective - which includes the IELC and synod of bishops - are engaged in a clever scheme "to make the truth appear false"

reply: No I do not agree with this. I think its more a case of certain Church leaders being itimidated by feminists and mislead by so-called experts. I think its a bad decision, not a conspiracy to conceal truth.

I hope this helps to clarify my position.

Dear James,

You took the words right out of my mouth. Inclusive language is divisive, and stupid. It offends me.

Nick

This is a most interesting thread. I agree with the posters that find inclusive language to be offensive. I find it odd that anyone would try to cater to the demands of the secular feminists regarding language. I find it especially odd that anyone would introduce this fight into our little Church at a time when we are literally struggling to survive.

Those who seek to force secular feminist inclusive language upon our Church should note a couple of things:

1. The Vatican has seen how you can�t just allow the camel�s nose into the tent but ultimately get the whole camel. If certain people are offended because �mankind� seems exclusive what are you going to do when they claim that the use of the term �Father� is offensive when referencing God?

2. Look at the example in the Roman Catholic Church in the United States. The parishes that are the most liberal in language, and cater to the demands of the secular feminists are empty. The parishes that avoid such nonsense are more traditional are full. This is not just an accident.

3. The Protestant Churches (mostly mainline) that have embraced the secular feminist language 20 years ago also wound up embracing a lot of unchristian theology. Their pews are pretty empty.

4. Read the handwriting on the wall. There is an ongoing push within the Roman Catholic Church in America to restore traditional language. Rome rejected the inclusive language revision to the Revised New American Bible. It also appears that the only thing holding the USCCB back from adopting the RSV-CE for its Gospel Book and lectionary (and Scripture quotes in the Mass) is the fact that the USCCB makes millions in royalties from the RRNAB. Rome�s demand that the English language edition Catechism use the RSV-CE is no accident.

Why cannot we learn from the Roman Catholics and just skip the whole inclusive language nonsense?

No, �sex neutral� language should not be used. The same people that choose to be offended by �mankind� and �man� are also offended by male references to Christ and God the Father. Would you have us corrupt the Church�s theology even further to avoid offending them? The proper response is to teach people a correct understanding of the English language. If our schools will not do it then our Churches will have to.

Again, I have no problem with the idea of preparing a new edition of our liturgical books. I am only asking that they be faithful to the Ruthenian tradition. I am only asking that for pastoral reasons the only changes made to existing texts are those that are absolutely necessary (because the current texts are either inaccurate or grammatically incorrect).

As always I urge each Byzantine Catholic to communicate their thoughts on these topics to their pastors and bishops.

Please, enough of these wild accusations.

Is this more red herring, or can you be specific Administrator:

Who do you claim "would try to cater to the demands of the secular feminists regarding language"?

Who are those "who seek to force secular feminist inclusive language upon our Church"?

Who, by name, are you willing to make these specific charges against.

reply: I've seen no "wild accusations" rather a lot of logical resistance to strange innovations.

Come on, Djs, why are you playing dumb here. You know quite well, informed as you are, that it was feminist who declared the standard English language to be "sexist." You know quite well that it was they who innovated these demands to change our language to fit their feminist ideology. Do you pretend this was the Bishop's idea? Why do you act like you don't know these things?

What do the women think?

I think it would be interesting to see what the educated and faithful women of this forum think about substituting "us" for "us men," etc.

Cathy is a sample size of one. Allow me to double the sample. My wife thinks inclusive language is insulting, as if women are too stupid to figure out that "for us men" means them.

There. I've doubled the sample. 100% of women reporting think inclusive language is silly. Any more opinions?


Seriously, it's no secret that I have theological objections to "for us" instead of "for us men." "For us humans" would be correct--why not use that? I wonder if anyone has done any polling on whether standard (non-inclusive) English really has a negative effect on evangelization. Does anyone know?

-My wife (and oldest daughter) can't stand feminists or their artificial so-called English. The feminists certainly don't speak for them.

First, I absolutely do not know, who on the IELC or who in the holy synod can be justly accused of these slanders. Do you actually know who among those making the decisions can be justly accused of these slanders?

Second, the fact that the origin of this language shift is feminism doesn't matter to me in the least. I do not oppose everything from feminism just because I am opposed to some things of feminist origin. For example, I like the fact that women now days have lower barriers to their working in esrtwhile non-traditional fields. Do you oppose that?

First of all, I'm not sure what slanders you are referring to, so I can't answer this question. Secondly, yes I do oppose that. I think the reverse psychology that has resulted from the lies of feminist has resulted in a devaluing of traditional motherhood and women's roles. Women today, thanks to the feminist ideology you referred to, are now made to feel insignificant and backwards if they imitate women like St. Mary the Mother of God and spend their lives raising children. Not only this, men who are heads of households and many time sole providers for their families have to compete with women for jobs. Many times these women are simply earning additional incomes for their family, yet are considered first b/c they have minority status (thanks to the fems). Many women seek careers because they feel they have to in order to be considered successful. Not only this, having both parents in the work place is destroying the family and as a result Western civilization. So yes, I oppose this grand achievement of feminism.

Brethren,

This is so funny, because in my Archdiocese we are still fighting for *ALL* English... and at this point, ANY kind of English will do! LOL!

Alice, Moderator *and* secure woman who has been both a stay at home mother for many years,(my greatest job) and who is now in the workplace and who hopes that this discussion can lighten up a little...please!

Dear Ghazar,

In your last post you make quite a few valid points. NO woman should feel inferior because she is taking on the greatest of all female roles-that of mother and nurturer. I do not like the so called 'feminist' agenda, but I do believe in women's rights. I think it is wonderful that women CAN have great educations, great jobs, and support themselves if they have to. Remembering my grandfather's immigrant generation, and how some of his contemporaries lamented female children because they needed dowries and were not able to help the family financially, this is definitely progress. I wonder, however, if it is the cost of housing and what we now think that we 'need' materially (like two cars) that makes it difficult for more women to stay home with their children. Real estate prices in some parts of the nation are outrageous and untouchable-- even for starter houses--if there aren't two incomes. I think that it is our out of hand materialistic society that has destroyed the traditional family and made it difficult for women to stay at home with their children. Those who can stay home are truly the fortunate ones (it is even considered a 'status symbol' of sorts in the New York/Ct. areas) and I don't know many women that would not do this when their children are young, if only they could.

I think that the majority of those here would agree that introducing gender-neutral language into our liturgical life would be detrimental to us in the long run. It will just be the fist salvo in the war to introduce the latest in politically correct language into the very fabric of our liturgical life and our theology. After all, don't we sing our theology at every Divine Liturgy? Changing the language of our liturgy changes the very fabric of what we believe.

If you'd like a sample of what has come from the IELC, have a look at the texts that can be found at the Metropolitan Cantor Institute, http://metropolitancantorinstitute.org. I was directed to that site a while ago by a friend when I inquired about texts from the IELC.

I'm not one to tow the party line, just because that was the order from above, nor do I believe everything that is told to me. Sorry, life has taught me the lesson that it is wise to be skeptical when someone is trying to introduce change in an organizational area that doesn't need change. It is usually a ploy to distract the organization from failures and weaknesses elsewhere, usually at the top of the management chain. You can read what you will into that.

DJS,

You wrote

Well, if you want specific names, those would be Archbishop Basil, Bishop Andrew, Bishop John, and Bishop William. Isn't the answer obvious? They appoint all the IELC members and they sign off on the text. If there is an agenda, then they have set it. There is no great mystery here. If they've not explicitly set the direction, then they are complicit when they approve the text.

I�m really not sorry if my directness offends anyone. Too much is at stake when changes are made to the liturgy. There are so many areas in our church that need the immediate attention of our hierarchs, a topic that I�ll start in the near future. The revision of our liturgical language should be left to another time and place, and after more important issues are addressed. Maybe this task is better suited for another generation, with better skills and a clear mandate, not only from our hierarchs, but from the Church as a whole.