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

Father Deacon John,

Thanks for your post. As you know, the Particular Law is interpreted within Canon Law. In another discussion you quoted:

Canon 40, 1: Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.

None of the proposed revisions of the Divine Liturgy are in the way of admitting changes that have already developed organically. Regarding the use of inclusive language (as in the �loves us all� instead of �loves mankind� variety), if both the society and the Church had already concluded the debate over inclusive language and both had adopted it in some form, then your suggestion would have merit. As it stands now, the Church has prohibited much of inclusive language being argued in our society and is still debating the use of it at all. Where it exists in the Roman Church it exists as a matter of experiment.

Regarding the specific instance of �brothers and sisters� instead of �brethren� I do not believe that any official reasoning for the change has been given. It seems to me that one could make a case for changing to �brother and sister� if people no longer understood the meaning of the word �brethren�. It further seems to me one could not justify the change merely because a small segment of our society is offended by the term �brethren�. Either way, the issue is still in the debate state and such changes do not qualify as organic progress (Liturgiam Authenticam does speak to this). Also, given the great debate in the larger Church, such a change does not serve either the goodwill or unity of Christians.

Admin

I hope that I am wrong in my conclusions about your postings, yet I do not find anything you have written to demonstrate this. Stating an obvious fact (that the new translations embrace a style of inclusive language demanded by the secular feminists) does not automatically speak to motives (which I have always specifically stated I knew were honorable). People who try their best to serve the Lord and His Church are capable of honest mistakes in judgment. As I have stated, I can only conclude that those within our Church who promote the use of inclusive language are well intentioned but mistaken. When I see the slow turn about in the Roman Church on this issue (from open embracement twenty years ago to great caution and even severe restriction now) I think it wise to lean from their experience and avoid the issue altogether until the larger Church has settled the issue.

Since I don�t see any assignment of motive (other then perhaps reluctant acceptance) I don�t really see a difference. �Catering to� does not imply a purposeful link. Even the use of the term �advocate� regarding inclusive language would not assign specific intentions or motives (beyond possibly reluctant acceptance).

I do think you might be reading my words too closely. You seem intent on finding something to challenge in everything I write. Other posters do request clarification of what I write and often disagree with me. But you seem to start with the most negative interpretation of anything I post. I�m not sure why.

Then we have both been consistent in requesting the same thing!

Well there you have it! I am being sensitive to a meaning that you are not intending. In my defense, let me note that on-line dictionaries use the following sentence to illuminate the meaning of "cater":

The posts by Robert Horvath (on page 1) and by Father Thomas Loya (page 3) are quite excellent. Since this thread has become a bit muddled I have copied them to a new thread entitled �Inclusive Language and Sensus Fidelium.� I ask posters to discuss those two specific posts in that new thread.

Jakub, dziekuje. Pure gold, every word of it. Let him who has eyes see, and who has ears, hear. As the Psalms are indeed the building blocks of our treasure of the Horologion, a great part of our sacrifice of praise, indeed that extends to every bit of the lex orandi. God bless you, brother.
FDD

Thank you Deacon Diak...I do learn from the best here...

james

Fr Thomas:

I for one am confused with your statement above. You seem to infer that the "scholars" who worked on the "new translation" are ensconced in ivy lined halls of academia far removed from the "plight of pastors who will be asked to implement the new translation."

Father, with all due respect, I did not know our Church had scholars who were not pastors first. These same scholars are your brother priests who, save for two, face the same plight you do since they also minister to the faithful as pastors. Even the two who are not currently in full-time parish ministry certainly do have a great deal of experience in parish ministry.

IMO, the hierarchs should be commended for its collective genius in establishing the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission with priests who are pastors first and not "academics and experts" far removed from the plight of the parish priest.

Father Deacon, what "inferences" and where? I'm sorry but I can't at all see what you are trying to get at here. Perhaps you missed a key point of Fr. Thomas' statement: Every bit of it clear, to the point, and IMHO true (thank you Fr. Thomas for the courage in saying that). I do not think Fr. Thomas to be exaggerating at all in terms of the potential impact. Considering the serious proposed changes to our lex orandi as are being contemplated, no I do not believe he exaggerates at all.
FDD

All:

Just a couple of quick references for you to chew on.

First: HOW "INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE" CAME TO THE LITURGY - good article, but better once you realize that some those who guided and crafted the liturgy were also either members of the ICEL or subscribed to their principles.

http://www.adoremus.org/98-04_whitehead.htm

Second: Vatican Translation Norms Reject "Inclusive Language" from 1997 and is more directed toward sacred scripture.

http://www.adoremus.org/7-8-97VatTrans.html

Third: ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES IN THE PUBLICATION OF THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY
While not directly addressing the Byzantine translation, it certainly lays out what Rome expects in a translation. You'll note that Fr. David indicates that our text was approved 3/31/01, just a little over 37 days before this was published. One would have to wonder if this translation, or the other translations of the IELC would stand the litmus test of this instruction.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...c_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html

John Scotus

JS: I hope you aren't confusing ICEL amd IELC.
Thanks for linking to LA that gets refferred to a lot in these discussions.

Dear Father,
Many on the forum are looking toward the same possible problems. But IMO the problematic issues are far more outcome-based than process-based.

Provisional texts of the liturgy were posted here some years ago. These have been many, many lenghty discussions here. There has been considerable opportunity for direct interaction with Fr. Petras. Calls were made, and apparently heeded to write to Bishops. There have even been suggestions to write to Rome directly. All of this has been going on over a period of several years. I would hazzard a guess that this process actually has had input at a level that is unprecedented in any such endeavor - even if one were to use the yardstick of "what the Orthodox do".

People have problems in some cases with certain specific outcomes, and in others just with dreaded change. Indeed, on the last go round it was conceded that correct, rational arguments are pretty much beside the point. At that moment it occured to me that calls for more input were unlikely to be especially fruitful. Those with serious issues (like Ps-Ath) have been in touch with their Bishop. For others whose issues are more inchoate - I'm not sure that that is the best course of action.

There is one point I'd like to make in response to your comment on the immigrant church. This perspective comes up from time to time - we're not just dirt farmers anymore; we are educated, ... We should be in charge! Actuallly this kind of sentiment is already heard in stories from the 30's. (And it is very Orthodox, at least in America.) I tend to see everything backwards, and so my persepctive on this is different.

I think that if we had the devotion, the Christ-centeredness, and the Church-centeredness of those uneducated dirt-farmers, then all of these discussion would be moot. For many reasons, but one important one is that by what I now see as the true favor of God these people had an enormous reserve of humilty and from it the ability to practice the grossly underestimated virtue of obedience. We've lost that. And they had a real sense of community: people three steps ahead on the ladder could still reach back to help the rest of the community, and understand that in doing so they were advancing not retarding their salvation.

So from my perspective, any "negative reception" will derive from attitude - which may be good and wise, or not. But I don't think there is particularly much to be gained from a call to another round of review.

DJS,

The ICEL is still debating ketchup vs catsup...

james

What!!! We say Tomato (pronounced down under as t'marta)Sauce. We Never use those 2 words on the posting above, so we want our own separate menu if that all there is to the the choices.

I just thought I would add to the complication at this time . What people do when they have ahd one of those days in the office.

ICXC
NIKA