|
0 members (),
591
guests, and
107
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,530
Posts417,670
Members6,182
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Originally posted by Deacon Lance:
Apotheoun,
"He love us all," and "He loves mankind," are not equivalent phrases. Does the paraphrase, "us all," refer to those present in that particular congregation at that particular moment, or does it refer to the whole of the Church, or does it refer to all mankind? The new "translation" is ambiguous."
In the context of the prayer what is it we are saying? The current text reads:
"Christ our true God, (risen from the dead), through the prayers of His most Holy Mother, and of the holy, glorious, and illustrious apostles; and of our holy father, John Chrysostom, archbishop of Constantinople, and of Saint N. (whose church it is) and of Saint N. (whose day it is) and of all the saints, will have mercy on us and will save us for He is gracious and loves mankind ."
Christ will have mercy on us and will save us. Why? Because He loves us. While changing "mankind" to "us all" is a change in reference it is not a change in theology. For clearly we are saying Christ has mercy on and saves those present at the Liturgy because He loves them. This is a dismissal prayer for those in attendance, not a prayer of blessing being invoked on all mankind. Christ does love mankind, yet not all mankind will be saved or receive Christ's mercy. Some will be thrown into the darkness where there will wailing and nashing of teeth. If anything it could be argued the new transaltion is more theologically accurate and approriate in this setting. "Us" is used throughout almost every prayer of the Liturgy in the old and new texts, including the Anaphora, so I don't think any arguement against its use here will stand scrutiny. That said I still prefer "loves mankind" because of the poetic value, but will not protest the decision of the hierarchs.
I would alos point out LA was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments for the Latin Church. It has no jurisdcition over the Eastern Churches. The Congregation for the Eastern Churches which does have jurisdiction did review and give recognition to the new text.
Fr. Deacon Lance On this I respectfully disagree, it is a theological change, the new "translation" changes the focus of God's love from mankind, to "us all," i.e., a phrase that could refer only to those present in the congregation. that is clearly a huge change in meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30 |
Father Deacon Lance,
Thank you for your post. Obviously I disagree with much of what you have written and will continue to speak out against what I know in my heart is wrong and destructive to the Church.
I can agree that to do real scholarship one needs to delve in to the etymology of the words. But there is no way replacing a clearly worded text with a confusing one serves the good of the Church. I do find it odd that in your earlier post you appealed to the dictionary and in the later appealed instead to what you think most people believe. My definitions of �good� and �gracious� match what is in the dictionary as well as what I have always understood.
I also agree that people (including me) do not like terms like �humankind�. Since mankind is still the best possible term to be used in this situation why abandon it to accommodate the passing fad of inclusive language? There is no great clamor in our society to embrace this type of inclusive language. Secular feminists are the ones pushing that agenda. Christian feminists (often called �Pope John Paul II feminists�) oppose this movement strongly.
I live in one of the most politically liberal counties in Virginia (and possibly the whole mid-Atlantic and near South). The structure of the county government is an elected board of supervisors led by an elected chairman. When a woman is elected to the position of chairman she is addressed as �Madam Chairman�. No one is offended and there are no mass protests. The whole inclusive language agenda is a product of the secular mindset. It�s only home is in secular academia. Real people don�t generally talk like that.
You stated: �Christ will have mercy on us and will save us. Why? Because He loves us. While changing "mankind" to "us all" is a change in reference it is not a change in theology.�
At best, the new wording is clumsy theology and opens itself to all of the interpretations I have noted above. Who does Christ love? Just us gatherd here? All of us on earth? Humans? How about cats? Does he love my cat the same way He loves me? Is that what this means? What about those men and women from Adam to the final Age? What about the communion of saints? The new text doesn�t say. The old text expresses it clearly with �who loves mankind�. There simply is no compelling reason to change the wording of this dismissal prayer. [Read second 30 and 31 of Liturgiam Authenticam.]
You stated: �I cannot see where the new translation violates Liturgiam Authenticam and obviously neither did the Eastern Congregation.�
It is my understanding that the Eastern Congregation approved the new text together with changes that �must be made� and changes that �should be made� when Metropolitan Judson (Eternal Memory!) was still alive. Since he died in the first half of 2001 and Liturgiam Authenticam was published in the second half of 2001 it seems unlikely that the unnamed reviewers consulted it. Also, while I most certainly trust our hierarchs the letter of approval carries with it no canonical authority until it is made public. The idea that Rome would approve and encourage the use of inclusive language by Eastern Catholics and then condemn it for use by Latin Catholics is decidedly odd.
Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
The use of socalled "inclusive language" is filled with Christological and anthropological difficulties. In my graduate Christology class I had to read translations of St. Cyril of Alexandria that were "gender neutral," and this "new speak" turned St. Cyril into a Nestorian, rather ironic if you think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Here the argument is not about the Greek (anthropos), but about the English translation of the Greek. Is the generic masculine no longer valid in the English language? I hold that it is perfectly valid, as do many other people. Thus, to arbitrarily translate the term in a new way divorces the Christian faith from the Church's traditional use of English in liturgical and theological texts. Moreover, as a Catholic I am bound by Vatican instructions, and the Vatican, as I indicated above, calls for the translation of words like "anthropos" and "homo" in the traditional manner (see the quotation I've already provided from Liturgiam Authenticam). The instruction then goes on to require that proper catechesis follow so that people understand the nature of the words used. The generic masculine is still acceptable in Catholic worship, no matter what feminists say.
"He love us all," and "He loves mankind," are not equivalent phrases. Does the paraphrase, "us all," refer to those present in that particular congregation at that particular moment, or does it refer to the whole of the Church, or does it refer to all mankind? The new "translation" is ambiguous. However much people might like it to be a passing fad, purposeless exclusive language is discouraged in style-manuals of contemporary English writing. Look around on the internet for style guides - government, corporations, journals, and academe - everywhere people write and publish inclusive language is the standard. The fact that this trend may have originated, with some feminists, other aspects of whose philosophy we may not like, doesn't change this situation. If the aim of translation is real translation (not Babel fish word-for-word subsitution) into contemporary English then the translation will avoid purposeless exclusivity. The details of the problem are: do we want this? - some don't, but ISTM that most do; and when is exclusivity purposefully intended / when is it not?. The latter certainly merits serious thought. None of our committee members, I think it safe to say, wishes to incorporate heresy. Apo has made at least one nice point (human being) on this matter, which I am sure will be considered by Father Petras and others. On the other hand, If you want to appear reactionary, or to be bringing anti-feminist politics into the matter, then be sure to use all caps for INCLUSIVE and further include some anti-feminist swipe or another. IMO the "ambiguity" arguments tend to be specious. The liturgy is poetic, literary language. Its text will not have the precision of a patent. A discussion of translations from the Antiochian Orthodox (link no longer active, I'm afraid) makes the point that translations that strive for precision (typically by including more qualifying words) tend not to work. Thus, ambiguities can be found if one wants to find them. And the quoted portion of LA admits this and recommends catechesis as the solution. Pronouns are especially tough, because we often have a lack of precision in their antecedents. But if the administrator and others wonder who the "us" is in "loves us all", the whole statements suggests it's the same as for the other uses of "us" and "our". If there is a fear that serious people will think "our God" means just those in attendance, or includes their cat, then, presumably a little, very little, catechesis will solve that problem. I suppose we could also wonder about who is "you" in the words of instituion. Just the apostles, just those present, our non-human animal companions. And similary for many other uses of personal pronouns in the liturgy. Btw, I think also that while some might have a mind to read a denial of the masculinity of Christ in the use of "Christ" rather than "He", it is actually better writing to use the noun rather than the pronoun because the pronoun is far removed from its antecedent and the intervening text names a number of other males.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30 |
Tony wrote:
�A translation that is as accurate as possible only reduces the theological and anthropoligical confusion that can easily arise from a misunderstanding of the imprecise English.� Tony, Well stated! Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Admin,
"I do find it odd that in your earlier post you appealed to the dictionary and in the later appealed instead to what you think most people believe. My definitions of �good� and �gracious� match what is in the dictionary as well as what I have always understood."
My definitons of good and gracious match what is in the dictionary. As you know, one word may have several definitions, one is sometimes more generally accepted than another. I believe my explanation is correct.
"Who does Christ love? Just us gatherd here? All of us on earth? Humans? How about cats? Does he love my cat the same way He loves me? Is that what this means? What about those men and women from Adam to the final Age? What about the communion of saints?"
Let us not descend into absurdity. Christ loves us all. In the Anaphora we pray:
"You so loved Your world that You gave Your only-begotten Son,..." The world? What does that mean? A little common sense is in order.
The GOA simply call Christ a good, loving and merciful God with no refernce to mankind at all. I wonder who Christ is good, loving, and merciful to?
I think people don't like the new translation. Fair enough. I also think people are imagining or creating theological errors that don't exist in order to justify why it should not be used.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
djs,
There appears to be a major philosophical disagreement on the nature of the English language. I do not believe that standard English is "exclusive"; instead, it is simply the standard use of the English language, while the feminist inspired "gender neutral" language is filled with theological difficulties. Until this is worked out, a new ideologically motivated form of the English language should not be used in the liturgy of the Church. The prayers of the Church are meant to worship God through the use of orthodox formulas.
God bless,
Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
Liturgiam Authenticam, nos. 30-31. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the "inclusive" sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.
In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Friends,
On the "mankind" or "humankind" issue . . .
I've noticed that some Ukr. Orthodox versions of the Liturgy from across the pond are now writing "Cholovikolyubets" or "Lover of Mankind" as "Lyudinolyubets" or "lover of people."
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
Actually, I think the major philosophical fault-line begins at the beginning: what is a translation? What does it mean for a translation to be "accurate"? More broadly on the issue of the English language there is a mix. Sentences like: A nurse will spend most of her career tending to patients" ; "A manager should not overburden his secretray with tasks that needlessly consume her time" are not acceptable anymore, because they are purposelessly exclusionary. The liturgy may include such types of sentences; others sentences may have a deeper theological significance. LA says guard against rote substitution, and discern the different cases. Likewise guard against a reactionary, polticial posture that fails to see the distinction. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Which of these problems do you associate with "us"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
I don't see why there is an aversion to using the word "mankind." The word "people" is a nice word as well, but it refers to a particular group within the whole of mankind.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,855 Likes: 8 |
My main concerns are Christological / anthropological, and anything that blurs the connection between man and Christ is theologically problematic. The word "man" in biblical and liturgical texts often has layers of meaning, and often refers to Christ Himself. He is the Man in whom all men are made one. I am off to a family picnic.  God bless, Todd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 2,941 |
I think that such points can be well taken.
What do you think of "Brothers and Sisters" versus "Brethren" to begin the epistle?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,771 Likes: 30 |
Father Deacon Lance, Thank you for your post. Since I am not an expert in languages and Tony has commented on the good / gracious issue I will not speak to it other than to repeat that the two terms are not interchangeable. My larger point was that this a change. If the change makes the text more accurate I support it. If it makes it less accurate or otherwise changes the words of the original text I do not support it. I was not descending into absurdity with my comments on the question about who does Christ love. The introduction of theological and anthropological ambiguity in the new texts is a problem. You stated: �The GOA simply call Christ a good, loving and merciful God with no reference to mankind at all. I wonder who Christ is good, loving, and merciful to?�This is a very good question. The old text answered this question quite nicely. The new one leaves us wondering. How is this better? You stated: �I think people don't like the new translation. Fair enough. I also think people are imagining or creating theological errors that don't exist in order to justify why it should not be used.�I can�t speak to what other people think. There are some great improvements in the new translations (replacing �on in substance� with �one in essence� is one example). There are also some great problems introduced by the new texts. What is so wrong with people discussing both the good and the bad and asking that the bad be fixed? What is so wrong with asking for exacting accuracy in translation? Am I imagining theological errors that don�t exist in order to justify why these forms of inclusive language should not be used? Not at all. The Latins had these exact same discussions in the 1990s. They were addressed by the Church when it published Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001. BTW, sections 90 and 91 recommend the principles of LA to all Eastern Catholics and reiterate the desire for us to work together with the Orthodox to produce a unified version of common texts. One can justly conclude that this also means rubrics. Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 976 |
Originally posted by Photius: Originally posted by Tony:
[b]... "who" remains problematic. There is no "who" in Greek or Slavonic.
Tony
That's not right; there definately is a relative pronoun ("who" or "which") in both Greek and Slavonic! In Greek, its form is the same as for the definate article; in Slavonic, its form is "zhe" appended to the (short form) pronoun.
Photius [/b]Photius, Indeed, He is risen! Sorry for the imprecise statement. I was discussing the dismissal in which the "who" is not at the end. The dismissal begins "Khristos istinnyi Bog nash...iako blag i chelovekol'ubets." There is no "zhe" in the dismissal. Tony
|
|
|
|
|
