www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Question # 2 on the New Translation of the Liturgy

Dear Apotheoun,

Your posts now reach the level of manifesto. But no specifics. Why not deal in concrete things in the new translation you object to, let resposible people respond, and try to make a sober judgment about politics and ideology?

Are we sticking with "He granted". I hope so. The Serbian and Znamenny music work with bestowing, but ours makes it sounds like something done in an apiary.

Well, you might like the Madonna House version: "lavishing life". Not bad, actually.

Incognitus

Not bad? How about dazzling!
Can we get these folks on our writing commission?

I'm working from my memory here, but I think the New Skete translation is:

Christ is risen from the dead,
conquering death by death,
and to those in the graves
bestowing life.

So, add that to the list.

Dave

OK, OK. How about a literal translation retaining the original word order?

Christ is risen from dead, by death death having trampled, and to [those] being in the graves, life having gifted.

That isn't the way I intend my posts, so if that is how you take them, I apologize; but I will not go through yet again the type of liturgical war that I went through in the Roman Rite. I have no interest in the modern attempts of feminists to alter the English language, nor do I see the need for the constant revision of liturgical texts in order to conform them to the most cutting edge use of the English language. Now, rather than go through all of that yet again, and have my spiritual development retarded yet again by political attempts to alter the received tradition of the Church, I will simply seek out a liturgy that conveys the faith of our Fathers. If that is in the Eastern Orthodox Church, so be it. As I said in my posts before, I can only speak for myself, and I don't pretend to speak for anyone else.

Now, the use of 'inclusive language' is a problem for many reasons: (1) it blurs the christological and ecclesiological meaning of various scriptural and liturgical texts; (2) it destroys the unity of man in the One Man, Christ Jesus, because all men are one man in Him; (3) the 'gender neutral' language agenda is progressive, and thus it will not stop with horizontal language, in other words, it inevitably gets applied to the person of Christ Himself, and that leads to christological heresies (i.e., like calling Christ a 'human being' instead of a man, when in fact there is only one act of being in Christ, and thus He is a divine person and a divine being who has assumed a complete and integral human nature).

These are just a few of the problems that I have with inclusive language (so-called). This ideologically motivated movement is at its roots a non-Christian movement, and the language of worship should not be infected with any ideology that is ultimately inimical to the tradition of the Church.

Well, many if not most here really don't know what wars were gone through in the Latin church. Again, why not deal in concrete things in the new translation you object to. When you deal in generalities you perhaps inadvertently convey the suggestion that these issues - e.g., inevitable vertical inclusiveness - apply to us. I don't think that they do.

I don't know about cutting edge, but this is part of the bargain for liturgy in the vernacular. Contemporary culture is embedded in the vernacular language; language encodes the culture. A good translation renders the ideas of the original as they would be said in the target language. ISTM that you are proposing a different scheme of translation that introduces an ideology of what the language really should be, and translates toward that created-target.

Personally, I think that these troubles are a good argument for sticking to non-vernacular liturgical languages. Or less volatile ones. But I accept the wisdom of the Church on this matter.

The problem that we are dealing with concerns the "target language," and whether a man speaks English or politically correct English. I completely agree with you that any translation should convey the original language in the vernacular. What I don't accept is the idea that the English language has evolved to a point were the generic masculine is no longer valid.

But lets look at a specific text (it would be nice if the entire new "translation" of the Divine Liturgy were available online):

These two texts are not identical. The text from the current liturgy speaks about all men, i.e., it speaks about mankind; while the proposed new text refers to "us all," but who is it specifically speaking about? Is it speaking about everyone present at that particular liturgy, or is it speaking about the whole Byzantine (Ruthenian) Church, or does it refer only to those who live in Weirton WV? The "translators" have made the text ambiguous, when before it was quite clear who was meant.

I think that you are wrong about English. The very fact that we talk of inclusive and exclusive language means that this idea exists. And while, as incognitus pointed out earlier, some words such as the may be either inclusive (generic masculine) or exclusive depending on context, good writers will try very hard to avoid ambiguities; so I think the generic masculine is working its way to history - notwithstanding interesting attempts, motivated by I don't know what - to keep it alive.

I don't like "loves us all". Such a rhetorical low point for the end of the liturgy! But the alternative is not so great either. I liked [He is] "the Lover of ..." better than "He loves" - much more striking. I think "mankind" is as impersonal as "humanity" and more impersonal than "us" (which is as you point out vague (potentially exclusive, as you point out) - as happens with pronouns without clear antecedents).

What is the word that conveys the right blend of intimacy and universality (if this is indeed what is conveyed in the Greek)? "Man" is better than mankind and does not parse as exclusive. But ...
I am a much better critic than writer, I'm afraid, especially when trying to eff the ineffable. Maybe Madonna House has it? Maybe, like Theotokos, we should stick to the Greek?

Clearly you aren't paying attention to what I am saying. No where have I said that this idea of 'exclusivity' and 'inclusivity' doesn't exist, quite the contrary it does exist, and it exists as a politically and ideologically based movement with a defective christology and anthropology. It is an attempt to alter the English language, and I avoid it like the plague.

As the Vatican itself has indicated:

I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree on the issue of so-called 'inclusive language.' I will simply find a place to worship God without this political and ideological agenda.

The politically correct 'inclusive language' movement will not be happy until it utterly destroys the beauty of the English language. I will never forget having to sit through the hymn "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlepersons" during Midnight Mass back in December of 2000.

Not long ago this idea was obscure. Now it is commonplace. This change reflects the fact that the language, our sense of it, has changed.

Here we disagree, in part. I think it exists independent of any Christology whatsoever, and largely independent of any anthropology. But I agree that it was puposeful. And effective: our sense of the language has been altered. You might not like the origins of this alteration, but to express oneself in what is becoming an archaic fashion is certainly a political and ideological statement in its own right. IMO, such sentiments should be left outside of the liturgy.

I think that most folks who favor avoiding exclusive language (when it is not intended in the meaning) are not interested in destroying the beauty of the language - really no need for such gratuitous (symptomatic?) swipes. By the way, if actually interested in the language how about the requisite punctuation: "God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen"

If you see an an agenda to foster bad anthropology, Christology, and language in my church, ISTM that you projecting your own demons and past war trauma on its good people.

CHRIST IS RISEN!

For those of us who are in communion with Rome, it would be wise and prudent to notice that no less a person as Pope Benedict XVI has ruled that the Church is not buying the "inclusive language" agenda - at the time he was still writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but there is no reason to think that His Holiness has changed his mind.

As to the linguistic madness of "God rest ye merry, Gentlepersons", I am as always maddened by the behavior of these, ah, persons who don't seem to know ANY language adequately. If they had even gone as far as Sir Walter Scott (mandatory reading when I was a high school freshman) they would know that "Gentles" can be used as a noun (do they even know what a noun is?) and hence they could have achieved their alleged goal with "God rest ye merry, Gentles All". It resembles the unword "clergyperson" - the writer of such babble obviously is unfamiliar with the authentic word "cleric".

Incognitus

Here's a link:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/vatican-norms.html
For the most part, changes of the faith-altering variety are combatted here.

Cleric: what a nice example of a word uncontrived that avoids exclusion.

The first norm states plainly: �The Church must always seek to convey accurately in translation the texts she has inherited from the biblical, liturgical, and patristic tradition and instruct the faithful in their proper meaning.�

"Inclusive language" is an agenda. It cannot be an accurate translation of the texts of the Church. Rome doesn't approve of contrived "inclusive language" in the Liturgy. Why is the archbishop challenging Rome�s directives with an �inclusive language� Liturgy? The Archbishop�s revision to the Liturgy is a mistake.