www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Translations of the Creed in the Syriac Catholic Church

There is evidence, and there is more substance than hysterics. No one on this forum speaks officially for the Metropolia. Fr. David, a member of the IELC, has expressed his views; he has directly and indirectly addressed inclusivity as an issue. But officially, the following is my excerpted transcription from the DVD Time for the Lord to Act: A video catechesis for the new English editions of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh.



This is the second of the three issues addressed for this question:

1 "same essence"
2 inclusivity: "Men" and "Man" in the Creed
3 the filioque

Dn. Anthony

Dn. Anthony,

Been out of town - sorry about the delay. I guess we are getting back to the question of accuracy and context in translation.

I understand that he used the word inclusive, but only in reference to restoring the original context of the original verbiage.

Thanks for the input-

Alex

I must say that when Fr. Robert in the DVD catechesis says:

I understand him to mean "gender neutrality (or inclusiveness)." And so Fr. Robert is understood differently. But there is an issue with context that is not mentioned in the DVD. Consider that the RDL Creed has "For us and ..." This can be rendered in Greek as

di'(for) hēmas(us) kai(and)...,

words found in the Greek of the Creed. But if the Fathers who composed the Creed wanted to say just that, they didn't; they inserted another word (with its article) tous anthrōpous, i.e.

di'(for) hēmas(us) tous anthropous(???) kai(and)...

Why did they bother inserting the extra word(s) since it is not needed to say "for us and ..." Were they not in fact intending to say more than just "for us and ..."? Then must we not in our translation say more than "for us and ..."?

How can simply ignoring in translation a word that is obviously there on purpose, with a purpose, in the Greek original (and the Slavonic of the Recension) be "restoring the original context of the original verbiage"?

Dn. Anthony

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Without mitigating the value of proper Greek translations, I do not believe that the issue of inclusive language will be resolved strictly through a debate over translation. I believe that the issue of inclusive langauge in worship services points to a need for more exploration in the area of liturgy and the theology of gender. In fact I think that this is a major blind spot or at least a field being left fallow by eastern liturgical theologians. I would like to see eastern liturgical scholars enter more deeply into this area because I believe it is in fact central to liturgy. In fact, as Pope John Paul II said in his theology of the body, it is in fact the "fundamental component of human existence."

Liturgy is the Sacrament of the Bridegroom with His Bride the Church. Our participation in the Heavenly Liturgy is an entrance into the veritable mystical bridal chamber of God, our participation in the "wedding feast of the Lamb." Where there is gender confusion or lack of the revelatory significance of gender there is necessarily theological confusion. In a sense gender IS theology. Precisely via gender we are able to participate in the interior life of the Holy Trinity, to become a Union and Communion of Persons. It is precisely through gender that the Spousal union of Christ and His Church is both signified and participated in. Gender is not blurred in liturgy nor in the eschaton but rather it comes into its full flowering.
Although we are all called, male and female alike, to grow more and more into the image and likness of Christ in order to be saved, nonetheless we do so as gendered persons and there is a profound significance to this.

The resistance to inclusive language in the liturgy is not soley about the correct translation of the Greek, however important that is. It touches upon that which is most central to our being--the spousal mystery, the Divine Order of creation. It is precisely through gender that we can love as God loves. Love comes to its fullest and most eschatological significance in liturgy. I believe that this is why the inclusive language issue is so critical and it is not going to go away. In fact it should not go away because it is tied to the central mystery of our being human and therefore of the mystical reality of liturgy.

It seems that liturgical scholarship, like most scholarship since the middle of the last century is dominated by the historical-critical method. Many leading liturgical scholars in our time have in fact been Jesuits or Jesuit trained and it is my sense that the historcial-critical method of scholarship is the preferred method of research in the world of Jesuit scholarship. This is an observation on my part not a criticism.

The historical-critial method most certainly yields many good things and in fact where would eastern liturgical scholarship be today without the contribution of Jesuits and Jesuit trained eastern liturgical scholars? But the historical-critical method it is not a complete method. I dare to say especially when it comes to liturgy. In fact, no scholastic method can claim to be perfect or complete. This is precisely why I think that there is difficulty in acceptance of aspects of the revised translation of the Liturgy. The historical-critical method tells us what the "ancients" did during liturgy and it uses that knowledge to determine what is good for the current times. This is of course very necessary. But there is so much more to liturgy than historical development, as crucially important as that is, and I think that this is where the problem lies. Until this area is properly explored the resistance to new translations will continue and perhaps with good reason because something very important and comprehensive is being overlooked.

The changes and discussions regarding the new translation of the liturgy should not be reduced to "conservatives versus liberals" or anything of that sort. I believe that oppenents to the new translastion are perhaps groping to express something that is almost inexpressible but something that lies deep within the human spirit. It is something that has gone overlooked in this whole process and in the subsequent discussions. It is something that goes far beyond the exact translation of a Greek word, however valuable that truly is in regard to Liturgy.

Liturgy, more than any other scholastic discipline in the Church seems to be greater than the sum of its parts. It is primarily mystical. By "mystical" I mean therefore what is most real. It is an area powerfully explored by John Paul II in his "Theology of the Body" which, when faithfully read, accurately understood and practiced, is in fact the convergence point of eastern and western theological anthropology. I believe that the concern over inclusive language is really a concern about overlooking, distorting, trivilizing and the consequent disruption of the Divine order of things as expressed and lived out through our gendered persons. I believe that it is precisely in liturgy that the value of gender is revealed in all its signifance rather than rendering gender insigificant. I think that this forms the basis of the real concern that opponents have over the issue of inclusive language in liturgy. If we get gender wrong in liturgy we get everything else wrong in life. Liturgy is life. Life is Liturgy. Liturgy informs our life. If the significance of gender is not understood, preserved and lived in liturgy then it becomes insignifcant in ever other aspect of life. We can see the destructive consequences of this in our sexually confused world today.

Another point that I believe could be helpful in this is if the "Sensus Fidelium" was factored more into the considerations of liturgical worship and translations. I am not advocating liturgy by vote or by the whims of those less educated in liturgy than our liturgical scholars. What I am saying is that liturgy needs to be "rescued" in a sense from the confines of academia. Liturgy is greater even than academia. With all due respect, and speaking as a pastor on the front lines of the liturgical life of parishes, academia, by its nature, can sometimes exist in its own world. Issues that are imporant in academia may not be in the world of the rank and file.

The inclusive langauge contained in the revised translation of the liturgy was thankfully kept "horizontal." For those bothered by inclusive language we must be fair to the Liturgical Commission and admit that it "could have been much worse." I think that the problem lies in the fact that there was a sense of a certain inclusive language "imperative" among the scholars working on the new translation. Inclusive language issues and the whole world of so-called "PC" as a point of fact is very heavy in the world of academia. However, as I approach my 25th annivesary of being a pastor I have seen no such imperative among the rank and file of our Church where the revised liturgy will be implemented and lived. In fact, there was no clamoring, no one leaving our Church in a huff because we still used "mankind" in our liturgy.

The questions raised then become: Where did this inclusive language imperative come from? Was it the insistence of a few? Who were they? Why them over and above the rank and file? If in fact it was the insistence of a few could this be perceived as a sort of elitism and end up committing the very "ex"-clusivity, insensitivity and dictatorship that the whole "inclusive" spirituality purports to be against? Conversely, pastors, are now saddled with battles, clamoring and even loss of parishioners because of an imperative for inclusive language that was deemed necessary for parishes by academia. Had a more definitive rank and file input been invited in the process of the new translation I think that much of the difficulties that pastors now face could have been avoided. In saying this I am not slamming academia. I am merely pointing to, as in the case of the historical-critical method, the inherent incompleteness of a predominantly academic approach to liturgy that if taken into consideration would make the transition smoother. I know that there was "pastoral representation" in the process but it was apparantly not complete or representative enough and I say this as a pastor with what I believe is sufficient pastoral experience. I also offer these remarks in hopes that they will be helpful in the continued work of the Commission on our other worship services to which I look forward (funerals, weddings, etc.)

Finally, I think that it is the task of the Church to promote and preserve culture and all that is the best of "mankind."
(Sorry, I am not trying to be a wise guy. Personally I just think that "mankind" is warmer, richer, more poetic and inclusive than other choices.) I think that as Church we have to be careful when we say that we are using inclusive language because the English language has changed. Yes, it has changed: It is in a freefall to utter banality. The Church is not supposed to be a party to the decline of language and culture but to stand against its decline and to remind and model for the world that which is of the most digified nature. We are supposed to give our best to God. In this the Church is the teacher and the world is the classroom, not the other way around.

I hope to make my own attempt at a more comprehensive presentation about the theology of gender and liturgy since I do alot of work in the theology of the body. I truly believe that the Church, in fact civilzation rests upon the appropriate understanding of gender especially as lived in liturgy. I truly believe that our liturgical theologians would really serve our church and humanity well by taking up this more mystical dimension of liturgy.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB,MA.

Father, bless

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you for posting again. Your words always ring true.

This paragraph has moved me. "It is something that lies deep within the human spirit." That is why it is so difficult for me to express my opposition to inclusive language--it is almost inexpressible!

Dear Fr. Tom,

Well spoken! We need to hear more voices like this!

In Christ,
Dn. Robert Behrens
Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church
Jessup, Pa.

Given the emotions involved over the issue of "inclusive language" I can accept that this may prove to be a correct assessment. I still have the conviction (the hope), however, that at least a limited scholarly consensus can be reached, objectively, based on the merits of the specific translation issues. Let me give it one more try.

First, with reference to my previous post, a clarification: I was responding to the assertion that inclusivity is not the issue, context is the issue: " ... he [Fr. Robert Pipta] used the word inclusive, but only in reference to restoring the original context of the original verbiage." I do not think this is the case but, for the sake of the argument, ok, ignore, forget inclusivity as a factor. My analysis above starting with "But there is an issue with context" is based solely on context and does not invoke any consideration of inclusivity. So, from here on also, forget the "i-word" issue - context only.

1. I point out that a rather substantial word in the Greek (and Slavonic) is not explicitly translated in the RDL Creed and I question why it is not translated and indicate why it should be.

2. Elsewhere I have pointed out what I see as a very strong rhetorical reason indicating that the word not explicitly translated in the RDL Creed is in fact an essential word for the overall context: for us XXX(plural)... He became XXX(singular but with a collective, "corporate" meaning).

I am a seeker here and ask questions. Please, if you find that my analysis is off, respond, and let me know why. I promise I will not offer a response unless asked to do so.

Now we all know the difference in the translations, how XXX is treated. [remember, ignore the "i-word"] In one:

"for us Men ... He became Man"

in the other

"for us ... He became Man."

3. Elsewhere I have put forth this challenge which I repeat: to those who accept the translation "for us ... He became Man" why is it necessary or proper to drop the previously used word "Men" from the translation but it is ok to retain the word "Man"?

One further question: Based on considerations of "the theology of the body" and "the spousal mystery, the Divine Order of creation" what is considered the proper translation of the phrase in question?


Dn. Anthony

The issues raised by Fr. Loya and Deacon Anthony are not mutually exclusive. In fact they both raise similar issues, but on different levels�-Deacon Anthony at the scholarly level of translation, Fr. Tom at the deep level of conscience or truth. Both are asking the question, �Is this �translation� true?�

With respect to Deacon Anthony�s question, he asks, �Why is it necessary or proper to drop the previously used word "Men" from the translation but it is ok to retain the word "Man?�
The simple answer to this question is that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us as a man but not a human person.

Deacon Anthony was also asking for possible alternatives. I will give two and show why they are false.

First the fathers might have said, �for us...He came down to earth.� This is insufficient because even the Greek and Roman gods appeared as men on earth, but these were only appearances. It does not get to the truth of the matter that God truly became man so that both God and man could be predicated of Him, and so that man might became god.

Second, some have suggested alternatives such has, �for us human beings...He became a human being.� This also is insufficient because it fails to recognize that Christ was a male�a man, even though the assumed nature is not a �someone� as is the nature of a male or female person. In Jesus Christ the nature is a �something.� That Christ is a male, however, is vitally important because it reminds us that He is the Bridegroom. St. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Ephesians says that He left His Father in heaven, and His mother, the synagogue, to be united to His Bride the Church. If the Church is truly a Bride, and the old testament certainly provides us with this image of God�s people, God must have become a man to preserve the economy of that image which finds its fulfillment in the Book of Revelation:

Revelation, ch 21.

This takes us back to Fr. Loya�s point that this is not simply an issue of correct translation. Certainly having a mistranslation can help us to ask the simple question, �Why is this mistranslation incorrect?� The simple answer is that anthropos, even in the new testament, often means a �male human being� as well as �human being� without regard to sex or age. But the more important answer is because translating anthropos (or its plural) is in clear opposition to the confusion of the modern secular culture.

The dispute which has arisen because of the failure to translate anthropos leads us to ask whether we should imitate the secular culture which does in fact frequently refuse to use words like man and mankind. Fr. Robert Pipta has noted that it seems that certain words are exclusive. The question is, �Are they really exclusive?� Furthermore, what is the message behind this seeming exclusivity? What we do know from the secular culture is that in matters of human sexuality, of the fundamental relationship between male and female, the culture has lost its bearings. This is most evident when we now have legal recognition of homosexual marriages, but it is evident in so many other ways as well. It is not the time to change our Creed or Divine Liturgy on what seems to be true to the secular culture. Rather, we need to reflect more deeply on the why the Fathers phrased the Creed as they did and why John Paul II has given the Catholic Church this great gift of the theology of the body. In short we need faith seeking understanding. I look forward to Fr. Loya�s exposition on how the theology of the body is reflected in the Eastern Liturgy.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

IM,

Thank you for your fine remarks. I am so glad to see you touch upon THE fundamental mystery of liturgy, in fact of our very existence. If we understood this we would not only solve most of the problems of the world and of the Church but also issues such as inclusive language would not even come to our mind for consideration.

The fact that the inclusive language issue was even a consideration at all reveals the deep, deep spiritual renewal that our Church must undergo because it reveals that we have completely lost our sense of Mission as Church. The Church does not take its marching orders from the secular world. Rather it it is the other way around. The world is there for the Church to sanctify-to bring to the world the Church's vision--dare I say, indeed the LITURGICAL vision which is the only correct vision of reality. It is the vision that Adam and Even had before the Fall. It is the vision that was restored and taken to new heights with the Incarnation--when the Bridegroom "married" HIs Bride.

With all due respect to our marvelous liturgical scholars, in our day and age, in all of the discussions about translation, rubrics, revisions, etc. liturgy is practically being reduced to history. But this is because, as I mentioned, the historical-critical method has been enshrined in the world of scholarship since the middle of the last century. We take nothing away from the immense merits of this method and also from our liturgical scholars. However, there is a deep, fundamental oversight here which is the root of our problems in the Church and in the world. Until we explore this there will be no peace in the Church, in Liturgical discussions, in the world, in marriage and family, in vocations, betwee nations, etc. etc. Why? Because Liturgy is life! And life finds its meaning in the Spousal Mystery--the interior life of the Holy Trinity the Second Person of which "espoused" Himself to us and this Spousal Mystery is the DNA of the created order. And it comes to it fullest expression PRECISELY in Liturgy.

There is a deep, fundamental revelatory value to gender and this value comes to it fullest expression in Liturgy. This is what I belive, deep down inside all of us is what we find unsettling about the inclusive language consideration. It is not because we are chauvinists or "conservative" or any other type of insensitive name calling. In fact (at least speaking for myself) we are "pro" woman, but also pro man, pro children, pro nature, pro life, etc. etc.

It is not so much the words themselves but rather resevoir out of which this whole consideration springs. It is resevoir that sees gender as insignificant and this is simply sharing with the secular world a non-sacramental, non-liturgical worldview. Liturgy is more than rubrics, translations and the continual rediscovery of what the ancients did. It is life. It is Mystical. It is poetry, art, music, culture, truth, theology, unity, and ultimately a participation in the wedding feast of the Bridegroom. Liturgy is the one thing that belongs to everyone yet to no one--no, not even bishops, priests, scholars, nor cantors. Liturgy is greater than all of us and maybe what we really need is to keep our hands off of it in a manner of speaking.

I wince deep in my soul to see our Liturgical Church look horizontally to what others are doing and then mimicing them rather than looking vertically into our deep authentic selves. To me it is like when African Americans refer to one another with the "N" word. We have become masters at looking disparagingly at ourselves as somehow innately deficient;the world outside of us always has a better idea. They must. Afterall how could little 'ol us possibly have anything to offer? The "Ruthenian" Church, for instance, may be in its roots or even charcter or charm a "peasent" Church as I keep hearing these days. But at the same time the Ruthenian Church is the Church of St. Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, the desert Fathers and of Ss. Cyril and Methodius. This is not a Church that has to have an inferiority complex. My attitude: The world is our classroom and WE are the teachers. WE set the standard. The world does not have a clue so they had best shut up and listen to the Church of Chrysostom and Basil.

As an Eastern Church we alone possess a special genius for expressing the liturgical worldview to a world that so sadly needs it. Yet, rather than really explore the depths of this and be true to it (as the Church has called us to be) we leave our riches fallow and imitate the west and the secular world in attiude (secular feminisim, inclusive language, etc.) and in dress, in fact in so many ways. This stands as a testimony to what I believe is the "original sin" of Eastern Catholicism---a fundamental sense of inferiority. And we sometimes mask our mimicing of those outside of us by saying we are "enlightened", more sophisticated, more tuned to our times. "This is America, not the old country." These are simply instruments of denial that seek to justify our sense of inferiority. We have hardly begun to discover who we really are and our enormous riches and this goes for our rediscovery of Liturgy as well.

I am working on what will be a more comprehensive presentation of the theology of the body (gender) and the Liturgy. But it is my hope that liturgical scholarship will move in this direction with earnest.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB,MA.

Just pointing out that both of the comments from Fr. Loya and Dn. Anthony are the best explanations I have read so far of the complications over the RDL and the language/translation question. Thank you both for your insights and clarification; they have proven edifying.

Alex