However, no one gets “They meant well but made a mistake” out of Nicholas’ comment:

—
Re: For Us MEN And Our Salvation-Compendium of the Catechism [Re: Recluse]
nicholas nicholas
Member

Registered: 05/13/03
Posts: 563
Loc: u.s.a.

Offline
I am very, very sad.

The inclusive language nonsense is deeply upsetting. It is such a terrible
mistake, and I cannot say how much I am disappointed with our bishops for
not standing up for the faith, and defending the truth, and the Byzantine
Liturgy from this nonsense.

But you are right, the deed has been done, and they have to accept the
responsibility for what they’ve done. I’m so very very sad.
——-

That does attack our bishops in an act of uncharitable action. I called someone ignorant when they didn’t know something. That isn’t lack of charity to say someone didn’t know something when they didn’t! But it is uncharitable to our church to say our bishops don’t stand for truth.

More importantly, as I was originally planning to collect many examples, I couldn’t do searches, and was stopped from posting, so I only gave one example and didn’t say it was proof nor did I give much of a commentary but I said it was one of many I could give.. if allowed. No allowance, and very dishonest.

He misrepresents my post; he then demands people show him how a document which doesn’t affect Byzantines has been rescinded so Byzantines don’t have to follow it. Then he admits it doesn’t have to be followed, but puts a challenge to me - a challenge he makes impossible for me to respond to. Why? Why is there this dishonesty by the administrator — who allows all kinds of nasty comments against the hierarchs, but does not let any defense to be offered? And why is he so incapable of being open in what he does, like this, making it impossible for me to have a response:

Your account has been banned or locked. This ban will expire on 04/27/07 03:32 PM. If the Administrator has specified a reason for this ban, you will find it below.

Checking to see if you are a user that has already been banned.

Please use your back button to return to the previous page.

I hope what I wrote could reveal some issues not addressed. Problems of translation are not new, but most people who don’t even have a grasp of the different connotations of words in two languages will rely upon other translations to justify their own preference. I’ve seen, for example, people quote translations from the Pope and say “see, that proves it.” No, the Pope didn’t say the translation and use the exact words you quoted; someone translated it that way and so that begs the question as if that is the only way to translate it.

Anyway to help each other out, and help to show there are more issues involved (and the possibility that this COULD lead to what I said– which I fear it could even if not there yet) please post it on Byzcath.

Thanks!

There is a warning: it’s written in the style of those who contend against the Hierarchs. This has implications as to how you should read this comment.
——-

There has been considerable debate about how one is to translate the Nicene Creed (or any religious text) into English. Because of the diversity of meaning behind English words and the connotations given to a specific word in English differs from what is said in the original Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or Aramaic text, the first thing people need to realize is that there is no one for one translation possible. Moreover, one must realize what is acceptable as a translation in one time period might no longer be acceptable in another because of the evolution of the English language and the change in connotations a word may have.

Look for example at the so-called King James translation of the Bible. As literature, it is beautiful. As a translation, it had problems. These problems I will not address here – but it is clear that it was not an ideal translation of the Scripture. However, as time has moved on, more problems have developed. While the words seem to be recognizable in modern English, their meanings are often contrary to how we would read the text now. Some people argue against newer translations of the Bible because it differs from the King James Bible; the same way some people argue against new liturgical translations because they differ from older translations. Well, that is going to happen, because words have changed their meaning. You can’t stop the English language from changing, and you can’t just assume that everyone will read the words the same way as you do.

Probably one of the great debates I have seen is the debate over so-called “inclusive language.” The first thing I always notice is that no one is really against inclusive language—or I should hope they are not. The question is – what words best assert the inclusiveness. Some people think we can still use masculine terms to imply this inclusiveness – God became “man,” and we are to be “sons of God.” Fine, if this is read inclusively it is possible, but the question we must ask – does our current use of the English language really imply this inclusiveness the same as it did a hundred years ago?

The answer has to be no – as can be seen by those who are arguing against inclusive language. They are fighting against themselves. On the one hand they say inclusive language is not needed, on the other hand they imply it is already there.

There is a danger, unforeseen, in this argument. What if we take them seriously and agree there should be no inclusive language. What if we continue this further and say a one for one translation of “uios” is son. Thus, this word is seen to be non-inclusive and say one is to become a son of God. What does this mean for women?! They are either not to be a child of God or they are to become male?

This problem is exactly one of the many problems we find in Gnostic texts. They say “Scripture only uses masculine language, and it means completely the masculine, and not the implied possibility of masculine and feminine which is possible in the plural state.” So women were said to be saved – only if they become men! We find this statement for example in the so-called Gospel of Thomas.

“114 Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

That is what many of the women who are suggesting we must use inclusive language are concerned about. They are concerned this denial of inclusive language and then saying one must only use masculine words in English because the Greek is masculine suggests that women only take part in the eschaton by rejecting their gender and becoming men.

It is interesting to note that the people making the charge against Bishops and the new translation act like they are special people in the know, who can and do live and thrive outside of the Apostolic tradition and the succession of the Apostles through and in our Bishop. This connection to Gnosticism is something we must search out. While arguing for “orthodoxy” they are arguing for their own specific, private interpretation and knowledge, and arguing for a masculine-only interpretation of orthodoxy, just like the Gnostics.

More frightful, this is also the dream of the radical feminists, who have wanted to change women into men all these years. So we see their liturgical assertions fits a feminist, Gnostic ideal.

Of course if one knew Greek and knew that a masculine plural can be either a group of men or group of men and women, then translation it as a group of men and women is faithful; and in English “us” is capable of being “us humans” without the awkward language that it is a faithful, even if different, translation. So much for the Gnostic feminists who hate noting women in their feminine side can be saved.

—-

Now there is a little tongue in cheek in this commentary. Do I think they are truly Gnostics feminists who hate women? No, but I am arguing like those who contend against the new translation to show one can follow their methods to charge them with heterodox opinions

The next big thing? It would be nice if we had one big thing on the table about which we might be interested. Could you name one?

CDL

Have you contacted your priest?

CDL

You mean eliminating litanies and using inclusive language in the liturgy? From what I know, the UGCC has not even dreamed of doing anything like that. Their new English liturgy book retains pretty much everything from its previous English translations, except the new book offers the clergy and laity the option of using the following prayer endings in some of the chants: “now and ever and forever” and “…for ages of ages.” With regards to the latter, some UGCC clergy actually opt for the more Orthodox “unto ages of ages” ending. Heck, the priest who celebrates the English Divine Liturgy at St. Nick’s even uses the “unto ages of ages” ending all the time and nobody has yet to complain.

In addition to this, the new English book still retains the words “for us men and for our salvation” in the Creed. However, my only little complaint about the book is that it allows the Creed to be either recited or chanted. I prefer that the Creed be chanted in the liturgy because we pretty much chant everying during this service and the Galacian tone settings for the Creed are absolutely BEAUTIFUL (I cannot stress that enough).

With regard to de-Latinizing and re-educating our laity, the UGCC, like the other Greek Catholic Churches, still has got quite a bit of work to do, but at least it has people willing to do the job (Thanks be to God). Heck, the UGCC still needs to be doing more to evangelize more non-Ukrainians and non-Catholics in the United States (Patriarch Lubomyr even stressed that during his visit to Chicago back in November). We could still be doing be a lot more to evangelize folks here in Chicago if many of the clergy and laity were willing to put their idolotrous Ukrainian Nationalism aside for once and “preach to all nations” as Our Lord had commanded.

DK