The Ruthenian Liturgy Revisions

[jj2011]

Is there a single eastern Catholic or eastern Orthodox jurisdiction before 1970 that translated in such a way as to leave out the men in the Creedal phrase “who for us men…”?

If so, I’ll hold my fire; if not, it’s a change that makes the bishops who approved it look foolish. To me, it looks like they bought into the Novus Ordo inclusive language nonsense. I’m not denying that anthropos generally has an inclusive meaning, but in English that inclusive meaning is rendered by man.

I’m also not buying the notion that the change is justified by going back to liturgical Greek. Going purely by linguistic technicalities, it could be said that ‘bishops’ and ‘priests’ could be rendered as ‘overseers’ and ‘elders.’ I happen to have a little more respect for the ‘overseers,’ and predict that some day they’ll change the words back.

This is the liturgical equivalent of New Coke, and I use the word coke, with its different connotations, advisedly.

 

[Mickey]

Is there a single eastern Catholic or eastern Orthodox jurisdiction before 1970 that translated in such a way as to leave out the men in the Creedal phrase “who for us men…”?

If so, I’ll hold my fire; if not, it’s a change that makes the bishops who approved it look foolish. To me, it looks like they bought into the Novus Ordo inclusive language nonsense. I’m not denying that anthropos generally has an inclusive meaning, but in English that inclusive meaning is rendered by man.

Amen.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

 

[Aramis]

To me, it looks like they bought into the Novus Ordo inclusive language nonsense. I’m not denying that anthropos generally has an inclusive meaning, but in English that inclusive meaning is rendered by man.

I’m also not buying the notion that the change is justified by going back to liturgical Greek. Going purely by linguistic technicalities, it could be said that ‘bishops’ and ‘priests’ could be rendered as ‘overseers’ and ‘elders.’ I happen to have a little more respect for the ‘overseers,’ and predict that some day they’ll change the words back.

This is the liturgical equivalent of New Coke, and I use the word coke, with its different connotations, advisedly.

Agreed to an extent, but I don’t find the inclusive language terribly intrusive EXCEPT at the Epistles…
I dislike replacing “Brethren” to “Brothers and Sisters”.

And I have no idea about the Irmologion, as I’ve never seen a copy, and didn’t ‘go east’ until '88.

 

[Mickey]

Agreed to an extent, but I don’t find the inclusive language terribly intrusive EXCEPT at the Epistles…
I dislike replacing “Brethren” to “Brothers and Sisters”.

Jesus Christ is “The Lover of Mankind”. It is a beautiful, ancient, and poetic description.

The Ruthenian Catholics have changed it to “The Lover of us all”.

Does that not bother you? Do you not see that there is a politically correct motive at work here that caters to a worldly agenda?

Did you know people who were offended by the word “mankind”?

 

[Aramis]

Jesus Christ is “The Lover of Mankind”. It is a beautiful, ancient, and poetic description.

The Ruthenian Catholics have changed it to “The Lover of us all”.

Does that not bother you? Do you not see that there is a politically correct motive at work here that caters to a worldly agenda?

Did you know people who were offended by the word “mankind”?

Yes.

 

[Mickey]

Yes.

I am guessing that you mean “yes” to all three questions I asked you.

Except for admitted radical feminists, I have never heard from anyone who was offended by the word “mankind”.

 

[AnthonyJ]

I believe the GOA doesn’t have the word men and just uses “for us” in the English translation.

However, I don’t know when this translation was made. Probably after 1970.

Is there a single eastern Catholic or eastern Orthodox jurisdiction before 1970 that translated in such a way as to leave out the men in the Creedal phrase “who for us men…”?

If so, I’ll hold my fire; if not, it’s a change that makes the bishops who approved it look foolish. To me, it looks like they bought into the Novus Ordo inclusive language nonsense. I’m not denying that anthropos generally has an inclusive meaning, but in English that inclusive meaning is rendered by man.

I’m also not buying the notion that the change is justified by going back to liturgical Greek. Going purely by linguistic technicalities, it could be said that ‘bishops’ and ‘priests’ could be rendered as ‘overseers’ and ‘elders.’ I happen to have a little more respect for the ‘overseers,’ and predict that some day they’ll change the words back.

This is the liturgical equivalent of New Coke, and I use the word coke, with its different connotations, advisedly.

 

[Mickey]

I believe the GOA doesn’t have the word men and just uses “for us” in the English translation.

However, I don’t know when this translation was made. Probably after 1970.

They experimented by taking it out for a short period–but when the people and the clergy voiced their displeasure, it was restored.

Glory be to God!

 

[Woodstock]

Did you know people who were offended by the word “mankind”?
Aramis;3051568:

Yes.

I know people who are offended that we call God Father, that we don’t ordain women, and that we don’t sanction homosexual unions. That doesn’t mean we should consider changing what has been handed down to us. It means the offended people either have a misguided notion of gender and/or a misguided notion on what the Church teaches about gender. It means they need catechesis, which can only be done when the Church is fully living out its calling as an witness to others of what being a Christian is about.

 

[Mar_Isaac]

I know people who are offended that we call God Father, that we don’t ordain women, and that we don’t sanction homosexual unions. That doesn’t mean we should consider changing what has been handed down to us. It means the offended people either have a misguided notion of gender and/or a misguided notion on what the Church teaches about gender. It means they need catechesis, which can only be done when the Church is fully living out its calling as an witness to others of what being a Christian is about.

Well said! :clapping:

 

[Aramis]

I am guessing that you mean “yes” to all three questions I asked you.

Except for admitted radical feminists, I have never heard from anyone who was offended by the word “mankind”.

No, just to the “Mankind” being offensive to some.

 

[bpbasilphx]

**I dislike replacing “Brethren” to “Brothers and Sisters”. **

Actually, the Greek word ADELFOI can mean either brothers OR sisters OR both. It’s the plural nominative and vocative of both.

So “Brothers and sisters” would be more correct than merely “Brothers” (though I admit I prefer the archaic word “Brethren” in this context).

 

[Mickey]

I know people who are offended that we call God Father, that we don’t ordain women, and that we don’t sanction homosexual unions. That doesn’t mean we should consider changing what has been handed down to us. It means the offended people either have a misguided notion of gender and/or a misguided notion on what the Church teaches about gender. It means they need catechesis, which can only be done when the Church is fully living out its calling as an witness to others of what being a Christian is about.

Amen.

 

[Magicsilence]

Jesus Christ is “The Lover of Mankind”. It is a beautiful, ancient, and poetic description.

The Ruthenian Catholics have changed it to “The Lover of us all”.

Does that not bother you? Do you not see that there is a politically correct motive at work here that caters to a worldly agenda?

Did you know people who were offended by the word “mankind”?

Yes, that bothers me Mickey.

I wish some more focus would go into getting the re-translation for the Novus Ordo finally done, and leave the Eastern liturgies well alone.

I haven’t seen the changes up close and personal, but they do have a worldly ‘tinge’ to them.

In Jesus Christ,

 

[Mickey]

Yes, that bothers me Mickey.

I wish some more focus would go into getting the re-translation for the Novus Ordo finally done, and leave the Eastern liturgies well alone.

I haven’t seen the changes up close and personal, but they do have a worldly ‘tinge’ to them.

In Jesus Christ,

I agree, brother.
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

 

[bpbasilphx]

**
The Ruthenian Catholics have changed it to “The Lover of us all”.

Does that not bother you? Do you not see that there is a politically correct motive at work here that caters to a worldly agenda?**

The Greek word is FILANTHROPOS, in Slavonic CHELLOVEKOLIUBIJE–in both cases meaning “Lover of Mankind.” (the generic is clearly meant).

Some have rendered it “Lover of Humanity” which stricke me as being rather limp.

 

[MrsMW]

We left our Ruthenian parish and now go to a different Eastern rite that doesn’t use feminist language. The Pope had asked the eastern Churches go go back to the traditions not adopt feminist language. When you question these guys they come at you like you are the bad Catholic. When my priest said “Well didn’t Christ die for everyone” I said “Come on Father I am not that stupid”. I also said the only people I know who were offended by the words Man and Mankind are the same ones who want women priests, abortion, and birth control.

 

[Mickey]

**Some have rendered it “Lover of Humanity” which stricke me as being rather limp.

Yes. I agree. That is not acceptable either.

 

[Ignatius]

Has the filioque finally been removed from the Creed in the DL revision ?

 

[Woodstock]

Has the filioque finally been removed from the Creed in the DL revision ?

Yes. The Ruthenians previously had it in parentheses as an option. It is now removed entirely and is not an option.