|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Conceived by the power of the Virgin Mary!?
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
Intellectually, I know that 'men' here is translating αθρoπoυς and is all humanity, but that's not the emotional effect.
Does "mankind" have the same overtones for you?
I'm ok with mankind and in fact prefer it to humankind because that is a horrible hybrid of Latin and Anglo-Saxon. If you need to avoid mankind in prose, just use humanity!
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
What's wrong with "us" (no "men" or "humanity")? Isn't that what a lot of Churches use in the creed already?
If someone insists on including every word from the source language in the Creed, I actually am not opposed to just adopting a foreign word for something you are having trouble translating. So just like the new terrible Roman translation translates consubstantialem (itself a translation of homoousios) as consubstantial, why not translate "ἀνθρώπους" as "anthropous"? (And if you're a Latin fetishist, "homines")
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What's wrong with "us" (no "men" or "humanity")? Isn't that what a lot of Churches use in the creed already?
I think "us" is kind of vague. I believe that making it clear that it is specifically for humankind is better.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What's wrong with "us" (no "men" or "humanity")? Isn't that what a lot of Churches use in the creed already?
If someone insists on including every word from the source language in the Creed, I actually am not opposed to just adopting a foreign word for something you are having trouble translating. So just like the new terrible Roman translation translates consubstantialem (itself a translation of homoousios) as consubstantial, why not translate "ἀνθρώπους" as "anthropous"? (And if you're a Latin fetishist, "homines")
I asked this question and was told that the "men" (prefer "people," but whatever) had to be left in there to prevent people from assuming that Jesus died for only SOME people--either the people present, or those who identify as Christians, or those who believe and not the unbelievers, or...
I found this odd, but understand now that there are indeed churches who think Jesus suffered, died, rose only for some people. Which seems rather odd and indeed a bit cheese-paring of him. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What's wrong with "us" (no "men" or "humanity")? Isn't that what a lot of Churches use in the creed already?
If someone insists on including every word from the source language in the Creed, I actually am not opposed to just adopting a foreign word for something you are having trouble translating. So just like the new terrible Roman translation translates consubstantialem (itself a translation of homoousios) as consubstantial, why not translate "ἀνθρώπους" as "anthropous"? (And if you're a Latin fetishist, "homines")
Oh for God's sake, put this canard to bed already. The word "consubstantial" is perfectly good English (the word first appears in 1483, in Caxton's translation of the Golden Legend). You can't have a theological discussion of the Trinity without using it.
I'm really tired of butthurt "Spirit of V2" RCs whining about this word as though the translators made it up. Sorry stonespring, not saying you're one of them, but I'm just about at the point of saturation on this issue!
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
If you need to avoid mankind in prose, just use humanity!
As much as I think "for us men and for our salvation" is just fine, I do think "for all humanity and for our salvation" isn't totally awful. Then again, the wording of the 79BCP is just fine as well. God knows what will happen with the 2016BCP, or whatever we end up with.
Fr. Weber: What a good post.
[ 21. July 2014, 17:02: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I'm really tired of butthurt "Spirit of V2" RCs whining about this word as though the translators made it up. Sorry stonespring, not saying you're one of them, but I'm just about at the point of saturation on this issue!
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
It is the term used in at least one, if not more, of my old Latin-English missals from the 1930s or 1940s.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zappa
Ship's Wake
# 8433
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
What's wrong with "us" (no "men" or "humanity")? Isn't that what a lot of Churches use in the creed already?
I think "us" is kind of vague. I believe that making it clear that it is specifically for humankind is better.
But is it? Or is it for all creation tainted by human sin?
--------------------
shameless self promotion - because I think it's worth it
and mayhap this too: http://broken-moments.blogspot.co.nz/
Posts: 18917 | From: "Central" is all they call it | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emendator Liturgia
Shipmate
# 17245
|
Posted
The Anglican A Prayer Book for Australia has had us saying "for us and for our salvation" (as well as declaring that Jesus the Christ became 'truly human' at the incarnation) for so long now that reverting to old forms of speech (however grammatically correct they may be) sounds jarring to the liturgical ear.
Anglican liturgy (at least here in the antipodes)has consciously been removing gender-specific and laden terms where practicable, in order to make it clear to all that salvation is indeed for all and not just a minority of the population.
--------------------
Don't judge all Anglicans in Sydney by prevailing Diocesan standards!
Posts: 401 | From: Sydney, Australia | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
quote:
[...] in order to make it clear to all that salvation is indeed for all and not just a minority of the population.
But I don't think anyone actually believes that is what the creed is saying when it is phrased "...for us men and for our salvation..."
In my experience, even people who would prefer to see gender neutral language do not honestly believe that, when the Creed is phrased as above, that it is asserting that salvation is open only to persons biologically male. People understand that 'men' means 'mankind' or 'all human beings,' even if they think it ought to be phrased differently.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
But is it? Or is it for all creation tainted by human sin?
I believe that He is indeed redeeming all creation as well (well--OK, this particular universe--if He has made others, they may not need redemption/healing)--but we know ourselves to be in need of salvation--but we don't know that the animals, plants, atoms, galaxies, aliens, faeries, rocks, whatever exists that we know nothing about, etc. are in need of salvation in the sense of forgiveness of sin--or if so that it is in precisely the same mode as Jesus' Incarnation, Death and Resurrection.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emendator Liturgia:
The Anglican A Prayer Book for Australia has had us saying "for us and for our salvation" (as well as declaring that Jesus the Christ became 'truly human' at the incarnation) for so long now that reverting to old forms of speech (however grammatically correct they may be) sounds jarring to the liturgical ear.
Anglican liturgy (at least here in the antipodes)has consciously been removing gender-specific and laden terms where practicable, in order to make it clear to all that salvation is indeed for all and not just a minority of the population.
I remember when I first came across consciously inclusive language in services - at theological college. At first, it seemed strange and slightly obsessive to be so determined to root out all non-inclusive language. But when I went back to my old church 6 months later (where "mankind" and "men" were still in use), I was shocked and disturbed.
And the things is - it really DOES make a difference in perception. This is not just about one single word in the creed, but about all the liturgical texts. In our liturgies, are we consciously and deliberately including all people, or only half the population? And you can't have any half measures - once you've inclusivised the liturgy, even a single "mankind' or "men" jars and is distracting.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
But is it? Or is it for all creation tainted by human sin?
I believe that He is indeed redeeming all creation as well (well--OK, this particular universe--if He has made others, they may not need redemption/healing)--but we know ourselves to be in need of salvation--but we don't know that the animals, plants, atoms, galaxies, aliens, faeries, rocks, whatever exists that we know nothing about, etc. are in need of salvation in the sense of forgiveness of sin--or if so that it is in precisely the same mode as Jesus' Incarnation, Death and Resurrection.
Exactly so.
For some time, I've been toying with the idea of writing a science fiction story (in the style of Isaac Asimov or Arthur C Clarke), about contact between humanity and intelligent life on another planet, where one of the issues is conflict between a Christian who doesn't believe that this alien race needs "forgiveness in Jesus' name" and a rather fundamentalist Christian, who insists that he has been called to preach the gospel to the aliens precisely because they DO need salvation. There would obviously be much more to the story than this - this would just be a sub-plot.
Sadly, I recognise that whilst writing the story in my head is fun for me, reading it would probably be dull as hell for anyone else.... ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I do think that questions about who or what needs saving are very important.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Hmmm. Haven't read that in years. Must check it out sometime. Thanks for reminding me.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
If you need to avoid mankind in prose, just use humanity!
As much as I think "for us men and for our salvation" is just fine, I do think "for all humanity and for our salvation" isn't totally awful. Then again, the wording of the 79BCP is just fine as well. God knows what will happen with the 2016BCP, or whatever we end up with.
Fr. Weber: What a good post.
I'm hoping for a 2038 BCP.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:
quote:
[...] in order to make it clear to all that salvation is indeed for all and not just a minority of the population.
But I don't think anyone actually believes that is what the creed is saying when it is phrased "...for us men and for our salvation..."
In my experience, even people who would prefer to see gender neutral language do not honestly believe that, when the Creed is phrased as above, that it is asserting that salvation is open only to persons biologically male. People understand that 'men' means 'mankind' or 'all human beings,' even if they think it ought to be phrased differently.
I know rationally that the older version of the creed was written by people who regarded "men" as including women but my emotional response was to feel excluded, Sunday after Sunday.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
I know rationally that the older version of the creed was written by people who regarded "men" as including women but my emotional response was to feel excluded, Sunday after Sunday.
Exactly! This is what people who complain about inclusive language fail to understand.
If you could guarantee that no-one was going to feel excluded and that everyone knew that "men" meant all humanity, then using "men" wouldn't be a problem. But you can't guarantee that.
(I am starting a new thread about inclusive language in hymns, for those who may be interested. Ok - it interests me, so there!)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I'm not sure if I'd regard this as primarily about feelings (not to deny the importance of that). To me, it's much more about critiquing a form of language which assumes that (male) men are the normative, typical humans, and females are a kind of tolerable exception that we don't really need to talk about too much. I think that kind of language does harm to people's way of perceiving the world that goes deeper than what they do or don't consciously feel. Hence, I would use inclusive language* even in a group where no-one was offended by it.
--
*in my own words; there are other issues about fiddling with official texts I've been charged with proclaiming.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hart:
To me, it's much more about critiquing a form of language which assumes that (male) men are the normative, typical humans, and females are a kind of tolerable exception that we don't really need to talk about too much.
I see the male defaults in the language - the use of "men" and male pronouns to refer to generic people, referring to married women as "Mrs John Smith" as a historical artifact, and don't imbue it with any particular significance. Nor do I have any confusion over the sex of HM the Duke of Lancaster and Normandy. I'm also a bit odd, so I have no reason to suspect that my outlook is very common.
(And I assume that men are quite capable of using "people" and thinking "men", just like white folks can be heard talking about "people" and "black people".
Inclusive minds and inclusive language aren't the same.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
...the creed ... the Latin original...[/i]
Seriously?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jel
Apprentice
# 9755
|
Posted
Anyway, on the Lord's Prayer omission question, if you read the text surrounding it and took it to heart, you'd not be saying it in public anyway, and the Spirit would know what you meant.
Posts: 40 | From: Brussels | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm hoping for a 2038 BCP.
Why? Is that your mandatory retirement date?
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
