Ship of Fools: Conceived by the power of the Virgin Mary!?

Thread: Conceived by the power of the Virgin Mary!? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027906

Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :

So, I noticed that when the Presiding Bishop was leading the renewal of Baptismal Vows at the Episcopal Church's (USA) youth event, she said "conceived by the power of the Virgin Mary." The text quickly flashes away, but if you pause it, you can see it there too.

I'm a supporter of the Presiding Bishop and loyal Episcopalian, but what in the world is that about? This seems wholly and utterly heretical. I even Googled the phrase "conceived by the power of the Virgin Mary," and it seems like that doesn't appear anywhere on Google. Has anybody heard of this being used? I don't think it's just a problem with the "script" either because she launches into it confidently, and everybody else repeats it too. I'm actually deeply, deeply troubled by this.

It's at about 1:05:30 in the below video:
EYE Closing Eucharist 2014

Posted by Kyzyl (# 374) on :

I think it was a transposition of the wording of the creed done by whoever did the PowerPoint slide and she read it and rolled with it. It appeared that she was reading off the projection. I am doubtful that it was part of any conspiracy to create heretics.

[ 14. July 2014, 20:02: Message edited by: Kyzyl ]

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

The alternative is that +Schiori has just proclaimed a new Marian dogma [Biased]

x

AV

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

As Kyzyl notes, this is the interrogative form of the creed from the Baptism service, and the producer of the powerpoint missed out "Holy Spirit
and born of the", which is certainly a keyboarding error rather than unorthodox theology.

As for what it says that the PB and the congregation just ploughed through it without thinking - well...

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Just a thought - and feel free to ignore me, y'all, as I'm pretty negative about using liturgy all the time - but do people think this apparent mistake would happen in most situations? If the words were copied or typed wrongly onto the slide, would most people (up the front and in the congregation) just read what was written without correcting or even noticing the mistake?

If so, I think that says some alarming things about what the routine use of liturgy does to our critical faculties...

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
but do people think this apparent mistake would happen in most situations?

On a few occasions, our priest has been reading from the book, skipped a line, stopped, said "that's not right" and gone back and done it properly.

I will add that, IME, most people don't know the interrogative form of the creed by heart, so would read it, whereas at least at our shack, most people recite the Nicene creed without needing to resort to the book (so if it was the regular Nicene creed, the slide could skip to Swahili half way down, and most people would just keep on reciting.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Just a thought - and feel free to ignore me, y'all, as I'm pretty negative about using liturgy all the time - but do people think this apparent mistake would happen in most situations? If the words were copied or typed wrongly onto the slide, would most people (up the front and in the congregation) just read what was written without correcting or even noticing the mistake?

If so, I think that says some alarming things about what the routine use of liturgy does to our critical faculties...

Sorry SCK but that's nonsense. It would happen whenever something gets learnt by heart and is not some kind of Romish plot to turn people's brains to mush. Think how easily people can understand text even if it has many spelling errors - our brain overrides errors with the version we remember, and is a neurological feature everyone has regardless of their use of liturgy.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

Okay, sorry I mentioned it! Just an idle thought, probably only reflecting my own bias against liturgy.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
The alternative is that +Schiori has just proclaimed a new Marian dogma

x

AV

I think that this is exactly what has happened. A valid adoption of the decisions of Vatican I by Anglicans would be to assume that papal infallibility devolves to primates of autonomous churches.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Whilst it is possible that this was deliberate change, I suspect that this is more "cock-up" than "conspiracy".

If it were "conspiracy" I am guessing that more would have been made of this. It seems mighty strange to make such a change to the Apostle's Creed without any reference to it. The phrase that they ended up with, "by the power of the Virgin Mary", is so clumsy that I seriously doubt it was intended. If an ultra-feminist was going to make such a change, I am guessing they would be far more deliberate about the wording.

My "cock-up" theory would be that
a) As already suggested, whoever created the powerpoint slides managed to cut out the missing phrase by accident. Shit like this happens.

b) The first that the PB knew about this was as the slide was displayed. At such moments, you have a second to decide what to do. Do you stop the whole thing to explain that this isn't right? Or do you just plough on regardless and hope that no-one notices? I've done the latter many MANY times! Stopping the service at that point is disruptive and it is far easier to just keep going. Also, as you only have a second to decide, by the time you've realised what is going on, the moment will probably have passed anyway.

Some may say "surely the service was proof-read first". Uh huh! Wanna know how many times I have come across typos in service bulletins that were supposedly proof-read? Unless you get in someone who hasn't seen the service at all before and get them to proof-read it, the chances of finding an error like this are not that high. The mind reads what it expects to read.

I'm sure people will be using this as yet another example of the heinous nature of the PB. Just the same sort of people who will make a joke about their own typos.

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

sounds like a grammatical error . The alternative is non acceptable .

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

It could have been worse. It could have been:

Conceived by the power... OF GRAYSKULL!!

I'll get me coat... [Hot and Hormonal]

PS: Yes, of course, I'm sure it was an accident. [Smile]

[ 15. July 2014, 03:16: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

These things happen. I once heard a priest begin an Ascension Day sermon with the words "May I speak to you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Risen and Ascended Jesus". And there have been plenty of occasions, I am sure, when, after supper, Jesus took the cup and broke it and said to his disciples...

I recently introduced the intercessions in the normal way: "In the power of the Spirit and in union with Christ, let us pray to the Father" only to be reminded that, it being Easter Sunday, the prayers were addressed to the Risen Christ.

This isn't a new issue. Back in the day the Pope wrote to St. Boniface of Crediton pointing out that it wasn't necessary to rebaptise every child where the priest had inadvertently got the Baptismal formula wrong. It was enough to ensure that it didn't happen again.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Our most recent Baptist hymnbook omitted an entire line of the Apostles' Creed by mistake! It was corrected in the reprint.

I once heard a Bible College student, "pounced upon" to say Grace at a meal, automatically begin, "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ ...".

These things happen.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Google "vertical dittography"

Shit happens

The Holy Spirit still gets on with the job.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

....in spite of all we do to make it difficult for Her.

Ian J.

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

I am in no position to throw stones. Many times, when saying the Lord's Prayer, I have been known to say: "Give us this day our daily bread and lead us not into temptation, but deliver..." It usually isn't until after I have said Amen that I realize that I overlooked the whole trespassers bit.

Fortunately, this usually happens when I am reciting the prayer to myself and not when leading others. I am sure if it happened when I was leading others I would get a classic deer-in-headlights look on my face.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

I would normally be of the opinion that this was a simple power-point screw-up, no more and no less. In fact, one of the strongest arguments against projecting the liturgy/hymns lyrics is that this sort of mistake seems to happen at least once in every service!

However, this is ++KJS we are talking about, and after the sermon she preached in Curacao, I wouldn't put any heresy, especially ones involving feminism, past her. So, while I am willing to consider this a mistake, I am suspicious of the possibility that ++KJS is trying to deny the Virgin Birth or the Divinity of Christ. Mostly I am just looking forward to her retirement.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I would normally be of the opinion that this was a simple power-point screw-up, no more and no less. In fact, one of the strongest arguments against projecting the liturgy/hymns lyrics is that this sort of mistake seems to happen at least once in every service!

However, this is ++KJS we are talking about, and after the sermon she preached in Curacao, I wouldn't put any heresy, especially ones involving feminism, past her. So, while I am willing to consider this a mistake, I am suspicious of the possibility that ++KJS is trying to deny the Virgin Birth or the Divinity of Christ. Mostly I am just looking forward to her retirement.

I'm no fan of the PB either, but I'm pretty sure it was just a typing error. Now as to whether or not she even noticed, that's another question. She is not the sharpest or most sophisticated theologian...

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

As if "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" weren't weasel words enough. Weren't we all conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?

On Saturday, July 26, the PB will grace the "40th Anniversary of Women’s Ordination Celebration" at the original scene of the crime, The Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia. This is one of the diocese's more magnificent fanes. I'm not sure how prosperous it was in the 1970s, but nowadays the neighborhood certainly is not. Parking is always hard to find, we are warned. Although I am mellowing somewhat on the issue of OOW, whether I'll attend will probably depend on whether I take time beforehand to fortify myself with rereading some Stringfellow-- particularly his love of circuses. [Biased]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As if "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" weren't weasel words enough. Weren't we all conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?

On Saturday, July 26, the PB will grace the "40th Anniversary of Women’s Ordination Celebration" at the original scene of the crime, The Church of the Advocate in Philadelphia. This is one of the diocese's more magnificent fanes. I'm not sure how prosperous it was in the 1970s, but nowadays the neighborhood certainly is not. Parking is always hard to find, we are warned. Although I am mellowing somewhat on the issue of OOW, whether I'll attend will probably depend on whether I take time beforehand to fortify myself with rereading some Stringfellow-- particularly his love of circuses.

That should prepare you for the bendy poles, at any rate.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

To make things perfectly clear and avoid this going into DH territory, I have no problem with the fact that my Presiding Bishop is a women. My objection is to the fact that she preaches and teaches heresy- I am no fan of Spong for the same reason. Thus I tend to be suspicious when she makes a "mistake" in the creed that tends to lead to a denial of the Virgin Birth.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As if "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" weren't weasel words enough. Weren't we all conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?

Not that I've ever heard. [Confused]

Certainly not in the same way that Jesus as God Incarnate was. I know language is inadequate to fully describe things, but I've never been confused by this or found it weaselly in the slightest. [Confused]

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
To make things perfectly clear and avoid this going into DH territory, I have no problem with the fact that my Presiding Bishop is a women. My objection is to the fact that she preaches and teaches heresy- I am no fan of Spong for the same reason.

I agree on all counts (if the link describes her sermon correctly... yikes!) but I'm not suspicious in this case.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
I am in no position to throw stones. Many times, when saying the Lord's Prayer, I have been known to say: "Give us this day our daily bread and lead us not into temptation, but deliver..." It usually isn't until after I have said Amen that I realize that I overlooked the whole trespassers bit.

I will never say the Lord's Prayer in public without having it written down in front of me ... and, even then, I messed up recently!

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
My "cock-up" theory would be that
a) As already suggested, whoever created the powerpoint slides managed to cut out the missing phrase by accident. Shit like this happens.

Right. This happens. A lot. Like it does in the bible.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As if "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" weren't weasel words enough. Weren't we all conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?
Not that I've ever heard. Certainly not in the same way that Jesus as God Incarnate was. I know language is inadequate to fully describe things,

True, and sometimes the more language, the more inadequacy. The old wording was "conceived by the Holy Ghost." Nice, succinct, and by the way distinctive. Why add three more words, other than to placate those who would rather not claim that Jesus was any different from the rest of us?

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As if "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" weren't weasel words enough. Weren't we all conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?
Not that I've ever heard. Certainly not in the same way that Jesus as God Incarnate was. I know language is inadequate to fully describe things,
True, and sometimes the more language, the more inadequacy. The old wording was "conceived by the Holy Ghost." Nice, succinct, and by the way distinctive. Why add three more words, other than to placate those who would rather not claim that Jesus was any different from the rest of us?

It's also a departure from the common texts produced by the ICET, which puts us at odds with the rest of the Communion and most of the other English speaking churches.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I will never say the Lord's Prayer in public without having it written down in front of me ... and, even then, I messed up recently!

I'm so glad that I am not the only one!
[Big Grin]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
It's also a departure from the common texts produced by the ICET, which puts us at odds with the rest of the Communion and most of the other English speaking churches.

I'm just mildly surprised that you're not joined by the C of E, who seemed to take great delight in buggering about with the ICET common texts, on the grounds that "we know best" (Lord's Prayer, anyone??). [Roll Eyes]

Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on :

When it comes to Lords Prayer my late mother had to fight using the presbyterian "debts" vs CofE "trespasses".
I think having the wording in front of you should keep one from error . Though I have known priests that omit whole sections of prayers. Leaving me feeling like I could have done better, maybe .

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
PaulBC: When it comes to Lords Prayer my late mother had to fight using the presbyterian "debts" vs CofE "trespasses".

When I'm in a Catholic church, I always have to be careful to leave out the last bit.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
I will never say the Lord's Prayer in public without having it written down in front of me ... and, even then, I messed up recently!
I'm so glad that I am not the only one!

That could be life-threatening for a woman in 17th-century Massachusetts. If she did not say the Lord's Prayer correctly when put on the spot, it was regarded as proof that she was a witch.

This reminds me of the organist I know who said he never wanted to play even the Old 100th Doxology without the notes in front of him. I've been known to mess that up otherwise, too.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
It's also a departure from the common texts produced by the ICET, which puts us at odds with the rest of the Communion and most of the other English speaking churches.
I'm just mildly surprised that you're not joined by the C of E, who seemed to take great delight in buggering about with the ICET common texts, on the grounds that "we know best" (Lord's Prayer, anyone??).

To be entirely fair, the ICET Lord's Prayer is the one ICET text that hardly anyone ever uses, at least in my part of the United States. It's used only by clergy who are self-consciously trying to be ultra-modern. Even Evangelical Lutheran Worship felt compelled to print the traditional text of the Lord's Prayer alongside the ICET text, and for Lutherans "traditional language" means "in German"!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Am I the only one who thinks "cock-up" is an unfortunate phrase to use when discussing the virgin conception of Christ?

Posted by gog (# 15615) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Just a thought - and feel free to ignore me, y'all, as I'm pretty negative about using liturgy all the time - but do people think this apparent mistake would happen in most situations? If the words were copied or typed wrongly onto the slide, would most people (up the front and in the congregation) just read what was written without correcting or even noticing the mistake?

If so, I think that says some alarming things about what the routine use of liturgy does to our critical faculties...

I'd not so much question about critical faculties in the same way, I'd ask the question about people not noticing an error - especially with one of the key texts.

As said some will have it by heart and won't worry about the written part at all. So they may not see the error. I've done this when leading, put in the missing words or lines.

However I have to ask the question, that in a church that uses liturgy often, shouldn't such errors be spotted?

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Am I the only one who thinks "cock-up" is an unfortunate phrase to use when discussing the virgin conception of Christ?

No, you're not.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

Because of the long-running controversy about the inaccuracy of the former ICEL English translation of the creed, which was then (and is still) used by ICET, the RCC reverted to "...and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man." This matches the Latin original, which is Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

"Conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" always bothers me too. It's a bad translation because it adds an idea that was not present in the text approved by the Council of Constantinople (I know the same argument can be made of any text including the filioque, but I can't recall at the moment if the filioque is a Dead Horse). For the same reason I am bothered with the removal of "men" from "for us men and for our salvation," which serves the purpose of clarifying the antecedent of "us" in a way that repudiates any idea of limited atonement.

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:
For the same reason I am bothered with the removal of "men" from "for us men and for our salvation," which serves the purpose of clarifying the antecedent of "us" in a way that repudiates any idea of limited atonement.

For rather a lot of English speakers, that word conveys rather than repudiates limited atonement! One of many reasons why I normally use the Apostles' Creed when a Creed is prescribed.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As if "conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit" weren't weasel words enough. Weren't we all conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit?

I've tended to assume it had something to do with providing a contrast with the common declaration of the emperor's divinity?

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hart:

quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:
For the same reason I am bothered with the removal of "men" from "for us men and for our salvation," which serves the purpose of clarifying the antecedent of "us" in a way that repudiates any idea of limited atonement.
For rather a lot of English speakers, that word conveys rather than repudiates limited atonement! One of many reasons why I normally use the Apostles' Creed when a Creed is prescribed.

Maybe something like "for all humanity and for our salvation" would have been better then. Actually, it never would have occurred to me to question whether "us and . . ." suggested limited atonement, but then I'm used to that wording.

Posted by JeffTL (# 16722) on :

"For us people and for our salvation" or "for us humans and for our salvation" would be the best translation if people truly cannot take "men" as homines rather than vires anymore.

I've never heard anyone question whether Jesus died for women. I have, however, heard people question whether the resultant salvation is available for all or only for the elect.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:
"For us people and for our salvation" or "for us humans and for our salvation" would be the best translation if people truly cannot take "men" as homines rather than vires anymore.

I've never heard anyone question whether Jesus died for women. I have, however, heard people question whether the resultant salvation is available for all or only for the elect.

I agree with you about the best translation and the danger of 'us' being taken as limited. However, I would challenge your tone over 'if people truly cannot taken "men" as homines rather than vires anymore'. Intellectually, I know that 'men' here is translating αθρoπoυς and is all humanity, but that's not the emotional effect. The problem with generic men is that it is tied up with male as default and women as incomplete and strange. See also the use of 'He' as the neutral pronoun for God, who is beyond gender.

Carys

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JeffTL:
"For us people and for our salvation" or "for us humans and for our salvation" would be the best translation if people truly cannot take "men" as homines rather than vires anymore.
*snip*

English use is changing and the absence of a gender-neutral plural, which many languages have, leaves us with few euphonic choices. I must admit that there is a generational shift in this, and that the younger age cohorts notice it more keenly. As a former classicist, I would translate it as "For all and for our salvation," although a SF-reading transitional deacon of my acquaintance wants to use "For we sentient beings and for the salvation of all creatures." I pointed out that not all parishioners or clergy fell under the former category.

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
a SF-reading transitional deacon of my acquaintance wants to use "For we sentient beings and for the salvation of all creatures." I pointed out that not all parishioners or clergy fell under the former category.

For we? Really?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oblatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
a SF-reading transitional deacon of my acquaintance wants to use "For we sentient beings and for the salvation of all creatures." I pointed out that not all parishioners or clergy fell under the former category.
For we? Really?

Not a graduate of one of our better universities.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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?

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I do not know about Carys but I do know for some it does. I have seen too many "humankind"s for me to not be aware of it. I just wonder what is wrong with "humanity" apart from making scanning even harder.

Jengie

[ 18. July 2014, 19:28: Message edited by: Jengie Jon ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I just wonder what is wrong with "humanity" apart from making scanning even harder.

As you say, the scansion is pretty horrible.

"For all people and our salvation" isn't too bad.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
although a SF-reading transitional deacon of my acquaintance wants to use "For we sentient beings and for the salvation of all creatures." I pointed out that not all parishioners or clergy fell under the former category.

Not to mention that it's making startling suppositions about precisely how the Incarnation affects everything apart from humanity, from angels to animals to aliens to yokai to any number of things we know little or nothing about. Ick. We know some details of our story as humans, but this is taking a step too far.

(Not to mention that PLANTS ARE SENTIENT--humans are sapient, which is not the same thing.)

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

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

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

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")

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

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.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

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]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

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!

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

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 ]

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

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!

It is the term used in at least one, if not more, of my old Latin-English missals from the 1930s or 1940s.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

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?

Posted by Emendator Liturgia (# 17245) on :

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.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

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.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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]

But I do think that questions about who or what needs saving are very important.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

You might like C.S. Lewis' excellent (IMO) Out of the Silent Planet, which also deals with similar issues. [Smile]

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Hmmm. Haven't read that in years. Must check it out sometime. Thanks for reminding me.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I need to reread it, and the rest of my Lewis, too.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

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.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

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.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

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!)

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

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.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

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.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
...the creed ... the Latin original...[/i]

Seriously?

[Biased]

Posted by Jel (# 9755) on :

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.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm hoping for a 2038 BCP.

Why? Is that your mandatory retirement date?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0