Glory to Jesus Christ!

In his review, it seems that what Fr. David Petras is saying is that Liturgy is in a sense,
greater than the sum of its parts. "Good Liturgy" is found somewhere beyond even the most noble and scholarly efforts at parsing Greek words and rediscovering ancient rubrics, necessary as these things are in themselves.

Peronally, I like to use the phrase the "inner dynamism" of the Liturgy. When this inner dynamism is "unleashed," so to speak, our Liturgy becomes a powerful evangelical tool. I think perhaps this may be what Fr. Petras is touching upon in his recent post. I believe that a good liturgical translation and accompanying rubrics will do what liturgy is supposed to do (transform us)ONLY when such efforts are just part of the development of entire "liturgical culture." Rubrics and translations need a greater context so that they can indeed be accepted, ne evangelical and actually transform us.

A tiny example: As a pastor, I have experienced something of this "inner dynamism" evem in, believe it or not, the recitation of the Anaphora aloud. In fact, I do the unthinkable, something that even I would not have dared to do until recently: reciting the entire Anaphora of St. Basil aloud!! All scholarly arguments aside for the moment, the reaction at my parish to the Basil Anaphora aloud has been overwhelming! Peole are moved by the prayers and love hearing them. It gives them an insight into just how rich and deep their liturgical tradition is. AND, miracle of miracles, there are no complaints about "making the Liturgy too long!"

I have witnessed other positive fruits on the pastoral level by implementing Vespers and Matins at our parish using the books from the Metropolitan Cantor Institute of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. More and "longer" prayer at our parish has yielded increased membership, increased involvement and other various and sundry blessings.

There are of course credible arguments why the Anaphora should NOT be recited aloud. But the fact that I do and on the pastoral level something "dynamic" happens points to this mysterious element of the Liturgy being greater than the sum of its parts, greater than even the most precise translation of a Greek word.

This is all the more reason why I believe it is necessary to put the "new translation" out to the rank and file in order to "search" for that essential input and ingredient that makes Liturgy greater than the sum of its parts. When all is said and done and despite all of our diverse views on all matters of Church, everything seems to cease and come togther at the moment of "Blessed is the Kingdom...:" The Liturgy belongs to all of us yet to none of us (or to any one Commission, bishop, etc.) Liturgy is the one meeting point of the whole Church. The whole Church needs to know that its essential and mysterious (Sensus Fidelium) element is taken into account. I believe that this is the only way that even certain sticky issues such as inclusive language will be resolved.

The fact that "..whom God loves" has been changed back to "God-loving" AFTER the text had been approved by Rome shows that there is a need for input from those who will be praying this liturgy. It also shows that even at this date the text CAN be changed. I assume this change in the text came from the Hierarchs themselves who simply did not like "whom God loves." As important as the episcopacy is, nonetheless it is only one part of the whole Church. If an accomodation in the new translation was made based upon an "after-Rome's-approval" input by one element of the Church (Hierarchs)why not the input of the whole Church? Otherwise what message are we sending to the rank and file? It is a message that could inspire resentment, division and at best an uneven acceptance of a mandated new translation. Us pastors will then have to deal with these things.

I realize that the pharse "inner dynamism" can make scholars nervous just as "organic development" can since such phrases are open
to crazy intepretations. However, I believe that this somewhat nebulous phrase, "inner dynamism" will bubble to the surface if the Liturgy was taken to the rank and file. The "inner dynamism" will also make sense when our Church sets about the task of renewal through the development of a "liturgical culture."

Perhaps, in tampering with our Divine Liturgy our Church tried to "play it safe" in respect to renewal. We went to something that was familiar to all of us and seemingly harmless: Divine Liturgy. But, we have found out that Liturgy is anything but a "safe" way to renew a declining Church. I believe that some of the hub-bub over the new translation has indicated to our Church that unless we pursue the things that we thought were not "safe," like a for real comprehensive vision and strategic plan for "radical" renewal, that even the finest translation of our Liturgy will not have the impact this it should.

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

Father,

I completely agree. Making changes by dribs and drabs make it appear that the input of some is more important than the input of all. A full revealing of the new translation would give people a sense of ownership and would repair what I perceive as the damage the heirarchs and the commission has already done.

My opinion is dismissed as the opinion of some crazy proteatant convert or of one unenlightened layperson. I'll admit there is much I do not know when it comes to the finepoints of liturgy. If a public conference were held I might not utter a word at said conference about the liturgy itself. I might have much to say about the life the liturgy inspires when it comes to evangelization but not much about the fine points of the translation.

The more resistance the commission and the heirarchy show the less trustworthy they appear. I believe they ought to be trusted. But I also believe that for the sake of the Church and out of good Shepherdin they must support a Church wide conference.

CDL

I have to agree with Mr. Lauffer. Although I'm not exactly the most knowledgeable in the finer details of these arguments I can talk a little about the effects the Liturgy has. Everyone can be affected this way, and it behooves the bishops to let everyone get their input in, since EVERONE'S impacted by these changes.

Please realize the magnitude of your decision, bishops. No decision is safe but this could be perilous, which is exactly what you didn't want.

Dan, I don't agree with your comments about resistance, and comments elsewhere about secrecy.

What there has been so far is an ordered process. A commission was established under Metropolitan Judson and continued under his successors. That commission included scholars and pastors from our clergy; it interacted with our cantors and our Synod of Bishops. The work was sent to the Pontifical Institute for review. The Institute's input was incorporated in a revised edition that has been disemminated to our priests. Revisions have been made after that.

I think that, the process of dissemination could have been better. For those who don't know the difference between imparting and dispensing information, here is a good example: information that needed to be imparted was apparently merely dispensed. I think that feedback that has been given here provides from various quarters provides a nice summary of the work that the Bishops and IECL need to do in working to impart rather than dispense this edition.

I have said before that perhaps more involvement of laity has some potential for good. But those who think this is some sine qua non of a good, orderly process, need to understand that, at least historically and through the present, the "work of the people" has been the celebration of the liturgy, not its composition. We don't have the equivalent of RC liturgical committees in our parishes!

Moreover, the potential for harm has to considered. The invitation of opinions will ultimately lead to the rejection of some opinions. Ouch? And finally the actual feasibility must be considered. There were something like 20,000 responses to the questionaire distributed by the Archeparchy to its members. How would we handle that volume of feedback on the liturgy? So what process do you and others recommend? An IELC of the whole? Democratic vote on Holy Mighty vs. Holy Strong? "ipart" versus "dispence? Can we do that and still have coherence?

So tell us: what are the details of participation that are being called for? Can you figure out something feasible, and that has a net benefit.

As to secrecy:
The existence and scope of work of the IELC and IEMC and the membership of these committees has been public knowledge. The process has evidently allowed revisions upon feedback from Rome, priests, and bishops. You might not like the glacial pace, or the fact that you will be among the last to see the final, final, final version, but there is no secret here. You have seen drafts and have an amazing amount of opportunity to comment on them before IELC members.

If you want to see secrecy try to find out who was involved with getting a written response from one particular, selected source, and getting it published and disseminated - not to our IELC, to our Synod, or even to Rome, but to our priests. That is the secret process.

Um, it's not the part about the new Liturgy being drafted under Judson that's the problem here. It's the problem that after Rome approved that version without the inclusive language the bishops changed it again. THAT'S the problem, djs.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Nathan,

I'm sorry that you've heard something that is not accurate. The response from Rome that gave approbation to the IELC translation also had both stipulated changes (i.e., "you must change this,") and suggestions. The very limited changes about inclusive language were in the suggestions FROM the Oriental Congregation. It is true that the Council of Hierarchs had to sign off on them---but they didn't do the original suggesting, and they didn't do anything behind "Rome's" back.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

Prof. Thompson:

Are you suggesting that the "inclusive" language was introduced at the suggestion of the Oriental Congregation and not by the Council of Hierarchs?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am not suggesting that; I am stating it as a fact.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA

So Rome wants us to share in their chaos. That's not a good sign. For those who feel strongly about this it seems it is time to write to Rome. But that is also probably counterproductive as they are the ones who insisted upon the chaos in the first place. Could the Orthodox not in communion with Rome be right? If we refused to put these changes in I wonder what they would do? Probably not a thing. Maybe the heirarchs should take a stand. Maybe we all should.

CDL

Dear friends,

Attempting to be helpful here:
"inclusive language" can mean different things, not necessarily all bad.
If the original text (biblical or liturgical) has something gender specific, then of course translational integrity requires the translated text to use the equivalent gender-specific term.

However, where the original is not gender specific, it is bad translation to introduce a gender-specific form.
English is relatively poor in common-gender forms, and we have become used to certain renderings which are more specific than the original. Pardon my lack of Greek script here: - I'm thinking of things like adelphoi which legitimately means brothers-and-sisters like hermanos in Spanish. Deciding whether to say "brothers-and-sisters" or "brothers" only is a choice between two correct translations and should be decided on context and so on.
I suggest to those concerned about "inclusive language" that this is a different issue from the gratuitous importation of PC terms where there is no justification or even excuse in the original.

I offer this for what it is worth, if anything.

At least once the service books get published and distributed, everyone can see it first hand rather than worrying about what it may contain.

Glory to Him Forever!

That means, at least, that the demand is coming in part from Fr. Robert Taft whose influence is, without a doubt, very great. We will get to be the guinea pigs for Fr. Taft's experiment. His expertise on the Divine Liturgy, however, does not provide him with any expertise on the matter of "inclusive language".

Fr. David states that this is an emotional issue, and his only refutation of those who oppose the so called "inclusive language" is sociological meanderings:

It would be prudent, however, for Fr. Taft and others to get a good dose of philosophy. If the Byzantine Church did not like the Latinization of its Rite, it is getting something much worse by importing the logical fruits of the Enlightenment which are not the same as that light which enlightens every man.

Lurking behind the desire for inclusive language, there is I suspect a rejection (implicit or explcit) of the Church's teaching as set forth in Humanae Vitae - On Human Life. I say this from the following example.

Because I live a two hours drive from my parish, I cannot get there every Sunday. I therefore go to the Roman Cathedral which is across the street from my house. The pastor there, a former President of the Canon law Society in the Roman Rite, will not say for us "men" in his public recitation of the Creed. He says, "for us and our salvation." He also told some friends who recently came into the Church when they asked about "Humanae Vitae", "We don't talk about that."

Now lest djs attempt to analyze my fierce oppsoition to the change in the Creed from this account and say, "ah now we know", he goes to a Roman Church...etc...etc. Let me say that if we change the Creed to fit the idealogical desire of a few, remember, we are tinkering with the CREED to please a few. As I recall, that seemed to have caused great division in the past. And who are those who will be pleased by the tinkering? Do they in fact embrace all of the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Fr. Paul Quay, SJ (of eternal memory)(PhD physics, MIT with degrees in classics, philosophy and theology and a student of Fr. Hardon's(of eternal memory)) in 1992 had this to say about inclusive langugage:

Again, we must consider that we will be tinkering with the CREED (and the Liturgy) lest djs or others think I am talking about the slipery slope. In my opinion, this is rock bottom.

No one except Fr. David has addressed why we should accept the introduction of so called "inclusive language" into the Creed and I find his arguments unconvincing.) Fr. Taft ought to have the courtesy and the hutzpah to take the heat off of the commission and set forth his argument for all men to consider.

Ask yourself, if you are a parent, whether you will use the pc version which is proposed for public worship in your domestic church. (My wife (whose opposition to inclusive language is at least as strong as my opposition) and I have considered this question, and we will not. That means of course when your children ask why aren't you doing what the Church is doing, you will need to provide some answer. What will it be?

But Jim, we know what it contains as the text has been available for viewing online.

With all due respect, Mr. Thompson, that just makes this all the worse. Rome of all places should have seen how this inclusive language stuff has changed and destroyed bits of the Roman Church, and should NOT have asked for this junk to be inserted for no other reason than to be nice. Jesus did not include a footnote in His gospel saying that He's trying to fit everyone in, what makes anyone think that we should??

With all the talk of reunification with the Orthodox going on, this is counter-productive, because the Orthodox will just see this as another sign of "Uniate weakness". How will this benefit the whole church? It won't. Instead we get no closer to healing one of the deepest rifts in the world that exists. That should be a goal that is equal to, if not greater than in some cases, revising our liturgy, because the wound is far deeper and more gangreneous.

I've also heard that part of the idea that the bishops had that this liturgy was a good idea was because they "demo'ed" it last year for the Good Friday/Annunciation occurrence. Is this true?

Emotional issue? In a way, people do get emotional from seeing reality being trampled on, you know. I do cry when I see my friends slandered, this is no different. Emotional reaction? We can show him an emotional reaction if he likes.

If you think that I use strong language or whatever, please realize that this is important to me, and that the stakes are very high to me, so I use language appropriate to the situation. The last time I checked this was serious.

Lazareno said:

But Jim, we know what it contains as the text has been available for viewing online.

The service book contains more than just the revised liturgy everyone is discussing here. Further, it's mostly folks here (who have accessed the Forum) that have seen the text.

Until the actual books are out, most people will not see it. And once it is available to everyone, we will all move into a new phase of its use (or not). The old forms, local, regional, etc. remain until then. That is what I mean.