Who are the members of the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission and what are their qualifications in liturgy and languages (degrees, books published)?

The members of that commission are remarkably reticent, modest and unwilling to be identified. That in itself is worth noting.

Fr. Serge

Noting that they choose to remain incognitus? Or notable that they are modest? Interesting path this thread is taking.

When I get home, I'll find the list of IELC members and PM, if some doesn't beat me to it.

Steve

I posted it once, I can do so again...give me a few minutes.

Sacred Liturgy

Bishop Andrew, Chair

Reverend Monsignor Alexis E. Mihalik (Pittsburgh)
Reverend Elias L. Rafaj (Pittsburgh)
Reverend John S. Custer (Passiac)
Very Reverend Michael J. Mondik (Passaic)
Very Reverend Michael Hayduk (Parma)
Reverend Robert M. Pipta (Van Nuys)
Rt. REv. Mitred Archpriest Stephen G Washko (Van Nuys)

Where is Father David on this list? Or is that a different commission?

monomakh

You know I'm not sure, although he is on the Sacred Liturgy Commission for Parma...does anyone have any idea. I believe it was a joint effort between the Sacred Liturgy Commission and Sacred Music, which by the way both share the same chair, Bishop Andrew. Hmm, I see a pattern here, do you?

Steve suggests that "they choose to remain incognitus" - but since, as the pronoun implies, there are surely more than one of them, they would be incogniti.

Me, I belong to the cognoscenti.

Fr. Serge

Hmm - as a total outsider here I probably should not post

But I would like to pose a question

Can anyone tell me why there are 2 members from Passaic , 2 from Pittsburgh, 2 from Van Nuys but only 1 member from Parma ??

After all - the chairman comes from Passaic .

Well one thing is for sure this committee has come in for a lot of criticism.

I had heard the new liturgy was already in use in the Seminary when the balloon went up. Can anyone confirm this?

Now there is a bishop who has yet to send in his offer to retire at 75yrs. Serge for Bishop?

Long before there were balloon sightings. The chairman of the committee has very close ties to the seminary. My sense of this is that the heart of the revision beats to the rythm of the seminary and not the metropolitan chancery.

Eli

Most interesting! I am not surprised about the information in regard to the latter but the former is of interest. Thanks Eli.

Cathy's list left out Archpriest David Petras, who is a priest of the Parma Eparchy.

the unworthy,
Elias

Why is it that Fr Serge seeks to create a tempest when there is none?

The members of of the IELC are certainly no secret society. There identities are quite well known if one seeks to belong to the cognoscenti.

Dear Pavel Ivanovich - Thanks, but nolo episcopari!

Fr. Serge

Ok, so my Latin is not up to par with the cognoscenti at large.

However, you artfully dodged the question at hand regarding their modesty vs unwillingness to be identified as being worth noting. As seen by the responses, the IELC members were quite easily identified, and are not a secret. I could see their unwillingness to be identified in certain circles given the verbal bashings thrown at them on this forum alone.

commentary follows:

The handling of this whole affair of "revision", "reconstruction", "remodelling" the DL, has left a sour taste in the mouths and minds of many in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. I do not need to defend them nor denigrate them publicly in my own personal disappointment for the way things have been handled by the IELC.

Had the commission been more open from the outset, perhaps there would have been as much dialogue, with far less personal attack. Perhaps if the commission were composed differently, things might have been handled considerably more delicately.

Ultimately, things will follow the age old model of "top down" management with the laity having to decide on a personal level whether they agree or disagree with the promulgation. As such, qualifications aren't directly relevant to the laity since we had no input as to the selection of the committe in the first place. In terms of writings/degrees several of the committe members are notable, Fr. Alexis Mihalik, Fr. Robert Pipta, Fr John Custer, Fr David Petras have all written and published material to their name that I know of. (Just because I know, doesn't mean you should take my word though).

Our church has never been a democracy on the whole. We have been reminded of that many times, even in the past year with the parish closings in the Passaic Eparchy.

my .00000002Hrivna opinion

Steve

Your sense is incorrect.

When Metropolitan Judson of blessed memory and the Council of Hierarchs established the IELC to work on this curent translation, the original episcopal chairman (or moderator or liasion or whatever the proper title for the episcopal member of the IELC), until his retirement, was His Grace, Bishop GEORGE, Emeritus of Van Nuys.

BTW, one would expect the Hierarchs of the Metropolia of Pittburgh to have close ties with Ss Cyril and Methodius Seminary. This is, after all, where most priestly and diaconal formation occurs.

Deacon John wrote: This statement is probably the cause of the trouble right now. The changing of the guard in the middle of the translation probably did more harm than good. Perhaps Metropolitan Judson was working with one set of instructions, one goal, and was able to manage personalities better. Some are better able to lead, others to follow.

Bishop George was exceptionally ill in the late 1990's and I question his ability to travel much or be too active with any special project beyond surviving the ravages of his diabetes.

Archbishop Judson was painfully aware of the practical limitations of his office and I have that from his own mouth.

Bishop Andrew, former rector of the Seminary, produced a liturgy that has been in use in Passaic since the late 1990's when he, Bishop Andrew, replaced Bishop George on the committees formally.

It is no accident that the new liturgy was very recently "presented" to all other clergy but the clergy in Passaic.

The direction of the Inclusive Language version of the Divine Liturgy in this Metropolia was set in stone by 1999.

Eli

The inclusive language aspect is the most atrocious to me. The rest of the issues/changes can be reasonably argued from both sides but inclusive language is just objectively wrong. Even the much maligned Passiac Liturgy does not include this.

There is nothing inherently wrong with inclusive language, as long as it does not weaken the theology of liturgical expression or muddy the image or teaching of already contested doctrinal beliefs.

That is where the real dangers of all liturgical language lie, if they are to be found at all.

To grasp at "inclusive language" as something that stands alone as an inherently negative linguistic act is to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Other that that I agree

Eli

I am a very new convert to the Byzantine Catholic Church in America from the Orthodox Church in America. I am ignorant about a great deal of this debate over revisions of the liturgy. It is not currently being debated in the parish I currently attend and this parish is a bit isolated from other parishes in the BCC. I'm particularly interested in the agonizing many are doing over inclusive language. Would someone please provide me with some specific examples? I agree with Eli when he states "There is nothing inherently wrong with inclusive language, as long as it does not weaken the theology of liturgical expression or muddy the image or teaching of already contested doctrinal beliefs." For example, in translating Holy Scripture, I see nothing wrong with translating Paul's address "adelphoi" as "brothers and sisters," instead of "brethren," or "brothers," since it is clear that he is addressing his writings to the entire congregation. On the other hand, I find translating "huion tou anthropou" as "Son of a human" instead of "Son of Man," to be thoroughly wanting aesthically and to be based on little other than a desire to be politically correct. As for changing the Trinitarian formula (which I cannot imagine would be done in any approved Catholic liturgy) to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" in order to avoid "Father" and "Son" to be offensive. It is presumptuous, since the formula "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is given by Christ himself. Also, it runs the danger of becoming modalistic or Sabellian. I would greatly appreciate being informed on this subject.
In peace,
Ryan

Ryan,

It is my understanding that the changes are of the following type:

lover of mankind >> lover of us all
Theotokos >> Mother of God
of orthodox faith >> of true faith

Someone else should be able to correct me or provide further examples.

Wondering,

Thank you.

Ryan

My examples would include:
excluding the word men from the Creed at "who for us men and for our salvation", which I guess technically is not inclusive language but no language at all,

at the dismissal from Christ is gracious and loves mankind to Christ is good and loves us all, and

Holy Things to the Holy to Holy Gifts to Holy People.

After rereading the entire text I could not find more examples, which is a good thing and the Creed was what I was thinking of with my first post.

BTW, nice slap down Elitoft! :rolleyes: Sorry for having an opinion.

I don't understand. How is suggesting that there's nothing inherently wrong or evil in inclusive language a "slap down" to you?

Are you sure this is not a set-up?

Eli

Eli said:
<<There is nothing inherently wrong with inclusive language, as long as it does not weaken the theology of liturgical expression or muddy the image or teaching of already contested doctrinal beliefs.

To grasp at "inclusive language" as something that stands alone as an inherently negative linguistic act is to strain at gnats and swallow camels.>>

There IS something inherently wrong with much of the efforts at "inclusive language". It is based on false premises. Not only is it unworthy of liturgical language when referring to God, but also in the so-called "horizontal" references. There is a failure to grasp elements of traditional theological anthropology. In other words, it can also distort understanding about human nature in itself.

Thanks for the responses. I talked with my pastor about this on Sunday. He said that the members of the liturgical commission are all good men and good pastors. He also said that except for Father Petras none have advanced studies in either liturgy or Church Slavonic. This explains a lot.

Java Joe writes:

It certainly does explain a lot! The late Catherine Doherty (God rest her soul, and may she pray for us) was a very good woman indeed;I remember her often and always with gratitude. However, like all of us, she had her strong points and her weak points. Among the latter, Catherine could not cook a meal fit for human consumption; her culinary atrocities are legendary. Would anyone seriously suggest putting her on a commission to test and recommend recipes for haute cuisine?

I hasten to add, in fairness to Catherine, that her inability to cook did not make her an idiot when it came to food. Very early in the history of Madonna House she understood the importance of organic farming, and good diet (one of her prize comments was that the only food value in packaged breakfast cereal is the milk that you drink with it - I wish my mother, who forced the garbage cereal down my throat when I was a child, had known Catherine). She also understood the difference between ferial and festive meals, which our entire society is rapidly losing.

Fr. Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As is so often the case on here, misinformation is given and then accepted as fact.

Fr. Petras has a doctorate in liturgy; Fr. Rafaj has an STL in liturgy.

Msgr. Mihalik TAUGHT Church Slavonic at the Seminary until last year. Fr. Custer teaches it now.

Fr. Michael Hayduk has considerable background in Church Slavonic, while not having a degree.

Fr. Custer has a doctorate in Sacred Scripture which is absolutely essential to the Liturgical Commission.

Fr. Custer, Fr. Petras, and Fr. Rafaj are all fluent in the Greek of the New Testament and of the Fathers of the Church, which is just as necessary for the translation of the Byzantine Liturgy.

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

I agree with Mr. Thompson that many of the members of the IELC hold advanced degrees, that they are both competent and extremely knowledgeable.

My issue is not and never has been with the qualifications of the men involved in preparing the translation but with the principles they either chose or were given. If their goal was to prepare an accurate and complete translation of the official 1942 Sluzebnik (one free from abbreviations, reorganizations and agendas like exclusive “inclusive language”) they would have succeeded. Sadly for our Church, a path other than utter faithfulness was chosen.

Dear Professor Thompson,

I am not sure that the pastor in question is all wet in his observations. You've offered the credentials of the members but they do not seem to refute what was said about the areas of professional competency.

That being said, you and I both know that credentialing is not guarantor of success in anything including our professional lives where we have all the best training. [read "we" as "one has" etc.]

I think that what is shocking to many of us is the fact that there are competencies in evidence on the committees and still we do not have an historically faithful document, still we have inclusive language in the face of Rome's rejections of it, still we had or have loose spots in terms of lex orandi lex credendi, still we have further abbreviations and truncations of the liturgy, and music that may not be designed to do so, but which is stifling to congregational singing, and is still no more than an adaptation of that which we are said to be returning to, which is what we have already only differently.

That is what is stunning. Not that the committee members are provincial dolts, but that they are not really and still we have a reform that is lamentable.

Eli

I have thought about the term, "Son of Man" often lately. It is used very frequently and Jesus himself uses it. It obviously has very prophetic meaning from its use in the Old Testament.

Why, however, would "huios tou anthropou" be pc? I would argue that if "horizontal" language, langauge which identifies the natural order, can be changed - it certainly ought to be changed here. Certainly Jesus was not the Son of a man, but the son of a woman - the Theotokos. Or perhaps "man" really is like "anthropos."

In the United States we have a very important historical document which states:

I wonder what would happen if there were a proposal to substitute "of us" for "men" in that document? A truly "American" translation of an ancient Creed would want to borrow the capital from something really American -- The Declaration of Independence. But that's not pc either because after all, African Americans, Native Americans, and women were persecuted by the founders.

The Declaration like the term "men" is taboo in Amercian "culture." Why? Because it still keeps us connected with a higher law, the Divine Law. If you take the Declaration seriously, you know that Amercan law, in principle, forbids abortion and a whole lot more.

Man's participation in this higher law is the natural law. The natural law recognizes and respects the differences between men and women. While we can attempt to make nice distinctions between "horizontal" and "vertical" language, if you destroy the natural order, you will end up destroying the Divine as well:

"For this reason a man (anthropos) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;"

Ephesians, chapter 5.

I see it as no accident that those (here I speak of the modern pagans - those outside the Church) who want to transform our language, also want to transform our culture as well. I see it as no accident that on the heals of the radical feminist movement, we are now dealing with the issue of "gay" marriage which utterly rejects the natural order.

St. Paul cautions us to be wary of the world and the fashions of the day. He tells us in chapter 12 of Romans:

St. Paul's admonish certainly seems apropos.

I am told that the Greek word translated as "transformed" could also be translated as "transfigured." It is the Transfiguration which holds a special place in Eastern theology. It is our goal:


If we are all sons, we then are all adelphoi - brothers because we have been baptized into Christ.


Galatians. chap. 3.

Now if someone says what "horizontal" language we use is unimportant, then you have an argument with St. Paul.

The following, on the title "The Son of Man," is from newadvent:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm

Here are a few of my own muddled thoughts:

If we take out men in the Creed as is proposed by most Catholic Bishops in the United States ["for us and for our salvation"], then it appears that when we say, "he became man," we have made his "maleness" the important point unless of course we are still working under the assumption that man means human being without regard to age or sex. But this is the assumption which we have agreed is in fact not the case, that's why "men" "were" removed. Since, however, he became man, not woman, then it is as clear as daylight that he came to save just us males.

Leaving out "men" but retaining the fact that he became "man" has, therefore, the opposite effect of what was intended by the removal of men, for what we mean is that he took on our human nature, which does not exist as some Platonic form but rather in man: male and female.

There you have it ladies, there is no salvation outside maleness!

Im,

To a certain degree, you are correct. Without "males" we would not have priests which would mean we would not have the Eucharist. The church can technically continue without men in the form of reader's services, but humanity itself will not last very long past that time making it a moot point. Of course, we could argue what would have happened had their been no men at the time Jesus came, but alternative universes needing saving was sufficiently dealt with by CS Lewis in the Chronicles of Narnia, and in that case we might as well argue that Jesus is a lion.

The reality is that Jesus did come into our time in the form of a man. The Bible and early Christianity have a number of extremely powerful women, from peasants to queens, which means he could have come as a woman had he so desired. He decided to come as a man, though, and to call men to continue in a specific ministry in his place. This does not negate the power and importance of women (look at the honor we are currently paying to the Theotokos), but gives women a different role. So, Im, you are right. Without the Son of Man who came to save men, there is no salvation for women, either.

Plus, aren't WO-men just a subset of men? An improved model number?

That is why I refer to my wife as my better half!

A few more thoughts why men ought not to be excluded from the Creed.

It seems to me that when we say Jesus Christ became or was made man, we mean two things: 1) that he became a human being and 2) that he became a male human being. It is this dual meaning that is important which would not be conveyed if we were to say eg, for us human beings he was made a human being. [I think Fr. Pertas recommends this on his website but knows that no one speaks that way]. But this possible translation would be incorrect for theological reasons.

As you point out, it is important that Jesus Christ was made a man (ie not a woman) and a man (ie not a lion). That he became a man in the first sense governs who can become a priest. It is also important in understanding the mystery of which matrimony is a symbol. St. Thomas Aquinas on commenting on the passage in Ephesians which I quoted in a previous post above states that the Son left God the Father, and his Mother the synagogue, and became incarnate to be united to His Bride the Church. It is important, therefore, that we acknowledge that Christ was made man in the first sense. But it is also important that he became a man in the second sense (ie not a lion). It is probably the case that the primary meaning of man actually is in the sense of "not a lion".

When "men," however, is removed from the Creed, it is logical to conclude that the only important thing is that Christ was a male --which of course will aggravate even more those who out of a sense of justice are demanding that the language be sanitized. This is in part due to the fact that they don't want to sanitize just the language. Language is a symbol which conveys ideas about things.

Note that saying Jesus Christ became a man is still on the "horizontal" level - but it is not being tinkered with. However wild the Da Vinci Code may have been, I don't think it suggested that Christ was anything but a man. The facts are the facts.

From this one may conclude that the male chauvinists would really get excited about this new change in the Creed for Americans (Roman and Byzantine alike). The nod to the feminst agenda, however, has only aggravated the problem.

When correctly translated, the Creed, ie, "for us "men" and for our salvation...he was made [or became] "man"," employs both meanings of "man". No one is excluded and the fact that Jesus Christ was made man (not a woman) is not ignored.

The moral of this story is that those who wrote ancient classical texts which have survived for generations were far more sophicated that modern men and we ought not just drop words from the original text and call them translations.

Which brings to mind the question here in the United States, "If we were to have the Divine Liturgy in the original Greek or Mass in Latin (just for the fun of it) would we just drop "anthropous" or "homines" from the text?

I think not! [Beware, if you are a Cartesian and say that you might disappear!]

Yes. This is truly lamentable and I believe it may point some of our most faithful, devout and active parishioners to Holy Orthodoxy.

To paraphrase another well known quip:

"The Liturgy is too important to leave to the liturgists."

As some have commented, some members of the liturgical commission might be too close, too invested in the work they came up with that they have come to the point of no return. This being so even if the spirit of the faithful is snubbed.

But for us Christians there is alway a point of return. Not to do so will harm the Church.