It would appear that not much has been said or done with the new translation...

Is this just the calm before the storm or a sign of things to come (or not come)?

Gordo

I think everything has been said that can be said. We're fatigued.

Yes, I was commiserating with someone today about this, and I would agree I think it's the calm before the storm. With the release of Fr. David's long-awaited explanation, it appears that the new liturgy will be promuglated soon. How sad for our little church.

JMHO, Cathy

Vichnaja pamjat', indeed!

Ungcsertezs

Benedict XVI has quitely spoken, but his actual lecture was not an attack so much on Islam but on the rejection of the logos in the univeristy.

He wrote:

My greatest complaint about the "inclusive language" in the liturgy is that there is no real account (ie. dialogue) which can justify it and such language inherently rejects the Divine order which was from the beginning: "Male and female He created them."

The multi-cultural (ie, the "new" relationships in America between men and women) justification for the mistranslations are inherently unreasonable. What the practical consequences of these errors will be, remains to be seen - but consequences there will be.

With great sadness I await the promulgation.

Interesting, Cathy: I had a similar conversation with a friend last week. I'm still going to reserve judgement till I actually see the new translation. If it's not too bad, I doubt if it will have much of an effect. But if it is too modernistic, well, it will be interesting to see who is left after the others depart for Orthodox parishes or traditional Roman Catholic parishes.

-- John

...OR other Eastern Catholic jurisdictions!

As I was reminded yesterday by a priest, if the people in the pews don't accept the new Liturgy, it won't happen because that's the Holy Spirit at work. From this priest's account, the change in music alone is enough to get people angry, let alone a change in wording. Then factor in the cantor's regard or disregard for learning NEW music, and you have a recipe for disaster. So, all the moaning we've been doing here will probably play out in the pews -- louder than everyone is expecting.

It ain't over till the people in the pews and the cantors' refuse to sing the NEW music.

JMHO, Cathy

I have generally been avoiding this forum because of the distinct lack of charity espoused here. However the MUSIC is not "new"! Stop referring to the MUSIC as "new", please. I find it amazing that even cradle Byzantines (Ruthenian) over 40 are referring to the recent liturgical music (which is modeled on the much older melodies used for centuries) as "New". How quickly a generation has lost knowledge of our chant!

Had the music been restored first, then perhaps a decade later any revisions in text, things might have continued much more smoothly. Unfortunately, the decision was made to revise the texts AND restore the melodies simultaneously.

back to my occasional lurking,

Steve

Hmm...when I hear talk like this about the music issue with the Divine Liturgy, I hear things based upon fact. That "we" are factually correcting things which should have never been, and that is that.

When I bring up issues, such as factually correcting "forever and ever" to "unto ages of ages" or correcting "true-faith" to "orthodox," I hear from "your" people, we must be pastorally sensitive to people's feelings.

Well, now, what about being pastorally sensitive to all the older cantors who know the music by heart, along with all the people in the pews who know the music by heart. It appears that "your" people want what they want, and not necessairly what is correct.

Is it my imagination that the only word changes have been to add inclusive language, that things which should have been corrected have not, because as one bishop put it, "We would not be Byzantine if we didn't say forever and ever." Forget what is correct, now take feelings into account.

IMHO, the only feelings that matter are those with the red pens who have inked out the corrections that should be, and which were presented to our God-loving bishops.

JMHO-Cathy

Steve,

I must disagree with you strongly and call you out on your accusation.

Lack of charity and principled disagreement are two different things. Too many people in our society (and in our Church) seem to mistakenly believe that when you have a strong disagreement with someone you are being uncharitable.

Sometimes an accusation of lack of charity is used to stifle discussion. The reasoning goes like this:

1) Joe has worked very hard on a particular project and really believes in it.
2) When anyone criticizes the project Joe worked so hard on it really hurts Joe.
3) Those who criticize the project Joe worked on lack charity because their criticism hurts Joe.

One can certainly understand and sympathize with Joe, and agree that he worked hard on his project. Yet the real world judges the quality of the product and not the effort that went into it. And it can really be no other way.

Those on both sides of the issue need to present their opinions on the revisions based simply on the quality of the changes, using good scholarship and other appropriate supporting qualitative evidence.

I invite you to spend some time rereading what has been posted here on the Forum regarding the proposed liturgical revision. If you look at it with a discerning mind I think you will see lots of principled disagreement and little lack of charity. Where you do see lack of charity report it to the moderators using the “Report a Post” feature. Posts that cross the line into uncharitableness are either edited or deleted.

I have not seen much of the new music, but it most certainly is “new”. You must look at it from the view of the average worshipper. They have sung the official English settings (Gray Book, Greek Book, black “Byzantine Liturgical Chant” book) for 40 years. For many, the new settings and texts are changing something they have sung all their lives. Like it or not the changed music is “new” to them.

I’ve offered this example before but I will offer it again. Think of the refrain for the Christmas Carol “O Come, All Ye Faithful”. It is known by almost every Christian in the English speaking world. Now imagine if some fictitious committee on Christmas Carols issued a decree changing “O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord” to “You! Come and adore the Lord!” This committee would be correct that the new translation and (imagine a) setting is a more accurate rendering of the Latin. But would the average layman in the congregation welcome a change to something he has sung all his life? To him it would most likely be both “new” and unacceptable.

Let’s look at another example. Mom and Baba grew up with the Liturgy in Church Slavonic. All their lives (in Baba’s case over 80 years!) they have sung the Slavonic Divine Liturgy a certain way. But the old cantor has now retired and there is a new cantor. He says the parish adds extra notes to the “Iže Cheruvimi” (instead of singing “tajno” with two half notes both on an “E” the parish sings “taj” on “E” and “F#” and comes back down to the “E” for “no”). But the new cantor says that the official Bokšaj doesn’t have the slur! And he’s correct, Bokšaj doesn’t have the slur! Does this new cantor have the right to come into a parish, accuse them of getting sloppy with Bokšaj, and force them to change? How many generations of singing something (anything) a particular way are necessary before that setting become legitimate? The Irmologia published in the generations before Bokšaj are all a bit different (and in some cases quite different). Should we revise Bokšaj to match the notation from an earlier generation? What criteria do we use to say that one source is more accurate than another? That one development is legitimate and another illegitimate? What about the oftentimes vast differences between parishes?

That is certainly a debate!

Now, look at the issue today. Almost all parishes have accepted the official English musical settings for the fixed portions of the Divine Liturgy. They have sung them now for 40 years. They have united our Church when the people from the various parishes get together to pray. These settings have been accepted as legitimate by the faithful (“Sensus Fidelium”).

On what basis does anyone tell the faithful that what they have been singing for 40 years is now unacceptable and should be forbidden?

If one says that we must restore every note to Bokšaj one must explain why. Does anyone seriously argue that we can reform the Divine Liturgy (that we hold common with other Churches) in any manner we please but that our liturgical chant (that is unique to us) must be identical to Bokšaj, even to the point of prohibiting us from following the example of how the Slavs took Greek Chant and turned it into something uniquely Slavic?

It really does not matter whether the new settings are better or not. [There are many criteria for judging musical settings that we can discuss if you want to.] What matters here is that some are proposing that musical settings that people have sung for a lifetime need to be changed.

To summarize:

1). Principled disagreement and lack of charity are not the same thing. Posters are free to disagree greatly so long as they present their disagreement with charity.

2) The revised settings – whether they are good or bad – are “new” to people who have never known them. Those who propose the changes need to present the reasons for changing the settings to the faithful to see a (“Sensus Fidelium”).

I hope you will reread the posts here with a new outlook and comment back.

Admin

Yeah! What Cathy said!

Cathy, so true. You are a prophet.

Sometimes someone calls it uncharitable when they get no backing though they know they are speaking the truth, but life is like that.

There are also times when questionable posts are not corrected, so caveat emptor. When it comes to info on the Forum, be careful what you accept, because all too often there are misrepresentations or incomplete scenarios presented here that can mislead into wrong conclusions, even though they may appear to be widely accepted by the net community.

Charity certainly includes the style of presentation (polite agreement and/or disagreement) but it also includes truthfulness. No one should post here without being truthful. That is why I always use appropriate documentation to back up my presentations.

Caveat emptor applies to all things at all times.

The moderators routinely correct or delete incorrect posts. In some cases the correction is quite evident and the moderators attend to it at once. In other cases the correction occurs as soon as someone brings it to their attention, providing the information that shows that the post is incorrect.

Can you please report the posts you think are questionable to the moderator of that forum? And provide a source for the moderator to verify that the post is incorrect? If there are incorrect posts here they need to be corrected immediately.

Might it not be more effective to ask the original poster to prove their claim when an objection is made?

In fact, men ought to remember that it may be uncharitable not to disagree if it involves the truth.

Charity without truth is mere sentimentality.

Misology (the hatred of argument) is lauded as a virtue in our age. And yet real dialogue, for the sake of truth, is scorned upon.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Cathy posted:
"Is it my imagination that the only word changes have been to add inclusive language, that things which should have been corrected have not, because as one bishop put it, "We would not be Byzantine if we didn't say forever and ever." Forget what is correct, now take feelings into account. "

I reply:

Yes, Cathy, that is obviously your imagination.

Changes like "Theotokos" for "Mother of God," "essence" for "substance," the elimination of the Filoque from the Creed,
-those are three changes that have nothing whatsoever to do with inclusive language.

There are NO uses of vertical inclusive language in the IELC translation of the Divine Liturgies.
There are three words or phrases that reflect horizontal inclusive language: (1) the elimination of the word 'men' in the phrase "for us and for our salvation, he was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man;" (2) the change of the introduction to the Apostolic Reading to be "Brothers and Sisters" instead of "Brethren;" and the universal decision to translate Philanthropos/Cholovikoljubets as "the Lover of us all."

This does not provide an exhaustive list of textual changes in the translation of the Divine Liturgy or of the propers which accompany it. Nonetheless, it is important that some sense of balance be kept in this.

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

Thank you Professor Thompson for clarifying a small detail to what has become a confusing time in our church history. Do you know if the progulmated version (when it does occur) will be made available before books are published?

Also, how will the people learn the music? Are all the cantors being trained, and will they be ready to go when the books arrive?

Thank you in advance,
SK

Clarification:

It wasn't a universal decision to replace philanthropos with "lover of us all," but a decision by a very few people to replace philanthropos universally throughout the liturgy with "lover of us all," which is a big part of the problem with the reception of the new liturgy. The next person I meet who is offended by "lover of mankind" will be the first.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Pseudo-Athanasius:

The word "universal" in my post referred to the universal replacement in the translation of the Divine Liturgy for that specific text, not to the approbatiopn of the universe ABOUT the translation. <G> No such claim was being made, I assure you.

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

Dear Professor,

I'm sorry. I should have put a :-) in my post. I knew perfectly well what you meant, but was taking the opportunity to make a point.

:-)

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Stephanie Kotyuha posted:

"Do you know if the progulmated version (when it does occur) will be made available before books are published?

Also, how will the people learn the music? Are all the cantors being trained, and will they be ready to go when the books arrive?"

My response to point one:

It is my understanding that the promulgation and the appearance of the books (both the Altar Liturgikon AND the Faithful's Book) will happen simultaneously. However, I am not a hierarch and do not have a letter from the Hierarchs confirming that.

My response to point two:

I assume (and that again is dangerous) that each individual Arch/Eparchy will set up workshops at the syncellate level, with follow-up workshops in parishes. Part of the "introductory materials" will include a set of compact discs recording a great deal of the music in the Faithful's Book, as well as a "Cantor's Companion" notebook which will give suggestions from the Inter-Eparchial Music Commission on some ways to introduce the materials contained in the Faithful's Book.

More specific information should be obtained from the Syncellate for Worship in each individual Arch/Eparchy as it becomes available.

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

Mr. Thompson is correct. Anyone who wishes to see the text (at least as it was in October 2004) can order Father Serge Keleher’s excellent book "Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - 1" and see for themselves.

I will also confirm that in the texts I have seen there are no uses of vertical inclusive language. My objections (and that of others) have been to a type of horizontal inclusive language that the Vatican banned for use in the Latin Church (like replacing the inclusive “for us men and our salvation” with the exclusive “for us and our salvation” and replacing the inclusive “loves mankind” with the exclusive “loves us all”.)

I know many people have worked hard on the Revised Liturgy but I and many others know it contains a number of inaccuracies in translation and rubrics. For that reason we hope that it is never promulgated and that instead the Council of Hierarchs decides to reprint the existing 1964 Liturgicon with corrections and then begin working with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) to produce the common translations called for by the official Liturgical Instruction.

Admin / John

Now that sounds like a compromise with the whole church in mind! Bravo, Administrator!

JMHO, Cathy

Quote
"I know many people have worked hard on the Revised Liturgy but I and many others know it contains a number of inaccuracies in translation and rubrics. For that reason we hope that it is never promulgated and that instead the Council of Hierarchs decides to reprint the existing 1964 Liturgicon with corrections and then begin working with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) to produce the common translations called for by the official Liturgical Instruction"


This is the most sensible statement I've heard on the whole subject of the revised Liturgy. All we need are the Antiphons, The Grant it, O Lords, Unto ages of ages, orthodox christians, no kneeling, a curtain behind the Royal Doors, A trojca, STANDING! for the entire Liturgy, MORE SLAVONIC,(Why am I having flashbacks of Uniontown?), the sanctus bells, (no, forget that one), Whoops!! I digress. Thats PRAVOSLAVNY!!Well one can dream.....

Ok, we'll see who REALLY knows po'nashemu! How about returning the use of the grzechotki! I have never seen one in this country!

Alexandr

But what will happen in the numerous parishes of the Ruthenian Archeparchy that don't have cantors?

Ungcsertezs

we hope that it is never promulgated and that instead the Council of Hierarchs decides to reprint the existing 1964 Liturgicon with corrections and then begin working with the other Churches of the Ruthenian recension (Catholic and Orthodox) to produce the common translations called for by the official Liturgical Instruction.

If what has been passed along for months here is accurate, it is way too late for all the above to occur as written by our administrator. However, maybe there will be an eventual attempt to produce the common translation the administrator speaks of even after promulgation of the revised liturgy. Tomorrow is another day.

Dear Jim,

It is never too late to do the right thing. There is no such thing as momentum in human action. We can step back, stop, refrain from acting.

It is never too late to do the right thing. There is no such thing as momentum in human action. We can step back, stop, refrain from acting

I do not see that there is a clear issue of right and wrong with regard to promulgation of the liturgy, because the liturgy is a work in progress for all eternity. A chain of events is taking place that is likely to lead to promulgation, because of all the groundwork that was laid over many years by the committees and hierarchs involved. There has been a lengthy period of reflection about the new liturgy, and there has been a refraining from action already, and I doubt very much that parties who are not within the decision-making process, like most all of us who post here on the Forum, are going to change how it unfolds. (I am also probably in the minority here, in that I do not see a cause for alarm, because I see nothing that indicates heresy, apostasy, etc.) It will likely be over soon no matter how one sympathizes or not, and I will be glad for that.

lex orandi lex credendi

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The fine distinction that has been made between vertical and horizontal inclusive language and the claim that there is no cause for alarm because there is nothing to indicate heresy or apostacy is akin to saying this (I say this with all charity):

"Don't worry, we haven't lost the faith -- just our minds." That is, we are not rejecting the supernatural order, we are just rejecting the natural order. I ask the question, is such even possible?

The so called "inclusive language" issue has been one of the hottest topics in the modern univeristy and law schools for the last 15 years or more. It is one of the key issues of the intellectual elite of this country. It has been made to be such a volatile topic principally by those who reject our faith and more importantly who reject the natural order which God established from the beginning: "male and female He created them." {And yet St. Paul tells us that there is neither male nor female, we are all "sons" of God through faith. See Galatians ch.3. Is "sons" horizontal or vertical usage?)

Now the fact that the use of "inclusive" language has been welcomed into the ancient liturgy is cause for alarm because the liturgy has been changed to accomodate an agenda of the world. It should instead be the case, that we are formed by the ancient liturgy in order to transform the world to Christ.

Can that still happen? Sure. God will always have His way. But we do have a duty to cooperate with Him.

In short, the use of "inclusive" language is sending mixed messages. "Do we conform ourselves to the world or should the world be transformed by us?" St. Paul is quite clear:

How will the use of inclusive language renew our minds?


So here is a very practical question, when the liturgy is promulgated, do I have an obligation to leave "men" out of the Creed, when in fact I know the word "anthropos" is there?

In Christ and the Theotokos,
lm

Good point. I have already decided "they" can publish inclusive language, that doesn't mean I have to say it.

JMHO,
Cathy

I imagine there are still devout Byzantines who murmur the Filioque during the creed, too.
There will always be room for individual piety no matter what changes may occur.

You are correct in this.

But isn't the real problem that our leaders should be 'leading' us to our Eastern roots and also keep us from the errors of inclusive language. That is sad part of the whole situation, that there are people in the pews who appear to have more sensibility and Orthodoxy on these issues.

The flavor of the month really must be that hard to resist for some.

mc

Well, people are able to do some things no matter how wrong they are. Many of our people kneel on Sundays, for example, even though that is not our tradition and we're not supposed to kneel on Sundays. Of course there are many more and I don't think that I need to get into the errors of the Filioque when this board is replete with examples.

Maybe if there was some education and history taught to our people there wouldn't be so much individual piety and more appropiate practice would be occurring.

Who will lead us to this?

mc

When did this reflection occur?

Who was involved in this reflection?

What was the process for this reflection?

Who was in charge of this reflection?

I’ve never heard about it.

The priests of Passaic have not been given any official information about the Liturgy at all except faxed forms with directives for them to order copies of the new liturgy.

Even two of the three members of the Passaic Eparchial Liturgical Commission have not been given anything from official sources.

The closest thing anyone has to anything official is the draft text distributed to clergy a year ago at the presbyteral meetings. The clergy were not invited to reflect on anything. It was presented as if it were almost finalized.

Outside the official commissions who has been given a copy to reflect upon?

So what do you base your claim on?

Or are you just providing inaccurate information?

Oh John, John. Who is entitled to reflect, etc. on the proposed liturgy prior to promulgation? Why, those on the committees that are developing it, and their hierarchs, of course- not you or me, or anyone else, except Rome, of course. And that is basically the way is.

Ours is not a congregationalist church, where delegates get elected in a parish to go to regional meetings and make decisions about all sort of things supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, including electing bishops, changing liturgy texts, etc. But you MUST know that.

If you want grass roots participation in this decision-making process, you are in the wrong historic church, and wherever it is practiced things seem to go very wrong, IMHO, the Episcopalians, for example. Or do you see yourself as a customer in some sort of customer/supplier process? I hope not.

Surely this too shall pass.

Yes, most likely it will and I'm afraid a lot of people will pass out the doors never to return.

I think John Damascene is pointing out that many of the clergy who are on the front lines putting this New Liturgy into practice haven't even seen what will go to print. How can they even begin to defend it or support it, if they haven't seen it?

Based upon this stonewalling, it appears the Bishops do not care what their clergy think, and do not care about what the people in the pews need. If they did they would atleast present it to one of the participating parties for a critique, not a vote. It appears that it has not even been offered for review outside the circle of Bishop Pitaki's regime.

JMHO,
Cathy

I, personally, have heard from some Latins who are now Byzantine that they feel betrayed by the church for constructing something similiar to Vatican II.

SK

the only people who are in the wrong historic church are people like yourself who seem to believe that the church ended in Acts 28 and reappeared in the 20th century.

You might want to read these when you get a chance:

"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (II Thess. 2:15).

"I commend you because you . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (I Cor. 11:2).

Here's a primer for you on this subject and some insight into some others that you may or may not find acceptable. There are some in leadership positions that should take note of the following as well.

There's nothing historic about having feminized inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy.

There's nothing historic about having Latin confessionals in our churches.

There's nothing historic about being in and out of Liturgy in under 50 minutes.

There's nothing historic about not providing Matins to the faithful.

There's nothing historic about not providing Vespers to the faithful.

There's nothing historic about having Liturgy on Saturday evening and claiming that it fulfills your Sunday obligation when it is completely possbile to have Litrugy on Sunday morning.

There's nothing historic about kneeling on Sundays.

There's nothing historic about having stations of the cross and rosaries in our churches.

There's nothing historic about keeping the Royal Doors open for the entire Liturgy.

There's nothing historic about not informing the faithful and basically ignoring fasting periods besides the Great Fast.

There's nothing historic about having pews in our churches.

There's nothing historic about not doing proper prostrations when called for.

There's nothing historic about one verse antiphons.

There's nothing historic about having statues in some of our churches.

There's nothing historic about not asking for '..an angel of peace.......' and all of the other litanies that we ask for and reply 'Grant It O Lord' because they take too long.

There's nothing historic about having 'All Souls Saturday' as a panichida on Friday night after a chopped up Presantified Liturgy and claiming to have celebrated All Souls Saturday.

Why do you like to talk about 'historic' when you don't really mean it?

mc

Michael, you will have to get a hold of yourself. Quoting out of context is self-defeating. Your response come across to me as over the top, borders or being insulting, and doesn't hold water. You don't know me well enough to react the way you do, and owe me an apology.

Cathy, I believe that God is touching the hearts and minds of all those involved in this revised liturgy. Everything I have seen- the draft made available elsewhere, for example- tells me there is nothing to get upset about. No heresy, no apostasy, etc.

I also believe that most Americans think their opinions need to be counted too much, that they are overly fond of ideas such as personal empowerment, the value of opinion polls, and so forth. I remember how Pope John Paul II reminded America that the church's theology (teaching?, tradition?) is not subject to social whim. That one made a lot of people uncomfortable.

Being involved in prayer is more beneficial than worrying over changes that we have no control over. And this we have no control over. More humility would help us all at this point.

What a depressingly low standard. As long as it has no heresy or apostasy, etc., why worry?

As Mark Shea puts it, all of human history can be reduced to two statements: "What could it hurt?" and "How was I to know?"

I suspect we will end up in the second statement in spades, if the new liturgy is promulgated.

I also note that your post is not a defense of the changes. You argue that those who are upset by the changes are wrong to be upset, but do not give positive reasons for the changes. This is all "What could it hurt?" argument.

Does everybody here quote out of context solely to make a point?! I SAID, Everything I have seen- the draft made available elsewhere, for example- tells me there is nothing to get upset about

Also, earlier posts from Professor Thompson make it very clear how limited any inclusive wording is. Compared to western ideas of inclusiveness, our is all but unrecognizable.

As to value judgments on the new liturgy, I prefer to see light at the end of the tunnel, and think it is inappropriate and out of line without firsthand knowledge, involvement, and experience with its use to act as though I know all about it. I should not judge what I have not been privileged to work with, and even when I do get to use the materials, because I am a faithful Byzantine Catholic, I will do my best to make it work. In the meantime, there is no way to resolve all the concerns here one way or the other, because those who could resolve them are not bloggers here. (I must be seeing too much Glenn Beck nowadays. Gotta go.)

Sure, compared to the Latins we look like Girl Scouts. But compare us to something more, say Orthodoxy, and we look silly. Many Latins will tell you we should aspire to more than they have. Inclusive language has no place in the Divine Liturgy.


To add to Michael Cerularius' list:

There's nothing historic about still having altar rails.

There's nothing historic about the supression of liturgical hours.

There's nothing historic about using musical instruments during the Divine Liturgy.

There's nothing historic about combining the Divine Liturgy with other services, like marriage, funeral and vespers.

There's nothing historic about not distributing the antidoron.

There's nothing historic about not having a curtain behind the Royal Doors.

There's nothing historic about separating communion & chrismation from Holy Baptism.

There's nothing historic about Holy Water Fonts for blessing ourselves.

There's nothing historic about ignoring the rubrics and leaving the Royal Doors open for the entire Divine Liturgy.

There's nothing historic about not using hot water during the consecration.

There's nothing historic about not using precut particles, instead of proper proskomedia.

There's nothing historic about not incensing the four corners of the church instead of just going up the center aisle.

There's nothing historic about completing the Great Entrance as a procession around the church.


All of these have taken place at churches in the Cleveland-area -- as I have seen them with my own eyes. It is unfortunate that people are offended by the truth.

This thread is straying off topic by the last several posts. The laundry list provided by Michael and Stephanie is long indeed, but most do not deal with the proposed revisions of the Divine Liturgy in which this forum section is dedicated to. Rather these have been problems that have plagued the Byzantine Catholic Church for quite a long time, most going back over several generations.

I am also going to caution posters to keep their emotions in check while posting. This goes for a couple of posters in the last several posts. I understand that changes stir emotions, especially when several different issues are being discussed at the same time. Certain posts are bordering on judgementalism of other posters and this will not be tolerated. If the matters can not be discussed in a civil manner, then further action will have to be taken.

I am also as a follow up and remind posters also to be accurate with their posting information. This has also been noted to becoming a problem. If it is not accurate then it will be edited out.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Adminstrator

Maybe all isn't quiet on the Eastern front?

I've pretty much resigned myself to the inevitable that this new Litrugy is going through.

As I've written before, it's too bad that rather than moving closer to our Greek Catholic brethern , i.e. Ukrainians and Romanians, we are moving farther away and going it alone with a new rescension.

Since it is inevitable, the real discussion for me now is what to do? Stay or go? If I go, what Greek Catholic rite should I go to. Much prayer, reflection, and thought is needed over the next coming months.

Too sad.

If I do go, the bottom line is that I'm not really leaving the Byzantine Catholic Church of America, the Byzantine Catholic Church of America is leaving me.

Monomakh

Last Fall, we were in one of the NW Indiana parishes for a study session on the Divine Liturgy. Lots of questions. People honestly don't know our past. One Baba was adamant that we Rusyn Greek Catholics were never Orthodox!

We should figure out who we are before we recast the DL.

Yes, that is the point of my post. If we can't reclaim who we are by first removing the Latinizations, how can we be "better" Byzantines with a recast DL? In my eyes, they go hand-in-hand. You can't move in new furniture until you clear the room of the old. At this point, we're just rearranging.

SK

This is the same thing I've been thinking. We still have Romanian, Melkite, and Ukrainian. Kind of like being RC. Polish, Slovak, Italian, Irish, German, Puerto Rican, it's all RC. We are the same,except our bishops feel the need to be different. What to do, what to do....

Doesn't it seem a little odd to relegate a proper recitation of the Creed to individual piety?

But we will be doing exactly what the Roman Church in the United States is doing, ie, mistranslating the Creed, ie, ignoring the word "anthropos", ie, removing the word "men" from the Creed.

Miserere nobis omnipotens Deus...

Doesn't it seem a little odd to relegate a proper recitation of the Creed to individual piety?

I don't know. There are deceased who are not officially saints or blessed, but who individuals call on in prayer, just not in a parish-sponsored service.

Who is going to know if someone says the creed slightly differently from those around them? No one is assigned to monitor as far as I know. There are even some folks who don't say it out loud today, and some who don't know it by heart.

There are officially sanctioned practices, etc., but people may not necessarily do all of them for a variety of reasons, especially being human and imperfect.

Perhaps the saints in heaven, the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils who formulated the Creed, will notice the truths we are abandoning.

I think I get the logic here. We won't officially say all of the Creed (for political reasons) but being human and imperfect, we are forgiven.

With regard to truths being abandoned, I am not so sure. There are those who will maintain that the Truth is still there in a revised creed and not being abandoned, that the wordsmithing does not alter the intent, but is a more accurate reflection of community understanding in our time. Regardless, at some point each of us has to trust in our hierarchy, assuming we believe what we say we do about the Church itself, and practice obedience. Hopefully, that obedience can be reconciled with whatever change comes about. Hopefully.

I wonder when our Church will start practicing obedience to Tradition?

Jim wrote:"There are those who will maintain that the Truth is still there in a revised creed and not being abandoned..."

Those people would be wrong.

Community understanding? Revised Creed?

What's the purpose of Tradition if you think we can have revised Creeds?

Are you saying that if I put up a sign that says 'Danger: Man-Eating Sharks" that the community understanding would be that it is safe for women?

Monomakh

revised Creeds

I think that there are those who believe that wordsmithing does not necessarily change the content of the creed itself, so they may not be willing to say that they are revising the creed- at least not so far that it can cause some heretical doctrine to spring up all over again.

Here's another example (not from the revised liturgy): there are groups, including some Orthodox, that use "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" instead of "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" in the Lord's Prayer. Is one true and correct, while the other is in error? Who decides, and how do they know, one way or the other, which one to choose?

It is becoming painfully clear that in observation of these goings on, that the Byz Cath church, is moving further from her roots in Orthodoxy. If Tradition means nothing , then , just go protestant yourself, forget the Traditions, live as you want, chuck your icons, and totally westernise...! mik

Glory To Jesus Christ! Slava na wiki!

I do not wish to become alarmed, yet, it is troubling to me to hear that ANY revisions in The Divine Liturgy would even be a consideration! I am an RC who is seriously thinking of switching rites to The Ukrainian Byzantine Church, BECAUSE of The Divine Liturgy remaining intact, as to preserve the faith, and the faith not being endangered. Latinizations are a problem; yet, these are externals that CAN be removed, as said above, by educating the people in history and tradition. I personally have seen a major shift towards orthodoxy in my area, with younger priests who are interested in bringing back and preserving The Eastern Rites and traditions. There are only a few churches, yet, Latinizations are slowly being phased out (but for those pews...).

I have suffered along with my RC mem and women since our Latin Rite was replaced; it has sufferd changes over the centuries, yet, I cannot think any of those were anything but for the faithful to dispel heresies. As of Vatican II, the door was opened for our wreckage.

I love The Uk-Byz Church, and you can call me an escapist, and you would be correct. Please remember that a person not only escapes from what he perceives to be a bad situation, but moreso, to run TOWARDS an good one.

I pray that no major changes happen; there may/may not be an end in sight to them, as what has happened to the Latin Mass in The Roman Rite. Perhaps it is best just to wait and see what ACTUALLY happens, before we all jump ship and start crying like chicken little - I just think prayers are in order EVERYDAY for The Eastern Churches and The Pope. That IS what we CAN do. God love you all! - Gv

The change in the Creed isn't wordsmithing, it's deleting a word, "anthropos," "men". As for obedience, Rome in "Liturgiam Authenticam" has spoken on this very issue. Where is the call for obedience there? I understand that technically LA doesn't apply to the Eastern Churches, but certainly in principle it does.

If the issue is a matter of community understanding, I have yet to meet a single human being who doesn't know that the term "men" includes men, women and children. I have, however, met many who have "decided to be offended" by the term "men." I have even been publically rebuked by a board member of the national ACLU for reading a common legal text which used the term "men". This same professor found it quite acceptable and was perfectly understood, however, to use the term "guys" to refer to men and women. (The ACLU, as you may have noticed, does not look very favorably on things Catholic or things which are in accord with the moral law established by God for human happiness. )

The issue is whether the changes really are necessary for a proper understanding. No serious scholar or English speaking person maintains that the word, "men" is misunderstood.
Some do maintain, however, that it is not "polite" or "politcally correct." The issue then is, "Do we want to conform ourselves to "the world"? Should we, to use the parlance of St. Paul, "become all things to all men" ( ) even if that means to mistranslate ancient texts.

Jesus, Son of Humankind?
The Necessary Failure of Inclusive-Language Translations
by Paul Mankowski, S.J.


http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html

If you have the time, the whole article looks worthwhile. Here is his conclusion:


He holds a BA in Classics and Philosophy from the University of Chicago, a MA in Classics and Philosophy from Oxford, a Licentiate in the Old Testament from the Weston Jesuit School of Theology and a PhD in Semitic Philology from Harvard University. He is currently Lector in Biblical Hebrew at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome having been Language Instructor at Weston Jesuit School of Theology, in Massachusetts and Assistant Professor of Classics and Philosophy at Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Excuse me, Im, but nowhere in the IELC translations is the term "Son of Man" turned into anything else. If you have heard so, you have been misinformed.

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

You have just made me wonder if the ACLU had a hand in taking the word "men" out of our Creed!

Professor,

I believe LM posted the link to the essay because it talks about the failure of Inclusive Language. It isn't specifically about the phrase "Son of Man."

Glory to Him Forever!

Dear Professor Thompson:

I haven't heard that. But I recommend the whole article to you. Fr. Mankowski deals with the horizontal, vertical distinction. I think his grasp of the subject is the best I have seen -- and he has a pretty tight argument.

The phrase, "Son of Man", I think, demonstrates why the h/v distinction is not a proper principle, but one that is contrived. In fact, Christ was not the son of man, but the son of a woman! That's a clear horizontal usage.

If the h/v distinction is proper and community standards really have changed, then I say that the translation committee hasn't made enough changes. All of Scripture is going to have to be re-translated so that the community can understand -- that has been done (experimentally) with the Roman lectionary and anytime one hears it, it is clear that a political statement is being made. Since the "community understanding" argument is the only principle which has any reasonable basis to make the dramatic changes to exclude terms like "men" and "mankind", then I should be concerned that more changes will be forthcoming (perhaps only when my children are adults but forthcoming nonetheless). I think that argument, however, is fallacious and those who make such an argument in the universities and law schools are bent on destroying the natural order which God created. Not only are they bent on destroying that order, they will be bent on destroying my children as well.

If you don't think things are that bad, take a look at the article by the woman who wrote the ADA (federal law), Chai Feldblum, a professed lesbian who teaches at Georgetown. Her next project is to provide federal legal protection for gays, lesbians and the "transgendered." The law she has written has once nearly passed the Senate, I think. She says it's not a matter of if, but when. (In my state such laws have already been passed without a peep from the Church - in fact with the Church actually refusing to acknowledge what then Cardinal Ratzinger had written about what the Church's position ought to be when such legislation is proposed). She also holds that pockets of religious people who oppose such laws cannot be tolerated or exempted from such laws. You can find her article here:

http://www.becketfund.org/files/92708.pdf?PHPSESSID=4fff34736e6af8885ed8ea15e59e6b23

Is this related to the "inclusive" language? Yes, because the principle at the heart of both is the same, God's natural order about the bedrock relationship between men and women, is not being respected. I think a man already feels it intensely when, in "academic" circles, he feels the urge to use inclusive language so as not to offend those for whom the issue is a point of contention. He wants to use inclusive language not because he won't be understood, but because he will -- he will be the odd man out. (Odd person out just doesn't work).

Am I over stating the relationship? Well Eastern Catholics ought to remember that ideas have consequences - communism was just an idea -- a godless one, which is the problem with inclusive language - implicitly it represents a universe that is not ordered to God.

Fr. Mankowski also does a great job in analyzing whether the community understanding of words such as "men" and "mankind" have really changed. His arguments, that they have in fact not changed, are convincing. Every woman still knows to be fearful of a man-eating tiger.

Never have my wife or daughter thought that when they recite the Creed and say, "for us "men" and our salvation," they were excluded. I understand that some men do feel excluded, but those feelings have been generated by the instruction which has been provided in the universities and schools of the world in the last 30 years, ie, they had to be taught to feel that way. Those who have taught that these terms exclude women are not friends of the faith, and their arguments do not benefit mankind.

And if these changes go through with the use of inclusive language, the Church and Bishops ought to remember that while it will be appeasing a few feminists, it will be offending lots of women like my wife who are in the trenches and are having children (we have nine) who are doing the daily (and thankless) work of building up the kingdom of God by rearing their children in the truths of the faith.

I don't know if our new translation will still have the phrase, "the doors, the doors" but it ought. And the first thing it ought to exclude is the nonsense of inclusive language and every other compromise with modern society which has is roots not in God's order, but in man's.

lm

Perhaps we should take up a collection and send the Bishops this tome.

My Name is Forever

This book was edited by Alvin Kimmel An Epispocol Priest who couldn't stomach where the Epispocal Church had gone and was heading, and who came home to Rome a few months ago.

I know we have beat this horse to death, but why can't we simply look at our Roman Brethern (yes... not pc... but I don't care) and see the wacked out issues that they have had to deal with.

This is the nose in the tent issue... once you start this you can believe that there will be those out there who want more. Cave on this issue... and you will have to deal with others. It is much easier to defend when you haven't open the doors.

Unfortunally Inclusive langage is an exercise in redefining a langague to suit one's political views, the Church should be above such a thing.

Another thing bothers me about this whole issue.... Just who is insisting on the horizontal langague??? What vocal group in the Byzantine Catholic Church is calling for this??? Is there some hidden Byzantine Call to Action? Some hidden Byzantine group of Byzantine Women's Church?

That book sounds well worth reading. Question: I know a Father Francis Martin, who might possibly have written the final chapter; is the there any identifiying information on this particular contributor? Thanks in advance.

Fr. Serge

Wouldn't it just be better to chant the Liturgy in the original Greek. Then there can be no mistranslation!

Silly question, but how would you propose instituting that without causing further upheaval? From just my observations, strong feelings already exist about the use of English and Church Slavonic. The introduction of Greek may well sink the ship at this point. Just my thought on the comment.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I completely agree with you. The Church is not a democracy. I know there are plenty of good arguments for not changing the translation but then again I also think all priests should have the choice of marriage or celibacy. I can only smile and trust that my Church is being guided by the Holy Spirit. Maybe if they started promoting going back to the original Greek, the people would not be so quick to throw out the Liturgy changes.

Father Kimel used to post on this forum before he "made the jump". I've had some very enlightening discussions with him regarding these issues - and I for one don't mind at all when he or anyone else can say from experience "what is what" (to quote another thread).

I understand he is now waiting for his statikon from Rome. Thanks, John - I'm putting that book on the short list.
FDD

So what's wrong with liturgical Greek? I find that retaining a few pieces in Greek goes over well - there are no Greeks in the congregation, but since contemporary Greeks no longer understand koine, that's of no vast importance. We have to repeat the Cherubikon anyway (so that I am not compelled to rush the prayer, the incensation and the procession with the Gifts, not to mention the setting forth of the Gifts on the Holy Table according to the prescribed order), so we take advantage of this to chant the Cherubikon first in Greek and then in a vernsacular language. Nobody has ever complained about it, and the chanting is good in both languages.

Fr. Serge

Same for us. But we use the vernacular then Slavonic instead of the vernsacular and Greek.

So try the Greek sometime - I'm using a very simple musical setting by Sakellarides. Practice it first, of course, several times and introduce it for some really major feast or similar event.

Fr. Serge

I once heard the Liturgy sung in Sami, the language of the Lapps. This was in a beautiful little wooden church near Titovka Ostrov, north of Murmansk in the Russian Far North. What struck me most was the way, to my ear at least, it sounded like Hungarian! While not speaking Hungarian, I heard it often enough as a child, and am familiar with the flow. The similarities were striking!

Alexandr

Not at all surprising, Slavipodvizhnik, that it should sound similar. Finnish is closely related to Hungarian - both Hungarians and Finns come from what is known as the "Finno-Ugric" group of Aryans which split in the migrations westward about the point where they reached the Crimea in their wanderings. The Finns went North, the Ungvar went West and settled in the Great Danube Basin. They are first cousins, both linguistically and genetically.

Thank you! Rarely a day goes by when I do not learn something new on the Forum!

Alexandr