I am 100% Slovak and my wife is 50% Polish. All of my grandparents came from Slovakia. My mother's family was Greek Catholic, my father's Roman. I am in my 40s and was raised Roman in the chaos of the Roman Church. I first experienced beautiful Liturgy (in Latin) at a Roman Catholic College. It was through friends there that I was first introduced to a Russian Catholic Church which touched my soul so deeply. I loved it and would attend when I could and brought other Roman Catholics with me who also went, “Wow!” These were Roman Catholics who experienced beautiful liturgy in Latin! I attended the indult Latin Mass for three years. I learned to appreciate it although I can't say I loved it in the way I loved the Russian Church. Because of where my employment took me, I suffered through the Roman Rite for six years. Through friends who went to the same Roman Catholic College, I came in contact with the Ruthenian Church. I met the Bishop and found out he had baptized one of my cousins and buried my grandmother. He invited me and my family to attend a Ruthenian parish. I again found my home. I changed rites about 8 years ago and started traveling (with my wife and nine children) 260 miles round trip to attend a Byzantine parish. One year we did it every Sunday for over 5 months! My cousins in Pittsburgh who were Catholics were thrilled to see me return to my mother's childhood Church. ( My mother was the youngest of 14. Many of cousins, however, have left the Church.)

About six families (about 30 children)from my little town started doing the same thing. They also fell in love with Divine Liturgy.

I love that my children have been baptized, chrismated and communicated as infants. I have no problems with standing and bowing during consecration on Sundays. When the filioque was removed, it was a little unnerving, but after I read what Rome had to say on the issue and saw that this was an important and valid expression of the faith which did not deny the doctrine, I had no objections. I have no problems with a married clergy. I have often enjoyed hearing my mother’s stories about her priest who had 12 children. I love the Liturgy. We have an icon wall in our home and chant together each morning and night from our Byzantine prayer books. I do get a little testy when Easterners tell me that Roman theology is different than Eastern theology. I understand their emphasis is different, but I see them as complimentary not in opposition. Truth is One. How could they be in opposition? I see that their method is different and I appreciate that–that breathing with both lungs is a very good idea.

I have been educated by studying the Great Books including Eastern Fathers and many Greeks such as Plato and Aristotle. I have read a decent amount Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Every time a hear that Aquinas is opposed to Eastern theology, I think of what Aquinas says in the Summa Contra Gentiles when he asks whether God can be known in this life and he says no – he can only be “known” (not comprehended) through death or ecstacy. Sounds very Eastern to me. He was mystic himself. It is consistent with the Eastern theology. I think he has the better argument over Palamas, but I can understand that they are wrestling with the same issue. I am happy to celebrate the feast of St. Gregory Palamas. I recognize that saints can be wrong on a point, but that does not keep them from being saints.

As many of you know, I have objected to the “Revised Liturgy” because of the change in the Creed and the “inclusive” language. My professional education has lead me to consider the “feminist” issue from the “inside.” I am a lawyer. In law schools, Christians were often mocked and ridiculed. I have first hand experience with those who have made it a Crusade to change our language. That is not all they want to change, and they are succeeding. The Church is beginning to wake up from its slumber in the last 40 years. If you are rearing children, brace them for persecution (which can be a good thing) in their adult life. The laws are changing and it is unlikely with the modern moral decay, that these downward trends in the law will stop. The failure on the part of those in the Church to see this, and instead invite the language of the "world" into the Liturgy is beyond me. It will not work because the message behind the language is contrary to the Chruch's message. The Papacy is very well aware of what is at stake and has rejected it.

It is on the inclusive language issue where I believe I have the greatest principled difference–one which cannot be ignored–with the translators. Fr. Petras has been kind enough to set forth the reasons (in his own mind–I am not picking on him, it’s just he is the only who has defended the language change) for these changes and has on a few occasions indicated that there a “sociological” reasons for changing the Creed. He states:



The argument he sets forth is the same argument I had heard in law school by those who attack the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, these people would generally equate the slavery issue with the “women’s rights” issues. Remember what their greatest right is--the right to their own body. That thinking gave us wholesale abortion even as a baby is being born. I believe that at the heart of the modern feminist movement is a rejection of the Church’s belief that God made man, male and female and commanded them to be fruitful and multiply. This fundamental Catholic teaching means that for most of us who are not called to be celibate, the most important thing we do in our lives will not be our employment, but will be being mothers and fathers. Celibates are called to this same thing, but in a different way. I believe that society is in turmoil because it is rejecting this fundamental truth that motherhood and fatherhood is at the root of who we are, created in His image. I find it no accident that the Crusade to change our language started when our culture accepted abortion and had already bought in to contraception–even in the Church. Perhaps the Eastern Churches are dying because men and women were not seeing the truth about motherhood and fatherhood. Those in the Roman Church who are faithful to Humanae Vitae, and are genuinely attracted to our Liturgy, are scandalized that we would change the Creed.

We have now scandalized the Orthodox and faithful Roman Catholics. In light of the fact that it is neither Eastern nor Catholic, Father Taft’s advocacy of inclusive language which I see goes back to at least 1998, is disturbing.

I would highly recommend that we follow the Ruthenian Recension which was promulgated by Rome in the 40s. From what I am learning, it has never even been tried.

I know that it has been said that Rome has approved the New Liturgy. When that is said, men are speaking more like lawyers than faithful Churchmen.

So how does this affect families?

Mothers and fathers have a duty to pass on the faith to their children. That is their gravest duty. Lex orandi, lex credendi. If your children learn to pray a Creed and Liturgy that is not accurate in translation, what will they learn to believe? Therein lies the greatest problem for those of us with children. If you think I am too radical about the importance of this issue, that’s OK. I think everything I believe and everything I desired when I came into the Eastern Church is radical.

Finally I would state that one of the joys which I had coming into the Eastern Church was the fact that I no longer had to explain to my older children after “Mass”, that even though Father did thus and thus, or said thus and thus, that’s not what the Church wants us to do, or that’s not what the Church teaches. I no longer have that joy. What a shame. What sadness.

The only solution to this problem, which is the solution for unity in the Ruthenian Church (and ultimately this is the same issue for the Orthodox if they truly desire unity), is be faithful to Peter. To quote a Pope who desired unity, “Be not afraid.”

I disagree with your presumption, and I don't see why you need to bring us in to this.

What a wonderful post. My situation is very much as your own, which explains why I am in agreement with most of what you say. I was also so very pleased when I canonically moved from the Roman Catholic to the Ruthenian Catholic Church because I did not have to bear the inclusive language that some priests used even though not promulgated by Rome. Now, I have children and I am facing the same secular feminist agenda in the Ruthenian Catholic Church. I am flabbergasted! What do I tell my children? Do I tell them to ignore this language because it is not Traditional. This will confuse a child. Can I be assured that another Eastern Catholic Church will not neutralize the Liturgy?

This is why I must seriously consider Holy Orthodoxy.

lm

"The laws are changing and it is unlikely with the modern moral decay, that these downward trends in the law will stop. The failure on the part of those in the Church to see this, and instead invite the language of the "world" into the Liturgy is beyond me. It will not work because the message behind the language is contrary to the Chruch's message. The Papacy is very well aware of what is at stake and has rejected it."

I must agree with you and I frankly don't know what to do about it. I try to be positive. I even tried to suggest ways that we might look past this and make even this dreadful change into something positive that might inspire evangelization. But what little response I got was in the nature of defensiveness. I don't like and rarely am in a position of indecision but that is where I am. I will continue to pray for me and I request that you pray for me.

My head isn't exploding, as Karl put it, but my heart is quite heavy.

CDL

When you have to go home and re-explain what the priest has said in more traditional terms, there is a problem. If the priest or church is not preaching the Gospel and not faithful to the Tradition then we must 'Be not afraid' and go to a shepard that is speaking the orthodox message. So, does our Ruthenian church stand up and change things back or do we as laity go to a church that will leave its 99 other sheep and look for that one?

I am waiting, because my priest put the letter from the bishop in the bulletin, and then we haven't heard anything else about it. He hasn't put out the books, or started to talk about the changes. When we ask him about it, he says he doesn't want to talk about it.

A long time ago, our priest told me that the 'next pastor' could introduce the changes if he wanted to, but he was too old to cope with the changes.

Our cantor told me, that he didn't think the pastor was going to do anything at all about it! But I think he is going to wait and see how it works in other parishes first.

We're all hoping that he never decides...

Nick

Nicholas,

You are lucky to have such a Priest. I wish my priest was "too old" to introduce the changes.

Hello,

Can you show me where it shows that Fr. Taft is advocating inclusive language? I would find that troubling if he is, especially since he's considered one of the "reowned" Byzantine Catholic theologian.

East Meets English

The International Symposium on English Translations of Byzantine Liturgical Texts



http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-04-110-r

Unfortunately the Touchstone account of that Symposium is not reliable. The papers have been published Logos and so is a cassette - recording of Father Taft's keynote address.

Fr. Serge

It is resisted by the clergy, and lots of the people, because it is just wrong.

Fr. Taft is brilliant, but not infallible. He is wrong about that, and he and Archbishop Schott are going against the will of Rome. Even that liberal meeting of the Catholic bishops in the U.S.A. have gone against the inclusive language movement. Only Archbishop Schott is holding out.

Nick

The author of the article in question I believe is a member of the UGCC of which Fr. Taft is a mitred Archpriest IIRC. If the article is indeed incorrect, I don't think it was written with malicious intent.

I know of no reason to attribute malicious intent to Father Archimandrite Robert - and I have known him for about fifty years. It is quite possible to disagree about something without being malicious in the process.

Fr. Serge

I meant I don't think the author of the article had malicious intent to misquote what was said by Fr. Taft, if indeed he did not represent what Fr. Taft actually said in regards to inclusive language.

I likewise have no reason to attribute malice to the author of the Touchstone coverage of that symposium. Nonetheless, it is better - and not overwhelmingly difficult in this instance - to cite directly from the source, not from indirect discourse.

Fr. Serge

Contrary to the "what about the children" red-herring that is used just about everywhere, children are highly adaptable, smart and can change. We as adults should admire and take on some of those qualities we have forgotten. At least the liturgy isn't still entirely in Slavonic where no one understood it! Not putting down slavonic but I know people who attend two parishes their whole life and neither used English. They feel pretty left out being fully grown and never having understood what was being said in the liturgy. Before I get the response "the text is in english as well in the prayer book" Reading during church takes away from the communal celebration, people shouldn't be have their noses stuck in the liturgy the whole time and missingout on the community prayer.

Yes, they can adapt. They can adapt to drugs, and gangs, and who knows what! That is why we have to guide them and direct them, and when they are very young, be careful about what dangers we expose them to.

This revision is a mistake, and inclusive language is just wrong. The bishops should have thought of them, before they took our Church down this road to ruin.

Sometimes I think my Church has a death wish!

Don't you notice how the evangelism threads have gone silent! Don't you see how all those who were enthusiastic about spreading the good news of our Church, and celebrating our tradition have been frustrated? The very people, who were enthusiastic about restoring our tradition, have been so disillusioned by this fight from yesterday. This kind of agenda, pushed in this new Liturgy, is so 1960's it is laughable.

So, it is about the young people! The young adults aren't asking for this, the youth aren't demanding this, and the children should be protected from this.

It is the arrogance of a lost generation, that have done nothing for our Church. They had the 60s and the 70s and the 80s to wreck our Church. Did their theories fill the Churches, how many missions did they build, how many schools did they open, how many vocations did they inspire? Their verdict has already been given.

Yet, this Revised, exclusive, hopelessly written Liturgy comes out of the '60s like the last gasp of a dying dragon! How sad, what a shame!

Look at what we have spent. Look at the burden we have placed on our next generation! It betrays the failed theories, and poor vision of a lost generation.

It is such a burden on the young, that I am not sure they will rise past it. It may bury them.

Where are the young who will study our tradition, and restore the Ruthenian recension, when we have deprived them of it, just when they needed it? How can they grow to love, what they will never see? What a catastrophe.

Orthodox Pyrohy, you show the same arrogance we've heard from the committee for the Revision. Shut up, it is better, and you'll see. Shut up, obey, we know best, what is good for you.

Don't you see what is most distressing?

If the conservative lovers of the Ruthenian tradition had been appointed to the committee, and had tried to impose the whole recension with the kind of draconian and authoritarianism shown by the committee and Bishop Schott, you would have been the first to cry out in outrage, and demand peoples 'rights' to dissent. Liberals (such as those behind the feminist language, and 'improved' liturgy) and you would have been the first to point out how cruel and heartless it is, and how unfeeling we were to impose our vision of the Church on others!

But, now you have won the day, and Bishop Schott has promulgated the revision of the Liturgy, and taken our Church out of the Ruthenian recension. Please, don't gloat, and tell me I'm better off. It just isn't true.

Nick

Amen, brother!

Nick, Nikolai, I never NEVER mentioned that I agreed with the improper translation of anthropos. I remember one day I was picking up the little one from summer camp. Somehow the word salesman came up while I was talking with one of the camp counselors. One of the little kids said, it's salesperson, she's a woman. I said no, no, it is salesman, that is proper English.
The counselor girl, an English major seeking to be an English teacher agreed. We need to take our language back and it seems in some places we are.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

"It is such a burden on the young, that I am not sure they will rise past it. It may bury them".

I concur. Growing in a society wherein nothing and no-one are stable, the young need to be able to perceive the Church as firm. Without that foundation, who knows whither they might drift?

Honestly, 'tis the institution that matters as much as that which is revised. If His Eminence had revised the Divine Liturgy bits at a time, it would be less of a sledgehammer. By mandating every change all at once, he puts people, pastors, and bishops in very uncomfortable positions.

-Uspenije

I have no problem being counted as part of mankind. However, if I were still selling Fuller Brush door-to-door as I did back in high school, I would definitely have a problem being called a "salesman." And what about all the Avon Ladies and those who sell MaryKay -- are they "salesmen," too? Get real!


When was the last time YOU posted on any of the Evangelism threads? Do you need to get your way with the liturgy before you can think about evangelizing again?

Sophia asks:



Not in my case. I doubt that I have much to contribute to the Evangelism threads. But I'm safely in Ireland, where the Novus Ordo Byzantini Ritus is not found, so it doesn't affect me personally or my parishioners (most of whom are unaware of the existence of this bizarre hybrid).


However, I would sympathize with anyone who considers it overwhelmingly difficult to evangelize with this liturgical problem hanging overhead. The Eucharist is the goal of everything the Church does, and the Source from which her strength flows. If the celebration of the Eucharist is out of order, no one need be surprised that other activities become much more difficult.

Or to put it more succinctly: it is impossible to breathe out if one never breathes in.

Fr. Serge

I searched for the sources and I can't find them online. spdundas asked

"Can you show me where it shows that Fr. Taft is advocating inclusive language?"

and I quoted a source that at least attributes some comments to him on the topic. Were the comments in the Touchstone attributed to Fr. Taft accurate? Are the sources you're speaking of online somewhere that could be quoted from?

I'm curious as to what the answer is myself.

How do I "get real?" We all know the Avon persons are "Cosmetic engineer distributors" and in effect most folks I know that do sales are "account executives" or reprsentatives. Sounds better and doesn't invoke the scary thought of the fuller brush guy knocking at the front door.

I emailed the author (William Tighe) of the article, "East Meets English" yesterday and he called me last night. He was absolutely confident that his reporting was accurate, although he says he no longer has the tapes or the transcripts. He believes that some of the remarks made by Fr. Taft came in the question and answer period after his lecture.

Thank you for the additional information lm.

I need to correct something else. My cousin saw my post which began this thread and told me I am 50% Rusyn and 50% slovak. My grandpap (father of 14), who died many years ago, worked in the steal mill until he was 75 and lived until he was 93. He read and wrote in Cyrillic and had a Cyrillic Bible which he used. He also spoke English. Something tells me he would not recognize the new liturgy or the Creed which leads to a very practical test which should have been used: "What would grandpap do?" WWGD?

As I wrote previously:

Unfortunately the Touchstone account of that Symposium is not reliable. The papers have been published Logos and so is a cassette - recording of Father Taft's keynote address.

Fr. Serge

I am not imputing malice to anyone. So far as I am aware, neither Logos itself nor the proceedings of that symposium are available on-line.

Fr. Serge