Father David wrote:
"Separate from these issues, I would add a persoanl reflection. I have become convinced that the reason "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" is that before the 20th century, "women" simply had no standing in the body politic of "mankind." They did not vote and were not expected to take part in public affairs, therefore, their status was "meaningless." In the context of the late 18th century, therefore, the statement "All men are created equal" means exactly what it says. "

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/225621/page/1/fpart/8#Post226221


Father David, you have been convinced wrong and unfortunatley it seems that these misconseptions have seeped into the New Divine Liturgy.

From the outset of this country whenever the Constitution speaks of "privileges guaranteed to individuals", women are always included by clear implication.

Father David, are we to assume that the constitutional guarantee of "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" meant that women (but not men) may be imprisoned without being charged with a specific crime?

Father David, are we to assume that ex post facto laws be passed as long as women but not men are their object?

Father David, are state laws "impairing the obligation of contracts" permitted when contracts are signed by women but not when they are signed by men?

The Bill of Rights uses the male pronoun when it says: "No person....shall be compelled... to be a witness against himself." Do you maintain that this 'himself' meant that only males are protected by the Bill of Rights and that women may be compelled to be witnesses against themselves?

In his 'Notes on Virginia', Thomas Jeffrerson reproaches the Indians for failing to acknowledge this equality: "The [Indian] women are submitted to unjust drudgery. This I believe is the case with every barbrous people. With such, force is law...It is civilization alone which replaces women in the enjoyment of their natural equality."

It is clear from the writings of the Fathers of our Nation that the word 'men' in the Declaration of Independence means mankind, human beings, male and female. That is clear from parallel expressions commonly used during the revolutionary era: "rights of men", "right of mankind", "rights of humanity", "rights of human nature", "rights of nature". The founders did not deny that women were part of mankind or human beings.


Monomakh

Sadly, it is sometimes next to impossible to convince people of this basic truth.

Just because the WORLD viewed women as "meaningless" doesn't mean they WERE "meaningless". If one looks with supernatural eyes, one can come to different conclusions. After all, what did the "world" think, and continues to think of Jesus Christ.

Given this line of reasoning, what can we conclude about the Gospel then?? Are we to say that the Gospel needs updated? Modernized? Revised? No, of course not! The Bible is the WORD of GOD.

For me, political opinion doesn't make my life meaningful.

Save Your people, O Lord, and bless Your inheritance.

If Father David's historical reflection were correct, then the only "men" who would have been created equal would have only been a subset of those we would think of as male. At various points and in various places in America, we would have to exclude those men who did not own property, those men who were deemed property themselves well into the 19th century, those men deemed savages, and those men who fell under various other categories of male persons who were even worse off them women in the rights department at the time. "Men" wouldn't even mean "men" if you think about it.

Well, that was the case. But we didn't go back and change the constitution to say it, we changed our understanding through the culture and the law. To this day, "All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not include in-utero babies. (That was from memory, so excuse mistakes.)

When it does (God willing!) include them, we will not add in-utero children to the constitution any more than we previously added "colored" males, women, or children. Instead, our society will change its understanding of men yet again.

It is an apt comparison!

And yet it speaks volumes to Fr. David's point that while using the word "men" in the constitution, supposedly in its inclusivist sense, the framers of the constitution were themselves quite exclusivist. For them obviously some were more equal than others. White Anglo-Saxon Protestant property owners were certainly endowed with the unalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in their view, others less so, the slaves not at all.

Yes, they had a skewed view of humanity on just who was endowed with the Spirit of God. Their error did not make reality conform to it, and their statement was no more correct then than it is now. The only difference is that we now recognize that all men, women, and children were created with the Spirit of God--when the constitution say all men are created equal, we all feel a part of something much larger--now we only need to recognize those pre-born babies.

So the church wishes to emulate the skewed view and not the enlightened one?

It is the Declaration of Independence that speaks of the equality of all men. The Consttitution never uses the word men. It does use the word person.



It is curious that those in the academic world who are clamoring for the equality of women (actually it appears that it is more quotas, than real equality), and want to change the English language, tend to be the ones who will not recognize the right to life of the unborn. There is a connection.

Thank you for the correction concerning the Declaration v the Constitution, lm. I've had that pointed out in the past and for some reason perpetuated the mistake. Hopefully I take it to heart this time!

I think Fr. David Petras is a very intelligent, a very knowledgeable and a very spiritual man.

I also think that I understand his argument, too, both in terms of American history and in terms of the revised translation of the Divine Liturgy. And, his argument is valid when it comes to American history . . .

. . . but unpersuasive when it comes to the Divine Liturgy. In the Church, the purpose of Tradition is not its own sake; it is to guide and guard a deeper, more fundamental level of knowing and living the Truth in Christ. The problem with using gender inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy is therefore not the mechanics of translation; it is what that translation means. In the current cultural milieu of America, gender inclusive language in religion has been the beginning of a slippery slope descending into secularism. That is evident from the Christian (and Jewish) denominations which have adopted it in their religious services. In contrast, the more orthodox (small "o") denominations of Christianity and Judaism have refrained from using gender inclusive language; and this has been part of their preservation and guidance to the Truth That Does Not Change about God and His relationship with Mankind.

So, I sincerely respect Fr. David Petras' intellect, and I respect the intentions of the reformers to stay relevant to the times.

Nevertheless, I respectfully think that religion in America right now needs to take a stand against certain modernizing tendencies, such as gender inclusive language: in order to preserve and protect Holy Tradition from secular diminution.

In the Irenic Spirit of Great Lent,

-- John

So then, it only naturally follows that amendments should be made to the Constitution to correct such "backward" language, since the original wording is no longer relevant and cannot be understand by today's people.

Oath against Modernism:

....Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely. Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and Lord......

"Modernism" --the philosophy-- was not what I was referring to.

Instead, I'm referring to the process of secularization and how it seems to get started in religions in America with the use of gender inclusive language. It might end up at full-blown secularism, or not, depending on how far down the slippery slope people go. My point is that I hope the BCC doesn't even risk starting on that process through the use of gender inclusive language in its liturgy.

-- John

I hope it is not too late. Even if there is an admission of error, there may not be a retraction because of the enormous investment involved here.

The loss of $1,000,000 is nothing compared to the enormous loss of people we are seeing. Just at the cathedral itself almost half the people have left. Who is left to pay the mortgage? If the Archbishop started a "Buy a Revised Liturgy Book to Burn" drive he'd easily re-coop the $1,000,000 he squandered on a Byzantine Novus Ordos that no one wants and has already been demonstrated to make people run for the door.

I had no idea the exodus was so vast!

Your quote, "Just at the cathedral itself almost half the people have left. Who is left to pay the mortgage?"

Are you serious? I have never been to Pittsburgh, so I have no observations of my own to make. Has it changed that much since the new liturgy was implemented?

People did not leave all at once. They were driven away one at at time. The Cathedral was the test parish for a lot of the new liturgy. I don't think the womens group or the CAMEO Club even meet anymore. People were driven away one at a time. A lot now go to St. Elias. If you don't believe me then go to the Cathedral for Sunday Divine Liturgy. You will see for yourself how bad the new liturgy and music is. Saturday night used to be ok but with the new liturgy all bets are off. Don't try to complain to Archbishop Basil. He is not about to listen.

I was under the impression that Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence with the understanding that land-owning white gentlemen are the 'men' which this document was geared to. Hence, they were the only class given the right to vote.

And obviously 'men' in our nation's founding documents does NOT pertain to all mankind. If so, what is up with the 3/5ths Compromise?

I think your argument supports Father David's position. Men and mankind did not always mean all humankind or even all 'male' members of society.

The last time I heard, there was NO mass exodus of people from the Cathedral. But if this is so, good. At least I will be able to get a better seat now.

The women's group still meets. I do not know about the CAMEO club.

"The loss of $1,000,000 is nothing compared to the enormous loss of people we are seeing. Just at the cathedral itself almost half the people have left. Who is left to pay the mortgage? If the Archbishop started a "Buy a Revised Liturgy Book to Burn" drive he'd easily re-coop the $1,000,000 he squandered on a Byzantine Novus Ordos that no one wants and has already been demonstrated to make people run for the door."

Hats off to this idea.

The "3/5ths Compromise" as you call it was exactly that, a compromise in the Constitution. It is not in the Declaration. The Constitution comes after the Declaration. Since the colonies waged a war togethter against England, and since slavery was a fact in half of the colonies, if there was to be one nation, there was going to compromise. But the seeds for the end of slavery were already in the Declaration.

But surely, surely, we are not importing these political matters into our Creed? Please, please don't tell me that that was what was driving this train to change our Creed. But something tells me that it was -- "for us "__________" and our salvation...he became man." Since when has the Church compromised with the world to make its Creed acceptable to it?

If the Creed has been changed to correct political injustices of the 18th century America, we have essentially created an American Creed.

Instead of conforming to the age--to 20th century America, we need to be transfigured by Christ who "for us men and our salvation...became man."

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind..."

Romans, ch. 12

Bravo Im! We are not to conform the Liturgy to the language of the world--we are suppose to transform the world with the language of the Liturgy.

Theologos and others seem to feel that we are correcting injustices. There is nothing further from the truth.

I would never pay for one of these revised pew books. However, I would gladly pay many times over to cooperate in a bonfire. I do not sarcastically say this--it is how I truly feel!

Recluse,

Absolutely!

Thanks for the compliment, but as a dear friend of mine likes to say, "I had an original idea and had to confess it!" Instead, therefore, let us say, "Bravo St. Paul!" The Gospel truth, the whole Creed, needs to be spoken and preached "in season and out of season."

Wouldn't you agree, if modern America doesn't like the Creed or the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, that's modern America's problem, not ours.

Yes Im, I agree.

The Creed is recited at every Liturgy to strengthen our faith. Fr Davis tells us in his book that,

It prepares us to say the anaphora "with one heart and one mind," and to be united in the communion of the body and blood of the one Lord, Jesus Christ.

And so this brings a very important question to my mind. Fr David admits that inclusive language carries extremes emotions on both sides of the debate. Extreme emotion usually leads to divisiveness. Before the revision, I was not aware of a growing displeasure in the Ruthenian Catholic Church in reference to the word "men" in the Creed. But since the creed has been changed, there are many unhappy parishioners. Hence my question: If the Liturgical commission were aware that a neutralized Creed would cause extreme emotion and possible division within our Church, why would they move forward with such a controversial and divisive decision for the very prayer that is supposed to promote unity?

Perhaps Fr David could answer this?

That is the ten million dollar question.

3/5ths compromise? are you talkinga bout how congress discounted the vote of the African (former slave) male? This is an easy one if you know your history.

Most African-former slave males were eventually granted voting rights but...BUT...their vote was monitored very closely by former white owners. if they voted under such priessure they would vote in unison with their former white owners. This would work AGAINST their cause because the white male south would have lost the war but won the congressioal vote - all votes. So the African-former slave male vote was discounted to 3/5ths in order to prevent ballot box packing. We only remember the cultural and race experience and often forget the economic and political implications. i belive this is the 3/5ths compromise you were mentionoing? if not then ignore this reply

Eddie

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind..." [Romans, ch. 12]

This, of course, is inspired word, and the gospel by which we live, but the question remains as to how it is to be applied. We must still live in the world, and must sometimes make decisions on living in the world based on Christian faith. Look at the problem of slavery. The so-called 3/5 rule was a rule of the secular American society - what should a Christian have said or done about it? In the 1860's a bloody war was fought over the issue of human slavery, and many Christians did, in fact, rebuke the "evil secular abolitionists" with 1 Cor 7:21: "Were you a slave whne you were called? Do not be concerned ... " Would someone who fought to free the slaves, and to abolish slavery have been wrong?

Are you equating the usage of all inclusive words such as, "man", "men", and "mankind", with the sin of slavery?!? Do I understand this correctly?

Fr. David,

You wrote:



That doesn't justify changing the Creed or the Divine Liturgy. We, the laity, must live in the world and the world is doing its darndest to make us conform to it. Shouldn't there be a place for us to go to experience heaven on earth so that we can then go out and transform the world? The Liturgy isn't the world!

In Christ,
lm

Father David,

Much like the Declaration of Independence, your view of the history of the Civil War is 'interesting'.

The Civil War was not fought to free the slaves. Yes slavery was one issue of difference between the North and South. But do you really believe that in the 1860s the whites in the North laid down their lives for the black slaves? The Civil War was fought over what every war is fought over, and that is to defend ones culture against another. Slavery was a small part of that culture. But you are giving it way too much weight. If I had to pick one reason for the war it would be States Rights. Are you aware that 90% of the confederate soldiers did not own slaves? Are you aware of the tariffs and trade issues of the time? Slavery was very far down on the list of reasons. Was it a non-issue, no, but there were many other more pertinent reasons.

But back to the topic of this thread.

We could throw around Biblical verses all night long, but I'm pretty sure that God had it right. "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them "man."

Do you disagree?

Monomakh

Yes even the President would agree --

President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)."

Father David is doing exactly what Rome has said not to do. He is attempting to translate something not based upon the meaning of the original but on the basis of what he thinks is wrong with American society.

Has anyone else noticed that Father David consistently ignores the Vatican documents that are so very clear in saying “no” to inclusive language?

Father David is conforming the Church to the world.

I know of zero females in the Ruthenian Catholic Church who are offended by the usage of the words "men", "man", and "mankind" in the Liturgy or office readings. In fact, I know of many females in our Church (including my wife) who are offended by the inclusive language that has now begun to sweep through every facet of our prayer. I am looking for any laity of the female gender who approves of inclusive language--and the reasons you approve of it.

I know that there are pockets of radical feminists who are very vocal about all things anti-male. I am not referring to these groups. I am asking the average wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, who sits in the pew.

Peace and blessings,
Recluse

Recluse,

Hope you don't mind. I am responding, but it will not meet your request. Here is my PERSONAL take.

I am NOT offended by the use of the word men, man, and mankind. Actually, I am offended the sacred, the Divine Liturgy, would be changed and I am not giving any understanding to the changes. I am offended at inclusive language. And this offense is on many levels.

I am concerned that people think the plight of women (and men and children) has been improved. Of course, individuals and society need redeemed as much as any other age. Forcing/encouraging women to seperate themselves from their children is exploitation of women. Abortion is a great exploitation of women. I cannot tell you the damage done. The damage is far reaching. The dear children that the women have after/before an abortion are even impacted. Now, there are people who know abortion to be wrong, but they still view children as a burden. They view them as something to avoid. This attitude plagues most of society today…..I understand what is going on in the world as an attack on the nuclear family. Children need a MOTHER and a FATHER, not two of the same.

What does all this have to do with inclusive language? My concern is changes in the Divine Liturgy mimic what the world is doing. It could be the motives for changing the DL are not the same motives as the world. If so, why can’t I be told? I have made many requests.

Inclusive language is an attack on my person as a woman. It makes us all the "SAME". Like the Borg. I am not a MALE/MAN. I like being treated as a woman and not just one of the guys. My vocation as a woman is not the same as my husband. My husband and I are different. I think inclusive language blurs the lines of my identity as a woman.

Now, something stirs in me that inclusive language is an attack on my Redeemer, Jesus Christ and an attack on the Holy Mother of GOD. Somehow, I think this is an attack (unknown by some) on the Incarnation, God became man. (Remember we must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves) No, I cannot substantiate this sense. But, this is a real concern for me….If some worry about the offense people may take at the use exclusive language, don't worry your self. GOD has His design, and I trust Him. The DL has the INCARNATION (MAN), THE MOTHER OF GOD (WOMAN). If anyone dare say the Church excludes women, just look to the Blessed and Ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of our GOD. Don’t abandon what GOD has done. Don’t deny Jesus his role as man. Don’t deny Mary her role as woman. THIS IS A GREAT MYSTERY!!!!!!!!!

Those who think that I fuss/complain about the changes need to understand this weighs heavy on me. Everything about me is against inclusive language. My concerns are not complaining. And, if you believe that to be true, then you treat me as irrelevant.

Corsair,

What you say of Lincoln is absolutely true--that he wanted first and foremost to preserve the Union. If preserving the union within the Byzantine Church and with Orthodoxy had been a more important principle than the abolition of unjust discrimination against women, abolishing unjust discrimination against women (unborn ones in particular) could have been a consequence of proper Liturgy. However, having taken the easy way out, by getting rid of so called "sexist" langauge (one form of modernism)--the Liturgy is weakened and the Union is destroyed--a very un-Lincolnian way of handling things.

May God bless you abundantly. Your thinking is exactly in line with that of my wife--and many other women I have spoken to.

How feminism can be thought compatible with a Church that appeals to the Gospel, however, is one of those contemporary mysteries that has not yet found a satisfactory explanation. Ideological feminism consciously reduces human relationships to power relationships; the feminists in the Church make no bones about wanting the "power" which they believe bishops and the priests unfairly possess; yet it often seems to be the bishops and the priests who seem least critical of the hostility that is nevertheless directed squarely towards them and their functions in the Church.

Read the entire article at:
http://www.adoremus.org/98-04_whitehead.htm

It seems to me that feminism is just an offspring of Marxism: just replace the struggle of proletariat vs. bourgeoisie with that of female vs. male. Both ideologies are incompatible with Christianity. Notice how progressive clergy embraced Marxism in the sixties and now they embrace feminism.

Yes. And it is painfully obvious when I listen to clergy speak, or read their articles, and they dance around certain words. I have seen where priests cannot even say that Jesus became "man"--they use the words "human being" instead. And they will consistently use the word "humankind" instead of "mankind" (now it has become "us all").

It tears me apart inside because it is insulting to women. I cannot tell you how many women have approached me to say they are insulted and feel violated by inclusive language--yet some of our leaders feel they are repairing some kind of long standing damage done to women in the Church. I am really perplexed by this. This radical feminist mindset is so foreign to me.

It is a mystery to me, too. And once upon a time I was a card carrying feminist.

I am a strong advocate for equal rights for men and women--but that has absolutey nothing to do with the neutralization of the beautiful language of the Divine Liturgy.

I am glad you gave up your card!

Feminism is secular witchcraft. Witchcraft is ritual feminism.

If you doubt me, read Naomi Goldenberg: The Changing of the Gods.

I, too, am a strong advocate of men and women being equal in dignity and deserving of equal treatment under the law. And I agree that it has nothing whatever to do with the language of the liturgy.

I am also very glad I gave up my card. I gave it up right around the time I stopped being an atheist/secular humanist.

There is an extensive preview of this book, Changing of the Gods, online:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0807011118&id=YF4tONp6Q_cC&pg=PP1&lpg=PP1&ots=2RzeU_sSFL&dq=Naomi+Goldenberg:+The+Changing+of+the+Gods.&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=d624d9DELYrWdoXm_D4dzHNtpX4#PPP1,M1

Now I am very confused. I have just discovered something on the internet and It seems to be in opposition to the new translation of the DL:

The following is written by Fr David Petras regarding the translation of Ambon prayers:

In 1972, I translated 38 of these prayers into English in order "to introduce these prayers in a modern language to those wishing a greater understanding of the Byzantine Liturgy." They received a very warm reception, and though the re-introduction of these prayers has remained controversial to a degree, my hope is that they have enriched rather than impoverished the Liturgy. Since then, there have been many requests for a new edition. I am happy to finally complete that task, adding translations of 32 new prayers (two prayers, the Common for Apostles and Meatfare Saturday-Funerals, are the same prayer with minor variations for the occasion), and also adding five prayers of original composition. I am especially grateful to my Bishop, Basil Schott, O.F.M., D.D., who has given permission to publish these translations and prayers (Protocol Number 17/00/S, November 21, 2000). I have focused on those prayers that are thematic for particular Feast days or occasions. Much more work remains to be done, and I append a list of 65 prayers yet untranslated, though many of these are not of the same quality, and some are only different versions of already translated prayers. Many of these also are generic prayers for any occasion, or for Sundays and Feast days in general, and I have given preference to those that are thematic.

In presenting these translations, I have tried to follow the guidelines used by the Intereparchial Liturgy Commission of the Pittsburgh Metropolia. The prayers are in contemporary English, and I feel strongly that understanding rather than effect should be the primary goal of any liturgical text. It is our worship that redeems the language and not the other way around. Many of the prayers mention the Emperor, which would be archaic in modern texts, so I have replaced these passages with prayers of the government. Following the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I have used "Mother of God," for "Theotokos" or "God-bearer," both words which present special problems. The Intereparchial Liturgy Commission also uses the title "Lover of Mankind," (philanthropos) for the very common title of God, not intending this in any exclusive sense, but only because of the difficulty of translating a particular divine characteristic in its proper sense. Personally, I would favor "Lover of Humankind," as an acceptable rendering, but there is still a reluctance in regard to the word "humankind," though it is not a neologism as some claim. I support the use of inclusive language according to the principles of the American Bishops, "the principle of fidelity to the Word of God and the principle of respect for the nature of the liturgical assembly."



Ambon Prayer for The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom, translater Fr David Petras, Eastern Christian Publications, 2000

What praise or what hymn or what thanksgiving can we return to you, O our God, Lover of Mankind? For you have given freedom to us who were condemned to death and engulfed in sins. You have given us a share of the immortal and heavenly joy of the holy Body and Blood of your Christ. Therefore, we pray to you, do not let us be condemned, and keep us your servants, the deacons and the people here present in an honorable and holy life. Make us worthy to partake from your mystical altar until our last breath for the sanctification of our souls and bodies and for the observance of your commandments, that we may be deemed worthy of your heavenly kingdom with all those who are pleasing to you. Grant this through the prayers of the all-holy pure Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary and of all your saints, for you are holy and love mankind, and we give glory to you, to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and forever.

Could Fr Petras possibly explain this?

Here is the article from whence that quotation comes:


http://cba.cua.edu/crit.cfm

Here is an article commenting on the article above:

http://www.adoremus.org/5-696-Whitehead.html

My second edition of the Ambon Prayers was made in 2000. The decision to use "Theotokos" and not to use "lover of mankind," was made after this.

Fr. David

Non-negotiable?

Is the horizontal inclusive language something that you do support fully? Sorry to put you on the spot but I honestly don't know you well enough to know, so I ask.

Mary

Hmmm? What changed?

I urge everyone to read these two articles posted my Im. There is much insight into the agenda of the American bishops and the radical feminists. It is eye-opening and very sad/disturbing.

The conference of bishops have made a dangerous assumption about the English language and we should not be deceived by this.

Sister Mary Collins OSB—radical feminist—believes that changing the language of worship will help effect change in the defective Catholic “belief system”. She believes that the male priesthood is a distortion. A google search will reveal many more of her radical feminist views.

Sr Mary Collins OSB was a one time president of The North American Academy of Liturgy. What is this organization and does it foster radical feminist agendas for the Catholic Church? Did the North American Academy of Liturgy have any influence over the revised Byzantine Catholic Liturgy?

I should hope that they have no jurisdiction over non Latin liturgies. I am still under the impression that Byzantines and other ECs have their own canon law and liturgy. I should hope that the Toth uprising would teach the Latins to mind their own business. I don't see how the radical feminists delude themselves into thinking that their idiocy will help the Latins, or anyone else for that matter. other communions in the midst of such goings on continue to see a mass exodus of their communicants exit such denominations for more conservative, and mauy I add, intelligent alternatives.
I myself see nothing wrong with an optional married Priesthood, as long as the Priest is called Father and not Mother, Parent, or anything else. I don't see, in the light that I have two years of koine Greek to my academic credit, to translate "anthropos" as person, individual, or any other inclusive term. there are word in the Greek NT such as "aner". which is male and "gunay" for female.
methinks that the nun behind these looney tune efforts should repent of her nunsense.
Much Love,
Jonn

Sometimes, I sit back and reflect on the "new translation" and I wonder why some people cannot see the insanity! I wonder how the Catholic Church could have possibly approved sweeping horizontal inclusive language in the year 2006-2007. I wonder if perhaps I am the one who is insane--but then I recall the following quote:

A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying: 'You are mad, you are not like us'.
Abba Anthony of Egypt