As the forward of the RDL tells us, the liturgy



American society is sick and the sickness does have to do with the way women are treated, but this is not primarily because women are discriminated against in the workplace or academia. The sickness is because women are treated as objects by men. The fruit of this attitude has given us widespread contraception and abortion--by the tens of millions--perhaps, no truly, the worst slaughter of children in the history of mankind.

Changing (and that's what it is a change) the Creed and the Liturgy "not" to offend certain women is a bandaid and not a good one at that. To allow the Creed and the Liturgy to be changed by the crusade against "men" is a radical departure from the truth that men and women are called to live together in a life-giving communion. What is needed is, as JPII has so forcefully proclaimed, and has Benedict has reminded us in Deus Caritas Est, is a revitalization of the teaching about man, male and female, which is set forth in Genesis and Ephesians--and is indeed the prototype for all of revelation which points to Christ, the Bridegroom.

The Americanization of the Creed, by adopting the crusade against "men," has by clear implication accepted the philosophical foundation of the feminists movement which lies at the end of a long chain of philosophical thought which rejects the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth set forth in Genesis:



If you are a married American Byzantine Catholic, when is the last time you heard a sermon about the essence of your vocation? When have you been taught that your spousal relationship reflects the very love of Christ for his Church? When have you heard the truth of Humanae Vitae proclaimed that your love must be fruitful? And if you had heard that truth preached, would you accept it or would you leave the Church? Would you be angry with the priest and Bishop for speaking the truth?

I dare say when I look at the history of my own Rusyn family, the real challenge presented by the modern world has not been addressed. My grandparents from the old country had 14 children. Each successive generation has had significanlty less. Maybe the Byzantine Church is dying because we, lay men and women, have not lived the Truth of the Gospel in our vocation in marriage, and the priests and Bishops that we now have are afraid to preach this truth to us because they know we will reject it.

We now have a Creed and Liturgy which comport with our failure to live the truth of our vocation. And if we do not live our vocation, there will not be children to fill our churches or priests to serve them, because the family is the domestic Church from which new priests will come.

For these insights, I must thank a friend (on this forum) who said to me that perhaps the RDL is a punishment. And perhaps it is.

To be honest lm, many if not just about all of the things you're saying apply to Orthodoxy as well.

I have suspected so. We are all tainted by the modern world. The solution lies in a radical reorientation for married and clergy, and married clergy, on our thoughts and actions with respect to the "great mystery."

When a Roman Catholic was once advocating for young married men for the priesthood, I asked him if his parish was ready to support the priest's children. He gulped. The problem hit him squarely between the eyes. Believe me, I am all for married clergy in the East, but for Catholic married clergy there can be no compromise on this issue. Hence the practical aspects must be considered very carefully.

Quote from lm: "For these insights, I must thank a friend (on this forum) who said to me that perhaps the RDL is a punishment. And perhaps it is."

I'll own up to having said that. I had in mind the following statement by Saint John Eudes (+ 19 August, 1680; Founder of the Congregations of Jesus and Mary and of Our Lady of Charity of the Refuge):

"The most evident mark of God's anger, and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world, is manifest when He permits His people to fall into the hands of a clergy who are more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds. They abandon the things the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world and, in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits. When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with his people, and is visiting his most dreadful wrath upon them."

Not very nice, is it? So negative, we might be tempted to say. (Why, statements like this could even damage someone's precious self-esteem!) Such things certainly could never be said of our saintly shepherds!

Sarcasm aside, we must ask ourselves, when our bishops and priests abandon the very words by which Truth is defined within Tradition to embrace secular political correctness, is it not true that "They abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world"?

But let's not miss the real point here: The indictment of the shepherds carries a prior and greater indictment of us, God's people! It bears repeating: "When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with his people, and is visiting his most dreadful wrath upon them."

But why would God be so angry with such nice folks as us? Let the examination of conscience begin!

Thank you Gabriel. This quote has actually provided me with some consolation. At least it expresses a reason for the travesty that we call "the revised Divine Liturgy".

Everything is ethnic. If you take away, say prostopinije which comes from the Trans-Carpathian culture and replace it with say, simplified byzantine chant, then you are substituting the Trans-Carpathian ethnic music with Arabic/Greek ethnic music. If you sing four-part then you are following a Russian ethnic tradition. So the idea of "americanization" doesn't really exist.
Over time music and customs may melt ORGANICALLY together and be representative of the melting pot that is America. We can not simply create new music and new local small traditions out of thin air, although that certainly has been attempted. However the notion that we must rid ourselves of this or that because it is too old country and substitute what you threw out the window with something else is merely disrespecting to your church's tradition and replacing it with another ethnic tradition.
Now, using English (or the vernacular of a particular parish) isn't an Americanization. That is simply allowing people to understand what is being said at a Liturgical service.

I don't think anyone is objecting to "good old fashion" English!

And there is hope; God gave His people Benedict XVI!

Nope. But the point is over time we will develop naturally local small traditions. It isn't something we will be able to put our fingers on or mandate or call an Americanization program. It'll happen naturally and very gradually, and at that point we will still have different local small traditions and customs, which means that when you think about it the term Americanization in a misnomer.

Orthodox Pyrohy,

Christ is risen!

While I appreciate the point you make about "develop[ing] naturally local small traditions", please understand that "music and customs" is NOT what this thread is about.

Perhaps it would have been clearer had lm used the technical term Americanism rather than "Americanizing."

In a Catholic context (Byzantine or Latin makes no difference here), Americanism (condemned by Pope Leo XIII) is the evil twin sister of Modernism (condemned by Pope St Pius X). Americanism is the wholesale adaptation of our Holy Religion to the values of an anti-Catholic world-view and culture shaped by the Masonic Revolution; the forces of organized naturalism opposing the Social Reign of Christ the King.

It is this which we in the Byzantine-Ruthenian Metropolia are dealing with in the language of the RDL. In this thread we are seeking to place our fingers on deeper causes, painful as that may be.

Please understand and do not derail the train!

In Christ's love,
Gabriel

I found this of interest----> Inclusive language: 'eventually all nonsense implodes upon itself'
Gerald Wilson



The demand within parts of the Catholic Church for inclusive language for use in the Bible, the Mass and other parts of the liturgy has increased in recent years. However, this demand has not come from the pews or from any groups representative of the Church's grass roots. Rather, it reflects the efforts of well-placed people within the Church's local administrations to bring religious practices into conformity with questionable policies in the secular world.

Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (The Rat-zinger Report, p. 78), states that it is certainly not accidental that the Apostles' Creed begins with the confession: "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth." This primordial faith in the Creator God (a God who is really God) forms a pivot as it were, about which all other Christian truths turn. The strongest reason for calling God Father, from the Christian point of view, is that God himself through the scriptures has told us how to speak of him. In all scriptures, in both the Old Testament and the New, God is never called Mother. Historically, religions that call God Mother are pantheistic (viewing God and creation as basically one and the same thing).



http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/1998/jul1998p8_549.html



Eddie

Ed,

What's up with the anti-catholic toned article you posted? This is an Eastern Christian forum where there are many Catholics.

I sense you are proselytizing by attempting to undermine the faith of many people here and by negatively putting down the apostolic traditions of the church. The tried and tested methods of attempting to pick off apostolic Christians by negatively/ making them doubt their faith through unfounded claims is not welcome here. Maybe that is why none of us respond to your posts.

I'm not sure I agree; Eddie has been pretty respectful and willing to listen and learn. There is already a lot of anti-Catholic-leader stuff in the air here right now for him to pick up as well.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

I don't see anything anti-catholic in tone in that fine article.

The primary blame was set at our feet, the feet of the laity.

Still, why does this issue of inclusive language still have to be brought up? Even the Latin Rite has admitted its wrong-doings with that? It is a dead-horse and perhaps maybe the hands of those beating it will soon grow tired.

I sure hope so from one that has to read all of these repetitive posts. Not enough room in my backyard to bury these dead horses.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

To bury these dead horses one would need heavy equipment, it's at the level where we're not talking just a shovel.

Christ is Risen!

With that I will get my bulldozer out and get ready to bury this dead horse. This thread is now closed.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+