Father David,

Glad to see you on the Forum right now (11:52, DST).

Many readers would be most grateful if you would find the time to answer some questions. They are not personal attacks but requests for more information / clarifications on the Divine Liturgy in the BCC. Let me draw your attention to three threads:
� Revised or Restored?
� History of the RDL
� Implications of Summorum Pontificum for the RDL

The last thread includes a question in reply to your question posted 9 July 2007, 10:00 DST. The other threads contain questions which were posted days/weeks earlier. Please do us the courtesy of replying, even if it's to say that you don't have the information or can't explain. Otherwise people might think that you find these questions awkward and hope that if they are ignored they may be forgotten.

_____
Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Oops!

I just noticed that I had too many characters in the subject line of this post and it was truncated. It should read (missing letters included and highlighted):



_____
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscripti catapultas habebunt.

I'm sorry you didn't get an answer. I tried the same thing last week. A direct question, asking in all humility and respect. The silence was deafening. And certainly not respectful to us. At least the courtesy of a reply would have been nice.

I't's sad to see those in power be so discourteous as to feel they don't even need to answer questions.

Tim

Asking questions is a form of disobedience. Anyone who asks questions is the enemy. Look for yourself at how the bishops have treated our priests and cantors.

In the minds of Certain People, the asking of a question proves that the questioner is unqualified to grasp the answer.

Fr. Serge

Reverend Father Archimandrite, Gentlemen:

Please let's keep this civil and without sarcasm.

I cannot be accused of disobedience as I am not a member of the BCC, but of another Church of the 'Ruthenian Recension'. As I am a 'liturgical Ruthenian' changes to the Recension are of great interest to me. I only wish to learn.

I'd like to keep this thread on topic and eagerly await some sort of reply from Fr David Petras. As the academic year should be over by now one hopes that Fr David now has time for some lengthier correspondence.

_____
Id quot circumiret, circumveniat.

I'm sorry if what I wrote earlier was construed as being uncivil or sarcastic. It truly was not meant that way. I just feel saddened when a question asked in all seriousness is ignored. I was taught that was bad manners, if nothing else. My baba would not let me get away with it, that's for sure.

Tim

It may be in how the question is framed. From how it is framed, the asked can perceive some into the logical flexibility of the questioner and, perhaps, into the slant which the opponent may have. Accordingly, if a question or a series of questions is slanted against the asked a priori, it would be unwise to answer such a question. As a response within the terms of the question would be unfruitful.

For some there are matters on which opinions and arguments cease to matter. Though, I may add that I am not suggesting that this is the case here. I know nothing of the question or the controversy at hand, if there is one.

My presence on the Forum simply seems to stir up a certain amount of uncharity. I think that some people feel hurt by liturgical change and express themselves rather strongly. I wish opposition to the new translation would refrain from being �ad hominem,� hence I post with great caution.

I do have a concern for how people perceive the Liturgy, I do have concern for the worship of people, and I support the reforms, even if some find it painful, because I believe that they can lead to and facilitate the true restoration of our worship which can only take place in our hearts.

I admit to using the term �Restored Divine Liturgy� to goad the issue somewhat. I do not think it improper however, for it is a restoration because:
1) it will bring most parishes to a fuller liturgical celebration;
2) it restores the presbyter�s office of remembering the saving actions of our Lord Jesus Christ;
3) it restores a more authentic chant.

I could add other things, breaking the order down into parts, as, for example:
- the restoration of standing during the Anaphora and Communion (elimination of Latinizations)
- the restoration of the zeon
and others, but I don�t think this necessary.

The Forum people complain because the RDL is not the full 1941 text, but, to be honest, I get many more complaints from people and especially from priests that it restores so much to the Liturgy.

As far as the history of the reform, I think I have answered that in other places, and I�m weary of recounting it.

I asked the question about the 1965 text for a simple reason. Some have complained here that the 2007 translation is not official because the bishops did not release the text of Rome�s approval. They say that the 1965 text continues to be the norm, but we likewise do not have the text of Rome�s approval of that Liturgy, as far as I know. Maybe someone can produce it. I can�t, I was not a member of the Liturgy Commission at that time, and, in fact was only a second year theologian in the seminary.

Father David,

Thank you for responding! I share your disdain for the ad hominem attacks and exaggerated dramas. I appreciate your straight answer.

I believe that the increase in "easternizations" is a difficult challenge for many if not most of the parishes in the Byzantine Church, and I understand the pastoral need to care for them.

I am curious if there is any provision in place, or if there could be, to care for that small minority who were already past that mark. May those parishes which wish to do more contact their bishops for such an allowance? Is there any process in place to encourage growth, or at least pastoral care for those who are in that top 10% who had to decrease what they were doing with the promulgation?

Do you have any pastoral wisdom or encouragement that you would like to reach them?

My parish was one that was reduced by the reformation. I am confused regarding your use of the term "ad hominem". This forum is administered with a very short leash. If a poster exhibits a lack of charity, the post is removed and/or the thread is locked down. Opposition to this reform is usually well articulated and specific. Most of the opposition here is directly in line with the concerns brought forth by Fr Serge as set forth in his superb book. Those posters who may at times approach the boundary of uncharity are frustrated individuals whose voices are not heard and whose letters are ignored. I have sympathy for them.

Yes. True restoration of our worship takes place in our hearts. Sweeping liturgical reform which is forced upon the people is not conducive to this metanoia. Mandated reform is not organic.

When something is forced upon an individual, the natural result is usually opposition. It has been this way throughout history.

R

One would think from reading some of the posts on this forum, that:
Fr. David wrote the RDL himself, browbeat the terrified members of the commission into agreeing with him, intimidated the bishops into going along, and likely walked across the sea to force Rome into submission. I think the good Father has become a scapegoat and is being accused of things he never had the authority, means or intent to do. A little unfair, wouldn't you think? No wonder he doesn't want to post here.

Fr David Petras had a major role. And it has been his choice to come to this forum and defend the revision.

_____________________________
Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind

Yes, he did have a role, but no more so than the other members of the commission. What I see are disgruntled individuals who have seized on this to vent evey negative feeling they ever had. There certainly are routes to use to appeal the RDL to Rome for those who choose to do so. But what if Rome upholds the RDL? Do we become like Baptists of the east and leave every time we don't get our way about something? It seems to me that lawful authority has to be either obeyed or disobeyed at some point.

Good point, ByzanTN.

I do not like some of the changes at all, and I am depressed that we will be stuck with them. Some of the changes are good.

But I am not going to leave the Church over the ones I do not like. I respect the conscience of those who feel they need to do so.

But I can't; for me to do so would indeed make me part of the American sectarian culture.

Sorry, I'm not a member of the BCC and really don't have any "skin in this game" but...I have corresponded with members of the commission who claim they had very little to do with the translations...and have distanced themselves from it...Fr. David seems to be the only one who strongly supports it...it also seems to have the "same flavor" of the recensions put forward in Parma and Passaic under Bishop Andrew...who I have been told over the years Fr. David had a major role in...I think you are greatly downplaying Fr. David's role...that being said...I commend Fr. David for participating on the forum...everyone else seems to be distancing themselves from it...

Chris

I thank you, Father Petras for posting on this thread. It makes many of us feel much better to know that we are at least heard and our feelings taken into account.

I agree that there should not be any bashing or personally negative comments made about you or anyone else. I have tried to refrain from doing that and if I haven't, I ask your forgiveness.

I can understand your reticence to respond, since when you do it seems to spark problems and people jump all over you and your responses may be taken out of context or misunderstood. Which only makes things worse.

But surely you do see how it only makes you, Prof Thomson and the Eparchs look bad when people ask questions and only get silence in return? E-mails not answered, phone calls not returned, snail mail letters not even acknowleded. When feelings are hurt, people tend to react strongly. Sometimes they take it personally and respond in kind. Hence the personal remarks. I've heard the expression that anger is actually hurt feelings turned sideways.

I, for one, have sent more than one personal e-mail to you, asking some questions. Not only this forum, but to you directly at the verizon e-mail address listed on the Seminary website. Maybe it's an old address, but it never bounced back as undeliverable. Perhaps you never received them for other reasons. But I'm sure you can understand how frustrating it is when communication after communication is not effective, for whatever the reason. That is why I was so glad to see your response on the forum.

Whether people agree with you or not, I'm sure we feel better knowing you are at least aware of our existence and our thoughts on the matter.

Slave Isusu Christu!
Slava na Viki!

Tim

Again, he had a major role in this reformation and he is the only one from the commission that has been gracious enough to attempt to defend the revisions. You see people that are disgruntled--you are correct. I see people (including myself) that have been scandalized. This is the only place we can vent our feelings because our voices are not heard and our letters thus far have been ignored. Some may become disheartened enough to seek reception into the Holy Orthodox Church--and I certainly understand this because I am discerning the call myself. It is not analogous to the protestants. It is not about "not getting our way". It is about having a pierced conscience and a heavy heart because of a true belief that the Ruthenian Catholic Liturgy has been compromised by a modernist agenda (amongst other things). Some people do not adhere to blind obedience when their conscience has been damaged.

If you are at peace with the changes, then may God bless you abundantly. But do not denigrate those who have been deeply injured by this reformation.

Peace,
R

What do you mean by this?

byzanTN,

Could you please provide a list of BCA Bishops and Parishes that were obeying the 1965 Full Liturgy, Rubrics, etc. from Rome prior to 2007?

Monomakh

The quote within the quote box about Fr. David's role was from someone else.

I don't know of any that were doing the full liturgy. For what it's worth, our liturgy is now longer and more complete with the new books than it was with the old ones. I do understand the unhappiness some feel over the changes. However, I have friends that were devastated by changes in the Latin church mass that made our changes look miniscule in comparison. They didn't cut and run, but they persevered, prayed, and worked to get the Latin mass back. Now Pope Benedict has given it back to them. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

Please accept my thanks for this welcome compliment!

Fr. Serge

It can take an entire generation to correct mistakes that never should have ocurred in the first place. That is the lesson.

Bless, Father,

You are quite welcome. Every member of the Ruthenian Catholic Church should read your book. In fact, every Eastern Catholic should read your book (I also recommend Archbishop Raya's book on the Liturgy). Your book chronicled every error of the RDL from many perpectives. What you have offered is priceless. Fr Petras attempted to refute some of your research on his website, but it is impossible to refute the truth--in my opinion, his refutations were very weak. If all Ruthenian Catholics would read your book, there would be wholesale outrage and the Hierarchs would have no choice but to rescind the RDL or watch the Church cease to exist. Perhaps we should be making a grassroots effort to get this book into the hands of every God-loving Byzantine Catholic.

I cannot thank you enough for this edifying and enlightening work.

Kissing your right hand,
Recluse

Yes, it can take a generation or longer to correct things that should have happened differently. The lesson, however, is to work constructively to change the things you think need changing. Yes, some may have a need to vent, but whining doesn't change anything. If anything, it causes the bishops to dismiss the complainers as chronic whiners who can not be made happy. What I read on this forum is the same 4 or 5 people who find nothing good to say about much of anything. Put the energy into something constructive remembering that prayer is also an essential element. Also, pick battles wisely. Some of the complaints I read here are on the level of "Fr. no longer wears the correct Slavic shoelaces." I suspect that with the RDL some changes will stand the test of time and endure while others may not last. In order to get average people to work for change, the work has to be directed toward something that is worth the effort to change. However, the Latins have proven that change is not impossible for those who believe and are dedicated.

Again, there is no other venue for those against this reform to let their voice be heard. If you are perceiving it as whining, and it disturbs you, then you are free to visit other areas of the forum. Your accusations will not stop the voice of those who have been injured in heart and conscience. The people who are injured are doing everything they can to change what has happened...now...not a generation later (the Latin Church has taught us a lesson). We are writing letters to Rome asking that the RDL be rescinded. And we are praying. That is the most we can do.

Peace and blessings,
R

I am not disturbed by much of anything anymore. Maybe there is a serenity that comes with age. Unfortunately, I perceive some of what I read on this forum as a waste of time in terms of it ever resulting in any real change. If you are praying, that's always good. I'm still trying to get some real figures on how the RDL is being implemented and accepted in the parishes. There's a poll going on, but the numbers are too small to be significant. I have long suspected that the majority of Byzantines neither post on, nor care about this forum. So it is possibly not respresentative. Some write of how the RDL is not accepted by some of the people they know in their small parish. However, sentiments in a small parish don't necessarily represent the majority of the Byzantine Catholic Church. It's difficult to objectively assess the impact of the RDL, and much of what I am reading is a bit overwrought.

I am happy that you are at peace.

Sounds good to me - and the publishers will love it! But there is one problem: by dint of some herculean efforts, it is at least notionally possible to provide each literate member of the Pittsburgh Metropolia with a copy of the book. But there is no earthly way of making sure that the lucky recipients will actually read it.

This also applies to Papal Encyclicals and similar documents.

Thank you again - such compliments are always most welcome.

Fr. Serge

Recluse, although I cradle Catholic, I spent some time in the fundamentalist/evangelical world. I have been around church splits (I know they happen in our Catholic and Orthodox Churches, too). I identify that mentalility of picking up one's marbles and leaving the game when things don't suit us with the American individualistic mentallity.

Please know, I do respect the consciences of those who have left our Metropolia because of the RDL; I too, have thought about becoming Orthodox, but for other reasons.

So if you or anyone else leaves because of the RDL, I am not picking on you. Anyone who has read my posts knows I am sympathetic to people who join the Orthodox Church.

But I am only saying this for myself, that it would feel like a case of picking up my marbles and going to a different playground if I in particular would leave because of the Divine Liturgy.

As disappointing as some renderings and translations are in the RDL, I do not see that they are necessarily heretical, and should lead to me leave. But I respect those who do.

However, I would also caution anyone to seriously discern whether they should leave over the RDL- is it really a good reason to leave?

We should not change religions or Church's like we change shirts, as an Orthodox friend of mine once said.

Finally, anytime I have come close to joining the Orthodox, I have had either Orthodox lay people or priest caution me that they are dealing with frustrations too, either of the same nature or a different nature.

I guess if I were ever to leave the Metropolia and join the OCA, I would have to have a better reason at this point than some of the disappointing translations in the RDL.

Blessings,

Lance

You are correct in everything you have written here. The RDL is not the sole reason I am leaving--I have expressed some of my other reasons but that is not for this particular forum. I asked you the question because you seemed to equate the sectarianism of the multiple divisions within protestantism with the different jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church. My apologies if I misunderstood.

Having said that, I believe that modernism is today's heresy and the RDL skirts the boundaries of modernism. Will I say that it is heretical? No, not at this point. I am not looking for a perfect Church. It does not exist. There are scandals everywhere. Mankind is in a fallen state. But I am looking for Divine Liturgy where I can worship in peace. Where I can pray with the angels and saints without worrying about what "the world" thinks. Many of us have problems with the revision--some more than others.

P.S--Something dawned on me the other day. The Ruthenian Catholic Church has instructed me to read about the Orthodox saints and Church Fathers (and Mothers). They have recommended writings on Orthodox theology. I have been given books on Church history from the Orthodox perspective. Yet they tell me, "Do not become Orthodox, they are schismatics"!

What am I missing here?

I started a thread to respond to this here.

The thread above asks for books or resources by, for, or about Eastern Catholics.

I've started another thread here to respond to how Eastern Catholics can be Orthodox without becoming Orthodox.

Dear Fr David,

Thank you for your reply.

My schedule has been a bit erratic as of late and I've fallen a bit behind on the Forum, but I hope to reply to your comments soon.

_____
Neutiquam erro.

Recluse,

Be assured from my perspective, the differing Orthodox jurisdictions are not the same as sectarianism in Protestantism. If that were the case, we Eastern Catholics would be guilty of that charge, too.

I am not sure how to answer your question about having books recommended to you, and being told at the same time, they are written by "schismatics."

I was on the radio today on the local Relevant Radio station with a fellow parishioner to speak about the Byzantine faith and the upcoming Dormition. I stated that if we Byzantine Catholics are doing our job right, anyone who comes into our worship service should not discern any difference between us and the Orthodox. In fact, in my view, the only thing that should tip a visitor off that we are Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox is that we pray "for our Holy Father, Benedict, the Pope of Rome." I went on to recommend the Orthodox Church by Sergius Bulgakov, who is right now my favorite theologian.

I honestly do not see much difference between Byzantine Catholics and Orthodox. We have the same substance of faith and theological expression. In my mind, union with Peter is the only difference.

I am not unaware of difficulties, and I know many, both Catholic and Orthodox will disagree with me. But that is where I am at personally.

Blessings,

Lance

I'm not going to say I disgree with you. It sounds reasonable to me. The big question, of course, is how do we do that? The most simple response may not be that easy to implement. Anyone who thinks EVERY decision made by every priest, Bishop, Cardinal, Pope or Patriarch is due solely to the influence of the Holy Spirit is kidding themselves. That ole' devil politics is involved in many ways. Which is why I say the most simple way of implementing the most simple and obvious plan to achieve your goal will not be the easiest way to do it.

But heck, that's just my opinion.

Tim

But perhaps not without enough caution. I would have thought you should have said that the opposition to the new translation was "ad feminam." Nonetheless I understood exactly what you meant!

I am confident, however, that the feminists will attempt to rid the English language of "ad hominem." Or will they?

Has anyone noticed if the discrimination against women in the Byzantine world has decreased since the institution of the "restored" Divine Liturgy which has left out all those sexist references?

May God bless you and your family and friends!

As you say, if we are doing our job right, that's exactly the way it should be. And that is what the Pope has urged us to do. Unfortunately, for the most part, that guidance is not being followed, and the RDL is proof of that.

Timothy

"Ad hominem."
One should take care in comparing the use of words in different languages. "Homo" in Latin means a human being as opposed to angels or animals. "Vir" means a man as opposed to a woman. Thus, translating "homo" into English as the generic term "man" does not correspond to the exact range of the word in Latin. The trouble in English is that while "man" can mean, in context, all human beings, in its range of meaning it can also be ambiguous. I went to eat at the Red Lobster restaurant, and had to use the rest room. There were two, one was labeled "Men," and the other "Women." So we see here that the range of meaning is different in English.

"So we see here that the range of meaning is different in English."

If at that same restaurant an angry man-eating lion ran in through the doors, I'll bet both men and women would run out its way! No ambiguity there!

Alas, finally an explanation for inclusive language. It all makes sense now. We only had to look at the rest rooms at Red Lobster!

Ah yes! The famous and oft-repeated "man-eating lion" (or tiger, or whatever)! But (and this may actually have something to do with the development of language) it is quite certain that whether to choose the "men" or "women" door on the rest room is a decision that has been made by many thousands, maybe millions, while I don't know of a "man"-eating lion (or tiger, or whatever) on the loose in the past fifty or maybe even a hundred years. I'd be glad to know of any instances in anglophone countries.

I have heard that there are universal rest rooms where men and women share the same facilities. I am wondering what the sign says: Maybe it simply says, "rest room".

But it would be quite appropriate if it said: "Mankind".

__________________________
Glory to Thee, O Lover of Mankind!

Not to belabor the scenario but the point is that the proper decision on meaning, a choice of restrooms as "a decision that has been made by many thousands, maybe millions," would also be made in the situation of a cage with a door and the sign stating "Man-eating Animal Inside". Would the female subset of the restroom crowd get the meaning, or would they venture in?

But more to the point, what is the proper meaning of the word "man" in the creed when we say "and he became man"? How is it intended and how are we to understand it as English speakers? Only as the restroom crowd understands it or as the being-eaten crowd understands it?

Dn. Anthony

I think the point of the critics of Fr David's example is that people can easily figure out the context and understand that Christ came to save not just guys.

Fr David may be familiar with this counterexample as well, which I borrow from Fr Paul Mankowski, SJ. Consider the stick figures on the men's room and women's room doors. Their meaning is obvious, right?

Now consider a sign with a stick figure on it, one arm raised at the end of which is a white diamond, and around this figure is a red circle with a red diagonal slash through it. Does the latter sign mean that women may litter? If the stick figure wore a stick dress, would it mean that men could legally litter? Everyone can understand the context of a simple stick figure drawing, whether it means man=person or man=male human.

People are not idiots. No ordinary person thought that "for us men" excluded women. The omission of "men" was simply too clever by half. The word "men" needs to be reinserted. If the Greeks could do it, we can do it too.

This is simply not true. Homo is just like man. If it isn't, then,



should be translated,



Since the translation is clearly inaccurate, there must be some deeper reason you want to follow the secularists down this idealogical path. It's too simple of a mistake to be an honest one.

I'd more readily welcome and be glad to know of instances of any of the Orthodox anglo-translations using this styling of language.

Having been excoriated for the creation of a very distinctive "hybird" type of Latinized liturgy in the last century - with their distinctive liturgical sensibilities from ripped out icon screens to pre-liturgy rosary, statuary and stations, to side altars and altar rails, and first communion for 7 year olds - we are now standing out as the Eastern community that has replaced our Latinisms of the 1890s with Latinisms of the 1990s.

The further irony of it is, at least in the days of the "old style Latinisms" we more closely were looking and acting like Latins. In adopting this new trend of western sensibility, we seem to be running to the end of the dock for a ship that has sailed. And sailed some time ago. From everything I have read about the coming re-translation of the Roman English-language litrugy, they are not even following this styling any more. (In fact when they WERE it was often in illicit or unapporved fashions!)

I open myself up to being decried as a "Latiniac", but if we are going to ape trends of the Latins, give me supplicatio, moleban to the Sacred Heart and pre-liturgy rosary ANY sunday before this new style of "inclusive speak".

I am still at a loss to understand why or how it was pressing for us to move forward unilaterally - not as a pan Greek Catholic effort, not as a joint effort with the Orthodox - in undertaking this expensive and (very apparently now) devisive move.

I am not trying to be funny or sacracstic. I am just confused.

That is probably THE biggest question that I have remaining on my mind. Why did Archbishop Judson feel that the Ruthenian GC Church needed to do this alone? Or did the other Greek Catholic hierarchies here in the USA just not want to revise their Liturgies too, and refused to join?

That question is one I had posted in another thread...

http://byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/18919/Number/245972#Post245972

Don't anybody pin this fiasco on Archbishop Judson. Anybody who knows him would know that he never would have tolerated this disaster, and had more concern for his people than to ever have allowed this.

This is the work of the liturgy revision committee, and its chairman, Bishop Andrew.

Archbishop Judson never would have allowed this.

Nick

I agree with Nick.

I have it through a reliable source that this is not the kind RDL that Metropolitan Judson had in mind.

There are other interesting facts that are not public knowledge, so I won't disclose them in this forum.

And then some, we have yet to see how the implimentation of the motu proprio goes for the Latin Church, but it is a start to correct something that should not have been done the way it was done in the first place, IMO.

While I agree with you and Rusyn31, that the final product may not be exactly what the late Archbishop invisioned, two facts are very plain, 1) the new translation was finished and received back from Rome with her approval, pending some changes, before the repose of Archbishop Judson, and 2) a lot of what is now the RDL for the Metropolia was used at the 75th anniversary celebration Liturgy in Pittsburgh in 1999. Remember? "May the Lord God remember in His kingdom, Bishop So&So, whom God loves" over and over and over at the Great Entrance. I thought that I was going to fall over. Thankfully that one was changed, and then we find out that now, God "loves us all!"

As a woman I have no confussion about when a man is a man and when a man is not a man and refers to either men or women, a genric representative of mankind; not some crazy humankind;I mean, what is the point of adding hu- if -man- is still there. Humynkind! That should solve everything!

More seriously, I am very careful in how I use words, and I love useing the word man for all men. Human being is useful when I am talking speacifically about the being of man, which is a human being, and what makes him a human being is that he has human nature. (he/she stinks obviously, because it is akward and unnecessary) So I rarely have need of "human being" when I write. Humankind should only be used as human being is used (see my technical use rule), and not in place of mankind when mankind is clearly meant.

So, when it comes to translation, it is important to be true to the vocabulary structure used in the original text as the author(or authors) intended the text to be understood. Hence, besides the fact that I find inclusive language to be just plain wrong-headed, inclusive language translations unnecessarily misrepresent the text. Conversely, if someone were to be translating an author who originally used so called gender-neutral language as a matter of technical vocabulary, it should be represented acurately in a translation as "this-generic-man-being" or something.

My question is on this point. Given my point above that gender-neutral translations obsure the original meaning of a text, how is inclusive laguage a restoration of anything in the liturgy? Has this been answered anywhere else on the forum? I am new.

God Bless,
Rosemary

Short memories! As John K points out, Archbishop Judson did receive the approval from Rome of the basic Liturgy we have promulgated. Bishop Andrew did not become moderator of the Inter-eparchial Committee until after Bishop George resigned. Follow the reasoning: since some accept as a proven fact that the Liturgy is bad, then they come to the conclusion that Archbishop Judson could not have had anything to do with it. The fault in this reasoning is that the Liturgy may not be bad! If the Liturgy is not bad, then there is no fault from Archbishop Judson. In any case, I personally spoke with Archbishop Judson after the approval from Rome was received, this is a reliable source.

IM
Re: homo
"Homo" is not "just like" man. I did not say it could not mean "male human being," only that its "range" of meaning is different than English. (cf. "Cassell's New Latin Dictionary," New York, 1960 American edition - well before these controversies), p. 277, under "homo." And, moreover, in your quotation you are not dealing with a Latin original, but a Latin translation of the Greek (Matthew 19:5, which is "anthropos"). At any rate, I am not going to change a stock phrase from a "dead" language!!!
I am not a "secularist." Any reading of my articles will show that I know the reality of the sacred, and the necessity of affirming the "sacred" against the "secular." St. James told us to "keep yourselves unstained by the world." (James 1:27) and the Liturgy tells us to "set aside all earthly cares." Good advice - what it means is to stay away from the false values of the world that would smother and choke off the true values of God's message. St. Paul tells us that the wisdom of the world is foolishness, but he also tells us that God is reconciling the world, that we do not have to leave the world (1 Cor 5:10), and St. John tells us that God loves the world. The world, too, is created by God and it is full of wondrous and magnificent things. Why do we have to see everything as black and white? Why does Jesus Himself tell us: "For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light." (Luke 16:8) I do see sometimes less edifying behavior and words in people of the Church than in people of the world. Is there, by the way, any discussion on this forum of the atheist attacks on faith by people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Michael Onfray?

Fr. David:

You certainly gave the impression that homo did not mean "male human being":



As you now admit, however, homo (like anthropos) has the additional meaning of "male human being." Man, therefore, is a perfectly acceptable translation of homo as it is of anthropos. In the Creed, when I say "for us men...he became a man," I assert that Christ really did became a male human being. That is important. He is the bridegroom. Moreover, this translation is consistent with the Greek terms (and Latin in the Roman Rite) and it accurately reflects the fact that for men, God became man.

Man of course can do double duty and also be used like vir or aner. So it is actually richer and more complex in meaning than homo or anthropos.

I did not call you a secularist. I asked why you would want to follow the secularists down this idealogical path of refusing to translate anthropoi in the Creed. Even Fr. Taft sees this type of agenda driven distorting of ancient texts unacceptable:



In 1960 "man" was an acceptable translation of anthropos and still is today. Why drop it and distort the Creed?

Beyond this, of course, is the ordinary magisterium's decision in Liturgiam Authenticam, by whch we, as Catholics, are bound.

Finally, while a I agree that we need not fear the world, neither ought we to change our Creed to fit the world's idealogical agenda. If the Fathers of the Church would not accomodate Arius, what good will come from accomodating the world?

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



???????????????????????

I have no idea if you are, but the above quote may have confused some here.






I don't recall anyone quoting these names, all I've seen with atheists has been one of our Deacons referring us to the works of the well known feminist Alice S. Rossi (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=246246#Post246246) and one of our priests praising the works of Eric Foner (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=226285#Post226285). I'll do some more searching.

All of this inclusive language talk still has me wondering:

Genesis 5:1-2

"This is the record of the descendants of Adam. 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."

Have the scriptures that will be read in our churches been updated with the enlightenment that even Thomas Jefferson lacked?

If not why? If not, is the new liturgy the first step towards changing this as well?


All those scripture quotes got me thinking about these:

"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).

And all of this discussion regarding this being a restoration has me wondering, if this is a restoration could someone ask Archbishop Basil to have Vespers instead of evening liturgies on Saturday evenings at the Cathedral in Pittsburgh?

Monomakh

I don't believe this is the intent of that association in the Creed, but it is unfortunately an understanding reinforced by dropping the word "men" but retaining the word "man"; that is, "man" is ok and can not be criticized as exclusive because he was a male. Thus I think the RDL translation of the Creed, in dropping "men", may be inadvertently promoting the non-inclusive understanding of the retained word "man".

Dn. Anthony

Actually, I do think it is one of the associations in the Creed. JPII in the theology of the body states:



When for men, God becomes man...he takes on human nature, a nature which is shared by male and female alike. Nonetheless, he became a man who shows his great love for his spouse, the Church, even by shedding his blood for her.

For this reason, I believe it would be incorrect to translate the Creed, "for us human beings...he became a human being." This translation is proposed by some feminists who reject an all-male priesthood and hence, they ultimately reject sacramental marriage as a sign of Christ's love for his Church.

It is the multiple meanings of anthropos that allow this meaning of the text to come through. It is anthropos, not aner, that is used in Ephesians.

Rejection of marriage, and its consequent life-giving unity, is the "heresy" of our day. In the secular order, this is seen through the acceptance of same sex marriage, abortion and contraception. As believers, we have a truly radical difference with the world on this point.

Does Met. Basil serve at the Cathedral in Munhall every week? I guess that my understanding is: he is not the pastor, but only that he throne is there, making it the mother church (whoops! sorry, parent church ) of the archdiocese. The pastor, then is responsible for the schedule of services.

A hierarch has his "cathedra" at an assigned cathedral, meaning that it is his church and see. Though it is his church, most hierarchs do have duties that require him to be away from his cathedral such as parish visitations, etc. Generally what is appointed is a dean or rector for the cathedral parish so that the normal pastoral and liturgical needs of the parishioners are met. this would include scheduling most of the liturgical services and when they are served. The dean or rector though would have to coordinate with the hierarch to confirm there would be no scheduling conflicts for when the hierarch is present and serves. This is how most cathedral parishes function.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+