This post is taken from an earlier discussion. I am starting it by quoting a post I had made. New comments are below.

Begin Post #273023 - 01-13-2008 08:37 PM


Inclusiveness by using less precise terminology seems to be part of the translation guide for the Revised Divine Liturgy. We have the very inclusive and exacting “man” and “mankind” replaced with the ambiguous and potentially exclusive “us” and “all of us”. And here we have a more exacting parallel to the Slavonic and Greek texts replaced with a more ambiguous and potentially exclusive phrase from the RDL above. If the military are included then say so. Father Deacon John notes correctly that the police, firemen, FBI and others were already included in the term "civil authorities". There was no need to change the petition as it was already inclusive. [The parallel here would have been if "for those who travel by sea and land" were changed to "for those who travel" (omitting the specific methods of travel rather then adding "air").]


Rewording the petition to make a point and considering the context of the Vatican II document we can see how appropriate it is to pray for our armed forces by name:

For our armed forces, the agents of our security and freedom, that they may serve our country with honor, and that they may make a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy!
End Post #273023 - 01-13-2008 08:37 PM
------------------------------------------

In conversations with two separate individuals today this discussion was mentioned. Both individuals made excellent points which I think should be made here.

Point 1 – While I formulated the petition (above in italics) to give example to the point I was making I did not offer it as a replacement petition. Yet someone who gave the discussion great thought has concluded that allowing such a petition would be a very good example of true organic development.

Point 2 – The change from “For our civil authorities and all our armed forces” to "For our government and for all in the service of our country” is a move from the specific to the abstract. “Civil authorities” includes the government, the police, the firemen and paramedics. “Government” remains specific but is less inclusive than "civil authorities". “Armed forces” is very specific and refers to the military that defend our country from harm. “All in service” is unspecific and, therefore, abstract. The parallel is not in the organic development of adding “air” in the “for those who travel by sea, air and land”. The parallel would be to drop the specifics “sea, air and land”, and shorten the petition simply to “For those who travel, let us pray to the Lord.” It is step in the direction of making prayer abstract, praying for “all those who need prayer” rather then praying for the “sick and the suffering”.

The point was also made by both individuals that this is yet another example of how an attempt to make a prayer more inclusive by making it generic only succeeds in making it less personal and potentially exclusive.

So as more food for thought (and nothing more) let me reword the petition a bit more, based on what I quoted earlier from the Vatican II document:

For the President of these United States, the Congress, the Supreme Court and all our civil authorities, and for our armed forces, the agents of our security and freedom that they may serve our country with honor, and that they may make a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy!

There are several biases prevalent in contemporary religion schools:

feminism
anti-military
effeminacy

Just as Islam, especialy militant Islam, caters to one end of the spectrum - unbridled male anxieties and needs - Christianity, especially Western Christianity, caters to the other end of the spectrum - feminism and effeminacy.

The military can find no home in Christianity. Yet, when militant Islam sets up its tent in your post-Christian, almost post-religion, neighborhood, you'd wish you considered your military a little better.

In the end, when we live as dimmi, we will no longer have a military to defend us, feminism will find a home under a burka, and effeminacy ... well, they will be the first to meet their maker under the Submission. Until then, Lord, have mercy.

Ed

1988 UGCC translation: For our nation under God, for our government, and for all the military, let us pray to the Lord.

And these are behind the revision of the music and words of our Liturgy? Now it is explained....

It is good that now it is clear what motivated the revisionists.

Nick

Actually, Nick, nothing has been explained. I only made a comment about what is dominant these days in religion schools. Notice that I didn't include *orthodoxy*; even the word itself is detestable to the revisionists of the Byzantine Catholic church; just as much as the *military*.

Can you explain the motivation behind the revisionists?

My aunt says that only 5 or 6 actually use the new hymnal the revisionists provided for worship (most, she says, use it only to follow along, not to actually sing). It was a complete failure even with all the re-education programs.

I saw this happen in my friend's church (a non-Catholic denomination) and it too was disasterous. The community actually split. One kept the social-centered revisions; the other, teamed up with another Christ-centered community. The first is considering closing its doors or merging with another social-centered religious community; the other, is growing. People know in the latter one what is being taught. It is focused on God, not the trendy needs of the community. The former never prays for the military; the latter always petitions God to remember their troops.

Ed

Uhm, I think this is again a type of Quixotic battle. Call me this; call me that.

For any people, we want to pray for our legitimate government, and for those who are in the service of the people.

It makes sense to say that we are praying for our government:

-for those who are in government service
-for those in public safety - police, fire, public health and corrections
-and for those who serve in the military forces against outside enemies.

Is there a problem with including all these folks in our public prayers? (We can't take models from the Greek, Byzantine or Russians sources; their systems are different.) We need a contemporary model based upon our various national structures.

Blessings!

Dr John