The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 238 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 15 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 14 15
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
[quote=ajk

There are of course legitimate customs and interpretations which is why I said: �perhaps more specific references would clear things up. What exactly did they say?�

Dn. Anthony [/quote]

Please go back and read the Fathers -- you will see immediately the point they are making. This is a serious theological issue and one which should be discussed sometime. But probably not under this heading or in this forum.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by Father David
No. Much has been made of my statement about �hysteria.� I very carefully applied it only to �some posters,� in order to explain why I would prefer to have an objective rather than an �emotion-charged� discussion. It was not intended to apply to �all posters,� or �to all those who disagree with me,� or to �all anti-feminists.� In fact, earlier, the Administrator admitted that my observation was justified: �I agree that the issue is very emotional for some on both sides of the issue.� [Posted 03/05, 4:19 pm] In the meantime, I have been accused of �covering up,� �stone-walling,� living in an ivory tower, �dropping bombs and running off,� etc., which seem to be more serious than being emotional.
I will accept that Father David meant to only apply the charge of �hysteria� to certain Forum posters. I, too, would prefer to have an objective discussion of these issues. But to have such an objective discussion Father David, or someone who supports the Revised Divine Liturgy, needs to first provide a logical and well-documented support of his claims. On this particular issue � gender inclusive language � I and others have offered specific references of Vatican directives (such as Liturgiam Authenticam (offering both references and quotes in context and backing it up with posts quoting further directives from the Pro-Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship)). Father David has offered very oblique references and has not offered any demonstration as to why the Vatican is wrong and he is correct. In this discussion he has given a list of some quite excellent official documents speaking to the proper role of women. None of those documents speak to the issue of gender neutral language. And his opinions offered here are in clear opposition of both the letter and the spirit of directives like Liturgiam Authenticam. One can argue that LA does not focus on the Eastern Churches directly. One cannot argue that most of the directive is generic in nature, and built upon solid principles, both theological and scholarly. There are references in LA that speak to the East:

Quote
Liturgiam Authenticam:
87. It is recommended that there be a single translation of the liturgical books for each vernacular language, brought about by means of coordination among the Bishops of those regions where the same language is spoken. If this proves truly impossible because of the circumstances, the individual Conferences of Bishops, after consultation with the Holy See, may decide either to adapt a previously existing translation or to prepare a new one.
This seems pretty clear to me. A single translation of the liturgical books for each vernacular language. I see no circumstances that make this �truly impossible�, especially for all Ruthenian Greek Catholics.

Quote
Liturgiam Authenticam:
88. In the case of the Order of Mass and those parts of the Sacred Liturgy that call for the direct participation of the people, a single translation should exist in a given language, unless a different provision is made in individual cases.
A single translation in any given language. The reality, of course, is that there are numerous translations of the Divine Liturgy available in English. I can understand that it might take a decade to prepare a common translation and another generation to pastorally adopt it. But what need is there for not just a new translation of the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy but for a wholesale revision? As I have asked numerous times (without answer), just what is the thinking behind the idea that the liturgical needs of Ruthenian Greek Catholics are so vastly different than those of Ukrainian Greek Catholic parishes (think two parishes that sit across the street from one another) that the Ruthenian feel they need a complete revision to the Divine Liturgy, one with gender neutral language (given that what has been promulgated is in complete disagreement with the Vatican directives)?

Quote
Liturgiam Authenticam:
90. With due regard for Catholic traditions and for all of the principles and norms contained in this Instruction, an appropriate relationship or coordination is greatly to be desired, whenever possible, between any translations intended for common use in the various Rites of the Catholic Church�..
What overtures have been made to other Churches, both Greek Catholic and Orthodox, to work together on translations?

Quote
Liturgiam Authenticam:
91. A similar agreement is desirable also with the particular non-Catholic Eastern Churches or with the authorities of the Protestant ecclesial communities, provided that it is not a question of a liturgical text pertaining to doctrinal matters still in dispute, and provided also that the Churches or ecclesial communities involved have a sufficient number of adherents and that those consulted are truly capable of functioning as representatives of the same ecclesial communities. In order completely to avoid the danger of scandal or of confusion among the Christian faithful, the Catholic Church must retain full liberty of action in such agreements, even in civil law.
Since we are Eastern Catholics I dare say we could all agree that the part about working with the non-Catholic Eastern Churches should be the mode of operation for all translation committees? Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown highly praises the 1964 translation and keeps it on the holy table in his personal chapel. He has spoken publicly about working together. Why was this important directive of Liturgiam Authenticam ignored?

And I suppose I could quote again all the LA directives not to use gender neutral language, and how Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Retired Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, stated that omitting �the term 'men' has effects that are theologically grave. This text - 'For us and for our salvation' - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The 'us' thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive."

But I know from experience that the response will not be one giving chapter and verse from Liturgiam Authenticam, the Liturgical Instruction or anything else that is official and specific. These questions have been on the table for a long time now. And they remain unanswered.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 39
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 39
It seems to me that this entire issue could be settled if Fr. David, or someone, would simply say 'the final draft of the revised RDL was approved a committee composed of by Fr. Who, Bishop Did and Deacon It'. Since time was put into this no one should feel ashamed to stand up for what they did...should they?

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,134
Likes: 1
I hate to say it, but I feel that my Rusyn Greek Catholic brethren are stuck with the tragedy of the RDL. People are afraid to answer simple questions for fear of reprisal, to name names etc. Things are not changing.

I think the Admin brought up a good point in his last post. Two churches right across from each other. The simple solution is to walk right into that other church be it Ukrainian, Romanian, etc.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by PrJ
So you cannot argue that the Creed has been changed if language scholars tell you that the translation "for us ..." is an accurate translation of the original Greek.

Many language scholars do tell us that the omission of the term �man� is inaccurate, including those at the Vatican.

Again:
Quote
Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Retired Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship:
[The] tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text - "For us and for our salvation" - no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.
I could again quote Liturgiam Authenticam at length here but PrJ seems to reject it.

I could again note about how the Eparchial Synod of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America issued an official translation of the Creed that included the term �man� in �who for us men and our salvation� and specifically prohibited any other version. I suppose that Father John would not consider the Greeks to be Greek scholars of any note?

The issues here is that language scholars are human, too. Even a top notch scholar who has the Lord as the Master of his life is susceptible to influences from outside the Church. In this case we see a well intentioned embracement of a language style the Church has said not to use, making (unintentionally) a political statement with the Divine Liturgy. Pope John Paul�s Ex Corde Ecclesiae was addressed to universities, but its principles hold for translators, especially since they are scholars. It makes clear that scholars are accountable to the Church and the Christian faith. Liturgiam Authenticam is just such an attempt to hold translators accountable to the Church. It should be respected and not rejected.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
EdHash Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by mwbonline
It seems to me that this entire issue could be settled if Fr. David, or someone, would simply say 'the final draft of the revised RDL was approved a committee composed of by Fr. Who, Bishop Did and Deacon It'. Since time was put into this no one should feel ashamed to stand up for what they did...should they?

Fr. Who, Bishop Did and Deacon It could not be reached for comment.


Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202
A few reflections:

Mr. Hashinski�s most recent response shows how absolutely impossible dialogue can be on the Internet. I think it may be a function of the medium itself. In any case, we are certainly using the term �to speak in behalf of� in absolutely different ways. I say that I speak officially only when the bishops authorize me to do so - in newspaper articles, books published by the catechetical office, talks and workshops given to priests and catechists, etc. They have not authorized me to speak on the Byzantine Forum. Therefore, here I speak only in my own name, but how - how, I ask - does that make me speak with forked tongue???????? I give my honest opinion here, and I speak honestly when I speak officially and I say the same things. Only here, I am not going to speak for anyone else - bishop or co-worker. If you want their opinions, ask them. I will certainly give you my opinion. How difficult can this be? As for who authorized it - that is clear, the 2007 translation was authorized by the Council of Hierarchs after review by Rome - which found it in conformity with Eastern tradition. The names of the Council of Hierarchs are on public record. Mr. Hashinski, if you cannot accept that as an answer, I have no more to say. I�m certainly not going to make up a story that will satisfy your quest.

Mr. Vernoski is willing to accept my explanation of �hysterical posters.� He ignores the rest of my post, but goes on about how I am opposed to LA. Again, it takes us on a different track. It is true that I have reservations about some of the provisions of LA, but I do not thereby advocate �disobedience� to the Vatican. I certainly agree with LA�s principle of accurate translation, but I don�t think they got it entirely right. LA is seeking accuracy in translation, not the elimination, per se, of inclusive language, just inclusive language that they find inaccurate. As Peter Jeffrey put it, � ... its (LA) main motivation is not opposition to inclusive language as such - that is only a symptom of what its authors really want.� (Translating Tradition, p. 105) The fact is that another dicastery has approved the translation our church made and it has been duly promulgated in accordance with the Code of Canon Law. If I am to be obedient, I must follow what my bishops say, and I also have the right to defend them. Of course, he will say that the 2007 translation is �demonstrably wrong,� but that is only his opinion. I am not required by obedience to believe his opinion, and, to be blunt, I don�t believe it.

I am reading a very interesting and amusing book entitled �Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington.� It is subtitled �Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes.� Despite the light flavor, it is a very serious book - it talks about how politicians give a �spin� to their communications and pronouncements. I have found some of these tactics used on the Byzantine Forum. It�s kind of sad when secular political methods have to be used to deal with sacred things. That is why for peace of my soul, I probably should withdraw from this discussion for the rest of the Great Fast and Holy Week. It�s what my friends recommend.

I said that the Internet is not the place to discuss this issue. Some complain that it�s the only forum open to them. Unfortunately, I believe this Forum to have been misused. It has not provided enlightenment but only a field on which to attack the liturgical work of our Church. I read another article recently about anonymous posters on the Internet, �Anonymously Yours,� by Scott Lax in the magazine �Northern Ohio Live.� Not all the posters here are anonymous, but this article does give a caution about the Internet. Mr. Lax writes, �There�s a school of thought that says allowing anyone to post virtually anything is a move toward democratizing the media. But this is nonsense, and worse, dangerous. Democracy doesn�t arrive by linguistic bricks-through-the-windows, thrown by Anonymous - anarchy does.� I might substitute �enlightenment� for �democracy,� the same result.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 487
Originally Posted by Father David
I am reading a very interesting and amusing book entitled �Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington.� It is subtitled �Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes.� Despite the light flavor, it is a very serious book - it talks about how politicians give a �spin� to their communications and pronouncements. I have found some of these tactics used on the Byzantine Forum. It�s kind of sad when secular political methods have to be used to deal with sacred things.

Spin on communications and pronouncements? Does this have anything to do with your pronouncement on this forum that the RDL stood for 'Restored Divine Liturgy' instead of 'Revised Divine Liturgy'?

It would be interesting to hear how this is a restoration?

Monomakh

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 618
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by EdHash
Originally Posted by mwbonline
It seems to me that this entire issue could be settled if Fr. David, or someone, would simply say 'the final draft of the revised RDL was approved a committee composed of by Fr. Who, Bishop Did and Deacon It'. Since time was put into this no one should feel ashamed to stand up for what they did...should they?

Fr. Who, Bishop Did and Deacon It could not be reached for comment.

Call England and ask the Metropolitan Ware Fr. Who, Bishop Did, and Deacon It are? (though they may not comMENt, as that would be Patriarchal)

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Fr. David stated:

Quote
It�s kind of sad when secular political methods have to be used to deal with sacred things.

I think all the critics of the RDL will agree with you there!

May the rest of your Lent be blessed.


Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Quote
Quote:
A word has been dropped--I suspect because the translators would not dare to say "for us humans...[he] became human." The error is too obvious.


There is no error in this translation.

At least, perhaps, insofar as the translation goes. I am talking, however, about the word that was dropped!

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by mwbonline
It seems to me that this entire issue could be settled if Fr. David, or someone, would simply say 'the final draft of the revised RDL was approved a committee composed of by Fr. Who, Bishop Did and Deacon It'. Since time was put into this no one should feel ashamed to stand up for what they did...should they?

Just to be clear, the makeup of the "committee" has not been hidden, and if I recall correctly, has been posted before on this forum.

Intereparchial Liturgical Commission

Bishop Andrew

Bishop George

Rev. Msgr. Alexis E. Mihalik

Rev. Elias L. Rafaj

Rev. John S. Custer

Very Rev. Michael Mondak

Very Rev. Archpriest David M. Petras

Very Rev. Michael Hayduk

Rev. Robert M. Pipta

Rt. Rev. Mitered Archpriest Stephen G. Washko

+Msgr. Alan Borsuk

+ Msgr. William Levkulic



Intereparchial Music Commission

Bishop Andrew

Prof. J. Michael Thompson

Mr. Elias Zareva

Ms. Nicolette Boros

Rev. Robert Pipta

+Sir Knight Daniel J. Kavka


I have noted this and commented:
Originally Posted by ajk
The question here is, who got the ball rolling on the need for "inclusive" language and then who kept it going? We know the names of the committee; who informed the committee? What are the data, the facts for the information.

This has affected our Liturgy and creedal formulations.

Why is no one forthcoming to take credit? Now is not the time for a false sense of humility.

Dn. Anthony

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
EdHash Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by Father David
Mr. Hashinski�s most recent response shows how absolutely impossible dialogue can be on the Internet. I think it may be a function of the medium itself. In any case, we are certainly using the term �to speak in behalf of� in absolutely different ways. I say that I speak officially only when the bishops authorize me to do so - in newspaper articles, books published by the catechetical office, talks and workshops given to priests and catechists, etc. They have not authorized me to speak on the Byzantine Forum. Therefore, here I speak only in my own name, but how - how, I ask - does that make me speak with forked tongue???????? I give my honest opinion here, and I speak honestly when I speak officially and I say the same things. Only here, I am not going to speak for anyone else - bishop or co-worker. If you want their opinions, ask them. I will certainly give you my opinion. How difficult can this be? As for who authorized it - that is clear, the 2007 translation was authorized by the Council of Hierarchs after review by Rome - which found it in conformity with Eastern tradition. The names of the Council of Hierarchs are on public record. Mr. Hashinski, if you cannot accept that as an answer, I have no more to say. I�m certainly not going to make up a story that will satisfy your quest.

Dear Father David,

Thank you for your response. However, you still failed to state WHO were so successfull in pushing inclusive language. The members of the committee are given immediately above. Are you saying THEY came up with the idea of introducing inclusive language? Did the idea start there?

I too have read about spin, but in the church, especially in regards to pedophilia and homosexuality in the church ranks. The first strategy is to make those who complain or ask about it look like idiots; shoot down the victims. If possible, they will then demand that clergy get psychological evaluations *for the record* as a tactic to tar and feather them for good before giving the troublemakers the boot. The only time churches finally fess up, pay up, and devise a *policy* about the children is when legal fees and lawsuits are slapped on them, which is probably whey no one will have to ever know WHO was the ones successfull in pushing for the inclusive language. No lawsuits pending here. But the faithful have the church committees and leaders to thank for allowing such perverts to get through to ordination. This is just not in the Catholic Churches though. I read about the OCA having its troubles too. The point I wish to make is that certain criteria are set forth despite the complaints from the people regarding decisions that will only cause trouble and alienate. But the church leaders and committees know better and render their decisions. Disaster then comes forth causing bitter divisions and lots of lost $$$.

*Spin* can go both ways. However, unanswered questions are not spin; they are just questions left unanswered.

I apologize if my questions have become quite upsetting to your sentiments of late. Ignore the bit about who speaks on behalf of who, wheither at one time you speak on behalf of here for one reason, but refuse to speak on behalf of there on another. It seems to me that you pick and choose your times to speak as a representative.

My questions still remain about WHO pushed for and successfully got inclusive language in the Byzantine Catholic RDL hymnal? Obviously, they are letting you take the rap for it by remaining silent and behind the scenes. In this, I feel compassion for you.

Ed

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by ajk
We have in scripture, in the liturgy, in the creed, the word Adam/anthropos/homo/chelovik. The proper use of that word results in a multitude of theologically significant dots that we can connect. Change or erase the dots, and the possible links, the connections are lost; meaning is lost; intent is lost; beauty is lost; mystery is lost.

For this example, we have a word that does the best job of being a dot in English, especially if one accepts standard English usage. That word is Man. Show me a better one, and that it functions as consistently throughout scripture, liturgy and creed, and I will gladly give it every consideration.

To further run with the thought and compare with RDL usage:

The Lover of Mankind, for us Men (cf. the Creed), became Man,"appeared on earth and lived among men," to lift up Man/ADAM(Man in Hebrew), by suffering under Pilate who said of Him "Behold the Man" even as He, Jesus, referred to Himself as the Son of Man as in KJ Mark 2:28 "Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath," of which He says NKJ Mark 2:27 "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath," etc.


From the RDL:

The one who loves us all, for us us all (cf. the Creed), became ... uhhh... Pittsburgh, we have a problem.

Dn. Anthony


Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by PrJ
Certainly, not everyone who opposes the RDL is abusive towards women or does so because of some hidden (to them) patriarchal and/or domineering attitudes towards women.
Exactly!!! This would certainly not be the case with my wife and the other wonderful women that I know and love who oppose the atrocious neutered language of the RDL.
Originally Posted by PrJ
Are there some people who oppose the RDL for these reasons? I would imagine that there are.

How can you imagine this? You do not read hearts.
Originally Posted by PrJ
But it is not my place to make that decision.
Exactly!



Page 8 of 15 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5