www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy What's Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations

No. I understand.
No. A small minority commission with an agenda decided to gender neutralize the Divine Liturgy and it was forced on the people. That was the crux of my disappointment.
I can assure you it is also the language/translations. You seem to imply that the laity have an ego issue. But I say that the Roman Catholic Church has shown us the example of what can happen when political correctness (ie; gender neutralization) infects the Church--and it was unfathomable that the Ruthenian Catholic Church copied their example.
I believe you are mistaken.
Absolutely. And gender neutralized language would have no part of the equation.

People will tend to rebel a bit when non-organic changes in the Divine Liturgy are jammed down their throats.
Very sad indeed.
I have often seen, (by members of this forum), the justification for gender neutralized language as a response to the oppression of women. This oppression is often compared to the era of slavery and discrimination. As opposed as I am to discrimination of any kind, I do not believe for one second that the pre-RDL had discriminatory or offensive language.

But what I see now is quite offensive and insulting to men and women.

God bless you

R

Yes, which would not have to include inclusive language. Things like internet radio, webinars, blogs....etc. We might actually get somewhere with some of this technology.

But, the people in the so-called ivory tower have to come down off the throne and admit they haven't a clue as to how this all works, and could someone from the laity please explain this to them. That's an internal shift we, sadly, have not yet reached. I hope we will in my lifetime!

With all these words, I fail to see what actually justified gender neutralization in Scripture and the liturgy.

At one point, the poor laity and these huddled masses of humanity outside the church, could not be expected to understand that "mankind" could possibly include women. More recently the laity are so well educated in the pews that they've apparently been educated beyond basic usage of the English language that the same linguistic subtlety is lost to their ears. I wonder that I'm the only one confused by that one.

perhaps one and the same problem exists between both groups: wholesale acceptance of the prevailing secular value system - a system the Church is to instruct and transform. And if the Church can't ask a people to open their minds to the once standard grammar of their own mother tongue I wonder how the she can expect them to swallow something as difficult and foreign as the Kingdom of God.

No one is getting evangelized if everyone's afraid they might actually be "salt" for the earth and provide something other than the bland same-old worldview that's so prevalent.

Regards,
Mike J.

I get the feeling that folks are being very emotional about liturgical changes, and that the gender-neutral renderings are becoming the whipping-boy for a broader range of discontent.

As someone older, what amazes me is the fact that lay people are venting on this in public. Under the "old" canon law (1923) that I grew up with, no one without a pontifical degree in theology could express a public opinion on church matters that were reserved to the bishop without the 'nihil obstat' and the 'imprimatur' if it were printed on paper. The person was interdicted, forbidden the sacraments, and 'cut off' until the bishop reversed the interdict.

With the current liturgical 'changes', under the old system one did not have the right to do or say anything except talking with the pastor or writing to the bishop.

As Stephanie notes, we now have a multitude of ways of communicating, from web-pages, to blogs, to e-mail blasts, etc. to express alternative views. (But I think the rule about 'printed' books still obtains.) How many 'traditionalists' would be willing to go back to this kow-towing that is reminiscent of monarchical/royal Western European mindset?

I think accusing the proposers of changes that they believe layfolks are too benighted to understand that "mankind" applies to women also, as well as the idea that people in the pews have been "educated beyond basic usage of the English language that the same linguistic subtlety is lost to their ears" is a real insult. That's clearly not the issue. English speakers know that "thou" and "thee" are singular 2nd person pronouns (subjecive and objective case usage) refering to "you" singular. ("You" was originally plural only.) Be we don't use them anymore - not since the 18th century. Nor should we try to re-instate them. It ain't gonna happen.

The issue is: loving care for everyone - and if that includes changing language or customs, then so be it.

Let me make a parable: I can tell my spouse, mother, Grandma, etc. that I love her. Fine. But if, when she comes home, the laundry is done or the vacuuming is done, or there are some flowers by her place at the dining room table, I've said more than just "I love you". Or if a woman comes in and has some snacks for the man and his friends on game day, or gets him something from Home Depot that he wants, or gets some massage oil or Icy-Hot to squeeze out the tightened muscles in the shoulders, it's more than just "I love you". It's the extra step. Same with using 'both-gender' terms. It's a way of saying not just: "I love you", but the little extra. Screaming feminism of the 60s aside (most of them are dead), doing something extra to tell women that they ARE the Church seems just like the right thing to do. Like the laundry, but more lasting!

If it's good enough for the home, it's good enough for the Church. And I don't think God would mind our going the extra step. Finding new ways to tell people: "I really love you" seems to be following in Christ's footsteps.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

There is not a flock of sheep in the world that would follow even the best shepherd over a cliff and into the abyss. Such legalistic interpretations of episcopal/laity relations is a relatively new innovation, and is quite foreign to the Eastern perspective. One merely has to look at the actions of the laity in regards to the infamous Council of Florence. It was the laity, and one (1) bishop alone, St Mark of Ephesus, that saved the Church. The same thing can be said for the laity at the time of the forced imposition of liturgical reforms by Patriarch Nikon. Many chose martyrdom over the defiling of the Faith. And to many of us, what we see in so-called "gender-neutral" language, is nothing more than the defiling of the faith. Some, in their naivety may see something good. But to those who have been around, it is nothing less than the icy claw of satan come in the form of an attack from the "right hand".

Alexandr

From the time of the early Middle Ages in the West, when �vox populi, vox Dei� was in vogue, there has been an inexorable and constant push towards hierarchization of the Church. Bishops also became �princes of the Church� in the old countries with monarchies; and they thought they were princes in places where there was no royalty. And they governed the people with this mindset.

This is not a relatively new innovation. Nor is it new in the East. Early councils of bishops compiled a boatload of canons for church governance. �The Rudder� was not compiled some Sunday afternoon when a monk had nothing else to do. And the strictures placed upon the people were many, and the release from them came from the bishop and the bishop alone.

The main point in the above post seems to reference �defiling the Faith�. The question is: who gets to define the faith? In one view, it is the synod/council of bishops; in another view, it is the bishops along with the faithful. And when there is conflict, how should it be resolved? Each side obviously has its own answer.

Some saw 1918 European Russians leaving the jurisdiction of Moscow for political reasons as a defiling of the faith by ignoring the canons; some Easterners saw leaving communion with the See of Peter for political reasons as a defilement of the Faith; others saw the introduction of the vernacular in a given area as a defilement; others saw the mandate of celibacy for diocesan clergy as a defilement, while others saw a married clergy as an abomination against centuries of legitimate church discipline. Some see women changing altar linens as a defilement, while others see it as perfectly appropriate �diakonia�. Some see waiting for the Jews to celebrate Passover before having Pascha as a defilement of the faith and a violation of the canons, others see it as �appropriate� to acknowledge the Jews.

It all depends on who is doing the definition of �the Faith�. And it also depends on what one means by �the Faith�. There is general agreement that the Creeds and the canon of Scripture are the essentials of �the Faith', and pretty much set in stone.

But how far down the chain of beliefs and customs can one legitimately go without going outside the legitimate Faith and degenerating into archaism? (There were serious disagreements in the East about the legitimacy of using electric lights in church. Even in the U.S. Is it OK to use an electric hot-plate to heat the teplota, or does it have to be a flame? And what about pilgrimage/shrine churches that draw hundreds or thousands of pilgrims: do we have to use candles or can we use those little electric �candle-lights� to avoid carbonizing the icons on the walls? Does the bishop�s rug-let have to be lambs-wool, or can it be easily laundered polyester?) After a while, this can lead to spats and schisms � and madness.

As for gender-neutral language being: �the icy claw of satan come in the form of an attack from the "right hand", this is just totally out of proportion. It sounds more like something out of �World of Warcraft� or some demonic video game than the Gospel of Christ.

Demonizing something in order to get people to reject it may seem artful, and may work with some benighted folks, but when it is examined in rational discourse, the trick is revealed. And to suggest, without providing any supporting evidence, that other people are �na�ve� if they disagree with the presenter�s determination is, in many ways, both unchristian and insulting.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Dear John,

What you say in regards to the hierarchization of the West, is in some part, true. However, this is not and was not the case in the East. Even with the imperial courts of both Russia and Byzantium, the episcopacy were not regarded as princes. I can only speak of first hand knowledge of the Slavic tradition. But our bishops, although the arbitrators of the faith, are not the keepers of the faith. That role belongs to the laity, the Church corporeal. In the Slavic tradition, bishops are referred to as "Vladika", an endearing term for master, implying a loving father never as "Gosudar" or "Knaz".

As it is the beginning of Holy Week, I have not the time to go into a lengthy discourse. But might I suggest that you look into the concept of Sobornost. A good source is Khomiakov's "The Church Is One". http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/church_is_one_e.htm

Vladimir Lossky, in "The Mystical Theology Of The Eastern Church" writes:
The catholicity of the Church, far from being the privilege of any one see or specific centre, is realized rather in the richness and multiplicity of the local traditions which bear witness unanimously to a single Truth: to that which is preserved always, everywhere and by all. Since the Church is catholic in all her parts, each one of her members�not only the clergy but also each layman�is called to confess and to defend the truth of tradition; opposing even the bishops should they fall into heresy. A Christian who has received the gift of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of the Holy Chrism must have a full awareness of his faith: he is always responsible for the Church. Hence the restless and sometimes agitated character of the ecclesiastical life of Byzantium, of Russia and of other countries in the Orthodox world. This, however, is the price paid for a religious vitality, an intensity of spiritual life which penetrates the whole mass of believers, united in the awareness that they form a single body with the hierarchy of the Church.

St. John of Damascus: "Let us be firm, my brothers, on the rock of faith, in the tradition of the Church, and not remove or change the boundaries established by our Holy Fathers. Let us close the road to innovators and not permit them to demolish the structure of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God. If we allow, however, the introduction of any innovation, we unconsciously support the collapse of the Church. No, my brothers, you who love Christ, no, you children of the Church, you will never want to surround your Mother Church with confusion." (Concerning Images III.41)

St. Photios the Great: "In matters of the Faith even a small deviation is a sin that leads to death" (Epistle II, "To Pope Nicholas I"); and "for even a slight disregard for traditions is wont to lead to complete contempt for dogma" (Epistle XIII, "Encyclical to the Archiepiscopal Thrones of the East").

St. Augustine: "Let there be no innovations, because innovations defile antiquity. For the Bridegroom and His Bride, the Church, are without blemish."

As to your comments on "World of Warcraft", I have no clue as to what you are speaking of. But, to dismiss the attacks of the evil one on Christ's Church as some sort of trick, all Christians should find both unChristian and insulting.

Alexandr

Indeed, many insulting things have been said in this forum thread. But when I read comments discussing how we need to use language that "the ordinary folk at the mall use and understand" and also see comments that the waaaaaaaaay educated lay faithful should have input to disagree... well, forgive me if that doesn't sound like trying to have it both ways.

In reminding myself of what it was that was said I wonder that an important distinction is not being made between what one speaks at the mall and what one speaks at the liturgy. But more to the point is what I said above: there are no examples (in this thread at least) of substantive arguments *for* gender neutralization in the liturgy. The only arguments offered involve the fluffy feelings of love and openness. Well, if fluffy feelings and happy thoughts were the prime motive of Christ's incarnation to this earth, the Catholic Church would have declared all those doctrinal divisions between Christian brothers optional and we could all sing Kumbayah together. The fact of the matter is that love in not really love if it is not accompanied by truth (Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and God is Love - inseparable). So: what is the truth in this matter of gender?

Sadly, when I suggested that maybe we should really try and understand what it is that gender means in liturgy and language, it is dismissed as small t tradition. Oh really? What argument backs that up? Is the liturgy really gender neutral in all aspects? We do, after all, have language in scripture calling the Church a BRIDE and Christ the BRIDEGROOM. It's part of the basis of a male priesthood which is definitely an aspect of the liturgy. It's in Scripture and Tradition so that looks like a very large T to me. There hasn't been an attempt to probe these facts and discern what implications it could have on the rest of the language used. Nor has there been an attempt at discerning what *could* be meant by allowing femininity to be incorporated into the generic "man" term. Maybe that's complementarity at work with my masculinity being incorporated into a feminine Church? Or maybe it could be used to bring to mind the original solitude (again, read JP2's theology of the body) of the original Man ("adam") before God. Probably even more than is being listed in this paltry set of rhetorical suggestions.

What I'm suggesting is that the language of Scripture, Tradition and liturgy (which is part of big T tradition in many, though not all, aspects) - that this language should be treated more like an ICON. Instead, I see reductionism and atomism at work forcing precise and sterile "blessed is he or she who" sorts of ideas that remove all ambiguity, tension, and beautiful Mystery from something God has handed us because we, in our arrogance, think we can absorb it in one simple rendering if we can only get it right.

That I, a Western Christian by rite, am suggesting the Easterners use "icon" more broadly is quite baffling to me, but there it is. What is the world coming to? Avoid this latinization in language.

Peace and many prayers,
Mike J.

From the previous post of Slavipodvizhnik:

�But our bishops, although the arbitrators of the faith, are not the keepers of the faith. That role belongs to the laity, the Church corporeal. In the Slavic tradition, bishops are referred to as "Vladika", an endearing term for master, implying a loving father never as "Gosudar" or "Knaz".�

Sort of true; the East never went through the Empire Building in the way that the Western Church did. Although in the Byzantine court, the roles of the ecclesiastics were quite pronounced. But �master� and �loving father� are not, in my lexicon, equivalent.

Apropos Lossky, his comments refer to �heresy� as the quotation provides. His sense of �preservation� that is provided �everywhere and by all� refers to heretical understandings of the mysteries of salvation. It would apply to heretical ideas like Mary as the �co-mediatrix of salvation� when the church clearly teaches that Christ, and Christ alone, is responsible for our salvation. But for issues like crossing from right to left or from left to right, this is not an element of �the Faith� or of salvation. And I�m sure that Lossky would not condone schism as a result of a minor practice like this, although there are many who would consider this a call to arms.

He himself speaks of the �richness and multiplicity of the local traditions which bear witness unanimously to a single Truth�. And if a �local tradition� should decide to use �gender neutral� language where possible to ratify inclusiveness, then should the Church decide to cut these communities off and abnegate them, and condemn them to hell?

When dealing with translations from one language to another, there is no universal calculus for rendering. There can�t be because each language has its own genius. And language evolves over time. (The scriptural �awful� of the 17th century is �awesome� in the latter 20th and 21st centuries.)

And everybody, both episcopal, clerical and lay, has an obligation to defend the Church against heretical innovations. But, for �non de-fide� elements in defining the �Faith�, isn�t getting exorcised a hyper-reaction, and more in line with an ecclesiastical tantrum than a matter of �the Faith� as necessary for salvation?

You quote St. John of Damascene: �Let us be firm, my brothers, on the rock of faith, in the tradition of the Church, and not remove or change the boundaries established by our Holy Fathers. Let us close the road to innovators and not permit them to demolish the structure of the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of God. If we allow, however, the introduction of any innovation, we unconsciously support the collapse of the Church. No, my brothers, you who love Christ, no, you children of the Church, you will never want to surround your Mother Church with confusion." (Concerning Images III.41)

Our Holy Father among the Saints is referring here to a major element of whether �images� (and also symbols) should be allowed in the churches. Clearly, the Council stated that images were totally permissible � with the caveat that they are understood as �windows� to the other side, and NOT as objects of devotion themselves. That would be idolatry. (The opposite of the Islamics who won�t allow any type of �image� of Mohammed.)

Your quote from St. Photios the Great is most telling: "In matters of the Faith even a small deviation is a sin that leads to death" (Epistle II, "To Pope Nicholas I"); and "for even a slight disregard for traditions is wont to lead to complete contempt for dogma" (Epistle XIII, "Encyclical to the Archiepiscopal Thrones of the East").

He states �in matters OF THE FAITH�. This is a reference to both the Creed and to the practices of the sacraments. It does NOT involve anything lesser than this. Surely amending the Creed, or the central elements of the sacraments is a serious step. But rendering translations (a tedious and painstaking job!) does not rise anywhere near attempts to change the Creed or the root understanding of the sacraments. And to suggest that minor practices like left-to-right or right-to-left, or immersing vs. pouring water, or leavened vs. unleavened bread is absolutely essential to salvation is to go beyond the pale of the core elements of salvation.

Our Lord�s own words tell us that the Old Testament is fulfilled and that the new mandate is to love God and one�s neighbor. While preserving the core elements of the Creed(s) and the sacraments AS LIVING PRACTICES, we are to use the love God/love Neighbor as the touchstones for our lives. What is the point of instituting new criteria that parallel the Old Testament Torah and Talmud mandates? Are we going to banish Christians because they say �Blessed are they who�.� rather than �Blessed is the man who�.� Sounds like the Old Testament stuff that Christ Himself said was no longer viable.

We need to both READ and MEDITATE COLLECTIVELY on the Gospels to guide the church. And then pray that the Holy Spirit guide us collectively.

The Gospels are the �cake�; all the rest is just frosting that can be knifed off and replaced.

You note: �As to your comments on "World of Warcraft", I have no clue as to what you are speaking of.�

I�m astounded; Your profile says: �Third Rome�, whatever or wherever that may be. The church knows of �Old Rome� in Italy, and the �New Rome� where the Emperor (and the Church moved) in Byzantium. Third Rome? Doesn�t ecclesiastically or canonically exist. My suspicion is that you are an American because of your excellent English language style. That you are very computer literate is clear. So to be unaware of �World of Warcraft� and other internet phenomena strikes me as dissembling.

I don�t for a second dismiss �the attacks of the evil one on Christ's Church�, but I am aware and sincere enough to suspect when I am being scammed by someone who is most likely a very computer literate, adolescent or 20-something North American who has an axe to grind, who demonizes those who are opposed, is unwilling to actually stand up and be identified, and who is unwilling to DIRECTLY address issues both scripturally or canonically one by one without condemnation.

Have a fantastic Palm Sunday and a prayerful and penitential Holy/Great Week.

Dr John

Brother Mike J comments:

�Indeed, many insulting things have been said in this forum thread. But when I read comments discussing how we need to use language that "the ordinary folk at the mall use and understand" and also see comments that the waaaaaaaaay educated lay faithful should have input to disagree... well, forgive me if that doesn't sound like trying to have it both ways.�

In linguistics, a person is trained to analyze how language is used. It�s descriptive, not prescriptive. If a person is using language to transmit a certain idea, a linguist can say: �that corresponds to how the language is used in region X at time Y� or �no, that language doesn�t correspond to how the majority of people use the language�. It is up to the recipient of the information to decide whether to accept the information or not.

Mike�s statement: �what one speaks at the mall and what one speaks at the liturgy� can be an important distinction. As for examples, one must decide: use the language as the people use it now, OR decide to use some other (older) manifestation of the language. This is a choice. The language should be both contemporary and dignified - while I love Chaucer and Shakespeare, their idioms aren't going to work to communicate a Gospel message. And the language of the 'reality shows' isn't exactly an appropriate mode either. It will take real work.

The note: �the fluffy feelings of love and openness� is a subjective judgement. �Love and openness� seem to be the characteristics of Christ�s dealings with the people whom He met. Calling them �fluffy� is certainly a subjective perspective; and a backhanded condemnation of Christ�s �love� and �openness�, as �fluffy� seems to tell the Master what for!!

�The fact of the matter is that love in not really love if it is not accompanied by truth (Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and God is Love - inseparable)� Is this from the Scriptures, or a personal compilation/aggregation of texts?

There is no question that Christ referred to Himself as the Way, Truth and the Life. It appears to be a statement of His being the Messiah. But it is elsewhere in the Gospels that His teaching is brought forth: �This is the first and the greatest commandment �.love God� and the second commandment is love your neighbor as yourself, for this is the summation of the Torah and the Prophets.� Totally different context; totally different message; totally different pericope.

�What I'm suggesting is that the language of Scripture, Tradition and liturgy (which is part of big T tradition in many, though not all, aspects) - that this language should be treated more like an ICON.�

There is a problem here. Scripture stands by itself as a foundation of faith. Adding �Tradition� (either big or small t) is later Western theology, and is wrong � it isn�t even in the same ballpark as Scripture. Traditions certainly served to preserve the people and the Church during times of persecution - and the East experienced that in Aces - from the bad Emperors, to the Crusaders, to the Mohammedan onslaughts.

To add liturgy to the list is not only out of the ballpark, it is off the planet. The liturgy has evolved thorough MULTIPLE incarnations and through multiple ethnic and cultural revisions. Its evolution keeps the liturgists more than busy!

Going back to the Gospel, we are mandated to �love God� and �love our neighbor� to the best of our ability. If we are unwilling to take a step back and truly look at how we human beings can fulfill God�s mandate, then we are just deceiving ourselves. Hitching our salvation to anything but Christ's Gospel teaching is buying a worthless insurance policy.

The idea of �don�t change anything lest we lose what we have� is certainly a valid perspective. But I propose that it doesn�t allow the church to move. And if the Church doesn�t move within the ever changing universe of people and the environment, then we�re just a museum and not the evangelical �go into the highways and byways� that Christ mandated for His apostles and disciples.

We need to read the Gospel, pray like maniacs, invoke the Holy Spirit and GET OUT THERE to reach all of humanity in whatever way we can engage them.

Blessings to All!

Dr John

Dear John,

My, what protestant (or possibly Jesuit) seminary teaches that lovely little bit of Protestant theology? Can't be Catholic or Orthodox, as it is in direct contradiction to 2000 years of teaching.

As to your attempted characterization of me, well lets just say that the prognosis for a successful career as a diagnostician for yourself is poor to dire at best, as you are quite wrong on all accounts.

As I previously mentioned, it is now Holy Week, and I won't get into this now. But I will be back after Pascha to present the Orthodox position on this issue.

Alexandr (Hardly unwilling to actually stand up and be identified)

Dr. John,
Till now I have demured from really questioning what faith background had produced the thoughts I've been reading in your posts knowing that Catholicism admits a very large and wide base of people. Still, some of your comments strike me as odd. Of course, on a certain level such differences don't matter, but expecting to have a discourse on something as soundly Catholic/Orthodox as the Divine Liturgy or the interrelationship of Scripture and Tradition and their transmission through the ages requires a, well, mutual starting point that I think was assumed rather than established.

Aside from Alexandr's comment regarding the gospels (which suggests a rather narrow "canon within a canon" approach which was Luther's innovation), I wonder how you can preferentially place Scripture the way you do and not see the fundamental... tension let us say, that exists between this position and Catholic teaching.

The Church differentiates between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium but they are co-equal in importance, though unique in their own rights. When the Church expounds on the topic, they refer to it all under the heading of "Divine Revelation" first, which is transmitted through the Magisterium, but existed *first* as Traditions and later written down in an inspired form as Scripture. Scripture is the word of God. We know what Scripture is via Tradition, not apart from it. The authoritative voice on both is the Magisterium. Three legs on one stool, as it were.

the Second Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, puts it thus:
DV 10

So while many people do preferentially place Scripture outside Tradition, they are not thinking with the "mind of the Church" or perhaps with "the Spirit of Vatican II" when they do so.

Likewise, it seems a small concession that you should admit that
Well this does seem odd since the liturgy is the title of the forum and the Revised Divine LITURGY is what has most people speaking up here. That is, it's an assumption for most of us that it has taken this long to be conceded. It was directly addressed in a recent document from the Holy See on translation for the liturgy:

Liturgiam Authenticam under Vocabulary

Your frequent reliance on popular references to cell phones or the like for increasing the understandability of the language comes to mind as an exaggerated dependence on modern modes.

It specifically addresses issues of gender as well:
LA under Gender

And here's the issue that I brought up above: that there maybe sound theological reasons behind retaining phrases like "blessed is the man" like the "clear notion of man as a unitary, inclusive and corporate yet truly personal figure". The Church's teaching office says that changes *may* be made if these sound theological reasons are understood. I think we're all sorely lacking and the general trend I've seen in gender neutral translations (TNIV comes to mind) is just to apply across-the-board changes.

Once married to the gender-neutral ideology, I can appreciate why the largely Protestant translators of TNIV and other works *have* to be across the board, lest they admit of the need for an authoritative teaching office to discern when each change is appropriate or not. We're not married to such an ideology as Catholics and we *do* have a teaching office to answer these questions. I wonder whether a thorough theological study of each instance in the RDL was carried out and where I can read their findings?

As for the importance of the liturgy in all this, well, this again is something that Catholics and, I think I can say the Orthodox as well, take for granted but may strike others as not so obvious. In the Sacred Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, the liturgy is placed in the same paragraph as the narration of salvation history along with the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost and the death and resurrection of Christ Himself (6). More to the point it states:
SC 10

Further it states:
SC 21

Now, when it states that parts of the liturgy are "divinely instituted", that's big T tradition right there which is right on par with Scripture as part of Divine Revelation. It goes on to say that elements should change if they need to, and I don't think anyone here is saying that we should *never* change those parts which may, rather we are saying that gender neutrality is "out of harmony with the inner nature of the liturgy" and is "unsuited to it". Sadly, there is no exclusive listing of what is and isn't divinely instituted in the liturgy, but this is why people have theology degrees and think about this stuff - which is why I asked the questions above.

Dr John, you write:
which is the point I was trying to make: that the ideologically motivated gender neutrality is purely subjective as has been most of the arguments you have presented thus far. I guess this was not clear in how I wrote it, but now it has been rectified. The problem of modern America is that many of us *think* we know what love is but have mistaken something else for it. Which is why I use truth as an indicator of whether love is actually present. The note I make is two elements of Scripture brought together in a fashion that some of the Father's of the Church did when reading Scripture, namely, I took John 14:6 and 1 John 4:16 and drew the conclusion that if Christ is God, tells us that He is the Truth and another part of Scripture tells me that God is also love, and that God is an inseparable unity of persons, then Truth and Love are inseparable from one another.

So here's an example: it doesn't make other Christians feel good, or feel "included" when I tell them that the Catholic Church is the fullness of the faith and the are deficient unless visibly united with it. That's tough stuff to say and be quite sure I don't usually say it so bluntly so don't key in on that. The point is, it's not loving my neighbor if I withhold this truth from them because they are just as deserving of the fullness of the faith and God that I enjoy as a Catholic and sharing this with them is loving them. When Jesus forgave the adulterous woman, yes He approached her with love and openness and compassion. But he also followed the meeting saying, "Go and sin no more". Tough cookies for a woman who probably derived her entire income and well-being from her profession. Lying about something will never be loving a person, despite popular notions of "white lies". Neither has the Church shied away from this position as evidenced by such documents like Dominus Iesus which reiterated Jesus Christ's centrality in salvation viz world religions.

If the liturgy is changed and loses subtleties in the language (like the unitary and inclusive nature of man) then the liturgy is failing to transmit the fullness of the faith. It becomes less than it should be because of a shortsighted dependence on an ideology and a shortsighted vision of what love really is. Most of the people on this forum thread see the problem in that - see the importance of the liturgy and are worried that the RDL will be shortchanging themselves, converts and future generations of the riches they've been accustomed to as a matter of course. That's a Catholic sensibility regarding the liturgy at work which even our Orthodox brethren can sympathize with. Protestants are usually the only folks who can dissociate the worship services they attend from the transmission of "faith".

Which brings me to the first point when you say:

You have been prescribing a method of using language (gender neutrality and modern modes) in the liturgy instead of describing how language is already used in liturgy (e.g. man as "unitary, inclusive and corporate yet truly personal figure"). Perhaps this stems from not seeing the liturgy as the truly Other-Worldly event that Catholics and Orthodox take it to be. Whatever the reason, you have a lot of people on this thread telling you that your ideas of language do not correspond to the way we use language in the Liturgy's X and current time = Y.

Peace,
Mike J.

boy I hate writing 2000 word replies...

I agree with Mike J.

This is not well thought out , nor can I write as eloquently but here is an example in scripture where "common language" change, or distort its meaning, (and actually me being a commoner have no idea what they are trying to say and confused by it)

please keep in mind I do not want to offend anyone
that's is I will not type here what is in one of the bibles that I have. I do not know why it bugs me the way that it is written?

Genesis
Ch.18
verse 11-13

Good News Bible
by American Bible Society

march 10, 1993

Pres. of Nat'l Conference of Catholic Bishpos

Rachael

Tell that to all the men and women I know who are offended and insulted by the institution of gender neutral language.
Nobody is screaming anything. We are realists. We know what has been done and we are not pleased.

BTW--Most of the 60's radicals are not dead. In fact, they are now in positions of authority.