There was a great deal of sociological rubbish which was the reason for the distortion of the language of the new Creed and other parts of the once Divine Liturgy. Here is some of the nonsense:




http://www.davidpetras.com/page/response (my comments in red)

The irony behind all of this is that in order to proclaim the gospel, of which the Creed is a summary, to "all those female peoples," the Creed has been distorted for the “outsider.” I believe, with St. Paul, that we are not to conform ourselves to this age, but rather we are to be transformed, transfigured if you will, "by the renewal of our minds" so that we "may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." This does not sound like an invitation to distort the Creed to fit the modern lifestyle.

Language, like the air we breath can be polluted. The text of the world of which Father David speaks has indeed been distorted. He believes he has pinpointed the cause: “In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments.” Have gender roles really changed? I say not. Have they been ignored, passed over and distorted? Absolutely. This new language has been "cultivated" in a society where pleasure is the highest good for man.

Whatever advances mankind has made since the time of the Enlightenment, it has certainly failed to recognize the truth of Genesis: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply...” In the land of plenty we are doing the opposite.

While we can often decry the horrors under which many of the faithful suffered under the communists and the Nazis, the Church has been consumed in this country about issues of “gender roles” and "gender language" while babies are murdered by the millions every year. When was the last time you saw your Bishop at an abortion clinic decrying the murder of millions? When did he last preach about this heinous crime which no man of good-will could ever support through some so called right? Abortion of course followed quickly upon contraception which is accepted by many who profess to be Catholic though it is clearly a teaching from which no Catholic can dissent without separating himself from the Church. When was the last time your Bishop preached the truth that the most fundamental sacrament, marriage, is ordered to new life? Many Byzantine parishes are dying because there are so few new members. The distortions of the language and culture continue to degenerate as "gay" marriage is now creeping into the legal and daily fabric of our times. And unfortunately the new Creed and Liturgy have driven many out of the temple who actually respect and welcome the true teaching about why God created man male and female.

The world’s language is ultimately a rejection of the truth about God’s plan for man and the perfection of that world which is in the God-man, Jesus Christ and his Bride, the Church. The world might indeed walk away from an authentic Creed. But the world always has done so. It is not our job to change the Creed to fit the world. Rather it is ours to preach the gospel so that world will learn the truth about the intimate love God has for man:

And here is a good article about Alexander Solzhenitsyn's address at Harvard which sees the sociological rubbish for what it is:



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15417&R=13BB019386

The 60's may have been the apparent unraveling of traditional society but it was the previous generation or two who set the stage.

The depression had such a profound effect that parents wanted to be sure that their children would not have to experience such hardships and showered them with opportunity and lessened life's normal sacrifices.

In WW II the country became of one mind and all opposition was unthinkable to American society (therefore the herding of Japanese Americans in "concentration" camps (exaggeration mine). If you listen to and watch WWII cartoons, programs and movies you will agree that the nationalistic propaganda was overwhelming, stifling all opposing thought. This was the parent of the 50's exaggerated fear of American Communists (McCarthyism).
Then came the liberation from war, from worries and a turn to economic opportunity and such extravagant spending on material goods that it was necessary to ration and create waiting lists! The showering of opportunities and freedoms of parents to their children nurtured the "liberation" of the young generation and grew to rejection of old values.

God's servant Alexander Solzhenitsyn had much truth to expose and is a 20th century hero, but I think that relating the Revised Divine Liturgy to Solzhenitsyn's warnings is a bit too much.

I agree. There has been enough drama on this subject to embarrass a soap opera writer. Much of it by people who don't even belong to the Byzantine Church of America. What their loss was in all this is beyond me.

Except of course when you look at the reasons why the author of the RDL wanted the linguistic changes that he made. For these see my original post. The author of the RDL and Solzhenitsyn both see sociological change, but analyze it in different ways. I'd say Solzhenitsyn sees the truth of the matter. As the author noted, the Harvard speech anticipates political correctness.

As to why I care, I am Rusyn by birth and made a change of Rites to my mother's ritual Church on the encouragement of a Ruthenian Bishop who said that the Ruthenians had the tradition I was seeking.

There are two change to the Creed, first was a de-Latinization of the Creed, the removal of a serious theological (some would say heretical) issue:



The second change is:



Now, explain to me the theological implications of the second change. Are you making the assertion that the Council intended for only men to be saved? That
Christ came only for men? Or could it simply be that the English language lacks an inclusive pronoun as other languages have.

The first change regarding the removal of the filioque is legitimate, in accordance with an Ecumenical Council and in accordance with Rome's wishes for the Eastern Churches.

The second change drops a word from the Creed without the authority of a Council and contrary to Rome's teaching in Liturgiam Authenticam.

I hold the same meaning of "men" that my Slovak and Rusyn grandmothers, my wife, my daughters and the Fathers of the Church held. It is the same meaining that Lincoln gave it in the Declaration of Independence when he did not think Black women and chldren should remain slaves. I prevent my intellect from being formed by the modern secular feminist world that states that men only has one meaning--males. The word "men" is inclusive, and just like the Greek word anthropos, it serves several purposes. It can refer to males alone or to all men without regard to sex or age.

"For us" leaves out the meaning that the Word became flesh for all men not just those present in the Church that day. "For us" can tend towards other errors. Thus when Americans say "for us" they may, according to the meaning of the words, think it excludes the people of Iraq.

Dropping a word from the Creed is wrong and those who did so, know it.

There are two problems here, at the least.

1. Misrepresentation or ignorance of standard English: A standard dictionary gives for men "the plural of man"; and man, has the primary definition "an individual human" man. That it can also mean only males is an aspect that modern English shares with the Greek of the Creed, the word being translated as men is the masculine plural accusative of anthropos, which usually means a human being but can also mean a male.

2. The present translation has as you note "for us and..." As has been noted before link on the forum, the Greek of the creed has di'(for) hemas(us) tous anthropous(not translated???) kai(and)... If the Greek of the creed just wanted to say "for us and" it could have done so but it has that word anthropous, so what's its purpose, why is it there, and why is it not translated in the RDL version?

Is it proper to simply ignore in translation a word that is obviously there on purpose, with a purpose, in the Greek original (and the Slavonic of the Recension)?

I should also say that my understanding of "men" is the same as that understood by my Roman, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brethren. I suppose you are forced into the position of maintaining that each of these Churches are in heresy because they believe that only men will be saved.

So, it is appropriate to add or change words, but not to drop any? Rome has continually changed the Creed, which is one of the points of disagreement between East and West.



I would argue here that you are trying to make the Creed into a universal statement covering all of mankind. I would argue that it is not; this is a Creed for the followers of Christ, not those of Muhammad, and that the "for us" rightly limits it to Christians.

If you believe that only a literal word-for-word translation is appropriate, then perhaps you should consider using only the following:

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Dropping the word “men”, could it not lead to questions of animal reincarnation of the soul? We are an "Eastern mysticism".

You must have missed the plethora of episodes of the soap opera where what was lacking in the RDL were discussed?

What has been lost, here's a flavor?

-- at least two verses in the antiphons

-- little Ekteniyas

-- rubics for proper opening and closing of the royal doors

-- rubics for the opening and closing of the liturgical curtain

-- The Ekteniya of Supplication before the Nicene Creed

-- practicing use of the Ekteniya of Supplication before the Our Father

-- good music

-- good translations

-- accurate creed

etc. etc.

Why do you think I can be in and out of the BCA parish I grew up in in 45 minutes yet when I go to the ROCOR church in Parma Ohio it takes nearly 2 hours? Do you think perhaps things have been lost? You don't know what's been lost when one takes 45 minutes and the other is almost 2 hours? And will the people who are ready to write that length of liturgy isn't important blah blah blah, please realize that the salient point is that you can't have a 45 minute liturgy and tell me that stuff hasn't been cut our or lost.

I'm still waiting for the episodes of the soap opera where Vespers and Matins actually occur in more than 10% of the parishes like is the case today. Also maybe the season finale will use the word 'orthodox'

Monomakh

Yes. This is exactly how I felt. Suddenly, a mandate ocurred and I was looking at a Liturgy that had surrendered to the world of gender neutrality and political correctness. There was a generic feel to the whole thing. I could no longer bear to chant/listen to the RDL.

Thank you for stating this so clearly and directly; it is exactly the conclusion to be drawn from the RDL version, and it is a conclusion that I believe is quite wrong. Perhaps we could induce Fr. David Petras to comment here on your interpretation or better to get a definitive and authoritative pronouncement from the Metropolia and even from those in Rome who sanctioned the RDL translation. Then some of us could be at peace knowing that in fact your interpretation, understandable from the rendering "for us and..." in the RDL translation, which I believe limits and diminishes the import of the Incarnation, is in fact what the Creed intends.

Right now I'm not at peace with the RDL rendering because I believe the intention of the Creed and why that word anthropous IS there and not just the words in the RDL translation is to make clear that "for us men" that is for all Mankind, Jesus became Man, most emphatically, and contrary to your interpretation.

Now if only the authorities, having exercised their rightful authority to promulgate, would also exercise their obligation, to teach clearly and definitively on such an important question, we could have it settled and move on. But regarding your understandable interpretation of the Creed in the RDL translation, I pray, Fr. David, IELC, "Kyrs" Basil, William, John, Gerald; Rome -- "say it ain't so."

So was the DL at your parish 2 hours prior to the implementation of the RDL? Was your parish taking all those litanies and verses, and opening and closing the doors and the curtain at the proper times? If that's the case, I'd be complaining too! Unfortunately my parish never did.