Since coming back to this forum, I've read a lot about the revised DL but what exactly is it? Could anyone give me a nutshell account of what it is, how it differs from the old DL, and when it was implemented and why?

Thanks, I always like to keep up to date with things.

Robert

The Revised Divine Liturgy is an attempt to create a Novus Ordo for the Ruthenians modeled after the Roman Catholic Novus Ordo. It uses the worst of the ideas from what happened in the RC Mass after Vatican II.

How does the RDL it differ from the Byzantine Liturgy? It removes and prohibits some of the litanies and other parts of the Liturgy (I guess that they are so bad they can't be allowed). It also forces a lot of the priestly prayers out loud. My former priest is a nice guy but speeds through them so fast no one can understand him. But I guess that is better then another parish I know where the priest treats them like an opera and no one can understand him, either. The RDL also used gender neutral language that the Vatican prohibited because it's wrong.

Why was it implemented? No one knows for sure. Other then the bishops and some of the priests on the commission no one wanted it or asked for it. Most of us want the uncut Byzantine Liturgy, without the secular feminist politics.

What is desperately needed is a "Reform of the RDL" to make it Byzantine. But the bishops do not have enough respect for the faithful to answer letters or even talk to us. They say we are a "special needs" church and the real byzantine liturgy cannot possible server our spiritual needs. It's all pray, pay and obey.

Laying aside the emotions and hyperbole, the RDL has three different levels of changes. The first on the structural/rubrical level. More or less the most common abbreviations that had become standard in the vast majority of Ruthenian parishes have become mandated. Some verses of the antiphons and some litanies were supressed. Some rubrics were changed. The second is a new translation that includes some inclusive language and some different translation choices some find questionable. The third is new music that attempts to be more true to the Slavonic originals but does not take into account what the people have become used to since the switch to English in the late 60s. Some have problems with part or all of the changes implemented by the RDL.

One small amendment to Father Deacon's non-hyperbolic summary:

Before the RDL, MANY parishes actually took an even MORE abbreviated version of the Liturgy - and a number of these elements are mandated in the new books (the third antiphon, several litanies) or included in the books where they were not included before. So some parishes found the new services to be shorter, but most found them the same or longer. And the "standard" across the eparchies converged quite a bit, where it had been divergent before.

This is, in fact, one thing that leads me to question the comparison to the 1970 Roman Missal. That revision allowed MANY choices or options throughout the Mass - while much of the controvery around the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy books came because the bishops'new book does NOT allow many options, but mandates a liturgy which is, again, a bit longer for many parishes, the same length for others, and shorter for a few.

(Lady Byzantine, if you can find examples of prayers or liturgical hymns which suddenly appeared in the RDL, newly composed or borrowed from other rites, then your comparison to the Novus Ordo would be a lot stronger. The Novus Ordo Missae had plenty of these; the RDL, none that I can find.)

In Christ,
Jeff

Sorry, Deacon Lance, but the very idea of mandating abbreviations is in itself a latinization, since liturgical uniformity has never been a hallmark of the Byzantine rite in any of its particular Churches, whether Orthodox or Catholic. Rather, the Byzantine liturgical tradition is to set minima for parochial use, while allowing individual parishes to expand upon that according to its capabilities and inclinations. Nowhere was the Intereparichial Liturgical Commission given a mandate to redact the Ruthenian Recension as promulgated by the Holy See.

Regarding the translation, and even leaving aside the use of "inclusive language" (which in itself requires torturing of English grammar and syntax beyond the bounds of toleration), the underlying scholarship leaves a great deal to be desired, violating as it does many of the cardinal laws of good translation, even to the point of embracing mutually contradictory errors (e.g., excessive literality and broad paraphrase exist within the same paragraphs). The translator(s) have also taken the liberty of inserting their own editorial comments into the body of the text, part of a lamentable tendency towards relentless didacticism (which is also a fault in the ICEL translation of the Latin liturgy, by the way). Beyond that, there are many places in which the translation is just out and out wrong, and consistently so, indicating that the translator(s) were not wise enough to know what they did not know.

Methodologically, the elevation of the Greek text over the Slavonic of the Ruthenian Recension is a major error, but understandable, given that there are many more "aids" available in Greek than in Slavonic--which again points out the lack of qualifications on the part of the translator(s).

As regards the music, it was an error to mandate just one particular arrangement of the prostopinje, given that the Rusyn plainchant tradition was essentially oral, and varied from eparchy to eparchy, and indeed from parish to parish. Instead of this type of dynamism, there was an attempt (and a poor one at that!) to make the cathedral usage of one particular Eparchy at one particular time normative throughout the Metropolia. The the seminary in Uzherod does not even use these arrangements ought to say something.

The issue of new music is even more puzzling when one considers that ACROD had already made a point of retaining the music of the Slavonic tones after it translated its liturgy into English. Apparently no attempt was made whatsoever to coordinate with our Sister Church, but rather there was an attempt to completely reinvent the wheel, both to place more distance between the Ruthenian Metropolia and ACROD (to say nothing of other Byzantine Catholic Churches!), and, apparently, to establish the academic credentials of both the translator(s) and the musical arranger. Unhappily for the Church--though happily for Academe--the manifest deficiencies of the translation and the music have brought widespread criticism from authorities far more qualified than those who sat on the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission.

We should be grateful to the Administrator for his online, multi-column study edition, which is already yielding useful observations, corrections and commentaries on the text. It would be equally useful if--as was suggested some time back--all of the cantors of the Metropolia were to compile all of their arrangements of the Prostopinje into a critical edition which could be studied alongside the music promulgated by the Metropolitan Cantor Institute.

I agree with Father Deacon Lance that one ought to lay aside emotion and hyperbole.

I disagree with much of the rest of his assessment.

The major problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy are the doctrinal problems. The deletion of the terms for “man” and “mankind’ (from anthropos) and, in a few places, the addition of the term “women” (in a communion hymns) are major issues. That is not just my opinion but that of Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (now retired) who called the deletion of the various terms for man “theologically grave.”

It is also not merely the mandating of a form of the Liturgy that had become standard. Far from it. There were certainly parishes that had celebrated the complete and full Liturgy. And the mandate is not all that much like what occurred in most parishes. And the Vatican specifically directed the bishops to return to the full and official forms and to work with other Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox) in preparing common texts and admitting organic change.

It is also not overly accurate to state that the music has been returned to a “more true Slavonic originals.” Music changes over time and returning it to a snapshot of where it was in 1906 in one parish does not really qualify as authentic restoration, even if one ignores the many problems with proper accentuation. But I will agree with Father Deacon that the bigger problem here is forcing people to re-learn music after they had spent 40 years singing something else. On the pastoral level the RDL is a major disaster and has hurt many people.

Finally, it should be noted that the RDL has not been received in many places and that there are a number of parishes where the old texts and music are still in use. I still petition the bishops to rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and to make normative the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy – in a translation that is accurate and complete.

My brother in Christ, Jeff, suggests that the RDL is better then the Liturgy as it was celebrated in many parishes. In fact, it is not. The RDL adds back nothing that that was already in the 1964 translation and it certainly was not necessary to revise the Liturgy. On some of the points the bishops have been strong with their mandates the things that were not done by some (or even many) priests are still often not done with the RDL books. It was very possible to celebrate the full Ruthenian Divine Liturgy with the 1964 Liturgicon and there were parishes thriving with it. To claim that the 2007 RDL adds things back not in the 1964 Liturgicon is false. If one wishes to assign credit for anything that was added back it would go to a liturgical directive – and a liturgical directive did not require the RDL!

I will agree with Jeff that a direct comparison of the RDL to the Roman Catholic Novus Ordo is a bit much. It is clear that those who created the RDL are of the same theological “school” that those who created the excesses of the Novus Ordo are from. But that makes sense since they were educated in the same time frame and (for many) in the same places so it is not unexpected they should have the same approach to Liturgy. It is decidedly odd that at the same time the Latins have said that this approach didn’t work and are gently trying to update their texts to make them more accurate the Ruthenian bishops are copying their mistakes. Learning from the mistakes of another is always useful.

A rescinding of the RDL and a reprinting of the 1964 translation of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom – with corrections to make it literally accurate and embracing all the Vatican directives – is appropriate at this time. At the pastoral level a return to the music the people have memorized is also appropriate. Too many people have been hurt and they need good pastoral care. The way to raise the liturgical standard in parishes is not through mandates and revising Liturgy but in making the full, official Ruthenian recension books normative, issuing accurate texts that are complete and respect what is memorized, and then through education, example and encouragement.

"But I will agree with Father Deacon that the bigger problem here is forcing people to re-learn music after they had spent 40 years singing something else. "

Would that was the main problem. People can learn new music, but it was silly to expect them to learn an entirely new set of liturgical tones and hymns from scratch. It could have been done had the new music been introduced gradually and in addition to the existing music. It would then have been assimilable for the majority of the people, and would not have been perceived (a) as something beyond their capacity to do; and (b) an imposition from above without any consultation or consideration for the laity.

That assumes, of course, that the music is actually singable under congregational conditions. As presented in the book, the new music is frequently overly elaborate and, while true to the Slavonic originals, does not really take cognizance of either the Western ear or the words of the text. The added grace notes in general require all sorts of verbal contortions to accommodate, and point to a composition made without any regard to the capabilities of the average congregation. To be blunt, it is musically conceited--"See how clever I am? Look how I am restoring the Prosptopinje to its original glory!" To paraphrase a French general watching the Charge of the Light Brigade, "It is glorious, but it is not liturgy".

Furthermore, as Administrator alluded, and I stated earlier, Prostopinje is a living musical tradition. It is nice to have compilations for reference, but the moment you insist that it be sung in a particular way, at all times and in all places, you kill it. Our cantors should be allowed the latitude to make their own arrangements in accordance with the (hopefully full and correct) liturgical texts, the "ear" and the singing capabilities of their individual parishes.

Over time, an "American" prostopinje is likely to emerge as the music more successfully accommodates the English texts. That's not a bad thing--it means that our plainchant tradition is alive and well, an outpouring of the Holy Spirit within our Church, and not a dry, dusty museum piece, accurately reflecting what was sung in one cathedral at one time a couple of centuries ago. It is surprising that a Liturgical Commission that felt free to take so many liberties with the liturgical texts themselves should be positively reactionary and antiquarian when it came to the plainchant. It is sad that their priorities were so inverted.

I've made these points before but will make them again. We need to do what the Slavs did. They took Greek chant and adapted it for their language and culture - and very successfully. At this stage of our existence it does not mean inventing new chant. But it does mean setting the chant in a way that the chant dances to the text and not the text dancing to the music. See this thread for a more detailed explanation of what I mean by that.

The late Professor Daniel Kavaka (Eternal Memory!) used to say that "the curly-q's just didn't work in English". He was right, but the chant had been naturally becoming a bit more simplified over the generations. And if you listen to how it is sing in Europe (in Slavonic) you can see it there, too. They’ve moved on from Bokšaj 1906, too. That is natural.

Yes, people can learn new music, however,there was NO "entirely new set of liturgical tones" from scratch. I am confused by this statement when you continue: (emphasis-mine)


Added grace notes. look at the Slavonic original source music and see how many grace notes are there, how many melsima are applied to the Slavonic texts?


"...music more successfully accommodates the English texts", Perhaps the texts should be considered to match the music,and likewise the music to the text. With the translation of the RDL, the music is the only essence of our heritage remaining in the Divine Liturgy. Some of the translations of the RDL were seemingly not done with much thought to the music or tones they were to be applied to, which made the job, (thankless task?)of setting the texts to the music all the more difficult.

Our parish sings the RDL, since that is what our Bishop directs us to do via our priest.

It's interesting to note that even the so-called Russian "Greek Chants" are not actually Greek, but adaptations of Greek tones composed by Greek monastics residing in Russia. Side-by-side comparison of the Greek tones with their Byzantine originals shows just how much had to be changed to accommodate the linguistic differences of Greek and Slavonic.

With regard to adaptation of Slavonic chants to English, the OCA has done very well by Mark Bailey and David Drillock, who manage to retain about 90% of the original Slavonic chant without mangling the English text beyond recognition.

My experience with the Melkites to date is interesting. They seem very willing to employ multiple versions of the same English text in order to retain the Melkite chant tones with minimal change. This is nowhere more apparent than with the Paschal Troparion--so far, three different tones, three different translations. Same goes with various Psalms, hymns and even the Great Doxology. Nobody seems to mind, since they know all the different versions (as well as the Greek and Arabic versions); everybody sings, and there are no books whatsoever.

A difficult question. The text is of first importance and must be literally faithful to the original text. The old saying as accurate as is possible and as free as is necessary. Having said that, I do agree with Steve to a certain extent and translators can translate in a way that also makes setting the music well possible. Think of the Grail Psalms, for example. The original were very singable but were not overly accurate. I’ve seen a bit of the Revised Grail Psalms awaiting final Vatican approval and they seem to have done a good job making them more accurate while still remaining singable. The changes seem to flow and I think for the lesser used psalms would not be noticed by many.

A larger point here that needs to be made is one of common translations. I understand that a “Corrected 1964” would not bring that about with other Byzantines (Catholic and Orthodox). But a future hope is that there can someday be a common translation of common texts, just like everyone now has close to that in the Slavonic books. The Liturgical Instruction sets this as a goal. Anything but a “Corrected 1964” at this point makes no sense as that is the direction we need to head in (implemented pastorally, of course, over generations). It has been my observance that what is best is eventually what is used and what is not best falls away. That appears to be happening to the RDL. I know many parishes that have a Green Pew Book full of paste ins from the old texts and music. And more and more are replacing the Green Music Pew Book with text only versions and singing what they know as best as they can with the new words. They do it because the RDL does not work and the older settings do work.

I will suggest that the setting of the chant is not a thankless task! In my years of doing just that I had much support and encouragement. But there is something else here I think most who have done this will see if they think about it. When you work with liturgical texts you learn so much. Not just about the Liturgy and its beauty but also about the theology of our Church. Even if the task was thankless it would be well worth the effort!

Don't forget the fact that Holy Transfiguration sings the Lord's Prayer to the melody line of the choral setting by the Russian composer Nikolai Kedrov. I grew up singing this in a choir and always break in to the baritone harmony. And several very nice Arabic ladies who sit near where I usually sit always give me a very nice smile. They also sing a few Ruthenian melodies, which makes me feel at home (much more at home than anything RDL).

"Don't forget the fact that Holy Transfiguration sings the Lord's Prayer to the melody line of the choral setting by the Russian composer Nikolai Kedrov."

Pseudo-Kedrov, I would say. Familiar enough, but just different enough to nag at me a little. Since Pascha, the cantor makes sure to sing the Ruthenian Christos voskrese at least once at the end of each Liturgy. Did that last year, too.

John wrote:"I will suggest that the setting of the chant is not a thankless task!"

In the particular case of those who did the RDL settings it certainly was a thankless task. One need only to do a search to see how much sentiment to the negative was said about the person(s) who did the chant settings for the RDL.

Perhaps it had to do with the attitude with which they approached the task?

This is a reasonable breakdown that focuses on several of the issues.


It's one thing to note, even recommend abbreviations; why mandate them as in the RDL? Why make a form of "low Mass" relative to the Recension/1965 Liturgicon the sole norm in English? The issue of following a liturgicon properly is not one of mandating an abbreviated liturgy via a newfangled RDL but one of obedience (of priests) to liturgical norms and received texts, and a modicum of liturgical sense. If one already has it all in the 1965 liturgicon, why then the need to settle for a mandated and manipulated less?

Why outright suppress antiphons and litanies? Would not optional be more pastoral and eastern? The rubrics were not just changed, for which one may ask why, but they were in some instances arbitrarily changed, or changed to follow the Greek rather than Slavonic/Ordo. Several why's there.


Called to task, it is not unreasonable for those making changes and invoking authority to also give factual answers to legitimate questions and needed explanations. In the inclusive language example, no one claims to be the originator or offers the data necessitating the need for this change.




One senses a standard in the Prostopinije (which is itself but one witness to the chant heritage) but then, even there arbitrary changes? As I've mentioned, a Tone 1 Alleluia rephrased and missing some 5 notes or so. A reset Hymn of the Incarnation to match its Galician prototype, but why the need to forbid the familiar, reworked Carpathian-English form? And why is an English version of a Cherubic hymn to a standard hymn melody, not in the book, not permitted though one can sing it in Slavonic?

Possible answer: Arbitrary, un- or poorly informed authoritarianism.

Fr. Deacon Anthony,

I do not have the answer to your questions. All I can say is some changes I agree with, some I don't, and some I am neutral on. I support the right of anyone to petition for the right to return to the 65 Liturgicon and old music. I cannot support the exaggerations made by some and the disrespect shown to the hierarchs by some.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Exactly where is the "inclusive language" "included?" You get my point I'm sure. The term itself betrays an ideology which has no place in the liturgy. The real emotion [i.e. a lack of reason - logos] seems to have been all on the side of those who dropped words from the liturgy and Creed.

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Thank you for your forthright response. As happens in the structure of the forum, one responds to someone's post, but the nature of the response and questions raised are not intended as directed to that person alone or in particular, but to all on the forum. So I did not mean to put you on the spot for answers. I did want to indicate, using your breakdown, some details of the underlying issues and difficulties.

I concur that hyperbole alone does not properly represent the facts and must be tempered by objectivity. And I agree that disrespect for our bishops in particular, no matter how much one may disagree with them, has no place in the vocabulary of this debate.

Deacon Anthony

I would consider "brothers and sisters" replacing brethren an example, perhaps the only one, of an acceptable use of inclusive language and Rome concurs. I do not think "men" should have been dropped from the Creed although I disagree it is heresy. "Loves us all" is clumsy and unlovely.

Fr. Deacon Lance

If only the powers that be had thought the same.

One must remember that in some petitions "brethren" is used to refer to those in orders. Replacing it with "brothers and sisters" changes the meaning of those petitions. And note that in the new translation of the Order of the Mass in places like the Penitential Rite "Brethren" is preferred and "brothers and sisters" is in parenthesis. I continue to argue that the change was unnecessary and, in certain contexts, incorrect.

Regarding the dropping of the term "men" I do not think anyone has used the term "heresy". I myself have mostly used the term "theologically grave", which is right from the letter of Cardinal Medina Estévez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (now retired). If the head of the Congregation of Divine Worship says there are doctrinal problems with dropping the term "men" from the Creed then there are. "Loves us all" does not say or mean the same thing as "loves mankind". But neither qualifies as "inclusive language" as the Vatican has labeled this type of language as "potentially exclusive".

The larger point here is that the Standard has been ignored in favor of what some people wanted based upon personal taste. Unity with other Byzantines and the good of the Church have been sacrificed. And - most importantly - people have been hurt. But it can all be fixed by returning to the Standard, and letting people pray what they know and love.

I think Rome tolerates "brothers and sisters" rather than concurs.

I didn't say that it was heresy, although tinkering with the Creed is pretty serious.

If it were heresy it would be contrary to revealed truth. It is perhaps more contrary to reason than revealed truth. First because it is a failure to translate accurately what is there; second because the reason for the failure to translate is based upon a rejection of the natural order, not a rejection of supernatural revealed truth.

In any event since you also see the unreasonableness of the suppression of certain words, we seem to agree who has acted emotionally--a small but important point.

As my wife and daughters have no problem with "brethren", or with "man" and "mankind"--and in fact think "inclusive language" the last refuge of the lame, the insecure and the clueless, who am I--or any other man--to contradict them? Aside from being grammatically and syntactically awkward, such inclusive language is meant to feed an ideological egalitarianism which is not consistent with the Christian kerygma. That so many clergy and academics allow themselves to be browbeaten and shamed into accepting it (for the sake of acceptability among their secular peers?) says more about their own intellectual insecurities than it does about the relationship of women and the Church.

Amen, Brother.

We address mixed groups as "boys and girls" or "ladies and gentlemen". If one is translating into contemporary English I find "brothers and sisters" reasonable and acceptable. I would concur with John that if it is clear from the context that brethren refers to those in holy orders, brethren or brothers should be used.

" If one is translating into contemporary English I find "brothers and sisters" reasonable and acceptable."

I don't. The translator who does that is imposing his own interpretation on the work. And, furthermore, brethren is what the original says, and brethren is what the translation should say. That is an essential rule of good translation.

Note that only men seem to support inclusive language. The women here--and almost everyone I meet in church--are deadly opposed to it. My daughter left the first time she heard that Jesus was "good and loves us all". "That's so gay", she said, and off she went to the OCA Romanian parish down the block (she's now singing in the choir of a ROCOR parish when she's at school, and attends our new Melkite parish when she is at home ("It's legit"--high praise from her).

Perhaps women see inclusive language as the condescending gimmick that it is?

Rome approves of this usage, that is good enough for me. I think some people are so worried about appearing to have given into feminism that a standard English usage like brothers and sisters becomes a debate.

"Rome approves of this usage, that is good enough for me."

There's no Nuremberg Defense in the Kingdom of God.

"I think some people are so worried about appearing to have given into feminism that a standard English usage like brothers and sisters becomes a debate."

What you have never understood is that words have meaning, that language is a tool, and every tool is a potential weapon. And weapons can be used for good--or for evil.

"Brethren" is still preferred by Rome. "Brothers and sisters" is a concession.

"Brethren" has the advantage of being a single, inclusive term.

"Brothers and sisters" is a multi-word phrase. It already looses the value of inclusiveness and consistency that "brethren" has. It is also inexact (it introduces gender, and does it really include children?).

The clergy and faithful are right to be worried about the gender neutral language in the RDL. Anyone with a brain can see that the Committee to Revise the Liturgy merely did a find and replace to any word that they felt had might hint at masculine overtones to the secular feminists. And look at the damage they have done to our Church!

That's o.k., because all this silliness will close our churches. Which I'm convinced is the original plan.

Anyone who has done any research on the topic of inclusive language will know that it drives men from the church. The majority of the people who attend church are women, because the church by nature is feminine. Throw in the inclusive language, and you've now disenfranchised men. And the last time I checked, we are still only ordaining men. If they're turned off and don't come who will become our priests?

Consider....

The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories. (U.S. Congregational Life Survey – Key Findings,” 29 October 2003, <www.uscongregations.org/key.htm>)

On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches.(Barna Research Online, www.barna.org)

This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands. (Barna Research Online, www.barna.org)

A study from Hartford Seminary found that the presence of involved men was statistically correlated with church growth, health, and harmony. Meanwhile, a lack of male participation is strongly associated with congregational decline.

Read more and learn for yourself, "Why Men Hate Going to Church," by David Murrow.

Stuart,

I am a Communications major, I understand words and language quite well. I simply disagree that "brothers and sisters" is an improper or harmful usage. You may want to ponder your own accusation, however. Your posting style is often unbecoming of a Christian gentleman.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Sure this is reasonable at the colloquial level. I still must inquire of all who understand and advocate such explicit egalitarianism in the liturgy, however, what is intended to be accomplished?

Consider, we are informed, that MANkind is no good, but huMANkind is ok. Brothers is no good, but there's brethren, which has no BRO in it, and there is no longer a sistren to compete, so why wouldn't brethren be seen as inclusive in its very form? Besides all this word-chunk conjuring, an actual liturgical text is being translated. What is that text, what does it say, and how does it say it? Remember being told by RDL inclusive language advocates that anthrōpos is only inclusive, unlike the English man -- this is even on the catechetical DVD if I recall -- when in fact it was easily shown not to be so.

So what are the facts, what is the text? I’m looking at the petition in the litany after the Gospel, and the petitions are not exactly the same in the Greek ( link near bottom) and the Slavonic( link, p217 just past middle). But one can identify the common phrase by the term “in Christ” as in “for all our brethren/brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Of what is the RDL a translation, the Greek or the Slavonic? The Greek word is adelphotētos, a feminine grammatical gender, singular form meaning a collective entity, a fellowship or brotherhood inclusive of male and female. The Greek has words for brothers and sisters and they are not found here. The Slavonic has bratii. Is this what is being translated in the RDL? Is it just brothers. The Slavonic has a word for sisters and it is not found here. It seems an inclusive sense must be conveyed in the Greek and Slavonic and this was understood in those languages. English has the same limitation and understanding if one will simply allow it, the same implied inclusivity as in the source languages.

Does this implied inclusivity, by intent, serve a theological purpose?

RSV Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Does “brothers and sisters” instead set up an explicit dual relationship, male and female, in Christ?

"I am a Communications major, I understand words and language quite well. I simply disagree that "brothers and sisters" is an improper or harmful usage. You may want to ponder your own accusation, however. Your posting style is often unbecoming of a Christian gentleman."

I'm a writer and an editor. My wife is a professional translator and editor who speaks six Slavic languages as well as Slavonic. We understand both editing and translating, and what passes to you as appropriate violates multiple rules of translation and editing. That's just a fact.

As regards my posting style and imputed accusations, consider the beam in thine own eye, since repeated assertions that "Rome says it's OK and that's good enough for me" is a veiled accusation that those who disagree are somehow disloyal to the Holy See. I think the jury is still out on that one, especially given what we know about how the RDL was promulgated, the manifest errors (of which inclusive language is but one) in the "translation" (it's really more of an invention), and the criticism that has been directed at it by people far more qualified than either of us.

"Does “brothers and sisters” instead set up an explicit dual relationship, male and female, in Christ?"

This is an excellent observation, and points out the paradox: by attempting inclusions, the language actually serves the purpose of division and exclusion.

It is not a veiled accusation. It is pointing out the irony that those who appeal to Rome's documents and directions on translation and liturgy consistently ignore that Rome, even in the new translations allows brothers and sisters. You can't appeal to Rome for everything then reject them when they disagree with you. Well, you can but it is inconsistent.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"It is pointing out the irony that those who appeal to Rome's documents and directions on translation and liturgy consistently ignore that Rome, even in the new translations allows brothers and sisters."

Rome could approve the text on gold plates nailed to the doors of St. Peter's. That won't make the "translation" correct, any more than you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Ecclesiastical authority can't trump cold, hard facts. The earth does move around the sun, and the RDL is an abysmal piece of work linguistically, theologically and aesthetically. Those are just inconvenient facts.

As regards appeals to the Holy See: Rome has a large bureaucracy, in which the right and the left hand frequently do not know what the other is doing--when they are not deliberately working at cross purposes. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Sacred Liturgy frequently opposed each other with regard to worship in the Latin Church, which is why it finally took the elevation of the Prefect of the CDL to the Holy See itself to break the logjam.

In all of this, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches is very much small beer, not to mention habitually staffed by the most latinized bishops and monsignori one can find. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in alerting the Holy See to the fact that one of its dicasteries has approved a liturgical text that violates fundamental principles promulgated not only by other dicasteries, but by itself as well. Rome's principal authority, historically, is appellate (Council of Sardica, 342), so if you can't get no satisfaction from your bishop ("The bishop does not speak to ordinary people"--anonymous voice on Chancery phone line), or you Metropolitan, then you have every right to appeal to Rome, Repeatedly. Until you get an answer. All the more so when the man who supposedly reviewed the text prior to its approval disavows any such approval on his part.

Might I suggest that both Father Deacon Lance and StuartK forgive the personal remarks and return to the topic?

I will mention one thing. If Father Deacon does think that we who support accurate translations are ignoring Rome then he must doubly think that those like Father David Petras are exponentially worse. Father David has openly dissed "Liturgicam Authenticam" as bad theology (speaking in terms of bad "anthropology" because he felt the lack of support for gender neutral language was an affront to women). He has also stated plainly that he thought that Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote most of what has been quoted in these discussions) was wrong in his theology.

As to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches I daresay that Stuart is correct. I've been told that all these years that Bishop Pataki was successful in his ventures because he was a good politician - giving wonderful gifts to those in Rome who could accomplish what he wanted done. Rubber-stamping things happens all the time in bureaucracies, including the Vatican bureaucracies. I've also seen nuance from them. Their responses to my own letters seems to say that the translation of Chrysostom was approved but not the rubrics or Basil or the changeable texts. All very interesting and telling.

As to the discussion about brethren I would ask Deacon Lance to respond by discussing the theology of the issue. "Brethren" or "brothers" is the most literal translation for the Slavonic term. "Brethren" has a long history of use in the Ruthenian and most other Churches. Can he provide us with a solid theological and/or translation reason as to why it is now deemed unacceptable? And in what way does using a phrase like "brothers and sisters" (which introduces gender and is potentially exclusive of children) improve upon "brethren"? And finally, since Rome has places "Brethren" first in its translations of the Roman Mass and places "brothers and sisters" in parenthesis indicating alternate usage what sense does it make for Ruthenians to totally remove the preferred term it has used for 40 years and replace it with an alternate one?

Finally, I will suggest to posters that for the sake of accuracy they refrain from using the term "inclusive language". Using the term is misleading as using it already buys into the idea that the standard English we have used ("men", "Christ loves mankind") is somehow less then inclusive. That is untrue. Indeed, it is the language labeled as "inclusive" that is really potentially exclusive (according to the Vatican). It is best always to call it what it is - gender neutral.

And one more 'finally'. "Brothers and sisters" is less then accurate and rather poor theology. But it is not the worst example of gender neutral language in the RDL. The removal of the word "men" from the Creed (potentially excluding salvation for those not present) and the "loves us all" silliness (thus making Jesus a really nice guy but not a lover of all men) is far worse. I continue to petition Rome and I have no doubt that eventually the people will have their right to the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in its fullness and in accurate translation upheld.

Peccavi, Administrator.

There are two exceptions: Orthodox Judaism and Orthodoxy, both of which draw more men than women. I would think that would apply to Eastern Rite, but perhaps not. And the feminized church is not recent, but dates back to the 12th century and eroticized mysticism.

See The Church Impotent, by Leon J. Podles.

"There are two exceptions: Orthodox Judaism and Orthodoxy"

Neither one of which is big on egalitarianism or inclusive language, so the observation that most Churches and ecclesial communities are dominated by woman holds. Podles' attempt to foist it all off on Bernard of Clairvaux is not entirely fair--I think poor Bernard would be pretty much appalled at where the Church is today.

Given that the revision required approval from Rome, (as the Ruthenian Catholic Church is neither a major archiepiscopal nor patriarchal church,) specifically from the Pope, prior to implementation, it is explicitly true that Rome approved all the changes.

However, I'm of the mind that that change is counter-biblical for the opening of the reading. (I submit to my bishop's authority, and do what is instructed. If I don't like it, I offer it up as sacrifice to God.)

In fact, aside from the Rome-mandated dropping of the Filoque, and the use of Theotokos, I hardly notice the text differences.

The changes in the Creed are problematic, both as a matter of witness to other Christians whom we may wish to proselytize, and to the Orthodox, with whom eventual reunification is an aim of the current pope. The creed should be translated as closely as possible.

Cum Data Fuerit approved the ban on married clergy back in 1929. I'm sure that is good enough for Father Deacon. Blind obedience even to what is wrong. Never seek to right a wrong.

As Deacon AJK stated so well: Let's be rational sheep. As financial and moral scandals have made all too clear, let's have the courage to tell our bishops that they're wrong -- even when it's not about the "important stuff," sex and money, but only the liturgy.

This goes for Rome, too, when Rome 's bureaucracy fails to enforce its own mandates on Liturgy and ignores the advice of even a great like Father Taft (and all the world knows now that the RDL is not his as we have been told, and that he openly condemns it).

I'm sure you would be wrong. But I try and pick my battles. Even after LA has come into force, both the RNAB and NRSV lectionaries have been corrected and approved and the new English translation of the Roman Missal has been approved, all with some limited use of horizontal inclusive language (to use the language of LA), primarily the use of brothers and sisters. You have every right to protest to Rome. But to claim it is all some bureaucratic error given the attention and priority this has been given by the Holy Father stretches credulity.

As for Archimandrite Taft, I don't recall anyone saying that the RDL was his, only that he was the one who reviewed it for the Oriental Congregation. As for gender neutral language do a little research and you might be surprised whose suggestion that was.

It is my belief that every word and rubric of the official Ruthenian recension liturgical texts (and the right to celebrate them correctly) is worth fighting for. If one does not stand up for what is right then one will never attain it. Sadly the clergy in the Ruthenian Church are ruled with fear and calls to obedience rather then with love and calls to do what is right, so they are not all that free to speak for what is right.

As far as compromises, I suspect that should one be necessary (and in the end I hope it isn’t) the best way is to use the compromise the Romans have come up with. In their texts they are putting “Brethren (Brothers and Sisters)”. Those who prefer a single inclusive term that retains all the power of what we receive from Scripture (the full theology of the Church) can use “Brethren”. Those who desire a politically correct term that is potentially exclusive and unnecessarily introduces gender (all very muddled theology) can use “Brothers and Sisters”.

As far as Father Taft, he is subject to the same rules and regulations as are the bishops.