www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Revised Liturgy

How will inclusive language preserve the True Faith?

It doesn't. It has not even made Catholic women in the Latin rite feel more included, unless they already do feel included, and want to BE included, and most of those good and faithful women understand what it means to say "mankind" and most of them figure if their own biological fathers were crud-balls then they have a Father in heaven who will ease their pain on earth and in heaven and also take care of those old crud-balls who fathered them as women.

Clearly the Byzantine commission has not been paying attention to anything but their own wisdom for the past umpteen years. The example of the Latin rite has passed them by clean, and they are apparently afraid of the Orthodox meanies down the block, if Father David is really to be believed on that score. How sad to fall back on that kind of emotionalism to explain why those hierarchs who are our friends were never consulted.

And now the rest of us are to understand that we are so highly emotional that we are incapable of rational thought on the matters at hand. And if we are not emotional then clearly we are ignorant, and clearly if we are not ignorant we are then without charity...etc. etc. etc.

Besides Father David says that he knows people who appreciate the work of the commission.

I know people who love liturgical dance and don't want anybody telling them when to pray or when or how to have sex.

So when all of the old Ruthenians die out and the Evangelicals discover en masse that this particular Church is a convenient route to Orthodoxy, where there are truly majestic liturgies to be found, then maybe the Father Davids of the world will dig their heads out from in that sandpile and give the Church a liturgy that will endure.

:p

Eli the Ignorant Byzantine Emoticon

Don't count on it!

Incognitus

wheat/chaff -> ?

John,

You ask the central question in all of this. If it doesn't then eliminate it. What a blessing this translation could have been. I know we will be charged with attacking something we haven't seen Well, duh, whose fault is that?

CDL

This is what Frank G, a layman in our Church sent me just now. Frank and his family left the RC's in search of an authentic liturgy. He asked me today, "Did we make a mistake?"

CDL

The Dangers of "Inclusive Language"
"It is time to break the mold of God-He. The abandonment of grammatical gender in modern English forces religious language to alter its terminology. It becomes a simple matter of idolatry to refer to God as "He". Perhaps in the end we will agree to write in the place of God's name only four dots and to speak for the name of God only the monk's silence."
Thus writes Gail Ramshaw, a Lutheran theologian who is popular in some Catholic circles and is one of the leading radical feminists working in language reformation.
Ramshaw, a critic of a male God, a male priesthood and patriarchal churches, is among those scholars recommended to Catholics by the bishop of Buffalo, N. Y.
Mrs. Helen Hull Hitchcock, an orthodox Catholic writer and editor of the book, The Politics of Prayer: Feminist Language in the Worship of God (Ignatius Press), charges that the objective of linguistic changes in Scripture and liturgy pushed by radical feminists and clerical bureaucrats "is essentially to destroy the faith through reinterpretation of the texts that give faith its living expression."
"This is not my conclusion," she continues, "but the intention of feminist theologians. Rosemary Ruether, for example, has said that only with the death of the old religion can they give birth to the new. That's their objective."
Even though the changes seem little and insignificant, and will escape the notice of many, what is involved in the neutered language is an alteration in the consciousness of Catholics and a feminizing of their consciences.
This has been the intention of The International Commission on English in the Liturgy since 1975, says Mrs. Hitchcock.
This intention for altering traditional customs comes from a small segment of women who are incontrovertible haters of men, such as the radical theologian at Boston College, Mary Daly, and the lesbian theologian Mary Hunt.
Unfortunately, these radical feminists have influenced a large number of the clergy through their teaching positions in Catholic universities.
"There is not just a rejection of fatherhood and maleness by these people, but also a rejection of motherhood. Motherhood is an authority and they don't like what Mother says," states Mrs. Hitchcock. Excerpted from an article written by Paul Likoudis.

This is the only material I have on inclusive language. Frank G.

"lesbian theologian"- does not compute...?

I hope there is a way for the Metropolia of Pittsburgh to stop this before it starts. If gender reassignment for God is what the agenda is, this will either drive our Ruthenian brothers and sisters to Orthodoxy (I'm not saying that that's bad) or to apostasy.

This is easy. There is not a scinitilla of evidence to support any idea that this is what the agenda is. The suggestion is ROFL material.

I have no idea one way or the other. The easiest way to demonstrate the truth of your assertion that would assuage people's fears is to make the liturgy public and to come to a Sobor now in the planning for August in Chicago.

CDL

Additionally, what does it do to our proclamation of the Gospel through liturgy?

Some may argue that it facilitates an easier embrace of the Gospel by those who feel "offended" by current usage. Others may argue that it alters or potentially diminshes the message of what is proclaimed. ("Lover of man/mankind" v. "lover of us all" is one such illustration.)

As to the "intention" of anyone on the commission, my sense is that there are probably some who earnestly believe that the use of inclusive language will help facilitate an easier embrace of the essence of our faith by those who would otherwise regard it as entirely too patriarchal. I heard as much from a good priest who was frustrated with the apathy of his congregation - citing among his many good works, his use of inclusive language to try to reach and retain members. THe problem is that to give in to the concession of inclusive language only satisfies some (not all) who desire a much more fundamental shift in the church - even to the heart of ecclesial ministry as spiritual fatherhood. (Father Serge makes a point along these lines in his text.) The equal risk is that it confuses and aggravates the rest who feel as though even their worship has now been affected by the "politically correct" social movement.

My point is that it is spurious to think that inclusive language will attract anyone. The greater risk is that it will disenfranchise those who have been loyal and active. Acomodation is a theological principle, but it should not come at the expense of truth.

Gordo