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

I would hope that we would be more balanced in our perception of our modern culture. (Remember, the culture in which the early Church was formed was at least as wicked and anti-life as ours! Yet, Paul could find something positive to say about it -- see Acts 17 for an example.)

I find the comments of Pope John Paul II to be much more balanced in this regard; in analyzing the contemporary situation he pointed to the following "signs of the salvation of Christ operating in the world": "In fact, there is a more lively awareness of personal freedom and greater attention to the quality of interpersonal relationships in marriage, to promoting the dignity of women, to responsible procreation, to the education of children. There is also an awareness of the need for the development of interfamily relationships, for reciprocal spiritual and material assistance, the rediscovery of the ecclesial mission proper to the family and its responsibility for the building of a more just society."

This is not to deny that there are "negative phenomena" which the Pope analyzed as "a mistaken theoretical and practical concept of the independence of the spouses in relation to each other; serious misconceptions regarding the relationship of authority between parents and children; the concrete difficulties that the family itself experiences in the transmission of values; the growing number of divorces; the scourge of abortion; the ever more frequent recourse to sterilization; the appearance of a truly contraceptive mentality." See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...xh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

As Christians who are called to remain in the world but not of it, the challenge is to find positive ways to engage the signs of Christ at work while calling people to repentance of the negative.

When discussions like this arise, I am reminded of the insights of Fr Alexander Schmemann who pointed to "joy" as the distinguishing appeal of authentic Christianity to the watching world. Remember, Christ said, "I did not come into the world to condemn it but that the world through me might be saved." There is much that is good in today's world. I work with college students for a living and I can bear witness to their love, commitment, zeal, etc. I am excited about their hopes and dreams and believe that the Spirit of God has not abandoned our world and that He is still drawing sinners to Himself. After all, He drew me!

I also think this comment of Pope John Paul II is important:

"The Church values sociological and statistical research, when it proves helpful in understanding the historical context in which pastoral action has to be developed and when it leads to a better understanding of the truth."

It seems to me that Fr David's comments about the importance of "sociological relevance" flow out of this analysis.

And could not the deletion of the word "men" from the Creed be a positive response to the "sign of Christ" at work mentioned by our Holy Father as "promoting the dignity of women". If even one woman is scandalized by the use of the word "men" or if even one poorly educated young college aged Comp II graduate mistakes this to mean Jesus only came to save "males," what harm is there in removing the obstacle to a clear understanding? Especially, if "promoting the dignity of women" is a sign of Christ at work in our world.

I might be mistaken -- and once again, I have no agenda either way. As a 40+ male, I have never been offended by the use of the word "men" nor have I ever thought it to be an exclusively exclusionary (how is that for a redundancy?) term. I just don't see why the new translation on this point is so objectionable or why it borders on heretical.

While I agree that hopes spring eternal, we should not have a hope that is naive. America, the wealthiest country in the world, does not appear to have institued JPII's Gospel of Life. How many children do we abort each year? How many Catholics think abortion should be legal? How many children are not conceived because of the use of artificial contraception? How many marriages end in divorce? That was the relevant sociological evidence which I set forth in the original post. Apparently, however, the relevant sociological evidence for the translators, and the reason given for inclusive language, was the "war" between men and women.

I would like to see the statistics gathered by the translators for the truth which they discerned about this war. What sociologists did they consult?

I think the the utter break down in the family is the real problem and leaving out "men" in the Creed won't help that a bit. That's why I suggested and backed up with evidence that there is more here than meets the eye and that this inclusive nonsense really is just the beginning of a push for women's ordination.

He drew me as well and so I do not condemn the world, but I also do not refuse to see the real battle for men's souls which is being waged in the modern world.

I have never met the graduate student or poorly educated woman who thinks what you say they might. I have come across lots of women and graduate students who choose to be offended by the English language and want terms like "men" eradicated from it.

Go back and read Liturgiam Authenticam. You can find it on the Vatican website. The Vatican has spoken, some just don't want to listen.

Using Familiaris Consortio to defend this nonsense is really absurd. In that document JPII is telling us the opposite of what Fr. Petras was saying. There is no war between the sexes, unless of course you have bought the secularist agenda which is in fact the exact opposite of what John Paul II has set forth in Familias Consortio which is about the role of the Christian family.

Since you were quoting FC, this paragraph from FC should also be read:

Someone asked for the relevant sociological data -- I suggest you start with PBS's one-hour documentary, GenerationNext. This will give you a good idea of where today's youth are and how we need to preach/proclaim the message of the Gospel so that they can hear it properly and respond to it with faith and love.
See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/generation-next/

"For how shall they hear unless someone preaches it to them?"
Romans 10

The entire paragraph which you quoted is relevant:

For anyone's interest, here is the official English version creed from the Oecumenical Patriarch's official website

http://www.ec-patr.org/creed/index.php?lang=en&i=en

For me personally, change is sometimes uncomfortable. Many times it is not required, however, if I do have to accept a certain change, even if only on a temporary basis, and I can verify the change is used successfully elsewhere, then I am willing to try the change.

It is for this reason that even though I do perceive inclusive language within the revised Creed, I also pray constantly that our separated Holy Church reunite, and I see this as a step towards that direction.

Let the firing begin. :-)

In Christ,

Michael

Thank you, Michael. As I was looking through my liturgical books and searching online, I missed that one. Interesting -- the Ecumenical Patriarchal site has translated the Greek Creed into English as "for us and for our salvation."

I suppose we can trust that the Ecumenical Patriarch knows Greek!

Bang! Bang! Bang!

It is better to be united in Truth than mutually deceived by falsehood.

Also, the Ecumenical Patriarch may know Greek, but how well does he know English? I know that he knows some English, but I do not know if he comprehends the problems with this NEW Creed. Also, the current Ecumenical Patriarch has been known to approve the use of Artificial Contraception. Artificial Contraception stops life even before evil translations and deletions. It is better to seek Holiness before all else.

Promoting the dignity of women does not include accepting secular feminist ideology and buying into the agenda to push politically inclusive language on the Church.

This is an appeal to emotion. It shows that the whole push for the secular feminist inclusive language is based in emotion. Emotional appeal does not win people for Christ. Truth does.

The Presbyterians, United Christ of Christ, the Episcopalians all pushed inclusive language onto their congregations. The people walked out and are still walking. They have not been replaced with a flood of new converts who were offended by an honest portrayal of Christian feminism.

That is the point! Look at our church. Where are the people marching and demanding inclusive language? There are none.

Look at the Protestant Churches that use inclusive language. They are all empty.

Look at our seminary in Pittsburgh that uses inclusive language and has bought into the lies of secular feminism. Empty. No vocations.

Look at the Sisters of St. Basil, the champions of secular feminism and inclusive language. They are dying. They have no vocations.

Why have our bishops chosen a model that has been proven to lead to failure?

I can only presume that the bishops have been given bad advice, and they don't know enough theology to reject the bad advice they have been given.

I am astonished that Bartholomew has a 'inclusive language' creed on his website.

Does he demand that this creed be used in his English language Churches? I'm surprised the monks of Athos didn't add that to their letter of complaint to Bartholomew!

Score one for the Feminists though, the Ecumenical Patriarch is on your side. I still will not say that creed.

Nick

RE: This is an appeal to emotion. It shows that the whole push for the secular feminist inclusive language is based in emotion. Emotional appeal does not win people for Christ. Truth does.

The poster is mistaken--on at least several fronts. (As an aside, if it is an appeal to emotion, that does not necessarily disqualify it as a valid argument. God created us with emotions, and emotions are an important part of who we are. Jesus had emotions ...) Most importantly, the argument I presented is not an appeal to emotion, but an appeal to compassion. The Gospels record for us on numerous occasions that Jesus was filled/moved with compassion and that his treatment of other people was influenced by that compassion. (A striking story--and one that is apt for this discussion--is his interaction with the Canaanite woman.) This is especially true of the Gospel of Luke -- Luke is especially concerned to show us Christ's compassion for women.

Furthermore, I disagree with the statement that "truth wins people for Christ." It seems clear to me that the testimony of Scripture is that love brings people to Christ--"For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son ..." (John 3:16). See also 1 Corinthians 13 where St. Paul points out that of faith, hope and love -- love is the greatest. In fact, Christ Himself points out to the Church of Ephesus that truth itself is not sufficient -- "I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance and that you cannot endure evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles and they are not, and you found them to be false ... But I have this against you, that you have left your first love." (Rev 3:2-3)

I must admit that I am concerned about the way in which so-called "feminists" have been attacked and described in some of the posts. While I disagree with many of the statements made by feminists and especially find disconcerting their agenda to remove all gender distinctions, etc., I nevertheless believe that they are made in the image of God, deeply loved by God and worthy of respect. Furthermore, since many of the "feminists" I know have been seriously abused by men and sinned against in truly awful ways, I also believe that they both need and deserve our compassion. I have also found in my experience that most of the so-called feminists in the Church are motivated by the very same love for Christ and the very same desire to find the Truth that I am. Thus, while I disagree with them, I respect them and their integrity as people of God.

P.S. I also find the argument about which "churches" are growing and which are not to be non-convincing (at best). According to most statistics that I have seen, the fastest growing "church" in the world is the charismatic. Since they do not profess a Creed, needless to say the do not recite the Creed with either "men" or "us"! However, many of these charismatic "churches" are pastored by women, etc. In other words, I don't think that trying to guide our practice by what schismatic communities have done is at best misguided.

Is Rome not compassionate by insisting that word's like anthropos be translated and translated correctly?