www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Good News for People Concerned about Inclusive Language

It has been obvious in many posts that people are concerned about inclusive language in the New Translation and in fact many have written about the (few) times that language reflecting a less genderized perspective occur.

To help keep the record straight, I think it should also be pointed out that the Liturgy has maintained non-inclusive language in many places. Yesterday was the first time we used the new translation for St Basil's liturgy. If you look at the eucharistic prayers carefully, you will see that the translators did not choose to utilize horizontal inclusive language in many places. The word "man" shows up repeatedly and has been retained throughout.

Thus, while some may be concerned about a few translations, it is incorrect to state that the new translation has wholly adopted an inclusive agenda, etc.

"To help keep the record straight, I think it should also be pointed out that the Liturgy has maintained non-inclusive language in many places. "

That's hilarious. Boy, I'm glad we got the record straight now. Yeah, if we just look at what didn't change then we won't notice what did change and we'll all see that this is just a big misunderstanding.

If your so proud of where the Pink Book (also known as the New Liturgy) doesn't use inclusive language then surely you must be embarassed and acquiesce to the fact that it shouldn't be in there in the places that it is.

Even if you think that it should be in there, then why not in other areas? Which one is it?

How do we know that this isn't the first step towards having inclusive language in more places?

The bottom line is that the Pink Book is going to be a disaster and those who can think for themselves are not drinking the kool-aid.

btw, we're still awaiting your reply to the following:

Which official Orthodox Liturgicion prescribes the prayer of the First Antiphon be prayed aloud, removes the Little Litanies, and prohibits more then one verse of the Antiphons?

Which official Orthodox Liturgicion prescribes that the prayers be prayed aloud after the Latin custom?



Monomakh

"Pink Book"???? I thought it was Green myself....Unless perhaps you ascribe some other meaning to your description of the color of the book, no?

I can't think of a more appropriate color for a book that has items in it driven by feminization can you?

Plus, if you water down red you get pink, and the pink book is a watered down red book in many ways.


Monomakh

History repeats itself and you Ruthenians are getting familiar with the clerical propaganda techniques used to inflict the Novus Ordo on the Roman Catholics.

The Liturgy of St Basil Liturgikon is more of beige color.

RE: Even if you think that it should be in there, then why not in other areas? Which one is it?

My answer: Actually, if you look at the Liturgy of St Basil and the prayers, they are very difficult to translate into English. If I had my way, we would pray the prayers in Greek and thus preserve the deep nuances in the original where St Basil compares and contrasts Adam and Christ in a beautiful and deeply meaningful way. But this is extremely difficult to translate into English without losing the sense. In this case, inclusive language would obscure the connection between "the first man" (meaning Adam" and "the second man" (meaning Christ). It would also disturb the connection between the sin brought about by "a man" and the salvation brought into time by "a woman." Thus, it seems clear to me that there is no feminist agenda in the new translation--even if you disagree with the choices, it is very clear to me that the translators were really trying to convey the original sense in the best possible English translation.


RE: Which official Orthodox Liturgicion prescribes the prayer of the First Antiphon be prayed aloud, removes the Little Litanies, and prohibits more then one verse of the Antiphons?

Which official Orthodox Liturgicion prescribes that the prayers be prayed aloud after the Latin custom?

My answer: I would refer you here to the corpus of literature that exists in answer to your questions. See the writings of Fr Alexander Schmemann and Fr Robert Taft. Both questions are answered in great detail there.

How do we know it is? As PrJ stated, the the Liturgical Committe did not revise prayers where an inclusive language would have changed/destroyed the theology -- the lex credendi.

Many of the posts in this Forum about the Revised Liturgy have compared it to the Novus Ordo of the Latin Church. Vatican II was supposed to "open the windows and bring in a breath of fresh air." Unfortunately, for the Latin Church, it brought in a tornado. Nevertheless, fresh air is a good thing. The Church is built on the Rock of Peter, but that doesn't mean Christ intended for it to become PETRIFIED!

I'll take a PETRIFIED version of the Byzantine liturgy any day, over a feminized chopped up version of the same thing.

P.S. I visited a BCC church Friday with some friends for a pre-sanctified. Whew! Between the kneeling and the sitting I thought I was in an RC church. The best part was the inclusive language.

I thought I might need oxygen afterwards, but when I got to my Pravoslav vespers on Saturday, everything returned to normal, no medication required.

Is there a new version of the Pre-sancitified as well? Last I knew Passaic was stilling using the one issued by Bp. Andrew when he came to Passaic from Parma. That one does not have inclusive language. Haven't been to one this year, so I can't say if the Passaic version of the Pre-sanctified has been updated. Anyone?

The short answer is NO -- there is no officially distributed Presanctified Liturgy.

Thank you Father. I'm assuming that you meant that there is no newly promulgated Presanctified for the whole Metropolia of Pittsburgh? The text that we've been using for the last ten years or so, was officially promulgated by Bp. Andrew, for Passaic, to replace the previously used Levkulic version and was to be used until "such time as the council of bishops authorizes a new text." John K

Yes that is what I meant.

As we have seen, there is no inclusive language in the BCC Pre-Sanctified.

What did you really hear?

I can't speak for Etnick, but the Pre-Santified Liturgy that I was at on Friday evening at a Northeast Ohio Byzantine Church ended with the priest telling us not telling that Christ loves mankind but rather '...he loves us all'.

Concluding the same as the Pink Book does.

Monomakh

Once again, you want us to look at the Pink Book from the perspective of what has not been changed instead of what has been changed. And when we ignore what has been changed then this whole thing seems like one big misunderstanding.

It reminds me of the phrase, "...and other than that how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"



I can only interpret that to mean that you can't name one Orthodox Litugicon that requires the prayer of the First Antiphon be prayed aloud, removes the Little Litanies, prohibits more then one verse of the Antiphons and prescribes that the prayers be prayed aloud after the Latin custom. I welcome hearing of one from you since I've never seen or heard of one that does.

Monomakh

When did arguing by smear become acceptable?

"For he is gracious and loves us ALL" at the final blessing given by Bishop John.

Blech! (isn't it "good" instead of "gracious"?)

Again, I can only comment with, "kumbaya"!

So you agree with me that since we don't know whether this is the first or last time for inclusive language to be used in the Liturgy, that the door is open for more in the future.

You say that prayers were not changed, how do you explain removing 'man' from the Creed?



I'm confused because you seem to believe that the church ended in Acts 28 and reappeared in the 20th century.

You might want to read these when you get a chance:

"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (II Thess. 2:15).

"I commend you because you . . . maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (I Cor. 11:2).

I fail to see the fresh air in having feminized inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy.

I fail to see the fresh air in having Latin confessionals in our churches.

I fail to see the fresh air in being in and out of Liturgy in under 50 minutes.

I fail to see the fresh air in not providing Matins to the faithful.

I fail to see the fresh air in not providing Vespers to the faithful.

I fail to see the fresh air in having Liturgy on Saturday evening and claiming that it fulfills your Sunday obligation when it is completely possbile to have Liturgy on Sunday morning.

I fail to see the fresh air in kneeling on Sundays.

I fail to see the fresh air in having stations of the cross and rosaries in our churches.

I fail to see the fresh air in keeping the Royal Doors open for the entire Liturgy.

I fail to see the fresh air in not informing the faithful and basically ignoring fasting periods besides the Great Fast.

I fail to see the fresh air in having pews in our churches.

I fail to see the fresh air in not doing proper prostrations when called for.

I fail to see the fresh air in having one verse antiphons.

I fail to see the fresh air in having 'All Souls Saturday' as a panichida on Friday night after a chopped up Presantified Liturgy and claiming to have celebrated All Souls Saturday.

Fresh air would be to correct the above in at least the overwhelmingly vast majority of our churches and return to our Traditions like Rome keeps telling us to.

Monomakh

Thanks Monomakh!

Fresh air to me, is keeping the faith. This revision is nothing but hot air, going no place.

Nick

I think the problem is that you are using terms imprecisely. A Liturgikon contains instructions for the priests and deacons telling them how to serve the Liturgy. Typically, Liturgika do not contain information about the moveable hymnography, etc. Typika contain instructions for how to put the services together (i.e., what hymns should be sung, etc.) Of course, then each Church usually also publishes a Guide for each year telling Cantors how to put the services together. I have been collecting these yearly volumes from both the Church of Greece and Constantinople for years. (Interestingly, they often disagree with each other on precise details.) On top of this, you then have the "flexible Typikon" that each local Bishop prescribes. I remember very distinctly a discussion I had with a certain Orthodox hierarch who informed me quite clearly to put away my Liturgikon and my Typikon -- for he informed me gruffly: "In this diocese, I AM the Liturgikon and the Typikon. You don't need those books -- you just do it the way I tell you."

So the situation is much more complex than your question allows me to answer.

Dear PrJ,

Yes, there are different Liturgicons from Greece, Constantinople, and other places, and also those published at different times do differ in details!

That is why our Church has OFFICIAL books, published by Rome, that unify us, and hold us together as a Church. It is called the Ruthenian Recension.

But our bishops have decided to take us outside of the Ruthenian Recension! So now, we have another Liturgicon, that is different not only in "precise details" but in major changes, whole litanies missing, invented "fantasy" rubrics, and too many changes, mistakes and innovations to name.

It was the offical books that united us. Now, it is our new Revisionist Liturgy, that will divide us, and in my opinion, finish us.

Why the bishops are doing this to us, I can't understand. I am praying hard, that our bishops come to their senses, and listen to the priests and the people, and send these books for recycling.

It is not too late for them to do their job, and defend the tradition, and stand up for the Ruthenian Recension.

Nick

Saint Athanasius, pray for our Church, and convert the hearts of our leaders, to defend our beautiful tradition!

I have a question: Isn't the plural of Liturgikon properly Liturgika and not Liturgikons?

Look, you've previously stated on this board:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/225135/page/0/fpart/4#Post224187

"Given my rather intimate and personal knowledge of the diversity of practice that exists within the Orthodox churches in the English speaking world I am quite confident that the new liturgy fulfills this requirement completely.

I have personally witnessed absolutely every change recommended or adopted in the new liturgy in an Orthodox parish. Thus there is nothing in it that I can see that is not in line with at least one version of Orthodox liturgical practice."

I thought maybe you could and would share this knowledge. If you can't name one, then just say you can't name one.

The 1964 Liturgikon (regardless of what the plural is) that Rome told us to use was virtually parallel to the Russian recension used in the vast vast majority of OCA churches to this day. Our Ukrainian Greek Catholic brethern also are supposed to use this. Contrary to your spin of the situation, we as a church are moving away from our Orthodox brethern and our own Greek Catholic brethern as well. We should be striving for unity not separation.

That is the problem and no twisting of terms can deny that truth.

Monomakh

I am confused -- what is the "one" (given the many different sources, books, etc.) that you want me to name.

My original post simply stated that there is great diversity of practice on the local parochial level in the Orthodox world. There is also great diversity of liturgical standards from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

If you need proof of this, just start traveling and visiting different parishes and/or go online and visit the various jurisdictional sites that prescribe weekly liturgical services.

Your recommendation to travel and visit Orthodox parishes is such a good idea that I've already done it.

After all, I have to go to Vespers, Matins, and Great Canon of St. Andrew sometime and somewhere. 90%+ of Byzantine Catholic Churches don't offer these services even though Archbishop Basil has called for an 'authentic place of worship'.

btw, this post pretty much summarizes my feelings (in fact I replied right after it) about visiting Orthodox churches:

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbt...s&topic=0&Search=true#Post210268

Monomakh

you can cite any two (I know, which two?), but just one (I know, which one?), any one will be sufficient.


And for some reason you want to take as many obscure and liberal examples out there and combine them together to get the Byzantine Catholic Church. Justify our majority by citing the remote minority somewhere else. We are supposed to forget about the other 99 out of 100 Orthodox churches that have Traditional sense. We're supposed to forget about the inclusive language and be thankful for the areas where there is not any inclusive language and thank Master Liturgical Commission from Pittsburgh. No wonder people are fleeing to Orthodoxy?!


Once again, they prescribe weekly Matins and Vespers, why don't we? Why don't all of our Cathedrals do this? Why doesn't our Cathedral in Pittsburgh that has a full time priest and highly qualified cantor have Saturday evening Liturgy instead of Vespers? Why can't you see that the New Liturgy is just a contiuation of watering down and making our church more liberal? Where is the pastoral sensitivity to those who have enough sense to respect Tradition?


Monomakh

Sensitivity??????

I think the pot is calling the kettle black. The one who encourages (on a Byzantine Catholic forum) that BC's "flee" from their church to the Orthodox church is calling for people to be sensitive?????

That doesn't appear to be a good way to convince people to come to your side. What was that the Master said about a "Golden Rule?" Maybe the Orthodox have a different Gospel. Come to think of it they DO have the King James version. Is that what they use in Russia and Greece, or do I detect some evil revisionism?

Dear Monomakh,

The laundry list of complaints below, with few exceptions, has little to do with the Revised Liturgy. However, here are my answers to your complaints:
Even our creed wasn't set for centuries after Acts 28.
We don't have any in our church.
Even on a weekday, we don't get out in less than 55 minutes.
We currently have Matins during Lent. I would expect that we will eventually have them on Sunday mornings as well.
We don't have them often, but we are incorporating them for major feast days.
Last time I heard, the Church's "day" began with vespers, per Genesis: "It was the EVENING and morning of the first day ..."
We don't in my parish. In fact, few of us kneel on weekdays either. Our pastor dealt privately with those who knelt on Sundays. When a few of us began standing on weekdays, it caught on with the others. Maybe you could try that approach in your parish.
We don't have stations in our church, and if anyone or group wants to say the rosary in church, they may, but it's not a part of our parish services.
Originally, the Royal Doors were the doors of the church. They were closed when the catechumens were dismissed. Since we don't have catechumens, we don't close the Royal Doors during Divine Liturgy, although they remain closed during vespers and other services.
Fast periods are noted in announcements at the end of Liturgy and in our bulletins -- Philips Fast, Great Lent, Apostles Fast and Dormition. We also observe Exaltation of the Cross as a fast day.
Yes, we have pews. Pews are a matter of custom, but not part of Tradition, since they are not part of the Liturgy, Scripture or teaching of the Church Fathers.
Those who are able and desire to do prostrations move into the aisle and do prostrations during the Hours and Presanctified Liturgy of Lent. Our priest and all altar servers do the prostrations.
Antiphons were originally sung on the way to church and did not become part of the Liturgy until the 4th century. You are certainly free to sing them in your car on your way to church if you want.
We have All Souls Saturdays on Saturday morning. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you write of "chopped up" Presanctified Liturgy.
I'm sorry you fail to do so. As you know from my previous postings, I really don't see this as an issue. However, I am wondering whether the priests in your area who apparently don't offer vespers, matins, All Souls Saturdays, etc. -- and the people who don't fast, do prostrations and kneel on Sundays -- are also the same ones who are against implementing the Revised Liturgy. If so, perhaps the issue is reluctance to ANY change, rather than a problem with inclusive language.
Based on my answers above, my parish out here in the West seems to be well on the way to being returned to the traditions. Partly, this may be because most of us are all came from somewhere else and since local custom in the East differed so widely, it was easier for everyone to adapt.

The pot calling the kettle black? Well, all I've ever heard regarding the reason we can't return to our roots is because of pastoral sensitivy but this new liturgy doesn't seem to fall under that. I think you need to check which one of us is the kettle and which on is the pot.


btw, can you cite where I've encouraged people to 'flee' from their church. Because I haven't fled. I know people who have and when they tell me why I can't argue with them and dispute their reasons. Maybe you can inform me what to tell them. Why do 90%+ of our churches not have Vespers or Matins? I'd be more than happy to pass on the info to those who have left or are thinking of leaving. What I've always said is that people aren't really leaving the Byzantine Church, but rather the Byzantine Church is leaving its people. Do you disagree with that?

Monomakh

Sophia, what traditions is the western parish returning to? One must remember that we are of the Rusyn tradition and we indeed have certain small traditions we must safe guard while battling latinizations and replacing our traditions with other traditions.
It is improper to simply assume that your parish in the west is more Byzantine Catholic than a good old timin' parish in the PA coal fields.

Hi Sophia. so what you are stating is that as long as your minister prayers aren't destroyed theologically it is ok to introduce inclusive language for the people who will end up being the most confused. are you suggesting a parallel theology for your church? being all things for all people? high theology for those of the cloth and low theology for the congregation. Why are those of the cloth so special not to have their worship prayers altered in the name of inclusivity? I am surprised that the catholics are dumbing down their belief system. Beuatiful chuches - schizoiphrenic tehology prayers. This is all too confusing. I really feel sorry for my byzcath family and friends. This must be difficult times for them to understand.

Eddie

_______________________________



The power of suggestion repeated over and over is a tool of advertising. If people hear something often enough they believe it.

I can only speak of my experience over the past fifty years and here are the reasons that I have seen people leave the Byzantine Catholic Church:

"Their Mass is shorter"
"My friends go there."
"Its more convenient."
"The newly remodeled (Eastern style) is too 'busy.' (That means too ornate in their opinion."
"I want to go where no one knows me."
"I like the priest better." (Of course, there are four Roman priest to every one of ours.)
"They don't ask for money."
"They don't talk about sin."
"Its closer."

None of these reasons are because of "flawed" Liturgy or "flawed" theology. They have no idea what the "Ruthenien Rescension" is, much less care.

The only people who went to the Orthodox church are a priest candidate who wanted to marry and his cousins. Again, not because of theology or Liturgy.

Its much more important to get the Sunday "obligation" "out of the way. I don't ever recall anyone saying of a BC Divine Liturgy that they wish it were longer. The problem is our "Hollywood culture" that has become the symbol of the American people.

This is way off the subject but I keep remembering Our Lady of Fatima (yeah, I know she's not Eastern) pleading for people to pray for Russia because it will "spread its errors throughout the world."
What would she say about the United States today with its "culture of death" and it porn, sodomy, and broken families?

Likewise, it is also improper to infer that based soley on one's experiences in PA that ALL parishes in the entire Pittsburgh Metropolia do things the same way.

This is beginning to sound like:
'my parish is better than your parish'
'is not!,
'is too'

There are good parishes in PA as well as heavily "Latinised" parishes.

This thread is rapidly spiraling into a broadbrushed smear campaign against the "Revised Liturgy" and any who in some way find some good in the efforts of our Bishops.

While there is catharsis in smearing each other publicly over our definitions of liturgy, revisions, T/t-traditions, which parish provides vesper-matins-compline-akathists-molebens-etc liturgies, perhaps we should focus our energies where best put; writing letters to our Hierarchs! Work on living the tradition rather than telling others how to live it. Lead by example.

There's not enough time in a day for me to share all of the stories of people who have left the Byzantine Church for Orthodoxy.

To say that the only people who went to Orthodoxy is some priest who wanted to marry is interesting to say it nice.

I don't know if you've noticed but Etnick is a regular poster who was Byzantine and who left.

I visited an OCA church in Tampa while on business for presanctified (the Byzantine churches down there did presanctified in the morning?) and the whole church was former Byzantines, including the priest.

The priest at St. Innocent OCA in Olmsted Falls Ohio is a former Byzantine (and not because he wanted to get married).

I can go on and on.

Believe me when I tell you there's more than some priest who wants to get married who's leaving. I hope that our church comes to its senses and becomes what its supposed to be, Orthodox in Union With Rome. It may be too late.

Monomakh

Well, Paul B., I guess I'll be the first to tell you I wish Liturgy were longer, not shorter.

I wish the Inclusive Language "thingie" would have never been placed in our Ancient Liturgy.

I wish the Hierarchs would have left the Creed alone.

I wish the Hierarchs would have included all three verses of the Antiphons.

I wish the Hierarchs would have left ALL the Litanies in the Divine Liturgy.

I wish the Hierarchs would have given every Parish the opportunity to celebrate the Red Book before reinventing the wheel.

I wish the Hierarchs would insist every Parish begin rasing funds for Icon Screens.

I wish the Hierarchs would enforce the correct Liturgical cycles.

Like Monomakh, I could go on and on.

Mostly, though, I wish our Hierarchs would provide the needed leadership to take our church in the direction it needs to go, Orthodox in Union with Rome. Mainly, because I don't want to have to explain to my young children why we are leaving for the Orthodox Church. That truly will be a sad day in my household.

And by the way, I'm already married, and happen to be a cradle Byzantine who has been lucky enough to have had a pastor educate me. (There goes the marriage assumption, and the convert assumption). Also, many, many parishioners at St. Theodosious Orthodox Cathedral in Cleveland are former Byzantine Catholics -- including the Priest. How do I know? I went there to celebrate the Canon of St. Andrew to begin the Great Fast, which my Parish didn't offer.

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

Dear Paul,

We Orthodox WROTE the Gospel!

Alexandr

Dear Alexandr,

So did we CATHOLICS -- after all, we were one at the time!

Yes, the good old days when Catholics were Orthodox, and Protestants were a bad dream.

Alexandr

And when the Orthodox were in communion with Rome - I agree, those were good days!

I thought former Jews did.

Eddie

I would not call it a smear campaign--that is a little harsh. I think that there are good things about the new Liturgy. For example, "essence" is more theologically sound than "substance".
"Grant this O Lord" is a better translation than "Grant it O Lord" (and it sings better too!) And there are other examples. But the inclusive language has overshadowed anything that was improved. Language is also part of Tradition. When you water down the language by surrendering to the politically correct secular agendas of the world, you have started the proverbial snowball rolling down the mountain side. You will see--it will continue--subtle at first like the revision--then more pronounced. Many of us feel betrayed. We are not trouble makers. We are wounded and weeping for our Liturgy.

Thank you Recluse for your comments. So many times I am made to feel guilty for loving my church because I abhor this Revised Divine Liturgy. Your post validated my feelings for the inclusive language -- and I agree -- the Pandora's Box has been opened, let the games begin. In the meatime, pass me another tissue.

Hello Stephanie,

I have just received the latest issue of Byzantine Catholic World. The Sisters of St Basil are sponsering a LifeQuest Gathering in April for young women to explore gifts, and the consecrated life--it is a discernment weekend for a call to religious vocation. The retreat is being held at River's Edge Retreat Center in Cleveland, Oh. Guess what they teach at River's Edge? Are you ready for this?

All types of Yoga
Chi classes
Tai Chi
Quiqounq
cranio-sacral therapy
Guided imagery:healing energy
Reiki
walking the labyrinth
and much, much more...........

The pandora's box is already opening wide! Again, I must warn all faithful Byzantine Catholics: BE WATCHFUL!

With all due respect -- give me a break!

The Antiochians hold their parish life conferences each summer in fancy hotels. Now we all know what happens at fancy hotels -- immorality, drunkenness, and all kinds of horrible things.

Talk about Pandora's box ...

Oh pulease!
We expect the demons of the secular world at fancy hotels. But here we have a supposed Catholic retreat center teaching all kinds of new age mumbo jumbo to oftentimes unsuspecting Catholic laity...and the Bishops do nothing! Do a search on Villa Maria retreat center in Pennsylvania if you really want to see an example of a coven disguised as a Catholic Retreat center. Your hotel analogy is a poor justification.

taking my life in my hands here BUT

Having Googled surely the River's Edge Cetre is run by the Sisters of the congregation of St Joseph ?

Who says that all their facilities will be available to those going to the LifeQuest gathering sponsored by the Sisters of St Basil ?

Does the BCW article or any press release of the Sisters of St. Basil actually state this?

If yes, please provide the reference and a full quote.

If no, and these are only the offerings of a facility they have chosen to use, they you need to withdraw your accusation and apologize for false accusation.

I ask the moderators to delete without comment every post made by Recluse until he responds appropriately.

The article states that this is the facility that they have chosen to use. That is what I had stated. And I included what is taught at this retreat center--I did not say that the retreatants were going to be taught these new age subjects. The website of the retreat center states this: "While you are here, take advantage of the beauty of our building and grounds, enjoy a private room, make use of our indoor pool/exercise room, and enjoy our home cooked meals. You can also make special arrangements to have a body massage, a Reiki treatment or any other of the services our professional staff offers."

If I have offended anyone, I apologize. But who have I falsely accused?

Emotions run high and I find myself in difficult situation. I truly apologize to any and all that I have offended during my short stay on this forum. I beg your forgiveness.

I shall be leaving for an extended period of time as I continue my pilgrimage to the Holy Orthodox Church. I will always pray for the Catholic Church (especially the Ruthenians).

God bless you all!
Recluse

Recluse,

You have falsely accused the Sisters of St. Basil.

Your post carries with it the suggestion that because they have chosen to hold their LifeQuest gathering in a facility that also offers these other things that they somehow support those things. There was absolutely no other reason to introduce the choice of location of a LifeQuest retreat and the non-Christian offerings of that facility into a discussion on inclusive language. It is especially inappropriate to link (as you have done) the beliefs of the owners of the center at which the retreat will be held with those who support the use of inclusive language.

As one who opposes the use of inclusive language I find your original post offensive and your defense of what you have done to be unacceptable.

Admin

Dear Administrator,

In prior posts I have made the link to The Sisters of St Basil and the inclusive language of the Triodion and Matins book. So I do see a link between inclusive language from those publications and the "revised" Divine Liturgy. Perhaps their choice of retreat centers is over reaching a bit, but I am very suspicious by nature.
Nevertheless, I have apologized and I will no longer post here.

God bless you,
Recluse

Dear Father,

Can you please clarify?

Some have read this as an accusation that the Antiochians are guilty of such things at their conferences. I know you did not mean such a thing, yet your post is unclear and allows such an interpretation.

Admin

Thank you for your post. Yes, you have greatly overreached with your accusation linking the two. From what I have seen in life such overreaching always backfires and always destroys the credibility of any solid argument one might have started with.

It is your choice to participate here. If you choose to move on to other forums I pray that the Lord will bless you with His abundance at all times.

Thank you -- I was being ironic. The Antiochians are not participating in the evils associated with hotels by being there. They are just meeting there. So too, the Sisters of St Basil cannot be accused of being in favor of things just because they are "using" a retreat center.

Have I made this clear?

I find this link a little, to say the least, far reaching and insultive towards the nuns. Remember, as Christians, we are called to be "IN" the world but not "OF" the world. Maybe by doing their retreat at this facility one of the new-agers might be swayed to check out the Catholic faith. Where is the best place for the faith to be? Right in the heart of sinners! Surely since Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors, the least of us should not be to "Pharasaic".

I, too, roll my eyes at the New Age stuff. just because the Sisters have their gathering at a place where such goes on should not be construed that they approve, let alone participate, in such things. let's use a little common sense here. no matter where you go, you are going to encounter goings on that are contrary to the teachings and the spirit of the Gospel (and yes, it was former Jews, and one Gentile, Luke, who wrote the Gospels, the "nyaah nyaah" of Orthodox and Catholics is pointless, GROW UP!!!!!!!!). give the Sisters a break, you sure would like that for yourselves. who knows, perhaps it is for such a time like this (thank you, Book of Esther) that the Sisters gather where they do. with God's help, they may be a witness for Christ. I only hope that they take advantge of the opportunity to be so.
Much Love,
Jonn

To return to the original post, "Good News for people concerned about inclusive language," its all how you phrase things. The revisionists want to say that they have given us the same Creed but with inclusive language. But what are the facts. Facts are very important. (I went to law school in the "show me" state). The facts are that in the Revised Liturgy there is a Creed which no longer comports with the ancient councils and which has not been approved by any Pope.

In one sense, we have become just like the Orthodox, except the Orthodox are far more honest. They reject the Papacy in principle and have principled (wrong I think, but principled) arguments against it. We, however, reject the Papacy in practice by praying a Creed which does not comport with any approved by the Papacy. Those are the facts. But all along we just want to squint our eyes and say, "we really are in union with Rome." Right.

Im -- I think you are wrong. As I understand it, the new Liturgy was approved by Rome.

I came from the show me state. I saw the promulgation letter. I saw that it refers to a document (which has not been released) which is from the Apostolic See (from what has been written by one of the translators, that appears to mean the Oriental Congregation) in March of 2001, just prior to Liturgiam Authenticam and just prior to Observations concerning English Translations of the Roman Missal which says that dropping men from the Creed leads to grave theological error.

If the Holy Father said that dropping words from the Creed is OK, (or if he said that 1 + 1 = 3), then I would have to say that the Holy Father must have been ill that day. I must, therefore, give the same benefit to our Bishops and I do so. So I shall and do pray for them all and in the meantime find another place to pray the Creed as has been prayed by the Church for centuries until they feel well, lest I pick up the same illness.

With all due respect, the Liturgy has been approved by Rome. Therefore, your statement that in praying it, one is being unfaithful to Rome is illogical.

You can disagree with Rome if you like and say that they made a mistake, etc. But you can't accuse those of us who use it of being against Rome in so doing.

Father,

My comments were limited to the Creed. I do not maintain that you or anyone else is being unfaithful to Rome. That is not my job. But I do see that the Creed does not comport with the one handed on to us from the Fathers of the Church or the one now prayed in Rome at St. Peters and squinting doesn't help. Please be assured of my prayers for you and all the priests of the metropolia. I think you are in a very difficult situation.

In Christ,

lm

Just one more note: the Creed has not been changed. This is a fallacy. When I look in the Greek and Slavonic books (take your pick as to which is the original -- I prefer to think it is the Greek since that was the original of originals), they remain the same.

All that has changed is the TRANSLATION. No original changes have been made to the Creed.

So therefore the rhetoric about this clearly outdistances the reality. No changes have been made to the creed, etc. A change has been made to the Translation of the SAME CREED into English.

You can dislike the translations, you can think it is part of a conspiracy by liberal nuns to take over the church, you can think it borders on heresy or is heresy itself... You can criticize the translation all you want. That is your right.

But what you cannot do if you intend on remaining honest is assert that the Creed was changed -- it wasn't. The word "anthropos" has not been deleted -- it is still there.

What has been lost is the translated word "men" because the translators decided the best way to translate the original into English was to use the word "us" without the word "men."

It is a translation issue only.

However, since the translated Creed was changed, i.e. the text that the people sing was changed, this has an inevitable impact on the faith. It's not an academic issue.

Father,

With all do respect, you're squinting.

In Christ,

lm

We don't know that. At the very least, Rome has contradicted itself. The document we have seen (Liturgiam Authenticam) forbids inclusive language and 'revisions' by translators, and demands an exact, careful, literal, accurate and beautiful translation. The revised Liturgy fails on all accounts.

On the other hand, Bishop Schott says Rome has approved of this (but refuses to publish the documents). So, we have a document we have seen that forbids the new revised Liturgy, and a document that we have not seen, that we are told approves of it, with reservations.

So, you can't say Rome approves. It is much more complicated than that.

Nick

This is incorrect. It is claimed that the Liturgy was approved by Rome in 2001. According to longstanding canonical custom approval letters have no force of law until they are made public. Since the bishops have not made this claimed approval letter public they cannot claim approval from Rome. End of that story.

Father David Petras has admitted on this very forum that changes were made to the text even AFTER this claimed approval of 2001. He stated that the changes made after the meaningless approval of 2001 were all in the "spirit" of the 2001 approval. Claims to be in the "spirit" of the approval letter are meaningless.

Write your letters of complaint to Rome today!

Rome is listening.

It is so much more than a translation issue. It is a power grab for the soul of the Church. It is an attack on the Church of my fathers, it is turning our backs on the Ruthenian tradition.

I think you are wrong about this. I think all the revisionists and Bishop Schott (who have forced their strange ideas on all of us) are wrong.

My heart is broken, and Bishop Schott hasn't even given me the courtesy of answering my letters. Even my congressman will send a postcard, saying he got a letter, and has read it. I guess the Bishop is too busy?

Nick

I agree with you completely on this. It is not an academic issue and it speaks directly to the hearts and souls of people today. But if we want to discuss the issues we have to be careful not to overreach or use unnecessary hyperbole. (We have seen several examples of this on the Forum lately.)

What I am saying is that the accusation "They changed the Creed" is false, hyperbolic and misleading to the faithful. The Creed was not changed -- the translation of the Creed was changed. No alteration of doctrine is involved. As far as I have read, every single person involved in translating the Liturgy and every Bishop engaged in promulgating it continues to profess the same Faith they professed before the new Translation. They continue to believe in the apostolic faith and to affirm every doctrine in the Creed "without change or subtraction."

It is a serious issue that deserves serious discussion. Is this a good translation? Does it express the truth of the Creed well? Etc.*

But to suggest that there is an issue of fundamental faith involved is just wrong; it is to use fear as a weapon to "frighten" people away from the Church. The Creed has not been changed -- just go check the Greek and Slavonic. It is the same!

** As I publicly stated several times, I believe it does. Although I would agree with Fr. Petras, I wish they had stated "for us humans" but I like the new translation far better than "for us men". My mind on this issue was convinced several years ago when my young daughter asked me why Jesus only came to save her brothers and not her and "Mommy". When I asked her why she thought that, she stated "It says, 'for us men--it doesn't say for us women or girls.'"(True Story!) I give thanks to God for it and for the joy my daughter now has in saying the Creed.

From Rome 16 March 2002:

http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

"In the Creed ... the above-mentioned tendency to "omit" the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave."

(my emphasis)

Romans must be affected by these matters in a way we Byzantines are not.

It is interesting who you claim the fear mongers are. I believe Fr. Petras was drawing from the slavery issue in the 1800s and talking about "wars" between "men and women" (which he says cannot be "physical" ) "social displacement" and " violence", in defending, against Fr. Serge's criticisms, the revolutionary and new language.

And how shall we determine what men believe, what we believe, except by the words we use?

Words are signs of things. Fr. Petras has argued that "The world has changed and so must the language." Has it?

Perhaps the young lady should have been taught proper usage in the English language.

Man-eating tigers, after all, still eat women and girls.

I would argue that this is the case. As I have tried to indicate in other posts, eastern approach to language, the kingdom, eternity, etc. is different than the western.

A good example is the iconography we use -- there is no question about Christ's maleness in our tradition and never will be because of the central role of the icon -- We see Christ as a man. Visual language is granted an equal status (perhaps a greater role) than spoken language in the east -- this is not true in the west where statuary and iconography play a less mystical role, etc.

I would have said that "men" includes her too, since she is a member of mankind, and that God created man male and female.
Also stay away from radical feminists and creative liturgists, young lady!

"God created Adam, then Eve from a rib, cheaper cut"... Archie Bunker

Ungcsertezs

St. Basil on language:

Ut Unum sunt:

I have stopped monitoring the Byzantine Forum because of the hostile attitude there. I am grateful to PrJ and others for a more balanced view of the liturgical restoration we are engaged in. However, I do wish to clarify two issues. An anonymous poster, a person very hostile to the work of the IELC, made the following statement:
"Father David Petras has admitted on this very forum that changes were made to the text even AFTER this claimed approval of 2001. He stated that the changes made after the meaningless approval of 2001 were all in the "spirit" of the 2001 approval. Claims to be in the "spirit" of the approval letter are meaningless."
This same writer also claimed that a letter has no authority unless it is made public. There is no canonical basis for that statement. The letter of approval in 2001 was, in fact, written and addressed to the Council of Hierarchs after they submitted a proposed text of the translation of the Liturgy - note that this is a translation, which does not affect, therefore, the Slav text. The letter of approval of 2001 mandated a small amount of changes and recommended many more. The text promulgated on January 6, 2007 contains the mandated changes and other changes made from 2001 based on recommendations in the letter of approval. If you claim that the letter of approval is "meaningless" or, as one seems to claims, "canonically non-existent," then the only alternative of to say that the Council of Hierarchs is lying. Perhaps in the letters the anonymous poster wants to be sent to the Oriental Congregation, perhaps writers could add that the Council of Hierarchs is lying when they say that you (the Oriental Congregation) approved the translation of the now promulgated Liturgy. Since the letter was written to and for the bishops, there is no obligation for them to make the whole text public. In view of the hostility of this forum, I can understand this position.
As regards saying presbyteral prayers aloud, the Holy Synod of Greece issued Encyclical No 2784 on March 31, 2004, "On the way of reading the Prayers of the Divine Liturgy." Pavlos Koumarianos has summarized, "In order then to restore the Eucharist as a vital dialogue of life and love between God and His people, Celebrators, Bishops and Presbyters, are advised to read most of the Priestly Prayers of the Holy Eucharist with audible voice, so that the participation of the faithful in all that takes place is made possible, so that by hearing the Prayers they can actually pray through them, and reply 'Amen', consciously and willingly." (Unpublished paper, July 2006)

Separate from these issues, I would add a persoanl reflection. I have become convinced that the reason "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" is that before the 20th century, "women" simply had no standing in the body politic of "mankind." They did not vote and were not expected to take part in public affairs, therefore, their status was "meaningless." In the context of the late 18th century, therefore, the statement "All men are created equal" means exactly what it says.