www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Two questions for Fr Petras

I would add to those questions already raised, "Why is the new "translation" of the Creed (and the Liturgy) better than the old?" There must be a reason to make such a change. What is it?

It is wholly reasonable for laymen to ask our priests and Bishops to give an account for this change in the Creed. After all, if we are to dialogue (ie give a rational account) with other Christians (including our children) and the world at large regarding this change, we need to have a quiver full of arguments of why this was necessary and good. Right now my quiver seems to be empty.

I can't help but seeing in these changes what appears to me to be a compromise (in this case between those in society and the Church calling to eradicate perfectly good terms like "men" and "mankind" and those who want faithful translations), what I see judges do rather frequently in an attempt to please everyone. Instead of acting like Solomon to discover who the real mother is, they really do "split the baby" between the disputing parties. As a consequence, no one is happy and the baby dies. In this case I would not say that the baby (ie the Creed) is dead, but it is distorted and precisely on that point which is dear to Eastern Christians. As St Ireneaus states:

No one who is a member of the Church - the body of Christ - and receives Holy Communion is any longer an "average Joe." St. John Chrysostom was eloquent on many occasions on hpw we all become equal when we are united in Christ.
I ask only that you do not interpret my emotions. I don't feel "paranoid." but I am weary of an exchange that is not going to go anywhere in this Forum.

Can somebody please explain why since I've become a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I sleep better, feel better spiritually, sing the Our Father in SLAVONIC, and sing the Creed with the word MEN still in it? I don't know...maybe it's me

Dear Fr. David,

First of all, God bless you for making yourself available for questions. I am sincere about this, and thank you very much for taking the time to participate here.

Nevertheless, charity compels me to point out that your method of answering often has the effect of pouring gasoline on a fire. To chide Recluse for not divulging his name, and then not deal with the rest of Liturgiam Authenticam or answer the questions? It leads to a perception of clericalism, a "shut up, sit down, pay, pray, and obey" mentality.

Many people have left our Church over the creed. Many people who remain are hurt by it. We are further hurt by dismissive answers to honest questions, as if we don't have the right to know _who_ thought we needed inclusive language. Where was the exigence? Who asked for it? Why didn't anyone ask the faithful? Was the benefit to be gained worth the cost?


I say all this, not to attack, but to express my hurt. There is so much that is very good in the new liturgy--I know it first hand, since I am helping as much as I can to implement it in my parish; Why did we have to put in the poison pill of controversial bits of inclusive language, especially in the creed?

By the way, my name is Karl Schudt. You can look me up in the phone book if you like. I'll even give you my phone number if you want it.

Wishing you every blessing,
Karl Schudt

Bless Father,

I did not mean to denigrate the Church membership by describing myself as "average Joe". I meant that I am a layman. I receive the sacrament of reconciliation often, and I do not take lightly the frequent reception of the Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ.

I also apologize for the paranoid comment. You felt that I was challenging you, but it is not a challenge.

Now would you be so kind as to answer the questions that have been posed? I am not the only one on this forum who would like an explanation. And I disagree that discussion on this forum "is not going to go anywhere". Most everyone here is intelligent and civil. Some have grown weary of the continued secrecy that swirls around certain aspects of the RDL.

Sincerely,
Recluse

Dear Father David,

I am at such a terrible disadvantage in my Church because I have challenged the actions of her clergy and hierarchy that I spend my liturgical life exclusively in a local Orthodox parish, for the time being.

I challenged strongly with legitimate concerns, and with full disclosure of my identity, and for that I have received rather severe treatment from my own pastor and others from a greater distance.

No one should feel hesitant to NOT expose themselves to the kind of retribution that I have and will continue to endure.

If you do not want to be put at such a disadvantage, Father, perhaps you could speak to our bishops and your brother priests and encourage them to stop with the backlash.

Mary Elizabeth Lanser

One can express emotion by silence and digging in one's heals (my children do this rather frequently), just as much as by raising one's voice. Since there has yet to be a rational explanation for the changes in the Creed and in the Liturgy on this issue, and it has been made quite clear to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave, I wonder where the extreme emotion really is.

It's time for those responsible to show that this change in our "logiki latreia", �rational worship,� is rational. If they can't, then it's time to correct it.

I just noticed this. Where St. Paul says this (Romans 12:1):


he follows it with this:

Tradition is the memory of the past. Our ways and manners and even our way of chanting is tradition. Tradition has been circulating in our blood for centuries and today it is more meaningful and more "modern" than anything we can call "modern." Let us remember what happened to our sister, the Roman Church. By surrendering its tradition she harvested chaos and disappointment.
Kyr Joseph Archbishop Raya

Oh well, sometimes silence speaks volumes.

May everyone have a blessed Pentecost and a happy Memorial Day weekend.



Peace and blessings,
Recluse

Dear Karl,

Thank you for your response.

It is certainly not my intention to �pour gasoline on the fire,� but it seems the only way to avoid this result would be to agree unequivocally to oppose any inclusive language. Some members have judged this decision a priori. Note your own statement, the �poison pill� of �controversial� bits of inclusive language. [I don�t know what you think about this, but I do not share the impression given by some posters that there is �nobody� that really supports �inclusive language� - at least, nobody in their right minds! - I say obviously there are some - and in their right minds! - who do support this decision.]

My position has been clear from the beginning - I favor some inclusive language because it is right and just that occasionally we should say explicitly that women as well as men are saved. The Council of Hierarchs has made this same decision. Their decision is magisterial for our church. My opinions are not. There is also no reason to believe that they made this decision only on my recommendation, and my opinion only shows up in isolated minutes of the IELC, and I have never argued the case before the Council of Hierarchs directly. Since the promulgation, I have spoken to the presbyterates of Parma and Passaic, and to some lay groups. In these presentations, I have spoken at the invitation of and at the request of individual bishops, and have given support to their decision. However, when I communicate on the Byzantine Forum, I speak only for myself and express only my personal opinions.

At these presentations, I have pointed out paragraph 29 of Liturgiam Authenticam, because it shows that the import of this document was not opposition to inclusive language as such, but for literal accuracy in translation. LA is a magisterial document of the Roman Catholic Church, but many members of the academic community have opposed it very strongly for various reasons. Cf., for example, Peter Jeffery�s Translating Tradition. Dr. Jeffery is a conservative, almost �traditional� Catholic, but is quite critical of the document. �Inclusive language� is not his main problem. Jeffery says (p. 105), �As I interpret LA, therefore, its main motivation is not opposition to inclusive language as such - that is only a symptom of what its authors really want. What they really want is a more profound sense of the sacred, an experience of connection to what seems age-old and eternal, uniting past and present in an unchanging rite that is above the ebb and flow of ordinary history.� Despite this, Dr. Jeffery holds that LA is deficient on many counts, which space does not permit me to summarize here.

I have been accused of not answering �Recluse�s� questions. In reality, I have answered them many times. I likewise do not think that this issue of translation has yet been adequately answered. We must remember that LA speaks to the universal Church, with its myriad linguistic traditions, but the English language, which lacks a �grammatical gender� has particular problems of translation. Like many anglophone church leaders - bishops and theologians - I believe the English term �men� is ambiguous enough to justify seeking a different translation so that the texts say what they mean - that all �human creatures� are saved by God�s saving activity and grace. Many posters on this Forum will judge my answer �inadequate.� I cannot help this. I only hope that they will admit that it is an answer, and �agree to disagree� on this point.

Dear Fr. David,

Thanks. I appreciate your taking the time to answer. I also understand that the promulgation was done not by you, but by our bishops. You become, by default, the lightning rod, by virtue of your openness to questions. No good deed goes unpunished!

As for my own position, I called it a "poison pill" not necessarily because of my own opposition to inclusive language--after all, I have adjusted my own academic writing to avoid using the generic "he"--but because of the fact that for many it has been a poison pill. I can call to mind a number of people who have either changed jurisdictions or churches over this issue. I wish that this could have been foreseen and avoided.

Fr. David,

I will agree to disagree. But I still have a reasonable question. (As Karl said, no good deed goes unpunished!)

You stated:


How does "us" in the Creed explicitly say that women are saved? I see that if you have an a prior position that "men" is exclusive (which is, as I understand it, your position), you might not want to use that term, but "us" doesn't get you where you explicitly want to be. It merely gets rid of a term that some consider to be exclusive. This brings me back to the point that the Creed has not been translated but changed because a word was dropped.

What if the only people at worship are men? Then "us" takes on a new meaning.
Eddie

When you were addressing the gathering of priests in the two dioceses that you mentioned, are you saying that you did not express any of your personal opinions with them?

And if you spoke to priests and lay groups with a magisterial voice, why is it that here you can or will only express your opinions?

Are you not speaking for the local magisterium of the Byzantine Bishops when you reply as you have here?

Did any of the priests of the two dioceses mentioned here express their opinions with you?

Are they all in favor of inclusive language?

Are they majorly approving of the entire RDL?

Can you share with us any of their particular concerns and disagreements?

What is your response to those of our priests who might feel free to disagree with your presentation? Do you express conflicting opinions of equal weight? Or do you simply tell them that there is no magisterial room left for discussion?
[/quote]

M.