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

Feminism and the English Language
Can the damage to our mother tongue be undone?
by David Gelernter
The Weekly Standard 03/03/2008, Volume 013, Issue 24 Link to story [weeklystandard.com]

How can I teach my students to write decently when the English language has become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Academic-Industrial Complex? Our language used to belong to all its speakers and readers and writers. But in the 1970s and '80s, arrogant ideologues began recasting English into heavy artillery to defend the borders of the New Feminist state. In consequence we have all got used to sentences where puffed-up words like "chairperson" and "humankind" strut and preen, where he-or-she's keep bashing into surrounding phrases like bumper cars and related deformities blossom like blisters; they are all markers of an epoch-making victory of propaganda over common sense.

We have allowed ideologues to pocket a priceless property and walk away with it. Today, as college students and full-fledged young English teachers emerge from the feminist incubator in which they have spent their whole lives, this victory of brainless ideology is on the brink of becoming institutionalized. If we mean to put things right, we can't wait much longer.

Our ability to write and read good, clear English connects us to one another and to our common past. The prime rule of writing is to keep it simple, concrete, concise. Shakespeare's most perfect phrases are miraculously simple and terse. ("Thou art the thing itself." "A plague o' both your houses." "Can one desire too much of a good thing?") The young Jane Austen is praised by her descendants for having written "pure simple English." Meanwhile, in everyday prose, a word with useless syllables or a sentence with useless words is a house fancied-up with fake dormers and chimneys. It is ugly and boring and cheap, and impossible to take seriously.

But our problem goes deeper than a few silly words and many tedious sentences. How can I (how can any teacher) get students to take the prime rule seriously when virtually the whole educational establishment teaches the opposite? When students have been ordered since first grade to put "he or she" in spots where "he" would mean exactly the same thing, and "firefighter" where "fireman" would mean exactly the same thing? How can we then tell them, "Make every word, every syllable count!" They may be ignorant but they're not stupid. The well-aimed torpedo of Feminist English has sunk the whole process of teaching students to write. The small minority of born writers will always get by, inventing their own rules as they go. But we used to expect every educated citizen to write decently--and that goal is out the window.

"He or she" is the proud marshal of this pathetic parade. It has generated a cascading series of problems in which the Establishment, having noticed that Officially Approved gender-neutral sentences sound rotten, has dreamt up alternatives that are even worse. So let's consider "he or she." In some cases the awfulness of a feminist phrase requires several paragraphs to investigate systematically. Such investigations are worth pursuing nonetheless; our language is at stake.

When the style-smashers first announced, decades ago, that the neutral "he" meant "male" and excluded "female," they were lying and knew it. After all, when a critic like Mary Lascelles writes (in her classic 1939 study of Jane Austen) that "no reader can vouch for more than his own experience," one can hardly accuse her of envisioning male readers only. In feminist minds ideology excused the lie, and the goal of interchangeable sexes was a far greater good than decent English. Even today's English professors have heard (I suppose) of Eudora Welty, who wrote in her 1984 memoirs--just as the feminist anti-English campaign was nearing total victory--that every story writer imagines himself inside his characters; "it is his first step, and his last too." Was the author demonstrating her inability to write proper English? Or merely letting us know that there is no such thing as a female writer?

E.B. White was our greatest modern source of the purest, freshest, clearest, most bracing English, straight from a magic spring that bubbled for him alone. With A.J. Liebling and Joseph Mitchell, he was one of a triumvirate that made the New Yorker under its great editor Harold Ross a thing of beauty and a joy forever. The Elements of Style, White's revision of a short textbook by his Cornell professor William Strunk, is justly revered as the best thing of its kind. In the third edition (1979), White lays down the law on the he-or-she epidemic that was sweeping the country like a bad flu (or a bad joke).

The use of he as a pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. He has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. The word was unquestionably biased to begin with (the dominant male), but after hundreds of years it has become seemingly indispensable. It has no pejorative connotations; it is never incorrect.

(Warning: White died in 1985; a later edition of Elements published after his death is a disgrace to his memory.) In his 1984 White biography, Scott Elledge tells a remarkable story about "he or she":

The New Yorker rejected [in 1971] a parable White had written about the campaign of feminists to abolish the use of the pronoun his to mean "his or her." He told Roger Angell [his wife's son by a previous marriage] that he was "surprised, but not downhearted, that the piece got sunk. .  .  . To me, any woman's (or man's) attempt to remove the gender from the language is both funny and futile."

For the New Yorker to have rejected a piece by White, its darling and its hero, the man who did more than anyone but Ross himself to make the magazine the runaway, roaring success it became, and (by the way) a thorough-going liberal, was a sure sign that feminism had already got America in a chokehold.

The fixed idea forced by language rapists upon a whole generation of students, that "he" can refer only to a male, is (in short) wrong. It is applied with nonsensical inconsistency, too. The same feminist warriors who would never write "he" where "he or she" will do would also never write "the author or authoress" where "the author" will do. They hate such words as actress and waitress; in these cases they insist that the masculine form be used for men and women. You would never find my feminist colleagues writing a phrase such as, "When an Anglican priest or priestess mounts the pulpit .  .  . " You will find them writing, "When an Anglican priest mounts the pulpit, he or she is about to address the congregation." Logic has never been a strong suit among the commissar-intellectuals who have bossed American culture since the 1970s. True, "he" sounds explicitly masculine in a way "priest" doesn't, to those who are just learning the language. Children also find it odd that "enough" should be spelled that way, that New York should be at the same latitude as Spain, that 7 squared is 49, and so on. Education was invented to set people straight on all these fine points.

He-or-she'ing added so much ugly dead weight to the language that even the Establishment couldn't help noticing. So feminist authorities went back to the drawing board. Unsatisfied with having rammed their 80-ton 16-wheeler into the nimble sports-car of English style, they proceeded to shoot the legs out from under grammar--which collapsed in a heap after agreement between subject and pronoun was declared to be optional. "When an Anglican priest mounts the pulpit, they are about to address the congregation." How many of today's high school English teachers would mark this sentence wrong, or even "awkward"? (Show of hands? Not one?) Yet such sentences skreak like fingernails on a blackboard.

Slashes are just as bad. He/she is about to address the congregation" is unacceptable because it's not clear how to pronounce it: "he she," "he or she," "he slash she"? The unclarity is a nuisance, and each possibility sounds awful. Writing English is like writing music: One lays down the footprints of sounds that are recreated in each reader's mind. To be deaf to English is like being deaf to birdsong or laughter or rustling trees or babbling brooks--only worse, because English is the communal, emotional, and intellectual net that holds this nation together, if anything can. Occasionally one sees "s/he," which shows not indifference but outright contempt for the language and the reader.

And it gets worse. At the bottom of this junkpile is a maneuver that seems to be growing in popularity, at least among college students: writing "she" instead of neutral "he," or interchanging "he" and "she" at random. This grotesque outcome follows naturally from the primordial lie. If you make students believe that "he" can refer only to a male, then writers who use "he" in sentences referring to men and women are actually discussing males only and excluding females--and might just as well use "she" and exclude males, leaving the reader to sort things out for himself. The she-sentences that result tend to slam on a reader's brakes and send him smash-and-spinning into the roadside underbrush, cursing under his breath. (I still remember the first time I encountered such a sentence, in an early-1980s book by a noted historian about a Jesuit in Asia.)

Here is the problem with the dreaded she-sentence. Ideologues can lie themselves blue in the face without changing the fact that, to those who know modern English as it existed until the cultural revolution and still does exist in many quarters, the neutral he "has lost all suggestion of maleness." But there is no such thing as a neutral "she"; even feminists don't claim there is.

"The driver turns on his headlights" is not about a male or female person; it is about a driving person. But "the driver turns on her headlights" is a sentence about a female driver. Just as any competent reader listens to what he is reading, he pictures it too (if it can be pictured); hearing and imagining the written word are ingrained habits. A reader who had thought the topic was drivers is now faced by a specifically female driver, and naturally wonders why. What is the writer getting at? To distract your reader for political purposes, to trip him up merely to demonstrate your praiseworthy right-thinkingness, is a low trick.

White's comment: "If you think she is a handy substitute for he, try it and see what happens."

Sometimes a writer can avoid plastering his prose with feminist bumper-stickers and still not provoke the running dogs of the Establishment by diving into the plural whenever danger threatens. ("Drivers turn on their headlights.") White's comment:

Alternatively, put all controversial nouns in the plural and avoid the choice of sex altogether, and you may find your prose sounding general and diffuse as a result.

But the real problem goes deeper. Why should I worry about feminist ideology while I write? Why should I worry about anyone's ideology? Writing is a tricky business that requires one's whole concentration, as any professional will tell you; as no doubt you know anyway. Who can afford to allow a virtual feminist to elbow her way like a noisy drunk into that inner mental circle where all your faculties (such as they are) are laboring to produce decent prose? Bargaining over the next word, shaping each phrase, netting and vetting the countless images that drift through the mind like butterflies in a summer garden, mounting some and releasing others--and keeping the trajectory and target always in mind?

Throw the bum out.

It's a disgrace that we graduate class after class of young Americans who will never be able to write down their thoughts effectively--in a business report, a letter of application or recommendation, a postcard or email, or any other form. Our one consolation is that the country is filling up gradually with people who have been reared on ugly, childish writing and will never expect anything else. But the implications of our spineless surrender go deeper. We have accepted, implicitly, a hit-and-run vandalizing of English--the richest, most expressive language in the world. Languages such as French are shaped and guided by official boards of big shots. But English used to be a language of the people, by the people, for the people. "The living language is like a cowpath," wrote White; "it is the creation of the cows themselves, who, having created it, follow it or depart from it according to their whims or their needs." We have allowed our academic overlords to plow up White's cow-path and replace it with a steel-and-concrete highway, hemmed in by guardrails and heavily patrolled by police.

Of course all languages change. A feminist might say that he-or-she is merely the latest twist in our ever-changing cowpath; that he-or-she was the will of the people. But this too is a lie, and in fairness to my opponents I have never heard them deploy it. They know that Americans of the late 1960s were not struck en masse by sudden unhappiness over the neutral he or the word "chairman." Such complaints never did rank high on the average American's list of worries. (Way back in the 1970s, "chairperson" was in fact a one-word joke: an object lesson in the ludicrous places you would reach if you took Feminist English seriously.) In fact the New English was deliberately created and pounded into children's heads by an intellectual elite asserting its control over American culture. The same conclusion follows independently from a language's well-established tendency to simplify and compress its existing structure (like a settling sea-bed) to make room for constantly arriving new coinages. Words like "authoress" would almost certainly have disappeared with no help from feminists. But "he" transforming itself into "he or she" is like a ball rolling uphill. It doesn't happen unless someone has volunteered to push.

The depressing trail continues one last mile. What happens to a nation's thinking when you ban such phrases as "great men"? The alternatives are so bad--"great person" sounds silly; "great human being" is a casual tribute to a friend--that it's hard to know where to turn. "Hero" doesn't work; "Wittgenstein was a great man" is a self-sufficient assertion, but "Wittgenstein was a hero" is not. Was he a war hero, a philosophical hero? (Yes and yes.) "Wittgenstein was a great heart" (also true) can't be rephrased in hero-speak, and can't substitute for "great man" either.

We happen to know also that the idea of "great men" has been bounced right out of education at every level. Nowadays students are taught to admire celebrities and money instead. We might well have misplaced the "great man" idea anyway, but losing the phrase didn't help. Civilization copes poorly with ideas that have no names.

And what should we say instead of "brotherhood"? "Crown thy good with siblinghood"? "Tolerance" is no substitute for "brotherhood"; it's passive and bland where "brotherhood" is active and inspiring. "Brotherhood" has accordingly been quietly stricken from the list of good things to which Americans should aspire.

We allowed ideologues to wreck the English language. Do we have the courage to rebuild?

David Gelernter, a national fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD, is a professor of computer science at Yale.

The committee for the revision of the Liturgy should have to read this.

Nick

Thank goodness for the Computer Science Engineers.

They do not have to worry about the doublespeak which Humanities majors must endure.

A very good article. Much food for thought. It is really a shame that the Ruthenian bishops - all good and well intentioned men - and the members of the Liturgical Commission - also all good and well intentioned men - bought into the gender neutral stuff. It's all rooted in secular feminist politics which has no place in the Church. It is really a shame that these politics are now shoved down the throats of the faithful at every Divine Liturgy. Liturgiam Authenticam is worth embracing, and the cost of accurate translations (done pastorally, respecting what has been memorized) is worth throwing away the RDL books and printed correct ones.

Let me re-write a paragraph to highlight it:

But the real problem goes deeper. Why should the translators of the Divine Liturgy worry about feminist ideology while they translate? Why should they worry about anyone's non-Christian ideology? Translating is a tricky business that requires one's whole concentration, as any professional will tell you; as no doubt you know anyway. Who can afford to allow a virtual feminist to elbow her way into the Divine Liturgy like a noisy drunk into that inner mental circle where all your faculties (such as they are) are laboring to produce a decent translation? Bargaining over the next word, shaping each phrase, netting and vetting the countless images that drift through the mind like butterflies in a summer garden, mounting some and releasing others--and keeping the trajectory and target always in mind?

Dear Stephanie,
We are still in a period of deconstruction and, of course, anti-English or anything anti-Christian or anti-Western. Many would choose to submit rather than rebuild a language. More schools and colleges are offering Arabic. Eventually, there will be no need to use the English language.
Ed

Great article.

Allow me to provide a personal set of stories.

I trained to be a teacher of standard English in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I was in the honors program at my university for better than half of my career there. I was told consistently that my own writing was above average and I tutored others. After I decided to switch careers, I continued to write for my employers--articles and pamphlets about our profession.

I also tutored my son as he went through high school, knowing that all the SAT and ACT tests test for standard English. (Why do you think foreign students who do not have English as their first language score better than our own? BTW, my son's senior English teacher told me that this is one of her pet peeves.) He excelled in his high school and his teachers consistently told us that his writing was the standard for his class. My son scored very high on his SAT exam and his GRE exam in the English protions.

My daughter, on the other hand, thought it wasn't right to have a tutor--a friend or friends convinced her that it was "cheating"--so she ignored my offer of help. She scored far less than her ability on the same exams and always had trouble with her written work in high school and college. To this day my son can write clear, concise English; my daughter has trouble.

But I'm a rebel when it comes to this. I refuse to use the term "inclusive language" and always correct people that it is "feminist language" and make the point--perhaps too loudly and strongly--that English has always been inclusive; that this issue is a non-issue and inclusivity occurs in the deep structure of the grammar of the language itself. Some of the feminist abominations actually read and sound to the ear like "square wheeled stone wagons": they "clunk" rather than clarify.

Want more? As kind and considerate as I can be, this is one area where I am brusk and offensive and don't give a good rip who cares.

Sorry for the rant.

BOB

Bravo Bob! I'm right with you!
Same here. I take no prisoners when it comes to my disgust for feminized-nuetralized language issues.

Recluse:

I also sing hymns in church as they should be in standard English. So when the use of "God" occurs in the same sentence where the standard should have a pronoun--"He"--I sing out "He." Don't know how that sounds to people round me because I sometimes get a few raised eyebrows. It seems that people have this "go along to get along" attitude that I find a sign of being whipped. Now there are times when one needs to compromise so that life is not a constant battle. But the language wars are one area that threatens the very essence of the Faith.

Some years ago there a book written about this problem as it relates to prayer and the question was posed "What will happen to God?" A second book--both now out of print, sadly--put forward the thesis that at some point we would be unable to transmit the truths of the Faith for fear of offending someone by our very use of language. Remember that language not only gives us a common communication tool but it also affects the way in which we come to view our reality, too. So it not only helps us communicate but also affects the way in which we communicate.

And this last is very important for our understanding of what the underlying implications of all these changes are.

In Christ,

BOB

Yes, Bob. It is frightening to me. The gender neutral feminization of the English language hits a very deep note in my heart. The political agenda it supports is not Liturgical. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but it disturbs me in a profound way. Some people fluff me off as a male chauvenist pig--but that is the furthest thing from the truth.

This issue makes me very sad.

Recluse:

There was another book you might look for that relates directly to this whole issue--not only language but the agenda behind the whole push. It's called Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Feminism." It'll knock your socks off. It points the finger far below the feminists ckof your neck. You might be able to find it used on Amazon or another of the used book sites.

And I thought I was the olny person on the face of the earth that was disturbed by all this!!

BOB

Thank you Bob. I will look for this book. You and I are not alone. As you can see, many here on this forum are disturbed by the politically incorrect neuter feminized language agenda. You can also add my wife, many friends, and clergy that I know (Latin Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Orthodox).

I think it is a battle worth fighting!

BTW--Our screen names go together.
St Theophan the Recluse!

The problem with this argument is that it could have been used to argue that the New Testament should not have been written in Koine Greek -- which was considered "gutter" Greek by the cultural elites of the Greek world. If you substitute "koine Greek" and "classical Greek" in the argument of the science professor, you will basically revisit the first century argument over language.

Significantly, the New Testament authors chose to communicate in a language that the average person could understand rather than preserving the culture of the classical Greeks. This is exactly what our Ruthenian hierarchs have done -- following the lead of the Apostles and holy Fathers of the Church, they have understood that, as the Apostle Paul said, it is better to utter a few words in a language people can understand than a thousand words in a language that they can't.

On another note, as a former linguist scholar, I find the idea that there is such a thing as a "pure language" to be reasonably funny. You only have to take an introductory course in linguistics to understand that the very notion of a "pure English" to be an illusion created by cultural elitists and purists who don't understand the way in which culture and language are always evolving and changing.

Are you truly trying to make a comparison regarding the agenda- driven travesty of the feminized reformed Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian Catholic Church, and the Koine/classical Greek argument. Please say you are not.
You have made it well known regarding your support for the RDL, but to say that the feminization and politically driven agenda of neutered language is an example of Apostolic and patristic praxis-----is absurd.
So now you are using St Paul to proclaim that today's American Catholics cannot understand the meaning of the word Mankind, or men, or brethren.........I am scratching my head in disbelief.
With all due respect, as a former linguist, it seems that you have a built-in bias for neutered feminist translation. Linguist scholars are not immune from radical influences. And there is nothing funny about that.
And would this introductory course enlighten me as to why "mankind" is suddenly taboo? Will it show me that I am now a cultural elitist because I believe the word "men" should remain in the Creed. Will it show me that I am a deceived purist because I believe that the word "brethren" is all inclusive??

I think not.

Given the nature of your posts and the strength of your presuppostional opposition to horizontally inclusive language, I would say: "Probably not." :-)

I would say, "You're probably right."

I don't believe that it is generally accepted, now or even in LXX-NT times, that what is termed Koine Greek simply or properly equated to "gutter" Greek. Even if it were so, it would not equate with the indicated substitution.

The issue is not the difference between "It is I" and "It's me"; or a schoolmarm insistence on not splitting infinitives: "to go boldly" rather than "to boldly go." It is rather on the forces, motivations, and manipulations that can significantly transform or perhaps deform a language within a span of just 25 years:

link [phrases.org.uk]
Further, the issue is on the appropriateness of inviting those forces, motivations, and manipulations that can so significantly deform a language, into our expression of prayer, especially in the translation of the summit of our prayer as a church, the Divine Liturgy.

And as I have asked before, where are we going with this? The changes, in the Creed and from "Mankind" to "us all," are not trivial. Is that the price that must be paid just to appear "inclusive"; is it not then just tokenism, or the little pinch of incense on the altar to the forces of social engineering?

What general good has it accomplished? To what end then -- certainly not doctrinal clarity or beauty?

Dn. Anthony

What is odd about this discussion to me as an eastern Catholic is that the tradition of the eastern Church has been to emphasize praying in the language of the people. So to follow the argument, if the language of the people (i.e., the common person on the street) has changed the language of the liturgy should be changed to match that language.

Language is symbolic -- there is noting inherently holy about any language. Words are simply symbols that human beings in our past have chosen to use when speaking of things, emotions, etc. Like all symbols, words are imprecise. (This is especially true of English, as any translator will tell you.)

Much of the reaction to changes in the English language strikes me as odd -- language changes and evolves. The meanings of words change -- words that meant one thing a hundred years ago mean something different today.

You can't stop a language from changing as long as you use it. The only languages that don't change are "dead" languages.

We can disagree over how best to express the truths of the Gospel and we can argue about which words best express these truths. But to act as if there is something sacrosanct about any English word or any stage of the development of the English language is (at best) misguided and (at worst) the kind of elitism that alienates many people from the true meaning of the Gospel.

Actually it was termed this by the cultural elite of the ancient Greek world. Koine Greek was the language of the commoner, the prostitute, etc. In fact, the word "koine" means common. To the elites among the Greeks, koine Greek was considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention. In fact, the linguistic purists of the first century (Atticist scholars of the Hellenistic and Roman periods), in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" Attic against the "wrong" Koine by citing example after example. For more on this, I encourage you to consult Nikolaos P. Andriotis, History of the Greek Language..

I disagree respectfully. My ecclesiology teaches me that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and as such have been given the grace of God to lead the Church. From talking to those involved in the translation project, it is clear that the Bishops engaged in this project with a very deep reverence both for their calling as apostolic leaders of the Church and for the grace of God that they have received in their consecration. Therefore, this work (in my opinion) is an example of Apostolic and patristic praxis.

As I have stated, I support my bishops, I give thanks to God for their inspired leadership and for their commitment to leading the Church into the 21st century and to inspiring modern Eastern Catholics to boldly proclaim the saving Gospel of Christ to those who are in deep need of its salvific proclamation.

I disagree and think you have a flawed theory...

Which could lead to..."I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier�, or �I baptise you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer�".

Which has happened in the Latin Rite...

pax

james

I grow tired of people using worst case scenarios and hidden agendas to cloud the issue. How could using the words "creator" "liberator" etc. help people come to a deeper understanding of the Trinity? Furthermore, we are not talking about a translation issue when the names of the Triune Godhead are changed.

My argument is that the horizontal inclusive language better expresses the Gospel to our modern world. The standard is always the Gospel. Obviously, the baptismal formula you cited does not better express the Gospel. So it is not appropriate.

I don't like slippery slope arguments as every change that has ever been instituted by the Church has been opposed by conservatives who use the slippery slope argument. If that fails, they then use the hidden agenda argument. Both of these are scare tactics that do not address the core issues, but rather obscure the argument and often confuse the average believer who is led to believe (wrongly) that the Church is changing in a false way.

"The people never on any account asked for the liturgy to be changed, or mutilated so as to understand it better. They asked for a better understanding of the changeless liturgy, and one which they would never have wanted changed." - Cardinal Ottoviani

pax

I disagree respectfully with PrJ. The good intentions of the bishops and those who served on the committees that created the Revised Divine Liturgy in no way guarantees that the outcome is an example of Apostolic and patristic praxis. Good people can do bad things and we have in the Revised Divine Liturgy nothing less then a tragedy. We have texts and rubrics that are less accurate than those given in the 1964 edition, and which - even if unintentionally - embraces the politics of secular feminism. We have music that both disrespects what people have memorized and makes those singing it sound like English is not their native language (due to the improper accents). Good intentions have hurt a lot of people. Unfortunately, PrJ has fallen into the trap of judging things by the good intentions of those who fabricated them rather than by the quality of the product.

But this thread is about the problem with gender-neutral language. Gender-neutral language is wrong firstly because it is almost always inaccurate or replaces texts that were once clear with texts that muddled and in many cases potentially exclusive (which is the opposite of what is claimed). Secondly, the use of such language decided sides with the secular feminists and lets them take control of Christian theology instead of using Standard English to teach these feminists the truth about Jesus Christ and what Pope John Paul the Great taught (his further teaching on the role of women is often called Christian feminism). I could quote at length from Pope Benedict XVI, Liturgiam Authenticam, and both Catholic and Orthodox sources on how the Revised Divine Liturgy but we�ve done all that before. Those who prepared and the bishops who promulgated the Revised Divine Liturgy reject that teaching and that wisdom and instead are dead set on leading the Ruthenian Catholic Church in America into the wacky 1970s. The Roman Catholics tried that and it did not work for them and they abandoned it, and are now trying to correct the problems that that experiment created. Our bishops should have skipped the experiment. Gender neutral language does not serve the proclaiming of the Gospel to the English speaking world because its origin is political, and the politics of secular feminists have no place controlling the Gospel.

I pray daily that the bishops will rescind the Revised Divine Liturgy and instead make normative the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. I also pray that Rome will be responsive to the various petitions that have been placed before her. We need an Eastern Catholic equivalent of the "Summorum Pontificum" not for the older form of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy but for the currently form, currently normative for the rest of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox). We need a version of �Liturgiam Authenticam� that specifically directs literal accuracy and prohibits gender neutral language since our bishops would not voluntarily adhere to its wisdom.

The experiment will fail, and pretty quickly.

So the task before us is to continually encourage our bishops to do what is right, and to rescind the Revision and instead embrace our official liturgical tradition. This task is a difficult one and may take a lifetime to accomplish. But it is worth undertaking and will, in time, be successful.

Authenticity in Liturgy is the goal. It works. Always.

Fabricated Liturgy does not work. Ever.

Actually the only thing the modern world has really received in the RDL is an incomplete Creed and Liturgy which may indeed tickle the fancy of modern people who don't want to hear the Gospel truth about man.



My inspired leader, yes I mean the Bishop, after he received my letter regarding my objections to the RDL said in a telephone conversation with me:

I wonder what bishop???

Ung

A couple of points:

1) Not all feminists are secular -- there is such a thing as a religious feminist. You can disagree with them, but to insist that they are not believers inspite of their own practices and faith is insulting to them. This is the kind of labelling that the conservative right likes to use. Using labelling as a form of argumentation (like the slippery slope and conspiracy theory) obscures the issues and makes real discussion difficult.

I reject complete the idea that feminism is anti-Christian. True feminism is a positive consequence of the Christian tradition. It has only developed in the Christian world and is a direct result of women and men believing the Gospel. (I encourage you to review the history of the early ante-bellum feminist movement in America. Most of the leaders in that movement were deeply committed Christians. Most of their arguments were biblically based.)

2) Once again, from a historical perspective, I would note that everytime the Church has changed to make her message more clear and to bring her praxis into more consistent conformity with her theology (which is how I interpret both the intent and the remarkable success of the RDL), the conservatives have accused the reformers with being inspired by "secular" motives and ideas. This was certainly the case in the slavery issue in the deep South where preacher after preacher accused the abolitionists of being "secular" "non-Christian" etc. Of course, as history has proven, abolitionism was a fruit of the gospel not its antithesis. And giving freedom to African-Americans did not destroy Christianity, etc.

3) You will notice that I use the word "conservative" negatively. I remember Fr. Schmemman commenting that there is an important difference between "conservatives" and "traditionalists." He stated that true Christians are never conservatives. We do not seek to "conserve" the past -- we are "traditionalists" (that is we seek to be current while remaining true to the tradition). As I remember his point, when the Church becomes conservative, it fails in its mission to be true to its calling to speak the truth to the contemporary generation.

How hearing the rich theology about Christ's redemption that is expressed by the anaphora prayers of St. Basil's liturgy could "tickle the fancy of modern people" is beyond me!?!

In point of fact, the requirement that the prayers of the anaphora be said in an audible voice doesn't tickle the fancy of modern people who want micro-waved services. It makes the services longer -- something many modern people complain about. (I know -- I have heard their complaints.) Requiring people to stand leads to some modern people complaining that their feet hurt. Etc.

The RDL allows the people of God to hear in their own language, in words that they can easily understand, the truths of the Gospel. It centers the liturgy on the prayers and unites the entire people of God with the priest at the head in prayerful worship of the triune God.

This is holy fruit -- and clearly any decisions that have led to this result were made as part of and flowing out of the Apostolic and patristic praxis that defines the Eastern Christian experience in the world.

The Cardinal's words obviously refer to the Western context when in fact an entirely different mass was created. Even the most severe critic of the RDL has to admit that the structure of the Chrysostom liturgy has remained intact. Yes, a few Litanies were removed (P.S. This is something that has been done in other jurisdictions. I remember serving with Bishop Antoun of the AOC and his directing the deacon to "skip" those litanies. He also told the deacons to "double" every refrain in the Litany so that we could be out of the Liturgy in under an hour.)

There is no "new" Liturgy in the East. It is the same Liturgy -- just a new translation. The few rubrical changes that have been made all can be found in the varied liturgical tradition of the Church. It is the same Liturgy.

But notice the Cardinal's next words:


IMHO, this is what our Bishops have given us.

An anecdote on the flip side...

Back in my wayward youth, before I became a Catholic, long before I'd even HEARD of the Melkite Catholics, I attended a nondenominational house church (with an admittedly dicey theology. But, hey, I was young, and just discovering God, and I turned out okay anyway. )

The group had its share of people who supported inclusive language, but I very deliberately and almost insultingly refused to use it. Even then I loved language, and I knew that the masculine included the feminine when speaking in general terms. Therefore, my use of language was correct, and any intelligent person would know that I was not being exclusive.

At a retreat, we were reading aloud the Dietrich Bonhoeffer classic on Christian community, Life Together. The text was translated from the German, was directed toward Bonhoeffer's specific community of men, and -- of course -- was not at all gender neutral. I listened intently, absorbing his wisdom and pondering the virtues he extolled. One woman was becoming increasing irritated by all the male language, and when her turn to read came, she changed all the pronouns to female.

The result was enlightening.

1. All of a sudden, Bonhoeffer's words were not abstract virtues. He was talking to ME. When his words were describing the Christian WOMAN instead of the Christian MAN, they suddenly were about ME, not just about principles of Christian behavior.

2. Every woman in the room, bar none, sat up and began listening with brighter eyes, more intently, more openly.

3. The men in the room shrank a bit. The words suddenly did NOT apply to them, were NOT relevant to them. As the reading continued, I could see their faces close down, could see that they were no longer hearing Bonhoeffer's message.

From that day forward, I have used gender-neutral language whenever possible. Linguistically, the masculine includes the feminine: Experientially, it does not.

Please note the words "simply or properly." That an elite of the times were snooty is to be expected; that their myth and bias continues to be thoughtlessly propagated is regrettable and misinforms.


OK, to the core issue, to basics. Is it not the case that the language was hijacked in the 1960's by a feminist agenda? Is it not the case that this is not the natural evolution of a language but the manipulation of language? Are we not being coerced through a process of reprogramming to accept the changes of the agenda?

More basics. Here are some Greek words used in the liturgy and scripture and their basic meanings:

philos = love
anthrōpos = man
dia, di' = for
hēmas = us

Question: Using the above, what words in Greek would be used to say loves-man?

RDL answer: di' hēmas

But then how would one say instead for us?

RDL answer: di' hēmas

The same thing? Well, how then would one say not just for us but for us men?

RDL answer: di' hēmas

But another word has been added? Shouldn't there be another word in the Greek?

RDL answer: di' hēmas

But there are theological meanings that are then lost. Consider that the first-formed-one is named Adam (man in Hebrew) and is called Man (LXX: anthropos), and Jesus referred to Himself the Son of Man (anthropos), and Paul (1Cor 15:45, Rom 15:12) provides us with inspired theology on the interplay on Adam and Jesus based on this understanding of Man, and ...

RDL answer: di' hēmas

But, look, look at the words: loves-man, philos anthrōpos, philanthrōpos

RDL answer: di' hēmas

But ...


Dn. Anthony

The RDL has deliberately and systematically dropped words from the Creed and Liturgy to comport with modern idealogical fashions. This may indeed be the language of "modern people." To the extent that it is their way of speaking, it is impossible to translate the whole Gospel into "modern language." What must be done, and what has been done, is to tweak the Creed and the Liturgy to modern sensibilities and idealogical presuppositions. It is simply a falsehood to say that the RDL has provided a mere translation when words have been dropped--i.e. when they have in fact not been translated.

The RDL and the new Creed have missed the mark by adopting the idealogy of the world as it continues to attack the foundational sacrament of the Church -- marriage. I call this sacrament foundational because of what St. Paul tells us in Ephesians, ch 5:



In Chapter 4 of Ephesians, St. Paul states:


The Gentiles campaign to rid the English speaking world of the word "man" is not coming from the Holy Spirit, but is a result of their darkened understanding - an understanding that rejects the truth of Genesis:


And again:


In Genesis we find two great truths -- that the reason for the difference in the sexes is for man to be fruitful and multiply; and then, through God's mysterious design, the one flesh signifies Christ's relationship to his bride the Church. The modern world hates both of these truths.

The very idea of "horizontal inclusive language" is a rejection of the fact that God is Lord of all--earthly and spiritual kingdoms--the natural order istself is ordered to Him but when man in the darkness of his mind refuses to acknowledge God through the things he has made, God punishes man (see Romans ch 1 -- and oh how apropos these words are today as every pervision under the sun is promoted and justified in the name of human rights!):



The modern world needs the Divine Liturgy desperately. I would not deprive them of it. But like all men, moderns must come to the Liturgy humbly and with the idea that the Liturgy is not theirs to remake in their image and likeness, but through the Liturgy to be returned to the image and likeness of God in which man was first made.

To Im and all,

I can understand that people can disagree. I can understand that people would oppose some of the changes in the RDL. That makes sense to me.

What I don't understand is why anyone who is in favor of the RDL has to be consistently painted as being "anti-Christian," "secular" and part of some radical agenda to remake the Liturgy and to change Christianity.

Good, fair minded people can disagree. People who deeply love God and are passionately committed to the Gospel can disagree -- sometimes intensely.

But that does not make either side "bad" or "anti-Christian." It just means people can disagree. After all, even some of the saints had strong disagreements with each other.

I reject completely the accusation that my support for horizontal inclusive language is because I have been influenced by some radical anti-Christian feminist agenda. My support for this is BECAUSE of my commitment to tradition not in spite of tradition. My SUPPORT is because of my commitment to the Gospel, not in spite of it. Everything I believe flows out of my radical commitment to the Christian faith and my steadfast belief in its fundamental theological principle that "in Christ there is neither male nor female, neither slave nor free."

I also reject completely that someone else can tell me what I believe and why I believe it.

But these are the issues. First, the rubrical changes, for instance, are not few, at least not for the deacon. Second, why should we be incorporating usages from "varied liturgical tradition[s]" rather than our own unless there is something defective in what is "ours." Should we not strive in fairness to give what is "ours" a try, a fair hearing?

It's called the Ruthenian Recension; our bishops of the past asked for it, and is it not the standard from which the RDL translation was intended to be based?

Dn. Anthony

As any Greek scholar will tell you, the meaning of the word "anthropos" depends on the context. Usually it means generalized humanity, best translated in modern English as "human being." Often it is an unnecessary to translate it in English because the context in English is different than in Greek.

As any translator will tell you, when you translate you CANNOT do a word for word translation and have the final product mean anything. You ALWAYS have to translate passages and the goal of translation is to give the sense of the meaning rather than the literal meaning of words.

In the case of the Creed, the best translation in modern English would be "for us human beings" -- but the use of the words "human beings" is redundant, not necessary and does not add to the meaning, hence the appropriateness of the translation "for us".

As has been pointed out before, most Greek scholars (without a bone to pick) who have been talked to agree that "for us" is an accurate translation of the line in the Creed.

Case closed.

Anyone who continues to make this argument is doing so on the basis of presuppositional opposition to the change rather than on the basis of the evidence presented by scholarship. The argument that they have "changd the creed" is an illusion presented simply to scare people who are not aware of the scholarship. Like the "yellow" "red" and "orange" signs of the post-911 age, this argument aims to frighten people into action.

Ah, now you are changing the argument again. It gets difficult to have this discussion because every time we get to a real discussion about real issues with real scholarship being presented, the argument changes and another one is introduced. At some point, you begin to realize that decisions have already been made and that the arguments are not aimed at finding the truth but simply are made to support decisions already made and hardened.

Agreed. That is why I have always differentiated feminists into groups, �secular� and �Christian� (with particular references to what Pope John Paul the Great taught about women). The problem here is that the push for gender-neutral language comes from the secular feminists and is part of their attempt to erase any innate differences between men and women. Most Christian feminists don�t buy into that nonsense.

Remarkable success of the RDL? Sorry, but that simply is not accurate. After a year it remains a major source of controversy. It clearly violates the directives given by Rome. The texts and rubrics are notably less accurate translations of the original than the edition it replaces. It creates a separation between us and the rest of the Byzantine world (Catholic and Orthodox). That is all demonstrable fact. Parishes everywhere (including the one PrJ assists at) have lost people because of it.

As to being �inspired by �secular� motives and ideas�, yes, properly defined there is some of that. We can see this clearly right here where justification for the Revised Divine Liturgy is sought by introducing the horror of slavery in America in the past centuries. If one examines the argument of those who support the received tradition in Liturgy (as documented by Rome in the official books) one sees appeals to both Catholic and Orthodox sources of liturgical theology, and a respect for literal accuracy in translation and solid scholarship. Among those who support the Revision and things like gender neutral language we see appeals to secular sources � like the argument here about slavery and the use of the term man in the U.S. Constitution and the style book of both secular academia and secular feminists.

No one is seeking to leave the Liturgy set in stone. If one reads the Liturgical Instruction one can see a clarion call for renewal to the forms handed down to us by the Church as a prerequisite to allowing change, and that all change be organic rather than fabricated, and that it be conducted in concert with the rest of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox).

Is the corresponding Greek word in the creed also "redundant, not necessary and does not add to the meaning"? If it is not redundant etc., what is its meaning and purpose? If it is redundant etc., what purpose does it serve if any; why would the Fathers have included it?

Dn. Anthony

PrJ overstates the case. No one has stated that those who support the RDL are �anti-Christian�, �secular� and part of some agenda to �change Christianity�. In fact I and others have repeatedly stated that we acknowledge their love for Christ, their good intentions, and their hard work. The problem here is that the support for the revision comes not from Christian sources (i.e., the theology of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) but, rather, from secular sources. Good men who are well intentioned missing the mark. As I pointed out just above we see those who support the traditional Liturgy rooting their argument in solid Catholic and Orthodox sources, and outright begging for adherence to the directives laid down by Rome for us (even quoting chapter and verse). And we see those who support the reform appealing to secular sources (exampled here in the reference to slavery) and openly rejecting Vatican directives. Were those who sought the Revision to provide justification using Catholic and Orthodox theological source material they might reasonably seek consideration for their view. But neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox theological source material provides justification for the Revision. Anyone who reads through the Liturgical Instruction or Liturgicam Authenticam, Orthodox commentaries on Liturgy or even the V2 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy can see this. People generally turn to the sources they respect for support in arguing their position. Look at the sources used by those who support the official Ruthenian Liturgy and those who support the Revised Liturgy and is very understandable that one might conclude that those who support the Revision are unduly influenced by secular sources.

May I point out that I was merely responding to your words; I don't see how I could be changing the argument. Also, I am bewildered by the "about real issues with real scholarship" comment; I thought that's what I've been doing, even to a fault.



Here I appeal to your own sentiments and make them my own:




Dn. Anthony

In 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, spoke to this issue:

I would hope that those who support gender neutral language would seek to use solid Catholic or Orthodox theology to respond to this point. We can see also that the Greek Orthodox Church in America has issued an official version of the Creed which includes the phrase "for us men and for our salvation He became man" and has made clear that gender neutral language has no place in the Liturgy.

Cardinal Estevez writes, "The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo."


Actually the Cardinal is incorrect. The term "humankind" was coined somewhere between the 16th-17th centuries. I do not think the 16th/17th centuries were concerned with questions of "inclusive language." The Cardinal's editors should strive for historical accuracy when addressing the subject of neologisms.

PrJ:

With all due respect, if you are committed to Tradition, please point out the source material for the use of feminist language before the mid-1960s. Before that time, there was no mention of the ideology that has spawned this thing.

With all due resepct, please, too, reference the source material in theology for the ideas brought by feminists that have caused bishops to think that this needs to be incorporated into the Church's life and worship.

And as to your last use of St. Paul's words about being "in Christ," please source the place in traditional theology, whether Catholic or Orthodox, that twists this phrase to fit the feminist agenda and tries to use this as justification for the wholesale rewriting of the liturgical books and the Scriptures.

It's interesting to note that Rome withheld the recognitio for the translation of the second typical edition of the Roman Missal over this issue, after the English-speaking bishops had poured a ton of money into the effort. It's also interesting to note that the revised NAB translation of the Scripture was not considered to be faithful enough to be used in liturgical worship and so the Latin Church has the anomaly of having Scriptures used in public worship that have no parallel that the the laity can have for their own study before or after the public liturgy.

I applaud your support of your bishops. However, one must remember that no bishop alone is guaranteed to be free from error; no episcopal conference or sui juris Church ALONE is guaranteed to be free from error; and it is only in communion with Rome that one is guaranteed to be free from error in the Catholic Church's understanding. We have enshrined the idea of dissent in the Catholic Church since the Vatican Council and it has cost us a tremendous amount of damage--mostly spiritual. We have plenty of bishops who go to Rome and say what they think the authorities want to hear and then go home and do the opposite. So while I can applaud your support of your bishops, I have to ask what ultimate value that has.

Tampering with the Creed, for example, puts one outside the very communion one professes by reciting it. Formal adherence means nothing if one has the intention to rewrite what the Church has always believed. What is means to be Catholic is that one adheres to the Faith received without adding to it or subtracting from it. New ways of formulating it may come along, but they always must faithfully transmit what has been received. And the danger these brethren of ours see is that the Deposit is threatened by this alien ideology that has been incorporated into the Church's most intimate life.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob and Administrator,

Very good comments. I reiterate, to make clear the implicit point that lies within both of your comments: "What makes the Eastern Catholic Churches distinctively unique is our communion with Rome." But if we are going to ignore Rome when it appears convenient, ie, on the issue of the Ruthenian Recension and on inclusive language, what's the point in claiming that communion? Rome's genius, the genius of the Papacy, especially in these "modern times" of great confusion, has been its ability to recognize and see the truth. We need to take our communion seriously and implement Rome's desires for our Church. I note (from Fr. Serge's book I think), that one Bishop whom we now proclaim blessed, Theodore Romzha, instituted the Ruthenian Recension almost immediately. His example should lead our Bishops to do the same.

This is not true. Our Mission in Lawrence has not lost anyone in the last year. Probably because we are less than a year old

Deacon, sometimes it is hard to explain these things to people who have not studied Greek as long or as in as much depth as I have. As I have tried to explain, languages are funny things. So while one word is redundant and unnecessary in one language -- it may be quite appropriate and necessary (for grammatical reasons) in another. So here you are truly trying to compare apples and oranges.

This is an patent untruth -- I have repeatedly shown how my support for the revision flows out of my deep commitment to the Gospel and to the Church Fathers. So either you are calling me a liar or you are speaking in generalities that obscure rather than enlighten the discussion.

Obviously, no Church Father discussed the question of which English word would best express the teaching of the gospel. However, if you are talking about the theology that men and women are equal before God, that men and women both have equal access to the Father, that our God loves men and women equally and that in the heavenly kingdom the differentiation between genders will be no longer present -- then there are ABUNDANT sources from the Fathers that confirm these points.

Furthermore, recently there have been several academic studies which have shown the unique position on gender shown by the ancient Syriac tradition in which the feminine pronoun was repeatedly used to refer to the Holy Spirit.

This is just one of many studies that show how later generations missed important insights of the fathers on the radical equality between men and women that was taught both in the New Testament and in the Fathers.

I would also note that Cardinal Newman's theology of doctrinal development only necessitates that a doctrine be found in seed form in the fathers and scripture for it to be accepted in its full flowering form.

Again, I think a review of history is important. Throughout its history, the Christian Church has been a leader in the feminist movement. It was Christians who asserted a woman's right NOT to be married. It was Christians who asserted a woman's right to study Scripture. It was Christians who asserted a woman's right to leave an abusive husband. It was Christians who stopped the binding of feet in China. Etc.

Father, if you're as good as you say you are, I can't imagine who could better explain it to me and other "people who have not studied Greek as long or as in as much depth as [you] have." So please give it a try: Three easy questions requiring three straightforward answers.

While you're at it, please answer this too. Do you think there is an intended link between τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους and καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα?

You see I've asked before, why is it that, as in the RDL translation, men must be dropped from for us men yet it is OK to then say and became man?

Detailed explanations are not necessary to my first four questions; yes or no type answers are fine, I'll try to figure out the rest myself. Any insights on the last question could clear things up for me a lot. If you could please answer those questions, us simple folks would sure be most appreciative.

Dn. Anthony

Yes, Deacon John has a valid point and this should be set right:

"The term "humankind", coined" in the 16th century, still "remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo."

Having cleared that up, it is nice that we're all in agreement.

Dn. Anthony

PRJ:

With all due respect, there was never anything in history called the "Christian Church." The body we speak of in the Creeds has been termed the "Catholic Church" throughout history, as early as the second century.

With all due respect there was never a "feminist" movement in the history of the Catholic Church, and, indeed, the feminist movement is a creature of the English-speaking world and the radical secular feminists during the 1960s--the era of the flower children, the birth of dissent in all areas of life, and the radical rejection of anything and everything that came before that era.

That the Church has been at the forefront of understanding and proclaiming the dignity of women is not in dispute. That it can be attributed to a "feminist" movement that extends prior to 1960 is a lie of huge proportions, not worthy of Catholic or Orthodox Christians of any stripe.

Unfortunately the many academic studies that have tried to bolster the feminist arguments have done little but discredit the authors as being anything more than social engineers in clericals.

Rome has consistently taught that the threats to womens' dignity in the world are a sin. But she has also taught that secular feminism, its agenda, and its mindset has no place in the life of the Church because it tends to divide rather than unite.

Cardinal Newman is one cardinal. The Magisterium is much larger than he alone. There are those who have expanded the idea of the development of doctrine to include everything that comes along and, again, Rome has come along and instructed us that much of what we have been taught is development in the last 40 years has been either a mistake, a misinterpretation, or flat out wrong.

It's instructive that one very faithful Catholic woman would do a critique of the feminist movement and agenda but it has received very little notice by the hierarchy which has bought into the lie that feminism represents women as a whole.

In Christ,

BOB
In Christ,

BOB

Indeed the correct translation according to the principles set forth by PrJ should be "for us human beings and for our salvation, he became a human being." But of course there is a problem with this translation for Christ became man, the bridegroom of the Church. It is precisely because of the ambiguity of anthropos--man, that the language of the Creed, as approved by the Church Fathers, and received by the Church thoughout the centuries, is both beautiful an true:


St. Ambrose taught that we should have faith seeking understanding. In the case of the new Creed, we have a modern understanding altering the faith (perhaps ever so slightly--but indeed altering it) of generations. And while I do know if PrJ falls in this camp, there are those who seek to make the change I mentioned:



http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/1.2.11

PS - As to the slavery issue, one must remember that Lincoln when he referred to the Declaration of Independence for the proposition that "all men are created equal" did not merely seek to abolish slavery only for black males.

Dn Anthony,

Your Greek got all "messed up" and try as I might, I cannot find four questions in your posts.

There would be no theological problem with this translation. Christ indeed did become a human being. And, yes, I believe that this is the intent of the Creed at this point. The Creed is not affirming Christ's maleness at this point; if that was the intent, another Greek word would have been used. The Creed is affirming Christ's humanity. That is the theological point being made.

At the same time, I have no problem with the statement "and became man" because quite clearly the maleness of Christ was a given and is the way in which he demonstrated his common bond with all of humanity.

Precisely my point: when Lincoln said "all men" everyone understood "all human beings." Today when people say "all men" most of the young people understand "all males." Therefore, what they hear you saying is theologically incorrect. We CANNOT re-educate all of the students in America. What we can do is communicate to them in a language they understand. Hence the need for the RDL.

It seems very simple to me -- you can moan and groan and complain all you want about how young people today are being poorly educated, about how the language is degenerating, etc.

But you are still faced with a choice -- stick to your antiquated way of speaking and lose the chance to communicate with the young people OR change the way you talk to communicate effectively.

I choose the later.

I stand corrected and apologize for my mistake. I thought you were serving at Sugar Creek.

Commitment to the Gospel and to the Church Fathers is no guarantee of Christian orthodoxy. Good and well intentioned people can miss the mark and I believe that you and those who support the Revised Divine Liturgy have indeed missed the mark, despite your love for Christ and His Church. Regarding my words you have quoted above I reference the rest of my post:

The fact remains that you (and most of those who support the RDL) appeal for the acceptance of your arguments based on your good intentions rather than on good scholarship. As I have repeatedly pointed out, provide the scholarly support from Church sources � Catholic and Orthodox � for your positions. A few extensive quotes from Pope Benedict XVI or other liturgical heavyweights East or West would indeed be powerful. I have certainly provided such documentation to support my position, and based on my study of the various Catholic and Orthodox theological source material I have even altered my own position to conform to the mind of the Church.

I agree that everyone should strive for accuracy and Father Deacon makes a valid point. Still, the larger point holds. The term "humankind" was embraced by the secular feminists in the 1970s and 1980s not because no one was capable of understanding the term "mankind" but because they chose to be offended by a perfectly good word.

But this is interesting. Father David Petras said somewhere in these discussions that the bishops purposely chose not to use "humankind". I'd have to hunt down the exact quote but I seem to remember it was simply along the lines of that it sounded strange. "For us humans and our salvation he became human" does sound strange but it is far more accurate then "for us and our salvation". The commission of the term "man" and rendering it as "for us and our salvation" is potentially exclusive and far less inclusive then "for us men and our salvation."

For the record, I checked with Deacon Nicholas of St. Luke's in Sugar Creek this evening. He assured me that no one has left St. Luke's because of the new translation of the traditional Liturgy. He was quite certain and emphatic in his response. He also wondered why people who have not contacted him or the priest of the parish were spreading false rumors about the Church?

Just because something is misused does not make the proper use improper.

Ironically however this thread is in response to the article of a Computer Science professor at Yale. Hardly a heavyweight in the Church.

I disagree strongly. When young people hear the terms "men" and "mankind" they are very able to understand from the context that those being referenced include all men from Adam and Eve to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming.

I recommend that PrJ study and accept Liturgiam Authenticam. It calls us to educate people about exactly these things. Literal accuracy in translation is necessary to effectively communicate the Gospel.

I agree. His points are valid and interesting for discussion yet I would not use them to support my position on Liturgy and translation. That is why I quote from solid Catholic and Orthodox sources.

I want to add my support to much of what Fr. John has said, and I also found Penthaetria�s remarks quite interesting. I have heard similar statements from women (some Orthodox).

I want to make some comments that do not address feminism directly, but respond to some peripheral comments made by administrator in posts 280859 and 280940 in this thread.

It is true that Liturgy must attend to Tradition, but a part of Tradition is that Liturgy is our living worship of God. This is why I�ve insisted that the restoration of the presbyteral prayers is so important when the Liturgy comes to be celebrated in the vernacular language. This is an expression of the Paschal Mystery and it is this that Christianity is all about. Objection: does that mean that there has been no Christianity for centuries. No, I would not say that, but it�s presentation has been somewhat hobbled, and this is due to the Liturgy being celebrated in languages that were not easily accessible to the people.

It was the intention of the bishops, clergy and faithful who worked on the Inter-eparchial Liturgy and Music Commissions to present the message of Christ to people through the Liturgy. Even Administrator John admits that, and has said many times that those who worked on the Liturgy are well-intentioned. At the same time, he claims it is a �demonstrable fact� that the new translation is bad, and, indeed, seems to give it no value whatsoever. This leads inevitably to the conclusion that if we are �well-intentioned,� then we must also be quite dull or unaware or whatever.

On the contrary, I think part of the problem is the assumptions that are being made. The primary assumption is that an authentic Liturgy, one faithful to the Byzantine tradition, can be and can only be one that corresponds exactly and literally - word for word and comma for comma - to the 1941 Oriental Congregation edition for the Ruthenian recension. Having made this assumption, one is then led to many other assumptions, some of which are contradictory.

1) The 1941 translation is a work of the Oriental Congregation. However, the same dicastery has said (in 2001), that the 2007 translation is in essential agreement with the tradition of this recension and the norms of faithfulness to the Eastern tradition as spelled out in the 1996 Liturgical Instruction. We are permitted to disagree with this approval, but we cannot deny the right of the Oriental Congregation to interpret its own documents. Likewise, we may express the opinion that we should follow other Vatican directives such as LA and others, while noting that they are not addressed to the Eastern Churches. Most certainly, we are not de jure being disobedient to Rome, as John tries to claim. He may say that we are not in harmony with the �reform of the reform,� but nothing more. It should also be pointed out that LA was not expressly anti-feminist, but that it was trying to correct what it considered certain excesses in translation, and even said that instruction must be provided to the faithful if some texts were interpreted in too anti-feminist a manner. The Church is and remains very sensitive to the needs of women in today�s society.

2) The goal of the 1941 recension was to eliminate �latinizations� from the Eastern Liturgy (at least almost all of them). There are other methods of doing this than an absolute literal application of the 1941 translation. The goal of the 2007 translation is to bring our churches closer to the Byzantine tradition. What is so curious about the attack of many members of the Byzantine Forum is that the villains seem to be the translators who worked on this project - with the goal of producing a pastoral version of the Ruthenian recension faithful to tradition - and not the many members of the Church who from the 17th century to the present have worked so hard to bring latinizations into the our church. John will claim that the 2007 translation is a subtle latinization, but, for that matter, the same claim could be made of the 1941 translation (a work of a Western committee, especially of one man, a former Roman Catholic, imposed on a Byzantine Church), and still ignores the not so subtle latinizations that created the situation which the 2007 translation is trying to correct. The wrong people are being attacked. This, of course, can be understood if the goal of the attack is to protect the assumption that only an exact literal edition of the 1941 recension can express Byzantine tradition. In this case, it would not matter if you have a twenty minute �mass� with no litanies, epistle or repetitious hymns, or if you only omit one �Wisdom� that is found in the 1941 book - both are outside the pale and are equally condemned.

3) The assumption is also made - and this is what I call the �Gutenberg Assumption,� is that the 1964 translation was actually the standard for our Church. It was not - and that was made explicit by the bishops of that time by means of explicit instruction as to how the book was to be used. Certainly, this led to an anomaly, but anomalies of this sort have always existed, and any student of liturgy knows that what you find in an official document or manuscript is not necessarily how the Liturgy was celebrated in the actual lived situation. Everyone should read Fr. Taft�s book, Through Their Own Eyes. For the situation to be �rectified� would require an official mandate from the bishops, it�s not going to happen by itself. But we have problems with mandates. The 2007 translation is a step toward that renewal. This is true of the presbyteral prayers. If you follow the 1941/1964 recension exactly, the presbyteral prayers should be read aloud. There is nothing that says they are to be said silently. That comes from experience of the Liturgy outside the written text.

4) Finally John says (post 280859):
�Authenticity in Liturgy is the goal. It works. Always.

Fabricated Liturgy does not work. Ever.�

Stop - think - the only authentic liturgy is not literal correspondence to the 1941 recension. Otherwise, we have not been celebrating an authentic liturgy for centuries - we do not say the presbyteral prayers aloud. If, indeed, we celebrate the 1964 �red book,� according to some lived traditions outside the written texts - silent presbyteral prayers, e.g. - then we are celebrating a �fabricated liturgy.� We are celebrating the essential Liturgy of Nicon�s reform - which was founded on the basis that the Greek texts were apostolic, while the received Slav texts of the time were not - which was a false assumption, and so a whole liturgy and liturgical language was �fabricated.� And it was imposed on the people in quite a non-Christian manner. However, that liturgy was quite successful - it worked! It is the Liturgy that is still frequently defended on this forum - today, more that 400 years later. Maybe the Spirit was guiding Nicon, and maybe the Spirit is guiding our bishops and translators today.

Dear Father David,
As a married man whose wife despises feminism and inclusive language (she got me rolling on this issue long before I came across this church forum), what exactly are those *needs of women* you and others continually refer to (all in the context of *sensitivity*, of course) but never specify? I would be interested in what you perceive to be their needs. And which women have vocalized these *needs* to you and the translators and your bishops? Can you point us to the public platform and avenues taken where women have presented their *needs* that justified altering Scripture and the words used in worship? My aunt wasn't invited and probably would have given you an earful. But these women, the pushers and shakers of liturgical worship and the aggiornamento of the Byzantine lexicon of worship, seem to be quite anonymous; not publically vocal; like shadows behind closed doors.

Ed

Stop - think - the only authentic liturgy is not literal correspondence to the 1941 recension. Otherwise, we have not been celebrating an authentic liturgy for centuries - we do not say the presbyteral prayers aloud. If, indeed, we celebrate the 1964 �red book,� according to some lived traditions outside the written texts - silent presbyteral prayers, e.g. - then we are celebrating a �fabricated liturgy.� We are celebrating the essential Liturgy of Nicon�s reform - which was founded on the basis that the Greek texts were apostolic, while the received Slav texts of the time were not - which was a false assumption, and so a whole liturgy and liturgical language was �fabricated.� And it was imposed on the people in quite a non-Christian manner. However, that liturgy was quite successful - it worked! It is the Liturgy that is still frequently defended on this forum - today, more that 400 years later. Maybe the Spirit was guiding Nicon, and maybe the Spirit is guiding our bishops and translators today. [/quote]

Fr. David,

Many parishes never had icon screens installed in their parishes for fifty years. Does that mean we shouldn't install them now since these churches never had icon screens?

Just because the Ruthenian Churches haven't been celebrating according to the Ruthenian Recension for 44 years, does that mean we refrain from trying to celebrate the full recension now or in the near future?

Ung

Dear Father David,

In all the work to remedy the subtle Latinizations, and the decision to return to ancient Greek titles and words, why did you Byzantine Catholics fear using the *O* word (Orthodox) as other Eastern Catholics? The corrections you speak about seem to be a cafeteria-style correction, not a wholesale consistent Easternization. And, of course, inclusive language. It looks like one *situation* was replaced with another.

Ed

I'm reposting with one modification, with a different Greek font, and with the questions indicated now by their colored mark, thus: ?


Father, if you're as good as you say you are, I can't imagine who could better explain it to me and other "people who have not studied Greek as long or as in as much depth as [you] have." So please give it a try: Three easy questions requiring two straightforward answers.

While you're at it, please answer this too. Do you think there is an intended link between Τόν δι� ημάς τούς ανθρώπους and καί ενανθρωπήσαντα?

You see I've asked before, why is it that, as in the RDL translation, men must be dropped from for us men yet it is OK to then say and became man?

Detailed explanations are not necessary to my first four questions; yes or no type answers are fine, I'll try to figure out the rest myself. Any insights on the last question could clear things up for me a lot. If you could please answer those questions, us simple folks would sure be most appreciative.

Dn. Anthony

I find it strange that the Pope is struggling to return the words of the Creed from *we believe* to *I believe* (=credo). I guess 'credo' really does mean *I believe*. The argument was made at one time to go the way of contemporary needs and forego the actual words of the credal text. That argument has lost its moving force and is being checked by your Pope. I am sure the bishops who adopted the *we believe* had good intentions and that the Masses over the years that used it was still valid in Catholic eyes. But the Pope rejects it.

The same goes for another popular communal bunch of words, the *People of God* title for the church. I believe that it too was debunked from within the Catholic Church because of its failure to include the saints(!)in Heaven in that same church community. I am sure there were more reasons, but the *People* of God sounded wonderful, it fulfilled pulp *needs*, it worked for several years ... and then it was debunked.

Liberation theology served a need too. But the last Pope didn't buy it.

There are lot of good intentions out there. But those who were responsible for writing the Creed didn't do it for the sake of good intentions or *needs*, however noble and equalitarian they were. Liberal theology usually generates the opposite result of its intentions. Orthodoxy (even the word itself instills shivers in some church spines and will never find a home in ANY Latinized vintage of worship) operates on a different set of principles, not looking for fads, tickling people's ears, or servicing high maintenance and *needy* people. We all have *needs*. This is nothing new. We also have wants, desires, memories, ideas, a view on life. But Peter writes in his letter that we should become *partakers of the divine nature*; an interesting concept for Christians, especially Byzantine ones. In the rush to satisfy all those human *needs* out there, does anyone think that Peter's instructions would get notice? or will everyone be busy trying to get their *needs* satisfied first? We are truly *needy* people. Is Father David saying that women have greater *needs* that must be met in their journey to salvation? Exactly, what is a *need*?

Ed

Good intentions do not guarantee a good outcome. Even people who are brilliant in their respective fields can miss the mark. I reject the idea that because I believe (and have demonstrated) that the problems with the Revised Divine Liturgy are so numerous it needs to be rescinded inevitably leads to the conclusion that those who created it are either dull, unaware or something else.

As I have stated repeatedly the combination that makes up the Revised Liturgy � revised rubrics, revised texts and revised music � as a package are unacceptable. Father David has admitted himself on this forum that the Church is in �crisis� because of the Revised Divine Liturgy. Many of our faithful have been hurt. Hurting people cannot be justified.

No. That is not the primary assumption and certainly not one I have ever made. The 1941 Divine Liturgy is the official Divine Liturgy of the Ruthenian recension and the Pittsburgh Metropolia is part of the Ruthenian recension. Among other things it is also a standard of unity.

We are clearly called to unity with our fellow Byzantines � both Catholic and Orthodox. We are especially called to unity with our fellow Ruthenians � both Catholic and Orthodox.

Actually I have provided extensive documentation from several sources � including the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) to support my position. I can agree that LA was trying to correct failures of earlier translations of the Latin Rite Mass. And that instruction must be provided if some of the faithful did not understand that terms like �men� and �mankind� came across to some as anti-women. But even a causal read of LA can see that the RDL copies these errors. Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, spoke to this explicitly in his 2002 letter (which I have referenced extensively earlier in these discussions). The removal of the term �man� from the Creed in �who for us and our salvation�, the replacement of the inclusive term �mankind� with the potentially exclusive term �us all� are two of the examples discussed here. Even if they were the only two problems with the RDL they are mistakes that justify the rescinding and reprinting of the Liturgy books.

I find it very strange that the bishops rely on an approval date in 2001 when so much has happened since then (LA was issued later in 2001). The texts and rubrics should have scrubbed for complete accuracy to not just the standard for Liturgy we share with others but also to the Vatican directives like LA.

Further in his points 2 and 3 Father David speaks of attacking people. I certainly have never done that and that is not what we allow on the Forum. Principled disagreement � even strongly expressed - does not equate personal attack. I have spoken repeatedly that well intentioned men, who are certainly devout followers of the Lord, have made mistakes because they began with false assumptions. That is not personal attack.

I have never once suggested that authentic liturgy can only be such that is in literal correspondence to the 1941. I have repeatedly stated that all reform needs to be done by Byzantines (both Catholic and Orthodox) working together. Not sure why Father David keeps ignoring this for it is clear in the �Liturgical Instruction� (see especially sections 21 and 29).

The words about �fabricated liturgy� come from Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). He has studied and found problems with some of the principles used in the RDL. It makes absolutely no sense to copy them when they did not work for the Romans.

We know that the 1941 Liturgy � the vast majority of which is common across Orthodoxy � works and works well. If someday it changes those changes should be a simple allowance of those that develop across all the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) over time. The Liturgical Instruction speaks to this clearly. I continue to ask the bishops of the Ruthenian Church of Pittsburgh to rescind this Revised Divine Liturgy and replace it with the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy. Since so many of the faithful have been hurt by this revision I recommend that the base text be that which is common (1964) admitting only those correction which are truly required. Then instead of mandates use the tried and true method of education, example and encouragement to raise the level of celebration in our parishes. In an earlier discussion Father David used the term "crisis" to describe the current climate in the Pittsburgh Ruthenian Metropolia. Too many people are continuing to be hurt to allow it to continue. I ask the bishops to end the crisis by rescinding the RDL. And I certainly will continue in my formal petitions to Rome to guarantee the right of both clergy and lay faithful to have access to the full 1941 Divine Liturgy, the one that we share with others, in an accurate English translation free from political correctness.

John

I know I am leading the discussion even more off topic but I think there is wisdom in Father Taft's words. I posted it in another discussion not to long ago. It is from his most interesting article "The Evolution of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy" in Orientalia Christiana Periodica XLIII, Roma 1977, p. 8-30.

This quote is very appropriate to the discussion and really bolsters the position I have supported (stick to the official books and let God work in His own time):

Trust the living tradition! Wonderful! Definitely a message worth listening to.

Dear John,

Like your namesake, you are a voice crying out in the wilderness of your church community. I have faith that Rome will finally take notice of what is going on in your community and rescind it.

Ed

I strongly disagree with Fr. David. My version of the 1941 Rome sluzhebnik specifically notes "Vozhlasheniye" before those "exclamation points" at the end of the presbyteral prayers. In the Anaphora, the note for exclamation is only noted immediately before the words of instution. Similarly before the Epiclesis. At the beginning of these presbyteral prayers the text notes "Ierei molitisya", obviously "the priest prays", and would seem to be a specific and obvious contrast to "vozhlasheniye".

I believe if the intention and mandate was clear for these to be taken aloud, the initial instruction would not be "Ierei molitisya". And indeed, this was the convention both in Synodal and Old Rite texts as well, and in nearly all cases the majority were taken silently until the "exclamations".

The 1964 and the 1988 UGCC editions clearly all indicate "Exclamation" or something along those lines at the end of many presbyteral prayers in complete consistency with the 1941 edition; a reasonable person would conclude what preceded was not taken very loudly to prompt an instruction for an exclamation.

And this is the usual interpretation across not only Greek Catholic but also Orthodox sluzhebnyky.

To claim there is instruction for any of the Anaphora to be mandated aloud is simply not true in the Rome books. In fact if one was "following exactly", one would take the prebyteral prayers in a tone and volume that would lend emphasis to the distinction between "the priest prays" and the "exclamation".

Mandating abbreviations, using innovative modern language (and arguably rubrics) not previously used in any mainstream Greek Catholic or Orthodox text in common usage would certainly not seem to be a serious attempt to bring anything closer to the "Byzantine tradition". Rather more consistency with sister Churches in a more united common usage would seem to be perhaps a better strategy in meeting such a goal.


First of all the committee was more than Cyril Korolevsky; I would daresay the situation is not so different as the IELC where one voice and writer's hand shone forth more than the rest and whose name and signature is seen with much more frequency than any of the others.

Secondly, indeed Metropolitan Andrey was using this to ccounterract several of his own "latinized" hierarchs whom he knew would not respond favorably to a more authentic version of the rescension without the approval of Rome. But we also know from the likes of Blessed Mykola Charnetsky, Blessed Vasyl Velychkovsky and others that something very, very close to the 1941 Ordo was being used with great success in Volynia and Metropolitan Andrey was keenly aware of this from the historical correspondence.

Anyone who studies liturgy seriously knows these things take sometimes several generations for proper implementation and objective measurement. 1941, especially given the World War, the Soviet era as well as all of the various difficulties in North America ( Cum Data Fuerit , splits and lawsuits, etc) is not so long ago.

If by "subtle latinizations" we are back to the aloud Anaphora, again any serious study will show that even the mandate of Justinian did not sway the vast majority of clerics and hierarchs; one must also discern what the real sensus fidelium has turned out to be in this case, especially with the hierarchy and clergy.

While the Ordo is certainly not without its shortfalls, it is a work of genius which has been acknowledged by those inside and outside of the "Ruthenian Rescension", Orthodox as well as Catholic. My Patriarch and Synod have mandated it as obligatory for my Church (UGCC), and I applaud them for being able to acknowledge the prophetic foresight of Metropolitan Andrey.

I have not found much at all that I could consider faulty with the Ordo as a useable document; even with its arguably most "latinized" aspect I would argue that the notes in the 1941 Ordo for the "Simple Celebration" of the Divine Liturgy are not all that inconsistent with what I have seen in some Orthodox monastic communities where one reader sings the responses at an "early Liturgy" conducted in a side chapel or another smaller chapel.

Dn. Antony, I know see five questions (five ?) -- what are the four questions you want answered. I still am confused.

Father, are you kidding me?

There is a quote block containing three questions that are in a previous post. In the first paragraph after that I ask you to reconsider answering those three questions as appropriate, i.e that two be answered.

I then added a forth and fifth. I then say, emphasis added:



Please note that I say "first four." The first four questions are 1 through 4 in the order in which they appear. The "last question" referred to is the fifth in the sequence, which is the last question.

But let me simplify it: Please answer all the questions; thanks.

Dn. Anthony

Erratum: In my previous post "forth" should be "fourth."

Father John,

I would like to expand more on my previous questions if I may. Although I did not want to impose on you too much about my questions, I have not had the occasion to interact lately with someone who has "studied Greek as long or as in as much depth as I have" as you have said of yourself.

So, within that context, as someone with credentials as you have indicated, how would the Greek of the Creed simply say for us and for... as in the RDL rather than for us men and for ...

Here is the pertinent excerpt with emphasis:


That is, WRT grammar and syntax, what is wrong with:



How else would one say it -- i.e. for us and for... -- in the Greek of the Creed?

Though this is addressed to Fr. John, I invite all to respond with contributions, even if they lack academic credentials.

Dn. Anthony