www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Another Open Letter to Father David

Dear Father David,

I wrote this on another thread, but post it here new again under a new topic. You mentioned *needs* and so it got me thinking - WHAT needs and WHOSE needs? We now know that someone's *needs* needed to be met, but who that someone is remains a mystery.

Here is my earlier post:

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. [End]


OK then. Who the pushers and shakers of feminist theology and inclusive language in other church communities isn't so secretive as in the Byzantine Catholic Church. I actually know many of them personally. But something seems almost sinister when such things happen that everyone has to live and abide with, but have no clue (or never invited to participate in a discussion on an open forum) on why changes are made to worship AND Holy Writ(!) to satisfy someone's *needs*. Is there a church within your church here? a secret order of believers we don't know about? and why have they only made their *needs* known to you and the others on the committees?

Please forgive me if those *needs* were posted on some public forum or church conference or printed in some journal. I am not privy to all things Byzantine Catholic, so if I have gravely misjudged you, I would welcome you to simply point me in the right direction where I can study how these *needs* were presented and discussed (maybe debated).

Thank you!

Ed

I got nervous there for a moment.... I never even new about any previous open letters. I'm grateful for obscurity.

Another Father David

"And which women have vocalized these *needs* to you and the translators and your bishops?"

My guess would be the Sisters of St. Basil the Great, who basically introduced inclusive language into the Metropolia when the published their Divine Office books.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Yes, you are correct. This same statement about the Sisters of St. Basil was told to me at pilgrimage this year by someone on the Music Commission.

So how can ten (maybe fifty nuns tops)? shape what an entire church does? This is truly sad.

I've been to two Uniontown pilgrimages. My first was when I was still Greek Catholic. Boy was it an eye opener! Two and a half months later I became Orthodox. I attended last years pilgrimage, and after hearing that totally feminized Akathist again, I knew I made the right choice.

Unless I'm stuffed into the van of my dear Greek Catholic friends, against my own good will, I can't see it happening again.

I am not buying into the idea that the premise behind this statement is true. However, I do want to note that were it not for the equivalent of "ten maybe fifty" (percentage wise) monks and nuns we would not have icons in our churches. Were it not for the equivalent of "ten maybe fifty" (percentage wise) monks and nuns the Jesus Prayer would not be part of our regular spiritual lives. Etc.

Orthodoxy lives and dies by its monastics. This is the point that Pope John Paul II was making in his masterful essay on the East. So even it is true that some of these changes were initiated by pious Eastern Catholic nuns that does not necessarily mean that it is not authentic or that it is not of God.

As always, it is important to think like an Eastern Christian and not to react.

If I am not mistaken, terrible things can also begin with just a handful.

Just remember, the Holy Spirit is a majority of One!

This was my experience also. I attended two pilgrimages. The second one was 2 1/2 years ago. I was very excited for the Akathist to the Mother of God on Saturday night. I brought Archbishop Raya's translation to read along by candle light. I was horrified when the neutralized language began. They even used vertically neutralized language by saying that Jesus Christ "became human". I was literally physically ill and I never returned.

Yes. My best guess is that the feminizations came from the sisters.

Amen. And let us pray that the Holy Spirit puts an end to the surrendering of the Church to politcal agendas of the secular world.

This is not vertically inclusive language -- vertically inclusive language changes the language about God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Although given that the Syriac language uses the feminine pronoun for the Holy Spirit, there is discussion about what this means for the Spirit among theologians.)

Notice that saying Jesus "became human" does not discuss the Trinity and thus is properly considered horizontally inclusive language. It is about us -- human beings -- and not about God -- and thus does not change essential theology.

I was always under the impression that when language is neutralized in reference to "mankind", it is horizontal. When language is neutralized in reference to God, it is vertical.

Nevertheless, Jesus became man--in every sense of the word. What is the purpose of using the word "human" here? Is it to tell us that he did not become canine? or reptile?

How ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We should consider too that God created Man/Adam with self-determination, "free-will." I've wondered, for instance, why God didn't scrape the whole Man-project after the fall and start all over. I think to do so He would have then denied what He had given, wanted to give, to His creation, free-will.

So for me, the best balance, I think, giving a sound ecclesiology, is found in one of the earliest examples of the Church at work, RSV Acts 15:28 "...it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."


Dn. Anthony

Not "to us men"?

Please look at it again (hint: in the Greek). What do you conclude? I will gladly answer, but defer for now.

Dn. Anthony