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

I care about a lot of things. I've posted on many Christian forums; byzcath.org is only one of them. My aunt is Byzantine Catholic and we talk much. One of the issues is inclusive language which is upsetting many members in your church. I came to ask questions (this is allowed, right?) and, so far, am still waiting to hear answers, not platitudes.


Itching or frustrated with unanswered questions? I take the Bible seriously. I have often considered and approached people why they change the Scripture - even our Lord's words. If my questions seem offensive, that is because I keep asking them hoping to get an answer. It has taken over a year to get a few iotas out of those who forced the change on Byzantine Catholics. My post still stands because it has not been answered. The beloved Father you refer to feels no qualms about stereotyping those he thinks are hysterical or conservative, about taking my questions about altering Scripture for the sake of feminism as an argument against women in general, and about stonewalling.

Ed Hashinsky

Thank you, John.

Father David Petras has stated that it was requested, but fails to answer WHO? If your list is correct, then it would make anyone in your church wonder WHO is pulling the strings.


Attitudes and platitudes will deflect serious inquiry, including back room deals -- I mean, *translations*. Remember, the Foreword in you RDL hymnal states that these *fresh* translations were required to *capture* and *accomodate the new context* of the Bible in your worship. What does that mean?

What is now considered *fresh*?

What were they trying to *capture*?

Who or what were they trying to *accomodate*?

What is the *context*?

Inquiring minds want to know because the inclusive language adopted in the Byzantine Catholic RDL and other prayer services gives a hint.

Ed

Excellent observation, Maura. But why are they trying to please even when they know the majority will get .......... hysterical?
Ed

This fact was brought out many times by the Byzantine Catholic posters on these forums. Was this too odd for you? I also found it odd that the rules for translation are different depending on the audience it will affect.
Ed

If one sets aside Ed's ecclesiastical affiliation (or lack thereof), I think he asks fair questions in straightforward fashion. For those interested in truth, it shouldn't matter what Ed's dog is doing in the fight.

Some of the reactions to Ed are what *I* consider feminine. Having taken two years of graduate-level courses in theology, I've noticed that the women in class -- almost all to a T are Baby Boomers fed at the teat of feminism -- *deeply* resent anyone questioning a professor in class. One can (and should) show respect at all times, but women for the most part seem incapable of engaging in sometimes passionate debates on theology, liturgy and so forth without shutting down or, more commonly, shutting others down. Example: A liberal launches one of those slogans about Vatican II, slights two popes, and mocks the venerable customs of the past: a question is raised in response from Scripture, and suddenly the Boomer ladies are protesting that *anyone* would dare challenge the authority of the professor. Hissing, muttering and even out loud complaints are heard, in an effort to push the "let's just go along with what is said" point of view. This is what women do -- try to smooth out things so that there is no dialectic, no nothing, just folks getting along. Works great for family life and personal relationships, but not so hot in social matters. Unfortunately, I think Ed has run afoul of this mentality on these fora.

It's worth reflecting on just how far the spirit of the feminine has overstepped its bounds within the Church (East or West). There is a cherished and vital place for it, but the problem is that it quickly morphs into ecclesiastical PC when the secular model of democracy is allowed to creep in. What is good for the hearth (the feminine) is disaster in the public square. Catholics, Orthodox and all Christians of good will should be able to fire off hard questions without fear of being stifled through shaming tactics and ad hominems. I've been waiting for weeks for someone to insinuate that opponents of gender neutrality in any form are wife beaters and puppy kickers. Some of the posters are getting close -- yet ironically, it's not they who are on the defensive for their behavior.

Much ado is made by liberals about clericalism and its pernicious place in the old pre-Vatican II Church. The new model of the Church is about bringing the laity into the heart of the prayer. Fr. Schmemann noted with regret the awful custom of private devotions during Byzantine liturgies -- a plaint echoed by commentators on the Tridentine rite. They are all about trusting the People of God and so forth in the spirit of the Council's documents, but boy, watch 'em turn into ultra-montanes when it comes to liturgy. Suddenly, the Pope is infallible when suppressing an entire rite as Paul VI did. (In the case of the BCC, it's the Council of Hierarchs.) I see the same mentality in operation in the BCC, accompanied by slights on the character of educated people hurt by the changes. It's especially dissonant to have a celibate priest castigating married men for their *flawed* understanding of the feminine. Yes, some of you men may be fathers to daughters, have sisters and spend most of your off time with your wife, but boy, you ain't got nothing on a celibate when it comes to knowing all about women.

I think it would help the Church if the more, ahem, progressive parties would actually take heed and consult the faithful and stop pretending like the hard bifurcation in vocational state should continue as the model for the future. Some of the poster s here have advanced degrees in literature. I remember reading one particularly sad translation of an antiphon in which the beauty was sacrificed to a very hackneyed rendering. It had all the markings of a liberal academic at work and it wasn't even a gender-related issue. Yet any of the educated laymen on here could have, if given the chance to offer input, corrected it.

I've been attending and basking in the Melkite liturgy in my city. It's long. There's a lot of standing. Very different from the Ruthenian, 50 minute liturgies. I love it. I wish more Catholics of all stripes could get exposure to it, to understand the holy mysteries through a deeper prism than what is typically offered in many parishes. I hope that the RDL, coupled with "vigil masses" and other existing Latinisms, does not cause cradle BCCers to gradually just merge into the Roman rite.

Good point (sarcasm duly noted).

As the old sayin' goes, you don't have to be a chicken to know a bad egg.

I am happy that the celebate life informs the married; I am happy that the married life, itsef a "great mystery," informs the celebate.

The question here is, who got the ball rolling on the need for "inclusive" language and then who kept it going? We know the names of the committee; who informed the committee? What are the data, the facts for the information.

This has affected our Liturgy and creedal formulations.

Why is no one forthcoming to take credit? Now is not the time for a false sense of humility.

Dn. Anthony

Yes. And we have been waiting for the answers for a very long time.

This is completely uncalled for and is part of a campaign of insinuations, verbal attacks, etc. on those who support the RDL in general and on Fr. David in particular. Yet everytime someone mentions the existence of personal attacks, the Administrator raises the alarm and says "What attacks??"

For those who are unfamiliar with our tradition, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition we have always looked to our celibate leaders for wisdom, guidance and advice.

Furthermore, all celibate priests have mothers. Many of them also have sisters, sisters-in-law, aunts, neices -- to say nothing of their women parishioners.

In my years of experience as a marriage counselor and as a counselor to abused women, I found that very often husbands were the LAST to know what their wives truly felt, thought and/or experienced. This is especially true of men committed to a patriarchal vision (i.e., "my way or the highway") of marriage. Closeness in proximity does not necessary mean closeness in understanding.

In my own marriage (I am a married priest) I would say that I failed to hear my wife for at least the first 10 years of my marriage. (I have been married 22 years.) It is only in the last 10-12 years that I have come to understand her perspective and to hear her unique voice expressing her unique needs as a woman. As I have indicated in previous posts, it is this listening to my wife and this attempt to actually hear what she is saying (as opposed to what I want her to be saying) that led me to reconsider and to repent of my previous patriarchal attitudes and actions (many of which I did not know I had until her kindness pointed them out to me).

My wife's humility in being honest about her experiences as a woman in the Church led me back to the Gospel to see Jesus again and to hear Him with a new sensitivity. It also led me to see the radical implications of Paul's words that "in Christ there is neither male nor female ... but all are one in Christ."

In one breath you complain that Fr. was verbally attacked when it was observed that he is a celibate and not exactly a top candidate to pronounce on "what women want from the Church," yet in this paragraph, you insinuate that "patriarchal" men -- the wife beaters -- are the sorts of people who would see such things as dissonant. Next, you impute a lack of respect on my part toward the celibate state. The only thing you left out is the part about kicking puppies and drowning kittens. I think slavery has already been covered.

Please tell me you are only making a poor attempt at jest with your post. I *know* you don't mean to imply -- even in the most oblique way -- that I or anyone else here is just like one of the men who beat the wives you counseled, if only in patriarchal temperament.

Secondly, I did not attack celibacy. I'm a celibate and love it. I respect it as a force for spiritual growth in the lives of lay and clerical alike. Having said that, all things being equal, I would *never* presume to think that my knowledge of women is in any way, shape or form superior or even equal to that of a married Christian man. This was the only point I made. Everything else is a straw man -- excuse, straw person.

A last observation: in the years I've monitored ByzCath, I've seen precious few Eastern Christian women go after opponents of the RDL the way that men do. The women on balance are far more sympathetic to the tradition. They are, in a word, conservative. They are just as upset to see the liturgy harmed by modernist abstractions as the men like Recluse and Admin. It's beautiful really: women and men for the most part understand that neutering is inimical to Christian theology. It takes academics to see things *very* differently. As I said earlier, I see the mentality on a frequent basis in liberal Catholic theology courses taught at the graduate level. It alienates and politicizes people.

I most certainly was not jesting. So we can put that rumor to rest :-)

I also would not presume to know the hearts of anyone who reads my posts. I do know that what I said is true in my experience. What you or any one else believes or practices is beyond the pale of my own knowledge.

Certainly, not everyone who opposes the RDL is abusive towards women or does so because of some hidden (to them) patriarchal and/or domineering attitudes towards women. Are there some people who oppose the RDL for these reasons? I would imagine that there are. But it is not my place to make that decision. Each person before God must examine their own heart to determine what they need to repent of.

The following posts were made by yours truly almost a year ago. I asked the same questions back then that I am asking today in my open letter to Father David Petras about new contexts and accomodations, most specifically who the WHO is behind the push for inclusive language. The stonewalling and deflections from the questions has to stop. If Byzantine Catholics are having a hard time finding this movement of voices and hearts who have succesfully grabbed the ears of some clergy, then it would be beneficial for Father David Petras, a member of the committee and expert on the liturgy, to explain who they were trying to accomodate with their fresh translations and new contexts. I detect a cover-up, and if the majority of the Byzantine Catholic faithful learn WHO was behind the adoption of inclusive language, especially the hard working laborers (like my aunt), they will make sure THEY are heard - but only after they pitched their Scripture corrupted RDL in File 13.

Some have expressed their dismay on my tactics or way of discussing this. But read my three posts from last year below and see that nothing, absolutely NOTHING, has been answered. They are good, r-e-a-l-l-y good in stonewalling and protecting the movers and shakers of inclusive langauge and trashing a worship service that was once dear to the hearts of Byzantine Catholics. They have abandoned their faithful for the sake of *needs*.

I have no clue what group of people who were able to accomplish what is now before the faithful of the Byzantine Catholic church. For certain, they do NOT post here or have ever made their identity known.

I keep posting my questions about this because of a letter my dear aunt got a hold of regarding the fear of the RDL being not implemented (it seems that THEY have noticed that many church singers have gradually returned to what works in their churches). THEY are upset about the situation. My aunt was ticked to the max on what she became privy to regarding this whole mess. This is why I keep asking on behalf of you'ns. Where there is smoke there is fire.

================================
04/01/07

Byzcaths,

I studied the controversial GREEN service book everyone is debating over (its on the net) and got stuck on the first couple pages. What stumped me for a good one was what I read in the Foreward � let me quote.

�In general, translations of biblical quotes and allusions have been guided by The New American Bible (1970-1991) and by The Psalms (The Grail, 1963). In practice, biblical allusions have usually required fresh translations both to capture the distinctive readings of the Septuagint Old Testament [sic] and to accommodate the new context of these biblical texts in the Liturgy.�

QUESTION. If the Greek Septuagint Old Testament [sic] is the choice Bible of the byzchurch, why did the byzcath shepherds base the psalmody in their new pew books on the favored romcath �(The) Grail Psalms� which is an English translation of the Jerusalem Bible which was a French translation of the Hebrew Scriptures?

I am familiar with the Greek Septuagint and find this somewhat --- allusional. Where exactly IS the Greek Septuagint used? What are your shepherds really trying to say? If one believes that biblical allusions(?) require fresh translations to capture the distinctive readings of the Septuagint � why look for freshness in a translation of a translation of the Hebrew??? What exactly is going on here? Why not an English translation of the Greek while bypassing the romcath NAB, the favored Grail Psalms of romcath musicians, and the Hebrew texts?

What exactly is considered the new context?

What is being accommodated?

All of this is so very interesting. This may become a case study for other congregations to consider watching. I am glad to hear that the byzcath church hasn't fallen apart over this, but am still worried.

Happy Palm Sunday to all your byzcaths!
Eddie H.

================================
04/02/07

ok.maybe I asked too much., but I should also add more questions about the preceding paragraph in the foreward (form page 3 of the GREEN pew hymnbook.

"This new translation seeks to be consistent in rendering biblical and technical terms, faithful to the vocabulary and thought of the text's original context in the patristic period, but also accesible to a contemporary American congregation. In a few instances, textual criticism based on the witness of manuscripts has guided the translation."

after writing my post I returned to do a slower reading of this paragraph. I like to know what the criteria are for translating Holy Writ. This brought up more confusion.

QUESTIONS: Why would the authors claim that your byzcath translation is consistent with biblical terms when they DO depart from the Bible? I noticed that they did not say that the translation isn't faithful to the actual biblical texts themselves. instead they are faithful to the context of the patristic period. Why? Isn'tthe bible good enought without diverse interpretations to muddy the water? I could see how the authors of the foreward have also mixed in the ancient documents of the byzchurch service? If so it is unclear which they are talking about.

How can a translation be faithful to one's thought if the words thtat those thoughts are based on are altered?

I am trying to figure out what is meant by a translation being accesible to a contemporary American congregation. I s this considered an enhancment or amplificatoini of scripture or a dumbing down? why contemporary? I thought byzcaths and orthodox believers claim 2,000+ years of history. Its bad enought trying to figure out what Holy Writ means to contemporary Americans (who are so removed frmo the settings and time of the Bible) than to figure out what the authors of the Bible were trying to say.

What is the infatuationwith trying to access the American culture? I have still got to find publicatoins in your congregations explaining all of this. There is not much in bible teaching. help me if you can.

Can anyone make a connectionbetween the first sentence and the last? Textual criticism (which looks at the texts with a magnifying glass) is used in a few instances, and the claim in the first sentence is that the translation is consistent in rendering biblical terms. Is consistency guaranteed when one cares to look closely in only a few instances rather than all the time? or is this where the accessible accomodations come in? (Not trying to argue just trying to find humor in a confusing abstract)

I love to study the whys and hows of Bible translations. Each translatio reflects the mindset, criteria used (if any), and intent of the translators. the byzcath translation of the bible in your church service boook is questionable. NO criteria is given. NO consistency can be determined - even by page 3. I feel and fear the Word of God is being accomodated just as the foreward states in the next paragraph 9which I highlight above.

Friends and I are studying how consistent the bible verses really are. Do they follow The Grail-New Jerusalem Bible-Hebrew Scriptures? or do they follow the byzchurch septuagint Greek? or do they follow American culture? I told you that this is making an interesting case study. This is the most recent claimed translation of Holy Writ. for now we will ignore the confusing criteria(?) given in the foreward. after comparing all the bible verses we might be able to better understand what the authors meant on page 3.

Back to the Bible!!!

Eddie H.

================================
04/03/07

ok.let me make this easier.
how many byzcaths think their shepherds have pulled the wool over their eyes - in lieu of this foreward?
I understand how my questions may be dry and technical. There is nothing like turning a question into something personal. On anohter thread I was accused of attacking yoiur shepherds when I was merely asking questions or making observations. It seems that nothing gets discussed unless one feels someone is being personally attacked - even though I simply asked technical questions about the meaning behind the foreward in your byzcath hymnal. Does anyone care about the Scriptures? are feelings or perceived fingerpointing the only thing that gets attention? What happened to the world of ideas? a community of faith rather than a community of mere feelings. Paul makes a point about no longer being and thinkin glike a child. ok. lets forget about perceived negativism and hurt feelings. I put these questions above hoping to get answers. Does anyone care?

I point this out in charity however lacking it may be perceived. I tried not to attack your shepherds but only to stick to the words they wrote in YOUR hymnn book. i love Holy Writ and am always interested when it is abused or misused. I am convinced that a congregation is only mature as its concerns. If it isn't concerned about the confusion made in its own hymnal foreward then this tells me a lot.

I can accept that no one has an answer or wishes to answer for their shepherds. A lot of defenseive posturing has been taken over perceived hurt feelings and negativism. But no one wishes to discuss a topic in itself. Please do NOT consider me offensive. I only wish to discuss the words written by your shepherds. are they being true to YOU? how can you all answer to the outside communities who also believe in Christ Jesus when 'he touched me' or 'she looked at me the wrong way' gets the most attention? Your faith and Holy Writ can be changed right from under your feet and nothing get said. yet I get the feeling that praying and worshipping in a house of faith that is built over sand is acceptable.

I ask questions in honesty. Does anyone care that the Bible is being served in dubious manner? I have been patient. Now it would be wonderful if there can be answers. many of your deacons and professional singers have replied in other posts. Can they help me in answering the questions I ask above. I promise to restrict the discussion to the topic at hand NOT personal attacks and defensive posturing which attracts attention and dissertations like magnets.

I offer my apologies if my words are bitter now. I cannot help determine that no one really knows what the issues are really about when the evidence is out on the table.

if no one wishes to answer my questions then I will consider that this thread has reached its end - like one previous where i was determined to quickly attack your shepherds then no reply was made when I stuck to qusetions about the evidence.

i apologize to the moderators if this post is sharp and bitterl-like. But Holy Writ tells us that one will no others by the fruit they bare. I will back off if my questions about the foreward has hurt any feelings.

Eddie Hashinsky

Upon reading this in reflection, I want to add one more note. The only person's motive I can know with some certainty is my own. At one time I was violently opposed to the language changes being discussed. No one could have been more opposed to them than me.

But in my case (and I speak ONLY for myself) I have come to see that this opposition was because of my sinful chauvinist attitudes towards women. My wife's humility and patient kindness has brought me to repentance. Through this repentance I have come again to the Gospel and seen with new eyes our dear Lord's treatment of women.

That is all I am saying.

Really? I hate the inclusive language and I'm a woman, what does that make me? Certainly not a chauvinist....