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

But of course none of this repentance gives anyone, whether he is a Bishop, theologian or layman, the right to change the Creed. That is, afterall, what has been done.

Earlier, you also mentioned the patriarchal mindset of those who wanted to see a fuller, more authentic revision. Now you add chauvinistic to the mix. Again, you imply that the flaw you had is what we're all "suffering from." It's rather like saying, "Well, I wouldn't say Bob is an uncontrollable liar, but... " The suggestion has already been planted.

Again, I'll go back to my experiences in academia. The last time I heard these terms -- patriarchal and chauvinistic -- was from a group of Catholic ladies (Boomers of course) who spat the word out like it was something bad they had just chewed. (Imagine the reactions to hearing the prayers for the Ecumenical Patriarch at an Orthodox liturgy... ) It was specifically in reference to our Holy Father, now gloriously reigning, and his defense of the apostolic tradition of a male-only priesthood.

So, from where I sit as a full time software developer who happens to being finishing up academic work in theology in the evenings, it seems that there is a spirit afloat and that something greater is here than just word changes. What people here on the fora understand is that we're not kibbutz-ing about "he graciously loves mankind" vs. "he really, really likes us!" Rather, there is a distinctly un-historical, un-apostolic ideology at work that is motivating the proponents of gender neutralization. The language is a smokescreen. Female ordination is the grand prize. Some people reading this may dismiss this as seeing too much into things, but I urge anyone to Google on the terms "patriarchy" and "feminism" and "liturgy" and watch what comes up. It's not Byzantine in praxis or belief. Only recently did our Holy Father, now gloriously reigning, express his wish that the feminist liturgies cease and desist. The problem is widespread and it breeds confusion and polarization. The only winner is the devil.

I think PrJ's comments say and express better than anything I can do about the spirit of feminism. It's not just language and again, the RDL proponents have tipped their hand.

Father David of course does his part, occasionally stopping by to drop a bomb and then depart while people debate. I don't understand what good is accomplished by him continuing on the one hand to show that he pays some attention to what is posted here, while on the other making some unfair remarks and then splitting.

Before Father David Petras offers more platitudes and wishy-washy theologies, it would be best that he fesses up to WHO this group is that is shaping the Byzantine Catholic worship.

Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Bishops and liturgists just don't tinker with the language of worship because they care or feel guilt ridden as some chauvinistic men recovering. Worship, I thought, was the work of the people, ALL the people. Obviously, in the case of the Byzantine Catholic RDL, it has become the work of closed door committees and stealth lobbysists pushing agendas.

As a Christian, I have been very patient asking my questions regarding the opening salvo thrown at Byzantine Catholic church members in their RDL foreward. But my patience is wearing thin.

I smell a rat.

I read such things in the RDL foreward as *fresh translations*, *capture*, *accomodate*, and *new context*. What was considered *fresh*? What were they trying to *capture*? Who were they trying to *accomodate*? And what, exactly, is this *new context*?

Father David Petras mentions the *needs* of women. This is a clue. But not too many women on these forums buy it.

A shepherd of your church mentions elsewhere on the net that there is to be *no debate*. This means that YOUR word doesn't mean squat.

If the RDL language was adopted to accomodate the needs of women, it is obvious that those women, and the needs they requested (or otherwise demanded), were fulfilled at the expense of those who were not or will never be privy to letting THEIR needs as orthodox Byzantine Catholics being heard and supported. It seems to be a matter of, "Put up and shut up. We did what we had to do. Don't push it because we ain't going back."

I would suspect that in such secret doings that blackmail is involved. Don't ask me why I would suspect such a thing. I have my reasons.

Much virtual ink on these forums has been spilled in the debate over the Byzantine Catholic RDL. The Administrator has provided an OPEN forum to discuss what some in your church wished to have accomplished in closed door committees with the needs of a particular group being satisfied.

One poster also noted that a Byzantine Catholic nunnery is responsible for the adoption of inclusive language in their church worship. Others have given witness to this at their pilgrimages that occur there. This nunnery has been awful quite and has not made themselves known on this matter.

Whoever the WHO is behind the Byzantine Catholic adoption of inclusive language, they certainly knew that the time was NOW to adopt it. The remaining church leaders, as is the case in most churches, are from the 60's and 70's and will be retiring shortly. Like the last day of any U.S. President, it is the day to get the pardons in, pardons that would not normally be given when people would have the time to respond and act accordingly. In the case of the RDL, the *no debate* takes the place of an authority departing office. Supposedly, you, the members of the Byzantine Catholic church, cannot do anything.

So, you may think.

Those who have accomodated the needs of some with a fresh translation set entirely in a new context have not left office. Those who successfully pushed, nay, demanded, the changes remain stealth. No comments. No peep. No debate. Nyet!

But my questions remain; the same questions I posed almost a year ago.

There is a special learned art of dodging the questions by directing the focus of the debate on the questioner. Any ad hominem attacks will do (labelling them as hysteric conservatives without really knowing - or caring to ask - about their political views). Any false characterizations will do (the needs of women are better known by a celibate man than a married man, and so we can assume or accuse this married man that he hasn't a clue about women). I know that in some churches, the atmosphere is so poisoned that they will demand of their fellow colleauges psychological evaluations. This tactic, I am sure, will be forthcoming if any clergy steps out of line and joins the protest too publically for their taste. Church politics is still politics. But if I am relentless, it is because of my unaswered questions and the fact that I can overlook the deflections, platitudes, and wishy washy theologies. I can still focus on the kernel of the debate.

What does Father David Petras know and when did he know it? (I just had to ask that one). If money leaves a paper trail to the movers and shakers of backroom deals ("just follow the money trail") then inclusive language leaves its own paper (translation) trail. I think if this is discovered, everyone - and I mean EVERYONE, will have a different opinion about the RDL. It is not the fruit of the RDL that matters, it is the roots of the RDL. And for now, those roots are well hidden in he ground of *no debate*.

But there is a reason for everything. It is left up to you to discover it.

Good night and good luck.

Eddie Hashinsky

You know, sometimes I can't win for trying

Let me see, you have just accused me of being a closet supporter of women's ordination, of being inspired by boomer ladies who don't like the pope, and of being against the idea of a Pope. Then you turn around and accuse me of shamelessly implying something negative about you and others who oppose the RDL.

This is why it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion on this topic. I have stated many times that I am NOT inspired by the secular feminist movement. I have stated many times that I AM doing all that I can to remain faithful to the Eastern tradition. I have given witness of my own repentance of sinful attitudes and actions that hurt others, especially my wife. This is what is truly going on. I have also presented arguments, based on Scripture and the Fathers, to support my decisions.

What happens when I present these arguments? Since you cannot refute them, you have to accuse me of being an undercover femi-Nazi (or something similar to that) who is working against the Pope. If that is true, why did I enter into communion with the Pope only a year and a half ago? It makes no sense on the face of it.

I have pointed out before that some of those who oppose the RDL resort to several argumentative ploys to avoid admitting that good people inspired by the tradition can disagree on these issues. Here are the ploys that continue to be used to obscure the issue: 1) hidden agendas, 2) slippery slope, 3) conspiracy theories.

Here is where things stand (IMHO).

Faithful people have come to different conclusions on the basis of their prayerful reflection on holy Scripture and Tradition. Some have been led by their study and prayer to support the RDL, others have been led to oppose it. On both sides, they are pious, prayerful, practicing Catholic Christians who are trying to live out the Gospel as best they can in our modern world. I have been impressed and continue to be impressed by the passion, zeal and knowledge shown by many who oppose the RDL. While I do not accept their conclusions, I am inspired by their love for God and His Church. I would hope that they would be inclined to have the same opinion of me.

Why can we not accept that this is true? Why do the supporters of the RDL have to be "evil"? Why is it that some (not all, there are a few on this forum who have remained objective and focussed on the debate without resorting to argumentative ploys) of those who oppose the RDL refuse to admit that there are legitimate reasons within the Tradition to support it? Why can't we agree to disagree?

I am not threatened by the existence of those who oppose the RDL -- why are some so threatened by the existence of those who support it?

The Holy Spirit will lead and guide us into all Truth. That is the promise of Jesus. If the RDL is of God, it will last. If it is not, it will fall by the wayside. Meanwhile, we are all Christians who share sacramental unity in Christ's Body and Blood. We have good hearts, we are trying to be faithful to the tradition, we are endeavoring to live by the teachings of the holy Fathers, etc. We just disagree right now. Let's accept this, let's talk about this -- but let's not accuse each other of being closet anti-papists, etc.

*I would note that I have not accused anyone other than myself of being a chauvinist. My original comments were in direct response to the assertion that married men were better equipped to speak about the "needs" of women than celibates. My comments were to the effect that, as a marriage counselor, my experience had led me to question this assumption. My comments in this vein were inspired by the previous post and not a judgment of anyone on this forum.

I would note that this statement is objectionable within the Eastern tradition. There is no such thing as a "nunnery." Women monastics in the eastern tradition live in monasteries.

For the last time, I am going to try to address this accusation. It is, as I have shown, a false accusation. No one has changed the Creed. Let me explain.

1) We ALL accept the Creed as written in Greek. No one has or will suggest that change the original Creed. The Creed - the autographa -- is in Greek. Unless you change the Greek, you cannot be accused of "changing the Creed." If you change the English, you have changed the translation. So PLEASE make your accusations correct. The translation has been changed; the creed remains as it was written by the holy fathers at the Council.

2) We ALL agree about the meaning of the statement in the Creed. ALL of us agree that the holy Fathers mean to say that Christ's work of salvation was "for every human being, male or female, old or young, etc." NO ONE disagrees with this. EVERYONE on this Forum is committed to this interpretation of the statement in the Creed.

3) What we disagre on is the best way to express this truth in English. It is a debate over TRANSLATION. It is a debate over how best to speak the Gospel in today's English.

While this is a good debate and one that is helpful, since it does not involve basic theology (we ALL agree on that theology), perhaps we can ratchet DOWN the rhetoric and accept that good, pious, Bible-believing, Pope-honoring Catholics can disagree on how best to say things in English!

Again, the Creed has not been changed. The Translation has been changed. We can disagree over the pros and cons of that translation but since we all agree on what the Creed means in its autographa, there is no big theological debate.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don't use alarmist rhetoric. It just upsets pious laypeople and alienates them from their Church. Like the colors of the Justice Department, it spreads fear without offering any substance.

Since my last post, there have been many "ad hominem" responses. It was my intention not to respond, since this is the Great Fast, and it would not be profitable to my soul. However, I feel I must offer a few words in support of Father John. Yes, there are people on both sides of this issue who are sincere and commited Christians. On this forum, I do not speak as an official representative of the Council of Hierarchs nor for my co-workers on the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission. I think it is right and proper that I speak only for myself and express my own opinions. As for the accusations of "stone-walling," I cannot answer because there is no special committee to support inclusive language. Please do not pre-judge this situation.

I disrespectfully disagree with Father John. The point I come away with from Sultan�s post (and those of others) is that since the roots of gender neutral language come from the secular feminist movement those who use such language cannot help but tie themselves to that agenda. Their motives are surely honest ones, but when you let the head of the camel into the tent you always get the whole camel. And in this case the camel is the politics of the secular feminists.

As to implying negative motivations, I guess it is all in how one interprets things. It is OK for him to say that �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� (thus making an accusation that at least some who support translations prepared in obedience to Liturgiam Authenticam are �abusive towards women.� And even hint that we should repent for our position. Yet he bristles and becomes openly hostile when people suggest that his insistence of using language that violates Liturgiam Authenticam means that he may be confused with those who push the agenda of secular feminists.

Well, no you haven�t presented arguments based on Scripture and the Fathers. What Scripture and Church Fathers have you presented to demonstrate the need for gender neutral language in Liturgy? One can look to Scripture and the Fathers and find the proper role of women. Father David listed a number of documents that speak to that topic in general. But nothing from Scripture, the Church Fathers, or recent Vatican directives support the idea of gender neutral language. In fact, they clearly direct the Church not to use gender neutral language. Liturgiam Authenticam and other directives are pretty clear that gender neutral language does not belong in Liturgy. You reject Liturgiam Authenticam and the related directives from the recent Holy Fathers. You also (in other discussions) have rejected the Vatican�s directives that translations be faithful and accurate (word for word, also called �formal equivalence� and have stated your support for �dynamic equivalence�. But the Vatican has directed otherwise. Any objective compassion can see that you and those who support gender neutral language are not conforming to the directives of the Holy Father regarding language in Liturgy. And your consistent ignoring (and, in Father David�s earlier posts an outright rejection of) directives like Liturgiam Authenticam demonstrates that the position you offer on gender neutral language is simply not rooted in either Catholic or Orthodox theology. Your positions (and those presented by Father David) are quite easily refuted. They have been refuted. I can only urge you to be open to the idea that you are wrong and the Vatican is right, and then study documents like Liturgiam Authenticam. The Church has given us guidance. It has said �no� to gender neutral language. It ended the experiment with gender neutral language and dynamic equivalence when it reformed ICEL and issued directives like Liturgiam Authenticam. Take the hint!

I certainly agree that those on both sides of this issue are good, well intentioned Christians who sincerely love the Lord. I attempt to state this in every post. But I am not sure that I see anyone suggesting otherwise. It is not stated be each poster as often as it should be but I am confident that every poster believes this. We do know that there has been stone-walling on the issues that have been raised. The bishops don�t seem to be speaking to it (we know only one bishop really wanted the reform). Legitimate questions go unanswered or the questioner is made to look like an attacker (we saw it earlier in this thread where Father John attempted to change the subject to the motives of the person asking a question with persistence until he received a legitimate answer). We have seen Vatican directives rejected without explanation and a response of anger to anyone who points this out.

One must also keep in mind that an incredible number of people in our Church have been hurt by the promulgation of the RDL. Many people who respond here are responding out of their hurt. It is not just an academic discussion. The rock of stability of people�s lives � the Liturgy � has been altered. No one addresses this hurt. I know so many who speak on Sundays of nothing but this horrible Liturgy. Forget what it is for a moment and think about how it was forced on them, and how they are essentially told that the Liturgy they celebrated from childhood is so wrong it can no longer be permitted. My 80 year old mother tells me of the older women in her parish who only go once a month (so they can still be buried from the church they were baptized in), and how they all listen to the Russian Orthodox Divine Liturgy on the radio that is identical to what they grew up with, and what they want now. I speak to a different clergy, cantors and friends across the country on a regular basis and they all report similar stories.

On this point I agree totally, and I myself have stated this numerous times. We can already see the RDL falling by the wayside. Bishop Andrew was really the only bishop who supported the RDL, and if he had retired five years ago at 75 it never would have been promulgated. I can only guess at the future but, based on my conversations with clergy and laymen across the Church dislike for the RDL is massive. The music is uniformly hated and will probably the first thing to go. And when it goes there will be no reason to keep the translation. There is some good work hiding behind the offensive gender-neutral language. But the way forward is going to be to shelve the new books and return to the old and offer a period of healing for the Church. Then to finally promulgate the Ruthenian recension; reprint a 1964 Liturgicon with only corrections that are absolutely necessary. When the priests and people are allowed to pray the texts and music they love an authentic renewal can occur based on education, example and encouragement. And the end goal must be our own Liturgy, the one we share with other Ruthenians, and with all of Orthodoxy.

It is not so easy a point. Replacing �who for us men and our salvation� with �who for us and our salvation� is a change in the Creed because the term �man� (anthropos) is missing. Using �who for us humans and our salvation� would be a change in translation because it would clearly contain a translation for the term �anthropos� (but of course it sounds like something from science fiction). Earlier in these discussions I have quoted Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship (2002) on this issue, who stated that the omission of the term �man� was �theologically grave.� It is really a shame that our bishops did not respect the directives from Rome. I am hopeful that Rome will listen to our appeals and rescind the RDL and instead direct our bishops to promulgate the full and official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy, and insist on an accurate translation.

Don�t forget yours. There has also been many unanswered questions too.


But you have responded and have left many confused and wondering, if not bewildered. Many souls in your church have dealt with a new worship without explanation or wish for debate. But, of course, the argument can be made that the church is not a democracy and hide behind it.


Who actually DOES speak with authority and responsibility in your church? I checked out various websites over the years after arriving and found you do a lot of writing and teaching for your church. I am impressed with your work. Would you be permitted to write or teach without permission on behalf of your church? Are you claiming that you have no input anywhere in your church? I have seen pictures of you at Catholic-Orthodox dialogue commissions on the web. Are you saying that you were just there as a mere observer and not representing your church in any capacity? Everyone knows that in the Catholic Church, one cannot express one�s opinions without speaking in the *mind of the church*. Your posts and your theologies speak wonders about what is going on in the *mind of the church*. Your imprint is all over your church�s worship. You were a main player in the *Intereparchial Liturgcical Commission*, right? The very last sentence in the fourth paragraph specifically states:

"The musical renderings of historic scholars have been carefully adapted to accomodate the new English translation provided by the Intereparchial Liturgical Commission."

It seems to me, Father, that YOU were involved in providing that translation since you were on the commission.

Someone got what they wanted and that is that.


Of course there isn�t a *committee*. Who said there was? One doesn�t have to form a committee to pressure church leaders to adopt inclusive language. One can use other means.


I will tell my aunt to ignore the letter she was made privy to. It seems that most, if not all, of the inclusive language is originating from the women�s Byzantine Catholic *monastery*. Members of your church have given witness to the adoption of this *fresh* language at their retreats at this monastery.

My questions, not pre-judgments, are still:

What is considered *fresh* in the translations?

What is trying to be *captured*?

Who were you�ns trying to *accommodate*?

What is the *new context* you were all trying to instill in your worshippers?

My God! I find it absolutely crazy that we can't get beyond page 3 of the RDL hymnal without stone-walling. I used to skip forewards until a learned scholar worth his salt told me to read them first; they usually give the PV (point of view) or direction the rest of the book will take. So far, the third paragraph on page 3 is a roadblock that is impassable. But it is telling of what one can see from its lofty cliff.


Eddie Hashinsky
A slightly hysterical, conservative, pre-judging kinda guy who loves reading The Emperors New Clothes.

I can appreciate that Father David speaks here only for himself, and not as an official representative of the Council of Hierarchs nor for his co-workers on the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission. While I seem to disagree with him on many issues I know he is well-intentioned and has worked hard. As much as I can admire him, his commitment to the Lord, and his hard work, I can see that the Revised Divine Liturgy is lacking, and has only been an instrument of hurt to our Church. I would hope that seeing that he himself has used the term �crisis� to describe the state of our Church he would personally recommend to the bishops that they rescind the RDL and return to the 1964. Then, make some of the rubrics he has argued for optional, to see if they take root naturally (which has been my consistent suggestion for many years). Keep the standard with all of Byzantium (Catholic and Orthodox). Admit changes in concert with them.

As far as "ad hominem" responses, Father David has been probably more guilty of this then anyone else. In this thread alone he suggests that those who disagree with his position are guilty of attempting to �keep women down� and are nothing but �emotionally charged� and �border on hysteria�. That is stronger than anyone disagreeing with him has posted. And to someone like me � who has studied the Church Teachings on women, sees no conflict between those documents and directives like �Liturgiam Authenticam�, and support the Church�s call for accuracy and not political agendas in translating the Liturgy, he comes across as accusing of the pope of trying to �keep women down�. My logic for understanding this is simple. If I am guilty of attempting to �keep women down� then so is the pope because I agree with and see the wisdom of the Vatican directives not to use gender neutral language. It seems to me that the use of gender neutral language is an impediment to a correct presentation of the Gospel (including a correct understanding of the role of women) because it automatically unites the Gospel with the agenda of the secular feminists. When the secular feminists control the language the correct presentation of the Gospel is all the more difficult.

I think that if the liturgical commission had stuck to its original agenda of re-printing the 1964 with only those changes that were absolutely necessary, and followed the Vatican directives closely, I would be their biggest supporter.

John

The assertion that "we all support and accept the original Greek text of the Creed" is, perhaps, ingenuous. It is difficult to "support and accept" a text that one is unable to read, and the very creation and publication of translations implies strongly that the hierarchy and the experts are well aware that there are lots of clergy, monastics, paramonastics, and faithful who do not read Greek.

By the same token, one can only support and accept a text in Church-Slavonic if one is able to read and understand it. Again, this is why it became necessary to liturgize in English.

As a consequence, it is and will remain necessary to be vigilant and strive for the closest possible correspondence between the original Greek (especially of a text of such basic dogmatic and theological importance) and the English translation.

Fr. Serge

I could not agree more!! This is what the debate is all about -- how best to do this.

It is always pleasant to find that someone agrees with me. The point of importance is that what may seem like a small linguistic compromise may have large implications not immediately perceptible.

Fr. Serge

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, most academic Greek scholars that I know and have corresponded with would disagree with your assertion that dropping the word "man" is a change. Most academic Greeks scholars that I know and have corresponded with (and several names have been given in previous forum discussions of prominent scholars) would argue that the word "anthropos" is unnecessary in English.

So unless you are a Greek scholar, you should accept the authority of the Greek scholars who spend their life studying the language. At the very least, to be intellectually and academically honest, you should admit that yours is a minority opinion among Greek scholars.

You keep quoting texts from the Vatican that are not directly related to the translation of liturgical texts in the Eastern context. I have pointed out that the East and West differ in their understanding of language. Here I would simply quote St Isaac of Syria: "Words are the language of this world; silence is the language of the kingdom." This insight by one of our greatest monastics has a lot to say about the different approach one should use in translations in the eastern context.

Furthermore, I readily admit that I am not a scholar in terms of Vatican directives. However, I know that Fr Taft is -- after all, he lives and works in Rome. He certainly is well aware of all that you have written and if he can endorse the RDL then your interpretation must not be the necessary one. I have also spoken at length to Fr Stephen (Fr Taft's successor in Rome) about this very issue and about the Vatican directives. He assures me that in no way shape or form does the RDL violate any established or expressed directive from Rome. Once again, if it did, certainly Rome would not have approved the RDL. Since Rome did approve the RDL, then your interpretation of the directives is a misunderstanding(at best) and wrong (at worst).

Furthermore, another good friend of mine who is a scholar of St Gregory of Nyssa has written on the topic of gender and race in St Gregory's writings. He has also begun a long--term study of the feminine imagery within the fathers when it comes to God. (For example, the liturgical texts frequently talk about the "womb" of God the Father.)

I have also mentioned recent scholarship work on the Syriac tradition and its unique insights into this. Obviously, these fathers do not discuss English translation -- they were writing in Greek. But the principles that they establish clearly substantiate the RDL's approach to translation.

One more point, when I was a Protestant I was very good at proof-texting. I could find quotes that backed up my presupposition and marshall them to buttress my argument. Part of my reconditioning (intellecutally speaking) when I became Orthodox was to stop proof-texting and instead to allow the tradition to speak and guide me from the standpoint of principles and theology. This is why I do not respond to a series of "proof-texts" presented without context. Were I so inclined I could find a list of proof-texts to support my position. But it would be a waste of my time and yours!

I am much more interested in the theological principles that undergird our approach as Eastern Catholics. It is these principles and most importantly the Gospel that should determine what we believe and practice.

IN short, I have given you abundant resources within our tradition that would lead you (should you be so inclined) to see the sources of my beliefs. That good pious God-loving and tradition-respecting Catholics can disagree is proven abundantly by our discussions. I don't expect you to agree with my interpretations. But please don't keep telling me that they cannot be supported by our tradition. That is not true.