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

As even the Hasidic Jews would tell us, sometimes the Qahal triumphs over the Scriptures.

We all know, or should know that Pontius Pilate had a name-plate put on the Cross reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews". We also know, or should know, that the custom of our Church is to have that plate, but with the inscription "The King of glory".

Fr. Serge

Then why all the fuss over the Filioque?

Dn. Anthony

And again, I would point out that their are higher principles that are more authoritative than the opinions of anonymous scholars.

It's rather like saying: An atheist could be hired to design the architectural plans for a new church. His proposed plans could support the size of the congregation and so forth and it might even last a long time. BUT, the question for the believers is whether the plans accurately reflect the tradition and the spirituality of the Christians who will gather beneath its roof. In other words, there's more than a mastery of techne involved here and the parish council and priests would be well within rights to reject the proposed plans on the grounds of, while being technically correct, as lacking a true spiritual dimension that could only exist if the architect was an active Catholic very much involved in the life of his parish.

I think the analogy applies to the translation of words used in prayer. Scholarship *by itself* is important, but it requires the guiding hand of duly appointed spiritual shepherds who represent something much larger than the opinion du jour on translation. These things change generation to generation. The Church is everlasting.

Even if you reject the analogy however, I think other posters have ably demonstrated that dropping anthropos is fraught with theological errors and sets an awful precedent for the future.

On a separate note:

PrJ, you had earlier mentioned that your wife was hurt by the use of gender-specific terms. This reminded me of one of my fellow students who used the same argument in regards to the deep distress she felt (along with an Episcopalian classmate of all people) because she was being denied the sacrament of orders. The thinking usually runs along the lines of: "Sure, women can get six of the sacraments, but men GET ALL SEVEN. THE PATRIARCHY DID THIS AND I'M HURT!!" Power, power, power.

As a priest, what are you going to do when this argument comes up (and I'm certain it will if it hasn't already)? I presume you aren't going to buckle every time a man or woman complains that something the church does or defends hurts them. To you, changing the symbols -- you know, the sorts of stuff that rightly riled your Orthodox forebears -- is negotiable now, but when do you stop?

Back to the topic ---

Father David Petras once wrote in his critique of Father Keleher's, "Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - I" the following:

"Since this volume has been made available to all the priests of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I feel that it is important to also make available to them a review of the book. The sub-title explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation. As a member of the Commission that has drafted the translation, it is even more imperative, therefore, to present a defense of their work."

Now, Father David Petras has stated that, �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.�

I find it odd that Father David Petras can defend the work of the commission on one hand, but claim not to speak as their representative on the other. What is it?

I think I found the smoking gun (the Byzantine Catholic monastery) responsible for demanding the adoption of inclusive language and Father David has decided to use the Great Fast to hide behind answering the questions he could have answered over the past year. They found a willing bishop who led the charge and he is now gone. The remaining bishops are left to clean up his toiletry. Already, the RDL is being shelved. My aunt tells me that they are already returning to what works since only 5% of the people actually pick it up during worship. THAT is a sign of complete failure. She agrees with what I told her about the experiences of inclusive language being adopted and pushed by the nuns. Her comment was, �bulls-eye�.

I hope Father David Petras can answer the questions. It is not what is answered, but what is not answered (claiming the 5th) that says a lot.

My aunt is no longer uptight as she once was. They just realized that no one will enforce the RDL or punish those who don�t. It is one thing to loose people from the pews, but another to loose clergy. She and her fellow church members believe that if the people and clergy return to the pre-RDL days, absolutely nothing will happen. Even letters that she was privy to will begin to disappear.

Eddie Hashinsky

I have read it and the conclusion which PrJ draws from it is skewed. The Pope acknowledges the real advances which modern scholarship has provided to the Church. Nonetheless, unlike most modern schaolars, He "trusts the Gospels." The Pope also states:


This is the very opposite of what has been done to the Creed and the Liturgy itself in the RDL. And indeed the RDL is meant to serve not the whole, but the few have who chosen to be offended by precise, proper and faithful translations--translations which don't want to hide the Truth which offends all human and angelic intellects which say "Non serviam!"

Byzantine Catholics, in their official public worship now profess a Creed which is different than Roman Catholics and Orthodox, neither of whom are looking at the new Creed or RDL and saying, "That's it! Therein is the true faith and true rational worhsip!"

What has been served in the RDL is not the common good--which by its very nature brings man more closely to the Truth--to God Himself, and thereby brings man in real communion with his fellow man---but the private "good" of a few "intellectuals" who think they know better than Rome. Such is not the work of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth.

Fine, then they can have "their" turquoise books, and I'll have my Divine Liturgy served from the Red Liturgicon.

-- From tropical Cleveland, at top 16 or so inches of snow!!! --

The Administrator wrote:
�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.�

No. Much has been made of my statement about �hysteria.� I very carefully applied it only to �some posters,� in order to explain why I would prefer to have an objective rather than an �emotion-charged� discussion. It was not intended to apply to �all posters,� or �to all those who disagree with me,� or to �all anti-feminists.� In fact, earlier, the Administrator admitted that my observation was justified: �I agree that the issue is very emotional for some on both sides of the issue.� [Posted 03/05, 4:19 pm] In the meantime, I have been accused of �covering up,� �stone-walling,� living in an ivory tower, �dropping bombs and running off,� etc., which seem to be more serious than being emotional.

The Administrator wrote:
�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�. �
No. Again, I only said it seems to me that some posters try to �keep women down.� It certainly does not apply to the Pope, who certainly has a great respect for women, and transferring my comments from �some posters� to the Pope is certainly a logical error, if not an error against truth.
The Administrator wrote:
�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.�
This is clerical scuttlebutt, or pure fantasy, which amounts to the same thing.

The Administrator wrote:
�I can see that the Revised Divine Liturgy is lacking, and has only been an instrument of hurt to our Church.�
One woman (from our cathedral parish came to me and said, �Father, thank you for giving us this Liturgy, it�s so beautiful.�
A man (a deacon) told me, �The new translation has given the Liturgy back to the people.�
Not all people have been hurt. Although you will strongly disagree - that�s a foregone conclusion - I mention this because I think your claims are exaggerated and misleading.

Ed Hashinski wrote:
�Father David Petras once wrote in his critique of Father Keleher's, "Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy - I" the following:
"Since this volume has been made available to all the priests of the Pittsburgh Metropolia, I feel that it is important to also make available to them a review of the book. The sub-title explains the real reason for the book: to oppose this translation. As a member of the Commission that has drafted the translation, it is even more imperative, therefore, to present a defense of their work."
Now, Father David Petras has stated that, �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.�
I find it odd that Father David Petras can defend the work of the commission on one hand, but claim not to speak as their representative on the other. What is it?�

I do not speak as a spokesman �on this forum.� There are actually other fora where I speak more formally.
And no - there is no special committee - no special interest group - no special pressure group - no secret plot to impose feminist language. I would suppose that our bishops speak to the sisters in Uniontown - they would be very poor bishops if they didn�t speak to these women who have given their lives to the church - and I suppose the bishops speak to their priests, and to lay people in the parishes they serve, and I suppose they hear many different opinions - but there is hardly anything sinister about that. Stop accusing me of �stone-walling� or �lying� about this issue.

Fr. Deacon John - certainly everyone is entitled to their opinions, and understandably full satisfaction in any text would likely be hard to come by for any of us. No particulars were given so I cannot conjecture what the source of dissatisfaction was.

To respond to PrJ:


I don't deny that there needs to be an authentic basis in the original texts, nor that there is a triage of authenticity within ancient texts, whether that be Scripture or otherwise. That is common sense. Certainly my comments did not suggest opposing such a thing, either implicitly or explicitly.

Which text of the Greek are we speaking of here - Benedict XIV? Venice? Athens Museum? Several on Mt. Athos? Balkan editions? There are myriad sluzhebnyky which could be considered, far more than there are Scriptural autographa.

The point under consideration is "did the Creed change". Until very recently, all have been rendered essentially the same into English - "for us men". There certainly is a precedental convention in English that cannot be denied, and which no credible liturgical scholar would deny.

The relevant context is that in which it is prayed - certainly Sacrosanctum Concilium and other Vatican documents speak to this. To say we pray what is in something else, to say the words we are saying are really what is in this or that prototext and not what is in front of us, which has changed since the last one we had in front of us, and has changed from all previous conventional settings of the Creed, doesn't make much sense. Is it what you are actually saying or praying, or is it some centuries older text says lying in a museum that you claim to be really praying that you have never seen?

The ontological fact remains that the Creed in the RDL was changed over its previous version in either the 1984 or 1964 English versions, and is now dissimilar in this way to all official Greek Catholic and most if not all official Orthodox versions.

We are praying what is in front of us, not the prototext in the museum. The museum piece can certainly be a source text, but it is not what we are praying, unless our words are meaningless. But since one of Fr. David's main points has been that the words are very significant at the time of their being prayed in the Liturgy, and need to be heard for their educational content (especially in the Anaphora), there again appears to be a dichotomy present.

I would love to pray the Creed in Greek week in and week out and would love to see everyone learn it in Greek. But unfortunately, nothing other than English is currently allowed in the Ruthenian Church in the USA in the mandated "sole text" of the RDL(not so in my UGCC or other Greek Catholic Churches). Since it is the mandated "sole text", and since there no other linguistic options in the RDL, we pray what is actually before us on the page.

One can debate what the impetus for the change was, what this means or what the implications are for the change but one cannot deny that in its English manifestation it is not the same Creed from its previous rendition as the Creed. If one looks at the creed he prayed in the pew books based on the 1964 Liturgikon and those in the RDL, the answer would be "yes, it is different".

Simply comparing the texts will generate differences. Did the Greek change in, say, the Greet text of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom promulgated by Benedict XIV - no, but that is not what is being prayed today - nor according to the "sole text" mandates of the RDL it may not even be allowed.

And like the filioque, this change is causing a great deal of confusion and dismay amongst much of the Ruthenian English-usage world, which we see here quite vividly. These changes, not just the Creed but the RDL in general, were not needed nor were demanded by the liturgical needs of the sensus fidelium. We don't have the space to go into a complete list of the changes or discussions of them here; I would certainly recommend one read Fr. Serge's much more detailed and eloquent critical analyses of these changes

From Sacrosanctum Concilum :

Full and active participation is certainly praying what is in front of you on the page, in the immediate sense as full and active participation, and not saying words that really are manifested in some prototext that only scholars can decode, which one can take to be a suggestion of academic elitism or even neo-Gnosticism, and will likely not make any believers or supportors in the pew. And now, off to Matins.

How so? Besides, we're not Hasidic Jews; our qahal/ekklēsia/church functions differently.



Sacred Scripture, Tradition, trumps "custom."

The original statement was that of being backwards:



Are you saying the quoted scripture



has it backwards?

There are of course legitimate customs and interpretations which is why I said: �perhaps more specific references would clear things up. What exactly did they say?�

Dn. Anthony

To respond to PrJ:




But when the scholars refuse to allow the Greek text to shine forth in the English translation, they have made themselves more than translators. But the real difficulty with the Creed is that Americans won't even be able to tell what is in the Greek text whatsover. They have been misled. A word has been dropped--I suspect because the translators would not dare to say "for us humans...[he] became human." The error is too obvious.

As I see it though, modern Americans don't simply object to the word "man." Their objection is far more serious. They will also object to "anthropos" once they discover it in the Greek because the signification of the word is one which reminds them of everything which they reject about the order created by God which is reflected in Ephesians and hearkens back to Genesis:


Better not to change anything, instead Fathers love your bride as Christ did--she will not reject you.

Yes, this is an important point. It must be stressed that context is important. For scripture, the liturgy, the creed, the context is theological. We must look at the big picture -- and yes, we must know and respect the theology -- and must not just change a word here and there, in fits and jerks, especially so if done so that we can just feel good about ourselves and appear relevant by the standards of the world.

We have in scripture, in the liturgy, in the creed, the word Adam/anthropos/homo/chelovik. The proper use of that word results in a multitude of theologically significant dots that we can connect. Change or erase the dots, and the possible links, the connections are lost; meaning is lost; intent is lost; beauty is lost; mystery is lost.

For this example, we have a word that does the best job of being a dot in English, especially if one accepts standard English usage. That word is Man. Show me a better one, and that it functions as consistently throughout scripture, liturgy and creed, and I will gladly give it every consideration.


Dn. Anthony

Diak,
Father David Petras claims there were no operatives behind the adoption of inclusive language in the Byzantine Catholic church.

He writes, "...there is no special committee - no special interest group - no special pressure group - no secret plot to impose feminist language"

But such changes do not happen in a vacuum. We are not so stupid to think otherwise. Someone always does have a hand in it, otherwise the older English translation would have done fine and you'ns would have not have to have dealt with its adoption and the *no debate* status stamped on it. My questions have not been answered.

Someone had to give such instructions to change it. I don't believe the printers of the RDL hymnal accidentally changed it. The question still stands - WHO was behind it? So far, their identity has been kept under cover. But why?

Ed

Dear Father David,

I might have accused you of stonewalling only because it has taken a year to get an answer, but not the ones that answer the questions I have posed over the months. You still didn't answer my question about the WHO behind the adoption of inclusive language in your worship. I think you know.

Show me where I accused you of lying. In recent posts, you wrote something that was contradictory to what you wrote earlier. This is not lying; this is talking out of both sides of your mouth. You speak on behalf of the committee on one hand then claim you don't speak on behalf of the committee. Are you claiming that what you say privately as an individual is different from when you speak on behalf of the committee you are a member of and have responsibility in? There are certainly not two Father David Petras's, are there? I was only trying to make sense of your sense of representativeness with the committee at question. That committe has weight, especially since it is mentioned in the foreward of the RDL hymnal.

I apologize if I seem too foreward. But I am getting a sense of defensive listening that refuses to go anywhere. If you don't know WHO pushed for the adoption of inclusive language in your worship, do you know who does? Maybe we have been talking to the wrong person all these months? Why you didn't volunteer such information is troubling. I apologize if this has provoked me to conclude conspiracy theories. Just point the finger and we will go there to ask our questions.

Ed
(Trying to keep from getting hysterical)

Again, you are employing an argumentative ploy -- this time the "throw the mud against the wall and see what sticks routine". In response, to paraphrase a Disney character, "If you cannot discuss my arguments, please don't discuss at all."

To suggest that my pious, God-fearing, tradition-loving wife would want to be a priest is ludicrous and downright insulting. If you knew my wife, which you don't, you would immediately see how silly your suggestion is.

I would also point out that in the Roman Church, men can only "get six" of the sacraments anyway. So I sincerely doubt that your example happened as you described it.

Please -- stop accusing me of things that are not true, stop suggesting that I have adopted positions which I have not.

There is no error in this translation.