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

Thank you for this correction. Peace.

Why? I can only give my experience. Before my conversion to Holy Orthodoxy, I was Roman Catholic for about 38 yeras and Ruthenian Catholic for about seven. In the Roman Catholic Church I saw a slow and methodical incremental paradox shift. It began slowly with neutered language and progressed to a call for women ordination to the priesthood. In between I observed strange infiltrations of new age practices being offered at "letigimate Catholic retreat centers": eco-spirituality, reiki, mandalas, enneagram, sophia worship, wiccanism, etc.

Is there a link? I think so. I think many here also feel there is a link. We are not paranoid conspiracy theorists. We are not wife beaters. We are not supporters of slavery. We are not patriachists. We are not anti-women!!!!

We are in fear of the smoke of Satan that can imperceptibly creep into the Church and reek havoc.

This is what I have noticed. Everytime the discussion is raised, someone references what happened in the 60s to the Latin Church. I believe that this reference is unfortunate.

As I can see, few object to the changes for linguistic or theological reasons. Most object because they "believe" that the changes are "the tip of the iceberg," the "slippery slope," or part of some "undercover radical agenda" that will destroy the Church.

Since I do not share this fear, I find the objections to be without warrant. The fear appears to me to be irrational and thus the inability of those who discuss these matters to reach a conclusion.

You can't argue with fear.

Who are these posters who are "trying to keep women down?"
If I get my wife and other female friends to register here to articulate their displeasure with the RDL, will you accuse them of "trying to keep women down?"
You have given two examples here. Would you like me to begin listing the dozens of example from those who have been scandalized. I think not.

This is continued in link .

Another ad hominem. Those who oppose tampering with symbols of the creed are now unable "to reach a conclusion."

Patriarchs, wife beaters, slavery sympathizers, fearmongers, ...

I apologize to all, including Father David Petras, for being so raw in my posts. But I can only be direct in my questions.

It is true that Father David Petras is the ONLY one sticking his neck out on the issue of the RDL in the Byzantine Catholic church. His words should be welcomed.

However, me thinks that there are scaredy cats hiding behind his volumnous knowledge and experience as a pastor and teacher. I don't expect him to reveal the pushers of inclusive language, especially since he is sworn to obedience to his shepherd and it would be tactless to tell on them when the committee he is a member of might have rules regarding secrecy. I conclude that Father David Petras is not the person who can answer the question of WHO was responsible for pushing for the adoption of inclusive language and upsetting so many good church members, including singers and clergymen.

I thereby relieve Father David Petras of the burden of answering my specific questions. No more *open letters* from me.

But my questions still stand for others who can answer them. None of the committee members will have the courage, I believe, to speak up, nor will any outside groups who might have been involved behind the scenes.

This issue is definitely one that your church leaders, the ordained shepherds, have to answer. THEY, not Father David Petras, signed their names to it (as noted in the foreward - page 3 - of the RDL hymnal). But THEY have remained mum. One shepherd orders "no debate" on it. So, there you have it. Byzantine Catholics are stuck with it. They have to live with it. They have to pray with it and sing it for the rest of their lives. Maybe.

I support the Administrator's work in this matter. Don't underestimate him or the many others who have rejected the RDL in their hearts, including pastors. That those who pushed for it and mandated it are keeping silent only shows that they cannot defend it. If they cannot answer for their own actions as chief shepherds, then you'ns have to take it to a higher authority --- the Pope. Thank God the Catholic Pope is a German! Maybe this is what your church needs - a good dose of German discipline?

Eddie Hashinsky

In prior posts during these discussions Father David has been very dismissive of �Liturgiam Authenticam� On 7/17/2006 he wrote: �Liturgiam Authenticam is for the Roman Church, not the Byzantine Church - and for a very good reason. The whole question is �inclusive language� is not a �Ruthenian recension� question but one of ecclesiology, theology and sociology.� (He does not offer any explanation for that conclusion.) In other threads since then he was also dismissive of LA. If he reads my posts on this topic at face value they do not suggest that he advocates disobedience. They say that his good intentions (and those of the bishops and the members of the commission) contribute to a product that is disobedient. There is a huge difference between the two. A well intentioned mistake in the �style sheet� can lead to major problems.

I agree with Father David that LA is seeking accuracy in translation. But a directive regarding from Cardinal Medina Est�vez, specifically stated that the removal of the term �man� in �who for us men and our salvation� �has effects that are theologically grave� and �no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The �us� thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive.� [See the full quote in my previous post.] The term �man� is clearly inclusive of all men from Adam and Eve until the last child conceived before the Second Coming. Omitting it make the translation inaccurate and potentially exclusive. There are no grounds for saying the removal of the term man (�anthropos�) makes the Creed more accurate. There are no grounds for saying that the terms �man� and �mankind� (and etc.) need to be removed from the texts. LA clearly speaks to this. No case has been offered that the shows the Pro-Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship to be wrong (and why the Greek Orthodox Synod of Bishops is wrong), and why he is so wrong that we could not retain the existing translation.

I have not stated that the process of promulgation was not followed, though one can certainly argue that the bishops have not adhered to the canons:

In the promulgation of the Revised Divine Liturgy the bishops did meet the requirements of Canon 40 �1. The rubrics and texts are not accurate (and less accurate then the 1964 it replaces). The RDL is not an �accurate observance� of the Ruthenian Rite as promulgated by Rome in the official Church Slavonic edition. It admits changes that are not organic (and the mandatory praying aloud of certain prayers is not an organic development now so far along in development that it is being promulgated by Orthodox Christians worldwide). And making the liturgical books different than the official ones normative for other Byzantine Catholics and the Orthodox does not serve the �unity of Christians�.

But we see that the Slovak bishops followed the official process in their revision of the Divine Liturgy, and how appeals were successful in getting it rescinded in favor of a more accurate translation. It was later rescinded. That is why I am following the proper course of appealing through the appropriate vehicles within the Catholic Church. That the bishops have won formal approval for this Revision is not a guarantee that the Revision is what Rome wants. I am confident that ultimately the appeals will be successful, and the right of clergy and laymen to the 1941 Ruthenian Divine Liturgy (the official one promulgated by Rome) in an accurate English translation will be heard and upheld.

I applaud that Father David is obedient to his bishop, and I have never suggested anyone should be disobedient. But speaking of these issues and petitioning Rome for redress is not an act of disobedience.

I agree that some do misuse the forum. It is the nature of the beast. That is why I liken it to a coffee hour after Sunday Divine Liturgy. People can abuse that time as well.

I disagree that that it is only a field on which to attack the liturgical work of our Church. Father David himself has stated here that the questions that I and others have raised are valid and do deserve answers. Yet real, scholarly answers have not been forthcoming. And the ones that have been posted are more personal conclusions on these issues that are so out of sync with the official Vatican directives that they cannot be accepted at face value. And when we push for the specific supporting documentation we either don�t get any or it so generic in nature that it doesn�t support the position offered.

I have personally found this (and other forums) wonderfully challenging. They cause me to think through the opinions that I express, to return to the Church documents to fortify my arguments, and to correct my opinions when they don�t match those of the Church. Being forced to defend your ideas in a scholarly way (providing the �footnotes� containing the source to back up offered positions) is a very good thing. I believe many others agree, as I regularly have conversations with people in our Church (clergy and laymen) who are too shy to post but will read a post here, look up the reference and tell me that there are additional points I could have made to support my position, or that the ones I did make could have been made better.

Perhaps you don�t see the link? The only explanations for the revisions that have been offered are the exact same ones that a certain circle of Roman Catholic liturgists offered to support the changes in the Roman Mass (it started in the 1960s and continued until well into the 1990s). The experiments failed for them and they now have the �Reform of the Reform� and directives like Liturgiam Authenticam are trying to repair the damage that has been done. The references to what happened in the Latin Church are legitimate and not unfortunate at all. Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) speaks at length to many of these problems.

Are we reading the same Forum? Most of the objections are for exactly those reasons. The insistent appeals to Liturgiam Authenticam, the Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches are all theologically and linguistly based. I invite Father John to go back and read my posts that are full of specific references, or to go to the Vatican website to see them as part of the full document.

I don�t see that at all. While each has expressed their ideas it seems to me that the majority have simply stated that they reject gender neutral language because it is wrong. Most have also quoted Vatican documents.

There is a legitimate concern here, in that catering to one political group�s demand for gender neutral language (as does the RDL) what happens when the next group comes along? I�ve been to and walked out of Roman Catholic Masses in several parts of the country where the priest opened with the Mass with �In the Name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier�. There are those who are already demanding that the term �Father� and �Son� are unacceptably patriarchal and demanding that the use of such terminology is off-putting to women.

The arguments I have and others have offered in these discussions come right from official Church documents, are extensively supported by them. Since we are merely quoting the Holy Fathers and official sources are you suggesting that they are "irrational"? I don't think so but given what you are saying that is a logical conclusion. You might wish to reconsider your words.

I would really like to hear you make your points using specific, documented references to official Church documents and the Church Fathers.

Perhaps such a relationship cannot be appreciated by those who have no relevant experience with what happened in the Latin Church during the unfortunate liturgical experimentation of the 1960s and even more the 1970s, which our current Holy Father is seeking to restore in the light of Latin tradition and authentic liturgical development.

History is always educational and to ignore or dismiss those developments rather than seek to understand what relevance they may have in influencing another context is itself unfortunate. Having grown up in Latin schools of the 1970s K-12 myself I can most certainly see the parallels with the experimentation of the RDL. It is not paranoia or fear but rather lived experience.

The context of major historic currents and philosophical trends quite often spread and acclimate into diverse settings; whether that be the Enlightenment, Communism or modernism. I believe it is entirely appropriate to compare the RDL with the Latin development. Fr. Taft certainly does not shy away from comparative liturgical analyses. The "fear" perhaps may be greater for those wishing those comparisons not be made, because they most certainly are pertinent, relavant, and timely.

Quite honestly the tone of the responses on this Forum could as easliy have arisen from many Latin Catholics after the introduction of the 1969 Missal.

To add my voice and complete agreement with John's, linguistic and theological reasons are precisely my difficulties. And there is also the continued attempt, as Fr. Serge points out quite compellingly, to avoid a fuller implementation of the Ruthenian Rescension. I'm not competent enough in prostopinje to appreciate or comment on the musical nuances of the new settings.

To Administrator and Diak, you are among the "few" mentioned in my post who have registered your opposition on theological and dogmatic grounds. But if you re-read the majority of the posts (as I have recently) done, you will see that the comment made by someone in opposition about the role "fear" has played in their opposition is confirmed by the content of many posts.

My point continues to be that since I don't share the fear, then I don't find their opposition to be very convincing. As a historian, I take a much longer view of history than simply the 60s/70s. I just don't share the fear -- I don't believe that the changes of the 60s/70s on balance in the Western Church will prove to be her undoing. I think that history will show that Vatican II was inspired of God and saved the Church in the modern era. History will also show that the Holy Spirit was the great corrective in His Church and the excesses of the 60s/70s were taken care of by Him in His time. If you go back and re-read the statements made by conservatives in response to the changes of VII, you will see that their "the sky is falling" comments did not hold true. The Church survived, the Church is alive and the Church is reforming herself.

I want to also strongly stress that I have recognized the legitimacy of your arguments, and have noted that you have sources in the tradition to back them up. I highly value your positions and believe that you take them out of deep love for Christ and His Church. As I have indicated, I do this while strongly disagreeing with some of your conclusions.

One more point before Holy Week begins, in a recent post someone suggested that I am "defensive" and "angry." I will certainly own up to being a "defensive" voice of the RDL. I believe that I speak for thousands of faithful BCCers who have chosen not to speak up on this Forum. Many have contacted me privately with their support of the RDL. I am trying to faithfully defend what I believe to be of God. However, I want to assure everyone that there is no anger in my heart. Discussions online are tricky -- and it is hard to know the emotions of the person who is writing. I want to ask forgiveness if I have offended or if I have sounded angry. Please know that there is no anger in my soul. But I do apologize if I offended even so much as one of Christ's "little ones."

I stated in an earlier post, "We are in fear of the smoke of Satan that can imperceptibly creep into the Church and reek havoc".

You cherry picked the line "We are in fear" and ran with it.

I will elaborate. I trust in Christ. I know that our ways are not God's ways. In that sense, I have no fear. But fear was not a good word to use. Perhaps concern is more appropriate. I have seen and experienced the damage done to the Latin Catholic Church post Vatican II. I see that Pope Benedict is attempting to correct some of the abuses. Do I think the Church is reforming Herself? That is debatable. Time will tell. But sadly, I see the BCC making the same mistakes as the Latin Church--an historical replay--while violating that most excellent encyclical LA. It is very difficult for me to see this happening to the Church I once cherished with all my heart.

You see Fr John--I have already experienced what became of the Latin Catholic Church. The political agenda of gender neutral language was one avenue that led to the current situation. And now I see the BCC using the same road map. People have been terribly hurt and you (a priest of the BCC) come to the place (the only place) where they can vent some of their pain, and say that you feel the gender neutral langauge has not gone far enough. In defense, you use language such as patriarchal oppression and slavery. It is like rubbing salt into the people's wounds.

I apologize for implying that you are angry. Please forgive me. But you are certainly defensive for the RDL. I am defending its removal. I firmly believe with all my heart that it should be rescinded. Before I converted to Holy Orthodoxy, I wrote letters to Rome (as did many others) and the Vatican responded to my concerns. I remain hopeful that Rome will do the proper thing and reverse the approval and promulgation of the RDL. I pray for this constantly. I know multitudes who are still hurting and remain in the BCC.

And so I will ammend my original comment of which you have decided to make an example. It is not fear--it is concern. It is not fear--it is sadness. It is not fear--it is a profound love for Christ's Holy Church which inspires me.

May Holy Week be blessed and prayerful for you.

The worst of all sinners,
Recluse

Correction: I have not said this.

I am not advocating for the expansion of gender neutral language beyond its appropriate (IMHO) application to horizontal (i.e., human context) relationships.

I do not advocate and will steadfastly resist any attempt to redefine the nature of the Divine or to introduce vertical inclusive language into the Divine Liturgy. When we begin to "play around" with the nature of the Divine, we enter into the realm of "heresy" and we end up destroying the Faith. That is something I will oppose with every fibre of my being.

What I have said is that I wish the principle of horizontal inclusive language had been thoroughly and consistently followed in the RDL. I have pointed to several places where there is an inconsistency (IMHO) and I have stated that I wish these inconsistencies were not there.

Having had absolutely NO EXPERIENCE with the revisions of the 60s/70s in the Latin Mass, having read absolutely NOTHING written in favor of these revisions at the time, and to my knowledge having read absolutely NOTHING ever written by a feminist nun, I quite clearly do not understand ANYTHING about your experience and do not know or understand your PAIN, your concerns, etc.

That I in any way have increased your pain I find reprehensible and I heartily apologize.

And, since I do not want to cause any more pain, having made my positions (I hope) clear and having witnessed to the support for these positions that I find in our tradition, in the fathers and in the Gospel, I probably should refrain from posting in this Discussion Forum anymore.

Forgive me.

Many believe that "the playing around" has already begun.
I did not say that you championed the use of vertical gender neutral language. But you are a grand proponent of the horizontal style.