The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 238 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 10 of 15 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 14 15
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by PrJ
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.
Thank you Father. That means a lot to me. I also apologize for any way that I may have offended you. Please forgive me.
Originally Posted by PrJ
Forgive me.
God forgives you and so do I.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 674
Originally Posted by PrJ
To Administrator and Diak, you are among the "few" mentioned in my post who have registered your opposition on theological and dogmatic grounds.

I find this ironic. Why should a defense of the Ruthenian recension, and our historic liturgy be needed, on theological and dogmatic grounds? The presumption is that the books published by Rome (that we share in common with other Greek Catholic, and the Orthodox), should be the norm for us. I thought it was our bishops' job, to safe guard the tradition.

To my mind, it was the burden of the revisionists, to prove that our Liturgy was inadequate, our rubrics flawed, our prayers incorrect. The burden of proof should be on revisionists, to prove that the change was needed! There has not been one dogmatic or theological proof, that this revision was needed or wise.

Vague assertions that 'the Liturgy belongs to the people' sound nice, but I don't see how the Liturgy didn't belong to the us before the revision, or that it belongs to us more now.

The presumption is that the tradition is correct! It is the revisionists who have failed to provide a convincing argument (theological or otherwise) that our Liturgy needed revision at all.

Demanding that people defend our Liturgical tradition with dogmatic argument, is a smoke screen.

If we were a Church worth its name, the tradition would speak for itself, and those who demand change should have the burden of proof on themselves.

Nick

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by PrJ
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...

What I have said is that I wish the principle of horizontal inclusive language had been thoroughly and consistently followed in the RDL.

This prompts me to state a concern on the use and potential misuse of the terms "horizontal inclusive" and "vertical inclusive." It is certainly proper to define one's terms and use them as in the above quote. My caution is that the terms, even inadvertantly, do not become prejudicial in meaning or application; then they just amount to smoke screens.

For instance, the arguement:

Horizontal is ok for "inclusivity."

Vertical is never allowed for "inclusivity."

X is horizontal.

Therefore X is ok for "inclusivity."


This is especially so when the vertical is defined too narrowly, and if everything else defaults to horizontal, then how convenient for some. What about in-between cases?

Suppose X is, for instance, "Lover of Mankind" or the creedal "for us men....[He] became man."

I think it is necessary to deal with specifics and their subtleties rather than defaulting to preconditioned and potentially misapplied (and worse, manipulative) terminology.


Dn. Anthony


Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Since it is one Eucharistic sacrifice of praise, one can never completely separate the "horizontal" from the "vertical", since at some point it is all in a sense "vertical" in the praise, presence, and service rendered to God through the Liturgy.

I find that a strict distinction between these two seems to provide a continued sequential and dichotomous means of justification of additional language changes as we see here - one is OK and needed ("horizontal"), the other we would never change or tamper with ("vertical"), but I would posit they are very much related and not mutually exclusive.

To once again recall the parallels to the Latin liturgical development, I would also suggest one did not see the distinctions between "vertical" and "horizontal" in use in liturgical literature very much at all until those became means of justifying differences in language and liturgical approach in the aftermath of the Pauline Mass.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 571
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 571
IC XC

Glory to Jesus Christ!

When I was in the Ruthenian Church, Father Steve Greskowiak, revised the Liturgikon himself and we used that. I am sure he would be against even horizontal inclusive language, but now that I am a member of the OCA now attending the Greek Church in Spokane as I attend school, I appreciate the modern language--however I am also loving the Greek and Slavonic Father Stephen incorporates in the Liturgy--I am starting to love chanting the Greek tones. I never did buy the liturgical English, pseudo Elizabethean, school of some Orthodox litugists, archair or otherwise--mostly former Anglicans--not that this is bad to be a convert:) As the principle in the East is to use the language understood of the people--the revised DL is very contextual, but I am afraid I have not been long in the debate--so forgive my amaterish opinion. Verticle inclusive language is of course verboten, but I think since horizontal inclusive language is used by most people today it should be used as a part of the Eastern vernacular principle in our form of missiology. We have to reach the people in their language. But, I think this has to be contextual per each parish or mission. If most of the people are aged or converts then the revised DL may not be apropos, but if the parish is composed of mostly Americanized Western people then use the Revised DL. This probably is not useful, since I believe the texts are required now? Right? I think the principle that the priest should have discretion in these matters should always apply to avoid scandalizing the faithful.

In the Theotokos,


Robert

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Quote
We have to reach the people in their language.

It is, it's in English. Horizontal inclusive language is just another layer....a layer our church doesn't need.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Originally Posted by Robert Horvath
IC XC

Glory to Jesus Christ!

When I was in the Ruthenian Church, Father Steve Greskowiak, revised the Liturgikon himself and we used that. I am sure he would be against even horizontal inclusive language, but now that I am a member of the OCA now attending the Greek Church in Spokane as I attend school, I appreciate the modern language--however I am also loving the Greek and Slavonic Father Stephen incorporates in the Liturgy--I am starting to love chanting the Greek tones. I never did buy the liturgical English, pseudo Elizabethean, school of some Orthodox litugists, archair or otherwise--mostly former Anglicans--not that this is bad to be a convert:) As the principle in the East is to use the language understood of the people--the revised DL is very contextual, but I am afraid I have not been long in the debate--so forgive my amaterish opinion. Verticle inclusive language is of course verboten, but I think since horizontal inclusive language is used by most people today it should be used as a part of the Eastern vernacular principle in our form of missiology. We have to reach the people in their language. But, I think this has to be contextual per each parish or mission. If most of the people are aged or converts then the revised DL may not be apropos, but if the parish is composed of mostly Americanized Western people then use the Revised DL. This probably is not useful, since I believe the texts are required now? Right? I think the principle that the priest should have discretion in these matters should always apply to avoid scandalizing the faithful.

In the Theotokos,


Robert

Thank you Robert -- this was a beautifully written and very humbly presented post.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Quote
I never did buy the liturgical English, pseudo Elizabethean, school of some Orthodox litugists, archair or otherwise--mostly former Anglicans--not that this is bad to be a convert:)

The sacral English translation in use by the Antiochians, close in spirit to the Hapgood, is in my opinion the best among the various English translations available among the Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 571
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 571
Thank you PrJ--I just think that the pastoral dimensions of the liturgy should be the primary focus of hierarchs and pastors in any kind of implementation.

AMM: This is really a matter of taste--after one has listened to liturgical English a while it is not as impressive--however exact and poetic the language may be. And the personal context of individual experience is what makes people like or not care for variants in English expression.

I don't have anything against liturgical English, but clarity and meaning is important for me, i.e. are the words translated so that I may know what they mean within the lexicon of most Americans-which usually is only a few thousand words, if even that. To get the liturgy to 'say what is means'is vital for transmission of the faith. The task of the liturgical translator is to to give the liturgy a voice so it can speak to people in the pews and transmit the mystery of Christ--and not dry literal translation. If the Church took a poll and asked most people to explain what the words and concepts in the liturgy meant they couldn't or would have great difficulty, minus the arm chair guys and the experts--that is the importance of pastoral liturgical translation--in my view. To the elite--this is "dumbing down" and compromise--to most people in the pews it would be a grace, especially, in regard to evangelization. A critical liturgical translation understood in its historical context and made accesssible to the people is important for the clergy and laos to truly know what they believe--so that, as in the Eastern paradigm, the prayer of the mind may descend into the heart and become the prayer of the heart. But, how can people pray with their minds if they do not understand the liturgical words spoken--how can then prayer in the nous descent to the heart? Again, I advocate for discretion and pastoral sensitivity to parish needs--not academic exercises in futility or ego stroking by liturgical scholars--just good ole' horse sense.

The main point here is to look at context, use a variety of sources critically, properly catechise the people on the historical roots of Byzantine liturgy, and make liturgy truly prayer of mind and heart for everybody--not just experts or liturgical connoisseurs.

In Our Savior,


Robert

Last edited by Robert Horvath; 03/11/08 10:12 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by PrJ
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.

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.
I am glad to see you acknowledge that we have serious theological and dogmatic grounds. And I hope you will also admit that we have grounds on linguistic grounds as well. Your own positions in these discussions are surely strongly held, but have been entirely without solid theological or linguistic support. I hope you will consider abandoning your position and embracing the directives from the Vatican, like Liturgiam Authenticam. That is the only way to preserve unity in the church.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by ajk
This prompts me to state a concern on the use and potential misuse of the terms "horizontal inclusive" and "vertical inclusive." It is certainly proper to define one's terms and use them as in the above quote. My caution is that the terms, even inadvertently, do not become prejudicial in meaning or application; then they just amount to smoke screens.
Originally Posted by Diak
Since it is one Eucharistic sacrifice of praise, one can never completely separate the "horizontal" from the "vertical", since at some point it is all in a sense "vertical" in the praise, presence, and service rendered to God through the Liturgy.

I find that a strict distinction between these two seems to provide a continued sequential and dichotomous means of justification of additional language changes as we see here - one is OK and needed ("horizontal"), the other we would never change or tamper with ("vertical"), but I would posit they are very much related and not mutually exclusive.

To once again recall the parallels to the Latin liturgical development, I would also suggest one did not see the distinctions between "vertical" and "horizontal" in use in liturgical literature very much at all until those became means of justifying differences in language and liturgical approach in the aftermath of the Pauline Mass.
Both deacons make excellent points.

The distinction between �vertical� and �horizontal� language was embraced because the two needed to be separated, as they know they would not succeed in removing the masculine connotation from �Father� and �Son�.

But there is even more politics here. Some in the Church (first among the Protestants, then the Latins and now a few in our Church) have grabbed on to the justification offered by the secular feminists � that Standard language is not inclusive and this political language is more �inclusive�. In fact, the opposite is true. We can see even in these discussions how potentially exclusive and imprecise gender neutral language is. Rome is correct to specifically direct against the use of gender neutral language in liturgical translations.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
have been entirely without solid theological or linguistic support

This is completely untrue. If you are not willing to grant me the same kindness that I grant you, that is unfortunate. I have offered significant patristic support as well as presented significant scholarship from linguists (both English and Greek). You can disagree with me, but I am sorry to see that you can not even acknowledge that my arguments have weight.

I suppose I should take comfort in the fact that Fr Taft, a noted liturgical scholar, agrees with me and that Bishop Kallistos Ware has indicated (both in writing and in person) a sensitivity to the issues I have raised.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,727
Likes: 23
Originally Posted by Robert Horvath
IC XC

Glory to Jesus Christ!

When I was in the Ruthenian Church, Father Steve Greskowiak, revised the Liturgikon himself and we used that. I am sure he would be against even horizontal inclusive language, but now that I am a member of the OCA now attending the Greek Church in Spokane as I attend school, I appreciate the modern language--however I am also loving the Greek and Slavonic Father Stephen incorporates in the Liturgy--I am starting to love chanting the Greek tones. I never did buy the liturgical English, pseudo Elizabethean, school of some Orthodox litugists, archair or otherwise--mostly former Anglicans--not that this is bad to be a convert:) As the principle in the East is to use the language understood of the people--the revised DL is very contextual, but I am afraid I have not been long in the debate--so forgive my amaterish opinion. Verticle inclusive language is of course verboten, but I think since horizontal inclusive language is used by most people today it should be used as a part of the Eastern vernacular principle in our form of missiology. We have to reach the people in their language. But, I think this has to be contextual per each parish or mission. If most of the people are aged or converts then the revised DL may not be apropos, but if the parish is composed of mostly Americanized Western people then use the Revised DL. This probably is not useful, since I believe the texts are required now? Right? I think the principle that the priest should have discretion in these matters should always apply to avoid scandalizing the faithful.

In the Theotokos,

Robert
Brother Robert,
Your position certainly has changed. On March 5, 2006 you posted:
Originally Posted by Robert Horvath, March 5, 2006
The need for inclusive language has no root in Catholic evangelization. The questions that formulated the need for inclusive language were birthed out of the feminist and womanist theological paradigms. If it wasn't for the Women's Movement in general and feminist theologians like Elizabeth Fiorenza and Rosemary Ruether in particular--this subject would not even be referenced in academic circles and in modern discourse, linguistically or otherwise.

We are an Eastern Church that has historically had an identity crisis. Either we are taking pre-Conciliar forms of Latin Christianity, post-Conciliar forms, or various forms of Protestantizations--not to mention the affect modern culture and society have had on our Church. What we end up becoming, and what has been critiqued before on this forum and in other theological venues, is a hybridized ecclesial creation. A creature that fits in nowhere and with no one--whose whole genetic structure sets itself up for failure and marginalization.

It is already being established in the Latin Church, in the writings of the current Pope, a Church which is far ahead of us in the inclusive language department, that modern language needs to be have a sacred character--to have the influence of the Church and not the other way around. Language that carries an antithesis to the Church's thesis cannot ethically or integrally be managed into a synthesis--this statement is aimed at feminist constructions of American English demonstrated in so-called inclusive language.

The greatest problem in our Church is how to survive population moves, members leaving for Latin and other ecclesial communities, financial issues, and how to develop an effective missiological theoria and praxis that will increase its canonical membership and to wit: save and deify souls in Christ. Lay members cannot judge the secret or "behind the scenes" action too quickly with regard to the commission that has created the translation that is the subject of this topic; but, since we shall be praying what we believe--I do not believe in the feminist construction of reality--I will not be praying a liturgy that desires to create a synthesis with error--no matter how seemingly minute using the excuse that it is "only horizontal inclusivity." This places anyone in my situation in a dilemma; but can we support Truth admixed with error? Does anyone who knows the fulness that the Church has to offer, put themselves at risk?
Perhaps you might consider leaving a Jesuit university and attending a Catholic one? they seem to have corrupted you! biggrin

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
we have serious theological and dogmatic grounds

I also would note that I did not state this. If I thought your positions were "Serious" I might be inclined to change my opinions. But although I do note that you have sources to back up your positions, I do not count them as serious.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
Perhaps you might consider leaving a Jesuit university and attending a Catholic one? they seem to have corrupted you!

Your smile notwithstanding, this kind of talk has no place on a Catholic forum. It is objectionable and is another example of the kind of personal attacks that continue to be mustered against those who speak in support of the RDL.

Page 10 of 15 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5