I am currently teaching two catechetical classes at one of our two parishes. One of the groups consists of high school students. We just finished using an excellent text for high schoolers published by the Melkite Greek Catholic Church (it's "Eastern with an attitude"). Now, I am going to complete the year by reviewing, with the students, the Compendium of the Catechism Of The Catholic Church , which, as most of us are aware is a recently-published compacted, question and answer version of the larger Catechism. It was commissioned by the late Pope John Paul II, and promulgated and approved for circulation by Pope Benedict XVI. I was reviewing it this morning, and lo and behold, the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed reads, in part,: "WHO FOR US MEN AND OUR SALVATION.......". I guess the Pope isn't "with it". Somebody from our God-saved Ruthenian Church is going to have to straighten him out.
Dn. Robert
Good one there
Now silly question from this Brit
Are you all going to lie down and accept this Revision ?
mebbe I should start a new thread - but when I do they seem to collapse swiftly
It was commissioned by the late Pope John Paul II, and promulgated and approved for circulation by Pope Benedict XVI. I was reviewing it this morning, and lo and behold, the text of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed reads, in part,: "WHO FOR US MEN AND OUR SALVATION.......". I guess the Pope isn't "with it". Somebody from our God-saved Ruthenian Church is going to have to straighten him out.
The Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Church sui iuris - why should it care what other Churches do?
The Byzantine Catholic Church in America is a Church sui iuris - why should it care what other Churches do?
No doubt a "tongue in cheek" comment.
Dn. Robert
Here is a Vatican document on the subject
Here are the Vatican's instructions to the Latin Church on the matter
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.htmlIII. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms
A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.
Generally, it's a condemnation of the use of "us all" as "us all" is generally construed to mean only those present at the time.
Here is a Vatican document on the subject
Here are the Vatican's instructions to the Latin Church on the matter
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.htmlIII. Examples of problems related to questions of "inclusive language" and of the use of masculine and feminine terms
A. In an effort to avoid completely the use of the term "man" as a translation of the Latin homo, the translation often fails to convey the true content of that Latin term, and limits itself to a focus on the congregation actually present or to those presently living. The simultaneous reference to the unity and the collectivity of the human race is lost. The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo. The latter, just as the English "man", which some appear to have made the object of a taboo, are able to express in a collective but also concrete and personal manner the notion of a partner with God in a Covenant who gratefully receives from him the gifts of forgiveness and Redemption. At least in many instances, an abstract or binomial expression cannot achieve the same effect.
Generally, it's a condemnation of the use of "us all" as "us all" is generally construed to mean only those present at the time.
Good point. "Us all" is also an ambiguity. Those who argue for "inclusive" language will contend that some will understand "for us Men" to mean that women aren't saved. If people are that dense, then we could also argue that, depending upon who or what is present in the room, or in the case of an outdoor celebration of the Liturgy near a barnyard, the use of "for us all" might even be construed to include non-human creatures (cows, pigs, chickens, horses-now,that's inclusive!). Ambiguity can be a very destructive thing when it comes to Liturgy.
Some years ago, one of our more prominent priests commented to me that our Metropolia is in somewhat of a "time warp". When the Latins do something silly,
or something which is good, we will usually follow their lead, but about twenty years later. Does this mean that we have to wait twenty years for bad translations to go away? Now that "inclusive" and faddish translations are being rightfully suppressed in the Western Church, we now begin to indulge in such stupidity? God have mercy on us!
Dn. Robert
Dear Deacon Robert:
Might I humbly suggest that you not call "dense" those who hold an opinion contrary to your own. I really think that such languages is in opposition to Christian charity and is insulting. While their reasoning may fail to persuade you, there are respectable arguments for the use of horizontal inclusive language. They may ultimately be insufficient for changing the liturgy, and they obviously are insufficient for persuading many people. However, I don't think that people who espouse such arguments deserve to be labeled as "dense."
Sincerely,
Ryan
I am very, very sad.
I truly believe that the revised Liturgy would have been widely accepted if not for the inclusive language issues.
However, the deed has been done, and there are those--myself included--who cannot compromise. I may never understand the reasoning. There was no need for this.
The Orthodox do not use this language. The Roman Catholics are not promulgated to use this language. Other Eastern Catholics do use this language. Only the protestants and the Ruthenian Catholic Church! Ouch!!!
Dear Ryan,
I have yet to meet anybody who really thinks that the term "mankind" or "for us men and our salvation" as used in the Creed, actually excludes women. BTW, I did not say that those who disagree with me are "dense",i.e. those who argue for "inclusivity" in Liturgical language, only those who would actually come to the above conclusion. On second thought, maybe "dense" is too strong a word. Perhaps, "invincibly ignorant" (in the true sense of an innocent lack of knowledge, like when the Church says someone can be saved by virtue of "invincible ignorance" of the True Faith-not in the perjorative sense that many would take it) might be the more charitable word to use. We are talking about people with a serious lack of knowledge of the tenets of the Faith. A little catechesis would cure that. No need to change the historic language of the Liturgy. My original intention was not to cast aspersions on anybody, but to underline the absurdity of conforming Liturgical translations to the latest fad in the ever-changing mass culture. The above-cited instruction to the Latin Church also points out that a lot of this "inclusive" language distorts the intended meaning being conveyed in the original language.
In Christ,
Dn. Robert
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I believe that the issue of inclusive language points to three very serious matters that I pray our Church will be honest enough to confront so that our Church can indeed be renewed and revitalized. But before I go further I want to be clear that because I have a problem with inclusive language it does NOT mean that I am "against" women or their concerns. In fact, the opposite is actually true. I am so FOR women and their concerns that, along with the mind of the Church, I cannot accept so called "inclusive" language because this language and all that is behind it actually ends up committing the very thing it purports to be against: In its own way inclusive language becomes a strike against the intrinsic dignity of women. This of course needs explanation but at another time. The imporant thing is this: I am against inclusive language because (among MANY other things) it ultimately works against women, their dignity and their equality.
Now for my 4 areas of concern in regard to the issue of inclusive language in our liturgy:
1. The lack of a correct understanding of the theology of gender (a "theological anthropology") and its revelatory value as lived out in the very character of the Church and especially in the Church's liturgy. John Paul II's 'theology of the body' provides an adequate framework in which to pursue this discussion because the theology of the body is primarily a "liturgical worldview" and one in which JPII reached into the mystical foundation of Divine Order of creation. Both the "mystical" and the "liturgical" are things that ought to peak the interest of us as Eastern Christians. (To obtain mine and others presentations on such matters you can go to
www.theologyofthebody.net [
theologyofthebody.net] or contact: taborlife@earthlink.net)
2. I believe that the "Original Sin" of the "Uniate" Churches
has been our inferiority complex. We operate from an ethos that "everyone else has a better idea." Our tendency is to look horizontally around us at whatever the secular world, the Latin Church or Protestants are doing and to ape these things or import them artificially because surely they must be better ideas than ours. This horizontal gaze deflects our gaze from moving vertically as it should, down into the riches of our own identity. To me the push for inclusive language is another example of our inferiority complex and of our deflected gaze. Consequently, with all other arguments aside, inclusive language becomes problematic.
3. Not all parties involved in the formation of the new translation of the liturgy were in favor of the inclusive language. The fact that the inclusive language did win out indicates that there was some senase of an imperative for inclusive language to be a part of the new translation, that this was perhaps some burning issue in our Church and there was some significant demand for inclusive language in our Church. This imperative does not exist in our Church, certainly not on the level of the rank and file where things matter the most. The fact that the inclusive language, therefore, was part of an agenda on the part of some might possibly leave a taste of resentment in the mouths of some of our rank and file and thus hamper what otherwise could have been a fuller acceptance of the new translation.
4. It raises a question of credibility both of the messages from Rome to our Church but also in terms of our own Church itself.
Why would Rome approve of something for us that they would not approve for their own Church? The excuse cannot be used that it is two different Churches becase inclusive language is not something specific to Eastern Christian worship. Furthermore,
Rome DOES in fact express concern and exert influence on other parts of what is indigenous to the Eastern Churches when it sees fit such as in the "case by case basis submitted to
Rome" in regard to married candidates for the priesthood.
For its part, our own Church has to be careful about "picking and choosing" its sense of obedience to Rome? We say on one hand, that "Rome approved" the new translation even with the inclusive language but on the other hand are we taking as seriously other things from Rome such as the "Instuciones,"
"Orientale Lumen" or even "Humanae Vitae?"
I present these concerns as challenges to our Church in what I believe is a kind of "Judgement Day" for our Church. I believe we will serve ourselves better by looking at ourselves more honestly, by asking ourselvews who we REALLY are, what we are actually doing or not doing and why? An honest look can be at times painful but I believe it is necessary to become a thriving Church.
--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.MA.
Member: (TOBIA-Theology of the Body International Alliance)
Memeber: Tabor Life Institute for formation in T.O.B.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I believe that the issue of inclusive language points to three very serious matters that I pray our Church will be honest enough to confront so that our Church can indeed be renewed and revitalized. But before I go further I want to be clear that because I have a problem with inclusive language it does NOT mean that I am "against" women or their concerns. In fact, the opposite is actually true. I am so FOR women and their concerns that, along with the mind of the Church, I cannot accept so called "inclusive" language because this language and all that is behind it actually ends up committing the very thing it purports to be against: In its own way inclusive language becomes a strike against the intrinsic dignity of women. This of course needs explanation but at another time. The imporant thing is this: I am against inclusive language because (among MANY other things) it ultimately works against women, their dignity and their equality.
Now for my 4 areas of concern in regard to the issue of inclusive language in our liturgy:
1. The lack of a correct understanding of the theology of gender (a "theological anthropology") and its revelatory value as lived out in the very character of the Church and especially in the Church's liturgy. John Paul II's 'theology of the body' provides an adequate framework in which to pursue this discussion because the theology of the body is primarily a "liturgical worldview" and one in which JPII reached into the mystical foundation of Divine Order of creation. Both the "mystical" and the "liturgical" are things that ought to peak the interest of us as Eastern Christians. (To obtain mine and others presentations on such matters you can go to
www.theologyofthebody.net [
theologyofthebody.net] or contact: taborlife@earthlink.net)
2. I believe that the "Original Sin" of the "Uniate" Churches
has been our inferiority complex. We operate from an ethos that "everyone else has a better idea." Our tendency is to look horizontally around us at whatever the secular world, the Latin Church or Protestants are doing and to ape these things or import them artificially because surely they must be better ideas than ours. This horizontal gaze deflects our gaze from moving vertically as it should, down into the riches of our own identity. To me the push for inclusive language is another example of our inferiority complex and of our deflected gaze. Consequently, with all other arguments aside, inclusive language becomes problematic.
3. Not all parties involved in the formation of the new translation of the liturgy were in favor of the inclusive language. The fact that the inclusive language did win out indicates that there was some senase of an imperative for inclusive language to be a part of the new translation, that this was perhaps some burning issue in our Church and there was some significant demand for inclusive language in our Church. This imperative does not exist in our Church, certainly not on the level of the rank and file where things matter the most. The fact that the inclusive language, therefore, was part of an agenda on the part of some might possibly leave a taste of resentment in the mouths of some of our rank and file and thus hamper what otherwise could have been a fuller acceptance of the new translation.
4. It raises a question of credibility both of the messages from Rome to our Church but also in terms of our own Church itself.
Why would Rome approve of something for us that they would not approve for their own Church? The excuse cannot be used that it is two different Churches becase inclusive language is not something specific to Eastern Christian worship. Furthermore,
Rome DOES in fact express concern and exert influence on other parts of what is indigenous to the Eastern Churches when it sees fit such as in the "case by case basis submitted to
Rome" in regard to married candidates for the priesthood.
For its part, our own Church has to be careful about "picking and choosing" its sense of obedience to Rome? We say on one hand, that "Rome approved" the new translation even with the inclusive language but on the other hand are we taking as seriously other things from Rome such as the "Instuciones,"
"Orientale Lumen" or even "Humanae Vitae?"
I present these concerns as challenges to our Church in what I believe is a kind of "Judgement Day" for our Church. I believe we will serve ourselves better by looking at ourselves more honestly, by asking ourselvews who we REALLY are, what we are actually doing or not doing and why? An honest look can be at times painful but I believe it is necessary to become a thriving Church.
--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB.MA.
Member: (TOBIA-Theology of the Body International Alliance)
Memeber: Tabor Life Institute for formation in T.O.B.
Dear Fr. Thomas,
You offer some very solid observations. Alhough I was born into the Latin Church, I've been around the Ruthenian scene since 1970. We are absolutely "on the same page". This "inferiority complex" is mind-boggling to me. I am not shy about saying that I fled the liturgical, catechetical, and theological madness which was inflicted upon the American Latin Church in the aftermath of Vatican II. What I found in the patrimony of Carpatho-Rusyn and Ukrainian Greek Catholics was, in my opinion, a far superior "product" to that which I was fleeing (i.e, the bad music, bad liturgical translations, the desacralizations, etc.). If I may continue the business analogy, the problem with our Church is that the "product" has not been properly marketed. This, of course, is a byproduct of that "inferiority complex". I have taken note from afar that you are actually trying to do something about that, and I pray for your ultimate success.
In Christ,
Dn. Robert Behrens
Holy Ghost Byzantine Catholic Church
Jessup, Pa.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I believe that the issue of inclusive language points to three very serious matters that I pray our Church will be honest enough to confront so that our Church can indeed be renewed and revitalized.
Bless Father,
Your post almost made me cry. It expresses how I feel about inclusive language and the dynamic of our Church (but much more eloquently than I could have stated it).
Yet I am still lost. My conscience is pierced. I feel like I cannot participate in this inferior compromised liturgy. I do not know what to do. I do not know where to go.
Please pray for me,
Recluse
I am very, very sad.
The inclusive language nonsense is deeply upsetting. It is such a terrible mistake, and I cannot say how much I am disappointed with our bishops for not standing up for the faith, and defending the truth, and the Byzantine Liturgy from this nonsense.
But you are right, the deed has been done, and they have to accept the responsibility for what they've done. I'm so very very sad.
Nick
Dear Recluse,
Where shall we go, and what shall we do? That is a very good question, I wish I knew the answer.
If it was only my opinions, I would be tempted to give in, and say that I must be wrong.
But my pastor is furious with the bishop, and isn't afraid to say so. I won't even quote what he said to some of us, when we asked him about this last week. He said that he's ready to retire early over these new books! But I hope we don't lose our priest over this stupidity. How could it have come to this?
Where shall we go?
I say we stay put. (The renovationists would be happy if we left the Church, and joined other parishes, it would prove that they're right!)
This nonsense is a great challenge to all of us in the Church, to become better educated about our Liturgy and our tradition, and to demand our bishops turn back from this stupid revision.
Fr. Thomas is right, this is only the beginning, this is the moment of opportunity, and we have to see this as something other than the end.
I think this is the firing shot in a great race. The pistol has been fired, but I don't think the ribbon has been awarded yet. Watch and see what happens.
The most important thing, is to stay put, and if you have a voice speak up. If you have a wallet, use it (or don't use it). Study the Liturgy, read the books, and if you can, speak up when you can.
Even bishops sometimes admit that they are wrong, and have made a mistake.
In fact, the Catholic bishops in our country have had a lot of practice at that lately. So maybe our bishops are feeling humbler now, and no longer feel that they are infallible.
Nick
The most important thing, is to stay put, and if you have a voice speak up.
Hi Nick, I understand what you are saying, but I am weary. Will my voice be heard? The secrecy of the revision and the way it was pushed upon us without input was a real kick in the gut. I have been seeing inclusive language coming from Mt St Macrina for years now. In their reprint of the Akathist To The Mother of God, they say that Jesus became "human" instead of "man". One wonders how much influence the nuns at MSM had on the inclusive language in the revision. My point is---why should I invest the rest of my life attempting to participate in a Liturgy that will anger me every time I say the Creed! I believe I will stick this out for a short period, but I do not think the revisionists want my kind in the "new" Ruthenian Church. I do not think they would be sad to see me convert to the Orthodox Church or to find another Eastern "rite".
I can't believe that Rome promulgated this.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Dear Recluse and others who have asked, "Where do we go from here?" in response to what they might find troubling about the new translation of the Liturgy,
Since many people seem to be asking this question and no doubt many more will be asking this question, I would suggest the following for whatever it may be worth:
Think of our Church as a ship that is heading into a storm, the storm that naturally comes with change and transition, for better or for worse. But, we are all ON the ship and so we are all going to go through the storm. However, while we are on the ship in a time of storm, certainly suggestions are made to the "captain" as to the best thing to do. Do we put up the sails? Or do we take down the sails? Do we ride it out? Or do we put in to shore? Or whatever. There is nothng wrong with making our thoughts known to the "captain" during the storm. But the main thing is that we are all still on the ship together and more will be accomplished by staying on the ship during the storm than jumping the ship. Jumping may not actually end up being an improvement for us in the short or long run. There could be sharks in those waters!!
In a mysterious way, the Liturgy belongs to no one yet to everyone. Therefore, any one can make their thoughts known about liturgy to the chief stewards of the Liturgy who of course are our bishops. But, any communication to our bishops should be respectful, charitable and well thought out, well founded and preferably not too lengthy. We cannot be upset just because there is change in itself. Change is probably our greatest fear in the Church even if it is change for the better. We should also give the new books a fair shake and give ourselves a fair shake and allow some time to really experience the new books before reacting.
In addition to expressing what might trouble us, any communication to our "captains" should ultimately offer a postive message, with positive alternatives, suggestions, possibilities. Be honest and affirm what is good and enourage more of it. At the same time we must all be working to preserve unity and strength in our Church. The bishops have asked us to comply with the new translation. We must be obedient. At the same time our bishops want what was is best for our Church and I am confident that they would take into consideration sincere, well founded input from their beloved flock.
I can appreciate the fact that the reaction to the new translation might inspire consternations of conscience and people must do what they believe they must do. I can respect them for that. However, if people leave our Church so soon, when the new translation and pew book has not really been "experienced" yet, this could jeoopradize the receptivity of our "captains" to what could have been legitimate feedback about the new translation. Those who leave at the get-go can discredit themselves and will be seen as uncommitted and fickle. Regrettably our Church might even rejoice that "those trouble makers are gone. We don't need them amyway." BUT I believe that our Church NEEDS the "troublemakers" but in a good sense. As I have posted here many times our Church needs to be able to ask itself some very honest questions during this "Judgment Day" for our Church. It needs radical renewal born of having taken a very, very honest look at itself. This is where "troublemakers" can be very valuable. Just because a "troublemaker" is not popular or welcome does not mean the "troublemaker"
is not still valuable to a Church that needs to look at itself honestly.
Try not to "throw the baby out with the bath water." I would suggest adopting the posture of "compassion" in the deepest sense: to "suffer with" the ship in the storm and work things out together for the greater good.
My father is a son of a Byzantine Catholic priest. My father grew up in the parish house during the years when our parishes were splitting and going into Orthodoxy over such matters as imposed celibacy, trusteeism, etc. As a child my father witnessed "parishioners" physically attacking his priest-father
in the rectory as well as other types of atrocities committed in the name of "Church." You can't imagine the stories I grew up hearing from my father, grandfather, aunts and uncles all in the name of "Church." There has been many dark days for our Church, much worse than a "new translation." But my father still lives for and will die for this Church. Those who stay can make a difference.
--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB., MA.
"I am confident that they would take into consideration sincere, well founded input from their beloved flock."
Why didn't the bishops do this long before promulgating the new Liturgy? I don't see them turning back now....
However, if people leave our Church so soon, when the new translation and pew book has not really been "experienced" yet, this could jeoopradize the receptivity of our "captains" to what could have been legitimate feedback about the new translation. Those who leave at the get-go can discredit themselves and will be seen as uncommitted and fickle.
Dear Fr. Loya:
What if the scenairo you are describing ends up being more like the Titanic, than the Love Boat? Many people who post are wringing their hands over this translation because they understand where we really need to be. These are typically people who "sneak" to an Orthodox church to celebrate Vespers, Matins, and the Hours. Yes, it would be a shame if the "troublemakers" all left, because they would find welcome company from many of the other Byzantines that got tired of waiting and joined the OCA or other Orthodox jurisdictions. You see, this plot never changes, it just drowns on and on. I've spoken to so many former Byzantines who say they left, oh, 20 years-ago after the promises were made by their bishops that things would change. And here we are today, still in the same boat!
What you say is true -- the Byzantine Church needs an explosion of itself. We need to restore not only our Liturgy, but to add Matins, Vespers, Hours, and all the other services that are ignored. But, unfortunately we're not hearing that from our Bishops. We're not hearing, "The Byzantine Church is beginning a renewal and here's the plan...." I agree that most people in the pews don't know their own church, so where's the plan to educate them? The Liturgy is only a first step, and with this revision a bad one at that.
If we strive to be more Orthodox then the "Red Book" is all we need. We all need to celebrate the Red Book, need to say the word Orthodox in the Liturgy, and need to rid ourselves of the remaining Latinizations, even if our church is located east of Ohio. We simply can't wait for another generation to meet their Eternal reward, they may take our church with them.
Fr. Loya:
I would be happy to have you as captain of any ship I was on.
The storm analogy, however, does not quite fit. The storm is exterior to the ship. That might be a good analogy for the persecution our Church experienced under communist rule when Blessed Theodore Romzha was a captain.
Here, however, it is, with all due respect, more like the "captain" leading the ship to a rocky tumultuous sea, and in some sense away from the mother ship of Rome. These seas, the mother ship, in recent times, herself has managed to flee without sinking, but perhaps only because she is of such size and grandure. Our little ship may not be able to navigate Scylla and Charybdis without being swallowed up and may need to be turned off her course before the disaster happens.
I might add that the clergy (the midshipmen) without really being disobedient can be helpful to the laity. Since there are anathemas attached to those who would subtract from the Creed (and those really do have to be taken seriously ), perhaps the clergy could simply ignore the mistranslation in the Creed and do it right. A law which violates God's law, after all, is no law at all.
There is no anathema for slightly deviating from an official promulgation, though I realize it may upset some. And what would the Bishops do? Send out the liturgical police? And since the Byzantine Church has a shortage of priests, they can't very well send you to Siberia, especially if many of you act in concert. And if they do report you to Rome, well, all you need to do is to point to Liturgiam Authenticam.
The Catechism [197], quoting St. Ambrose says:
The Creed is the spiritual seal, our hearts's meditation and ever-present guardian; it is unquestionably the treasure of our soul
Let's not allow that seal and treasure to be tampered with.
a sinner and troublemaker
However, if people leave our Church so soon, when the new translation and pew book has not really been "experienced" yet, this could jeoopradize the receptivity of our "captains" to what could have been legitimate feedback about the new translation.
We have experienced parts of the �new music� at St. John Cathedral where we were life long parishioners. We liked it so much we now worship at St. Elias. Many, many parishioners have complained to Archbishop Basil. He is not interested in legitimate feedback. Anyone who even asks a question about the New Byzantine Order is labeled as disobedient and then ostracized. The bishops know people are going to leave. They don't just not care they want us to go. Someone here compared them to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it sank. It's worse then that. They are shooting holes in the liturgy that has kept us afloat. Then they push us overboard and say we are to blame.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Etnick and Stephanie,
Great thoughts! During the process of forumalating the new translastion I formally and on more than one occasion registered my concern with the Liturgy commission and with our hierarchs about the inclusive language and the secretive nature of the process. I recommended that rough drafts be sent to the rank and file for input. This is not to suggest "liturgy by vote" or by "popular opinion." But it would have included a most critical dimension (the Sensus Fidelium.) Liturgy is greater than the sum of its parts and the input from the rank and file would have provided that essential part that takes the consideration of liturgy beyond the boundaries of linguistic and historical considerations.
As is now appparant, the hierarchs and commission chose not to send rough drafts to the rank and file. You can make a certain case in favor of this decision on some level. But overall I believe the drafts should have received the input from the rank and file. It seems that the process eventually became its own "tsunami" and it dragged on so long and a much needed new "pew book" was so long awaited that I think the whole new translation process took on a power of its own. Apparantly the "tsunami" left our hierarchs and anyone else involved powerless to reverse the "tsunami." Now it becomes a matter of let's see how the chips fall.
As far as people leaving our Church over this and other related matters, I believe that the perception is that these are only an inconsequential few. Again if our Church dares to be honest with itself, which it must IF it wants to not merely survive but THRIVE, we have to admit to there being an underlying attitude among some of, "We are glad those troublemakers are gone. We don't need them anyway. Good riddens!"
I understand the question, as Etnick, said, "why would our bishops listen now if they did not before?" But I still think it is vitaly important for our bishops to hear from the rank and file but it cannot be just knee-jerk, and emotional. Be charitable, forthright, and offer positive, life-giving alternatives.
Another insight into the inclusive language agenda: Much of this is a generational thing. Just by the simple fact of age, (people in their 50's-60's)the generation that was formed during the 1960's and 1970's is in a sense "in power." They are, across America, the ones who are bishops, seminary rectors, etc., etc. The things that were happening both good and bad in the 1960's were very formative because they were revolutionary-like in character. Those who were in seminary, convents, etc. during that time carry with them today a sense of having gone through a battle to improve the world, a kind of revolution that has ushered in a "better way" of thinking. They believed that inclusive language, the shedding of monastic habits, the questioning of the Magisterium, rejection of Humanae Vitae, etc.
was the great revolution that was going to save the Church and the world. It was the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II mixed in with secular humanism that profoundly influenced this generation during a very formative time in their development. Because the spirit during this time was so revolutionary it left indelible marks on the perspective of this generation. Today, this generation is essentially "in power" and getting to the age where they too will be stepping down, moving on, retiring, etc. So, what I am seeing is the philosophies from this "revolution" trying to make their last gasp, as it were.
The fact that these were such revolutionary and formative years has left certain blind spots in this generation and they cannot understand why everyone does not think like they do. For instance, the perception that inclusive language was an imperative for our Church and therefore for the new translation is a classic example of a blind spot. There was no imperative on the pastoral level,(the most important level) for inclusive language in the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. Inclusive language was deemed imperative by a few. (I want to again reiterate, lest I be misunderstood, that one reason why I am against inclusive language is because it is actually insulting to women as it ultimately strikes at the intrinsic dignity of womanhood. But to understand this we have to ascribed to the Church's theological anthropology which is actually revealed in our liturgy but which is being left unexplored in favor of secular humanism.)
The fact, is, some of these "causes" are in a sense trite. What was cutting edge during the 1960's and 1970's is now "old fashion" to the younger generation. The younger generation does not share these same 1960's "causes." But this is not because the younger people are more "conservative" or "unenlightened" as the 1960's generation would view them. I am finding that the younger generation is NOT clamoring for "inclusive language" but for Slavonic!!! (Now that's a whole other subject I want to take up with those who wish on this forum because I could use some discernment help pastorally about the Slavonic issue.)Clamoring for Slavonic is something that the 1960's generation could never have imagined. So, we now have pew books with NO Slavonic even though that is what the younger generation IS clamoring for along with other issues as well. If we were really going to be cutting edge we would have listened to our younger people and included some Slavonic in the new books. Do you see, now what I mean about the 1960's "causes" becoming outdated? Rather than being cutting edge, they are actually out of touch--the worst nightmare of the 1960's generation worldview!
Now don't me get me wrong. There were many great things about the 1960's generation. But there were definitely blind spots because of the intensity of the social revolution that took place and which regretablly spilled over into the Church. As I will always maintain, our journey is vertical into our best selves, not horizontal into what everyone else is doing whom we think must always have a better idea. This inferiority complex is the "Original Sin" of the "Uniate Churches" which is a constant struggle for us to overcome and which I believe accounts for all of our problems.
--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB. MA.
They believed that inclusive language, the shedding of monastic habits, the questioning of the Magisterium, rejection of Humanae Vitae, etc.
was the great revolution that was going to save the Church and the world.
Dear Fr. Tom,
You really hit the nail on the head here. As a 55-year old "baby-boomer", I can take a certain amount of pride in the fact that I have ALWAYS OPPOSED that crowd, whether in the area of politics, or more importantly, in the life of the Church. I left the Latin Church because that element had ascended to power, and suceeded in doing great damage in the area of Liturgy, Catechetics, and Theology. I had not perceived the Byzantine Church to have also been in their grasp, thinking that we had somehow not been effected by the "culture war" which they (the "progressivists") were waging. I guess that I was wrong, at least to some extent. I find it absolutely gut-wrenching to see the Basilians (esp. the Superior) at Uniontown NOW catching up with the 60's and tossing their habits (not to mention their use of stilted inclusive language in communal prayer). We've got to reverse all this,and I'm on board with those who want to stay in and fight for authentic Byzantine Catholicism.
In Christ,
Deacon Robert
So, what I am seeing is the philosophies from this "revolution" trying to make their last gasp, as it were.
Let us hope and pray that it is a "last gasp".
Dn. Robert
Dear Fr. Loya,
Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out response, and for taking our concerns seriously. It's nice to have someone in the clergy understand what we are going through. While we may not like what is happening, you explaination makes sense. My only concern is, while we wait for this political storm to pass, many "younger" parishioners may not weather the storm.
Father Tom,
Your post sums up the problems with new liturgy. Thank you.
1 Th 5:21
PS: Can everyone PLEASE stop referring to it as a "new translation"? Calling it a "new translation" suggests faithfulness to the original text. That simply isn't true. It is a Revised Liturgy. Even the bishops have admitted that.
OK - so now everyone has agreed - the question still is
what are you going to do ?
Being a Roman Catholic, the only thing I can do is to stop giving any kind of support (except my personal prayer) to your Church.
OK - so now everyone has agreed - the question still is
what are you going to do ?
I'm gonna finish my Gatorade 355ml drink and continue reading, that's what I'm gonna do! -hey you asked
Ok, not making light of the subject,but just being a little full of humour at the moment.. you could theorectically start a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church outside of Pittsburgh in Exile and use the old books?
-in light of ols's question, what are ye going to do?
Ok, so what do we call it? RBCOP? BCOP, RBCOPIE, ?? Of course, it could be the True and Genuine Unreformed Byzantine Catholic Church Outside of Pittsburgh In Exile - TGUBCCOOPIE. This is all sounding kind of Slavic, you know.
...and I'm on board with those who want to stay in and fight for authentic Byzantine Catholicism.
In Christ,
Deacon Robert
With all due respect, Dcn Robert- will you define 'authentic' BCism ? Isn't this the core problem?
Thinking about this situation and honestly facing it, it is clear that the forum posters are generally educated in their Faith and offer educated opinions. In reality, I would be willing to bet that once the new books are out and used consistently for two months that the majority of 'our people' in the pews won't even remember what used to be.
Think about it, Take the 30-year-old-books away, have the cantor call out sick and what you have are maybe five people who know the Liturgy by heart. Have your cantor and choir stop singing and listen to what instantly happens in the pews. How many of our old people even know what 'inclusive language' means?
I can't speak for the bishops, but it appears the 'troublemakers' are few. Maybe they are banking on the 'sheep factor'?
... How many of our old people even know what 'inclusive language' means?
I can't speak for the bishops, but it appears the 'troublemakers' are few. Maybe they are banking on the 'sheep factor'?
My guess is a few hundred might leave this year, no more. Perhaps under 200.
Some may go over to the Melkites or Ukrainians, and feel uncomfortable. Some might try out the Orthodox church, but not because they really want to.
Some might just stay home, or cut their contributions (which is a lot like staying home from the funding perspective).
No parishes will break away, the title is at the Chancery, those days are all over.
The real danger to the church is apathy. If the most motivated parishioners lose heart they will be ineffective evangelisers. If the coffee hour conversation is all negative any visitors coming in will be turned off.
The newer version of the liturgy should put 'fire in the belly', people should be excited. They should be optimistic. It could herald a major turnaround in the prospects!
The way it is looking though, this might be a period of more of the same.
How long before the Eparchy of Parma slips under 10,000 people? How long before the Eparchy of Van Nuys slips under 3,000?
All the negative talk should stop, or you might as well plan for one bishop in the not-too-distant future, not four.
Good luck and God bless everyone,
Michael
I am finding that the younger generation is NOT clamoring for "inclusive language" but for Slavonic!!! (Now that's a whole other subject I want to take up with those who wish on this forum because I could use some discernment help pastorally about the Slavonic issue.)Clamoring for Slavonic is something that the 1960's generation could never have imagined. So, we now have pew books with NO Slavonic even though that is what the younger generation IS clamoring for along with other issues as well. If we were really going to be cutting edge we would have listened to our younger people and included some Slavonic in the new books
I don't think the issue of Slavonic should become part of this debate. Slavonic has a place, and I know I may tread on some feelings here, but there are many traditionally minded folks in our parishes who do not pine for more Slavonic. I realize many might disagree with me. I respect those who love Slavonic. But, as for myself, I was not raised on it and I am concerned that we become an evangelistic Church, faithful to our tradition, reaching out to all.
For me, changing the Creed is not being authentic.
Adhering to our origins/Traditions is important. Being TRUE is important.
How will I have consistency for my young children when we recite one Creed at home and a different one at Church?
No, I cannot remain. I must have consistency for my children. I must leave.
Maybe in a few months no one will notice/remember the changes. But, I for one find changing the Creed scandalous.
Am I a troublemaker? Just because I know what is right and true for my family? I am no troublemaker. I am broken hearted, but this isn't the first time and it will not be the last.
Blessed is our God!
corsair
Ps My daughter is six and she knows the Divine Liturgy by heart! (obviously not the Troparion, Prokimenon, etc.) She sings from beginning to end every Sunday. She may not know what "inclusive language" is. But, she knows that her father is a man, and he is head of our domestic home. She knows her obedience brings blessings on her parents, particularly on her father who is the (visable) authority in our home. When she recites the Creed, she says "WHO FOR US MEN AND FOR OUR SALVATION."
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I would NEVER suggest that we become the Byzantine Exarchate Beyond and Outside Pittsburgh.
Although isn't there some inherent musical quality about calling us the BEBOPs?
Deacon El
What about ARC? American Ruthenian Church? :-)
With all due respect, Dcn Robert- will you define 'authentic' BCism ?
I simply mean we should pray what we believe, and believe what we pray, our belief being grounded in the unalderated teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ handed down to us in Holy Tradition. Our public prayer (Liturgy) in English should be accurately translated from the original Greek and Slavonic so as to reflect what was being transmitted in those languages, and should not be tainted with a faddish, politically correct "spin".
Hope this clarifies what I was trying to say.
In Christ,
Dn. Robert
Ok, not making light of the subject,but just being a little full of humour at the moment.. you could theorectically start a Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church outside of Pittsburgh in Exile and use the old books?
-in light of ols's question, what are ye going to do?
I thought that is what ACROD was originally all about, esp. before the acceptance by Constantinople. Johnstown is definitely outside Pittsburgh.
Ok, so what do we call it? RBCOP? BCOP, RBCOPIE, ?? Of course, it could be the True and Genuine Unreformed Byzantine Catholic Church Outside of Pittsburgh In Exile - TGUBCCOOPIE. This is all sounding kind of Slavic, you know.
I think you could call this new entity something like "The American Carpatho-Russian, Ukrainian, Slovak, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian, Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of the U.S.A, and all the Seven Seas, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation". The short name would be ACRUSHCSOGCCUSAASSPC.
...and I'm on board with those who want to stay in and fight for authentic Byzantine Catholicism.
In Christ,
Deacon Robert
With all due respect, Dcn Robert- will you define 'authentic' BCism ? Isn't this the core problem?
Authentic Byzantine Catholic Liturgy is easy to define. Grab one of the books published by Rome and see for yourself. It's all there. Open the "Red Book" from 1964 and see. That is the Liturgy that should have been promulgated.
I can't speak for the bishops, but it appears the 'troublemakers' are few. Maybe they are banking on the 'sheep factor'?
Why is it that the Revisionists always label those seeking authentic restoration of our tradition as 'troublemakers'?
"Why is it that the Revisionists always label those seeking authentic restoration of our tradition as 'troublemakers'?"
Because deep down inside they are western christians. They know it. They try to drag the good people down with them. Traitors to the Byzantine tradition all of them.
LOL.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
Another insight into the inclusive language agenda: Much of this is a generational thing. Just by the simple fact of age, (people in their 50's-60's)the generation that was formed during the 1960's and 1970's is in a sense "in power." They are, across America, the ones who are bishops, seminary rectors, etc., etc. The things that were happening both good and bad in the 1960's were very formative because they were revolutionary-like in character. Those who were in seminary, convents, etc. during that time carry with them today a sense of having gone through a battle to improve the world, a kind of revolution that has ushered in a "better way" of thinking. They believed that inclusive language, the shedding of monastic habits, the questioning of the Magisterium, rejection of Humanae Vitae, etc.
was the great revolution that was going to save the Church and the world. It was the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II mixed in with secular humanism that profoundly influenced this generation during a very formative time in their development. Because the spirit during this time was so revolutionary it left indelible marks on the perspective of this generation. Today, this generation is essentially "in power" and getting to the age where they too will be stepping down, moving on, retiring, etc. So, what I am seeing is the philosophies from this "revolution" trying to make their last gasp, as it were.
The fact that these were such revolutionary and formative years has left certain blind spots in this generation and they cannot understand why everyone does not think like they do. For instance, the perception that inclusive language was an imperative for our Church and therefore for the new translation is a classic example of a blind spot. There was no imperative on the pastoral level,(the most important level) for inclusive language in the Byzantine Catholic Church in America. Inclusive language was deemed imperative by a few. (I want to again reiterate, lest I be misunderstood, that one reason why I am against inclusive language is because it is actually insulting to women as it ultimately strikes at the intrinsic dignity of womanhood. But to understand this we have to ascribed to the Church's theological anthropology which is actually revealed in our liturgy but which is being left unexplored in favor of secular humanism.)
The fact, is, some of these "causes" are in a sense trite. What was cutting edge during the 1960's and 1970's is now "old fashion" to the younger generation. The younger generation does not share these same 1960's "causes." But this is not because the younger people are more "conservative" or "unenlightened" as the 1960's generation would view them. I am finding that the younger generation is NOT clamoring for "inclusive language" but for Slavonic!!! (Now that's a whole other subject I want to take up with those who wish on this forum because I could use some discernment help pastorally about the Slavonic issue.)Clamoring for Slavonic is something that the 1960's generation could never have imagined. So, we now have pew books with NO Slavonic even though that is what the younger generation IS clamoring for along with other issues as well. If we were really going to be cutting edge we would have listened to our younger people and included some Slavonic in the new books. Do you see, now what I mean about the 1960's "causes" becoming outdated? Rather than being cutting edge, they are actually out of touch--the worst nightmare of the 1960's generation worldview!
Father Bless!
Father Tom, your post was very interesting and thought provoking.
You mentioned in the one part how this is a 'generational thing'. This is exactly the reason to not follow flavor of the decade (the 60s in this case). We need a translation that doesn't cater to one generation, and in this case a generation that clearly has an agenda. Just because some moonbats from 60s don't want to hear the word 'man', 'men', or 'mankind' now all of us are going to be stuck with their radicalism (yes I do think it's radical to alter the Creed).
And for crying out loud, if any generation was going to be catered to (and I'm not saying that any should be) it should be the younger generation. Now we'll definitely have fewer baptisms and less families with children. I guess every chuch will become 'grey'.
You've affectionately mentioned in previous posts the 'troublemakers'. Well, I guess we shouldn't be surprised when the 'troublemakers' in their 20s, 30s, and 40s with families who could care less about Hendrix, Janis Joplin, and the whims of political correctness will take their 'trouble making' ways to the Orthodox church where at least some ounce of Tradition is respected.
All we are saying is give the word 'mankind' a chance.
All we are saying is give the Red Book a chance.
Wouldn't that be groovy?!
Monomakh
"Why is it that the Revisionists always label those seeking authentic restoration of our tradition as 'troublemakers'?"
Because deep down inside they are western christians. They know it. They try to drag the good people down with them. Traitors to the Byzantine tradition all of them.
Ahem - I haven't been around here for a while, except to check my messages. But I read your message, Etnick, and can't help but wonder - are you saying that "western christians" are different than "good people"?
"I ask only for information." (Marvin the Paranoid Android)
Reasons why this will be a disaster:
1) We are told, by Rome, to be faithful to our spiritual heritage; in other words, be more Orthodox.
2) We are given a liturgy that does not match #1, despite all the good work done for it.
3) No one in the hierarchy or clergy appears to be making much of a case why there should be Byzantine _Catholics_ at all. Why be Catholic rather than Orthodox?
Combine the three, and you have a recipe for a wholesale flight to Orthodoxy.
This is a perfect storm.
P-A's comments are themselves quite perfect. The reason for being Byzantine Catholic, ie, "Orthodox in union with Rome" is to be both Orthodox and Catholic. For those of us who are Byzantine Catholic, this is not an inherent contradiction, but what we believe to be true orthodoxy. The Revised Liturgy (particularly with the inclusive language) does not allow us to strive for real Orthodoxy or real Catholicism. This is a perfect storm, because it affects the conscience deeply.
If, however, one is willing to simply ignore the facts (eg, that the THE CREED HAS BEEN CHANGED--to please the "feminists"), there will be no storm but only a fizzle. Unfortunately much of Catholicism in America simply learns to ignore facts and words. Would, however, that we took words as seriously as those "feminists" who are demanding that our Creed be changed to comport with their ideas of equality. My gut and conscience tell me that the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople would not tolerate it.
Meanwhile the real feminists who are doing the daily work of rearing children and teaching them the real Creed, will quietly pass on the faith at home to their children. God bless them all.
"If, however, one is willing to simply ignore the facts (eg, that the THE CREED HAS BEEN CHANGED--to please the "feminists"), there will be no storm but only a fizzle. Unfortunately much of Catholicism in America simply learns to ignore facts and words."
The most upsetting thing is that we would even have to "fight" for the Creed inside our Churches. The Creed is rightfully ours. Does anyone have the right to take it from us?
I think we need to ask why the hierarchy would even contemplate changing the Creed. What are the motives? Just to make a few squeaky wheels (feminist, modernist) happy? Or is there something even worse (knowingly or unknowingly) going on here?...
Those of us who feel we have been "robbed" are not troublemakers. We just know we have been robbed. While others turn their heads and ignore the fact that a precious treasure has been removed/denied/stolen. Remember the Commandment -- THOU SHALL NOT STEAL....
Even though we supposed troublemakers understand we have been robbed, we need to understand a more important principal than "our rights" is at stake. Ultimately, changing the Creed is an attack against GOD. This is naturalism under the disguise of progress. Naturalism goes against the Supernatural and puts man in the place of GOD. This is the real battle going on here.
I believe that changing the Creed is about displacing our proper relationship with GOD. It is not about my personal "feelings" on the subject. And yes, the troublemakers are passionate. They know that it is not about them, this is about respecting and honoring GOD, The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Could it be that the troublemakers are those who understand they fight for the glory and adoration of GOD? Maybe the troublemakers are not self-interest individuals? Maybe they see a different picture?
Come to think of it. Yes, I guess I am a troublemaker, after all. Because I fight against naturalism. I am happy to be causing "trouble" against those spirits which are against GOD.
Blessed is our GOD!
corsair
Dear Friends--
I have been thinking a lot about this and a couple of questions have come to mind. These are legitamite to me and not meant to start a flame war or desparage others. Please do not take them and twist them. I would like mature and constructive conversation.
For personal reasons, outside the revision of the DL, I've been attending an Anglo-Catholic/Episcopal church where Elizabethan English is employed (Rite I for those of you who know the Book of Common Prayer) with the exception of the Nicene Creed which is chanted but in modern English using "For us and for our salvation." No one seems to bat an eye that "man" is used throughout the Mass as a term for both men and women or that "for us men" is edited out of the Creed. Or for that matter that they're using a language (dialect?) that certainly is not employed anywhere in the world today as everyday speech. This parish is in the midst of a very liberal Ivy league university and is attended by many students. The Mass is said "ad orientem" on a high altar miles away from the congregation and separated from the nave by an immense Rood Screen.
Therefore I pose, was the reasoning behind the inclusive language being put into the revised Divine Liturgy that:
1) Everyday American English has evolved to the point where "man, he, mankind, etc." as generic terms for men and women is a thing of the past and in order to make it accessible, those terms needed to be reworked?
2) The ******* Church(es) does/do this so we should as well?
3) By expelling "sexist" terminology, we'll draw more people in who have no faith and stop the hemorrage of our youth and more educated people.
4) We need to do this for women.
You can see why the issue of (liturgical) language has been on my mind. I await your thoughts.
John
ok-no twisting.
I believe that you are right that one of the reasons for dropping "men" from the Creed is the claim that
1) Everyday American English has evolved to the point where "man, he, mankind, etc." as generic terms for men and women is a thing of the past and in order to make it accessible, those terms needed to be reworked?
If, however, in fact, everyday "English" were truly misunderstood, then when
"man" is used throughout the Mass as a term for both men and women
it would be misunderstood. But as you observe, it does not appear to be misunderstood.
I think that your point that:
By expelling "sexist" terminology, we'll draw more people in who have no faith and stop the hemorrage of our youth and more educated people.
is one of the the reasons that "inclusive language" is being proposed.
I have grave reservations, however, about the claim that those who are demanding this language are "more educated people." These men and women may in fact be attending college's and universties where "inclusive language" is a "sign" of "education." I propose, however, that the Father's of the Church, St. Paul and the author of Genesis, were far more educated than students and graduates of modern colleges and universities because the Fathers, St. Paul and the author of Genesis were better judges of first principles which is of the essence of true education. Anthropos and man are equivalents even though modern academia rejects that fact. But most of modern academia accepts that human fetuses may be subject to private execution--a sign that there judgment about first principles is not very good.
In an artice I read today, speaking of a doctor of the Church, the author states:
There was not...one doctrine for theologians and another for ordinary believers; and certainly nothing of the division we often see today between teaching which all but denies the faith itself, and the orthodox teaching which is seen as a collection of myths which satisfy only the ignorant...There is...as for any christian, one faith, one doctrine, one teaching understood by the believer more or less fully depending upon his natural ability, training, circumstance, grace and opportunity.
I think the real issue is whether we have faith "seeking understand" or whether we will "tweek" the faith because of modern biases and misconceptions. Changing the Creed is a very big matter. As has been pointed out, anathemas have been attached to any changes. One better be perfectly certain that any change is truly organic before one makes a change. If it is organic, its roots will be deeper and more secure and its flowers will be more beautiful and perfect.
Moreoever, because these changes
in translation are by their very nature intellectual, they are either true or false. If true, not only the Liturgy and the Creed must be changed but also all of Scripture and anything written by the Fathers must also be changed
in translation for modern men and women so that they can truly understand the Gospel. I submit that what we have seen in the Roman Church has shown that these changes
in translation have not converted anyone or made the Gospel more accesible to the world. I would like to close this with a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger in the "The Spirit of the Liturgy," in the chapter entitled "Rite". [p 168, Ignatius Press]
The life of liturgy does not come from what dawns upon the minds of individuals and planning groups. On the contrary, it is God's descent upon our world, the source of real liberation. He alone can open the door to freedom. The more priests and faithful humbly surrender themselves to this descent of God, the more 'new' liturgy will constantly be, and the more true and personal it becomes. Yes, the liturgy becomes personal, true, and new, not through tomfoolery and banal experiments with the words, but through a courageous entry into the great reality that through rite is always ahead of us and can never be quite overtaken.
Those of us who feel we have been "robbed" are not troublemakers. We just know we have been robbed. While others turn their heads and ignore the fact that a precious treasure has been removed/denied/stolen. Remember the Commandment -- THOU SHALL NOT STEAL....
I just want to take the moment to thank all of those who have shown compassion towards the "suffering". Truly, I feel anguish over the changes regarding "inclusive language". For the record, whoever is behind this does not represent me, a forty year old wife, mother, and teacher. I am very, very sad also. I would not resist, but for the faith of my children. By nature I am not a "trouble maker".However, I am gravely compelled to sacrifice for the spiritual well-being of my own. In spite of the motives attributed to them, I think that the vast majority of resisters cannot in good conscience cooperate. I love the Byzantine Rite!
Dear John:
Here is my two cents or just some random thoughts. I hope I don't come off as "fuming". Passionate maybe, and never offensive, I hope. Be forewarned this is a gender specific zone, and this IS how we raise our family!
You wrote:
"3) By expelling "sexist" terminology, we'll draw more people in who have no faith and stop the hemorrage of our youth and more educated people.
4) We need to do this for women."
As a woman, I do not find "sexist" terminology in the Divine Liturgy. You see, the WORLD has told us these words are "sexist" and demeaning. But are they? Is this the truth? Or a lie from the depths of hell? Is there some deeper meaning here? More than the slogan, I am women hear me roar?
In my opinion, the world has required/coerest me to act like a man and not a woman. I was constantly proving myself equal (most often BETTER) to my male peers in high school and college. My authentic womanhood has been something I had to learn as an adult, after I had children. What freedom I have when I stopped trying to compete with men.
For me, I have found my authentic womanhood only in accepting my vocation as a wife and a mother. When the DL is striped of it's "sexist" terminology, you have in effect done what the World has done. Abandoned GOD'S design. Abandoned what GOD has called me to do. As a women, I have found my fulfillment in my vocation. My vocation is to embrace my role in the family. You see John, only in my husband's authentic manhood have I found my authentic womanhood. It is the most beautiful thing. REALLY. It doesn't deny me my rights, it frees me and allows me to be myself, a woman. (I am women, HEAR ME PRAY?)
For me, removing "sexist" terminology denies that my husband and I are fundamentally different. EQUAL IN DIGNITY! But we have different roles. The best way to understand it is that the father is the head of the family, and the mother is the heart of the family. Both essential, but different.
Most importantly, I believe that to make the Divine Liturgy non-gender specific is an attack on my husband and his role as head. This in turn attacks my role. The stakes? The family! You have noticed that the family is under attack in society (and now the Church?!). In the Longer version of the St. Michael Prayer we find "when the Pastor has been struck the sheep may be scattered." In the domestic church, the home, when the head (DAD) is struck the sheep, my children, will be scattered. This is MOST serious!!! This is not really about **me** nor **my husband**. This is about my family. This is about my children, raising them to understand what GOD has planed for them. What good things HE has planned for them.
If we view this issue from the perspective of the FAMILY, and not the individual, we start to see the bigger impact. This is an attack on the children, to steal away their family....Depositing the Faith to the children is a most difficult task today. It takes a HEAD and a HEART, one flesh from two.
Well, I hope I made some sense. This is hard to explain in words, you really need to live it!
Blessed is our GOD!
corsair
Dear Corsair,
May God bless you! It is encouraging to hear someone stand up for the TRUTH!
Alexandr
Corsair, I also think that inclusive language forces me to compete with males as though their vocation is the only legitimate one. This is absurd! I hold the future in my arms everyday. You did a great job expressing a fundamental Catholic truth that is denied by the media and society.The family is the domestic church and I am proud to have a head and a heart.You cannot attack the head without affecting the entire family!
Dear John K --
I think your comments are unfounded, and fly in the face of what many Orthodox and Evangelical Churches are experiencing. Do we wish to worship authentically what has been handed down, or are we in the business of creating new religions to entertain any group with a specific agenda just to try to grow our churches? Read this article published in Commonweal by Richard C. Leonard.
In case you wish to read the entire article here's the link
Laudemont Ministries [
laudemont.org]
Why Inclusive Language Won't Succeed
Inclusive language in worship is supposed to correct what is thought to be male dominance in the church. Writing in Commonweal, Robert Woodward of Newsweek has questioned the existence of this hypothetical masculine domination. Citing Walter Ong's insightful book Fighting for Life, Woodward contends that the church at large has always been overwhelmingly feminine, the "Holy Mother Church." (And, we may add, the New Testament portrays the church as the bride of Christ.) In such a feminine environment an all-male clergy, as in the Catholic and Orthodox communities and many evangelical denominations, is a necessary balancing force which encourages men as well as women to be religious. Sociologists confirm that the best predictor of whether a child will maintain a religious commitment in adult life is not the faith of the mother � women are expected to be religious � but the faith of the father. Woodward comments, "if the father demonstrates that religion is not foreign to what a man is and does, the child � especially the male child � is much more likely to be religious upon reaching adulthood."
Because of their biological makeup, principally their more task-focused and less intuitive intellectual processes, men are unlikely to connect with a feminine-dominated or even gender-neutral symbolic environment, which is what a religion is. Masculine language in reference to God is part of the traditional symbol system of biblical faith, and it has allowed men to find meaning in that faith. Feminizing the language of worship virtually guarantees that men will fall by the wayside, except perhaps those whose sexual identity is confused.
Languages lie at the bedrock of cultures, and are inherently resistant to change. Bible translators know this, and make accommodations in order to translate the biblical idiom into phrases that will have equivalent significance in the target culture. But the current drive for gender-neutral language works in the opposite direction: it attempts to force linguistic change in order to foster cultural change. In this case, the translators are attempting to force a linguistic change on both the originating culture (the Bible and Christian tradition) and the target culture (North American society) at the same time. In reality, the movement for inclusive language is an attempt by an elitist segment to impose its values upon a larger community, and to take control not only of the actions of others but their thoughts as well.
If worship is to be truly inclusive, it cannot impose an elitist linguistic convention on a larger culture. A mandate for gender-neutral language in Christian worship would simply create a small, holier-than-thou cult with its own special lingo, while the rest of us hopeless Neanderthals fall off the edge of their world. And that's exactly what's happening to most of the historic North American denominations. Locked into the feminizing agenda, they are fast becoming a tiny minority of left-wing activists and their captive senior citizens who stick around just because of inertia. Anybody who is really looking for a meaningful set of religious symbols is going someplace else: to those churches which don't care about inclusive language, but do care whether or not people are included in the covenant with God through Jesus Christ.
Apparently our Hierarch's did not do their homework. Another reason to abandon this translation.
Ok, so what do we call it? RBCOP? BCOP, RBCOPIE, ?? Of course, it could be the True and Genuine Unreformed Byzantine Catholic Church Outside of Pittsburgh In Exile - TGUBCCOOPIE. This is all sounding kind of Slavic, you know.
I think you could call this new entity something like "The American Carpatho-Russian, Ukrainian, Slovak, Hungarian, Croatian, Serbian, Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of the U.S.A, and all the Seven Seas, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation". The short name would be .
ACRUSHCSOGCCUSAASSPC, LLC, LTD, Inc. What about the ACRUSHCSOGCCUSAASSPC, LLC, LTd, INC Youth Organization,
This would probably not fit on a t-shirt in that situation.
I'd say the BEBOPS is more effective.
I love the Byzantine Rite!
Dear Wife-and-Mother:
I love the Byzantine Rite too! I sat numb in Church on Sunday. Realizing we will have to take our children from the Church they love. But, the danger in exposing them to the New Liturgy is real. It will be sad to leave, but my children's faith is more important. At times like these, let us contemplate the Holy Family and the Fight into Egypt. I think this will help us.
I guess we'll go to the Ukrainian Church. Are there any good Ukrainian Churches on the Southeast side of Pittsburgh?
Blessed is our GOD!
corsair
I think Fr. Valerian is pastor of St. George's on California Ave.
He is very traditional, a married priest with a beautiful famuly.
They have sevral young families and lots of childern in the parish. I'm been trying to visit that parish for some time.
U_C
On a different thread, I have posted the following observation:
The nuns of Mt St Macrina published the Festal Menaion in 1985--and our Lord is the "Lover of Mankind". They published the Pentecostarion in 1986--our Lord is the "Lover of Mankind". They published the Vespers book in 1987--our Lord is the "Lover of Mankind". The Matins book was published in 1989--our Lord has suddenly become the "Lover of Humankind". The Triodion was published in 1995--our Lord is the "Lover of Humankind".
Now as I view the revised DL, I see that the Tropars have also been nuetralized. Christ is not the "Lover of Mankind" and He is not even the "Lover of Humankind"......
It says that He "Loves us all".
Is this for real? I feel like I am in some kind of surreal inclusive language nightmare. Somebody wake me up! My conscience is damaged. No one will listen to this lowly "trouble maker".
There's no chance the Ukrainians will do something like this is there?
I think Fr. Valerian is pastor of St. George's on California Ave.
He is very traditional, a married priest with a beautiful famuly.
They have sevral young families and lots of childern in the parish. I'm been trying to visit that parish for some time.
U_C
Is that Valerian Michnik, who was "our" Deacon in Pittsburgh?
Recluse,
If you have not read the thread, "Valerie Karras, Fr. Taft, the new liturgy," I would do so. It is another piece of the puzzle. There is a systematic program to "inclusivize" worship in the Ruthenian Byzantine Rite. The "translators" are banking on the "horizontal vs. vertical" distinction to distance themselves from the Sisters of St. Basil. Nevertheless, the Creed and the language of the Liturgy have been changed. While there is the argument that the translation is being changed so that people today can understand the Liturgy, this argument is inconsistent with using a Greek term like Theotokos. The fact that the seminary would sing Valerie Karras' praises as a scholar, indicates that there is a subtle but real undercurrent towards women's ordination which is driving this inclusive train.
Corsair,
Great posts! I believe that things may change when the mothers of the Church make their thoughts know. Thank you.
The fact that the seminary would sing Valerie Karras' praises as a scholar, indicates that there is a subtle but real undercurrent towards women's ordination which is driving this inclusive train.
I am not usually one to be called paranoid or prone to conspiracy theories, but something does not seem right.
Recluse,
If you have not read the thread, "Valerie Karras, Fr. Taft, the new liturgy," I would do so. It is another piece of the puzzle. There is a systematic program to "inclusivize" worship in the Ruthenian Byzantine Rite. The "translators" are banking on the "horizontal vs. vertical" distinction to distance themselves from the Sisters of St. Basil. Nevertheless, the Creed and the language of the Liturgy have been changed. While there is the argument that the translation is being changed so that people today can understand the Liturgy, this argument is inconsistent with using a Greek term like Theotokos. The fact that the seminary would sing Valerie Karras' praises as a scholar, indicates that there is a subtle but real undercurrent towards women's ordination which is driving this inclusive train.
Corsair,
Great posts! I believe that things may change when the mothers of the Church make their thoughts know. Thank you.
Just received my new Liturgicons from Pittsburgh the other day. One interesting oddity: the Anaphora for the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil is still full of "man" terms; i.e. the human race is referred to as "man" or "mankind" with no alteration. Maybe they (the translators) "missed" something? Just wondering.
Dn. Robert
When you turn up the heat slowly, fewer frogs will jump from the pot.
When you turn up the heat slowly, fewer frogs will jump from the pot.
There aren't a heck of a lot of frogs left to begin with!
"The fact that the seminary would sing Valerie Karras' praises as a scholar, indicates that there is a subtle but real undercurrent towards women's ordination which is driving this inclusive train."
This is unfounded. I have never once heard any of the Seminary professors or staff speak in favor of women's ordination or in all the time I've spent with them have any inclination to think that they are. Dr. Karras is a noted scholar in good standing with her Church and in all that I've been able to read of her works have yet to see her call for ordination of women to the priesthood. She as well as St. Nina's Quaterly to which she belongs do call for restoration of the order of deaconess, but as has been stated before that has different implications in the Byzantine Church than in the Latin Church. Please stop making unfounded accusations and promoting conspiracy theories.
Corsair, Although I have family and roots in Pittsburgh, I do not know the answer to that question. Pray for our Priests! Without holy Priests the road to Heaven is much more difficult for families.
I stand behind my arguments made in that thread:
In the article by Belonick which I referenced above , Karras is mentioned with three other theologians one of whom is Elisabeth Behr-Sigel.
Quote:
many Orthodox Christians question the logic behind an all male priesthood...Well known Orthodox writers who find theological support for women's orindination include Elisabeth Behr-Sigel...and Dr. Valerie Karras.
Behr-Sigel writes:
Quote:
It is in the Church�s name � in persona Ecclesiae � that the ordained minister, facing East, meaning toward the coming Christ, begs the Father to send the Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered, that they may be for us communion in the Body and Blood of Christ �offered up once and for all,� as the Epistle to the Hebrews insists. And St. John Chrysostom proclaims that �it is Christ, made present by the Holy Spirit, who is the true minister of the mystery.� Removing himself as individual, the priest � minister, meaning servant � turns his hands and his tongue over to Christ. Why could these hands and this tongue not be those of a Christian woman, baptized and chrismated, called by virtue of her personal gifts to a ministry of pastoral guidance, which implies presiding over the eucharist? As the Fathers � with the Gospel as their foundation � have always claimed, the hierarchy of spiritual gifts granted to persons has nothing to do with gender.
I don't believe that it is mere conjecture that Karras is for the ordination of women to the priesthood. At least that is what Deborah Belonick is arguing against.
LM,
It is conjecture, you can't convict Dr. Karras based on the words of another.
But to clarify from what I have read, officially Dr. Karras is in favor of women's ordination as deaconesses. I have seen nothing in her own words stating she is in favor of women's ordination to the priesthood. She has debated the question as have Metropolitan Anthony Bloom and Bishop Kallistos Ware and others. This is something different from advocating the practice as Call to Action types are doing in the Catholic Church.
Even Matushka Deborah states:
"As Orthodox we cannot align ourselves into the clear cut camps offered to us by the Western mind. We must pick and choose what is true and what is not true in each particular instance. For example, I am against the ordination of women to the priesthood, but very much for the ordination of women to the diaconate. Let us not let the devil force us into monolithic categories and caricatures. As Orthodox, let us continue to seek the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit."
Fr. Deacon,
If it is mere conjecture, then I think you should write Matushka Deborah and tell her to stop libeling Valerie Karras.
Furthermore, since I am Catholic, I cannot agree with those (including Belonick) who advocate for women deacons if they believe that they are ordained in the same sense that men are ordained.
If we are Byzantine Catholics, we do have a camp we must be in and it is Peter's. Unity with Rome must mean something.
Is not having women deacons a pressing problem in the Byzantine Ruthenian Church? Is this lack of deaconesses, the reason why are numbers are drooping?
As Fr. Loya has pointed out, we seem constantly to look at what others are doing, and think they are doing it better. Would that we could understand that faithfulness to Peter within our tradition is what will bring unity, peace and revitalization in our Church.
What makes our Church unique is its unity with Rome. This is our distinctive feature. If this unity is a mere pretense, then there is no reason to be Byzantine Catholic. If it is not mere pretense, then we should glory in that union and make true faithfulness to Rome our trademark.
Dear lm,
And yet, we already accept differences in sacramental theology within the Catholic Church (e.g. over whether the priest or the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony). Do you mean that one CANNOT use the word ordination to refer to the making of deaconesses? If not, how do you know this?
I have seen NO ONE in the Byzantine Catholic Church calling for deaconesses, though I have seen some people accepting this when done by the Orthodox. If seems as if this acceptance of Orthodox practice equates to heresy in your eyes, and you seem quite willing to conflate discussion of deaconesses with discussion of ordaining women to the priesthood. This might all be academic, but then it gets turned into hints of heteroxody in the seminary, because they LISTEN to an Orthodox theologian discussing deaconesses.
So it would help to know: suppose our faculty listen to a theological discussion of the practice of ordaining deaconesses, as is starting in the Church of Greece. Must they rise up in protest against this Orthodox practice? If so, why? Or is this all out of fear that they have some ADDITIONAL heterodox tendency, which promotion of deaconesses is part of? If so, there IS a problem, because you are using a discussion of deaconesses to prove heteroxody, then using the claim of heterodoxy to show the "hidden meaning" behind the discussion of deaconesses.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff
The feminists wish to destroy the Priesthood since they cannot possess it. They are attempting to do this through the destruction of our language, changing the meaning of words and the grammatical structure of its usage. If one changes the words, the reality beneath is changed. If one removes the masculine nouns and pronouns, then one changes the reality about God Himself, about the Incarnation and the Redemption, about the Priesthood, about the whole of Christian doctrine.
Destroy what you cannot have!
Monsignor Richard J. Schuler
So it would help to know: suppose our faculty listen to a theological discussion of the practice of ordaining deaconesses, as is starting in the Church of Greece. Must they rise up in protest against this Orthodox practice?
I have no objections to the faculty listening to these theological discussions. It does seem rather odd that Karras should be invited
in, however, to speak presumably to future priests.
I don't think anyone at the seminary has to rise up in protest. However, I repeat, it seems odd that Ms. Karras would be invited
into the seminary to speak.
Also, I am aware of the difference in theology regarding the holy mystery of marriage. I submit to this difference and would argue that the difference is reflective of the fact that East does not make the distinctions between the order of nature and the order of grace the way the West does. For the West, influenced highly by Roman law, marriage is first a natural contract. For the East, however, marriage is at the heart of all of creation. I think our Liturgy reflects that. I see this as a virtue in our theology and liturgy.
Our view of the holy mystery of marriage, is an answer to the modern world where marriage is under the greatest threat. The right relationship between man and woman, is what, as I have maintained, being tampered with by the revised translation.
So I keep bumping back into, "Why have we adopted the world's way of speaking?" Valerie Karras has given a principled argument of why she would translate the Creed, "for us human beings, He became a human being." I greatly disagree with her principles.
In Christ,
lm
PS - I am not calling for latinizations of the Byzantine Church. The more I learn about our traditions, the more I appreciate them. However, I also see that union with Rome in mind and heart is vital to our existence now and for our future.
LM,
"I have no objections to the faculty listening to these theological discussions. It does seem rather odd that Karras should be invited in, however, to speak presumably to future priests."
Well then you are operating under a misunderstanding. The St. Cyril and Methodius Lecture Series is not specifically for the seminarians, nor is it held at the seminary. It is in the auditoium of the Latin seminary and is consider an ecumenical and academic gathering. It is open to all and the audience is usually a mix of a laity and clergy both Catholic and Orthodox.
Fr. Deacon Lance
Alas, my heart is heavy and my conscience is wounded. It was impossible for me to particpate in the Divine Liturgy on Sunday because of my sadness. I quietly said the Jesus Prayer. I feel it is now time for me to investigate different OCA parishes. My wife and young daughter will accompany me.
I wonder if the revisionists will ever know the depths of sadness and pain they have caused so many.
I will pray for the Ruthenian Catholic Church---and all MANKIND!
Dear Recluse,
I'm sorrowed to hear that your conscience takes you that way. Please do us who remain the favor of letting our bishops know what you are doing.
Dear Recluse,
I'm sorrowed to hear that your conscience takes you that way. Please do us who remain the favor of letting our bishops know what you are doing.
I shall. Thank you P-A.
Dear Recluse,
Please do us who remain the favor of letting our bishops know what you are doing.
If the bishops cared about us even a little bit, we would not be in this position of having to decide about remaining in this Church.
Nick
Dear Nick,
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think the bishops are evil, which is what it would mean if they did not care for us. Knowing my own bishop as I do, I am sure that he loves his flock. It comes down to execution--how does one love one's flock? The challenge is to convince them that what they think is the best path isn't really the best path.
Karl
I think Fr. Valerian is pastor of St. George's on California Ave.
Thanks U-C! Problem is that I meant -- I need a Church on the Southeast SUBURBS of Pittsburgh. Monroeville/Irwin even West Mifflin would be good. Any suggestions?
Blessed is our GOD!
jody
Can anyone explain to me how to cut and paste from the post you want to reply to and get those little boxes inside your own reply? I have tried two different things, both haven't worked. Thanks in advance.
Dear Karl,
I know you're right, the bishops are not evil. I am only speaking from my hurt and sadness.
It's just that I've supported my Church, and put up with a lot over the years, and overlooked a lot of stupidity. (I'm not asking for a medal, it is the right thing to do). It was always our prayers and our songs that carried me through the rough times.
I've strong opinions about inclusive language and the changes, and maybe I'm wrong. But always before when I've been discouraged, I've had our songs and prayers to carry me through rough times.
Last Sunday, I heard somebody who tried to talk to our priest about this, and all Father said was "I don't agree with it, and I don't want to talk about it".
And now, I don't have our songs and prayers to comfort me. The bishops could have done so much better than this. If they have to pull the rug out from under us, then they could have thrown us a cushion.
When the Liturgy always carried me through hard times, I wonder what will keep me now?
Nick
Can anyone explain to me how to cut and paste from the post you want to reply to and get those little boxes inside your own reply? I have tried two different things, both haven't worked. Thanks in advance.
Two ways.
1. Have the computer do it for you. When responding to a post, hit Quote or Quick Quote. The text will be quoted for you and you can put your own text above or below it. As long as you don't delete the quote tags, you can delete inside the quote tags (as I did here) to only highlight or respond to part of the quoted message. If you are not quoting someone in the thread but an outside source, you can highlight the text in the composition box and choose the button to wrap the text with quote tags as long as you do Reply and not Quick Reply. Quick Reply (the box at the bottom of the thread) doesn't have the options, but does allow you to enter them yourself if you know them.
2. Do it yourself. This might be useful in several circumstances. The first is if you forgot to hit quote or quick quote. The second is if you are not responding to someone but quoting an outside source. The third is if you are the first poster in the thread. The fourth is if you wish to quote several posters in one reply. To do this, you place [quote] at the beginning of the text. Or you can make it say [quote=CNN News] or whomever you are quoting for the name to show. At the end of the quoted text, you type [ /quote] (without the space in it, otherwise it would turn this into a quote and you wouldn't see it!) Then you can put your own text. You can keep doing this down the message if you wish to have several quotes.
As a linguist (and a Greek), "anthropoi" refers to us humans as opposed to other ape-family mammals with opposable thumbs. At the same time, the word is also used in Greek to refer to the male of the species as opposed to 'gynaika', the female. Unfortunately, the biological dichotamous key, that allows us to subdivide species, is not the same in Greek as it is in English. The Latin 'homo' refers to 'humans' - as opposed to the chimps and their friends, but also to the male of the species, while 'femina' refers solely to the female of the species. Hebrew gives us "ha adam' for 'humans' but it also refers to the male of the species. The same obtains in German with "Mensch" ='human' but also 'guy', with 'Mann' = male and 'Frau' = female. The same in French with 'homme' being both 'person' as well as 'male'. 'Femme' is for the females. Same in Italian with 'uomo' being both 'human' and 'male' and 'donne' = females.
So, translations become difficult because the frameworks are different in refering to "humans" in general, and 'males' and 'females' in particular. Citing one or another Greek/Latin/Hebrew/Slavonic/German/French/etc. text as the fundamentum of our liturgical language is theological thin ice.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but no reputable theologian has ever postulated that the souls of males and females are ontologically different, or that the Lord's sacrifice was efficacious in different ways for men and for women.
It's clear that some folks have gone on a Crusade over gender (Greeks are especially sensitive to this Crusade concept), the fact is that we need to ensure that both men and women are fully incorporated into the 'ekklesia', the community of the baptized.
So, the burden on us humans is to ensure that in our language(s), all human beings are recognized as being part of the Salvific Action that our Lord accomplished on the Cross. It's not 'feminism' or 'inclusivity' (in the bad sense of the word), but the reality that our parish churches and communities incorporate everybody into the Hebrew concept of 'qahal Adonai', the 'believer group'. It is precisely this concept that allows us to baptize infants - they are not yet 'ready' to make the personal confession of belief, but we want - nay: NEED - them to be part of the baptized cohort of Christ's followers because they are part of "us".
Clearly, He accepted everyone who came to Him. How can we, as followers of His teaching, make distinctions based upon gender, skin color, age, mental ability, and other 'accidentales' of personality? (I'm old enough to remember in seminary very elderly priests who questioned the baptism of black people. 'Mark of Satan' stuff. Scandalized me then, scandalizes me now.)
So, what do we do about 'inclusive language'? It seems clear to me from the Gospels, that we are to move in a way that ensures that every human being who is eligible for baptism, is ensured a place at the table. And that despite our cultural backgrounds, we do the "Christian thing" of ensuring that everyone who comes in the door is truly welcomed and embraced as a baptized and saved soul, and is encouraged to give of his or her talents to the building up of the community of believers. And we need to ensure that our liturgical texts make sure that we validate this commitment.
The Lord is coming back - and we should never be in the situation of excluding anyone based on anatomy (or skin color, or mental ability, or age, or ......whatever....) And we should never allow our words to tell people to go away. We can't be His followers if we do that.
I beg your prayers.
"Lord, in Your mercy...."
JB
I am in full agreement. That's why we should say "for us men and for our salvation...he became man." That is after all what is in the Greek, and "men" is a perfectly respectable English word which means "human beings without respect to sex or age." Moreover, the Son of God, the Son of Man, became man for men. Not only that, Rome likes that word, "man" too.
Forgive the very off topic but
welcome back Dr John - long time no see
I think that Crusade over "gender inclusive language" began about 30 years ago. Bad idea. I too thought we had gotten over those Crusade things.
So, what do we do about 'inclusive language'? It seems clear to me from the Gospels, that we are to move in a way that ensures that every human being who is eligible for baptism, is ensured a place at the table. And that despite our cultural backgrounds, we do the "Christian thing" of ensuring that everyone who comes in the door is truly welcomed and embraced as a baptized and saved soul, and is encouraged to give of his or her talents to the building up of the community of believers. And we need to ensure that our liturgical texts make sure that we validate this commitment.
JB
Dear Dr John:
I am a little confused with your post. Maybe I'm just dense!
Can you please clarify for me what you think of the so called (by some) "sexist" terms. Do you want to remove them because that "ensures that every human being who is eligible for baptism, is ensured a place at the table." In your opinion, the "Christian THING" is to say "for us men and our salvation" or "for us and our salvation." Which is a more Christian "thing" to you?
You said, "It seems clear to me from the Gospels...." I wanted to reference the Gospels in this regard, so I want to be clear as to your assertion before I do so.
Thank you in advance for clearing up my confusion/misunderstanding.
Blessed is our GOD!
jody
I am in full agreement. That's why we should say "for us men and for our salvation...he became man." That is after all what is in the Greek, and "men" is a perfectly respectable English word which means "human beings without respect to sex or age." Moreover, the Son of God, the Son of Man, became man for men. Not only that, Rome likes that word, "man" too.
Yes. And Christ has always been the "Lover of Mankind".
Right. Part of the problem is that "mankind" does not incorporate BOTH the individual and the totality, as do the Greek and Slavonic. I believe this was a subject of the Roman documents on translation, and also a previous thread here discussing people who honestly said "Well, God may love mankind in general, but that doesn't mean he loves me."
In this sense, "Lover of Mankind" is NOT really an adequate translation of Celovikol'ubce. But unless we settle on "Man-befriending God" or "Lover of men" or "Man-loving God", it may be the best we have. I believe that that is why we see "who loves us all" - it would be readily understood to include each individual (pace the understanding that it includes all human beings) as well as each one. I don't particularly LIKE it, but it is one solution to a thorny translation problem, and partisans of "Lover of Mankind" (I count myself as one!) need to understand that that translation has problems as well.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff
"Well, God may love mankind in general, but that doesn't mean he loves me."
This reminds me of the baptists and other protestants who profess a "personal Lord and Savior".
and partisans of "Lover of Mankind" (I count myself as one!) need to understand that that translation has problems as well.
What do you say to those Orthodox, (ROCOR comes to mind), who use the translation "O only Lover of Men".
Dear Recluse,
I would have been perfectly happy with it 10 years ago (though I think "Lover of man" is more exact). Then I met a homosexual activist who REALLY like the idea of "Jesus, Lover of Men", and was all in favor of it. I guess to some extent it depends on whether the faithful, and newcomers, can simply ignore changes that take place in our language outside church.
I really believe that "Lover of mankind" / "who loves us all" and "for us men" / "for us" involve separate issues, whose only common feature is that they both could look like giving in to pressure from secular feminists. (The Liturgy Commission DID keep quite a few occurences of "man" / "men" in the texts, and removed the "red flag" of "humankind" that the Basilian Sisters used at Vespers.) "Lover of mankind" seems to involve a substantive translation issue in the current text, while the "for us men" does not.
Jeff
P.S. The first quote above has little to do with Protestants, and everything to do with the abstract nature of "mankind". I have met many over the years who professed to be working for "the good of mankind" who had no problem sacrificing individual human beings, and a variety of people who simply did not FEEL that anything that applied to "generic mankind" applied IN PARTICULAR to them. A regular poster on the forum commented from personal experience to this effect a few weeks ago.
Part of the problem is that "mankind" does not incorporate BOTH the individual and the totality, as do the Greek...I believe this was a subject of the Roman documents on translation,
Jeff, could you identify the Roman document to which you refer. I think Rome has been rather definitive on this issue or is there something new out. If "Lover of Men' was the proper translation, then why didn't we use it. I will suggest for the same reason that men was dropped from the Creed.
When the indefensible is defended, it just drives a further wedge between those who are willing to accept a revised Creed and those who want an orthodox one.
In Christ,
lm
PS - Can you tell me whether "The doors, the doors" has been dropped? And do the orthodox still use it?
I really believe that "Lover of mankind" / "who loves us all" and "for us men" / "for us" involve separate issues, whose only common feature is that they both could look like giving in to pressure from secular feminists.
I personally believe this is what has happened--a surrender to the secular feminist movement and a time for the revisionists to make their "claim to fame".
Peter Kreeft's introduction to his book
Philosophy 101 by Socrates [
amazon.com] (Ignatius, 2002):
"Man" means "mankind," not "males." It is traditional inclusive language. "Humanity" does not go with "God" ("God and humanity") because "God" and "man" are concrete nouns, like "dog" and "cat," while "divinity" and "humanity" are abstract nouns, like "canininity" and "felininity" or "dogginess" and "cattiness." Whatever the political or psychological uses or misuses of these words, that is what they mean. We do not undo old injustices against women by doing new injustices against language.
He might have added that the claim, regularly made by the "inclusivists," that the masculine cannot include and represent the feminine, destroys the possibility of the Incarnation being the inclusive event Christians believe it to be. I can understand a case being made for "inclusive" language, but the sweeping claims it is often based are not claims a Christian can make, but once the advocate gives up the sweeping "'He' doesn't represent Me!" argument, he is left with prudential arguments, which by nature are disputable.
Agenda driven gender neutral language is poor theology. No one takes it seriously except liberal academia and some in the media.
Traditional inclusive language is good theology. �Man�, �Mankind� and �Lover of mankind� have the advantage of being accurate AND inclusive.
Isn�t it odd that our hierarchs have chosen to go the route of 1960�s feel-good agenda theology instead of accuracy?
Maybe we should have copies of
Liturgicam Authenticam printed and sent to them?
Dear lm,
From Liturgiam Authenticam 30:
[qb]When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word �adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation.[/qb]
The recurring reference in our liturgy is to the "Lover of man" - where both the individual and universal senses are intended and understood. We have used "Lover of mankind" for years; I don't think there is an overall BETTER translation, not least because setting "Lover of man" or "Lover of men" to an end-phrase in our chant can be quite problematical. I wish I know of one I could propose.
I think "Lover of us all" SOUNDS less political than "Lover of human beings" or "...of humankind", but even if commonly understood in the correct sense can be claimed to be ambiguous.
The new text contains "[The doors, the doors!]" in the proper place. I hear it in some Orthodox parishes locally, and not in others.
Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski
Isn�t it odd that our hierarchs have chosen to go the route of 1960�s feel-good agenda theology instead of accuracy?
Indeed! And this is where I cannot rest at ease. My conscience screams out in agony. An injustice has been done here. The cracks in the foundation have begun to widen. Lord have mercy!
In Greek Orthodox churches, 'ta stiras/the doors' is still used.
Having read all this translational controversy, I am wondering if everyone may be getting too upset? In my archdiocese, the translations are not that always that exact, but we are just happy to be able to hear them in our native language of English..which is , unfortunately, not always the case.
You are fortunate that when you are at DL, you and your children atleast know what is going on and what is being prayed.
Just a thought from the outside,
Alice
And do the orthodox still use it?
I've never been in an Orthodox Church that doesn't conclude the service of the catechumens with that.
Let me preface my argument by saying that I'm perfectly content with "for us men and our salvation" and "lover of mankind" as opposed to "for us and our salvation" and "lover of us all." I think that the number of those who are being scandalized by the changes exceeds the number of those who are scandalized by the traditional language, so from a pastoral perspective, I would leave the language as it is and concentrate on helping those (and it seems to me that there really aren't that many of them) who are in some way offended by the traditional language of the liturgy understand 1)why it is that when we call God "Father," it does not mean that we should understand God the Father in terms of our human fathers, but rather, that we should re-learn what true human fatherhood should be by our experience of God the Father, 2)why it is that "mankind" is inclusive and why their rejection of it as an inclusive term is based on their acceptance of secular teaching and not on the teachings of the Church, and 3)why one particular Church does not have authority to alter the universal Creed. However, I suggest that we be more charitable in our comments toward those who are advocating for these changes. I think it is not at all the case that "liberal academia and some in the media" are the only ones who take gender neutral language seriously. My own personal experience tells me otherwise. I would also suggest that it is probably best not to attribute particular motives to people when those motives have never been explicitly stated-I'm thinking particularly of the accusation that what lies behind all of this is advocacy for the ordination of women to the priesthood. I really think that those who make that accusation do so with little foundation and run the risk of being guilty of making false accusations. I would also add that I think greater sensitivity should be shown towards those who are troubled by the traditional language. They may be mistaken, but, unfortunately, there is this long, troubling history of abuse of women and children by men. Many people who are crying out for so-called "inclusive" language, or gender-neutral language, do so because they have been scandalized by despicable conduct on the part of fathers, husbands, and brothers. Instead of maligning them, we should pray for them and seek to help them find healing and help them come to a place where they can forgive those men whose conduct has scandalized them.
In peace,
Ryan
I would leave the language as it is and concentrate on helping those (and it seems to me that there really aren't that many of them) who are in some way offended by the traditional language of the liturgy understand 1)why it is that when we call God "Father," it does not mean that we should understand God the Father in terms of our human fathers, but rather, that we should re-learn what true human fatherhood should be by our experience of God the Father, 2)why it is that "mankind" is inclusive and why their rejection of it as an inclusive term is based on their acceptance of secular teaching and not on the teachings of the Church, and 3)why one particular Church does not have authority to alter the universal Creed.
Very well stated! Educate the faithful. Don�t dumb down the Teaching.
However, I suggest that we be more charitable in our comments toward those who are advocating for these changes.
Stating that some people have fallen into error with their advocacy of a style of language rooted in secular feminism is not uncharitable.
Lots of good, well meaning men fall into error.
Accusations of uncharity and hate is an old method to shut down discussion. It doesn�t work any more because people see it for what it is.
Hiding truth to be sensitive to those who have been harmed never works.
We should take seriously the needs of all of God's children-including those who have been deceived by secular thought. One way we begin addressing those needs is to attempt to teach them the truth. However, if we couch the truth in speech that is "arrogant or rude," or "jealous or boastful," or "irritabe or resentful," (something you personally may not be guilty of-but something that does at times take place) it will not be heard.
In peace,
Ryan
Yes, you are correct Ryan. There has been a deception, and we must address this deception in a charitable and loving way. My apologies to all I have offended. Please forgive me.
Recluse
We should take seriously the needs of all of God's children-including those who have been deceived by secular thought. One way we begin addressing those needs is to attempt to teach them the truth. However, if we couch the truth in speech that is "arrogant or rude," or "jealous or boastful," or "irritabe or resentful," (something you personally may not be guilty of-but something that does at times take place) it will not be heard.
Dear Ryan:
From experience, I have spent months and even years trying to share some particular truth with a freind. I have found even when I speak with the utmost tenderness, they still don't hear me.
We need to define what speaking charitably really means. I think we can look to the Saints, and find some unlikely examples of charitable dialouge/teachings. Let us look at a few examples of charity (which some might not view as very charitable in this day and age):
Let us call to mind a great Saint of our times St. Padre Pio. St. Padre Pio could be very harsh AND very kind (but in order to shorten this reply I will only include the harsh statements. But in each case, kindness or harshness, charity is the motive).
"My child, if you want to go to hell, you don't need my signature." AND
"Women who satisfy their vanity in their dress can never put on the life of Jesus Christ; moreover they even lose the ornaments of their soul as soon as this idol enters into their heart."
(I think I recall stories of St. Pio chasing women out of his confessional if their skirt was too short! NOW, IS THAT VERY CHARITABLE??!!)
AND
"I beg you not to criticize me by invoking charity, because the greatest charity is to deliver souls held fast by Satan in order to win them over to Christ."
And a warning to priest from St. John Vianney �If a priest determined not to lose his soul, so soon as any disorder arises in the parish, he must trample underfoot all human considerations as well as the fear of the contempt and hatred of his people. He must not allow anything to bar his way in the discharge of duty, even were he certain of being murdered on coming down from the pulpit. A pastor who wants to do his duty must keep his sword in hand at all times. Did not St. Paul himself write to the faithful of Corinth: �I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls, although loving you more, I be loved less."
Oh, yes! Last but not least we forget the charitable references in the Bible. Here is one:
St. Paul, "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid" Titus 3:10
I could go on and on, but I think this is sufficient. Do we think these Saint were rude or uncharitable? No, we know they spoke the Truth.
I think some of us "see" a different picture than others. Maybe some of us are just plain "SICK OF IT"! We are not sick of any person specifically. One may think another is speaking uncharitably and these are personal attacks. But ideas are being attacked NOT people? I believe people are being passionate. And maybe some irritability can arise in replies. I really don't believe the point of the replies is intended to be personal attacks. (And if we are offended, let us suffer this for Jesus quietly, after all, what did He suffer for us. If we are offended let us humiliate ourselves just a little, for how Our Precious Lord was humiliated during His Passion, and we think we are above HIS example of silence.) I believe in evil times like these (and any other age) we are fighting real battles against power and principalities and not individuals. Some speak in a tone which is forceful, not because they want to be boastful/prideful/agrumentative/rude/arrogant etc. But because they see real danger lurking.
What is charity? Charity is the virtue by which we love GOD above all things for His own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves, for the love of GOD. from My Catholic Faith.
I cannot even begin to love my neighbor until I love GOD first. And we live in such a secular society, how often we don't even see the attacks against GOD. We fight against the spirits which are against GOD. Some may take personal offense in commentary, but it REALLY IS NOT THE POINT! A more important principal is being attacked. Let us focus on the issues and at least pray (penance, and sacrifice too) to GOD for reparation for the sacrilege and blasphemies done to HIM.
Let us unite not in our own egos, but in the defense of Faith. It is going to take each of us all we have to sustain in this battle ahead. Let us know/expose who the enemy is and his attempts to derail the TRUTH! Let us be watchful and learn his tricks and traps, so we might not fall prey.
Blessed is our GOD!
jody
Dear Jody:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. My concern is not so much that I might be offended-I get offended rather easily, and I get over it easily as well. Rather, my concern is has to do with offense that might be given to those who are unbelievers or who are weak in faith. Keep in mind, we don't know who might be reading this thread or any other thread on this forum. As far as ideas being attacked and not people, well I think that is normally the case, but there certainly are instances when the attack on the ideas turns into personal attacks, and if you don't believe me, then I can point you to specific posts. I'm also concerned that there should be a bit more care used in how this problem of so-called inclusive language is addressed-and in spite of the accusation made against me by 1 Th 5:21, I'm not attempted to halt the discussion; in fact, I encourage a defense of the use of the traditional language of the liturgy. I agree that what lies behing the push for "inclusive language" or "gender neutral" language is a particular brand of feminism that is secular. I encourage you (as you have done in some of your posts) and others to speak the truth against the falsities of secular feminism. I especially welcome such challenges when they come from women who are busy in the most noble vocation of raising a family. I also think that we need to approach that defense of the traditional and honorable role of women with a very sobering reality in mind-part of the blame for the rise of secular feminism is the very unfortunate history of the abuse of women and girls by men and that unfortunate history is one that is ongoing. The secular feminists themselves are children of God and are loved by God just as those of us who do not subscribe to their ideas. Yes, let's continue to speak the truth and defend the traditional teachings of the faith-even (perhaps especially) when it is not popular to do so. As we do that, let us take great care to avoid the appearance of personal attack and hatred. Also, let us take great care to make clear that in our defense of the truth against secular feminism we do not intend to condone the abuse of girls and women by men.
Blessed is our God indeed!
Ryan
Ryan, Thank you for the invitation to voice my concerns. As a mother of a large family, I will tell you from experience, it is a thankless job. Woe to the women who looks to the world for a "thanks" for her own personal "fiat".Laying down your life by bearing and educating children created most importantly for the glory of God is most certainly a politically and socially incorrect thing to do much less advocate. I have been accosted in Wal-mart, getting into cars, and at "sophisticated" parties by not only unbelievers but by Catholics.They seem to think that my children might use too much of the world's resources, that I'm not using my college education, that I hold some secret condemnation of them for their lack of conformity with the Teachings of the Church with regard to procreation. Each "offence" is as varied as the person offended. I am quite clearly and efficiently dismissed.This is the spirit of the world. Believe me, I will not invite it into my house. Lest you get the wrong impression of me, I am considered intelligent, out-going, generous and fun to be around by those who know me. I am not the proverbial,"stick in the mud".
For years I have lamented the fact that the inherent dignity of women as the heart of homes, the principle of new life, clearly the sex responsible for the spirital, intellectual and moral formation of the young, is not only never addressed by priests but dismissed as untimely. We clearly imitate our Christ in our willingness to lay down our bodies as a sacrifice. In this we should glory! Also, I believe that the woman was especially created to show God's great mercy. We need to be encouraged to fullfill this role of generous mother by our Church. By inviting the false concerns of hedonism, and self-fullfillment into my spiritual home, I certainly do not feel believe that someone is concerned that I fit in and am welcomed.Let us teach and show men and women how the sacrifices particular to their sex will only bring joy and unity to both the home and the church. Inflaming people by instructing them to be offended is disigenuous. It clearly is ordered to serving a political agenda.
Also, let us take great care to make clear that in our defense of the truth against secular feminism we do not intend to condone the abuse of girls and women by men.
Blessed is our God indeed!
Ryan
What does defending the Truth about Church Teachings against secular feminism have to do with sexual abuse??????? This tactic is just so convoluted, it raises my hackles. Because I am against Feminist propoganda, there is a possibility that I endorse sexual abuse????? Modernism and Feminism and all ther other new age 'ism's need to be crushed and obliterated, the same as any heresy. Did the Church Fathers speak softly to heretics? St Nicholas whipped the living daylights out of Arius. Politically correct, protestant feel good, offend no one, hide the truth under a bushel, watered down, weak kneed Christianity? No thanks. I'll stick with God and the Church, and defy the New Arians to say something about it.
Alexandr
Alexandr
Also, let us take great care to make clear that in our defense of the truth against secular feminism we do not intend to condone the abuse of girls and women by men.
Blessed is our God indeed!
Ryan
What does defending the Truth about Church Teachings against secular feminism have to do with sexual abuse??????? This tactic is just so convoluted, it raises my hackles. Because I am against Feminist propoganda, there is a possibility that I endorse sexual abuse????? Modernism and Feminism and all ther other new age 'ism's need to be crushed and obliterated, the same as any heresy. Did the Church Fathers speak softly to heretics? St Nicholas whipped the living daylights out of Arius. Politically correct, protestant feel good, offend no one, hide the truth under a bushel, watered down, weak kneed Christianity? No thanks. I'll stick with God and the Church, and defy the New Arians to say something about it.
Alexandr
Alexandr
Great post. I think it might have been St. Basil the Great who refused to enter a public bath because a known, contumacious, heretic was at the same bath. We need to develop the same sense of outrage when God's Truth is attacked. Dealing with what the Catholic Church has called a "material" heretic is one thing. That person is one who is in error, but is of good will. Such a person should be give the benefit of the doubt. But, Modernism, as defined by Pope St. Pius X, and Radical Feminism are poisons, and their advocates are deliberately open enemies of Jesus Christ and everything He teaches.
Dn. Robert
I'll stick with God and the Church, and defy the New Arians to say something about it.
Well stated Alexandr!
Also, let us take great care to make clear that in our defense of the truth against secular feminism we do not intend to condone the abuse of girls and women by men.
Ryan,
Why do you keep bringing this up? I don't think anyone has condoned or even hinted at condoning the abuse of girls and/or women. And, if you are going to state this why not state the opposite. I do know of several cases of wives abusing their husbands. Yes, I mean physical abuse. So, in YOUR line of thought we need to remember those men who have been abused. What are those men thinking? What sensitivities do we need to protect them? What if a little boy had a very abusive mother and now he is terrified of a women (yes, we have all heard of such things). And the thought of "mother" throws him into a panic or depression.
Where does this lead us? Where does it end? We become frozen in fear and cannot speak. Of course, the devil delights in freezing us in fear.
Ryan, maybe you're not aware, but recently Traditional Catholics have been under attack for hate speech. There is a real danger here to suppress the Truth. Be careful that you are not following this spirit of the world! No one on the list has been using hate speech. And NONE OF US is condoning abuse, weather it be done to children, women or men or any of GOD'S creation.
Ryan, I will be praying for you.
Blessed is our GOD!
jody
This is no hate speech, this is the Truth. And the Truth can be really tough. Sorry, I didn't include a Saint from the East when I listed the examples of charity. I would like to reference one now.
jody
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem: "Abhor all heretics...heed not their fair speaking or their mock humility; for they are serpents, a `brood of vipers.' Remember that, when Judas said `Hail Rabbi,' the salutation was an act of betrayal. Do not be deceived by the kiss but beware of the venom. Abhor such men, therefore, and shun the blasphemers of the Holy Spirit, for whom there is no pardon. For what fellowship have you with men without hope. Let us confidently say to God regarding all heretics, `Did I not hate, O Lord, those who hated Thee, and did I not pine away because of Your enemies?' For there is an enmity that is laudable, as it is written, `I will put enmity between you and the woman, between your seed and her seed.' Friendship with the serpent produces enmity with God, and death. Let us shun those from whom God turns away." (The Fathers of the Church)
What is now part of the unofficial record of the Revised Liturgy is that taking men out of Creed and Great Doxology (and some psalms) and mankind out of the Liturgy is not bringing unity to our Church and is offending many. This offense is not unfounded.
How can we ever truly love those for whom the Revised Liturgy has been altered (ie people of the modern world) when we cannot even love our own and take their concerns seriously?
The response from Fr. Petras on this issue (when the this Revised Liturgy was a thread in Faith and Worship in 2005 before I ever joined this forum--and I paraphrase him, but accurately for lack of time to find the comments again and quote the directly--but I will find them if you don't believe me) was that some people opposed "abolition" in the time of slavery and people like that have a right to be unhappy.
That cavalier attitude which continues to show its ugly head is a lack of pastoral concern for those who oppose the revisionist language. The reason that there is a lack of pastoral concern for these men and women(and I include myself in this group) is that both Rome (as it has expressed itself in Liturgiam Authenticam) and our Bishops can't both be right on the "inclusive" language issue. The fact that both cannot be right angers those who have the power and the duty to make corrections. I do not know why they will not make these simple and accurate corrections, but I have yet to see an argument that makes any sense and yet I hear, "be obedient." Here the Bishops have lead by example. They didn't follow Rome in Liturgiam Authenticam and now many parishoners won't follow them. Maybe this is the original sin that Fr. Loya is speaking of. When the head rebels, the body is sure to follow in rebellion. That is how Augustine explains the fact that our bodies began to rebel after the original fall of man, for it was after the fall that Adam and Eve realized they were naked.
The failure to listen to the concerns of wives and mothers who are quielty persecuted by the world which demands this "inclusive" nonsense and does not respect the silent martyrdom of true feminists who are having, rearing and educating children, shows a serious lack of pastoral concern, for these wives and mothers who don't have a lot of time to write Bishops.
The failure to listen to the concerns of wives and mothers who are quielty persecuted by the world which demands this "inclusive" nonsense and does not respect the silent martyrdom of true feminists who are having, rearing and educating children, shows a serious lack of pastoral concern, for these wives and mothers who don't have a lot of time to write Bishops.
Thank you Im!
Your post brings me to tears. I can accept the persecution from the world. I expect this persecution from the world, and I even rejoice in it. BUT persecution from the Church? These are dark days indeed.
Daily, I cry for my children. The crosses I bear are NOTHING compared to what they will bear in the future. I raise them with the faith of our Fathers (the best I can). Often I remind myself, we are raising martyrs (white, red or green?). What an intense reality in a dark world. But, a peace envelopes us as the day turns darker. The darker things get, the more we purify ourselves and the more we are strengthened. The darker things get the "brighter" the light.
I am blessed to personally know another family who is on the same path as we are. How many families out there have no one to support them? No one to talk too (outside of the family). May GOD sustain you in these times.
Blessed is our GOD!
jody
Ps I would write one hundred letters, IF I believed it would make one ounce of difference.
St Nicholas whipped the living daylights out of Arius.
Yet, when the good fathers of the Council saw this their immediate reaction was to remove St. Nicholas from the episcopate. It was only when the Mother of God intevened that they changed their minds. Their reaction reveals that the action of "whipping" runs contrary to the general sense of the Gospel's teaching about love. Remember, it was said of our Lord that he did not break a bruised reed or extinquish a smoldering flame. It was his gentleness that distinguished him from the power-mongers of the world. And it was this gentleness that he calls us to emulate: He who wants to be first must be servant of all. Blessed are the meak ...
I must admit that I become very afraid when I hear violence being associated with the Christian faith. We have enough violence in our past to repent of -- the last thing we should be doing is recommending more violence, whether it be the violence of words or deeds. I have read the quotes that have been posted and must admit that I not only lack the discernment of the saints but I also lack their ability to "be angry and sin not." My anger, even when it is expressed against so-called "wickedness", consumes me and destroys my inner peace. I know that any anger rooted in passion cannot accomplish the righteousness of God -- for this is exactly what St. James says (human anger cannot achieve the righteousness of God). I always remember the counsels of St. John of Kronstadt who advised his spiritual children who were parents to avoid disciplining their children if the only way they could discipline was to do so in anger. According to St. John, words that come from human anger push people further away from the Truth. Our holy mother, Gabriella, also counseled that words that come from human anger also engage the egos of the people we are talking with and thus push them further from the humility that is requried of all of us to see the truth. Better to be silent, said she, than speak in anger.
My favorite quote (and to me this is a quote that "trumps" all of the quotes that have been shared) comes from St Elizabeth the Grand Duchess: "There is no evil in the heart of a human being that self-sacrificial love can not overcome." And she proved it -- all the way to the bottom of the quarry -- peaceful love and passive non-resistance always trumps "whipping".
As I look over my life, I have been very wrong about many things in the past. I have believed wrong things, taught wrong things and practiced wrong things. I also have to admit that I have been whipped a lot in my life (unfortunately, almost always by people who claimed to be speaking for God). But in my experience, when I have come to see my wrong it was never because someone "whipped" me out of my wrong way of thinking or acting but always because a few people "loved" me out of wrong by their kind words and patient non-resistance.
P.S. If you read the story of St. Nicholas carefully, I don't think that it is fair to speak of him "Whipping the daylights out of Arius." What he did was slap Arius across the face as a gut reaction to his blasphemy. Quite a different action than "whipping the daylights" out of him.
I have read the quotes that have been posted and must admit that I not only lack the discernment of the saints but I also lack their ability to "be angry and sin not." My anger, even when it is expressed against so-called "wickedness", consumes me and destroys my inner peace. I know that any anger rooted in passion cannot accomplish the righteousness of God -- for this is exactly what St. James says (human anger cannot achieve the righteousness of God).
PrJ,
Not sure this quote helps or not, but I read it a while back, and it hit me between the eyes and helped me. Might I suggest you spend some time reading through the whole chapter 7 in Ecclesiates? I think I need to take my own advice! This will be my next reading for today. ~~jody
"It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to the house of feasting: for in that we are put in mind of the end of all, and the living thinketh what is to come. Anger* is better than laughter: because by the sadness of the countenance the mind of the offender is corrected. The heart of the wise is where there is mourning, and the heart of fools where there is mirth."
* Anger... That is, correction, or just wrath and zeal against evil.
Anger* is better than laughter
What translation are you using? The word is best translated here as "sorrow". (I have checked my lexicon and while it is true that the word can be translated as anger, it is clear from the context that the more normal meaning of the word should be used here.). Therefore, the verse shoudl read: "Sorrow is better than laughter." Since Hebrew poetry is built upon parallelism, the parallel construction to this statement is the statement: "by the sadness of the countenance the heart is made better".
The first place anger is mentioned in this passage is v. 9: "Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosum of fools." (Although it is possible that the word should also be translated as "grief" or "sorrow" here as well.) And then in a passage perhaps very applicable to the content of this thread, the author goes on to state: "Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? For thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this."
In other words, it is almost as if the author recognized the human tendency to get angry (or come to grief) when we see things changing (always for the worst, never for the better) and he warns us against passionate anger in the face of change. SO his advice is clear: "Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight which he hath made crooked? In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God hath set the one over against the other to end that man should find nothing after him."
The long and the short of it for the author is then the amazing advice: "Be no righteous over much" (Don't be too concerned about being too good) and "Be no over much wicked" (On the other hand, don't be too evil either) -- Why? "For why shouldest thou destroy thyself?" (You will end up losing too much sleep if you are too righteous -- too many things will bother your peace.) "For why shouldest thou die before thy time?" (You will end up getting shot and killed if you are too evil.)
This of course sounds very strange to us today and does raise the question of how Christians should interpret Ecclesiastes. But I think it does illustate the point I was trying to make. Internal peace is one of the most precious gifts a person can receive from God. We should zealously guard that peace and thus not overconcern ourselves with things "above our pay grade" (to use a contemporary expression). Pay attention to the things over which you have control and leave the rest to God seems to be the advice of Ecclesiastes. After all, you're going to die soon anyway!
I would imagine that Christ overturning the moneychangers tables in the temple was "passionate anger ".The point I understand is
Love God and do as you will. Then there is inner peace as the conscience is clear even when we are justly angry.
I would imagine that Christ overturning the moneychangers tables in the temple was "passionate anger ".
This is exactly what the Fathers deny. Christ was sinless, i.e., passion-less, in His anger.
As the story of St Nicholas demonstrates, it is possible for saints and for Christ to be angry without sinning. There is a wonderful story of St Athanasius of the Holy Mountain. Once after he had rudely reprimanded a young novice, his spiritual son asked him, "Why did you get so angry, Father?" To which the Saint replied, "I was only pretending to be angry for his sake. Inside I was at peace. My heart was not disturbed at all."
I would like to say that I am at that level of personal sanctity but when I am reprimanding my children verbally -- I am usually angry both on the inside and the outside
St Nicholas whipped the living daylights out of Arius.
Yet, when the good fathers of the Council saw this their immediate reaction was to remove St. Nicholas from the episcopate. It was only when the Mother of God intevened that they changed their minds.
Well, who was right, the bishops or the Theotokos? The fact that the Theotokos intervened showed Her approval of St. Nicholas, and not the bishops. Did Christ call the pharisees "poor victims of Roman oppression" or "unfortunate products of a dysfunctional political /economic situation"? No, He called them a den of vipers. Did He go into the temple and say "Aw shucks guys, this isn't nice"? NO!!!! HE OVERTURNED THEIR TABLES AND ACCUSED THEM OF TAKING HIS FATHERS HOUSE AND TURNING IT INTO A DEN OF THIEVES!!!!
There is a certain atmosphere attached to some of the postings lately, that almost breathes contempt, of the trials and tribulations our forefathers had when protecting the faith. We are called to be "Podvizhniki", spiritual warriors, Defenders of the Faith, not some emasculated, timid version of mice. The Great Saints were all fearless in their condemnation of heresy. Are we called to do less? Some are just too comfortable here in 21st century America. But the times are coming. When America has her Bolshevik Revolution, and the AntiChrist puts their Faith to the test, lets see just how well some protect the faith. To tell you the truth, what we are seeing is the product of decades of feminization in the west, with the result being men who are afraid to speak the truth, feminized, emasculated pale shadows of what men should be. How sad......
Alexandr, whose Cossack blood is boiling!
[quote=PrJ] [quote] with the result being men who are ... feminized
I have wondered about this. (The claim that religion has been feminized actually came out of some scholarly work on the 19th century development of religion in America. I am not convinced by the scholarship, but that is for a discussion of American history.) As Orthodox/Eastern Christians, the Mother of God is the ultimate example and we, both males and females, are called the Bride of Christ. I also remember that Paul Evdokimov suggested that, according to the Orthodox tradition, the feminine is closer to the authentic spiritual image than the male. He suggested that women do not have to fight against themselves to embrace holiness in the way that men do. I wonder ...
Never before on this earth has there been such a huge number of people who freely and easily, without any shame, without any pangs of conscience "call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20).
Archbishop Averky of Syracuse (of Blessed Memory)
God does not call us to be sinless to act. We could never take apon ourselves the responsibility to raise children if this were the case. None-the-less, we recieve Grace through sacraments which we are unable to receive without sin. In marriage, the eucharist, sexuality,defending the faith etc.... God blesses us in spite of our brokeness. Does it not occur to you that when we aren't angry at certain things, we sin.
yours in peace,
Of course, given the incredibly large number of people on the earth today, one could also say:
Never before on this earth has there been such a huge number of people who freely follow Christ.
You are correct -- we do not have to be sinless to act -- but if the fathers are correct in their assertions that the presence of anger chases away the Holy Spirit (see St John of the Ladder's words on anger) then it seems to me that it is impossible to act righteously while angry. In that case, St John of Kronstadt advises that it is better NOT to act than to act in anger.
The is a problem with equivocation here. You seem to be defining anger as a sinful emotion or something. I disagree.
Anger is neither good nor evil by itself. It is simply like the other human emotions, joy, sadness, frustration. If it is rightly ordered then it is not a sin. This is obvious to me in parenting.I certainly do experience rightous anger although never while "overturning tables". That is where Christ's perfection was obvious.We all experience our fallen nature in our passions, that does not prove them bad.We are relentlessly call to humility through our lack of perfection. in peace
Do you believe it is possible to sin because you fail to get angry? This I think would clarify our conversation.
In peace,
Never before on this earth has there been such a huge number of people who freely and easily, without any shame, without any pangs of conscience "call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isaiah 5:20).
Archbishop Averky of Syracuse (of Blessed Memory)
Alexandr,
I have read somewhere, no where other than in America, do people commit evil so "innocently". Very scary, but true. And since your blood is boiling, how many may think you have an anger management problem?
Blessed is our GOD!
jody
The problem with anger is that it is like a drug -- it takes over the entire being and fills the heart with negativity. As a recent father once said, "It is impossible to be angry at just one person."
PS: I am not sure that when the Church uses the word "anger" we are describing an emotion, anymore than I am convinced that the terms "lust", "avarice" or "gluttony" refer to emotions.
Pay attention to the things over which you have control and leave the rest to God seems to be the advice of Ecclesiastes. After all, you're going to die soon anyway!
PrJ,
I use the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.
It is clear to me that you and I did get a different message from Ecclesiates.
What I got out of Ecclesiates, very general terms here:
Detach yourself from the world, don't fall into the traps. Look to the things of GOD, those things not of this world. You cannot find fulfillment in this world. The world offers you folly. This world offers lots of allurements, but remember your deathbed and you will make better decisions and live for GOD.
When I am dying, am I really going to worry about the superficial items in my life or and I am going to be concerned at my OFFENSES against GOD? After all, I know the judgment is coming and now I remember all those times I thought of myself and I could have been thinking about GOD.
So if I remember the Four Last Things, death, judgment, hell and Heaven, I will live a different life. This is the peace we receive by living a life where GOD TAKES THE FIRST PLACE.
Blessed be our GOD!
jody
Lust, avarice and gluttony refer to vices. This is obvious. Yet we say Christ was angry. We do not say Christ was gluttinous or filled with avarice, afflicted with lust. He was like us in all ways but sin. Are you suggesting that Christ didn't experience anger?
We are way off topic here. This thread is now closed and the posters are welcome to continue this topic in the appropriate forum.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator