www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Question on the Inter-Eparchial Liturgical Commission

Ok, so my Latin is not up to par with the cognoscenti at large.

However, you artfully dodged the question at hand regarding their modesty vs unwillingness to be identified as being worth noting. As seen by the responses, the IELC members were quite easily identified, and are not a secret. I could see their unwillingness to be identified in certain circles given the verbal bashings thrown at them on this forum alone.

commentary follows:

The handling of this whole affair of "revision", "reconstruction", "remodelling" the DL, has left a sour taste in the mouths and minds of many in the Pittsburgh Metropolia. I do not need to defend them nor denigrate them publicly in my own personal disappointment for the way things have been handled by the IELC.

Had the commission been more open from the outset, perhaps there would have been as much dialogue, with far less personal attack. Perhaps if the commission were composed differently, things might have been handled considerably more delicately.

Ultimately, things will follow the age old model of "top down" management with the laity having to decide on a personal level whether they agree or disagree with the promulgation. As such, qualifications aren't directly relevant to the laity since we had no input as to the selection of the committe in the first place. In terms of writings/degrees several of the committe members are notable, Fr. Alexis Mihalik, Fr. Robert Pipta, Fr John Custer, Fr David Petras have all written and published material to their name that I know of. (Just because I know, doesn't mean you should take my word though).

Our church has never been a democracy on the whole. We have been reminded of that many times, even in the past year with the parish closings in the Passaic Eparchy.

my .00000002Hrivna opinion

Steve

Your sense is incorrect.

When Metropolitan Judson of blessed memory and the Council of Hierarchs established the IELC to work on this curent translation, the original episcopal chairman (or moderator or liasion or whatever the proper title for the episcopal member of the IELC), until his retirement, was His Grace, Bishop GEORGE, Emeritus of Van Nuys.

BTW, one would expect the Hierarchs of the Metropolia of Pittburgh to have close ties with Ss Cyril and Methodius Seminary. This is, after all, where most priestly and diaconal formation occurs.

Deacon John wrote: This statement is probably the cause of the trouble right now. The changing of the guard in the middle of the translation probably did more harm than good. Perhaps Metropolitan Judson was working with one set of instructions, one goal, and was able to manage personalities better. Some are better able to lead, others to follow.

Bishop George was exceptionally ill in the late 1990's and I question his ability to travel much or be too active with any special project beyond surviving the ravages of his diabetes.

Archbishop Judson was painfully aware of the practical limitations of his office and I have that from his own mouth.

Bishop Andrew, former rector of the Seminary, produced a liturgy that has been in use in Passaic since the late 1990's when he, Bishop Andrew, replaced Bishop George on the committees formally.

It is no accident that the new liturgy was very recently "presented" to all other clergy but the clergy in Passaic.

The direction of the Inclusive Language version of the Divine Liturgy in this Metropolia was set in stone by 1999.

Eli

The inclusive language aspect is the most atrocious to me. The rest of the issues/changes can be reasonably argued from both sides but inclusive language is just objectively wrong. Even the much maligned Passiac Liturgy does not include this.

There is nothing inherently wrong with inclusive language, as long as it does not weaken the theology of liturgical expression or muddy the image or teaching of already contested doctrinal beliefs.

That is where the real dangers of all liturgical language lie, if they are to be found at all.

To grasp at "inclusive language" as something that stands alone as an inherently negative linguistic act is to strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Other that that I agree

Eli

I am a very new convert to the Byzantine Catholic Church in America from the Orthodox Church in America. I am ignorant about a great deal of this debate over revisions of the liturgy. It is not currently being debated in the parish I currently attend and this parish is a bit isolated from other parishes in the BCC. I'm particularly interested in the agonizing many are doing over inclusive language. Would someone please provide me with some specific examples? I agree with Eli when he states "There is nothing inherently wrong with inclusive language, as long as it does not weaken the theology of liturgical expression or muddy the image or teaching of already contested doctrinal beliefs." For example, in translating Holy Scripture, I see nothing wrong with translating Paul's address "adelphoi" as "brothers and sisters," instead of "brethren," or "brothers," since it is clear that he is addressing his writings to the entire congregation. On the other hand, I find translating "huion tou anthropou" as "Son of a human" instead of "Son of Man," to be thoroughly wanting aesthically and to be based on little other than a desire to be politically correct. As for changing the Trinitarian formula (which I cannot imagine would be done in any approved Catholic liturgy) to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" in order to avoid "Father" and "Son" to be offensive. It is presumptuous, since the formula "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is given by Christ himself. Also, it runs the danger of becoming modalistic or Sabellian. I would greatly appreciate being informed on this subject.
In peace,
Ryan

Ryan,

It is my understanding that the changes are of the following type:

lover of mankind >> lover of us all
Theotokos >> Mother of God
of orthodox faith >> of true faith

Someone else should be able to correct me or provide further examples.

Wondering,

Thank you.

Ryan

My examples would include:
excluding the word men from the Creed at "who for us men and for our salvation", which I guess technically is not inclusive language but no language at all,

at the dismissal from Christ is gracious and loves mankind to Christ is good and loves us all, and

Holy Things to the Holy to Holy Gifts to Holy People.

After rereading the entire text I could not find more examples, which is a good thing and the Creed was what I was thinking of with my first post.

BTW, nice slap down Elitoft! :rolleyes: Sorry for having an opinion.

I don't understand. How is suggesting that there's nothing inherently wrong or evil in inclusive language a "slap down" to you?

Are you sure this is not a set-up?

Eli

Eli said:
<<There is nothing inherently wrong with inclusive language, as long as it does not weaken the theology of liturgical expression or muddy the image or teaching of already contested doctrinal beliefs.

To grasp at "inclusive language" as something that stands alone as an inherently negative linguistic act is to strain at gnats and swallow camels.>>

There IS something inherently wrong with much of the efforts at "inclusive language". It is based on false premises. Not only is it unworthy of liturgical language when referring to God, but also in the so-called "horizontal" references. There is a failure to grasp elements of traditional theological anthropology. In other words, it can also distort understanding about human nature in itself.

Thanks for the responses. I talked with my pastor about this on Sunday. He said that the members of the liturgical commission are all good men and good pastors. He also said that except for Father Petras none have advanced studies in either liturgy or Church Slavonic. This explains a lot.

Java Joe writes:

It certainly does explain a lot! The late Catherine Doherty (God rest her soul, and may she pray for us) was a very good woman indeed;I remember her often and always with gratitude. However, like all of us, she had her strong points and her weak points. Among the latter, Catherine could not cook a meal fit for human consumption; her culinary atrocities are legendary. Would anyone seriously suggest putting her on a commission to test and recommend recipes for haute cuisine?

I hasten to add, in fairness to Catherine, that her inability to cook did not make her an idiot when it came to food. Very early in the history of Madonna House she understood the importance of organic farming, and good diet (one of her prize comments was that the only food value in packaged breakfast cereal is the milk that you drink with it - I wish my mother, who forced the garbage cereal down my throat when I was a child, had known Catherine). She also understood the difference between ferial and festive meals, which our entire society is rapidly losing.

Fr. Serge

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As is so often the case on here, misinformation is given and then accepted as fact.

Fr. Petras has a doctorate in liturgy; Fr. Rafaj has an STL in liturgy.

Msgr. Mihalik TAUGHT Church Slavonic at the Seminary until last year. Fr. Custer teaches it now.

Fr. Michael Hayduk has considerable background in Church Slavonic, while not having a degree.

Fr. Custer has a doctorate in Sacred Scripture which is absolutely essential to the Liturgical Commission.

Fr. Custer, Fr. Petras, and Fr. Rafaj are all fluent in the Greek of the New Testament and of the Fathers of the Church, which is just as necessary for the translation of the Byzantine Liturgy.

Prof. J. Michael Thompson
Byzantine Catholic Seminary
Pittsburgh, PA