www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Website Article on Revised Liturgy

Nowhere have you proven that the socalled "gender neutral" texts are a better translation. The fact that they are Christologically and anthropologically questionable, is reason enough to avoid using them in the Church's liturgical worship.

As far my education is concerned, I graduate in December, and thank you for your interest. Nonetheless, I see nothing wrong with calling myself a theologian. I have been reading the Fathers of the Church since 1980, and studying theology since that time as well, and so the fact that I entered school later in life does not disqualify me as a theologian. But I suppose it does allow you to avoid the actual topic of this thread.

The explanation of texts that may be difficult to understand should be done at the appropriate time by priests and catechists; while translations should simply convey the meaning of the texts in standard English, unaffected by any secular ideology, as the Pope himself said several times.

Apotheoun:
I have no translations to defend. I have pointed out what I see as deficiencies in an automatic approach to the issue of translating such words: that an understanding of the actual meaning of the text and a faithul rendering of that meaning into the target language is the goal. As such one cannot sensibly adopt a broad brush and rule out - or in - any particular translation without study of the text in question. I don't have the Greek scholarship to go further and "prove" one translation better than anohter.

But I do understand crtiical thinking and argumentation well enough to see a discussion that points toward ideologically-driven a priori rejection of gener-neutral language, in general. I think that that type of argumentation is unfortunate, and lacks substance.

I wish you well in studies and your career.

Apothenoun,

According to this author they are not meant to be a better translation. She admits the changes are for political reasons. Reread what she said:
Thus, according to her words feminism has reached the heirarchy.

Forum,

If she is correct do you still think these are minor changes?

Critical thinkers should also reject the ideologically-driven proponents of gender-neutral language.

Yes of course. Who would disagree? The hard part is discerning which ideologues are drivin what - and for that matter to stop the kee-jerk reading of ideological motives into what might simply be good work by good people.

I thought you would disagree. Your posts led me to believe that you give full support to the ideologically-driven agenda of the proponents of gender-neutral language.

Are you saying that we should assume that the revisions are good until proven otherwise? I say that the bishops should first prove that these changes are necessary before asking us to give them our support. The revised translation could easily be misguided work by good people.

Well, why do you presume the current translations are good? Who proved that to you? Have you seen the older Grigassy works? Couldn't the current texts be as well misguided work of good people? Whom do you trust? Who is well-informed enough to make these decisions? The masses?

T

Your point is well taken. I stand corrected. The current texts also could easily be misguided work by other good people. I hereby revise my comments to say I ask that the new translations must be better then the current ones.

Whom do I trust? I do not trust anyone who says that the Liturgy is outdated and needs to be modernized.

Dear nicholas,

There are many issues at play here. It seems to me that most of the aversion to any perceived changes is ill founded, based on people being used to something. Certainly some arguments are well founded and sensible. The issue is that if the current translation is lacking then it certainly needs to be corrected, I think all Christians of good will would agree, at least so I hope.

Some of the posts, on the verge of histeria, seem to lose sight of the fact that what is current is also a rather newish translation. It is the first official one AFAIK, but English texts certainly were available before this present one. Some of the posts here show a lack of knowledge of the original languages, that is a problem. Many of the people involved in the older translations may (likely did) not have a good command of English.

I am no expert. I do, however have an MDiv from an Orthodox institution, was involved with the BCC, have a good knowledge of Slavic and a descent knowledge of Greek, and I think some of these posts are uncharitable. If people don't respect their church and their hierarch then they should leave. But, where will they go? Real churches are in search of authenticity in practice, I can't imagine any bishop setting up a church and saying "well, we'll have this liturgy frozen in stone forever and the rubrics you have frozen in stone forever." Does anyone really think the liturgy was the same in all parishes of the Ruthenian Metropolia until bishop ANDREW intervened in Passaic? Textually perhaps, but not everywhere took the same things, I have seen that with my own eyes. And rubrically? Well, there isn't time for that here but the answer is no, it was not the same in all places.

Remember that the etymology of diavolos (devil in Greek) is to throw apart, to scatter. Divide and conquer. I certainly pray that this hysteria which has overtaken this board is not part of the enemy's plan.

Tony

nicholas,

I don't recall anyone saying that. If I have understood the purpose it to correct, not to modernize. Did I miss something?

T

My posts did not lead you to think this way. What actually did?

The burden of proof idea has been raised a number of times. The fact is the bishop has the authority to do what he will do, including ask for your support. If you wish to have influence then actually the burden of proof is on you to make a convincing argument. You are free of course to refuse to accept what your bishop does. This is serious business.

``Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus is, there is the Catholic Church'' Ignatius of Antioch, 1st c. A.D.

Yes, and for that matter you are free to refuse to cooperate with the church, and with Christ himself. You will have ample opportunity to defend your actions before the dread judgment seat of Christ.

I am saying that if you want to take it upon yourself to judge the scholarship, integrity to tradition and organic development, and the pastoral senstivity of the revisions - with whatever background you have - no one can stop you. And if you want ultimately to substitute your private judgment for that your church again no one can stop you, but please bear in mind that it is an awesome responsibility with very high stakes. I am grateful to Christ for giving us the church which assumes that responsibility for me.

Thanks Tony for the food for thought from an Orthodox perspective.