www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Contacting the Congregation for the Oriental Churches

I know of many women who take offense at this idea.

As if they can not under stand the difference of when the word "men" is used to speak of mankind and when it actually means the gender man.

They see it as an insult.

For me, it is PC gone wild.

But if it seems insulting to some . . . ?
The problem here is that English is evolving (like every spoken language). "Man" as generic was unexceptionable as recently as 50 years ago. Now some are more sensitive and there are questions about its suitability.
There have been similar problems in translating other expressions. "It is I" sounds archaic and pretentious to some, while "It's me", which everybody actually says, seems ungrammatical to others. You don't need to be a linguist to see where that one is going.
Personally I particularly resent the hijacking of the word "gay" which renders useless a word for a particular carefree attitude for which there is no other exact equivalent. That one is definitely lost.
Ideally a word would stand or fall on its own merits, but if "man" has developed exclusivist connotations, these might have to be taken into account. The argument here seems to be political/cultural rather than lexical.

Words undergo shifts in meaning, and if "the gender man" means "the male sex" you have already accepted the semantic shift principle since "gender" properly belongs to grammar, not biology. See what I mean?

Best wishes for Divine Guidance in this thorny problem.

From what I understand the pew books have been on order for some weeks. I believe we will be working after the fact on any petition.

Eli

Sadly the new translation also changed the prayer at the end of the liturgy; so that the priest no longer sings, ". . . for He is gracious and loves mankind," but sings instead, ". . . for Christ is good and loves us all."

The new version sounds pedestrian, not poetic...like a USA Today version of liturgical prayer.

How sad...

I think it's a done deal. It is obvious that the Liturgical Commission is not listening. I am sure they are aware of the postings on this subject and plan on proceding with the new translation, ignoring all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth. Call me crazy, but when the new translation come in, I'm out!

Harrison, it is pretty safe to say you are not alone in your thinking or what you intend to do. I believe, based upon what I've been hearing from others, there will be many who will leave. It just appears that those in decision making positions haven't got a grip on reality.

Let's see, Vatican II came around and after upteen years of that nonesense and the loss of many, many souls, the Latins are trying to correct their mistakes. And here we go, trying to reinvent the wheel, that admittedly the Latins say is the wrong road to take....but hey, who cares, we need to "implode" first, then "explode," according to one poster. Who cares if we lose any souls in the process???

And, unfortunately, this isn't the only mistake taking place right now. We truly need to pray for our Hierarchs right now.
JMHO, Cathy

Sounds like another Johnstown in the making!

Fasten your seatbelts and blessed Theodore Romzha pray for us.

Before people decide to "jump ship" to whatever jurisdictional shore happens to be closest to their liking or residence, might I recommend waiting for a bit until the liturgy is fully implemented and then making a prayerful decision in consultation with one's spiritual father?

Yes - I too will miss "the God who loves mankind", but we do not know yet about all of the pending changes. There might be some which are favorable.

I obviously have no inside track here, but I think it sounds rash to plan to leave before anything happens. It may end up being like the Y2K bug - a huge build up of anxiety to a non-event...a social fizzle.

And personally, I feel that the Johnstown schism was far more justifiable than this would be...and even then, it was regrettable.

May God have mercy upon our Metropolia and grant us peace!

Gordo

Dear ebed melech,

You are assuming that we don't already know what changes have been made. Personally, I have been praying for well over a year that this Liturgy doesn't get handed down. I have seen it, and just from the inclusive language stand point, never mind all the Litanies & Antiphons being made "optional," it doesn't do the Byzantine Church justice. Why, oh why, can't we learn from the Latins???

After having been to a church that celebrates the full Ruthenian recension, then participating in the Pitaki Liturgy, trust me, there's a huge difference. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to stand or sit for the IELC taking out the people's prayers. It just doesn't feel right -- the mysticalness will be lost.

I'm sorry but I guess I'm simple that way ...I believe St. Thoephan the Recluse when he says: "Praying does not mean repeating a certain number of words of prayer; praying is reproducing the contents of the prayers within ourselves, so that they flow as if from our own mind and heart."

The Litanies and Antiphons are what makes the Byzantine and Orthodox Churches special, and when you take them out, you stop the flow of prayer that leads you to the mysticalness. I don't think I'm unique in finding it prayerful to take all the Litanies and Antiphons, in fact there's quite a following. We'll just have to wait and see how large that following is.

JMHO, Cathy

I understand the urgency and reason for contacting the congregation for oriental churches. However, I sadly don't think it will do much. Has there been an example in the recent or not so recent past when they have overruled a Rite of the Catholic church. I think that this will be settled internally in our church and sadly it looks like to stone is cast and feminization and liberalism is on it's way like even more than in the past.

Monomakh

Cathy,

I still stand by my recommendation. And despite the fact that many have seen the text with its inclusive language, there may be other aspects of the implementation unknown to many of us. I do know that Professor J. Michael Thompson has spearheaded a tremendous effort to restore many of the lost aspects of Ruthenian plain chant. There may be other requirements for the celeration that eliminate some of the Latinizing tendencies of some of the clergy. That, of course, is my hope, but as I said, I am not sure.

But I agree with you - the elimination of the prayers or the designation of them as "optional" does not help restore our tradition...nor does the use of inclusive language for that matter. But from what I have read here, some aspects of the translation seem to be a more accurate rendering than the one currently in use. As I am not a linguist, I can only trust what has been shared.

And we do need to enter into the fulness of the mystery the worship of God, which, as I understand the Byzantine tradition, precludes any minimalism. Perhaps there will be additional directives attached which help suport this? Again, I do not know...only hope.

But this drive to leave is troublesome and seems imprudent given the fact that nothing has been done and we are not sure of everything that will be done. I think that we should give our hierarchs and clergy the benefit of implementing the liturgy first before making any decisions. To do otherwise seems rash and undiscerning.

As for me, I plan to stay to work for and hope for the best. I still believe in our mission to be an Orthodox Church in communion with Rome.

Many years!

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo,

this is exactly the main point for me and what I have perceived others to be saying. This is being 'spun' as a 'new translation'. Are there translations that needed to be improved, yes. But there are other areas and items that will make calling us 'Orthodox in Communion with Rome' a stretch. Heck, this lot is afraid to even use the word 'Orthodox'.

If this new Liturgy goes into effect, we will be so far from it, it won't be funny. The Orthodox will look at us, and tell Rome to keep us! Which could be, afterall, the point of the new Liturgy.

But I'll throw this out here....a friend in the Roman Catholic Diocese told me that ordained or near ordained men in the Roman Catholic Church are being discouraged from bi-ritual faculties. Maybe they're giving us back......we can only pray!

An aside in this area of English language in the Liturgy.

This weekend our parish hosted a missionary priest from Liberia. They use English in the Liturgy there. They are one of the nations termed "anglophone" in that they use English in the Liturgy but their own native dialects in day-to-day conversation.

One of the big problems that people in these areas have is with feminist language since it makes no sense to them. They can see the plain political reason that it is used but feel that it does nothing for the furthering of the Faith. It's also interesting that Cardinal Arinze of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has indicated that if the bishops' conferences don't get it right that there is the possibility that Rome will just give us the translation of the latest liturgical books.

It's interesting to note that the translators are hung up on some of the simplest items. For example, the Gloria has been translated into English for centuries and we even have an approved translation from 1964 (one of the first approved prayers rendered into English from Latin for use in the public Liturgy), but we can't seem to get the Gloria translated in 2006--and Heaven forbid we just use the one from 1964!!

The best offering I have in this area, however, is a lament that a priest made to me not long ago about the upcoming generation wanting to go--as he put it--backward. The young seminarians don't want to put up with the political correctness of feminist language, the abuses in the Liturgy, or so many things that the '60s generation holds so dear. Gee, guess the pendulum does swing back in the other direction.

ISTM that you have a similar problem. There are plenty of translations of the Divine Liturgy in English. So why are your bishops reinventing the wheel--starting from scratch?

In Christ,

BOB