www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Valerie Karras, Fr. Taft, women priests the Liturgy

I have for quite some time thought that the revised Liturgy with inclusive language is but the sign of a more serious issue. I make two observations. The first observation is that Valerie Karras was a featured speaker at the seminary in Pittsburgh last April. See http://www.byzcathsem.org/news/cmlecture06.php

As you may know, Valerie Karras is in favor of women's ordination.

The second observation is a comment by Fr. Taft in his article, "Mass without Consecration." See
http://www.america-magazineonline.com/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2959&issueID=433

This article is about the Anaphora [Eucharistic Prayer] of Addai and Mari. This is the Anaphora that has no (and apparently never has had) explicit words of consecration. At the end of the article, Fr. Taft states:

\

It seems that Fr. Taft stretches the actual content of what the Vatican permitted to a "magisterial teaching." But it is most interesting that he states that he considers it the most important "magisterial teaching" since Vatican II. I know of two very important magisterial teachings since Vatican II which seem to be far more relevant and important with respect to the modern crisis in the Church:

Humanae Vitae (1968)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

and ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (1994)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j..._22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

I submit that it is because of the failure to attend to the importance of these true magisterial teachings, we are getting �inclusive language�. For the relevance of the issue of "inclusive language" and women priests, see the article, "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, The Outrage of Inclusive Language" by Msgr. Schuler, former rector of St. Agnes parish in Minneapolis. This was a priest of the Roman Rite who knew how to celebrate Liturgy and understood the importance of Gregorian Chant in the Roman Rite. He wrote:



http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/INCLUSIV.TXT

Both Vatican documents referenced above in some measure deal with what Fr. Petras has termed in his response to Fr. Keleher "gender roles." It seems that the fundanmental truth of the �gender roles� is expressed in Genesis and Ephesians:






What seems patently clear to anyone who rubs elbows with the world at all, is that the world is utterly in the dark (willingly perhaps) about the true nature of the proper relationship between man and woman (indeed for the modernist, male and female is but an accident of evolution), marriage and its proper end, the begetting of children, and its representation of Christ and the Church.

I submit that if those who were translating the Creed and the Divine Liturgy (and those in the Oriental Congregation approving them) had a readically informed Catholic view of marriage and its symbolism (and hence of the nature of the male priesthood itself (ie, bridegroom)), they would not have given a hoot (that�s a term of art) about the pressure from the feminists which is what has given us �inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy and the Creed.

One must remember, however, that the translation of the Creed is actually not even a translation in the proper sense because the Greek word �anthropos� is not being translated but left out. One has to be pretty darn bold to tinker with the Symbol approved by an Ecumenical Council. Only a critical error in another area (ie marriage and the priesthood) would, I think, allow one to make such a glaring mistake in the Creed.

We can only hope, as our friend, Alexandr, has suggested in another thread, that the Theotokos will give the Bishops courage and wisdom not to permit a new Creed to be promulgated without the blessing of an Ecumenical Council or the Approval of the Holy See itself.

Alas. It is not altogether surprising that the seminary in Pittsburgh is on the slippery slope regarding the "ordination of women". Altering the language necessarily involves altering one's thought, and for a good twenty years or more there has been a significant feminist influence on liturgical developments in that jurisdiction.

However, this time they may have over-reached themselves. This rather startling development should certainly be made known to the relevant authorities of the Holy See - who take the matter of "the ordination of women" with the utmost seriousness, and who will not be amused that a proponent of that dubious cause is invited to give a public lecture putting forth a favorable view of the matter under the auspices of a Catholic seminary.

Fr. Serge

I don't know much about Valerie Karras; has she actually advocated the ordination of women to the priesthood? If not, and it is instead the issue of women in the diaconate that is the problem, perhaps the Seminary should also be censured for inviting Bishop Kallistos Ware to speak in 2002; I have read several of his writings that contend that women were actually ordained as deaconesses in the early church.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Seems an example of liberal-mainstream camp-following instead of obeying Rome on being more Eastern.

Valerie Karras seems obviously another assimilated Greek-American, more American than Orthodox, or the attitude of 'Orthodoxy is nice customs from the old country to pick and choose from', full stop.

As for women's ordination, as far as I can tell the problem with it is in order to do it you have to undermine the rest of the faith: using arguments like 'Jesus didn't found a church', orders (their substance not just their form) are wholly man-made and so on, Protestant fashion. So... so far it's a non-starter for Catholics.

As for complementarity, I'm a believer, fair play and all that, but equality of persons isn't egalitarianism in the sense of no hierarchy. Put another way, as ageless wisdom (be attentive) shows, even the strongest, most self-reliant woman wants a man who's slightly stronger than she is (which doesn't mean he's abusive!), who can be in charge and take care of her when she needs it. Folk wisdom: marriages in which the wife calls the shots are not happy ones. Or looking at the flip side, women don't respect and thus aren't attracted to weak, overly feminine men.

Dear Jeff,
That women were ordained as deaconesses in the early Church is not disputed; it is attested by Saint Paul, by the texts of ordination rites used for the purpose, and by any number of patristic and historical sources. There are presently deaconesses in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Still more, a solemnly professed and consecrated Carthusian nun is an ordained deaconess, although very few Catholics seem to be aware. Among Byzantine Orthodox, the last such ordination of which we are certain took place around 1850; there are persistent rumors that Saint Nectarios of Pentapolis ordained a deaconess or two, but that has not been confirmed - though he is certainly known to have ordained a subdeaconess or two.

In itself, as stated above, this is not disputed. However, it leaves open to question just what function the deaconesses had in earlier centuries (in more recent times in monasteries the function of the deaconess was and is to preside at the services apart from the Divine Liturgy in the absence of a priest). To put it differently: is a deaconess simply a female deacon, or are the two ministries distinct from one another?

The situation is radically different with regard to the presbyterate and the episcopate; there is no precedent whatever in an Orthodox-Catholic context for the ordination of women to either of these ranks (such things are even relatively rare among heretical groups until quite recently). For Catholics, the matter is not even open to discussion, since the magisterium has ruled definitively on it.

Fr. Serge

Also, 'Mass without consecration' is a bad title; Taft should know better. The Liturgy of SS. Addai and Mari of the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church has an anaphora, only (in present form anyway) without the words of institution unlike the Roman and Byzantine rites.

Father Serge, your blessing!

Thank you for the clarification. Since the Orthodox Church of Greece has given its bishops permission to ordain deaconesses, it seems unwise to declare heretical-in-advance anyone who promotes the idea of ordaining deaconesses in Orthodoxy; further, it would be wise for Eastern Catholic theologians to be familiar with the historical facts and related scholarship - in which case the lecture described above hardly seems like a cause celebre. UNLESS of course, Dr. Karras is promoting the ordination of women to the priesthood. The only writings of hers that I'm aware of concern the issue of deaconesses, and of women religion educators and theologians; that is why I was asking for more information.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear YF -

Of course you're right - but to a Latin Catholic, it is precisely "the Consecration" (= Words of Institution) that is missing; just as cradle Orthodox I have known completely dismiss the Roman Canon as even POSSIBLY Orthodox due to the lack of a recognizable (to them) Epiclesis.

Notwithstanding the article's title, the theological argument is interesting; one could argue similarly that the entire Anaphora both consecrates and calls down the Holy Spirit, whether explicitly or implicitly - and one would not need to "add" a Byzantine-style epiclesis to the Roman Canon to make it Orthodox.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

ByzKat: The answer, my friend, is not blowin' in the wind but 'edumacation' on both sides.

Stuart Koehl, a defender of things Eastern, says the lack of an explicit descending epiclesis in the Roman Canon shows it's older than the two Byzantine ones, or 'not everything Eastern is older'. I understand that in some local missals it had one, others not like in the version handed down in the Tridentine Mass and in Eucharistic Prayer I in the current book. No, it doesn't need one tacked on.

Also, to be fair, having a speaker at a university, which this may be in the spirit of, is not the same as advocacy of a position. The university is not catechism class; virtually any point can be debated, the point of the Pope's controversial speech last year at Regensburg. So that's a yes to academic freedom; learn opposing views.

That said given ecclesiastical history over the past 40 years, fool me once, shame on you...

I do have grave reservations about the claim that women can be ordained in the same sense as men to the diaconate. Fr. Saunders in his article, "Straight Answers, Can Women Be Deacons," writes:



http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/05ws/ws051124.htm

Valerie Karras, as I understand it, does advocate ordination not only of women deacons but also of women priests. This comes from reading several of her articles where she certainly does not deny this possibility and from communication with an Orthodox priest. However, this is all a sidebar to the real topic. The main question is whether the mandate for "inclusive language" is but the fruit of more serious dabblings contrary to the faith.

While I have recommended it in the past, I reread the article
"Jesus Son of Humankind?" by Fr. Mankowski. In that article he demolishes the notion that horizontal inclusive language does not destroy the sense of ancient texts.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html

Her writes:



If we are trying to regain the Tradition of the East, why obscure the truth?

Fr. Mankowski has some wonderful lines:



And I really appreciate these lines:



Another problem of course in changing the original lnaguage to fit the modern political agenda is this: Where and when will it end? When is it enough so that the feminists are happy? So if these changes are accepted, more are sure to follow. But when will the project be completed? Wouldn't it be better just to say look, this is what the original texts says, "anthropos" and there is no getting around the fact that "man" is the best translation for that Greek word. If you don't like it, make up up your own Creed and start your own church, but we have the duty to pass on what was given to us for it has the power to transform your life:

[quote=The young fogey]Also, to be fair, having a speaker at a university, which this may be in the spirit of, is not the same as advocacy of a position. The university is not catechism class; virtually any point can be debated, the point of the Pope's controversial speech last year at Regensburg. So that's a yes to academic freedom; learn opposing views.

The seminary is not a university. Don't be fooled twice. The Pope's speech was a call to compare two radically different points of view--the notion that Islam has a God who really is incomprehensible and the Greek notion that God is logos, reason and word, which is consistent with St. John, "In the beggining was the Word."

lm,

Of course Fr. Saunders is answering from a Latin viewpoint. The order of deaconesses died out very quickly in the West, nor was it as an institution as important as it was in the East. If one looks at the ordination formulas in the Byzantine Church for deacons: http://www.anastasis.org.uk/deacon.htm
and deaconesses:
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm
they are very close.

Also deaconesses were treated as a true but seperate order. They received the orarion and communed in the altar after the deacons but before the subdeacons, even if they had no liturgical role outside of Baptism and taking Communion to sick women.

The issue of deaconesses in the Eastern Churches must not be conflated with the feminist demand for women priests, no matter how much their side wants it. We must also not resist looking at the order of deaconess becasue of reaction to feminist misappropriation of the issue.

Fr. Deacon Lance

lm,

"Wouldn't it be better just to say look, this is what the original texts says, "anthropos" and there is no getting around the fact that "man" is the best translation for that Greek word."

I am certainly no expert in Koine Greek, but I am pretty sure that anthropos in Koine Greek is a neuter plural word. Of course traditional English does not have a neuter plural word to plug in here so man in its generic sense is used. In modern English we do have the neuter plural humans or humankind. Whether that is desirable is a matter of taste. Myself, I prefer man and mankind for its poetic flow and conservancy of words. But I don't think we can decry as hertics those who prefer to match neuter plural with neuter plural now that those words exist in the language. I do not agree with simply dropping the word and going with simply "us".

Fr. Deacon Lance

"Anthropos" and "anthropoi" [pl?] are just like the English words "man" and "men". They can be marked and unmarked. You refer to anthropos as if it is always unmarked. It is not. See, eg,

Ephesians ch 5:




And 1 Corinthians 7



It would be rather silly to say "it is well for a human being not to touch a woman," unless of course one thought women weren't human beings.

I highly recommend the article by Fr. Mankowski above for reflections on the use of the word "man".

When we say in the Creed that "He was made man" we get the fullness of meaning, ie, he was made a male human being. Both meanings are vitally important. He took on human nature to save men, women, children, unborn babies--all of mankind. It is also important that he was male, he is the new Adam, the Bridegroom of the Church. If you mistranslate the Creed (as Valerie Karras would like to do) and say that, "for us human beings he became a human being," you miss the richness of the meaning. In Valerie Karras case, this is important because she does not want an all- male priesthood.

Leaving out "men" in, "for us "men" and for our salvation...[He] became man," actually emphasizes His maleness. So the effect of leaving out "anthropos" because it is taboo, is the opposite of what was intended. The feminists should be up in arms.

I did not accuse anyone of being heretics. I did, however, make the comment that you need to be pretty darn bold to drop a word from the Creed and I ask, "Why do this?" What if there was a proposal to drop "men" from the American Declaration --"All of us are created equal." That changes the meaning. Now instead of being a universal statement about mankind, we end up with all of us, ie, all the "born" people are equal. If you're unborn, why we can just snuff you out. Bedrock terms, as Fr, Mankowski calls them, are vitally (ie full of life) important. Without them, one alters the meaning that the original authors intended.