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

Indeed. The fact that things have been retained for a thousand years past their usefulness shows that they have another meaning than their use.

<<Bad Biblical Translation and "Deaconesses" >>
For an interesting discussion on translations and deaconesses, check out this link:
http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2003/08/bad-biblical-translation-and.html

Very interesting article. However, this does not seem to be Valerie Karras position. I wonder why?

Well, for one thing, the article limits itself to addressing the existence of the triple hierarchy of order in the first century - rather than dealing at all with the clerical orders as they developed in the Christian East in the post-apostolic age. The question of whether there were women among the clergy in, say, 6th century Constantinople has little to do with the question of whether to refer to Phoebe as a deaconess or not - except in the minds of those wrestling with whether there should be women among the clergy now. For the Latins, this is an open question. For Byzantines it is a different KIND of question; we have had women clergy, who were not deacons, but were not laity. The Church of Greece is re-establishing this order, and the rest of the Christian East has to decide what to do about it. It may in fact be that for Easten Catholics and Orthodox living in the West, we have no need for them - or it may be that we are not mature enough to have women deaconesses, if it inevitably entangles us in arguments about women priests.

If the argument in the article is accepted, it might even suggest that the church fathers should not have mentioned Phoebe in the Byzantine rite of ordination of deaconesses. If this debate were about married priests rather than women deaconesses, its quite possible that the article above would even now be being roundly attacked for ignoring the East, and relying only on Scripture rather than on the whole church tradition.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

My point is this. Take an honest look at what Valerie Karras is saying about women deacons. It is not what you just said: "we have had women clergy, who were not deacons, but were not laity." I simply maintain that Karras' position and Fr. Taft's positions, have something to do with THE MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE CREED AND THE DIVINE LITURGY. If you take the Ecumenical Councils of the early Church seriouly, then there is an enormous problem with the proposed Divine Liturgy. It's not a little problem. Rome has stated how "anthropos" ought to be translated and our only response is "Well, this isn't the Roman Church." SHOW ME ONE BYZANTINE AUTHORITY THAT SAYS WE CAN CHANGE THE CREED! It's being altered not for the sake of orthodoxy but to please a certain vocal minority whose positions are in fact unorthodox. That's serious. If the position which is the principle behind the mistranslation of the Creed is taken seriously, then all of the Scriptures have to be rewritten and what Genesis says about the very reason for God creating man male and female, should be thrown away because "gender" roles are changing.

I have heard this type of argument ad infinitum among the intellectual elites in the universities and law schools throughout the country who hate the Catholic faith because they know it is an obstacle to the overthrow of the natural order which God created and which they hate.

lm,

I think we agree on virtually all of the theology involved; I'm simply asking for more information, since the question of "women's ordination" (ordination as WHAT was not specified) was used to question the orthodoxy of the seminary, and Father Taft's belief that any apparent BROADENING of the strict Latin theological requirement for an institution narrative - a broadening which is very favorable to the east, and rather shocking to Latins - is in essence a NEW teaching and rather important; the other statements of teaching you mention are vital to our era, but the TEACHING itself in those cases has been around for virtually the entire life of the Church.

The argument that we must avoid so-called "inclusive language" to guard our orthodoxy (an argument which I can generally except) would be easier to support if one of the priests who opposes the new translation did not use inclusive language overnight in one of his posts.

I would still be interested in evidence that Valerie Karras is calling for the ordination of women to the priesthood, and that she did so in her address at the seminary (as suggested in Father Serge's post; he may have been at the talk, but I wasn't.) If that was the case, I would certainly write to the rector of the seminary to remind him of the bad example that could provide to us layfolk.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear Jeff,

I think inclusive language is a bit separate (but not unrelated) from the omission of the word "anthropos" from the creed. It's one thing to say "brothers and sisters", it's another thing to translate "anthropos" as "_____".

Dear P-A,

I agree completely. I do think it was a mistake to remove "man", but I really doubt that _including_ it somehow emphasizes masculine/feminine complementarity, or the masculine character of the priesthood. It certainly CAN play into the hands of those who believe that women are simply "incomplete men" (I've met good Orthodox Christians who quote the Fathers to that effect.) But it's the best word we have in English for that particular phrase.

Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for responding and raising good questions. These exchanges are very useful and good.



If we are Byzantinte why are distilling essences? What I mean is this. Fr. Taft tells us, look at the whole anaphora not just the words of consecration. I say, Fr. Taft look at the whole of what the Church is teaches about inclusive language even if it isn't specifically addresed to Byzantines, ie, Liturgiam Authenticam and other documents say, translate anthropoi as men.

The document which approved the anaphora for a very limited porpose does NOT rise to the level of NEW MAGESTERIAL TEACHING but taking men out of the Creed is certainly innovative. What struck me as very odd is that Fr. Taft claims that it does and he even calls it THE MOST IMPORTANT MAGISTERIAL TEACHING SINCE VATICAN II. I have pointed out two very real magesterial teachings since Vatican II which get no recogition among those who promote inclusive language and ask the question WHY? In fact one inclusivist in the Roman Church (a former President of the Canon Law Society who has been deleting men from the Creed for years) when he was asked by a new convert about Humanae Vitae said, "Oh we don't talk about that."

With respect to Valerie Karras, she too wants to extract essences and takes a very Roman analysis with respect to the nature of female deacons. She wants only to look at the specific consecretorial prayers and say, "aha, see the words are the same as for the male." As Fr. Saunders points out, and as Fr. Serge alluded to in his response to Fr. Deacon Lance, look at all the prayers and one sees that there is an enormous difference which signifies a difference in the nature of what a female deacon is.

Controversial positions and speakers raise controversy. I feel like the little boy who said, "but Mommy, the Emperor has no clothes." I have been saying, "but the Creed has no "men."

My argument is not that by refusing to translate anthropoi we are "avoiding so called inclusive language but rather, we aren't getting what the Fathers of the Church handed down to us. And I ask WHY? WHY do they dare change the language of the Creed which should take an act of an Ecumenical Council WITH the approval of the Holy See itself? That's unorthodox. So I am looking for answers and I see Valerie Karras is an advocate for similar mistranslations and Fr. Taft is an advocate for inclusive language and makes a bold statement about what he considers the most imporantant magisterial teaching for Vatican II.

I don't think Valerie Karras advocated women priests at the seminary, but I don't know that she did not. She does, however, advocate that women deacons are true deacons just like men. That's controversial. Review her writings and see if you do not come to the same conclusion I have. Why invite her to the seminary? She is not Catholic and holds a position contrary to the sound teaching of the Church. Furthermore, her positions are controversial even amongst the Orthodox.

The burden should be on those who advocate change and innovation and if they get upset that people are suspicious, then they ought not to be so controversial or be willing to give a reason for the hope and faith which they propose.

I understand that that is not your argument, but I do think it is the reason given by those who want to change the Creed. But the easy and orthodox way around the problem is for the Bishops to say we have a duty to hand on what was passed on to us and this is it. If someone is abusing the Creed to say that women are simply incomplete men then they too need a few lessons from Genesis.

lm

Jeff,

The reason that Fr. Petras has given for "inclusive language" is that "gender" roles are changing.

The reason Fr. Taft rebuked the clergy at the meeting in 1998 for their opposition to "inclusive language" is "because they feared it, because it gave power to the disennfranchized."

So the arguments presented FOR "inclusive language" are, at least in the minds of its promoters, relevant to the the issue of what the feminists generally portray as a power struggle between men and women, which of course is opposed to the view that the differences between the sexes is a real good so that they can be fruitful and multiply, a view which has its roots "in the beginning."

lm-

Sorry for being dense, and sorry if you did actually explain this before (if you did, I missed it):

What does Fr. Taft's statement that "the idea that you can have a eucharistic prayer without the words of institution is the most important magisterial teaching since Vatican II" have to do with inclusive language or the translation of anthropoi/homines as "people/humans/men and women" versus "men"? I don't see the link.

You can think one magisterial teaching is more important than another, but that's subjective. And frankly, this has enormous importance for Rome and the Chaldean/Assyrian churches.

And, for that matter, what would you propose that Rome do with the Assyrian/Chaldean eucharistic prayer? Declare it invalid? Say that the words of institution must be inserted? Those are the only alternatives I see. And on what basis would you make this judgment, especially since I believe the studies have shown that this eucharistic prayer is the oldest one still in current use.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!

Interesting mindset. It makes the agency of the Holy Spirit dependant upon our words. That is more like magic than a sacramanet. I don't think the Holy Spirit needs any magic words by us to do as He wills, especially uniting us to Christ. I'm not directing this criticism at anyone in particular, just to the mindset itself.

-- John

P.S., I don't mean to cast aspersions on Tradition or those who seek to preserve it nor those who seek to update it. I simply want to point out that Chrtistians can be perfectly good followers of Christ with different traditions.

And that leads me to this topic: preserving our tradition. Eastern Christianity is the most mystical branch of Christianity; theosis is our tradition. And, theosis is taught, enabled and preserved by the fathers, the liturgy and the ecumenical councils. If we change those things, we change what we are, our tradition. But if we don't change with the times, we become a fossil.

I am very wary about "inclusive language" because I have seen where that has lead in other churches, such as certain "mainstream" Protestant churches and many Roman Catholic parishes: the whole liberal dilution of the Gospel. It is a species of iconoclasm.

However, I am also wary of the fanatical opposition to "inclusive language" (which, to some people, can include substituting "you" for "thee" and "thou"). These people, from what I have observed, try to preserve the liturgy exactly as they think it was. They do so out of real respect and piety. However, they end up making it a fossil, a kind of object instead of a means to an end. It's the conservative idolatry of tradition. I've met this in the Catholic Church (Roman and Byzantine) and now in the Orthodox Church.

Is there a balance in between liberal iconoclasm of tradition and conservative idolatry of tradition ?

-- John

Dr. Varrie Karras is a leading Eastern Orthodox scholar in Patristic studeis with two earned doctorates and an active layperson in her church. She has also spoken as an Orthodox scholar in Ecumenical scholarly conferences. She is a professor at an American university and a member of many academic scholarly organizations.
Dr. Karras has written and is in favour of the restoration of deaconesses which I believe was put into effect in the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece about 18 months. There have been about 4 Pan-Orthodox conferences on the restoration of deaconesses and women's ministry in the church.
I am writing this to clarify the quoted citation made at the beginning of this discussion.