www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Rundown on what's wrong in the Liturgy...

"and please let's be clear; for US, "ordination of women" is ambiguous"

Indeed!

Sam

Sam,

I would add that Creeds are not written to be ambigous but to bind us to the Truth.

lm

John, I agree. I heard from a number of priests over the years (quite Orthodox ones) who had problems with a VERY long explicative text leaving it unclear who the pronoun referents at the end denoted. Were it NOT for the sort of silliness you mention, this would be a simple matter of style; but it would be better if it has been left as is, and simply explained as needed.

("He" and "him" are used quite regularly in the new translation, but this one, being an exception and coming at the end, will certainly "sound" less harmless than it might otherwise have been.)

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff--

Unfortunately, that's how it looks, coming at the very end of the mass! And yes, I agree, the dismissal is a run-on, explicative sentence. However, I think that even the most unlearned and pious Baba or coal patch Hunkie knows that it's Christ, and not St. John Chrysostom, or one of the Apostles, or the male patron saint of parish who "is gracious and loves us all!"

John K

Jeff,

Is it then your honest opinion that the changes are only to make the liturgy better understood by the world and that there is no agenda lurking behind the errors?

This theory would be more palatable if Rome weren't in the process of correcting all of the same translation errors in the Roman Rite, and if Fr. Taft hadn't made it such an issue at the 1998 meeting in Ct. and if Fr. Petras had not made the arguments he did about certain language being labeled as "sexist".

It would also be more palatable if the world weren't so driven by the pc agenda which is not really an issue of understanding but of poltics.

There is an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Yours sincerely, in Christ,

lm

The changes such as "Lover of us all" and "for us"? Yes, that is my opinion; I don't think it was the best solution, but I think that was the intent.

On the other hand, for all the problems, there are quite a number of things that ARE "broke" and which are addressed by the new books: loss of the third antiphon, neglect of psalmody, neglect of the sanctoral cycle, Divine Liturgies "for the departed" on Sunday, services without singing or with singing only by a cantor, kneeling on Sundays and during the Paschal season, inconsistencies between the different eparchies, a few significant differences from Orthodox usage (lack of "Theotokos", "substance" as opposed to "essence", God grant him many _happy" years), etc.

Although I hope that some of the problems will be corrected, I also hope that many of the problems for which the new books DO provide a corrective, will be resolved as well.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Is there anyone, anyone in the world, who really believes "Lover of mankind" doesn't apply to women?

I would like to know if such a creature exists. I've certainly never met one.

How did you determine that this was the intent?

lm

P-A,

The problem with "Lover of Mankind" is that, unlike, say, "Lover of man", it really refers to the collective much more than to the individual. I have actually heard someone say, "Well, God may love mankind, but <personal tragedy> shows he doesn't care about me."

(This is adverted to in C.S. Lewis' Out of the Silent Planet, where one character is asked why, if he is devoted to mankind, he is willing to murder one of his fellow travellers. The answer is that he does not care about men; he cares about Man in the abstract.)

"Lover of man" or "Man-befriending God" more clearly indicates that God loves each man, and by extension, all men (including, naturally, women and children). But neither is very felicitous in English. It may be that "Lover of mankind" is the best we have, but is does not capture all the facets of the Greek or Slavonic.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

(a) Because both Father David and Father Jack Custer explained a number of the translation issues some time ago; and they appeared to be sincere in their separate (and different) arguments, none of which touch on gender issues themselves, but rather on how English is used and heard today.

(b) Because there are MANY, MANY places where a thoroughgoing secular feminist would have made changes (e.g. the references to "our fathers", "he"/"his", etc.)that the translators left undisturbed. In fact, the Liturgy commission corrected a number of problems in the Uniontown texts where the sisters had used "vertical" inclusive language ("Blessed is the one"), as well as unwarranted "horizontal" inclusive language ("bread that strengthens the heart of all").

In short, the concerns I have heard expressed were with English usage, and NOT with gender roles themselves, the place of Christ, women's ordination as either deacons or priests, etc. And the choices made seem to bear out that there was an exaggerated sensitivity, perhaps, but not an agenda for change in the church iteself.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

I think you are wrong. Father Petras has attacked the Vatican document Liturgiam Authenticam on this very forum. He said that the feminist inclusive language is part and parcel of true Eastern spirituality. He is wrong and his ideas are doing great damage to the Church.

Dostojno Jest

I have not seen that Fr. Custer has addressed the issue but I would like to see what he has to say.

Fr. Petras has said this:



Honestly, that's not a problem of understanding but a comment that recognizes that there individuals who will choose to be offended by use of the term, "mankind". Because certain individuals whould choose to be offended, no translation was provided.

So what is sincerely held?

"I would add that Creeds are not written to be ambigous but to bind us to the Truth.
lm "

I am with you, man.

Sam

That's a very strong statement. Could you please find the thread to support your accusation? I am unaware of these incidents. I find this very shocking to say the least!!!

Using this site's search engine for a search on "Liturgiam," I found this:




As to sociological concerns, Fr. David has written in his response to Fr. Serge:


It does not appear that the reason for inclusive language given by Fr. David at least, is that the Church's tradtional language was misunderstood. Rather, it appears that Fr. David holds that there are massive sociological realignments which demand that texts be changed. I think the issue remains, "Is what Genesis says about man and woman, the most important fact about human nature or not?" If so, then we shouldn't take the secular view about changing texts. If not, then by all means, bring on more inclusive language.