www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy For Us MEN And Our Salvation-Compendium of the Catechism

There's no chance the Ukrainians will do something like this is there?

Is that Valerian Michnik, who was "our" Deacon in Pittsburgh?

Recluse,

If you have not read the thread, "Valerie Karras, Fr. Taft, the new liturgy," I would do so. It is another piece of the puzzle. There is a systematic program to "inclusivize" worship in the Ruthenian Byzantine Rite. The "translators" are banking on the "horizontal vs. vertical" distinction to distance themselves from the Sisters of St. Basil. Nevertheless, the Creed and the language of the Liturgy have been changed. While there is the argument that the translation is being changed so that people today can understand the Liturgy, this argument is inconsistent with using a Greek term like Theotokos. The fact that the seminary would sing Valerie Karras' praises as a scholar, indicates that there is a subtle but real undercurrent towards women's ordination which is driving this inclusive train.

Corsair,

Great posts! I believe that things may change when the mothers of the Church make their thoughts know. Thank you.

I am not usually one to be called paranoid or prone to conspiracy theories, but something does not seem right.

Just received my new Liturgicons from Pittsburgh the other day. One interesting oddity: the Anaphora for the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil is still full of "man" terms; i.e. the human race is referred to as "man" or "mankind" with no alteration. Maybe they (the translators) "missed" something? Just wondering.

Dn. Robert

When you turn up the heat slowly, fewer frogs will jump from the pot.

There aren't a heck of a lot of frogs left to begin with!

"The fact that the seminary would sing Valerie Karras' praises as a scholar, indicates that there is a subtle but real undercurrent towards women's ordination which is driving this inclusive train."

This is unfounded. I have never once heard any of the Seminary professors or staff speak in favor of women's ordination or in all the time I've spent with them have any inclination to think that they are. Dr. Karras is a noted scholar in good standing with her Church and in all that I've been able to read of her works have yet to see her call for ordination of women to the priesthood. She as well as St. Nina's Quaterly to which she belongs do call for restoration of the order of deaconess, but as has been stated before that has different implications in the Byzantine Church than in the Latin Church. Please stop making unfounded accusations and promoting conspiracy theories.

Corsair, Although I have family and roots in Pittsburgh, I do not know the answer to that question. Pray for our Priests! Without holy Priests the road to Heaven is much more difficult for families.

I stand behind my arguments made in that thread:




In the article by Belonick which I referenced above , Karras is mentioned with three other theologians one of whom is Elisabeth Behr-Sigel.


Quote:



http://www.svots.edu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=151

Behr-Sigel writes:


Quote:

http://stnina.org/journal/onl/feat/mgm-newness

I don't believe that it is mere conjecture that Karras is for the ordination of women to the priesthood. At least that is what Deborah Belonick is arguing against.

LM,

It is conjecture, you can't convict Dr. Karras based on the words of another.

But to clarify from what I have read, officially Dr. Karras is in favor of women's ordination as deaconesses. I have seen nothing in her own words stating she is in favor of women's ordination to the priesthood. She has debated the question as have Metropolitan Anthony Bloom and Bishop Kallistos Ware and others. This is something different from advocating the practice as Call to Action types are doing in the Catholic Church.

Even Matushka Deborah states:
"As Orthodox we cannot align ourselves into the clear cut camps offered to us by the Western mind. We must pick and choose what is true and what is not true in each particular instance. For example, I am against the ordination of women to the priesthood, but very much for the ordination of women to the diaconate. Let us not let the devil force us into monolithic categories and caricatures. As Orthodox, let us continue to seek the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit."

Fr. Deacon,

If it is mere conjecture, then I think you should write Matushka Deborah and tell her to stop libeling Valerie Karras.

Furthermore, since I am Catholic, I cannot agree with those (including Belonick) who advocate for women deacons if they believe that they are ordained in the same sense that men are ordained.

If we are Byzantine Catholics, we do have a camp we must be in and it is Peter's. Unity with Rome must mean something.

Is not having women deacons a pressing problem in the Byzantine Ruthenian Church? Is this lack of deaconesses, the reason why are numbers are drooping?

As Fr. Loya has pointed out, we seem constantly to look at what others are doing, and think they are doing it better. Would that we could understand that faithfulness to Peter within our tradition is what will bring unity, peace and revitalization in our Church.

What makes our Church unique is its unity with Rome. This is our distinctive feature. If this unity is a mere pretense, then there is no reason to be Byzantine Catholic. If it is not mere pretense, then we should glory in that union and make true faithfulness to Rome our trademark.

Dear lm,

And yet, we already accept differences in sacramental theology within the Catholic Church (e.g. over whether the priest or the bride and groom are the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony). Do you mean that one CANNOT use the word ordination to refer to the making of deaconesses? If not, how do you know this?

I have seen NO ONE in the Byzantine Catholic Church calling for deaconesses, though I have seen some people accepting this when done by the Orthodox. If seems as if this acceptance of Orthodox practice equates to heresy in your eyes, and you seem quite willing to conflate discussion of deaconesses with discussion of ordaining women to the priesthood. This might all be academic, but then it gets turned into hints of heteroxody in the seminary, because they LISTEN to an Orthodox theologian discussing deaconesses.

So it would help to know: suppose our faculty listen to a theological discussion of the practice of ordaining deaconesses, as is starting in the Church of Greece. Must they rise up in protest against this Orthodox practice? If so, why? Or is this all out of fear that they have some ADDITIONAL heterodox tendency, which promotion of deaconesses is part of? If so, there IS a problem, because you are using a discussion of deaconesses to prove heteroxody, then using the claim of heterodoxy to show the "hidden meaning" behind the discussion of deaconesses.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

The feminists wish to destroy the Priesthood since they cannot possess it. They are attempting to do this through the destruction of our language, changing the meaning of words and the grammatical structure of its usage. If one changes the words, the reality beneath is changed. If one removes the masculine nouns and pronouns, then one changes the reality about God Himself, about the Incarnation and the Redemption, about the Priesthood, about the whole of Christian doctrine.

Destroy what you cannot have!

Monsignor Richard J. Schuler

I have no objections to the faculty listening to these theological discussions. It does seem rather odd that Karras should be invited in, however, to speak presumably to future priests.

I don't think anyone at the seminary has to rise up in protest. However, I repeat, it seems odd that Ms. Karras would be invited into the seminary to speak.

Also, I am aware of the difference in theology regarding the holy mystery of marriage. I submit to this difference and would argue that the difference is reflective of the fact that East does not make the distinctions between the order of nature and the order of grace the way the West does. For the West, influenced highly by Roman law, marriage is first a natural contract. For the East, however, marriage is at the heart of all of creation. I think our Liturgy reflects that. I see this as a virtue in our theology and liturgy.

Our view of the holy mystery of marriage, is an answer to the modern world where marriage is under the greatest threat. The right relationship between man and woman, is what, as I have maintained, being tampered with by the revised translation.


So I keep bumping back into, "Why have we adopted the world's way of speaking?" Valerie Karras has given a principled argument of why she would translate the Creed, "for us human beings, He became a human being." I greatly disagree with her principles.

In Christ,

lm

PS - I am not calling for latinizations of the Byzantine Church. The more I learn about our traditions, the more I appreciate them. However, I also see that union with Rome in mind and heart is vital to our existence now and for our future.