www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Good News for People Concerned about Inclusive Language

I would have said that "men" includes her too, since she is a member of mankind, and that God created man male and female.
Also stay away from radical feminists and creative liturgists, young lady!

"God created Adam, then Eve from a rib, cheaper cut"... Archie Bunker

Ungcsertezs

St. Basil on language:

Ut Unum sunt:

I have stopped monitoring the Byzantine Forum because of the hostile attitude there. I am grateful to PrJ and others for a more balanced view of the liturgical restoration we are engaged in. However, I do wish to clarify two issues. An anonymous poster, a person very hostile to the work of the IELC, made the following statement:
"Father David Petras has admitted on this very forum that changes were made to the text even AFTER this claimed approval of 2001. He stated that the changes made after the meaningless approval of 2001 were all in the "spirit" of the 2001 approval. Claims to be in the "spirit" of the approval letter are meaningless."
This same writer also claimed that a letter has no authority unless it is made public. There is no canonical basis for that statement. The letter of approval in 2001 was, in fact, written and addressed to the Council of Hierarchs after they submitted a proposed text of the translation of the Liturgy - note that this is a translation, which does not affect, therefore, the Slav text. The letter of approval of 2001 mandated a small amount of changes and recommended many more. The text promulgated on January 6, 2007 contains the mandated changes and other changes made from 2001 based on recommendations in the letter of approval. If you claim that the letter of approval is "meaningless" or, as one seems to claims, "canonically non-existent," then the only alternative of to say that the Council of Hierarchs is lying. Perhaps in the letters the anonymous poster wants to be sent to the Oriental Congregation, perhaps writers could add that the Council of Hierarchs is lying when they say that you (the Oriental Congregation) approved the translation of the now promulgated Liturgy. Since the letter was written to and for the bishops, there is no obligation for them to make the whole text public. In view of the hostility of this forum, I can understand this position.
As regards saying presbyteral prayers aloud, the Holy Synod of Greece issued Encyclical No 2784 on March 31, 2004, "On the way of reading the Prayers of the Divine Liturgy." Pavlos Koumarianos has summarized, "In order then to restore the Eucharist as a vital dialogue of life and love between God and His people, Celebrators, Bishops and Presbyters, are advised to read most of the Priestly Prayers of the Holy Eucharist with audible voice, so that the participation of the faithful in all that takes place is made possible, so that by hearing the Prayers they can actually pray through them, and reply 'Amen', consciously and willingly." (Unpublished paper, July 2006)

Separate from these issues, I would add a persoanl reflection. I have become convinced that the reason "men" was used in the English language to mean both "men" and "women" is that before the 20th century, "women" simply had no standing in the body politic of "mankind." They did not vote and were not expected to take part in public affairs, therefore, their status was "meaningless." In the context of the late 18th century, therefore, the statement "All men are created equal" means exactly what it says.

Thank you Father David for your personal reflection and insight. A blessed fast to you.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

I'm convinced you are wrong, Father.

God and Man in the New Catechism Compendium [adoremus.org]

Because �man� in its generic sense of �human being� goes back to the very origins of the English language, more than a thousand years ago. It was the first and original sense of the word �man� before it ever acquired the sense of male human being in contrast to �woman� as female human being. How can a word be a �false generic� if it is the original meaning of the word in the language?

to add my own personal relfection:

And so all those mothers, like my Byzantine Rusyn grandma who bore fourteen children, had meaningless lives. That's what the world says. And if weren't for the fourteenth one she bore, my mother (another meaningless life) , I would not be here.

"Idou ho anthropos" - Behold the man

"For this reason a man (anthropos) shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;"

And anthropoi like men, sometimes refers to males and sometimes to all men, regardless of sex or age.

And Lincoln - proving the truth of the Declaration and seeking to maintain the Union- did not leave black women as slaves, as we fought the most bloody war in our history, because the Delcaration meant exactly what it said.

And now women vote and now they hold positions of all sorts in our country, and maybe even the Presidency after the next election, because the Declaration means exactly what it says it means.

And in 1972, the Declaration was irrelevant for unborn females; And 1972 was about the year that the push to eliminate "men" from the English language began.

Im, I encourage you to read the work of Eric Foner (among others) on the development of the concept of freedom in the American Republic. You will then come to a better understanding of the historical realities mentioned by Fr. Petras.

Prof. Foner is a Marxist, by the way.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am, as are many of you, deeply concerned that the use of "horizontal inclusive language" reflects a shipwreck of the Faith by bowing to the demands of feminists, both male and female, who hate what they call the "patriarchal" language of Holy Scripture, the God-inspired source for the language of the Divine Liturgy and the Creed.

I am reminded of a serious warning issued by Hieromonk Sergius Black of the OCA at a Pentecost retreat I attended in 1993: "We must beware of becoming Byzantine Rite Protestants, or even worse, Byzantine Rite Secularists!" Here is a pithy but solid piece of food for thought.

Prof. Foner is not a Marxist. Where did you hear that?

From his own words, Father. Are you for real?

Father, as a Ukrainian and more importantly as a Christian, I'm insulted to see you encourage people to read Marxist propaganda. The Marxist Holocaust killed more than any other ideology in the 20th century and Christians and Ukrainians were two of the more affected groups.

Father, either man (yes, man) has a soul that is eternal or he doesn't. If he does, then Marxism has no place in Christianity, for Marxism is rooted in an atheist and murderous lie.

It's bad enough to see the spin of the so called 'good news' that you started this thread with. Keep Marxist apologists out of this.

Monomakh

While I am not a fan of the war Iraq, Foner seems to be a phony:


http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6962

I think I should prefer to get my history from other sources. And I certainly prefer the doctrines of the Church as set forth in the Nicean Creed over the indoctrination of the likes of Mr Foner.