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'm reaching the point of having my head explode again. I've got to go to the garage and get some duct tape to wrap my head with to preclude that from happening.... There.

Genesis 5:1-2

"This is the record of the descendants of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God; he created them male and female. When they were created, he blessed them and named them man."

Have the scriptures that will be read in our churches been updated with the enlightenment that even Thomas Jefferson lacked?

If not why? If not, is the new liturgy the first step towards changing this as well?

How in the world do you account for the term man-eating sharks. Is this because women were meaningless? So we only had to worry about the men being eaten? How many women do you know that would jump into water with a sign warning that?

btw, Liturgical restoration? When and where were one verse antiphons mandated? Where and when have feminized inclusive language been mandated in our church? These are restorations? Eliminating the little litanies is a restoration?

I'm pretty certain that you meant revision instead of restoration. And by the way, the revision that you were a part of is causing hostility and even sadder, departures.


Monomakh

ps If you meant restoration could you ask Archbishop Basil to have Vespers instead of evening liturgies on Saturday evenings at the Cathedral in Pittsburgh?

Oh, my aching back! All these prostrations are killing me! I was going to join a gym, but I've found a free alternative. Orthodox aerobics! It costs nothing to join, and I've never felt better!

Z'Bohom

Now there's some good news!

It is probably well beyond the scope of this Forum to discuss Dr. Eric Foner's political views, but since my integrity both as a priest and as a scholar has been called into question, I will answer briefly. I have read every book written by Eric Foner (it is quite obvious that many have only read what has been written about him and not what he has written). He has incredible academic qualifications and is universally recognized by scholars of American history to speak authoritatively on American history. He was president of the American Historians Society and is an active author and researcher.

I never suggested that he is an authority for Church doctrine nor did I suggest that you should follow whatever political views he has. But when it comes to understanding how the word "man" has been used and to understanding what Thomas Jefferson meant by the use of the word "men" in the Declaration, Foner can be trusted to reflect the consensus of scholarship. There is no question that that founding fathers of our nation excluded women from the politican realm. This is a matter of the historical record. Since Thomas Jefferson had a black slave mistress, there is also no question that he did not recognize the humanity of black women, and since he had over 200 slaves, there is no question that he did not recognize the equality of black men. We have struggled as a nation to recognize the equality of people who are not white or male. Remember, for a while the Irish were considered to be "black" and were denied political freedoms.

As Fr. David Petras correctly surmised, our words reflect this inequality and the use of the word "man" to refer to both males and females flows out of a political/social environment in which the only people that truly counted were male. Thus, as the political and social status of women has changed, it is inevitable that our language will evolve and adapt as well. Language is not static -- it changes and evolves. Our theology teaches us this. Since language is part of this world, it is part of the created realm and thus experiences change and decay. To protest this ... it seems to me is to miss the import of St Isaac's statement that silence is the language of the Kingdom.

PS -- If you wish to debate American History with me, I would be more than happy to do this privately. But please remember -- in the scholarly world, a person is judged by the quality of his/her scholarship and not by the quality of her/his political opinions. It seems that some on this Forum prefer to throw stones at character rather than engage in actual debate about issues. Please be aware that that is a debate I will not be willing to have.

Yes. Father David may be most sincere, but he is wrong in his understanding of the history of public life in general as well as in its particulars toward women. The idea that women are poor helples oppressed people, either in private or in public, up until the latter half of the 20th century is a myth. Educated women know this by documentation. Uneducated women know it by nature.

Universal sufferage postdated, male sufferage by very little in terms of time. More in terms of effort, but little in terms of time.

Many women such as myself and others, trained in the history, anthropology, educational foundations, and religious activities, of nations and peoples, realize that feminism is a politicized occupation that has little to do with the gathering of whole truths and the willingness to subscribe to Christian morality, much less Catholic morality.

I am very sorry that the leaders of my canonical jurisdiction have subscribed to the lie that is the feminist agenda.

I have an extensive experience with racism and feminism both at a personal and an academic level. I abandoned, at great cost to myself and my family, all of the public and academic political posturing and obfuscation, to return actively to the Catholic Church.

It is unfortunate that women are not invited to speak out in our Churches concerning what is good for us or not.

I find that small fact, very telling when men like Father David move to tell me without ever asking me, as all good men are wont to do with their women according to Father David, what is what in my life and with regard to my needs as a woman, mother, citizen of the Kingdom, and daughter of the Church.

Rather than breaking with an unpleasant past the feminist Church merely perpetuates an unwholesome fiction that women should be silent.

No thank you, Father David. I have already chosen not to live the femenist lie. Perhaps you and other men, like you, will someday leave the feminist political agenda behind, as I have done, and return the Church of the Fathers.

Mary Elizabeth Lanser

Mary, thank you for your comments and your obvious commitment to your faith. I applaud you! However, I do think it is important that (at least in my case) I have come to my position on the new translation precisely because I have been listening to some very godly and committed women.

Therefore, I think it is unfair for you to state that men in favor of the new language are trying to tell women what to do or think. I know that in my case I was against the new language until several women whom I deeply respect both for their deep piety and absolute commitment to the "church of the fathers" took me aside and told me about their experiences in the church and about their daughter's experiences in the church and about how they responded to the language which was used by the church. I watched women wince when they had to state that Christ came "for us men" and actually sat with one as she wept over her feelings of alienation. None of these women were feminists (in the sense that you used it) but all of them told me of their pain. It was and is only because of them that I have taken the position that I have had.

So while I respect you -- please do not disrespect me by accusing me of "telling women what to believe or not to believe" just because you happen to disagree with the women who have spoken to me.

As the history of the women's movement reveals, often the biggest struggle over women's rights (and wrongs) is within the women's movement itself as women fight each other over their appropriate role in society and the church.

I think you and I will probably agree in this last point: both sides should do a better job of listening to each other. And both should stop accusing the other of being sold out, unfaithful, etc. Character assasination never helps dialogue.

Dear PrJ,

There is nothing unfair about pointing to the fact that feminism and its arguments concerning the singular and united roles of men and women, through time and place, are politicized, and that the movement itself works hard to suppress the wholeness of truth.

Just as you have sat with women cringing trembling weeping and winging at the use of the word "men", as in humankind, in the liturgy, I have sat with women just released from institutions where they underwent electo-shock therapy as a result of PTS symptoms and their botched treatment, after having been encouraged into an abortion by their sisters who think they have a direct line on the joys of liberation.

My point being, Father, that some women are susceptible to the blandishments of other women. Apparently so are you.

The real issue is how the Church speaks to these things and what the Church has said about the use of "men" to indicate "mankind."

Mary Elizabeth Lanser

Mary, I agree with you completely. Thank you for your comments. Unfortuanately, I am afraid that modern academia will attribute your beliefs to the assumption that you, me and all, faithful Catholic women "have been duped" by white male, chauvinists. These experts are just using a polemical device to "speak for us". I reject them as my mouth piece! I do however, greatly admire Benedict.

On April 18, 2005 Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said this to the Cardinals before entering the conclave

Mary, I think it is unfair to you to assume that the women I have sat with you have been unduly influenced by the "feminist agenda". That is unfair to them, to me and most importantly, to you.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are boogey-(wo)men from the depths of feminist hell. It could mean that they simply disagree for good, honest, and even godly reasons.

I am not assuming that you have been unduly influenced by the reactionay, neo-conservative, conspiracy-behind-every-bush, the sky is falling crowd. I think you are a godly woman who has struggled through her own disappointments and triumphs to come to an understanding of the faith. I respect you for that and cede to you the privilege and honor of belief.

Please give the same respect to me and to the women of whom I have been speaking. They love God as much as you and are trying to be as faithful as you are to the Church of the fathers and of their fathers (and mothers).

And thus the serpent tempted Eve, Father.

You are riding the tail of a comet that is burning out. More and more women are realizing that they've been drawn in by the psychologizing of spiritual healing, but they are silenced by men in the Church, such as yourself, who offer little in the way of any long-term healing.

Most of the Catholic women that I work with have encountered priests such as yourself, at least once in the lifetime of their recovery experience after first experiencing sexual abuse or abortion or other kinds of experiences that are degrading to women.

The kinds of advisements and counsels that come out of the feminist agenda, and the psychologizing of the spiritual, generally serve to weaken women in their self-image because these kinds of counsels cater to the weakness rather than building the strengths.

But this is not really the point. The Church has spoken on the issue of liturgical use and the Byzantine Church is now clearly out of phase.

Mary Elizabeth Lanser

Mary, you will remain in my prayers and may God richly bless your work. Please pray for "priests such as myself."

I had a friend who used to respond when accusations were brought against him that were clearly misguided: "right street, wrong address."

So while I would be quick to remind you that you don't know either me or my ministry, I would also be just as quick to admit that I am a sorry excuse for a priest and am thus in need of your prayers and compassion.

I will certainly keep you in my prayers, Father. None of us can do all good all the time, or do it all alone. I am genuinely pleased to have met you and to hear of your ministery and caring heart. I may not always agree with you, but I will count on your prayers as well and in that we will be united under one baptism, one faith, one Lord.

Thank you for a stimulating challenge to my hard won thoughts.

With prayers and good will,

Mary Elizabeth Lanser

Let's get this straight. You've read every book by Eric Foner and yet you wondered aloud on this thread in an earlier post why someone would consider him a Marxist. Either you haven't read the books or your so comfortable with his ideology that you can't see it for what it is. I mean the guy admits to being a Marxist. He openly anti-American. Yet you continue to praise him as a scholar. He is not a scholar, he is someone who should be tried for sedition plain and simple.

Since you claim to have read all of his books please help me understand this man you term a great scholar.

In how many of his books does he address the 12 million people starved to death in the name of Marxism in the 1932 famine in Ukraine?

How does he address the 40 million killed by Mao in the name of Marxism?

How does he address the 3 million murdered by Pol Pot in the name of Marxism?

How does he address the millions killed in every society where Marxism was implemented all around the world?

How does he address the priests and nuns murdered in the name of Marxism?

How does he address the churches razed to the ground in the name of Marxism?

Why doesn't Mr. Foner go live in Cuba where they have workers paradise not to mention beautiful weather?

Only evil white men in America are to blame for all the problems in the world though right?

What a great scholar!

I will say this, a lot of confusion as to where the roots of all the liberalism in our churches today has really been cleared up. It's from these 'scholars' that the ideas of inclusive language are fostered. Furthermore, it's from these 'scholars' that altar girls come from, women priests, Liberation Theology, liturgical dancing, irreverance of the sacraments,irreverance of marriage, acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle instead of a deathstyle.

I said it before and I'll say it again, either man has a soul or he doesn't. If he does, then Marxism is rooted in an evil, atheistic and murderous lie.

Don't you realize that as a priest, if Mr. Foner had his way that you'd be one of the first ones on the list to go to prison and perhaps killed. It's happened in every single place where Communism has been implemented, why do you think it would be different here.

Vladimir Lenin, who for all I know is someone you would respect as a great scholar as well, said:

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them."

Think about it.

Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

I hate to intrude on things here but you are confusing Eric Foner, whose area of expertise is the Reconstruction period in U.S. history, with Philip Foner who was a labor historian and self-professed Stalinist.

Mary

If this is true that clears a lot up for me, I was having cognitive dissonance from reading these past posts.