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

Dear Monomakh:

As you recently wrote, "Let's get this straight." Fr. John is not advocating Marxism and is not defending Marxism, and I feel quite certain that neither he nor anyone participating in this thread considers Vladimir Lenin to have been "a great scholar." Perhaps a bit more temperance in language would be appropriate, as would a bit more respect for Fr. John.

Sincerely,
Ryan

Dear Father David,

Thank you for your post.

I disagree with you regarding there being a hostile attitude on the Byzantine Forum.

A review of the threads on the Revised Divine Liturgy shows us that there have been almost as many posts by supporters of the new liturgy as there have been by those who reject the new Liturgy and support the official Ruthenian Liturgy.

If by hostile you mean that there is disagreement then you are correct. But I do not think that disagreement equates to hostility so I do not think you are correct.

If by hostile you mean that everyone in this place disagrees with you, you are not correct.

There are many on this forum, as you can see by reading the many posts, who support the revision of the Liturgy.

There are even more of us who do not support the revision of the Liturgy but who respect you as a person, as a priest and as an educator, and who similarly respect our bishops and other clergy who support the revision.

As a scholar you will agree that those arguments which are supported by evidence, backed up by documentation, and consistent with the best academic foundational sources are the most persuasive arguments.

The revision has opponents and supporters in this place. And you have friends among those who hold these differing views.

Any examples of discourtesy which are personal attacks should be pointed out to the moderators at once so that they may be dealt with appropriately. To date I see no evidence to indicate an ongoing hostile attitude against any particular person or position on any issue.

Finally, you might consider that this forum has enabled you and other supporters of the revision to reach more of the faithful in more parishes and outside of parishes than the columns of the eparchial newspapers, which have a more limited circulation. This Forum has provided more publicity for proponents of the revision than any other venue.

Admin John

RE: Eric Foner

Thank you, Mary, for clearing that up. I went back and re-read in a cursory way Eric Foner's treatment of the Reconstruction as well as his monumental book on the development of American Freedom and could not see any Marxist interpretation at all. In fact, since he advocates that ideas matter, he is quite anti-marxist in his historical methodology.

So I was very confused as to why he would want to kill me

Thanks for the astute observation.

Well the article I posted was referencing Eric Foner head of the Columbia history department who has written about American History:

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


The article was written by, David Horowitz, (a former communist--I think) and he appears to be quoting Mr. Foner directly.

In any event, the main point is that the Creed should not be changed (anthropoi has not been translated and hence the Creed has been changed) for any poltical agenda left or right, and to do so is contrary to the direction Rome has been taking the Church since at least 2002. I suspect that if we just do what Rome asks of us in each of the details of our beautiful rite, we will change the hearts and minds of all men of good will. And if we keep speaking of the truth of Christ-- in his person-- (to borrow a phrase from Soloviev) which is Divine, the world, if it is willing to listen, will avoid all of the evils of which PrJ and Mary have spoken.

I shall continue to pray for all of the priests and bishops of the metropolia, and say that wonderful prayer to St. Nicholas in the little black Byzantine Book of Prayer. And I will continue to speak the truth as I see it, and defend it in season and out of season if necessary.

lm

PS

For true scholary works on "inclusive language" by a real philologist, google Fr. Mankowski, who teaches in Rome and read anything he has written. He takes us back farther than the 18th century.

Dear Im,

I did not intend to obfuscate with my very brief observation about the tendency to confuse Philip with Eric Foner.

I recognize that both men are, apparently and unabashedly, socialist ideologues but they are not equivalents, in their thinking or their politics, and it is clear to me that they were being confused here.

I am not suggesting and did not mean to suggest that Eric Foner is one that I would turn to in order to get an unbiased glimpse of women's history. That is not his field of expertise. And yes, Prof. Eric is a revisionist historian, which means that if one can read him carefully, which I have done over the years, there is much he has to offer concerning our more complete understanding of the period of Reconstruction in the country.

So again I apologize if I confused things with my brevity.

Mary

I thought that the subject of a worthless Marxist like Eric Foner was over but some won't let it be.

Eric Foner is a Communist plain and simple. He is a red diaper doper baby. Meaning he grew up as the son of Jack Foner who was a communist and his uncle was Phillip Foner who was also a hardline commie and who another poster thinks that I'm confusing him with which I'm not. That in itself does not make him a commie, but this is how he was reared and furthermore I wanted to point out to Mary that I'm fully aware of the difference between the worthless Marxist Phillip Foner and the other worthless Marxist Eric Foner.

Eric Foner likes to call himself a 'radical historian' which is a way of saying that he is a Marxist historian that seeks to revise and overthrow mainstream history. He bases his whole politcal thought on Communism. I'll give you an example: in 'Who Owns History? Rethinking the Past in a Changing World' he comes to the conclusion that to be against Communism is to make excuses for American Imperialism. There is a chapter in this book called: 'The Russians Write a New History' in which he exhibits his admiration for the USSR and his sadness of its demise. He also chastises his Russian students love of America and gives them the western guilt trip.

Another example, Eugene Genovese wrote an article titled: "The Crimes of Communism: What Did You Know and When Did You Know It?' in which he called out on the carpet the USSRs supporters in the US on why they've always ignored the atrocities by Communists. Foner, in an angry rebuttal, had the audacity to justify the atrocities by claiming that the murderous commies in the USSR had made a 'contribution to some of the country's most important struggles for social betterment.'

He's an apologist for Communist genocide, an apoligist for Communism period, he longs for the return of the USSR. And you can joke about being killed by the commies if you want Father, I'll take you to some households right here in Parma Ohio where Ukrainians from the Workers Paradise of the USSR will tell you first hand what happens when 'scholars' like Eric Foner take over.

Father, I'd much rather get back to the main subject which is this debacle of a new liturgy, but if you keep praising this Marxist and denying to people here what he really is, I'll go through my library and find the meat and potatoes proving what a Marxist that Eric Foner is.

Much like the 'good news' that you titled this thread with, your claim that Foner is anything but a Marxist is specious.

Monomakh

Dear Monomakh,

Well that is good to know that you are aware of the difference. That might have been more apparent if your rhetoric was not as florid as are Foner politics.

The uncle was far more the cheat academically and scholastically than the nephew. I would be much more inclined to offer wholesale warding against Philip's work that I would with Eric's work, but that is a matter of their respective approaches to fundamental scholarly honesty, and not their respective political leanings. There are good things that can be learned from Eric Foner. I would not include women's history in that list of good things.

I would not add to this discussion in this manner save to say that very often it is the unbending offensive or defensive posture that defeats itself by weight of sheer rigidity.

Mary

Monomakh,

As a scholar and as one who works in a secular environment, I have learned over time to judge people solely by the quality of their scholarship and not by their political or religious convictions. I have also learned not to paint with broad strokes. Painting with very board strokes distorts reality and pigeon-holes people.

Christ has called us to be less judgmental nor more -- to be more accepting not less -- and to seek to find what is good in other people rather than pointing out their faults. I was brought to Christ by kindness -- I have grown in my spiritual life by kindness -- I have been stretched in my thinking by kindness. I have found in my secular work that more people are drawn to consider my perspective when I am willing to consider theirs. If I condemn them for their politics or religion, then they do the same to me. But when I patiently listen to them and am willing to learn from them (all truth is God's truth -- even if it is spoken by a so-called Marxist), then I have found that they are willing to listen to me and to learn from me. Through this irenic discourse, I have seen friends and scholars brought to Christ and His Church.

In conclusion, on a personal note, I hope that people are not fooled by hyperbolic rhetoric that often functions as a smoke-screen for the absence of true arguments. (My wife has often pointed out to me that the louder I am the less support there is for my positions! I think the same is true of violent rhetoric.)

I hope also that people are not fooled by a string of quotes taken out of context, etc. I can find a quote to prove anything. Context is EVERYTHING!

On a personal note: I have to say that I agree with Fr. Petras that the negativity of this Forum is very distasteful and pushes good people away from the Forum. I have tried hard in a small way to bring balance, a new "outsiders" perspective and to restore a sense of rational discourse to the discussion.

It is obvious that I have failed. I have received multiple private emails from people telling me that they no longer contribute to this Forum because of its negativity -- perhaps I should do the same. If people's mind are so convinced that no amount of discussion can even alter them, and (speaking personally) if people who have only read my posts here can jump to conclusions and accuse me of being pro-Leninist and a Marxist and a condoner of genocide and can accuse me of being one of "those priests", etc. ... then I wonder what the point of it all is.

I also wonder if it is possible to find a new Forum in which discussions can be held in a more rational and considerate manner, and in which people can refrain from making personal attacks, etc.

I do know that I this will be my last post on American history subjects and Eric Foner. If Monomakh wants to have the last word, he may. My point was that most scholars would agree with Fr. David Petras' brief comment about the development of the English language and its masculine structure. Eric Foner's last book on the development of American Freedom is a classic example of this scholarship. If you don't like Foner, there are MANY more examples I could give you ... but I won't. You have to be open to new ideas to learn anything!

Dear Father,

I hope to be brief so I will apologize in advance for all errors of brevity.

It is fair to say that we can only manage to respond to the words that you use here, the ideas that you convey and the perspectives that you appear to hold in your good favor.

For example, if you do not want me to think of you as one of priests who caters unduly to women's professed repugnance for males, for whatever reason, then perhaps you'd not want to sound so much like the ones I do know personally, as well as the ones I do know of or about second hand.

The fact that Monomakh might be being hyperbolic in his responses to you does not make him hate-filled or negative, and certainly you should not paint others who disagree with you with the same brush.

It is unfortunate that you and Father David seem to only see those who disagree with you as being faulty in some manner and lacking in charity. In that respect, I personally see no real substantial difference between you and Monomakh. Style should not be confused with substance.

Mary Elizabeth

Mary Elizabeth:
I disagree. Monomakh has been uncharitable in some of his responses to Fr. John, and I do not say that on the basis of mere disagreement with Monomakh, but on the basis of the manner in which he has made his disagreements known. With respect to this debate over whether Eric Foner is a Marxist, I disagree with neither Monomakh nor Fr. John. Rather, I have no opinion, because I have no basis for an opinion. I have never read any of Eric Foner's works. I am a student neither of American History nor of the history of Marxism and am not at all familiar with Eric Foner. The language we choose to make known our positions does matter. For those who think otherwise and believe it's OK to use intemperate, vitriolic language so long as they're speeking the truth, I suggest a close read of James 1:26 and 3:1-12.

Ryan

I agree.

And then with respect to my saying that "style should not be confused with substance" both you, publicly, and Father, privately, have decided that I meant to say that style is not important.

I will leave that attribution to the two of you, it has nothing to do with what I actually said. It is ironic to me however that the two of you present yourselves as clear thinking, objective, and irenic. I don't find having words or meaning attributed falsely to me as any kind of peace-filled experience.

What I actually said indicated that simply because Monomakh is rude in his delivery, it does not necessarily mean that his message is false or wrong.

Mary

In the spirit of getting this back on topic.

Father John pointed out at the beginning of the thread that there are areas of the Revised Liturgy that are not being changed to inclusive language and are being left alone and that that is good news. I am curious as to why the commission decided to stop where it did and didn't continue on.


Just curious.

Monomakh

Oh. Now I see. Yes. That is a curious thing to say isn't it? But the primary flaw apparently seems to be the tinkering with the Creed, so I don't know that there's much there to crow about do you? As I said earlier, avoiding the issue by dropping text seems to be out of phase with the Church's teaching concerning the use of "men" understood as "humankind."

Even if the service and congregational books had all been printed prior to the Vatican's clarification of that issue, that does not preclude the Metropolia from offer a correction in the form of compliance with the current liturgical teaching on "men" understood as "humankind" and replacing the word that was summarily removed from the Creed.

That seems simple to me. Doesn't it seem that way to you?

Mary Elizabeth

There seem to be two translation issues involved:

(1) With regard to "celovikolub*", which refers to God as lover of both all mankind and each individual human being - a combination of meanings that Liturgiam Authenticam called for the translators of Latin liturgy to respect - the commission chose to consistently use "Lover of us all" (nominal) or "who loves us all" (adjectival).

(2) Following SOME Orthodox translations of the last two decades, the commission translated the Creed as "for us" rather than "for us men".

I have seen comments about both that were related to issues of understanding; the first did NOT involve sex/gender issues, but rather the sense that God could love "mankind" without necessarily loving each individual - indicating a practical loss of one of the two meanings of the Greek and Slavonic. The second issue HAS been explained in some cases on the basis that some women in the church perceived themselves as not included in "for us men."

Those texts referring to Christ, or to "man" in the nominal generic unconnected with "us", the commission left the generic "man." I would certainly like to hear more from members of the commission, but as I pointed out least year or the year before, the actual number of examples of "inclusive language" is much smaller than the occurences of "man" or "mankind" in the liturgy.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

P.S. Personally, I would prefer the two phrases to have been left in the previous translation, notwithstanding the real problem with "Lover of mankind".

I have deleted the posts that are off-topic this afternoon. I will continue to do so if they continue.

Now for the misconception that those that take posters to task for their statements or when they are either confronted on their statements or simply not agreed with start screaming uncharity, their is a simple solution, don't post! You can not expect issues such as these that have the complexities of theology and liturgics that also involve their corporate prayer life not to have an emotional factor. I agree that some posters could be a little more careful in their delivery of a post, but if it was truly uncharitable it would have been deleted. If you feel that by posting on another internet forum is the solution, then the administration of Byzcath wish you well and ask for God's blessings to be with you. In essence, if you are unwilling to put up with the confrontation and scrutiny, then do not post!

Again posts that are off topic will be simply deleted in the future, and chronic abusers will be issued warnings. I am there by directing that this and other threads in this section stay on topic or face being closed.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator