www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Women and Men: Created Equal

I had no idea the exodus was so vast!

Your quote, "Just at the cathedral itself almost half the people have left. Who is left to pay the mortgage?"

Are you serious? I have never been to Pittsburgh, so I have no observations of my own to make. Has it changed that much since the new liturgy was implemented?

People did not leave all at once. They were driven away one at at time. The Cathedral was the test parish for a lot of the new liturgy. I don't think the womens group or the CAMEO Club even meet anymore. People were driven away one at a time. A lot now go to St. Elias. If you don't believe me then go to the Cathedral for Sunday Divine Liturgy. You will see for yourself how bad the new liturgy and music is. Saturday night used to be ok but with the new liturgy all bets are off. Don't try to complain to Archbishop Basil. He is not about to listen.

I was under the impression that Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence with the understanding that land-owning white gentlemen are the 'men' which this document was geared to. Hence, they were the only class given the right to vote.

And obviously 'men' in our nation's founding documents does NOT pertain to all mankind. If so, what is up with the 3/5ths Compromise?

I think your argument supports Father David's position. Men and mankind did not always mean all humankind or even all 'male' members of society.

The last time I heard, there was NO mass exodus of people from the Cathedral. But if this is so, good. At least I will be able to get a better seat now.

The women's group still meets. I do not know about the CAMEO club.

"The loss of $1,000,000 is nothing compared to the enormous loss of people we are seeing. Just at the cathedral itself almost half the people have left. Who is left to pay the mortgage? If the Archbishop started a "Buy a Revised Liturgy Book to Burn" drive he'd easily re-coop the $1,000,000 he squandered on a Byzantine Novus Ordos that no one wants and has already been demonstrated to make people run for the door."

Hats off to this idea.

The "3/5ths Compromise" as you call it was exactly that, a compromise in the Constitution. It is not in the Declaration. The Constitution comes after the Declaration. Since the colonies waged a war togethter against England, and since slavery was a fact in half of the colonies, if there was to be one nation, there was going to compromise. But the seeds for the end of slavery were already in the Declaration.

But surely, surely, we are not importing these political matters into our Creed? Please, please don't tell me that that was what was driving this train to change our Creed. But something tells me that it was -- "for us "__________" and our salvation...he became man." Since when has the Church compromised with the world to make its Creed acceptable to it?

If the Creed has been changed to correct political injustices of the 18th century America, we have essentially created an American Creed.

Instead of conforming to the age--to 20th century America, we need to be transfigured by Christ who "for us men and our salvation...became man."

"Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind..."

Romans, ch. 12

Bravo Im! We are not to conform the Liturgy to the language of the world--we are suppose to transform the world with the language of the Liturgy.

Theologos and others seem to feel that we are correcting injustices. There is nothing further from the truth.

I would never pay for one of these revised pew books. However, I would gladly pay many times over to cooperate in a bonfire. I do not sarcastically say this--it is how I truly feel!

Recluse,

Absolutely!

Thanks for the compliment, but as a dear friend of mine likes to say, "I had an original idea and had to confess it!" Instead, therefore, let us say, "Bravo St. Paul!" The Gospel truth, the whole Creed, needs to be spoken and preached "in season and out of season."

Wouldn't you agree, if modern America doesn't like the Creed or the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, that's modern America's problem, not ours.

Yes Im, I agree.

The Creed is recited at every Liturgy to strengthen our faith. Fr Davis tells us in his book that,

It prepares us to say the anaphora "with one heart and one mind," and to be united in the communion of the body and blood of the one Lord, Jesus Christ.

And so this brings a very important question to my mind. Fr David admits that inclusive language carries extremes emotions on both sides of the debate. Extreme emotion usually leads to divisiveness. Before the revision, I was not aware of a growing displeasure in the Ruthenian Catholic Church in reference to the word "men" in the Creed. But since the creed has been changed, there are many unhappy parishioners. Hence my question: If the Liturgical commission were aware that a neutralized Creed would cause extreme emotion and possible division within our Church, why would they move forward with such a controversial and divisive decision for the very prayer that is supposed to promote unity?

Perhaps Fr David could answer this?

That is the ten million dollar question.

3/5ths compromise? are you talkinga bout how congress discounted the vote of the African (former slave) male? This is an easy one if you know your history.

Most African-former slave males were eventually granted voting rights but...BUT...their vote was monitored very closely by former white owners. if they voted under such priessure they would vote in unison with their former white owners. This would work AGAINST their cause because the white male south would have lost the war but won the congressioal vote - all votes. So the African-former slave male vote was discounted to 3/5ths in order to prevent ballot box packing. We only remember the cultural and race experience and often forget the economic and political implications. i belive this is the 3/5ths compromise you were mentionoing? if not then ignore this reply

Eddie