www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Could someone please explain?

And since Fr. Taft has not been given any charism of infallibility, the laity are free to make their needs known and to attend other jurisdictions. The "experiment" of so called inclusive language is at best just that. In reality perfectly good (and important) words have been dropped from the Creed and Liturgy. And if it is young people that Church is trying to attract, they have just been taught that it is fine to adjust the Creed to fit a culture that has been aptly named the "culture of death."

The new Creed and Liturgy are not accurate and are false to the extent that words have been dropped from them. Is this legitimate for the sake of conformity?

Cardinal Ratzinger's lecture "on Conscience and Truth" addresses this issue:


Just give me that old time religion!

We do agree, and I wish, even at this late stage, the committee would involve more people, and consult more widely. All this could have been avoided if they hadn't been so secretive.

I don't agree that people have jumped all over Fr. David. He has been treated with respect. Some have jumped all over his arguments, some of which make no sense, and don't really stand up to any scrutiny at all. It is his arguments I cannot agree with, they just don't hold up to serious questions.

I think you're right. Even now, if our Bishops said that we're not stuck with these terrible books for the next few decades, but that already they're willing to start a study group to fix the errors and mistakes in them, there would be no end of rejoicing and offers of sincere help and good will. So, it can happen, and hopefully will happen. As soon as the bishops give the signal.

Nick

Nick,

You are correct. The Metropolitan does not need Rome's approval, only to submit the text to Rome for its recognitio. Which has been given as their is protocol#99/2001. If you think the bishops would have been foolish enough to promulgate without the recognitio knowing the opposition ot the RDL that was out there you are very naive.

Also while everyone keeps harping on LA they ignore the points I keep bringing up that since LA the Vatican has approved other texts with horizontal inclusive language. I must assume that since the facts don't agree with your position you will simply keep ignoring them and proclaiming that Rome does not approve of horizontal inclusive language when in fact it does.

As to draconian measures, I would ask what priest was suspended or parish censured for continuing to use the older text. The Metropolitan is well aware some parishes aren't using the RDL because some parishes haven't even purchased the books. No one has been suspended, no parish threatened with punishment draconian indeed.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The reference to �the older and complete translation� makes me recall the words of Card. Tisserant in his letter accompanying the first publication of the Ruthenian Recension:

My emphasis added.

He was of course referring to the Slavonic texts and not an English translation; and I don�t believe there is any intention of changing the Slavonic text to bring it into conformity with the RDL. To do so would require an abridgement of the text, a rearrangement of the text and the introduction of rubrics that are foreign to the text of the Ruthenian Recension referred to by Tisserant.

There is thus in place a dichotomy of sorts. There is, it appears, the possibility of celebrating the �complete� liturgy in the Slavonic but, as observed above, the present impossibility of doing so in the vernacular English.

Dn. Anthony

I think the Archbishop will be open to the older and "complete" translation. In his address to the Eparchy of Van Nuys it was reported:


(My emphasis.)

http://www.eparchy-of-van-nuys.org/docs/2007-July-25th-Anniversay.pdf

These are hopeful words.

I think the issue is that LA does not address "horizontal inclusive language" but specific instances of translations that are deemed unacceptable; this negates an incorrect position that presumes a blanket approval or acceptance of "horizontal inclusive language."

This is news to me.

Dn. Anthony

Indeed!

The very term, "horizontal inclusive language," is virtually unintelligible unless one has already accepted the modern feminist agenda. I am confident that this agenda is not been accepted by Rome or the Holy Spirit.

The approval the Council of Hierarchs cite is dated 2001, and comes just months prior to the issuance of Liturgiam Authenticam. As faithful servants of the Church the bishops should have had the text reviewed to make sure it met the criteria set forth in that directive.

Also, we know that the Revised Divine Liturgy (RDL) violates canon law. Canon 40 �1 speaks specifically to the obligation of the bishops �to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.� The RDL does not faithfully protect the Ruthenian recension; it is not an accurate observance of our Ruthenian rite; it admits changes that are not organic; and it harms the mutual goodwill and unity of Christians. Additionally, (as we have discussed at great length) the Revised Divine Liturgy violates a number of directives of the Liturgical Instruction.

As I have noted earlier, it is my opinion that the RDL was presented to Rome and was probably treated as a minor update rather than the major revision it is. As a minor update it was probably handed off to Father Taft, who might have been the only one to review it (and we know he supports the idea of reform). I am hopeful that the appeals to Rome will be successful, and that people will be guaranteed access to the official Divine Liturgy of our Church.

Also, let�s not forget that the Vatican bureaucracy is woefully inefficient. A friend of mine who was in Rome not long ago paid a courtesy call at the Oriental and found that the staffers who generally took care of the affairs of our Church were so unaware of the Liturgy of our Church that the did not know that the books in their own display case were ours! This is why I am confident that formal appeals to the new Pro-Prefect and to the Holy Father will be responded to positively.

From another post:
I disagree. To me the RDL shows that we Ruthenians cannot be trusted to govern ourselves. I know that those involved meant well, and it pains me greatly to be in disagreement with good men. But we - as a Church - do not know our own Liturgical Tradition well enough to alter it. As I have stated earlier, we are like people who have a kindergarten knowledge of French trying to edit a comprehensive, adult edition of the French dictionary. Another image: We stand before the most beautiful icon in the world - the Divine Liturgy - with crayons in our hands. [Each Byzantine Christian - Catholic and Orthodox - bishop, priest, deacon, monastic, layman - holds a crayon in his youth and only learns to use it correctly in his adulthood. It is only when all work together as a single Church that the crayons become a brush worthy of writing the majesty of the Holy Spirit.]

Liturgical unity with both other Byzantine Catholics and our Orthodox brethren should be paramount.

Holly,


__________________
Holly,
As you see this is a very volatile subject for some people and posters get sidetracked from the original question. This topic has become a debate forum. According to the rubrics which we follow even the amount of swings of the kadillo (censer) is stipulated.

In reply to your question, the Divine Liturgy is the same in all four (arch)eparchies. Some say that is one of the benefits of the change, you should be able feel comfortable singing the Liturgy across the country.

You may not have noticed the "inclusive" language because it has become the norm in lay life in Connecticut. In other parts of the country changing "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" is very noticeable.

Continue to participate in the Divine Liturgy and may God bless you and your family.

Father Deacon Paul

Father Deacon Paul,

Living in CT myself, I wonder if you can explain your statement above that I have bolded. I'm confused.

Thanks! John K

Sure, John.

I was going to use the "liberal" label for those who live in Connecticut, but I very much dislike using it because of the stereotyping. I have the understanding from past elections and Connecticut's Congressional representation that the voters there are much less conservative than we are in Western PA and points west. In the Ivy League universities region the supposedly "non-offensive" inclusive language is widely accepted and traditional English which assume "he" can mean male or female is considered outdated.

Do you feel differently?

CT is funny mix. There are for sure, "liberal" universities such as Yale and Wesleyan, where is it the norm to use gender neutral language, but then you have many small manufacturing towns, gone bust, where folks would look at you cross-eyed if you spoke in gender neutral terms. American English is evolving overall in this direction, but CT is not a bastion. Not sure what is happening in churches, other than my own Greek Catholic parish (and we know what's happened there) and Anglo-Catholic one I attend, where we still use Elizabethan English. My guess is that the Congregational churches, which are legion in CT, use it, but not sure about the RCs. John K

John,

Glad to hear about the mix. I try not to stereotype but I guess
I'm a bit guilty here.

Holly, are you still with us in this thread? How do you feel about inclusive language in your area?

Z nami Boh!

Fr Deacon Paul

So you are saying that the language used in the Divine Liturgy should be based upon the politics of liberals in Connecticut?

You are correct that that is what the commissions have done and what the bishops have mandated.

I do not understand why they are so opposed to accurate, non-political translations.

Holly,

Essentially the bishops did a rewrite of the Byzantine Divine Liturgy to conform it to the politics of the American secular left. It comes from the same mindset that controlled the Roman Catholics since Vatican II. You can see it in the removal of the word "anthropos" (man) from the Creed and the refusal to pray for the "armed forces" (armies that protect America are bad).

Americans are not incapable of understanding that "who for us men" includes both men and women. So the whole thing is just politics.

1 Th 5:21