www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Feminism and the English Language

The RDL has deliberately and systematically dropped words from the Creed and Liturgy to comport with modern idealogical fashions. This may indeed be the language of "modern people." To the extent that it is their way of speaking, it is impossible to translate the whole Gospel into "modern language." What must be done, and what has been done, is to tweak the Creed and the Liturgy to modern sensibilities and idealogical presuppositions. It is simply a falsehood to say that the RDL has provided a mere translation when words have been dropped--i.e. when they have in fact not been translated.

The RDL and the new Creed have missed the mark by adopting the idealogy of the world as it continues to attack the foundational sacrament of the Church -- marriage. I call this sacrament foundational because of what St. Paul tells us in Ephesians, ch 5:



In Chapter 4 of Ephesians, St. Paul states:


The Gentiles campaign to rid the English speaking world of the word "man" is not coming from the Holy Spirit, but is a result of their darkened understanding - an understanding that rejects the truth of Genesis:


And again:


In Genesis we find two great truths -- that the reason for the difference in the sexes is for man to be fruitful and multiply; and then, through God's mysterious design, the one flesh signifies Christ's relationship to his bride the Church. The modern world hates both of these truths.

The very idea of "horizontal inclusive language" is a rejection of the fact that God is Lord of all--earthly and spiritual kingdoms--the natural order istself is ordered to Him but when man in the darkness of his mind refuses to acknowledge God through the things he has made, God punishes man (see Romans ch 1 -- and oh how apropos these words are today as every pervision under the sun is promoted and justified in the name of human rights!):



The modern world needs the Divine Liturgy desperately. I would not deprive them of it. But like all men, moderns must come to the Liturgy humbly and with the idea that the Liturgy is not theirs to remake in their image and likeness, but through the Liturgy to be returned to the image and likeness of God in which man was first made.

To Im and all,

I can understand that people can disagree. I can understand that people would oppose some of the changes in the RDL. That makes sense to me.

What I don't understand is why anyone who is in favor of the RDL has to be consistently painted as being "anti-Christian," "secular" and part of some radical agenda to remake the Liturgy and to change Christianity.

Good, fair minded people can disagree. People who deeply love God and are passionately committed to the Gospel can disagree -- sometimes intensely.

But that does not make either side "bad" or "anti-Christian." It just means people can disagree. After all, even some of the saints had strong disagreements with each other.

I reject completely the accusation that my support for horizontal inclusive language is because I have been influenced by some radical anti-Christian feminist agenda. My support for this is BECAUSE of my commitment to tradition not in spite of tradition. My SUPPORT is because of my commitment to the Gospel, not in spite of it. Everything I believe flows out of my radical commitment to the Christian faith and my steadfast belief in its fundamental theological principle that "in Christ there is neither male nor female, neither slave nor free."

I also reject completely that someone else can tell me what I believe and why I believe it.

But these are the issues. First, the rubrical changes, for instance, are not few, at least not for the deacon. Second, why should we be incorporating usages from "varied liturgical tradition[s]" rather than our own unless there is something defective in what is "ours." Should we not strive in fairness to give what is "ours" a try, a fair hearing?

It's called the Ruthenian Recension; our bishops of the past asked for it, and is it not the standard from which the RDL translation was intended to be based?

Dn. Anthony

As any Greek scholar will tell you, the meaning of the word "anthropos" depends on the context. Usually it means generalized humanity, best translated in modern English as "human being." Often it is an unnecessary to translate it in English because the context in English is different than in Greek.

As any translator will tell you, when you translate you CANNOT do a word for word translation and have the final product mean anything. You ALWAYS have to translate passages and the goal of translation is to give the sense of the meaning rather than the literal meaning of words.

In the case of the Creed, the best translation in modern English would be "for us human beings" -- but the use of the words "human beings" is redundant, not necessary and does not add to the meaning, hence the appropriateness of the translation "for us".

As has been pointed out before, most Greek scholars (without a bone to pick) who have been talked to agree that "for us" is an accurate translation of the line in the Creed.

Case closed.

Anyone who continues to make this argument is doing so on the basis of presuppositional opposition to the change rather than on the basis of the evidence presented by scholarship. The argument that they have "changd the creed" is an illusion presented simply to scare people who are not aware of the scholarship. Like the "yellow" "red" and "orange" signs of the post-911 age, this argument aims to frighten people into action.

Ah, now you are changing the argument again. It gets difficult to have this discussion because every time we get to a real discussion about real issues with real scholarship being presented, the argument changes and another one is introduced. At some point, you begin to realize that decisions have already been made and that the arguments are not aimed at finding the truth but simply are made to support decisions already made and hardened.

Agreed. That is why I have always differentiated feminists into groups, �secular� and �Christian� (with particular references to what Pope John Paul the Great taught about women). The problem here is that the push for gender-neutral language comes from the secular feminists and is part of their attempt to erase any innate differences between men and women. Most Christian feminists don�t buy into that nonsense.

Remarkable success of the RDL? Sorry, but that simply is not accurate. After a year it remains a major source of controversy. It clearly violates the directives given by Rome. The texts and rubrics are notably less accurate translations of the original than the edition it replaces. It creates a separation between us and the rest of the Byzantine world (Catholic and Orthodox). That is all demonstrable fact. Parishes everywhere (including the one PrJ assists at) have lost people because of it.

As to being �inspired by �secular� motives and ideas�, yes, properly defined there is some of that. We can see this clearly right here where justification for the Revised Divine Liturgy is sought by introducing the horror of slavery in America in the past centuries. If one examines the argument of those who support the received tradition in Liturgy (as documented by Rome in the official books) one sees appeals to both Catholic and Orthodox sources of liturgical theology, and a respect for literal accuracy in translation and solid scholarship. Among those who support the Revision and things like gender neutral language we see appeals to secular sources � like the argument here about slavery and the use of the term man in the U.S. Constitution and the style book of both secular academia and secular feminists.

No one is seeking to leave the Liturgy set in stone. If one reads the Liturgical Instruction one can see a clarion call for renewal to the forms handed down to us by the Church as a prerequisite to allowing change, and that all change be organic rather than fabricated, and that it be conducted in concert with the rest of the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox).

Is the corresponding Greek word in the creed also "redundant, not necessary and does not add to the meaning"? If it is not redundant etc., what is its meaning and purpose? If it is redundant etc., what purpose does it serve if any; why would the Fathers have included it?

Dn. Anthony

PrJ overstates the case. No one has stated that those who support the RDL are �anti-Christian�, �secular� and part of some agenda to �change Christianity�. In fact I and others have repeatedly stated that we acknowledge their love for Christ, their good intentions, and their hard work. The problem here is that the support for the revision comes not from Christian sources (i.e., the theology of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) but, rather, from secular sources. Good men who are well intentioned missing the mark. As I pointed out just above we see those who support the traditional Liturgy rooting their argument in solid Catholic and Orthodox sources, and outright begging for adherence to the directives laid down by Rome for us (even quoting chapter and verse). And we see those who support the reform appealing to secular sources (exampled here in the reference to slavery) and openly rejecting Vatican directives. Were those who sought the Revision to provide justification using Catholic and Orthodox theological source material they might reasonably seek consideration for their view. But neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox theological source material provides justification for the Revision. Anyone who reads through the Liturgical Instruction or Liturgicam Authenticam, Orthodox commentaries on Liturgy or even the V2 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy can see this. People generally turn to the sources they respect for support in arguing their position. Look at the sources used by those who support the official Ruthenian Liturgy and those who support the Revised Liturgy and is very understandable that one might conclude that those who support the Revision are unduly influenced by secular sources.

May I point out that I was merely responding to your words; I don't see how I could be changing the argument. Also, I am bewildered by the "about real issues with real scholarship" comment; I thought that's what I've been doing, even to a fault.



Here I appeal to your own sentiments and make them my own:




Dn. Anthony

In 2002 Jorge A. Cardinal Medina Est�vez, Prefect, Congregation of Divine Worship, spoke to this issue:

I would hope that those who support gender neutral language would seek to use solid Catholic or Orthodox theology to respond to this point. We can see also that the Greek Orthodox Church in America has issued an official version of the Creed which includes the phrase "for us men and for our salvation He became man" and has made clear that gender neutral language has no place in the Liturgy.

Cardinal Estevez writes, "The term "humankind", coined for purposes of "inclusive language", remains somewhat faddish and ill-adapted to the liturgical context, and, in addition, it is usually too abstract to convey the notion of the Latin homo."


Actually the Cardinal is incorrect. The term "humankind" was coined somewhere between the 16th-17th centuries. I do not think the 16th/17th centuries were concerned with questions of "inclusive language." The Cardinal's editors should strive for historical accuracy when addressing the subject of neologisms.

PrJ:

With all due respect, if you are committed to Tradition, please point out the source material for the use of feminist language before the mid-1960s. Before that time, there was no mention of the ideology that has spawned this thing.

With all due resepct, please, too, reference the source material in theology for the ideas brought by feminists that have caused bishops to think that this needs to be incorporated into the Church's life and worship.

And as to your last use of St. Paul's words about being "in Christ," please source the place in traditional theology, whether Catholic or Orthodox, that twists this phrase to fit the feminist agenda and tries to use this as justification for the wholesale rewriting of the liturgical books and the Scriptures.

It's interesting to note that Rome withheld the recognitio for the translation of the second typical edition of the Roman Missal over this issue, after the English-speaking bishops had poured a ton of money into the effort. It's also interesting to note that the revised NAB translation of the Scripture was not considered to be faithful enough to be used in liturgical worship and so the Latin Church has the anomaly of having Scriptures used in public worship that have no parallel that the the laity can have for their own study before or after the public liturgy.

I applaud your support of your bishops. However, one must remember that no bishop alone is guaranteed to be free from error; no episcopal conference or sui juris Church ALONE is guaranteed to be free from error; and it is only in communion with Rome that one is guaranteed to be free from error in the Catholic Church's understanding. We have enshrined the idea of dissent in the Catholic Church since the Vatican Council and it has cost us a tremendous amount of damage--mostly spiritual. We have plenty of bishops who go to Rome and say what they think the authorities want to hear and then go home and do the opposite. So while I can applaud your support of your bishops, I have to ask what ultimate value that has.

Tampering with the Creed, for example, puts one outside the very communion one professes by reciting it. Formal adherence means nothing if one has the intention to rewrite what the Church has always believed. What is means to be Catholic is that one adheres to the Faith received without adding to it or subtracting from it. New ways of formulating it may come along, but they always must faithfully transmit what has been received. And the danger these brethren of ours see is that the Deposit is threatened by this alien ideology that has been incorporated into the Church's most intimate life.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob and Administrator,

Very good comments. I reiterate, to make clear the implicit point that lies within both of your comments: "What makes the Eastern Catholic Churches distinctively unique is our communion with Rome." But if we are going to ignore Rome when it appears convenient, ie, on the issue of the Ruthenian Recension and on inclusive language, what's the point in claiming that communion? Rome's genius, the genius of the Papacy, especially in these "modern times" of great confusion, has been its ability to recognize and see the truth. We need to take our communion seriously and implement Rome's desires for our Church. I note (from Fr. Serge's book I think), that one Bishop whom we now proclaim blessed, Theodore Romzha, instituted the Ruthenian Recension almost immediately. His example should lead our Bishops to do the same.

This is not true. Our Mission in Lawrence has not lost anyone in the last year. Probably because we are less than a year old

Deacon, sometimes it is hard to explain these things to people who have not studied Greek as long or as in as much depth as I have. As I have tried to explain, languages are funny things. So while one word is redundant and unnecessary in one language -- it may be quite appropriate and necessary (for grammatical reasons) in another. So here you are truly trying to compare apples and oranges.