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

As always, I love it when Fr. Serge writes about the Liturgy. It is clear that every one of his words flows out of his deep love of, respect for, and immersion in the sacred liturgical tradition.

I also think that his comment is correct:


As has been shown in several recent academic studies, the modern Orthodox/Eastern world is split philosophically between the Florovsky school and the Florensky-Bulgakov school of thought. The Florovsky school tends to discountence reform efforts in favor of a neo-patristric synthesis. The other school looks at reform efforts more positively and believes that the fathers provide the base upon which future generations must build. (I am not in my office and I am focused on other things, but I will soon post the names of the recent texts dealing with this.)

It should be noted that historically (in the 20th century) the Florovsky school has been most opposed to re-union attempts while the Florensky-Bulgakov school is more positive towards it. (Fr Alexander Men is a good example of the type of sanctity produced by the Florensky-Bulgakov school.)

But I think this statement is incorrect:


Since I am one of the "supporters", I can testify that in no way is my support inspired by the Latin efforts. I have never been Latin -- and in the 60s and 70s was a Baptist! (I was born in 63, so I was a child in my father's church.) My inspiration (as Fr Serge terms it) comes from the writings of the late Fr Alexander Schmmemman and his insights into the Liturgy, the spirit of the Russian hierarches gathered in council in the face of the Bolshevik Revolution, and the writings of the late Fr Alexander Men. In no way, am I inspired by what happened in the Latin Church. I don't know much about it and don't really think that it has much to teach us in the eastern context. (I know many of you disagree but I refuse to believe the "sky is falling" ... again.)

I had no idea that Fr Schmemman and Fr Men were gender neutralizationists! Did they promulgate the usage of a gender neutral Liturgy?!? Or were you speaking of the idea of liturgical reform?

I don't have much time to devote to this, but I did want to share a little further in response to Fr Serge's excellent post.

In terms of my "inspiration," I mentioned the 1917 Sobor -- Dmitry Pospielovsky (The Russian Church under the Soviet Regime) explains the goals and enactments of this Sobor well as they relate to the topic under discussion:


As I have repeatedly said, this is one reason I support the RDL. It uses the "local dialect" of the English commonly used in the United States "to reach the broad mass of believers."

Regarding women, the 1917 Sobor encouraged the Church to reconsider the role of women in light of modern sensibilities. Particularly, the Sobor recommended the inclusion of women


The Sobor also opened the door for women to serve as psalmists and readers on a par with men! Pospielovsky also suggests that the Sobor would have approved the ordination of women as deaconnesses had it not be shut down by the Bolsheviks.

All of this suggests a remarkable openness to discussing the role of women in the church. Where did the impetus for this come from? Not from the tradition -- but, as the Council makes clear in its documents, from a reflection on the exigencies of the modern situation. The Council recognizes that Christian doctrine and practice is always involved in a creative dialogue with society and that the Church must seek to make its teaching relevant to the society of today without ever being unfaithful to the teachings of tradition.

This is what "inspires" me to support the RDL. Is the RDL perfect? No. Do I agree with every change? No. But it is a remarkably courageous attempt to make the liturgy of the Church relevant to today's society without being unfaithful to the liturgical tradition the Church has inherited.

More when I have time on Schemman and Men, I promise.

PrJ writes that he always loves it "when Fr. Serge writes about the Liturgy. It is clear that every one of his words flows out of his deep love of, respect for, and immersion in the sacred liturgical tradition."

Please accept my appreciative thanks!

As to Father George Florovsky, Saint Paul Florensky, and Father Sergius Bulgakov, each of them has his merits and each of them has contributed to the Church in the twentieth century.

Father Alexander Men is clearly a martyr in both senses of the word; I will gladly join in a movement of prayer to obtain the gift of his glorification among the Saints.

If I may be allowed a bit of criticism, PrJ also writes:

"But I think this statement is incorrect:

Quote:
My own impression is that the producers and supporters of this revised Divine Liturgy are inspired primarily by the Latin efforts of the late nineteen-sixties and the nineteen-seventies. "

As it stands, my statement is not merely correct, it is indisputable - because I have reported what my own impression is! That impression itself might be incorrect, but it is my impression, unless some telepath claims that I have another impression than the one which I have reported.

But back to more serious matters.

I have the honor to have been a student of Father Alexander Schmemann's - Memory Eternal! - and both in the classroom and in the chapel, he was and is certainly among the strongest inspirations of my own life and particularly my own approach to Liturgy and my own work in liturgiology. We are all very much in his debt. That said, Father Alexander was not out to produce "Schmemannologists", as has sometimes been claimed; he was out to produce both priests and scholars. He was no stranger to controversy; some of it pained him and some of it he enjoyed.

As to whether "the sky is falling" - in imitation of what happened in the Latin Church - I think that it is, so to speak. PrJ tells us that he was a Baptist while that was going on, so his experience is different from my own, which makes it easy to grasp that we would have different impressions of the period and its influence on what is happening now. I know next to nothing about what the Baptists may have been up to forty years ago.

Now, back to meditation which might, if God wills, produce some more writing about the Liturgy to express my deep love for it, my respect for it, and my immersion (now there's something I can agree on with the Baptists!) in the sacred liturgical tradition.

Fr. Serge

Many fine threads could be initiated regarding subjects such as deaconesses and how they relate to Church Tradition. However, this thread is about Feminism and the English language. Is it an organic develop of the English language to eliminate the word "mankind" from the Liturgy? Is it more proper to modern linguistics to remove the word "men" from the Creed? If so--why?
Is someone truly being offended, or is that what we have been led to believe by a politically correct secular society. Should the Liturgy surrender to the politically correct agenda of the secular world? Why is the neutralization of the English language an inspiration to some?

Of course not. But the Church does have to find a way to speak to the modern world. If, using the example of the Apostle Paul who advocated "becoming all things to all people so that I might win some", the Church adapts her language so that her message can be more easily understood, this is not the same thing as "surrendering to the politically correct agenda".

Remember, it was the refusal of the Church Fathers to consider the option of using alternative words that led to the first great split at the Council of Chalcedon. Had the Church been willing to accept that different words mean different things in different cultures, then perhaps the unity of the Church could have been preserved.

Fr Serge wrote


Too funny! You "got me", Father!!

And the word "mankind" is not understandable to the modern world? Help me out here?
Perhaps I am out of the loop. I have never seen this huge uproar with the Church protesting the language of the Liturgy--demanding its neutralization. The only time I see it, is when the radical feminists begin causing noise--but of course they are pushing for women priests also. Perhaps that is why people always equate the horizontal feminine language with the radical feminine movement of the 60's and 70's.

Where is this benign movement that cherishes proper and modern English which inspires you?
This is exactly the point. "Mankind" is not a difficult word to understand! What am I missing here? (as I bang my head on a very firm wall).

You're not missing or misunderstanding anything. You're right where you should be. You're in a church that is not surrendering to secular feminist agendas.

The comparison of Church Slavonic to a modern "local dialect" would work better if we were using the language of Chaucer (or maybe Shakespeare) in the Divine Liturgy. We are, instead, speaking of a change from Standard English to politically correct English. Not exactly what the Sobor was speaking to. Gender-neutral language is not the �local dialect� of the English commonly used in the United States.� Its origins are not natural and can be, and have been, traced to politics. The politics of secular feminists have no place in Liturgy. Standard English � the language already in use in the Liturgy � is the best way �to reach the broad mass of believers.�

In Liturgiam Authenticam we find:
One of the many problems with general-neutral language is that it is not precise. Phrases like �who for us men and for our salvation� are �comprehensible even to the faithful who lack any special intellectual formation�. But when �anthropos� / �man� is removed the text to render it �who for us� the text becomes imprecise and potentially exclusive. All in the Church (including our bishops) seem to be agreement that the use of �human� (and, elsewhere, �humankind�) lacks dignity.

In Liturgiam Authenticam we find:
Even if Father John was correct (that such language qualifies as a �local dialect� � and it does not and he certainly has not demonstrated anything along those lines) that does not justify its use in Liturgy. �The voice of the Church at prayer�.should be free of an overly servile adherence to prevailing modes of expression.� So we can see that even if such language as advocated by Father John becomes widespread that does not automatically give it justification for use in the Liturgy. But such language is not widespread, nor has it become universally accepted. Listen to the �stump speeches� of the three leading presidential candidates. When they speak �off the cuff� their language is often full of words like �mankind�, �all men� and etc. [I have heard Senator Clinton use "mankind" and then - realizing it - found a way to use "humankind" in the next sentence.] It is only when some of their respective speechwriters feel they need to adhere to a politically correct style guide that we encounter such terms as �humankind� and the rest. The article that starts this thread is one of many that can be easily found that that such language is very far from becoming accepted Standard English. Father John is incorrect when he claims that gender neutral language is the �local dialect� of English used in the United States. Further, he appears to reject the Vatican directive on this issue.

Now, I can readily understand and agree that there are those in society who do not readily understand the language used in the sacred texts. The proper response is not to dumb down the sacred texts into different usages (i.e., one for the Black community, etc.). The proper response is education.

In Liturgiam Authenticam we find:
I will not re-post the references that direct the term �man� ought not be removed from the sacred texts.

There are a couple of interesting points raised by Father John�s statement here. He does not agree with every change. I respect that. 99% of the Ruthenian Church rejects many if not most of the changes. And unity is vitally important. That is yet one more reason why the Ruthenian Church in America needs to keep the official standard (the Ruthenian recension) and then work together with all the Byzantine Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) to allow change. If each local Church were to invent its own Revised Divine Liturgy the very effective witness that unity provides would be destroyed.

In the Liturgical Instruction we find:
Unity! Unity! Unity! Even if these changes could be justified (and they cannot) there is absolutely no justification for enacting them via mandate apart from the unity of all the Byzantine Churches. The official Ruthenian Divine Liturgy is the only thing that can unite us.

--

Regarding the �attempt to make the liturgy of the Church relevant to today�s society� I am very uncomfortable with such an idea. The Holy Spirit sculpts the Liturgy over time. One does not just simply update in each generation to make it relevant. I know that Father John was not suggesting adapting the Liturgy to the culture (i.e., conforming Christianity to the modern spirit) but one must always be cognizant that the real task is to lead society so that it may be formed by the Liturgy into the image of Christ.

That will be most welcome! And � to all of our posters � please start new threads, as appropriate.

Testimonials are nice but some specifics, please. I say this having in mind what has already been noted within the total context of the post.

What is not perfect with the RDL?

What changes are not agreeable?

Why is the RDL "a remarkably courageous attempt to make the liturgy of the Church relevant to today's society" in a way that was not generally possible before its promulgation?

For instance, excluding the issue of inclusive language, how has the RDL used the '"local dialect" of the English commonly used in the United States "to reach the broad mass of believers"'?

By changing oblation to anaphora? Mother of God to Theotokos?

How about this change:

NEW
To you, O Master who love us all, we ...

OLD
In You, O gracious Master, we ...

This last example would be a real knee slapper if it wasn't actually so. The word in question is a form of the bothersome philanthropos. For some reason here, as in a few other instances, even the 1964 translation opted for other than the more literal Lover of Mankind. Even though this offending-to-RDL-standards phrase did not appear, however, the wording was still changed to the uniform philanthropos=love(s) us all, producing the awful, awkward, and certainly not "commonly used in the United States" construction of the second person in direct address, "Master who love us all." Who nowadays would say, e.g., Mary, who love me, please pass the jelly?

And there's more.


Dn. Anthony

I find this statement to be offensive -- especially as it is based on racial assumptions and stereotypes:

Have you visited many different jurisdictions? If you have, you will find that this already exists. Compare the different Liturgical books printed by the various jurisdictions. You will find that each book uses a different translation, each book prescribes different rubrics, each book adapts the Liturgy differently, etc.

St Tikhon already rejected your image of unity in America -- it was suggested to him that he require uniformity of liturgical practice. His response was to argue strongly against such an idea. Let each tradition serve the Liturgy in its own way, he argued. The uniqueness of America is that our sacramental unity will be strong while our liturgical unity weak.

This is where you are incorrect. As a professor of young people with little church background who are products of our universal schools, I can assure you as each year passes fewer and fewer of them understand mankind to be universal and more and more of them understand mankind to be malekind.

Like it or not, if you are under 30 that is what you have been taught in school and that is what you hear. You can argue against this all you want, you can bang your head against the wall until you have a headache, but that is the world you and I live in.

We have a choice -- spend our time giving English lessons in Church and teaching people what English means OR spend our time spreading the Gospel. As for me, I prefer to preach the Gospel. I would rather speak a few words that can be understood than a thousand words that cannot be.