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

To give you one example (and I really have to stop visiting this set of posts and return to my "real" work ...), in the Liturgy of St Basil it is stated that Christ came to "dwell among men." I think this is a mistake -- I would much prefer it said that He came to "dwell among us" or "dwell among human beings" or something that is more gender inclusive.

So there you have one example!

The picture Father John paints is a bleak one. Apparently young people are being taught by the same kind of people who revised the Ruthenian Liturgy. Post hippie era people with their own agenda.

The church I'm in now hasn't caved in to this nonsense, and I pray they never do.

A few odds and ends:

The "local dialects" alluded to at the 1917 Sobor were/are such languages as Ukrainian and Belarusyn, spoken by millions of people, with belles-lettres, dictionaries, and so on. The Russian Church was never opposed to the use of such things as various languages/dialects spoken in Alaska, similar idioms (idia?) used in the Russian Far East, or for that matter English (quite a few liturgical books were published in English at Russian expense before the Russian Revolution).

Would the 1917 Sobor have authorized the ordination of deaconesses? It's not impossible - there is at least one case of an ordination of a deaconess in the Russian Church in the nineteenth century. But even God never answers the question "what would have happened if?". There is no point in speculating on what a Council might or might not have done ninety years ago had it been able and free to do this or that.

As to the issue of "unity" - Saint Tikhon, to give an obvious example who has been cited in another post, was not in favor of compelling absolute liturgical conformity (which would presumably have been based on the Niconian service-books), imposing this on Romanians, Greeks, Serbs, Arabs, Bulgarians and everyone else. He was not advocating a "write-your-own-Mass" situation.

The Greek-Catholic Church does not seek to impose absolute uniformity either. The 1917 Greek-Catholic Synod in Saint Petersburg, with Metropolitan Andrew presiding, made it clear that one might use either the pre-Niconian Liturgy or the Niconian Liturgy. Contrary to persistent rumors, there are no attempts to impose "Ukrainianism" on the Greek-Catholics in Transcarpathia. No one in authority in the Greek-Catholic Church has objected to the ongoing efforts to revive the Kyivan Use of the time of Saint Peter Mohyla.

The "Recensio Rutena" editions were done in the first place because the Ruthenian hierarchy could not come to an agreement on the liturgical question, wanted some authoritative standard, and could only obtain this by an act of the Holy See. They requested it; they received it. No one has yet attempted to justify the persistent refusal of Pittsburgh to follow it. Instead, Pittsburgh has consistently refused these books and the liturgical use in them (except for the relatively brief period when Bishop Daniel made it clear that this was going to happen, and the "Parma Spring" when Bishop Emil promulgated the Liturgy as given in these books - and was swiftly called to heel by Metropolitan Stephen). Archbishop Nicholas Elko cannot bear all the blame - and he certainly is not responsible for the latest "revised Divine Liturgy".

If the Ruthenians want liturgical unity in the first place, the only existing basis for it is the Liturgy which was promulgated by Pope Pius XII, at the request of the Ruthenian hierarchs of the time.

Fr. Serge

With due respect for Fr Serge, the local dialects spoken of by the Sobor especially referred to the languages spoken throughout the Russian-held territories in Central Asia and Asia.

Once upon a time, one of my thesis papers for my Masters degree in Russian History dealt with the evangelism program of the Russian Church in Central Asia. The term "local dialects" often was used to refer to these languages -- not all of which, it should be noted, had official dictionary or other literary standards.

Nor do I.

No doubt the case for many of us.



Not so fast. I am unable to find the quoted phrase "dwell among men" in the St. Basil RDL.

I assure you Father, with respect to the Novus Ordo of the Roman Rite (which nowhere even demands that it be said ad populo), I was being ironic.


As to the novus ordo of the Divine Liturgy, it is claimed that the changes which were made, ie--so called inclusive language, the anaphora aloud--were for "us" -- the people. Indeed, I don't think they asked us, but like a certain political party in the United States, the intellectuals knew what was good for us.

Exactly what about it is offensive? There is a whole segment of the African-American community that wishes to create a special vernacular just for Americans who happen to be black. It is called "African American Vernacular English" but is more commonly known as "Eubonics". It has draws some characteristics from Creole English but is formally considered a departure from Standard English, just as is the gender neutral "dialect" you spoke about. You have suggested that we need to create a text in a "dialect" that is based upon political correctness. It logically follows that a special text would also be required for each special interest or ethnic group. Since this desire for a separate dialect of English for the African-American community originate from within and is nourished by that community on what exactly do you base your idea that it is based upon racial assumptions?

Father, I believe the principle set forth above is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. When you go out to the secular world, by all means in your preaching use whatever language you desire. But the Liturgy (and by golly the Creed) is for those who believe, not the unbeliever. (See Cardinal Ratzinger's argument below). Perhaps, at least while in Church, it would be better if Churchmen attended to the needs of the believers -- especially those parents who are attempting to educate properly their children in matters of faith and reason --and in the English language! Now to Cardinal Ratzinger....

Yes, I have visited many parishes in many jurisdictions � Orthodox and Greek Catholic � across North America. I have had the blessing (or sometimes curse) of having had jobs with a lot of travel. Yes, there are many different translations in use. That is not because each local Church chose to adapt the texts of the Liturgy to fit what they perceived as the needs of their local Church. It occurred for a number of reasons, mostly from lack of resources, lack of foresight and partly from ethnic rivalry. A common translation is certainly what we have been directed to do:

On the Orthodox side we do know that the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) has endorsed the need for a common text for all Orthodox Christians and even made a try at it back in the 1990s. Unfortunately it failed, but not because each local Church wanted to adapt the Divine Liturgy into different dialects of English, each �dialect� being more understandable by some local community! [Perhaps Father Serge can give us an account of that attempt?]

We do know that the OCA approached Pittsburgh at one point seeking to work together for a common translation (I�d have to hunt down the reference but I think it was in the late 1960s or early 1970s). And we also know the 1964 Pittsburgh �Red Book� is the one that Metropolitan Nicholas of Johnstown keeps on his holy table. Since this thread is supposed to be about the use of gender-neutral language in the Liturgy I will note that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese mandated the use of a common text of the Creed in its parishes and made clear that the term �men� in the Creed (�who for us men and our salvation�) was not to be omitted.

I think it is rather embarrassing that in this year of the Lord we cannot all agree upon a common translation for common texts.

As to each liturgicon having different rubrics I need some examples to understand your point there. Are you referring to the historic examples of the fairly small differences between Greeks and Slavs or are you stating that specific Orthodox or Greek Catholic jurisdictions have purposely revised the Divine Liturgy and changed the language to suit what they perceived be the unique needs of their local community here in late 20th century and early 21st century America? Might I ask that you please explain further and give examples and references?

Can you provide some references to St. Tikhon? I have not seen references to where he encouraged each local Church to adapt the Divine Liturgy according to its perceived needs. My only understanding here is that he supported a common standard but was not going to rigidly enforce unified practice. Again, I understood this as a respect for the variety of practice that already exists in the liturgical books, and perhaps a respect for a particular form of abbreviation among certain ethnic groups. I would welcome evidence that he ever would have allowed a bishop to prohibit the full celebration of the Divine Liturgy.

Let me add a practical question here.

In many places in the country you have within the same neighborhoods (even often on the same block) parishes of multiple jurisdictions. There can be a Ruthenian Catholic parish on this corner, a Ukrainian Catholic parish across the street, a Carpatho-Russian Parish down the block and a Ukrainian Orthodox parish two blocks over. And, a few more blocks away a Greek Orthodox parish. How could these neighbors be so diverse in their needs that each needs a separate translation and rubrically different version of the Divine Liturgy they all held in common prior to it being translated into English?

Glad to hear it. Saint Tikhon was prepared to live with variations in national practices which have become traditional over centuries. There is no reason to think that he would have permitted the creation of liturgical novelties in the manner of the Renovationists of the nineteen-twenties, whom he adamantly refused to bless, or the not dissimilar program of Pittsburgh at the moment.

There was no need for the Council of 1917 to worry about non-Slavic languages or dialects; the Russian Church had been using such languages since the time of Saint Stephen of Perm, if not before. Check Cyril Korolevsky, Living Languages in Catholic Worship, and Serge Bolshakoff (I think) on Russian Orthodox Missions.

Fr. Serge

So if I understand you correctly, what I am preaching "to the secular world," it is OK if I recite the Creed as "for us and for our salvation." But in Church, I must recite the Creed as "for us men and for our salvation"?

Page 73 of the Priest Book -- "rather while remaining everlasting God, he appeared on earth and lived among men."

Sorry about quoting it from memory with the word "dwell" instead of "live".

Actually, there was a great deal of controversy over this very issue leading up to the 1917 Sobor. Some had been advocating a "Russification" of the non-Slavs. Of course, the Bolsheviks had been doing extensive "outreach" efforts among the non-Russians in Central Asia, so one of the concerns of the fathers at the council was to reiterate the need to use the non-Russian dialects in missionary work.

Somewhere in my stacks of books, I will try to recover the name of the book that discusses this.

This is a generalization. You will never convince me that people age 30 and under do not understand the meaning of the word, "mankind". And if it is true, then we have a much bigger problems than the RDL.

But let us pretend you are correct. By your own admission, you are saying that the secular world is teaching our youth a new feminized neutral English language (to people who have "little church background who are products of our universal schools").

And so I think you are saying that the Church should surrender to these secularizations and adopt the same thinking so that the youth will better understand the Liturgy.

Absurd.