www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Another Open Letter to Father David

One thing that is more objectionable is the Uniontown Basilian translation of "Blazhen Muzh", or "Blessed is the Man". They have this translated as "Blessed is the One". The big problem with this is that the particular psalm is considered to be Messianic, and refers personally to Jesus Christ.

Dn. Robert

So Deacon -- why can "Blessed is the One" not still apply to Jesus? I don't see, logically, why the pronoun "One" cannot apply to Jesus and be understood messianically.

There is a hermeneutical question here when it comes to messianic psalms. As the Pope has pointed out in his recent book on Jesus, often these Old Testament passages have multiple meanings and interpretations exist on several layers. Thus the translator is forced to decide which interpretation to stress without doing undue justice to the other interpretations/layers.

In the case you mentioned the translation preserves the Messianic emphasis (Blessed is the One) while also allowing for the moral interpretation that stresses that each follower of Christ should not stand with the wicked, etc.

Fr Serge has given us a good illustration of how important it is to preserve humor when talking about these kinds of things. My post was in jest -- a little humor to lighten the day and conversation.

No response needed -- just a chuckle or two

In this case, I think it is most appropriate to say "Blessed is the Man" specifically because it refers to Our Lord Jesus Christ, who took on a male human nature (this is also one of the arguments for restricting Holy Orders to males-a priest stands in the place of Jesus Christ, who took on a male human nature. The imagery is one where He is the bridegroom-the Church is the bride). I would be willing to bet everything I own that if you presented this question to Benedict XVI, we would be back to singing "Blessed is the Man". Rome has counseled against using this type of language because of all the theological difficulties which can arise. Even in the use of the term "mankind", Liturgiam Authenticam says to retain this usage, and to catechize to the effect that the word is, in fact, inclusive of women. I heartily concur.

Dn. Robert

This further illustrates the politically correct secular mindset that we now see infiltrating the Ruthenian Catholic Church. How very sad.

Dear Mr. Hashinski,

Please excuse me if I don�t understand your question. I would think it is clear that women have �needs.� After all, men have �needs,� human beings have �needs,� Christian faithful have �needs.� When I wrote this sentence, I was thinking of church documents that address �needs,� that is, let us say, the role and position of women in the community of faith, as, for example:
John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio (November 22, 1981): AAS 74 (1982), 81-191; Apostolic Letter Mulieris dignitatem (August 15, 1988): AAS 80 (1988), 1653-1729; Letter to Families (February 2, 1994): AAS 86 (1994), 868-925; Letter to Women (June 29, 1995): AAS 87 (1995), 803-812; Catechesi sull'amore umano (1979-1984): Insegnamenti II (1979) � VII (1984): English translation in The Theology of the Body, (Boston: Pauline Books Media, 1997); Congregation for Catholic Education, Educational Guidance in Human Love (November 1, 1983); Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family (December 8, 1995).

For the Orthodox Church, I would recommend �The Place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women.� (Interorthodox Symposium, Rhodes, Greece, 1988. This was edited by Gennadios Limouris and published by Tertios Publication in 1992 (ISBN 960-7297-41-5)

All of the above are conservative documents, but at least they take the �needs� of women to be a serious question worth discussion.

I think these documents give a different perspective than some of the postings here, which seem to me to shout out one thing: �Keep women in their place,� and that any change in women�s role has to come from the feminist movement in secular society. I have written before that I do not like to discuss these issues in this forum, because it does not seem possible to discuss them without an emotionally charged reaction from some posters that to me seems to border on hysteria.

My position is simple, I feel that some �horizontal inclusive language� is desirable as an expression of our faith that women can be saved by the divine economy of God. This is, I presume, our common faith, and that everyone who reads this, though they may not agree with my conclusion about language, will at least admit the salvation of women. Those who hold to a conservative position say that no linguistic adjustment is necessary because the language we have has served for centuries, and any change that is made now will come from secularist pressure. I disagree, and very strongly agree with Fr. John Mack�s opinions in this. The problem is that the questions we are now asking are questions that have not been asked before, and once they are asked, demand a Christian response. The Christian response is that women, as well as men, can be saved. The conservative response will then be: �This is true, but in the English language, the default gender is masculine, and that therefore, the masculine words and pronouns refer to both genders.� I say, yes and no. For example, I would not say, �I will speak to the men of the Ladies Guild about this.� Of course, the response will be: whenever you speak only about women, you use the feminine gender, but when the group is mixed, you use the masculine gender. But even here there are nuances, for example, I would not say, �I will speak to the men of the church about this,� intending both men and women, because some may hear, only �men.� I would probably say, �I will speak to the church membership about this.� The number of examples could be multiplied. For the Church to proclaim and say what it means, it may be necessary to adjust the language in accord with general language protocols, over which the Church does not have absolute control. In this, I may at times disagree with some church officials who take a more reactionary (in the sense of reacting to the feminist movement, both within and outside the church) who hold that the language has not, in fact, changed. I believe languages change more quickly now because of the speed of communications, but this is a sociological question that can be discussed on more scientific terms. I would agree with Fr. John Mack and reject absolutely any suggestion that any sympathy for some changes in vertical inclusive language must come from the secular feminist movement. The church is one of the influences in many social movements that occur, even when the results seem to be totally secular. For the scientific movement, I read N. Max Wildiers, �The Theologian and His Universe.� Fr. Mack pointed out slavery. Slave owners pointed to 1 Corinthians 7:20-1 to justify slavery from the Holy Book, �Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called. Were you a slave when you were called? Do not be concerned but, even if you can gain your freedom, make the most of it.� Likewise, I believe that at least some aspects of the women�s movement come from Christian faith, and that we tend to be much too �black and white� on this issue. In passing, I also think we make too much of the �black and white� principle that anything in the social realm from the 60's and 70's is absolutely evil. Some bad things happened - yes - but also some good things, just as today in the 90's and the 00's some things that happen will be seen as �bad� and others as �good.�

One problem that should be addressed is the problem of gender in language. The French, Italian and German languages, among others, have a grammatical gender. Every noun receives a �gender� depending on how it is declined. This may explain the references in Syriac to �ruah,� (Spirit�) as feminine. However, in English there is not a �grammatical gender,� so our mentality concerning gender may be quite different. Many of the people making decisions about English may come from a different linguistic culture where gender has a lesser impact. I would hope that these issues can be discussed on an objective plane.

Even though said in jest, a response (in full, probably best not here) would have served as an important teaching tool. It may not have been realized, but this is actually a very good example to illustrate an important point, which I'm surprised I had not seen before. I hope the point still serves a purpose, and we -- all -- understand exactly what we're chuckling about.

Dn. Anthony

Dear Father David,

English does have grammatical gender in some instances (I almost wrote "in some cases," but that could cause serious confusion!). A sailing vessel is normally thought to be somehow "feminine" and is referred to by feminine pronouns; the same is true of a cat. A dog is often referred to in the masculine gender, regardless of whether the specific dog is male or female. And so on. Recently, though, there is a strange tendency to reject quite well-known and accepted terms such as actress, poetess, comedienne, and so on - I'm not at all sure why, since these are not offensive words. Contrariwise, nobody is startled or offended if the head cook in a fine restaurant is called (and addressed as) "chef", regardless of whether he is masculine or she is feminine.

The most controversial of such words, though, seems to be "priestess", which has been in the English language for many centuries and means, quite simply, a woman who is somehow a priest - perhaps in some non-Christian religion or perhaps, much more recently, in some variety of Christianity which attempts to ordain women to a form of priesthood. Yet no one seems offended by, for example, "nun", which is as clearly feminine as "priestess".

I suppose the point here is simply that a discussion of this matter has become almost impossible because of the emotions on all the possible sides of such a discussion.

fraternally yours in Christ,

Fr. Serge

If you are saying that those who are vehemently opposed to neutralized language in the Liturgy, is an equivalent to wanting to �keep women in their place�, then I would say that you are sadly mistaken. Is this not the same argument that the radical feminists make?

Neutralizing the language of the Liturgy shows women that they are saved also? My wife would be extremely offended at that statement!

I am familiar with many of the documents that Father David has listed (though I believe there is a newer and more accurate translation of the Theology of the Body that I have not yet seen) and thank him for posting them. They are all quite excellent. They do not, however, speak directly to the use of the English language in Liturgy. There are official Vatican documents that do so (such as Liturgiam Authenticam) and they need to be respected and followed.

The use of gender neutral language does not flow from the teachings contained in these documents. Documents on liturgical texts (like LA) flow directly from texts such as Father David listed above, and we see that LA (and the further clarifying directives) explicitly prohibits gender neutral language of the type used in the Revised Divine Liturgy. The main problem with gender neutral language is that it originates from a political agenda, one that is not compatible with a correct understanding of women (it does not seek true equality of men and women in the Christian understanding given in the documents referenced above but, rather, seeks to erase all innate differences between men and women (i.e., equality = sameness). The demand for gender neutral language in our society is based on politics and is not a natural development of language. Terms like �man� and �mankind� are verboten not because people cannot understand them but because a small segment of our population is offended by them. The correct response here is education. Refusal to accept language that is based upon a political agenda is by no means an attempt to �keep women in their place�. My advocacy of obeying the Vatican directives regarding language in Liturgy is based upon 1) the need for exactingly accuracy in translation (as literal as is possible while being as elegant as possible) and 2) the need for the Liturgy not to embrace political language (which is exactly what gender neutral language is). There is nothing about Standard English that �keeps women down�. But when the Church freely chooses to embrace a style of language that originates and is demanded by political correctness she cannot but help tie herself to that agenda.

I agree that the issue is very emotional for some on both sides of the issue. That the issue of gender neutral language raises such emotions is yet more evidence that it is not a natural development of language. And yet the issue needs to be discussed. I suspect this will remain a very contentious issue in the Ruthenian Church so long as the Ruthenian bishops continue to outright reject Vatican directives on Liturgy.

The Church acknowledges a difference between liturgical language and street language. Translations of liturgical texts demand doctrinal precision. Speaking to the various groups in a parish does not. Both rely on context for understanding.

When the creed is changed from the very precise �who for us men and our salvation� to �who for us and our salvation� it looses doctrinal precision. The use of the term �men� is clear. It is inclusive of all men from Adam and Eve until the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. Even a young teen or adult who was force fed by our educational system that he ought to accept gender neutral language can understand from the context that the term �men� includes women (and if he opens a dictionary he can easily verify the inclusiveness of the term �man�). But the omission of the term man (in �who for us and our salvation�) brings in doctrinal impreciseness as it potentially excludes all those who are not present at that gathering. One could correctly render this �who for us humans and our salvation� but such a phrase sounds silly and reeks of science fiction (it makes me think of �who for us earthlings and our salvation� and then I start laughing).

It seems to me that the mess created in the translations of the Roman Mass came about because of those in the Church who came from different linguistic cultures did not understand these issues. But now we see that the Vatican is very attentive to the need for exactingly correct translations. We see a reform of ICEL. We see Vox Clara.

Texts should be translated accurately (that is, with doctrinal precision). They need to be free from every suggestion of politics (and gender neutral language is a creation of politics). Standard English is the only way forward. The Ruthenian bishops need to embrace the principles given in Liturgiam Authenticam.

To expand on the above comments by "Recluse", allow me to "turn the tables" a bit. The suggestion was that those opposed to feminist language in the Liturgy are samehow engaged in an agenda to "keep women in their place". I would suggest that those promoting this rather stilted way of praying are engaged in promoting the agenda of Radical Feminism within the Church. Over the years, I've been told by some male Basilians, and by more than a few of our Eparchial priests that certain female Basilians (the great "movers and shakers" behind the promotion of the use of "inclusive" language in our liturgical books), want to become priests. Names were named. Those who are opposed to this type of language are not out to "keep women in their place". Rather, they are concerned about preserving orthodoxy in the official prayer of the Church. Rome is of the same mind, as evidenced by the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam for the benefit of the Latin Church (and, I might add, for the edification of the Universal Church, at least in spirit) , whereas some of those involved in the review and promulgation of the RDL (i.e. Rober Taft, SJ) are on record as being enemies of Liturgiam Authenticam, and as wholehearted proponents of this type of language. I might add that, in running with this Liturgical Translation, we run the risk of alienating our Eastern Orthodox brethren from dialogue toward reunion (contrary to the spirit of the 1996 Liturgical Instruction of the Congregation For Eastern Churches). While my "polling" is by no means scientific, I have shown a few local Orthodox priests copies of our new Liturgicon. The reactions were NOT positive. One OCA priest looked at me and said "why, all of a sudden, are we so concerned with gender"? Enough said.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

I read Fr. David's post and my head started to hurt. Sometimes when we sit in our "Ivory Tower" we think we know what people want and need. In order to know what women understand about the Liturgy, you actually have to talk with them -- the ordinary, regular, women; some who are educated formally, and some who are not; mothers; daughters; professionals. I truly do not believe this was done, nor do I believe it came from anyone other than the Sisters of St. Basil the Great.



Well, DUH. Do you really think women can't connect the dots on this concept that mankind included them?



No, you would probably say parishioners -- and a synonym for that is Layman -- and so the circle goes round again!!!!

I'll stick with Fr. Loya's assessment -- this inclusive language was fabricated by a group of hippie dippie artists from the 60's who are ready to retire but not before they put their mark on our beloved Divine Liturgy -- no matter how ugly it is. Because this issue is about them, not the church as a whole!

If it's any consolation a (male) friend who was working in Michigan, and an American citizen, about thirty years ago was driving to Windsor (in Ontario) once a week to be of assistance with a Catholic prayer group.

The Canadian customs agents eventually noticed that my friend was going back and forth one evening a week, regular as clockwork. So they finally asked him his occupation and where he was going. For "occupation" he gave them, quite honestly, his secular employment and showed them his ID with the name of the employing company on the ID. As to where he was going, he named the church where the prayer-group met.

This led the customs agents to ask if he was a priest, or a Brother, or something of the sort. To each of these questions, he answered, truthfully, in the negative.

This had the customs agents even more puzzled, until finally one of them said, triumphantly: "I know what he is! He's one of those Laymen! All the churches have them now!"

Satisfied, the agent wrote down "layman" as my friend's occupation.

Fr. Serge

I never said that needs don�t exist. My question was whose needs were you twisting our Lord�s words to satisfy? Several have responded that the push for inclusive language has risen from one of your church�s nunneries. The needs of feminists are different than women. I support the needs of women. My wife reminds me of it every day. But I am familiar with some women who subscribe to group-ism.


I am familiar with some of those documents, but not all of them. Which ones address the needs of feminists?


At least? You seem to imply that their conservative nature is deficient, but not that deficient to take the needs of women seriously. I applaud the fact that they address the needs of women. But the needs of women were never the point of all these threads and posts.


No, Father David. It is YOUR church that keeps women from serving as ordained ministers. When you decide to walk the walk instead of talk the talk, let me know. My opinion might change.


Hysteria? Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is considered borderline hysterical? This was a term that chauvinistic men used to refer to the weaker sex when they got upset. You can quit the needless characterizations.


The issue has NEVER been about admitting whether women can be saved. The issue is about a church changing the words of our Lord when he taught us the Beatitudes. A *son* of God has a deep and rich theological connotation, however masculine IT sounds; just as *wisdom* or *Sophia* has its own deep and rich theological connotation, however feminine IT sounds.


I know liberals who do not agree with your opinion. Btw, is this the same reason why the word *Orthodox* was never accepted? Yet, you all have dug deep to come up with *Theotokos* to refer to the mother of God. What are you guys really afraid of? You fear using *Orthodox* because it might rub your church members the wrong way (I can�t even begin to guess which ones would throw such hissy fits), yet you have no qualms about using inclusive language that upsets your most devoted, especially those (women) who DO know that the words are not being sexist or exclusive of them. Linguistic adjustment seems to be only a favor for those who yell loud enough. Was inclusive language really a favor?


The question was NEVER about whether women can be saved. This is a response to an un-asked question. We ALREADY know that answer. Women were the first to give witness to the resurrection!


First, quit using the word *conservative* when referring to orthodox believers. This is a charged political term carrying many nuances of meaning.

Our Lord said, �Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will become sons of God.� I do believe he was talking to several thousand people, men and women. Do you think that the typical male and female Jew of First Century Palestine were clueless over the connotations of what he meant? Do you think that all the women thought our Lord was counting them out?

Your list of examples only shows the ridiculous; it demeans anyone else as merely stupid idiots who can�t see how their English language has more than one context. Your decision to enlist inclusive language might also be considered as a way to satisfy the needs of women (feminists?), but it too can be taken to extreme nuances by faithful believers who consider such play with words as merely a feminist agenda. Wouldn�t it be prudent to simply use the words of our Lord knowing that it has its own meaning that is not offensive?


The Church should proclaim and say what it means � and also practice it. But what did our Lord mean? Does his words mean anything?


Yes, Father, language does change often and rapidly. No sooner that we get rid of *man* from our gender neutral lexicon that women begin using *guys* in its place! It�s the mercury bubble that keeps finding an outlet to pop out from after being suppressed. Women have every opportunity to use feminine words like *girls* or *gals*, but choose not to. *Girls* is considered sexist because it reminds many women of the days when the male boss referred to his *girls* (secretaries).


That ol� slavery example again. Slavery had many degrees and variants (ever hear of indentured servants?). The Bible also mentions married bishops too. But when Byzantine Catholics protested about mandatory celibacy being imposed on them (is this still the case at your seminary?), they either had to leave the church of their fathers or submit. But women cannot be priests in your church and seminarians at your seminary cannot be married. Or has this changed during these times of enlightenment? If not, what are you waiting for?


You are not supposed to refer to it as the *women�s movement*. This is sexist � as I was kindly reminded years ago. Just to let you know.


Take a long, hard look at your church. What were the fruits of the 60�s and 70�s? Compare those schools of theology or seminaries that are *orthodox* (many people confuse them as conservative) and those that are not. The orthodox-minded schools are packed. The wishy-washy ones are empty. The 60�s and 70�s never convinced them that truth was more truer according to that generation.


You don�t mean the so-called hysterical plane?

Ed Hashinsky

I also attended the Uniontown Pilgrimage for the first time last year(2007). It was a very moving and powerful experience, however the Acathist Hymn borderlined on being an abomination. I mentioned my dismay to a veiled sister who dismissed my concerns. I told her that this was a slippery slope to start down, she informed me that they would not change the language used for GOD. I also found the remarks made by Mother seraphim to be filled with many new age buzz words, and she couldn't find one Byzantine Father or Mother to quote. The sad truth that the last vocation they had is the most orthodox and faithful member of that community and has suffered at the hand of members of her own community who have an agenda that seems to be different than building up the Catholic Church. Perhaps im just an ignorant layman, but I believe we have no authority to alter Divine Revelation to suit the times. How empty is our seminary? Let us pray for a genuine spiritual and liturgical renewel for the Byzantine Catholic Church.