www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy General Summary of How the RDL Violates Vatican Directives

My cat snarls at politically-correct gender neutral language! All cats become vicious when confronted with bad theology.

The whole move to re-write the texts with inaccurate language just so that it is gender neutral is rooted in the politics of secular feminism. That is part of the reason the Vatican has labeled it (like this example of omitting the word "men" in the Creed) as "theologically grave". That good people don't see the root politics does not mean that they don't exist.

Secular humanism and gender feminism is one thing.

Seeking to make the texts as accurate as possible is another.

There was a proposal about 20 years ago that Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics using the Byzantine Rite publish common texts of the Divine Liturgy and other services. Unfortunately, the commission failed, chiefly because the Eastern Catholic delegation led, I believe, by Fr. Robert Taft, insisted on so called inclusive language and modern English. As the pdf article notes the idea of modern "inclusive language" is foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.
You should note that every Eastern Orthodox Church uses the same text for the services, although the English translations may differ. The Greeks favor modern English, while the Antiochians and OCA favor more traditional Elizabethian English.
I should note that it is quite common in the Eastern Orthodox Church for the Priest to read or chant the Anaphora out loud so that the people can hear it. His Beatitude, Patriarch Ignatius IV, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch endorsed reading the Anaphora out loud.

Fr. John W. Morris

Hi Father. Is there further reading available on that effort?

(I realize I'm coming in quite late to this thread -- I'm not on this subforum very often.)

Chiefly because of the Eastern Catholic delegation? I doubt it. The way I heard it was there was no delegation, only a proposal that never got of the ground for lack of interest of all parties. Neither Orthodox or Eastern Catholics can agree to common texts within their own jurisdictions. How could they get several jurisdictions to agree with one?

I do recall that at least ACROD and the BCC were going to put a common text together but that never happened. The "Blue Pew Book" that is in most ACROD parishes has a lot of translation that is the exact of the old 1966? Archeparchy of Munhall. I believe much of that came from the joint proposal. When the BCC finally got around to their part approx. 20 years later, they created the "teal terror". Which totally "ran off the rails".

This ^^ is an old post, but regardless I'm glad to see I'm not the only person on this forum who doesn't agree with "All gender neutral language is the result of politics, and is odious."

Gender neutral language has its place. It is recommended in style books, like The Chicago Manual of Style and the APA Manual of Style, for all modern publications.

That said, editors and technical writing instructors generally agree that this kind of language is best applied in degrees and that language used in things like the Pledge of Allegiance or in categories such as prayer are static and, therefore, may be immune to gender neutral language strictures.

Which is very different from saying that it is all odious.