www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy In a Nutshell, what is the RDL?

"Brethren" is still preferred by Rome. "Brothers and sisters" is a concession.

"Brethren" has the advantage of being a single, inclusive term.

"Brothers and sisters" is a multi-word phrase. It already looses the value of inclusiveness and consistency that "brethren" has. It is also inexact (it introduces gender, and does it really include children?).

The clergy and faithful are right to be worried about the gender neutral language in the RDL. Anyone with a brain can see that the Committee to Revise the Liturgy merely did a find and replace to any word that they felt had might hint at masculine overtones to the secular feminists. And look at the damage they have done to our Church!

That's o.k., because all this silliness will close our churches. Which I'm convinced is the original plan.

Anyone who has done any research on the topic of inclusive language will know that it drives men from the church. The majority of the people who attend church are women, because the church by nature is feminine. Throw in the inclusive language, and you've now disenfranchised men. And the last time I checked, we are still only ordaining men. If they're turned off and don't come who will become our priests?

Consider....

The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories. (U.S. Congregational Life Survey – Key Findings,” 29 October 2003, <www.uscongregations.org/key.htm [uscongregations.org]>)

On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches.(Barna Research Online, www.barna.org [barna.org])

This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands. (Barna Research Online, www.barna.org [barna.org])

A study from Hartford Seminary found that the presence of involved men was statistically correlated with church growth, health, and harmony. Meanwhile, a lack of male participation is strongly associated with congregational decline.

Read more and learn for yourself, "Why Men Hate Going to Church," by David Murrow.

Stuart,

I am a Communications major, I understand words and language quite well. I simply disagree that "brothers and sisters" is an improper or harmful usage. You may want to ponder your own accusation, however. Your posting style is often unbecoming of a Christian gentleman.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Sure this is reasonable at the colloquial level. I still must inquire of all who understand and advocate such explicit egalitarianism in the liturgy, however, what is intended to be accomplished?

Consider, we are informed, that MANkind is no good, but huMANkind is ok. Brothers is no good, but there's brethren, which has no BRO in it, and there is no longer a sistren to compete, so why wouldn't brethren be seen as inclusive in its very form? Besides all this word-chunk conjuring, an actual liturgical text is being translated. What is that text, what does it say, and how does it say it? Remember being told by RDL inclusive language advocates that anthrōpos is only inclusive, unlike the English man -- this is even on the catechetical DVD if I recall -- when in fact it was easily shown not to be so.

So what are the facts, what is the text? I’m looking at the petition in the litany after the Gospel, and the petitions are not exactly the same in the Greek ( link [patronagechurch.com] near bottom) and the Slavonic( link [patronagechurch.com], p217 just past middle). But one can identify the common phrase by the term “in Christ” as in “for all our brethren/brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Of what is the RDL a translation, the Greek or the Slavonic? The Greek word is adelphotētos, a feminine grammatical gender, singular form meaning a collective entity, a fellowship or brotherhood inclusive of male and female. The Greek has words for brothers and sisters and they are not found here. The Slavonic has bratii. Is this what is being translated in the RDL? Is it just brothers. The Slavonic has a word for sisters and it is not found here. It seems an inclusive sense must be conveyed in the Greek and Slavonic and this was understood in those languages. English has the same limitation and understanding if one will simply allow it, the same implied inclusivity as in the source languages.

Does this implied inclusivity, by intent, serve a theological purpose?

RSV Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Does “brothers and sisters” instead set up an explicit dual relationship, male and female, in Christ?

"I am a Communications major, I understand words and language quite well. I simply disagree that "brothers and sisters" is an improper or harmful usage. You may want to ponder your own accusation, however. Your posting style is often unbecoming of a Christian gentleman."

I'm a writer and an editor. My wife is a professional translator and editor who speaks six Slavic languages as well as Slavonic. We understand both editing and translating, and what passes to you as appropriate violates multiple rules of translation and editing. That's just a fact.

As regards my posting style and imputed accusations, consider the beam in thine own eye, since repeated assertions that "Rome says it's OK and that's good enough for me" is a veiled accusation that those who disagree are somehow disloyal to the Holy See. I think the jury is still out on that one, especially given what we know about how the RDL was promulgated, the manifest errors (of which inclusive language is but one) in the "translation" (it's really more of an invention), and the criticism that has been directed at it by people far more qualified than either of us.

"Does “brothers and sisters” instead set up an explicit dual relationship, male and female, in Christ?"

This is an excellent observation, and points out the paradox: by attempting inclusions, the language actually serves the purpose of division and exclusion.

It is not a veiled accusation. It is pointing out the irony that those who appeal to Rome's documents and directions on translation and liturgy consistently ignore that Rome, even in the new translations allows brothers and sisters. You can't appeal to Rome for everything then reject them when they disagree with you. Well, you can but it is inconsistent.

Fr. Deacon Lance

"It is pointing out the irony that those who appeal to Rome's documents and directions on translation and liturgy consistently ignore that Rome, even in the new translations allows brothers and sisters."

Rome could approve the text on gold plates nailed to the doors of St. Peter's. That won't make the "translation" correct, any more than you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Ecclesiastical authority can't trump cold, hard facts. The earth does move around the sun, and the RDL is an abysmal piece of work linguistically, theologically and aesthetically. Those are just inconvenient facts.

As regards appeals to the Holy See: Rome has a large bureaucracy, in which the right and the left hand frequently do not know what the other is doing--when they are not deliberately working at cross purposes. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for the Sacred Liturgy frequently opposed each other with regard to worship in the Latin Church, which is why it finally took the elevation of the Prefect of the CDL to the Holy See itself to break the logjam.

In all of this, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches is very much small beer, not to mention habitually staffed by the most latinized bishops and monsignori one can find. Therefore, there is no inconsistency in alerting the Holy See to the fact that one of its dicasteries has approved a liturgical text that violates fundamental principles promulgated not only by other dicasteries, but by itself as well. Rome's principal authority, historically, is appellate (Council of Sardica, 342), so if you can't get no satisfaction from your bishop ("The bishop does not speak to ordinary people"--anonymous voice on Chancery phone line), or you Metropolitan, then you have every right to appeal to Rome, Repeatedly. Until you get an answer. All the more so when the man who supposedly reviewed the text prior to its approval disavows any such approval on his part.

Might I suggest that both Father Deacon Lance and StuartK forgive the personal remarks and return to the topic?

I will mention one thing. If Father Deacon does think that we who support accurate translations are ignoring Rome then he must doubly think that those like Father David Petras are exponentially worse. Father David has openly dissed "Liturgicam Authenticam" as bad theology (speaking in terms of bad "anthropology" because he felt the lack of support for gender neutral language was an affront to women). He has also stated plainly that he thought that Pope Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger when he wrote most of what has been quoted in these discussions) was wrong in his theology.

As to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches I daresay that Stuart is correct. I've been told that all these years that Bishop Pataki was successful in his ventures because he was a good politician - giving wonderful gifts to those in Rome who could accomplish what he wanted done. Rubber-stamping things happens all the time in bureaucracies, including the Vatican bureaucracies. I've also seen nuance from them. Their responses to my own letters seems to say that the translation of Chrysostom was approved but not the rubrics or Basil or the changeable texts. All very interesting and telling.

As to the discussion about brethren I would ask Deacon Lance to respond by discussing the theology of the issue. "Brethren" or "brothers" is the most literal translation for the Slavonic term. "Brethren" has a long history of use in the Ruthenian and most other Churches. Can he provide us with a solid theological and/or translation reason as to why it is now deemed unacceptable? And in what way does using a phrase like "brothers and sisters" (which introduces gender and is potentially exclusive of children) improve upon "brethren"? And finally, since Rome has places "Brethren" first in its translations of the Roman Mass and places "brothers and sisters" in parenthesis indicating alternate usage what sense does it make for Ruthenians to totally remove the preferred term it has used for 40 years and replace it with an alternate one?

Finally, I will suggest to posters that for the sake of accuracy they refrain from using the term "inclusive language". Using the term is misleading as using it already buys into the idea that the standard English we have used ("men", "Christ loves mankind") is somehow less then inclusive. That is untrue. Indeed, it is the language labeled as "inclusive" that is really potentially exclusive (according to the Vatican). It is best always to call it what it is - gender neutral.

And one more 'finally'. "Brothers and sisters" is less then accurate and rather poor theology. But it is not the worst example of gender neutral language in the RDL. The removal of the word "men" from the Creed (potentially excluding salvation for those not present) and the "loves us all" silliness (thus making Jesus a really nice guy but not a lover of all men) is far worse. I continue to petition Rome and I have no doubt that eventually the people will have their right to the Ruthenian Divine Liturgy in its fullness and in accurate translation upheld.

Peccavi, Administrator.

There are two exceptions: Orthodox Judaism and Orthodoxy, both of which draw more men than women. I would think that would apply to Eastern Rite, but perhaps not. And the feminized church is not recent, but dates back to the 12th century and eroticized mysticism.

See The Church Impotent, by Leon J. Podles.

"There are two exceptions: Orthodox Judaism and Orthodoxy"

Neither one of which is big on egalitarianism or inclusive language, so the observation that most Churches and ecclesial communities are dominated by woman holds. Podles' attempt to foist it all off on Bernard of Clairvaux is not entirely fair--I think poor Bernard would be pretty much appalled at where the Church is today.

Given that the revision required approval from Rome, (as the Ruthenian Catholic Church is neither a major archiepiscopal nor patriarchal church,) specifically from the Pope, prior to implementation, it is explicitly true that Rome approved all the changes.

However, I'm of the mind that that change is counter-biblical for the opening of the reading. (I submit to my bishop's authority, and do what is instructed. If I don't like it, I offer it up as sacrifice to God.)

In fact, aside from the Rome-mandated dropping of the Filoque, and the use of Theotokos, I hardly notice the text differences.

The changes in the Creed are problematic, both as a matter of witness to other Christians whom we may wish to proselytize, and to the Orthodox, with whom eventual reunification is an aim of the current pope. The creed should be translated as closely as possible.

Cum Data Fuerit approved the ban on married clergy back in 1929. I'm sure that is good enough for Father Deacon. Blind obedience even to what is wrong. Never seek to right a wrong.

As Deacon AJK stated so well: Let's be rational sheep. As financial and moral scandals have made all too clear, let's have the courage to tell our bishops that they're wrong -- even when it's not about the "important stuff," sex and money, but only the liturgy.

This goes for Rome, too, when Rome 's bureaucracy fails to enforce its own mandates on Liturgy and ignores the advice of even a great like Father Taft (and all the world knows now that the RDL is not his as we have been told, and that he openly condemns it).

I'm sure you would be wrong. But I try and pick my battles. Even after LA has come into force, both the RNAB and NRSV lectionaries have been corrected and approved and the new English translation of the Roman Missal has been approved, all with some limited use of horizontal inclusive language (to use the language of LA), primarily the use of brothers and sisters. You have every right to protest to Rome. But to claim it is all some bureaucratic error given the attention and priority this has been given by the Holy Father stretches credulity.

As for Archimandrite Taft, I don't recall anyone saying that the RDL was his, only that he was the one who reviewed it for the Oriental Congregation. As for gender neutral language do a little research and you might be surprised whose suggestion that was.