www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy RDL Review from Peter Galadza

Don't worry--the hippies are getting old, and won't be with us much longer.

Yes. During my time in the Byzantine Catholic Church, it was impossible for me to hear this intentional PC distortion. It was impossible for me to keep my peace and remain prayerful during the Liturgy.

I feel very similarly. It's not a situation that can last forever.

The pc "inclusiveness" bothered me when I first heard it at Uniontown during the Akathist in the mid-90's, but it can be overcome.

Reading "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" by St John Climacus helped me to overcome my passion. Life can be difficult, but if we are open, it becomes bearable.....then, with prayer and reflection the troubles fade into non-existence.

During the Great Fast I re-read the Ladder; allow me quote on a similar subject,

If the height of gluttony is that you force yourself to eat even when you are not hungry, then the height of temperance in a hungry man is that he restrains even the justifiable urges of nature.

Peace to you all.

Fr. Deacon,

Fr David said:

"I reiterate that I was not primarily responsible for either the introductioin of nor wording of inclusive language as it appears in the latest working documents of the IELC. This is my last word on the subject, I am not lying, but I will not respond further on this subject."

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Thank you for this disclaimer by Fr. David; I recall it well and was aware of it when I commented as above. A close reading of my comment should confirm that I did not attribute the inclusive language debacle to Fr. David, only that it was a foundational element of the RDL, and that he, Fr. David, informed us of this, writing in this forum. For anyone who read more into my comment than is there, Fr. David's disclaimer serves as a clarification that I certainly endorse.

Whoever is responsible remains anonymous. Also, a close reading of Fr. David's comment, which I accept as he states it, is that he is "not primarily responsible for either the introductioin of nor wording of inclusive language as it appears..." [emphasis added]. He does say, for instance as quoted in the context of a previous post, "In my personal opinion, since we believe that God saves both men and women, we should say this more often.":

I have read "The Ladder of Divine Ascent"....The Philokalia series....Unseen Warfare.....and any number of other writings from the Holy Fathers. But alas, it does not quell my displeasure regarding the gender neutral language that is forced into the Divine Liturgy.

Right, especially in the Nicene Creed. Even in the RC, they still have the Creed said the right way, despite the New Roman Missal.

Yes. They still say, "For us men."

I'm sympathetic with your concern about the language. However, its best to find a way to overcome the dislikes, whether of language, people, religious art, or whatever keeps us from a communion with God, especially during the Divine Liturgy. Everyone finds consolation in a unique way and everyone needs help carrying his cross. I found that reading a paragraph or two, then contemplating how the holy writer John's lesson can help me has been very comforting and teaches me about virtues of which I am lacking.

Just reading the book doesn't help a whole lot; in fact it could lead one to disdain piety and humility. If so, John's lesson about fear of death and judgment takes on extraordinary importance.

Prayers for blessed Fast.

Bad translation is bad translation. Words have meanings, so the wrong words convey the wrong meaning. To say otherwise is to fall into the error of relativism.

When Chesterton said "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly", he was not establishing a standard.

Yes, apart from obedience and humility and the practice of virtue in general there is the objective issue of the translation. Some, perhaps too many, have overcome their "dislikes" by leaving which, while understandable, is also considered so regrettable, I would think, by many of us who remain: had only they too remained to give "witness," for our poor BCCA is so wanting in souls. This translation issue is a matter of integrity of the text and the form of the liturgy; surely that must count for something. Yet while so transparent -- apparent -- to some it seems opaque to others, especially to those in authority. Or are they really satisfied with the RDL? If not, as the old saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

I was addressing a serious issue of a child of God stating the the translation interrupting his peace during the Divine Liturgy. I suggested, as a cleric (deacon) to layperson, a way to overcome temptation. I can't change the translation so I offered the best advice that I can out of pastoral concern.

I don't see how I am part of the problem because of this or because I have overcome a dislike over translation. I truly believe that some reversion will eventually occur and will tolerate the current format in the meantime. Are we adopting a "us" versus "them" mentality?

You know, there have been gender neutral changes which haven't been confronted, why is that? For example, in the beatitudes compared below are the old and the new:

OLD: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
NEW: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

Christ is amongst us,
Fr Deacon Paul

They certainly interrupted mine--and my wife's and my daughter's. Anyone who knows the Slavonic can only cringe upon hearing the words and the meaning of the normative text distorted, and in some cases inverted, by the inept hands of the translators, who decided to impose their own meaning upon the text, rather than letting it speak for itself. In so doing, the translators elevated themselves above the Tradition, which is certainly more than sufficient cause to be ill at ease and have second thoughts about whether the liturgical text accurately reflects the mind of the Church.


It certainly goes far beyond the inclusive language (which in itself is a manifestation of a secular frame of mind at odds with the Tradition). This is why developing the "translation" in secret, and not allowing it to be reviewed by competent scholars and translators (in other words, to subject it to some sort of peer review and quality control) was an error of the first magnitude, a reflection of the extreme clericalism of the Ruthenian Church which has been, and continues to be, the bane of its existence.

I certainly understand....and I found a solution that worked for me. I went to the Holy Orthodox Church. Of course my primary reasons were not because of the gender neutral language....but it was a nice little bonus for me.