www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology How Many Are Thinking About Leaving?

If the new Divine Liturgy of Metropolitan Archbishop Basil is as bad as predicted how many will feel isolated from the Church and consider leaving?

I have stated before that I am very concern about the inclusive language. So much so that I have reading books on Orthodoxy.

If are considering leaving would you go to another ECC or Orthodoxy (i.e. ACROC, OCA)?

Regarding the new Liturgy translation:

We don't have all the facts. I found some of what Jeff posted today helpful. I think it would be beneficial if more was known so that rumors could be squelched. Then real feedback could begin. Perhaps someone could post what's being done at the Seminary if that's the currrent prototype?

I have qualms about leaving. I did that once before and decided I'd made a mistake and I ended up returning to the Catholic Church. If the people who want to see our Church restore authentic Byzantine tradition all leave what's going to happen to our Church?

I think we need to know what really is planned and then based on that we can make our feelings known to our hierarchs.

Inclusive language is dangerous, yes, but is it a reason to leave the Catholic Church? Perhaps I am still a bit too Roman in my way of thinking, but breaking communion with the See of Rome seems like a dangerous thing to do, particularly if the move is made over liturgical changes. In my mind, such a move is analogous to a disenchanted Roman joining a group such as the SSPX (although our Orthodox brethren are to be held in MUCH higher regard, to be sure!!!). The Liturgy is valid, orthodoxy may be preached... but visible unity has been destroyed from within. Perhaps we should just sit it out and actually see what's been promulgated before thinking about jumping ship.

As an Orthodox priest, I would be a fool not to welcome someone into the church. BUT, before anything is done in haste, I would really check into what is being done in the liturgical translation. Remember in the Orthodox world when it comes to English, I can think of several different linguistic uses of English, from Old English to contemporary language. It seems that almost every jurisdiction uses a different venacular translation. Have the seminary post some samples. Read about it and pray about it. Then if you can not live with it spiritually, look at your options. I have tried to stay out of the discussions on the language, but when people are acting on rumor to enter the Orthodox Church, that is when I say WHOA!

In the Risen Christ,
Father Anthony+

Come let us reason!

Up until now I have been relatively silent on the proposed changes and the ensuing discussion.

After this, I am almost speechless...

Are our faith and ecclesial affiliations such fragile things that a new liturgical translation, however faulty we may regard it, tempts us to set a course that involves rejecting full union with our hierarchs and, through them, the See of Rome?

I think we should be careful not to yield perpective to passion. I think that we should trust our shepherds and the process that was utilized to refine the translation - a process which involved some lay participation as well as the labors of great liturgists and theologians, I understand - and work to grow our communities, not divide or leave them.

What can I say? I am truly perplexed.

Gordo

I believe that's not a solution.

First of all, no one has said how the exact changes will be and how much they will affect your Byzantine-American liturgy. I don't see anything that would imply a radical departure just as the Roman rite was affected by Paul VI's reforms.

Now, if this happens, aren't there traditionalist priests in your dioceses that would not accept the changes if they are harmful? Why not joining with them, why not starting a Byzantine-Catholic Traditionalist Movement?

You have to remember most of us have not seen this revised liturgy. I need to see what's there - or not there - before I react to it. As for people leaving the Byzantine Church, it's been done many times before. I hate to say it, but on that score, we are almost the Baptists of the East.

I am reminded of what Pope John Paul II told a group of American bishops during their ad limina visit in 1993:

Hopefully the new liturgical texts will be free of doctrinal ambiguity and ideological perspectives that harm the unity of the Church.

But until the texts are actually released, I don't see how anyone can make a decision about going to another Eastern Catholic Church or becoming Orthodox.

CaelumJR,

What Patriarch of Rome attended any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils?

Everyone else,

In a world which is unstable and ever changing the Liturgy is something stable and good for a person to anchor. When the Liturgy because changeable with the whim of a priest or bishop it tends to leave some on shaky ground.

Ray,
It is NOT " the Divine Liturgy of Metropolitan Archbishop Basil"!!!

In this era, I have found almost no two BC parishes that celebrate the Divine Liturgy the exact same way in terms of antiphons, litanies, and prayers aloud. There will always be differences even with promulgation of the new translation and rubrics. The BCC isn't the only church that has differences, so do the OCA.

I left the BCC church in general many years ago because of frustration and wanting to see what else there was and yet found myself drawn back to it. While there may be some things that I don't fully agree with, I will still remain BC (rusyn).

Steve

Exactly.
Leave to go WHERE? In your own church they may change a few minor parts of the Litugy, but to leave would mean radical change. Change of community/driving distance/cantor and melody/priest/pirohi recipies, etc. and/or a possible a change from Catholicism to Orthodoxy.
These are major changes compared to a few dropped Grant It O Lords.
"Our People" don't like change at all. To make such major changes because of minor changes would shake them up wayyyy too much. I personally don't forsee a mass exodus. In my experience the Rank and File will grumble amongst themselves and get used to it. Not much testosterone left among the majority of our (median age 65) people.

Sam

Fr David's post I was looking for one in particular, but since I have found them and I personally feel you are running around in circles here is most,not all, of what he has said in one place. Also, I am not making a comment in any way, I am just trying to facilitate your discussion..........

This is the one on inclusive language, seems like he is referring to the word men as being changed. Seems to me we use the phrase 'all men and women' at a certain point at St. Georges.......

Fr. David writes:

Now this is curious. Inclusive language is out because Rome says so, but the new translation is out despite the fact that Rome says yes to it.
I remark on this despite the fact that my observations will make no difference, because this has become an emotional issue, and it is not simply a linguistic question, it is a reaction against the whole feminist movement. But there are different kinds of feminism. Some are radical and extreme and divisive and heretical. However, I think we should pay some attention to the position of women, and there are some moderate, reasonable forms of feminism. Orthodoxy in America is not a monolith against all women! A common translation was made about ten years ago, by a blue ribbon panel of Orthodox scholars, which was rejected, but which also took into consideration language about women, and was actually more inclusive than our present translation. See also the Orthodox International Symposium at Rhodes in 1988 on the place of women.
There is a particular problem in the English language about the use of the word �man� and �men.� All conservatives that I know say: in English the word �man� is equivalent to �human being - male and female.� However, it does seem that there is an ambiguity. So Rome can authorize an official English translation of a particular document and title it �Why Only Men Can be Ordained to the Priesthood,� and we all know what it means. If �men� is not ambiguous, then they should have used the word �males.� The original text in Greek uses �anthropos� and this word has no ambiguity in Greek, it means �a member of the human race,� or so Greek scholars tell me. The problem then becomes one of translation.
Yes, some political correctness is silly. And so the strident cries, �No secularism in the Church.�
Secularism = feminism = inclusive language = etc. But it not all the same. People, we speak the same language that the secular world speaks, otherwise we could not speak to it or with it or, for that matter, with anybody! It saddens me that we harden our hearts against the legitimate - and I want to underline and emphasize the word �legitimate� - concerns of women. My faith is this: some forms of horizontal inclusive language are admissible, because, after all, we have to say what we believe - and what I believe is that Jesus died on the Cross to save both men and women. Amen, brothers and sisters, and Anna P. Sadly for us weak men, it was the women who remained faithful to Jesus to the Cross, except for John, and it was the women to whom the risen Christ first appeared.

There is no place for secular inclusive language in a church liturgy that is suppose to transcend
"earthly cares". It is bad enough that Roman Catholics have on-going liturgical turmoil. When such turmoil begins to creep into the Eastern Catholic Churches, it should be great concern of all the faithful. When these changes made by a few are forced upon the faithful it ceases to be a small, insignificant change.

Ungcsertezs

sam,

I could care less about that! What I am concerned about is inclusive Language. Inclusive language is against the Bible. It is a very black and white issue for me.

"Lover of mankind" to "Lover of us" is NOT the same thing. Webster says, /'man-'kInd, -"kInd/ : the human race : the totality of human beings

Please tell me where I am wrong! I am very open minded if the response is logical.

There is a special place in Hell for those who mess with the pirohi recipes. You can tinker with the liturgy all you want, but watch your backside if you alter pirohi recipes.

Joe Thur