Although I had put this in another thread, it deservers its own post. This is the reason why the Creed must be corrected!

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_p...amilies_en.html


Quote:
The Great Mystery

19. Saint Paul uses a concise phrase in referring to family life: it is a "great mystery" (Eph 5:32). What he writes in the Letter to the Ephesians about that "great mystery", although deeply rooted in the Book of Genesis and in the whole Old Testament tradition, nonetheless represents a new approach which will later find expression in the Church's Magisterium.

The Church professes that Marriage, as the Sacrament of the covenant between husband and wife, is a "great mystery", because it expresses the spousal love of Christ for his Church. Saint Paul writes: "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word" (Eph 5:25-26). The Apostle is speaking here about Baptism, which he discusses at length in the Letter to the Romans, where he presents it as a sharing in the death of Christ leading to a sharing in his life (cf. Rom 6:3-4). In this Sacrament the believer is born as a new man, for Baptism has the power to communicate new life, the very life of God. The mystery of the God-man is in some way recapitulated in the event of Baptism. As Saint Irenaeus would later say, along with many other Fathers of the Church of both East and West: "Christ Jesus, our Lord, the Son of God, became the son of man so that man could become a son of God".

The Bridegroom then is the very same God who became man. In the Old Covenant Yahweh appears as the Bridegroom of Israel, the chosen people—a Bridegroom who is both affectionate and demanding, jealous and faithful. Israel's moments of betrayal, desertion and idolatry, described in such powerful and evocative terms by the Prophets, can never extinguish the love with whichGod–the Bridegroom "loves to the end" (cf. Jn 13:1).

The confirmation and fulfilment of the spousal relationship between God and his people are realized in Christ, in the New Covenant. Christ assures us that the Bridegroom is with us (cf. Mt 9:15). He is with all of us; he is with the Church. The Church becomes a Bride, the Bride of Christ. This Bride, of whom the Letter to the Ephesians speaks, is present in each of the baptized and is like one who presents herself before her Bridegroom. "Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her..., that he might present the Church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:25-27). The love with which the Bridegroom "has loved" the Church "to the end" continuously renews her holiness in her saints, even though she remains a Church of sinners. Even sinners, "tax collectors and harlots", are called to holiness, as Christ himself affirms in the Gospel (cf. Mt 21:31). All are called to become a glorious Church, holy and without blemish. "Be holy", says the Lord, "for I am holy" (Lev 11:44; cf. 1 Pet 1:16).

This is the deepest significance of the "great mystery", the inner meaning of the sacramental gift in the Church, the most profound meaning of Baptism and the Eucharist. They are fruits of the love with which the Bridegroom has loved us to the end, a love which continually expands and lavishes on people an ever greater sharing in the supernatural life.

Saint Paul, after having said: "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25), emphatically adds: "Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body" (Eph 5:28-30). And he encourages spouses with the words: "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21).

This is unquestionably a new presentation of the eternal truth about marriage and the family in the light of the New Covenant. Christ has revealed this truth in the Gospel by his presence at Cana in Galilee, by the sacrifice of the Cross and the Sacraments of his Church. Husbands and wives thus discover in Christ the point of reference for their spousal love. In speaking of Christ as the Bridegroom of the Church, Saint Paul uses the analogy of spousal love, referring back to the Book of Genesis: "A man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24). This is the "great mystery" of that eternal love already present in creation, revealed in Christ and entrusted to the Church. "This mystery is a profound one", the Apostle repeats, "and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church" (Eph 5:32). The Church cannot therefore be understood as the Mystical Body of Christ, as the sign of man's Covenant with God in Christ, or as the universal sacrament of salvation, unless we keep in mind the "great mystery" involved in the creation of man as male and female and the vocation of both to conjugal love, to fatherhood and to motherhood. The "great mystery", which is the Church and humanity in Christ, does not exist apart from the "great mystery" expressed in the "one flesh" (cf. Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31-32), that is, in the reality of marriage and the family.

The family itself is the great mystery of God. As the "domestic church", it is the bride of Christ. The universal Church, and every particular Church in her, is most immediately revealed as the bride of Christ in the "domestic church" and in its experience of love: conjugal love, paternal and maternal love, fraternal love, the love of a community of persons and of generations. Could we even imagine human love without the Bridegroom and the love with which he first loved to the end? Only if husbands and wives share in that love and in that "great mystery" can they love "to the end". Unless they share in it, they do not know "to the end" what love truly is and how radical are its demands. And this is undoubtedly very dangerous for them.

The teaching of the Letter to the Ephesians amazes us with its depth and the authority of its ethical teaching. Pointing to marriage, and indirectly to the family, as the "great mystery" which refers to Christ and the Church, the Apostle Paul is able to reaffirm what he had earlier said to husbands: "Let each one of you love his wife as himself". He goes on to say: "And let the wife see that she respects her husband" (Eph 5:33). Respect, because she loves and knows that she is loved in return. It is because of this love that husband and wife become a mutual gift. Love contains the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of the other, and of his or her absolute uniqueness. Indeed, each of the spouses, as a human being, has been willed by God from among all the creatures of the earth for his or her own sake. Each of them, however, by a conscious and responsible act, makes a free gift of self to the other and to the children received from the Lord. It is significant that Saint Paul continues his exhortation by echoing the fourth commandment: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ?Honour your father and mother' (this is the first commandment with a promise), ?that it may be well with you and that you may live long on the earth'. Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" (Eph 6:1-4). The Apostle thus sees in the fourth commandment the implicit commitment of mutual respect between husband and wife, between parents and children, and he recognizes in it the principle of family stability.

Saint Paul's magnificent synthesis concerning the "great mystery" appears as the compendium or summa, in some sense, of the teaching about God and man which was brought to fulfilment by Christ. Unfortunately, Western thought, with the development of modern rationalism, has been gradually moving away from this teaching. The philosopher who formulated the principle of "Cogito, ergo sum", "I think, therefore I am", also gave the modern concept of man its distinctive dualistic character. It is typical of rationalism to make a radical contrast in man between spirit and body, between body and spirit. But man is a person in the unity of his body and his spirit. The body can never be reduced to mere matter: it is a spiritualized body, just as man's spirit is so closely united to the body that he can be described as an embodied spirit. The richest source for knowledge of the body is the Word made flesh. Christ reveals man to himself. In a certain sense this statement of the Second Vatican Council is the reply, so long awaited, which the Church has given to modern rationalism.

This reply is of fundamental importance for understanding the family, especially against the background of today's civilization, which, as has been said, seems in so many cases to have given up the attempt to be a "civilization of love". The modern age has made great progress in understanding both the material world and human psychology, but with regard to his deepest, metaphysical dimension contemporary man remains to a great extent a being unknown to himself. Consequently the family too remains an unknown reality. Such is the result of estrangement from that "great mystery" spoken of by the Apostle.

The separation of spirit and body in man has led to a growing tendency to consider the human body, not in accordance with the categories of its specific likeness to God, but rather on the basis of its similarity to all the other bodies present in the world of nature, bodies which man uses as raw material in his efforts to produce goods for consumption. But everyone can immediately realize what enormous dangers lurk behind the application of such criteria to man. When the human body, considered apart from spirit and thought, comes to be used as raw material in the same way that the bodies of animals are used—and this actually occurs for example in experimentation on embryos and fetuses— we will inevitably arrive at a dreadful ethical defeat.

Within a similar anthropological perspective, the human family is facing the challenge of a new Manichaeanism, in which body and spirit are put in radical opposition; the body does not receive life from the spirit, and the spirit does not give life to the body. Man thus ceases to live as a person and a subject. Regardless of all intentions and declarations to the contrary, he becomes merely an object. This neo-Manichaean culture has led, for example, to human sexuality being regarded more as a area for manipulation and exploitation than as the basis of that primordial wonder which led Adam on the morning of creation to exclaim before Eve: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gen 2:23). This same wonder is echoed in the words of the Song of Solomon: "You have ravished my heart, my sister, my bride, you have ravished my heart with a glance of your eyes" (Song 4:9). How far removed are some modern ideas from the profound understanding of masculinity and femininity found in Divine Revelation! Revelation leads us to discover in human sexuality a treasure proper to the person, who finds true fulfilment in the family but who can likewise express his profound calling in virginity and in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Modern rationalism does not tolerate mystery. It does not accept the mystery of man as male and female, nor is it willing to admit that the full truth about man has been revealed in Jesus Christ. In particular, it does not accept the "great mystery" proclaimed in the Letter to the Ephesians, but radically opposes it. It may well acknowledge, in the context of a vague deism, the possibility and even the need for a supreme or divine Being, but it firmly rejects the idea of a God who became man in order to save man. For rationalism it is unthinkable that God should be the Redeemer, much less that he should be "the Bridegroom", the primordial and unique source of the human love between spouses. Rationalism provides a radically different way of looking at creation and the meaning of human existence. But once man begins to lose sight of a God who loves him, a God who calls man through Christ to live in him and with him, and once the family no longer has the possibility of sharing in the "great mystery", what is left except the mere temporal dimension of life? Earthly life becomes nothing more than the scenario of a battle for existence, of a desperate search for gain, and financial gain before all else.

The deep-seated roots of the "great mystery", the sacrament of love and life which began with Creation and Redemption and which has Christ the Bridegroom as its ultimate surety, have been lost in the modern way of looking at things. The "great mystery" is threatened in us and all around us. May the Church's celebration of the Year of the Family be a fruitful opportunity for husbands and wives to rediscover that mystery and recommit themselves to it with strength, courage and enthusiasm.

Question I'm still trying to understand: we should refer to women as men, so that we understand the difference between the two? or is the problem that the change in the Creed is presumed to be made by individuals who are trying to confuse masculinity and femininity? Does referring to women as men really make the men more manly and the women more feminine?

I would have thought that the objection to "for us" was that it seems to downplay the very concept of a common human nature - on other words, that is sees men and women as too DIFFERENT to subsume under a common term.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

I really don't understand your comment.

The reason "men" was left out of the Creed is to make the Creed comport with modern American pc speech. That speech is a direct result of modern rationalism and a failure to recognize the fundamental truth about man, created male and female. IN the secular world, those who want to get rid of the word "man" in the English language are those reject the Church's teaching on human sexuality and meaning of matrimony. If you don't see that, I can't help you.

Fr. Petras, the only one who has attempted to defend "inclusive language" on a theoretical basis, said this:



Fr. David and I agree here. He continues:


.

There has been enormous social displacement and violence, Principally against the unborn. Far more lives have been lost in modern America than the persecutions under the Soviets and Nazis. Although I don't think Fr. Petras was referring to that violence which in fact is a reslut of modern rationalism.



Well, yes; and it has resulted in the violence of which I spoke because modern men and women don't understand the truth about their bodies or themselves. They are first and foremost called to be mothers and fathers and live in communion with one another instead of in a war of the sexes.

The Commission didn't need to change the Creed or the Divine Liturgy, they needed to educate people about the fundamental truth expressed in Genesis and Ephesians. An authentic translation of the Creed is only the beginning.

Words that ring so very true!

Jeff,



I think I now see the import of what you are saying above. "For us" does downplay the very concept of a common nature, and I would add, under a common term, "man." But "for us" also actually minimizes the difference in bodies between men and women, which difference bespeaks a certain knowledge of God in his creation of man. The complimentarity of men and women is shown in our very bodies, in our emotional dispositions, and in our persons.

The competing worldviews are between one which sees complimentarity which is lifegiving and another which looks towards a certain androgenous "nature" which exists beyond our bodies. This is the new Manichaeanism of which JPII speaks. This new Manichaeanism does not recognize that we truly are enfleshed beings. Hence the new Manichaeanism also rejects the incarnation, that Christ became man--bridegroom. For the new Manichaean, He became a "human being" not a man. But under the Church's true teaching He became a man, but not a human person. Nevertheless, the manhood of this Divine Person, in a very real sense, encompassed all of humanity for his Personhood is beyond our mortal nature.

The beauty of "for us men...he became a man" expresses the whole truth about the creation of man. Man was created to reflect God's glory even in his body, which God made, male and female. But in relationship to the Bridegroom, the Church and each soul is like a bride.

When we change the traditional language of the Church which has been handed down to us from the apostles, we never know the ways which we fall into error. Such changes will either be a true development in doctrine or reflect an error. The new Creed reflects a very modern error, but an error which strikes at the truth of creation which was from the beginning.

It is interesting to note at the beginning of section 19 of JPII's letter to families the Pope states:



One author I am reading on the Theology of the Body maintains rather forcefully that the Theology of the Body is in fact now part of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church to which all Catholics must give their assent. The Pope in that passage above seems to suggest it.

It's not only Manichean but it is the source of all gnostic dualisms that separate the person from nature. My sexuality and your's are an integral part of our personhood. Our nature is our reason for being...not some vat of "nature-schtuff" that we each get drawn out of like candles hanging on a wick...with some wicks being longer than others....eh?

Mary

Your comments reminded me of this paragraph in Deus Caritas Est by Benedict XVI:

I would emphasize this part of JPII's letter



The rejection of this "great mystery" is the reason why the world has adopted so called "inclusive language." We must not imitate the secular world in our Creed or our Liturgy. There is nothing organic about this change in language of the secular world. In fact this language indicates the very opposite of organic growth; it is the "fruit" or consequence of the culture of death.

This is from paragraph 20 of JPII's letter to families:



It is clear from the juxtaposition of the above documents, that we are not to make the "world's language" our own. The message which comes with the "world's language" is contrary to message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paragraph 28 of Liturgiam Authenticam is also highly relevant:



A text cannot speak for itself when words are dropped...and the dropping of texts speaks volumes.

One of the ways that proponents of horizontal inclusive language respond is to ask how we think all this theology is contained in one word or two in the liturgy? How is calling women "men" going to teach them the magisterial theology of the Body? Sound familiar?

What happens is that as the liturgy changes, so also does the catechesis change. So these lessons are not inherent in the language of the liturgy, and they are not taught in the parish halls either. The lessons make their way out of the catechetical materials, rather than flowing from the liturgy to the kitchen to the classroom and back full circle. And since there are no prompts in the most common daily prayer of the people, not even they will raise the questions.

BUT when the time comes to teach morality the only place to go now for material is the secular world, the academy, and common sense.

Pagans are always filled with common sense, natural knowledge, and it works, even to their salvation, if you read the Apostle Paul. It works because they are invincibly ignorant of revealed truth.

Do you suppose our leadership, as a class, is invincibly ignorant?

That would be the only reason to take a "fallback" position, don't you think?

Mary

Let me respond by quoting LA (paragraph 43) again.



Maybe, like Augustine, all the Bishops really need is an angel from a window crying, "Tollo lege! Tolle lege!"

And let me quote paragraph 50 of LA:



The Catechism of the Catholic Church sets forth the Nicene Creed:



Tolle lege! Tolle lege!

Hello. Can I learn about byzcath theology from the Catechism of the Catholic Church? Will this be the authoritative text for thos comparing their faith to the byzcath fold? I believe the orthodox do not have the Catechism of the Catholic Church and they still are able to teach Esatern theology. so my college friends in religion studies say. Are they permitted to continue teaching Eastern theologies without adopting the Catechism of the Catholic Church? how do they do it? Wouldn't there be confusion if the Orthodox continue to teach and preach without the authoritative text?

My co-religionists want a good book to read about Eastern Christian theology. is this the book for them to read?

Eddie

This really makes no sense, and really, questions about the faith should be directed to the Faith and Worship section.

Alexandr

It's ok Alexandr. I actually have an answer for the person asking about Orthodoxy and the Catholic teaching concerning the Theology of the Body which is really what this topic is about with respect to secular gender-neutral language and why it is not appropriate to any liturgy.

Well...It's not my answer really. It is David Hart's answer.

David Hart is an Eastern Orthodox spiritual and theological writer and he has this to say:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/hart.htm

Mary

The article looks very worthwhile. Here is JPII in the letter which I referenced above:



Does "for us" then in fact tend to dismantle the teaching of "deification" which is so dear to our Eastern Church?

"Dismantle" might be a tad strong here.

"For us" certainly smudges things, blurs the vision that comes with the imagery of the Son of God, Son of Man, so that the power in the word is lost. It can blind the inner eye to a more important truth than gender neutrality.

Mary

Im,

Changing the words of Scripture is another story than a Creed. A "son of God" is different from a "child of God." Those who change this have no regard for the biblical author's intent; only their own. The Gospel writers meant something by it, something that some people will ignore if they consider their intentions more important. Meaning is lost in a world that cannot accept a theology of the body. I am a little familiar with the late JP's writings on this and find much of it long overdue. No sooner is the last Pope dead some bishops ignore him as well as Holy Writ. I know of several Christian seminaries who adopted a 60's theology and now their schools are either almost empty or have been closed. My Cath friends say the same thing about their schools of theology. Words mean a lot, especially in a religion's teachings. it stands out more in their Sunday service. how can one seminary school in a large community have only a few students and another in a smaller community be filled to the gills with emissaries of God? It is my experience and my Cath friends that those seminaries that are packed are stickin to their guns in regards to Christian teaching, especially the Bible. One only has to read the foreward to the new byzcath hymnal and see what I mean. Not only is it very confusing, it is self-contradicting. i've seen this happen in non-Cath congregations. its only the beginning. I had a chance to talk to my byzcath friends over the weekend about their new pew book. The people are ignoring the word changes whether the chorus is singing it or not. The intent of your shepherds are keenly felt and it has led to much silence where a community used to be vibrant. There is a joke going aroiund that the congregation will already 'doctor' up the hymnal to be more acceptable before it becomes church law. Their pastor went through the hymn books and edited some words here and there and added some favoritesongs they aren't allowed to sing now.

Eddie Hashinsky

The difference between son and child is evident here. A son is an heir in the way a child is not:



There is neither male and female but sons, heirs according to the promise.

Im. How is the teaching maintained if removed? I asked this question on another thread and so far no one has attempted to answer or defend. Why is that? is there no teaching that goes along with it? I assume the shepherds can do anything they want, they are God's ministers. But can they change biblical teachings without explanation? Is this a "Don't ask" policy? My first post was in response to the eye-openers my byzcath friends got when the new pew books came out. One byzcath shepherd stated (and I only qouted his words not mine in that thread) that debate was not an option - at least he prayed. People were just supposed to take it like a ---. Wink.

Please direct me to the teachings of the changes. Why biblical quotes were changed in your worship. This is my only question. I don't want to entertain theories. Just a reason or two. I apologize if my question sounds derogratory or ill-willed. But the changes came from your shepherds and I thought there exists an explanation somewhere.

Thank you!

Eddie H.

Mr. Hash,

Do you suppose you could take this question and start a whole new thread with it?

Your inquiry under this topic really has nothing to do with the discussion topic.

Furthermore your question makes no sense actually. I don't know if that is because you are confused about something you've heard or if others are reporting things to you that are already confused.

No one here is responding to you because the question you ask is not making sense and even if it were, we are talking about something specific in this thread that is apparently of no interest to you.

So if you begin your own thread and try to be as clear as possible without the "Winks" then you might get a serious reply.

Mary Lanser

Gordo, I moved your comments from the other thread here. There is something very interesting about the terms God, man and beast and the remarks which you have set forth below. Have we not seen in the last century, unlike any other time in history, man acting like a beast? I think of the persecutions under Stalin, Hilter and now in our times the slaughter of the innocents in our country with abortion. As you point out, sanitizing the language is not the answer. In fact, it is a sign that we don't want to see reality for what it is.

Using the foundational terms of "God," "man," "beast," keeps us grounded in eternal truths. These terms evoke our Christian memory--our anamnesis. As Benedict XVI wrote:



JPII's theology of the body is a reminder to man than he is not a beast--and neither is he pure spirit. Men and women are called to live in life-giving communion with one another as they did in the garden.

Eradicating foundational terms --Adam, anthropos, man-- is an attempt by the secular world to erase man's memory which is from the beginning. Erasing this memory is the work of the Beast. The Beast's attempt (we know he will fail) is to erase completely that memory of Man's creation in the garden. We cannot allow these foundational terms to be erased from our Creed and Liturgy. On the surface it appears to be a kind thing. Who would want to offend women? But the history of why the secular world is attempting to erase the terms "man" and "mankind" from our language and hence from our own memory is to make man forget about his origins where he walked with God and where he is called to return to God.

Someone posted elsewhere about the fact that it was the women who first went to Christ and experienced the resuurection. Isn't this the beginning of the restoration of the proper relationship between man and woman that was lost in the fall? These holy women then announce the good news to the apostles who will take this good news to the ends of the earth.

Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!

I should add the rest of the quote on memory from Benedict.



"Man" and "mankind" have been dropped from the Creed and the Liturgy in order to make them conform to American culture. But this is not the way it should be. St Paul tells us what to do:

Yes. Our Church has, in a sense, declared war on these words. The Ruthenian Catholic Church has made these words as taboo. And I have yet to read one logical explanation.

It is a very dark period for the Church.

Genesis chapter 5, vs. 1:




Since God made man male and female, and named them "man," does man have a right to name male and female something else--does man have a right to change his God-given name? Isn't this to usurp God's dominion? Isn't this, in some sense what happened in the garden? God commanded man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil:




The tree that God told man not to eat of, man now looks and sees (names it) "good" and life-giving. And when he eats the fruit he believes that he becomes "like God" "knowing good and evil". Man now gets to decide--to name--for himself what is good and evil. But since he is not God, but a usurper, his dominion is truly disordered--and what disorder we have in the modern world, where man has a "right" to kill his own offspring.



Is it an affront to God Himself to take away in the Creed, the name God gave to man, whom he created male and female?

Dear Mary. I was only replying to the thread's topic "Why the translation of the Creed must be corrected" Why must it be corrected? Who changed it? Why is debate not p;ermitted? i don't thing it will be corrected no matter how much virtual ink is spilled in your community. The policy is simple - no debate.



Many byzcaths have been discussing the issue of your changed Creed. The concern was how biblical teaching is lost when the words are altered. THAT is a reason for correcting the Creed so loved by Orthodox Catholic Christians. Others in your community have posted reasons too. I've seen mainline Protestant Chritians have their pews emptied after adopting non-Biblical teachings or making accomodations to the current cultural climate. What is going on here is no different. Catholic bishops revised their NAB version of the Bible to include inlusive language and were met with a stiff response from Rome. I am sure th Pope - who was the Cardinal who responded - had reasons to correct. When one begins to change the Word of God to suit political correctness, accomodate cultural tastes at the expense of Christian teaching, and satisfy those who push for these things, then one begins the journey down the slippery slope.



Are you implying that my byzcath friends only capable of reporting misunderstandings? it is much deeper than that. several of them have been active in their byzcath communities for years. Some are singers/chanters in your church; several others have taught religion to their congregations' youth and adults. They are educated people, professionals in their industries. One is an iconographer and another is related to a byzcath priest. They are honest Christians. Anyway--- if I am confused then why don't you help me understand? i do remember learning that one of the cardinal virutues is educate the ignorant. I will try my best to ask questions better in the future.



Would you then like to educate me or would you rather see me leave? In my congregation we meet all sorts of people coming in from the war zone of religious hostility and personal warfare. They struggle with the demons in their lives and those who claim to be Christian. My uncle is a physician and has worked inthe ER for several years. He hsa very good manners and doesn't chastise those injured who enter the ER - even if they were at fault for their injuries. Our congregation is like an emergency room. We welcome all sinners with open arms. Even those whith the most stupid questions are not talked down. We love them because at least they ask questions. SOme of our best new members are former catholics. We are not anti-Catholic; we love the Catholic church because it sends us so many new members.



I guess you misunderstood my last line about 'taking it like a ---" (man) I forgot that there were posting icons available. Are we allowed to use them? I hope not to offend. Just a little lite humor now and then.

Eddie

Re: Genesis 5:1
In making argumentation from Scripture, one must always return to the original. In Hebrew, as is well known, the word "adam" means "man." However, in Genesis, there is a play on words between the individual person given the name "Adam" and the concept "man." Genesis 5:1 has many different translations. Interestingly, the Septuagint Greek simply refuses to translate the word and retains the Hebrew word "adam" in the phrase, "and he named them Adam." Perhaps they were aware of the complexity of these concepts.

Fr. David

Dear Father David. Is Jesus the New Man or something else new in your teaching?

'Adam' means 'Man' (a personal name), but 'ha-adam' means 'man' or 'The Man' (we English would translate as mankind or humankind). What Hebrew word does 'us' come from?

Eddie

"Us" does not seem to be in the Genesis 5:1 passage. I merely point out the word play.
Christ as the new Adam or "new man" is found in the Pauline epistles:
I cor 15:45: "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Also, Eph 2:13, where Christ is "one new anthropos"

Thank you Father David. I was reading Jaroslav Pelikan's book about the Bible and he states how the Greek Gospels - if translated into Aramaic - revealed a goodnumber of word plays.

Eddie

Why translate the Gospels into Aramaic from the Greek, we already have the Peshitta in the Syriac Church (both Catholic and Orthodox)!

Precisely! And in translating Scripture and Creed, one has a duty to be faithful to the original text, lest we "forget" whence we came and where we are going!

lm

Heh, possibly because the Peshitta is a translation from the Greek?

Is it? I hear some Peshitta-first theorist-scholars speculate the other way...

In any case, the Syro-Chaldo-Indian-Church considers the Peshitta authoritative and binding for their purposes.

The question was about the Creed, not the bible Mr. Hash.

Now that you've turned the topic to your interests I should think you'd have no complaint left.

Mary

Elijamaria. The topic of Bible translations, creed changes, and worship changes have been meshed together in all these threads. if i brought up the bible it was because the Bible IS used in your worship. Jeff - on another thread - has taken the time to answer my questions.

I include my words in this, Mary, because i've seen it happen elsewhere - places where some byzcaths have never witnessed. Can you really speak ONLY about the Creed without mentioning the Bible? are you suggesting thta the universal creeds have no connection with Holy Writ? that the bible and worship exist independently from each other? The issues of translations are similar in all disciplines. There is a commonality in things when they are so intertwined. I learned of how your byzcath worship is basically built on Bible verses! This is something to share with others - not put under a bushel basket or refuse to grow the talents.

I don't have a personal vendetta against you or wish to take everything you write - even honest questions - as a personal insult. We can learn from each other. I would expect the same. somehow - and please correct me if i am wrong - I feel that I have insulted you along the way. Please accept my apology if I have wronged you in any way. I can now imagine that something was written by me that has hurt you dearly. If you need to unload your anger; feel free to unload it on me. i will understand. You are mad ein the image.

Jesus loves you even though you may think no one else does.
Bless you sister!
Eddie

The other day I had some Roman rite friends join me for Divine Liturgy. At the end of liturgy they were bothered by the way we say "we EXPECT the resurrection of the dead..." I have heard others before say that it is a bit presumptous for easterns to demand God let us in heaven. Of course we all know that EXPECT would better be expressed by the word ANTICIPATE. They have the same denotation but different connotations. The point of my story is that if the translators had the idea of clear meaning in the new translation at heart, why would they overlook EXPECT which confuses some and go for US MEN that I personally have NEVER heard a complaint?

Perhaps they got used to the translation of the last 40 years, which is "We look for the resurrection of the dead...", though the Latin is "et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum....". I agree with your view of the meaning: "I look forward to...", meaning "anticipate".

Are your translators trying to "synch up" with our (RC) ICEL latest translation, perhaps?

One common Ruthenian translation in the 1930s WAS "We look for the resurrection of the dead" (this always sounded to me like an ad for a tabloid newspaper...) Remember that the resurrection of the dead is NOT the same as a welcome into the Kingdom of Heaven; both good and evil alike will rise for judgement and either eternal punishment, or eternal reward.

Ruthenian Catholics have been saying "I expect the resurrection of the dead" since before the creation of the ICEL.

Christ is risen!

Jeff

P.S. "Anticipate", of course, has its own potential problems; if we anticipate the general resurrection, does that mean we ourselves will be resurrected first?

Yes, very flat and businesslike. Not to mention that most people like to rattle it off right quick. I have seen a copy of last year's proposed re-translation and I hope they retain the linguistic "speed bumps" that force us to concentrate on what we're "saying/praying".

Indeed Christ is risen!

Michael

I need a little help here. Some parts of the ancient Faith I am fairly good at. Others..........well, that's why I depend on my older and wiser brothers and sisters in the Faith.

I though that the canons of a council were binding and could not be arbitrarily changed. I say this in regards to the inclusive language now in the Nicene Creed. If the Creed was established as part of the council, then how is it okay to change it?

Thanks for your help.

Brother Ed

Is there such a thing as righteous disobedience in the face of error? Again, I speak of the inclusive language of the new Liturgy.

Simply put: can I continue to recite "and for us men" in the Creed, even though our hierarchy has now banned such expression?

I do not wish to be a rebel and I took a vow of obedience on Holy Saturday 6 years ago when I joined the Church, but is that vow first and foremost to the ancient and orthodox praxis of the Liturgy rather than to the decisions of any man?

I do not wish to disrespect our bishops, but I am not exactly happy about this change.

Brother Ed

Brother Ed,

Technically, it's not a change, just a re-translation. The excuse is that in our contemporary usage, too many people will think only males were intended, so if that is not the case, then we need to express it in a way that is clear for them.

I would answer this by saying that it should be clear from the context, and that pursuing this course of action runs the risk of having young people develop the notion that the entire world before the late 20th century was monstrously mysogynistic. In other words, the more we embrace this "modern" manner of speaking, the more foreign the old manner of speaking will become to the next generation.

Oh, well ... let's not forget "In the world you shall have distress. But have confidence. I have overcome the world." (Jn. 16, 33B)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Figures. No wonder the liberals like the NEA. Keep 'em stupid so that they don't understand linguistics at all, then tell them the Church is a bunch of retarded old white guys with a misogynist axe to grind.

Very effective way to destroy the Church, if it were possible.

Brother Ed

No, 'anticipate' in the sense of 'looking toward an event eagerly' is an abuse of language. To 'anticipate' is to move an event forward in time, such as in the case of an 'anticipated mass'.

Well, the Peshitta OT was made directly from the Hebrew. OTOH, the Peshitta NT was made from the Greek. The earliest Syriac NT-ish text is the Diatesseron.

The type of Syriac used in the Peshitta NT precludes a date earlier than the 3rd C A.D. The Peshitta NT is clearly a translation from the Greek.

XB!
Very well said, Father Deacon. And excuse it is - perhaps more than just an excuse. This change/retranslation was unnecessary and unwanted in the first place, and besides potential theological obscurity that may arise it was made to a contextural dilemma that did not exist within our churches - but does fit into a modernistic linguistic and cultural plan.

And your response regarding the cultural replacement of language is very insightful and very true.

It is quite obvious that the neutralizations in the revision are an intentional agenda by the reformers--a throw back if you will, to the radical agendas of the 60's and 70's. Many in our Church have been scandalized by the inclusivist language in addition to some of the other revisions. Neutralizing the Liturgy has never been an issue within the Ruthenian Catholic Church clergy and/or laity (except perhaps for the small circle of reformers who are now in power).

I continue to say "for us men" and I will always say it. I also know clergy who refuse to say, "loves us all". Philanthropos has always been translated as "Lover of Mankind". It is a beautiful, ancient, and poetic title for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In my opinion, to neutralize this title is a very serious error.

We are the only Catholic or Orthodox Church that has officially neutralized the Liturgy (including the Roman Catholic Church).

I do not see it as rebellious or disobedient. My conscience tells me that inclusivist language is wrong--this is written on my heart.

St Athanasius pray for us!

And that is why I chant the real Creed with my children at home and they had already begun, even before I learned of this revision, receiving instruction that the modernist view has some serious flaws.

Lex orandi, lex credendi!

Please read Father David's words below. I think that you will see that we not only run risk of having young people developing this notion, but this seems to be THE goal of the inclusive language of the revised text.



http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/225621/page/1/fpart/8#Post226221


Monomakh

Christ is Risen!

A number of posts that were on this thread have been deemed to not be on the topic of the Revised Divine Liturgy. They have been separated and created into a new thread in Town Hall. The link is here.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Here is Benedict in his address at Sao Paulo:

What you said reminded me of what Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) said in his lecture on conscience:



[My emphasis].

Modernists often want to keep the truth at bay. I often must attend a Roman Mass where the priest omits "men" in the Creed. Recently, this same priest who is preparing some friends for marriage asked them if they had considered using contraception and encouraged them to do so. They were appalled.

I know there is probably not a necessary connection between omitting "men" from the Creed and rejecting the Church's teaching forbidding contraception, but using men in the Creed can be a teaching moment as they say. It reminds us of the account in Genesis and the command given by God to be fruitful and multiply.

Moreover, both attitudes, ie omitting "men" and rejecting the Church's teaching on human life, show a disrespect for the teaching office of the Church. Such an attitude, of course, was widespread about the time Humanae Vitae was issued which coincided with the mistranslations of the Novus Ordo from latin to english.

If we want a vibrant and living Church, let's keep the revealed truth about man in the forefront by keeping men in the Creed. After all, a Church or Creed neutered of its men, may have a hard time getting new members!

BTW the new translation gives new meaning to Matthhew 19:12!