Thanks for pointing this out Fr. David. I know you were but one voice involved in the commission to reform the Divine Liturgy, but is it your impression that the decision to use children here was not influenced by concerns for gender-inclusivity? Meaning, the choice just seemed to be the best fit for the passage with its gender-neutrality quality being a side effect?

I still think that sonship is very important. Although a layman with some theology training at a graduate level, I'm hardly a biblical scholar by any stretch. However, it strikes me that if we are to be conformed to the Son of God, it should be emphasized in the liturgy.

I'm not getting a grasp on why children was selected, although your post did illustrate the challenges of moving from a language like Greek with so many rich variations and connotations to a more metaphysically-challenged language like English. (And yes, English does have its beauty and strengths.)

Thanks again Father (and bless!)

What did our Lord actually call them when he taught the Beatitudes?

"Nor can an Eastern Catholic be technically disobedient to this document."

The document in question is Liturgiam Authenticam. It is not possible for an Eastern Catholic to be technically disobedient to this particular document, because this document has no juridical application to the Eastern Churches.

On this point, Father David is correct.

Nonetheless, when one can easily demonstrate that neither Roman Catholicism nor Eastern Orthodoxy will accept the so-called "inclusive language", it is no more than reasonable to ask why, then, an Eastern Catholic jurisdiction should attempt to enforce such language.

Fr. Serge

Amen father, amen.