For a long time now I have been asking the question about why the Byzantine Catholic Church changed *sons* of God to *children* of God in the Beatitudes of your worship hymnal. So far, no one who was responsible for this book has answered my question.

I have given several times the ancient texts where *sons* was the ONLY word used, not *children*. The best answer to this was that the Byzantine Catholic RDL is based on the latest NAB text (1986), which is basically inclusive in its language. My NAB text (1983) had *sons* of God in it. This is only a statement of fact, not theology. It is not a theological answer.

And this brings me to my inquiry.

Since the good Father David Petras has insisted on the *theology* of the liturgy, I would like to learn the Byzantine Catholic theology of replacing *sons* of God with *children* of God. What was the purpose of changing Scripture when the *son of God* theology was/is very rich in history and meaning?

The claim has been made that the Byzantine Catholics were trying to recapture the essence of their worship as in replacing certain words with ancient Greek ones (Theotokos). But was this effort the same as replacing the ONLY word ever used in the ancient Greek texts (sons) with a contemporary egalitarian one (children)? I have made my commentary known several times on this. I believe that silent prime movers have pressured the adulteration of Holy Writ for the purpose of feminist, not Byzantine Christian, notions. I have also alleged that this comes from the Sixties generation making the last ditched effort to 'change the world'. But these, I confess, are my personal thoughts.

But back to my unanswered question...

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be sons of God."

What does it mean to become a *child* of God rather than a *son* of God? This is a theological question I would like to have an answer to.

Out of curiosity, since the *sons* was replaced, I would like to know what was about *sons* that was so objectionable? Was something wrong with it? I am curious.

I am posting this thread as an opportunity to the good Father David Petras to teach us as the learned liturgist and theologian he is. I have enjoyed reading many of his posts and think he is quite knowledgable. I hope he can afford his time and knowledge to convey to me (and the rest of the forum paricipants and readers/lurkers) the THEOLOGY on this subject.

Thank you.

Ed Hashinsky

Dear Mr. Hashinski:

A theology of the Liturgy is very important. To understand this passage, we must first look at the whole quotation: “Blessed are the peacemakers. For they will be called [sons] [children] of God.”
The basic theology of the Liturgy is that we participate, through the eucharist, in the life of God. If this is so, then our lives must follow the pattern of the life of our Lord. He is the Prince of Peace foretold in the Old Law (Isaiah 9:5). The message of peace is found in all the New Testament to the point where Jesus is called our peace. (Ephesians 2:14). How do our lives follow the pattern of Jesus’ life? It is through the Paschal mystery, the death and resurrection of our Lord. Our Lord told us that we cannot find our life except by losing it. So when he was arrested in the garden, and the apostles attempted to fight for him, he told them to put away their swords, “for those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.” If we are to be followers of Christ, we also must be people of peace.
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) are a series of teachings that reflect the Paschal mystery. Only by poverty can we find the kingdom, only by meekness, can we find power on earth, only by tears can we find comfort, only by being reviled and persecuted for God, can we find joy and gladness. The original place of the Beatitudes in the Liturgy was at Typika, the monastic rite of Holy Communion, even though the actual distribution of Holy Communion has disappeared from the service. The Beatitudes, then, are connected with Communion, in which we are united with God, who is our “peace,” and we are united with one another in peace. The Beatitudes were then taken into the Divine Liturgy, which is Christ, which is our peace, which is our participation in the paschal mystery of Christ’s death and resurrection. Thus, before the anaphora, we sing that the Anaphora is “mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.” “Blessed are the peacemakers - those who celebrate the Liturgy, priests and people together." Most interesting is St. Augustine’s comment, “Where there is no contention, there is perfect peace. And that is why the *children of God* are peacemakers, because nothing can stand against God. In this way the *children* possess a likeness to God the Father.” (PL 34:1233)

I was very reluctant to answer you, since I think this issue has, for some, already been decided. The decision, for some, is that the substitution of “children” for “sons” is wrong, a feminist agenda. Any response that I could give, therefore, for some, would only leave me two options, either I could say our translation was wrong, or I could say that it was acceptable, and then I would be wrong. A true lose-lose situation! Therefore, some may have been saying, “Aha, he is afraid to answer!” The mere question of whether to use “children” instead of “sons,” though, is not a theological question. We all agree, I think , that both men and women become [sons] [children] of God if they make peace. Correct me if I’m wrong on this point. Would anyone say that only men can be peacemakers? I think what one might say is that “sons” here stands for all people, in the same way as “men” means both men and women. Perhaps others might say, more subtly, that : (1) Christ is the peacemaker, (2) Christ is Son of God, (3) therefore when we make peace, we are “sons” of God. I think this argument might work for the priesthood, but I don’t think women can be excluded from peacemaking. Therefore, the issue would be: does “sons” in the English language stand for “men and women” in the same way as “sons of men” would be a generic term for a human being in the scriptures, as Christ would use "sons" on the Beatitudes? Think of it is this way, in English, could a man say, “I have four sons, two are boys and two are girls”? However, I am not trying to ridicule anyone here, I really don’t want to enter this controversy, I only bring up the question, and I say it is a linguistic question, or a sociological question, not a theological question, since I think we agree on the theology. You are correct in saying that this translation is not directly from the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission. Nor is it my personal work [I am not the author of all the translation, or even mainly of it, but I am a member of the Commission that produced it]. It came from the decision to import quotations from the Scriptures in the Liturgy from the New American Bible.

In Christ, peace,

Fr. David

Dear Father David,

Thank you for your words on this subject. However, I think you got the cart before the horse.

Are not the *peacemakers* the subject here? Peacemakers can be anyone, male or female or both. (My aunt is the peacemaker in our family). This IS inclusive, and rightfully so. But, peacemakers become *sons* (now a special, filial, and unique relationship with God). Sonship was a key notion in ancient thought. Matthew did not say that the *peacemakers* will become *children* or *daughters* of God; he said they will become *sons* of God. There was a reason for his choice in this word over the other. It wasn't a mere linguistic or sociological question. How are we related to the divinity if we adopt the virtues of the (Matthean) Beatitudes. However, your church adopted the sociological argument to incorporate inclusive language for the sake of inclusivity. Your church still refers to the bride as the church. Are men brides? Your church uses Paul's words about the bride being *obedient* to her husband. This makes some people cringe, but because of ignorance. Being an obedient church (bride) is theological nature. It is the essence of being a church community, not a reason to beat the wife with a knotted chord as in the past. (There is something about a church that once referred to it as *matrimonial* obedience - at least what I am reading in the books I received of late from my family). Matrimonial obedience? Is this the type of obedience that Paul was really referring to? But your church included these words to give extra oomph for male dominance and superiority in what was supposed to be a true equal relationship.

But back to *sons* of God. A church can really use contemporary needs to push and pull meanings and especially words to suit its causes, none of which really dig deep enought into the special relationship meant to occur when we are peacemakers. The same goes for the focus on *matrimonial* obedience instead of the *bride* (husband and wife; church community; Christians; believers) being obedient to God. In this case, a bride can also be a son. Now think about THAT one!

We do forget the Lucan Beatitudes. No one likes a Beatitude that puts down rich people. Churches need their money.

In conclusion, with words from my dear aunt, it is women who don't care too much for the patronizing in their new worship. When young Byzantine Catholic girls don't like it, then you have an interesting problem.

Be careful of the NAB of late, and DO be mindful of what your Pope has been saying. The decision to import quotations from the NAB is a poor excuse or explanation. The quotes were wrong. There are NO ancient textual sources for it until much later translations. Matthew did NOT write it; scholars did.

Ed

I've always thought of this text in the biblical context of "sonship" and all that that entailed. Not that "son" was being exclusive of women, but that by being a peacemaker, ALL people, men and women, received the biblical sonship. Quite a radical concept if "us all" think about it.

Below is an interesting point on this subject and I've also included a link to the entire article that contains the quotation.

http://www.adoremus.org/98-01_bonacci.htm



Monomakh

Note: I'm not familiar with any other of the author's writings.

I can agree with Father David that this is an area in which we will probably never agree. One of the reasons that gender-neutral language is a problem is that it very often does not accurately relay the exactness of the original text. One can see that the experiment with things like “dynamic translations” and “gender-neutral language” among the Roman Catholics and many of our Protestant brethren are being abandoned in favor of more literal and exacting translations. Directives like those contained in Liturgicam Authenticam are attempting to fix this. I am confident that they will be successful, and that the experiment in the Ruthenian Church will be very brief. It would have been better all around to simply have learned from the experiment in the Latin Church and skipped the whole experiment.

The systematic substitution of “children” for “sons” is wrong because it is not accurate. In Scripture a child and a son are not interchangeable. Sonship carries with it a different meaning.


Several of the more literal versions of Scripture (like the NASB) are very similar to the RSV (quoted above). Read it through substituting “child” or “children” for every case of “Son” or “son”. You wind up with a jumbled mess that says that children are no better then slaves but now that we are children we are heirs. The RAR-NAB uses the circumlocution of “not of age” for “child” because they are replacing “son” with “child”. So the problem just gets worse, and we wind up with something that is really not Scripture but someone’s idea of what we ought to get from Scripture.

Deacon Tony stated the problem very accurately in a post in another thread:

I pray that the petitions to Rome are successful, and that soon parishes may pray the Divine Services in their official and complete forms, in an accurate and exacting translation.

I am surprised that the good Father David Petras missed this important concept of sonship in the Sacred Scriptures. Maybe there were other issues in this translation that had to be dealt with for Byzantine Catholics? The good father mentions that it was not his decision. Whose decision was it and did they give an explanation or commentary for it? No one on the *committee* is stepping up to the plate to take responsibility for it. It is always someone else's decision. This is not a good thing. I don't like group or committee decisions. The finger is always pointed elsewhere and those who signed their name to it making it official are never called on the carpet. I think I have asked a number of times over the year for an official commentary on such changes. I have a copy of the critical notes to the NAB that were not published in the biblical texts which helps explain some of the mindset. However, there is no such critical text other than 'we simply used the NAB published by the Catholic bishops.' This is a cop out. It doesn't explain why you Byzantine Catholics had to adopt it wholesale, especially in its weekest spots. Who pushed for it? Why the 1986 version of the NAB (if there is such an edition)? In studying the music texts that I received from my Byzantine Catholic family a few months ago, I came across a number of inclusive language in the publications by Byzantine nuns.

The Orthodox are resurrecting the Septuagint. Why aren't the Byzantine Catholics involved in cooperating with them to publish a biblical text both can use? The Septuagint seems to the be the text of choice in Byzantine Christianity except for the Catholics. Probably for the same reason why they can't stomach the word *Orthodox*.

One more point--- Why is the Byzantine Catholic church so ready to accept anything the Catholic bishops publish in the United Staes - even poorly translated editions of the Bible - but simply refuse to accept anything the Pope of Rome writes about not using inclusive language?

Ed

Dear Ed,

I think once again your post is a little uncharitable.

I personally do not like the inclusive language, and I would prefer we use son instead of child, and other traditional language. I do not disagree with your apparent disapporval of inclusive language liturgy.

But I find these designations seem sarcastic in tone to me:

"the good father david;"
*committee*;

Even if I do not agree with Fr. David's views on inclusive language, he is a priest of the Church, and deserves respect. He also has some valid points, even if I disagree, respectfully, with his final conclusion on the particular question at hand.

Another thing: "Why the 1986 version of the NAB (if there is such an edition)?" There most certainly is a 1986 NAB and it is different than the 1983 edition you mentioned in an earlier post. The original NAB came out in 1970; the revised NT was published in 1986; the Psalms in 1991; the remainder of the OT will be coming out soon. Why such a incredulous attitude, expressed once again in a sarcastic tone?

I also would like to know if you are a Byzantine Catholic?
I assume you are not: "I would like to know why you Byzantine Catholics?" Why do we have to answer to you?

It is okay to comment on our RDL if you are not; I have no problems with other Catholics, Orthodox or any one else criticizing our RDL, and expressing the idea that they would not want it for their own practice. But I take strong exception to an outsider being so rancorous and caustic about it.


- Lance

I refer to the priest as *good* out of respect. It was the only intention I had. Do you wish me to call him vulgar names instead? The *committee* I mentioned was the one spoken about for over a year on these forums. Where were you?

I am glad we agree on the issue of inclusive language. This has been my point all along. I fail to find any direct answer into why it was adopted other than blindly accepting the NAB text over the ancient Greek manuscripts (which do NOT have the words that the Byzantine Catholics are putting into it). Scholars, not Matthew, included these words.

I believe I have shown respect to the Catholic priests on these forums. I can be quite opinionated, but that is me. The *good* Fathers and moderators have instructed me in the proper address to clergy in your church.

Ed

Dear Ed,

I have been here all along, I look on this forum nearly every day. I am a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, and am well aware of the history and controversy surrounding the RDL.

I will grant you the benefit of the doubt that I have misinterpreted your intention. But often when people put a descriptor between italics or asterisks, they are conveying a sense of incredulity or sarcasm, and so I interpreted your posting that way. Forgive me for this.

As for the NAB: I get the sense that many of us on this forum are not a big fans of the NAB, in any of its incarnations. It seems to have some tortured language, and bows too much to skeptical scholarship in its commentary notes. But (unfortunately) it is the official bible for the Catholic Church in the US, and it is the most widely accept version among Catholics in general. In the Eastern Churches, some other translations have been used in the liturgy, but the NAB is probably still the most used version by Catholics at home. I think Fr. David's point is that it is a good thing to use the same bible translation in the liturgy that most Catholics read in their homes.

I do agree with you on inclusive language; I am against it in most cases. But often Bible scholars have not always translated the term sons from the Greek into sons in English. For example, the KJV translators render Matthew 5:9 thus: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

I am glad that as a non-Catholic you feel welcome here, and free to express yourself. I hope you always feel welcome.


Blessings,

Lance

I am bored of quotes ("), so I use * instead. I've tried typing air quotes, but they never show up on my posts. I tried captial letters once. In fact, one of my first posts on the internet years ago was all in capital letters. I got at least eight replies to stop yelling. I didn't know I was yelling. I typed it very quietly.

I still like the one translation, *Blessed are the cheesemakers*.

Ed

Dear Fr. David,

Thank you for responding. I think your comments here actually hit the nail on the head with respect to how many are seeing the problem in a different light. If the issue is a linguistic question with respect to the English language, then it is because Americans and the language which they use (formed principally by protestant and Enlightment thinking) have not allowed themselves to be informed by the Liturgy and the Scriptures. I think sons is used in the beatitudes because by being incorporated into the body of Christ, every man who follows Christ, male or female, will have by adoption, the same relationship which Christ has to the Father, i.e., one of sonship. Rather than being exclusive this is dramatically inclusive.

That Americans want to change the language of Scripture and Liturgy to fit their world view and have not accepted the Liturgical and Scriptural truth, therefore, is not merely a linguistic issue. It is a theological issue which reflects a deep theological disagreement about the very nature of man's ultimate destiny. This destiny is found only in Christ the true Son of God.

In Christ,

lm

If this is inclusive, then why the need to use *children* instead of it? Sonship carried a lot of meaning in Jewish thought. Throughout the Old Testament there are a number of brotherly rivalries where both were vying for the inheritence and blessing of their fathers. The one who had a special relationship was the true son. Take for instance the Prodigal Son. He was not called the Prodigal Child. He learned he was lost and begged to be taken back by his forgiving father. Then there was Cain and Abel. We can see this in the parallel lives of John and Jesus. Jesus, not John, was called *son* because of his special relationship to the Father; he wasis the Son of God. Aside from all the sonship stories in the Old Testament and the deeper meaning of what is tied to being a son, especially the firstborn son, why would anyone want to rid of this by substituting *child*? Paul says that he was once a child, but no more.

My aunt says that a group of women is behind it all. But she won't say which group.

Ed

As an RC, I'm not even sure anymore what the correct liturgical language is for the Roman rite anymore. At the local cathedral, during the recitation of the Creed, there's an audible gap as half say "for us men" while the other half -- including the celebrant who's miked into the audio system -- just says "for us." It's quite jarring, but then, so is ad-libbing the prayers of the Church.

The question of children vs. son is interesting though. A son can and should grow into maturity, to become like the Son of God himself as much as possible. A son can also be a father of children and have his own family. He can -- as one poster alluded -- be both patriarch, brother and helper as in the Jewish tradition. (Here, I'm thinking of Joseph in the Torah.) A child though? Welp, St. Paul says that when he was a child, he thought as a child, but when he became a man, he put aside childish things. I don't want to remain a spiritual child my whole life.

So, here's the theological reflection in what was described as a sociological/linguistic issue: maybe by stressing sonship, we rightly orient ourselves towards becoming the models of sanctity found in the patriarchs of old and perfected beyond measure in the Lord.

...and there is also Monty Python's "Blessed are the Greek, for they shall inherit the earth..."

The use of Children in the Galatians passage is a particularly poor choice, as it undermines Paul's illustration; He is using a specific example from his culture that specifically involve a father and a son.

This is one of the reasons why I prefer traditional bible translations over contemporary ones.

It is interesting that both the King James and Rheims translations use children in Matthew 5:9, in the 16th and 17th century.

The way I understand the GIRM and Liturgitum Authenticum, the Roman Rite when properly carried out should use traditional rather than inclusive language.

What has happened here is simple. The word *sons* was purposely avoided. Matthew did not use *children*; scholars did, and they did for a purpose other than searching for archaic and pure Byzantine forms of worship. They were satisfying contemporary needs being pushed. It is the last ditch effort to *change the world*. When will they realize that the Sixties is over?

Ed

The concept of "sonship" is very clear and theologically viable. Yet it is YOU who seems to have turned this into a feminist issue.

Accurately translating the Greek as "sons" does not exclude women from peacemaking.


The Vatican directives are clear. No agendas. Translate accurately. I am sorry that the bishops and Father David reject this directive.

Yes, Rome has decided that such substitutions are wrong.




Is the job of the translator to translate or to correct the mistakes he thinks God has made in the Holy Scriptures?

As nice a man as Father David is I do not want the Bible or Liturgy to be rewritten to say what Father David or some commission of like minded men thinks it ought to say. I want the Liturgy to be translated accurately. Rome agrees. Read “Liturgiam Authenticam.”

Please reference the link provided for St. John Chrysostom, Homily XV on Gospel of St. Matthew, paragraph #7...infact google the homily xv, all links for it read the same in text for children MT 5:9


http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/110/1100023.htm

pax

james

ps- forgot the link for Galatians


http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/113/1130009.htm

So what does this say? Many of the church fathers quote differenty. This is also a translation which does not alter the original words written in the ancient biblical manuscripts. I remember one of the main rules of patrology: the fathers quote loosely. Many times they don't agree amongst themselves. I can show you many contemporary English translations of Matthew 5:9 which also uses the word *children* including the NAB. Please note that I have several versions of the NAB which also have *sons* in it. Even the Catholic bishops NAB text disagrees with itself!!! Yet the Pope has called them to task on it. Who do you support?

I see how the link you provided for John Chrysostom's sermon is based on the KJV. Was this the text he used?

Back to the sources. The ONLY word used in the Greek manuscripts is *sons*. Everything else is a house of cards; one translation on top of another. Even Jerome was wrong.

Ed

"the peacemakers: ... Reconciliation is a Christian office often recommended in the Gospels ... The reward is to be called sons of God. This is a title of Israel in the OT; those who reconcile quarrels are genuine Israelites." (p.70, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, by John L. McKenzie)

"be imitators of God as very dear children: ... be imitators of God's way of forgiving. In the Semitic use reflected in the NT, "children" often connotes the imitation of qualities rather than an ontological state; e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount, Christians are to be "children of their Father in heaven" by imitating the Father's universal love for men ..." (p.348, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, by Joseph A. Grassi)

The use of *children* in one case (qualities) and *sons* (ontological) can be understood in their context. Simply put, one can act and live like a child of God (loving all men) and be peacemakers so that they can become true Israelites or sons of God. Being a peacemaker doesn't make us *children* of God. That would be putting the cart before the horse. One has to be filled with true love, the type of universal love of the Father in heaven, to become peacemakers. What is peace-making without love? What is marriage without love? It's out of this love, the love of a child, that makes us want to be peacemakers. Only then can we gain the title of True Israelite (son).

Ed

In what way? Matt 5:9 has filii (sons)

VULGATE Matthew 5:9 beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur


Also, the present Nova Vulgata

Beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur.

The problem in the Byzantine Catholic Church regarding the use of inclusive language in its hymnal and Scriptures is also found in other communities. Here is a quote from Ron Kangas’s article “Children of God, Sons of God”.

Start quote:

“Every genuine believer in Christ agrees that it is a matter of most extreme seriousness to tamper with the Word of God – to add to it, to take away from it, to change it, or to dilute it. It is surely deplorable to alter the meaning of the Word for the sake of popular acceptance.

… to fail to translate accurately the Greek words for children and sons, and thus to obscure the difference between them, is to hinder the uninformed reader of the New Testament form understanding the crucial element of sonship in God’s purpose.

Was the erasure of the distinction between children of God and sons of God, possibly displaying the influence of the Zeitgeist upon Christian theological thought, motivated by a desire for so-called gender equality and political correctness?

The New Testament speaks of both children of God and sons of God and makes a distinction between them.

If we, the children of God, would become sons of God qualified to be heirs of God, we need to grown in the divine life unto maturity. Whereas all those who have the witness of the Spirit are children of God, only those who are led by the Spirit are sons of God (Rom 8:14).

Sons here indicates a more advanced stage of growth in the divine life than does children in v.16 … Children refers to the initial stage of sonship, the stage of regeneration in the human spirit. Sons are the children of God who are in the stage of the transformation of their souls. They not only have been regenerated in their spirit and are growing in the divine life, but they also are living and walking by being led by the Spirit.”

End of quote:

My comment:
*Transformation of the souls*? Isn’t this the doctrine of Theosis? The last paragraph I quoted seems to reflect this *partakers in the divine nature* notion. But maybe this is too foreign to those who have different ideas of what it means to be Orthodox – I mean, Christians of the True Faith. Some translations are just bad.

Ed Hashinsky

Jerome was wrong about other things.
Ed

"The Vatican directives are clear. No agendas. Translate accurately. I am sorry that the bishops and Father David reject this directive."

Actually the Vatican has not been clear at all. LA is an Instruction not Law. The Vatican has approved corrected NRSV and RNAB Lectionaries for use in Canada and the US. As we speak the NRSV is serving as the base text for the new wolrd-wide English Lectionary at the Vatican's behest. The only thing that is clear is that the Vatican has spoken out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. The Vatican rejects, and rightly so, inclusive language in reference to the Holy Trinity, the Christological title Son of Man, and in the Psalms many of which are considered Christological. It allows inclusive language, while it may not favor it, when the the reference is clearly a mixed group. Brothers becomes brothers and sisters, sons of God becomes children of God, although sons and daughters of God is a better choice in my opinion.

Also interresting the Vatican's own website has the RNAB minus the Pslams on its website. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVE.HTM

The idea of sonship some are espousing here seems to come dangeroulsy close to Gnostic ideas (see below) that somehow femininity is incompatible with theosis or our adopted status.

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven"(Gospel of Thomas).

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Vatican approved of it? Before or after it was a done deal? Tell us the history of how they approved it?



Certainly no agenda here.



Now Father Deacon Lance, you know quite well as an educated theologian that Matthew was not inferring gnostic teachings, but Jewish thought. To equate sonship with what the Gospel of Thomas taught is rediculous. To make the claim that those taking the side of the ancient manuscripts, the Gospel of Matthew (who was NOT a Gnostic!), and the words of Jesus is close to heresy is weird. This is reverse-think.

Matthew's Gospel was accepted; Thomas's was not. Hmmmm. Does that tell you anything? Yet, many feminist theologians and Scripture scholars love the Gospel of Thomas because it debunks the belief that the canonical gospels are the only correct ones. I have stated that children and peacemakers can be male and female, not one or the other. To read into it Gnostic tendencies is simply ... reading into it.

Do you think the notion of sonship - as understood by Jews and the early Christians (and Evangelists) should be debunked?

Ed

Both. The Vatican approved the NRSV as a bible/lectionary text then withdrew its approval for use as a lectionary. The Canadians had already sent the Lectionary to print, they got temporary approval for its use as is and fought to continue its use and reached a compromise with Rome on a corrected NRSV Lectionary that they may now use. Rome was involved with RNAB Lectionary from its inception resulting in a corrected RNAB Lectionary that is approved for use.



I believe the Jews had a very chauvinistic view of sonship. Orthodox Jews still do. They still recite the prayer: O Lord God thank you that I was not born a woman. Our Lord turned the Pharisees on their heads by including women among his closest disciples. I am not the one equating sonship with Gospel of Thomas. I think those that try and make a theological issue out of horizontal inclusivity because they dislike it are making arguements that skirt close to the example in the Gospel of Thomas.

Believe it or not, I am not a fan of inclusive language myself. I find it unlovely and unpoetic in most instances. That said if my bishop gives me a translation that says brothers and sisters or sons and daughters and I am not going to have a crisis of faith over it, especially when I see Rome approving similar usages for others.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Since many are calling for the most faithful translation lets look at some traditional translations. The translators of the Douay-Rheims Bible (which according to TAN is "the most faithful translation") rendered this text:



have a penchant for the King's English- here's King Jamie's translation:




Could these men have been infected by some proto-radical feminist agenda of the 16th/17th century? Doubt it; these translators had it right.

Deacon Lance rightly points out that Rome has allowed some uses of gender-neutral language (I won’t call it “inclusive language” because that is part of the propaganda of some of its supporters and we know that it is really not inclusive but political). I would suggest that Liturgiam Authenticam certainly sets the direction, that there are many who reject that direction, and that approvals of lectionaries based on the NRSV and the RAR-NAB indicates problems getting people to follow directives. It is very telling that the Vatican will not allow Bibles to published using these texts. It is clear that this fight is not yet over in the larger Church. The bishops have only introduced the fight for authenticity into the Ruthenian Church. I daresay that accuracy and authentic will win out, as the coming generation slowly replaces the older generation now in authority. Fewer of the younger generation buy into those agendas.


I have not seen this but would appreciate a more detailed analysis by Deacon Lance as to why he believes this.

What passes for femininity in our secular culture is indeed incompatible with theosis or our adopted status. Too often even many good men in the Church buy into it. Authentic Christian feminism is very compatible with theosis.


I affirm and work for accurate and complete translations of our liturgical tradition because both my heart and good scholarship show me it is the correct thing to do. Things like gender-neutral language are incorrect and I will continue to work that such agendas are not allowed in the Church. I am very surprised to find that Deacon Lance would consider this as me (or anyone else) having a “crisis of faith”.

At last! Thank you for these words. May we say with St. Paul, "I have passed on what I have received."

Deacon John is correct that both the D-R and the KVJ use “children”. That does not mean that they were infected by some proto-radical feminist agenda. It only means they didn’t get it right. The New King James Bible changes "children" to "sons" (and the editors stated intention was to remove archaic language while making it more accurate). [Does anyone really think that the redactors of the RAR-NAB changed the "sons" in the original NAB to "children" because it was a more accurate translation of the Greek?]

Deacon Tony broke it down for us:

It's curious that some seem to skip right past this part, as it is the core of the issue.

---

Certainly a man could say such a thing. You might have to think for a minute to understand what he was saying (and why he was saying it). You might even have to listen (or read) other things he has said to understand his way of speaking. But even if in the end he were speaking nonsense a translator would have no permission to mistranslate “sons” to “children” should those words be translated into another language. If such a statement were part of an Agatha Christe murder mystery it could be an intentional statement poignant with meaning to Hercule Poirot. If someone were translating the story into French and ‘corrected’ “sons" to “children” the whole plot could fail and a fantastic mystery be a total failure in the new language. That’s the whole point. Translations need to be as literally accurate as possible while also being as elegant as possible. Gender-neutral language destroys accuracy.

It is ironic that we have people saying we must use gender-neutral language (which is inaccurate and potentially exclusive) at the same time that they are saying that we cannot use "Mother of God" for "Theotokos" because "Mother of God" is too inaccurate to be allowed.

“Sons” in Greek needs to be “sons” in English and people need to be taught what sonship is in the Kingdom of God.

John,



Where did you get this? Both the uncorrected NRSV and RNAB are published with imprimaturs. Imprimaturs the Vatican has not forced to be recalled. Rome did require corrections to the Lectionaries based on these versions but even in corrected form they did not require removal of most of the horizontal inclusive language.

The bottom line is Rome has approved horizontal inclusive language, which signals to me they do not consider its use theologically dangerous or they would not allow it. Perhaps the approval is given grudgingly and they find its use in some places problematic but if they allow it I don't see how people can criticize the hierarchs for using it. They should write to Rome to get the approval of the texts withdrawn not criticize the use of approved texts.

Fr. Deacon Lance

John,



Does sonship exclude daughtership? Are females expected to become male in the Kingdom so they can have sonship? If the answers are no, why can we not say sons and daughters? Is not the Theotokos foreshadowed in Psalmm 44 and called daughter? If the answer is yes, I discern errors of the Gnostics creeping in under the guise of combating feminist agenda.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Having a faithful translation of the original Greek is hardly Gnosticism creeping in. Why not ask of the inspired writer, what is the meaning of sonship such that it should be here rather than sonship and daughtership. Is it simply that he was a product of his time? Or is there some important truth to be ascertained by men of all times and places?



They clearly did not have the translation right. Why they got it wrong would be an interesting historical study. The King James version is of course not a Catholic translation. Needless to say, it is the duty of every man to seek the truth which is universal and beyond all time. As has been pointed out earlier, the reason for the importance of the correct translation of "uios" is evident in Galatians:



Another traditional translation gets the beatitude right:



RSV

Let us wholly belong to Christ -- in the deeds which we do and the words and translations which we use. What could be wrong with that?

lm,

You are missing the point. I have no problem with faithful translation of the Greek. The point is the reasoning being used here is skiritng Gnosticism. I have no question the author had absolutely no Gnostic influence. But you ask: "Is it simply that he was a product of his time? Or is there some important truth to be ascertained by men of all times and places?" Yes he certainly was a product of his time and yes there is an important truth to be ascertained. That the truth to be ascertained is that women must give up their femaleness and be sons rather than daughters because Christ spoke in or St. Matthew wrote in the idiom of his time, we will have to disagree upon.

You're own arguements lead down dangerous paths. If in Christ there is no male or female, then there should be no problem with women being priests. Now I know you don't agree with that, and neither do I, but that is where I see your logic is able to be twisted.

Clearly St. Paul was speaking in hyperbole to underline everyone's equality in Christ, not to imply that we actually ever cease to be male or female. Christ and the Theotokos, as the foreshadowers of the resurrection of us all, show that we remain male and female forever. We are sons and daughters because we all have Christ as brother and God as Father, not because women Gnostically cease to be female and become sons.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

Your reason with extrapolation, insunuation, assumptions, and typical liberal what ifs. It would be nice if your bishops actually gave a reason to settle it. But I cannot find any explanation from them anywhere. Do you know where I can find an explanation put forth by your church shepherds? They, including those who pushed them for it, prefer to remain mum. Sonship is not about becoming a male as you insist. If you read any of the previous post, you will understand that it is something deeper; something tied in with the notion of filial adoption as heirs. Can you not accept sonship in the same way as always depicting Christ as a man? Does our Lord's man-ness imply that women cannot be saved? That they are a lesser sex? That your churches should have Christas too? Why do you continue to make the same liberal and feminist arguments? If you can accept hyperbole at your weddings when wives are asked to be submissive to their husbands, why can you not accept hyperbole of everyone becoming sons of God? Your arguments are typical Western and liberal poppycock; not grounded in biblical theology. You guys have a problem of saying *orthodox* at your worship too. Is *orthodox* a hyperbole too that must be avoided with more upbeat contemporary words like *Christians of the True Faith* (a Catholic invention)?

Who is making an argument for women priests? Are you admitting that your church is behind the times?

I hope either Father David Petras can reply or point me where there are instructions from you church on this. Maybe we can all learn who was really behind this?

Ed

Women priests is a separate issue. My last pastor was a woman. I wonder what Father Deacon Lance's problem is with women?

Only Catholics can go through mental gymnastics and arguments for equality, yet still keep women out of ministry! So why tamper with the Scriptures if you don't walk the walk?

I am not advocating a female priesthood for your church. I understand that priesthood is different than ministers. But why? Is a male preisthood a hyperbole too? Where is the hyperbolic line that should not be crossed?

Inclusive language is simply another way to patronize women.

Ed

Ed,

Typical liberal? Oh my, that gave me quite a laugh. Never been called that before. And here my coworkers accuse me of being an arch-conservative.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The NRSV as used in the Canadian Lectionary (Latin Rite) is not available in Bible form. That is, you cannot go and pick up a copy of a Bible with the exact text used in the Canadian Lectionary.

The RAR-NAB (Revised Amended Revised New American Bible) used in the American Lectionary (Latin Rite) is not available in Bible form, as thus far the Vatican has refused to give permission for it to be put in Bible form. The 1970 edition has a reputation as decent but awkward (it is the one used the Ruthenian lectionaries). The 1986 edition introduced some gender neutral language but was quickly replaced by the 1991 edition which used both “horizontal” and “vertical” gender neutral language. The Holy See rejected this text as the basis of a revised Lectionary for the United States. Then there was ten years of wrangling to get the RAR-NAB. The Vatican has given approval to the RAR-NAB for use in the lectionary but is not allowing it to be published in Bible form (which suggests the issue is not resolved yet). So you cannot go and pick up a copy of the RAR-NAB as used in the Latin-Rite Lectionary.

The Vatican has given full approval to Lectionaries based on the 1970 NAB, the original Jerusalem Bible (and I understand one is forthcoming on the update which is not the New Jerusalem Bible but the original JB with a few updates (like replacing the “Y” word with “Lord”)), the RSV-CE and the RSV-CE2 (I think I’m missing at least one). None of the others are controversial. The recent approval of the RSV-CE2 was approved by the Vatican without change.

Look at the Catholic Catechism. When looking for translations of Scripture they didn’t choose any of the versions of the NAB. Because they wanted a translation that was not “thou hast” they chose the NRSV. But the Vatican rejected it because of its use of gender neutral language (which made those passages inaccurate). The compromise was to use the RSV except in those places where the NRSV was actually better. [If one were to correct the gender-neutral parts of the NRSV and replace them with accurate translations it is a good translation.]

If one looks at the history we can see that after Vatican II there was great leeway to do a lot of things. But now we see a return to tradition and a fresh call for accurate translations. I can understand and respect that Deacon Lance is really not personally bothered by gender-neutral language. But I am fathomed at why he thinks that those of us who support a strict use of the directives for accurate translations in “Liturgiam Authenticam” and would argue and petition for such accuracy are somehow having a “crisis of faith” or are otherwise somehow disobedient. We are not.


The Lord chose to inspire the use of the term “son” in the Scriptures. Surely you are not accusing Him of excluding females?

The Greek needs to be translated into English exactly. A correct understanding of “sonship” includes understanding both the exact words of Scripture and the context of the culture it was written in. It is not correct to re-work the Scripture into what the translators think it should mean for contemporary culture.

In Scripture “sonship” and “daughtership” would be not be interchangeable concepts because of the relationship to inheritance. [I can’t think of any references to daughter that would suggest “daughtership” in the same context as “sonship” but would appreciate the references you are considering.] Sonship carries with it full inheritance rights to the Kingdom. Daughtership (to say “daughter of God”) would not have (in that culture) carried with it full inheritance rights to the Kingdom. That is what was so radical about no longer being children or slaves. Becoming sons of God means receiving the full inheritance of the Kingdom. It is when men and women become sons of God that they truly become free.

In Scripture both males and females can become sons.

It is not a matter of gender, and a need to correct God’s mistakes for using sexist language (which is the way gender-neutral languages comes across to most people).

It is a matter of accurately translating the Holy Scriptures and then teaching people the correct understanding. The “whys” (if I can use that term) of why the Lord spoke as he did.

Note to all Posters: Please stay away from getting off topic with discussions about women priests and other such nonsense. It is always best to stick to the topic and make your case using good scholarship.

Bravo!!!

It is revelation that informs our theological vocabulary. As (the Methodist theologian) Geoffrey Wainwright, Worship With One Accord (Oxford University Press, New York, 1997), 245, in reference to G. Florovsky, writes: “The Word incarnate can define language. In this context, “Father” and “Son” mean who the first two persons of the Trinity are and what the relation between them is. It is the divine ontology that sets the meaning of the terms…”


Both are certainly inclusive(!) but they mean more. For us “men” –- sons (m/f) of the first Adam/Man –- and for our salvation, the Son became incarnate -- became Man -- so that we could become sons of the Father in Him, the last Adam/Man. Thus, 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 – one in Christ Jesus, THE SON.

Just such language is used dogmatically, for instance, in Trent’s “Decree Concerning Justification”: In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man [homo] is born a son [filius] of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons [filiorum] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior. This translation however cannot, since the promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written: Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God..[John 3:5].


Sonship is not identified with “ordination” but is based on our identity in Christ as other “christs” through baptism and chrismation and manifested in the Eucharist, the Divine Liturgy, the actual coming together of Christ and “christs” as (what else) His Body, the Church. United with Him, the Only-Begotten Son, we also as sons can say and know how to call God "Father."


Which is the opposite approach to that described by Wainwright above.


I think it is the issue of a theologically determined vocabulary informing us rather than linguistics and sociology dictating our theological expression.

Dn. Anthony

Yes.


No


Because the Trinity has been revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- no mention of daughter.



Yes.


Not at all. There is certainly a place in theological expression where I would say the female element is essential, e.g. nuptial imagery, the Church as the Spouse of Christ. But in terms of our ultimate theological expression -- the names Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- the best we (and creation in general) can do is to have our name, our status, coincide as intimately as possible with the one of the All-Holy Three through whom, appropriately, all thing were made and who also, appropriately, became incarnate. And that one has been revealed to us as the Son.

Dn. Anthony

In the case of both the RNAB and NRSV, aren't there going to be some amount of revision that makes these translations come more in line with Vatican directives on inclusive language? They will not simply be the same translations you buy in a single NAB or NRSV Bible in a book store, correct?

And why not simply take the RSV II for the whole English speaking Church?

Not correct and I have corrected you on this before. It is the USCCB that declines to print the Corrected RNAB in Bible format. Now perhaps this is their passive-aggressive way of getting back at Rome for forcing them to correct the RNAB. Pehaps they are simply waiting until the Old Testament is finished before publishing another version of the NAB.

As for the version of the NAB there is the original 1970 version which receives a lot of criticism for both its notes and its translation choices. The New Testament was revised in 1986, and included some horizontal inclusive language. The Psalms were revised in 1991 it did not include vertical inclusive language. It did change things like, for example, Psalm 1 "Blessed is the man" became "Happy are those". The Vatican refused to allow the 91 RNAB Psalter for liturgical use. The 63 Grail Psalms remain the approved version for the Roman Liturgy of the Hours. For Mass the 91 Psalms were corrected.



Some on this forum have left the Metroplia citing this issue as a major reason. I believe you have every right to petition that the RSV-CE be used rather than the Corrected RNAB. But while the Corrected RNAB and NRSV have approval you cannot accuse the hierachs of being disobedient. They are not.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My sources indicate that the Vatican is the one withholding permission. I would appreciate it if you list your reference. I would happily stand corrected, and such information would be useful in encouraging those in authority to strive for accuracy in producing both biblical and liturgical texts. Maybe the Vox Clara commission should also be charged with correcting the RAR-NAB.


The use of gender neural language is a perfectly acceptable reason to find another Church. I know plenty of Catholics who drive past the parish closest to them to a more distant parish for any number of reasons (be it better music, a better homily, whatever). A Ruthenian Catholic who finds gender neutral language irritating is not wrong for joining the nearby Ukrainian or Melkite parish because it offers a more accurate (or even less irritating) text. If the use of gender-neutral language were the only change to the "Red Book" and the full rubrics were allowed I would still be at the Melkite parish. A decision to choose a parish for reasons of music, homilies, faithfulness to liturgical tradition, accurate translations (and etc.) cannot be considered a "crisis of faith."


I am not sure I agree and it is a difficult question. The rubrics and text of the RDL are clearly disobedient to the Liturgical Instruction for our Church. And yet it somehow got approval. That smacks too much of "whatever you can get through a Vatican commission is authentic". We know there are politics even in Rome. It would seem to me that true obedience on the part of the USCCB would be to take Liturgiam Authenticam seriously without being forced to. And for the Ruthenian bishops a complete and accurate translation of the Divine Liturgy respectful of both "LI" and "LA". It is because the Latin Bishops were not respectful enough to the Vatican directives that the Vox Clara commission was created. Were the US bishops disobedient? Were the Ruthenian bishops? One can argue both yes and no.

For the record: I do not accuse and never have accused the bishops of not obtaining approval for their revision to the Divine Liturgy. I do believe that the RDL is disobedient to our Ruthenian liturgical recension and will continue to petition those in authority to rescind the RDL. I further petition that they prepare editions of our liturgical books that are accurately translated (whole and complete - both text and rubrics), and that such translations willingly adhere to the Liturgical Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam and the other appropriate directives, while respecting what the clergy and faithful have memorized over a lifetime.

John,

I thought I got this info from the Adoremus website but I can't seem to locate the article now. This info is several years old. But if you think about it, it makes no sense that Rome would refuse permission to publish a Corrected RNAB Bible while the uncorrected RNAB continues to be published. It is inconceivable that they would continue permission for a less accurate text and refuse it for a more accurate text.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Why not, Rome didn't look too closely at the RDL when it was submitted. As it contradicts their own Liturgical Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam and other important documents giving guidance to the Eastern Churches.

Maybe they're just too busy praying.

You statement is not correct. The Oriental Congregration, which issued the Liturgical Instruction, reviewed the RDL. Robert Taft, SJ, as a consultor of the Oriental Congregation, wrote the Liturgical Instruction. As a consultor, Fr Robert reviewed the RDL, to ensure it was free from doctrinal error and Latinisms. If anyone is able to apply the meaning of the Instruction to the RDL it would be Fr Robert.

Now one may not agree with Fr Robert's conclusions, but one better have the necessary scholarship to refute those conclusions.

As to LA, one can read Fr Robert's views on that document here.

1. The Orthodox (remember them?) were not involved in the RDL hymnal, so their input was lacking.

2. The Carpatho-Russian Orthodox, the *sister* church of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics, was especially not involved in any joint venture.

3. Why was there cherry picking in what words to change? Some returned to older terms (Theotokos; sounds very Orthodox, right?); other terms were avoided (Christians of the True Faith instead of Orthodox Christians); and some terms were adulterated to read what was not originally there (*sons* of God).

4. Why were clergy prayers (per previous posts on this matter) left alone in the inclusive language? If this is so, then this would demonstrate bi-polar theology; one type acceptable to clergy, another acceptable to particular groups in non-clergy circles. Their prayers are not available on the online copy of the RDL. It would be interesting if this bi-polar theology is so.

5. Your bishops (Byzantine Catholics) have preferred to remain silent about the issue.

6. Concerns and fears about women priests and latter-day Gnostics in the Byzantine Churches says a lot about the person more than it does about Scripture and the topic at hand. That one is not personally in favor of women priests and inclusive language renders the argument lukewarm, if not a fallacy in logic. “I’m personally not in favor of X, but I don’t like it when others aren’t in favor of it too. They must be Gnostic or members of the he-man’s woman haters club, not me.”

7. The Latin Vulgate has *filii* dei (sons of God) in Matthew 5:9. *filius* means son, not child. The Douay-Rheims is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate. I am not familiar with the DR version Deacon John Montalvo is using.

8. The prime movers who pushed this through remain hidden.

9. “Vicarius Filii Dei (Latin: Vicar or Representative of the Son of God) is a phrase used in the forged Donation of Constantine to refer to Saint Peter” (Wikipedia). The Pope was not referred to as the child or daughter of God.

10. CODEX SINAITICUS: The New Testament translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript (Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at Mt. Sinai by H. T. Anderson, begun in 1861
Copyright ©2004 Jackson H. Snyder II) has “9 Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called sons of God.”

11. My copy of the “Nouum Testamentum Latine” has the following for Matthew 5:9… “Beati pacifici quoniam ipsi *filii* Dei uocabuntur”.

12. Catholics usually like to rely on the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and the nebulous NAB. The Septuagint and Codex Sinaiticus are rarely their choice texts.

13. Hebrew and English are always in search of a gender-neutral word referring to both sexes. First, it was *man* or *mankind*, but that reaked with men. So, in today’s conversations, women will refer to other women as “you guys” and not comment on how sexist the other woman is.

14. *Sons* is a Jewish theological term that has lost its meaning as much as *Son* of Man and *Son of David* or even *Son* of God.

Ed Hashinsky

I have no problem with those who are against inclusive language, since I am against it myself. My problem is when those who are against it try to make heretics out of those who favor it in horizontal use. One can refute inclusive language quite simply on translational grounds without involving theology at all. Again the bottom line is the Vatican has approved some use of horizontal inclusive language in translating Scripture and Liturgical texts, even if they aren't crazy about it as evidenced by LA. Obviously then they don't feel any theological errors are being introduced or they would be adamant and refuse all inclusive language. If you want to talk logical fallacy, how about appealing to Rome to enforce the Liturgical Instruction while at the same time accusing them of allowing theological error by approving horizontal inclusive language. I would also point out other Eastern Churches have submitted and got approval for Liturgical texts and practices that do not adhere to the Liturgical Instruction, so obviously that too is of limited value as Rome is not willing to strictly enforce it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

1. Mr. Hashinski challenged me to state a theology of “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.” I did try to do so by placing it in the context of the paschal mystery, which is the form of the Liturgy. I think that road would have led to many insights about the use of the Beatitudes in our worship, but it was not followed up significantly in this thread, which it seems is more concerned about the words “children/sons.” When I finish my articles in the newspapers about faith, which should take most of 2008, I think I will turn to the theme of the Beatitudes.

2. Some interesting quotes were presented, particularly the translation in the King James Bible. Note also my quote from St. Augustine, but I could not verify whether in Greek St. John Chrysostom used “children” or whether the translation presented simply follows the King James translation. Since certainly the authors of KJ or St. Augustine were not involved in “feminism” issues, what this tells me is that you can “get away with” some interpretations for centuries so long as the interpretation doesn’t get entangled in (social) controversies. Actually, the Liturgy and preachers have used Scripture in this way frequently, so long as there is no apparent objection.

3. LA is cited as an authority, not by legal norm but by form of content, for the Eastern Church. One should take care, however, not to have a selective reading of church documents. Nor can an Eastern Catholic be technically disobedient to this document.

4. Respondents have made excellent points in showing the possible deeper meaning of “sons.” Particularly in noting that in the Jewish social system, “son” might mean “heir,” or also that “son” might mean “belonging to the people.” We do not know for certain the word Jesus used in Aramaic, but it would indeed most likely be the Jewish idiom for these or similar concepts. So this is one of the positive outcomes of this thread. Upon reflection, I would observe that these meanings, in English in the modern social context, would not be compromised by using the word “children,” though I can understand the feelings of those who would reject this usage.

5. Note, too, that some have quoted St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:11 “When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.” The Greek word used here is nēpios, which specifically means “little children.” Note also St. Mark 10:15 “Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." The Greek word used here is pais, which can mean “child” or “servant.” Jesus was often called pais in the very early Church, a usage which was dropped in favor of “uios.” St. John more significantly says, John 1:12 “But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name.” Here the Greek word used is teknon, which means more exactly a (young) child. These different Greek words would seem to have a different range of meanings than English, so that some concepts cannot be translated as precisely as we would want.

6. “Blessed are the peacemakers.” I am confident myself that a common ground can be found in these different terminologies used without the utter submission of one group to the other. Those who do find peace will be called “children” (or “sons” or even “daughters”) of God.

I am not so sure that Paul was speaking in hyperbole or merely about a notion of "equality" which consumes modern man:



Luke ch. 20

My logic does not mean that women can be priests... for in this age we are all bound by our bodies. In the age to come we will be one in Christ in such a way that our bodily sex will be insignificant compared to the oneness we share in Christ. The Scriptures are subtle. Rather than do violence to them and attempt to make them relevant to the day (and irrelevant to tomorrow), it is better to be faithful to the truth which speaks to men of all ages. Why must the sacred things always be tinkered with?

I am all in favor of translating Scripture as it is not as what I think it should be. As Father David rightly points out in John 1:12 children is the word in Greek:



I don't want to change children to sons. I do want to reflect on why tekna theou here and uios elsewhere. It seems on first glance because that John in the next line is distinguishing those who were "born" either of the flesh--by nature, or by adoption--"the will of man," and hence to use children is fitting because he has already spoke of those who are "born" of man.

In short, while I think there may be much to learn from the experts, they have a duty to be faithful to the text lest we get not the gospel truth but the gospel of Fr so and so or of Bishop so and so.

Fr. David:

You write:



To make your point from Scripture, could you please show us an example, as you have with the term children, where "daughter" instead of child or son is used? I think that would make your point valid and not simply a sociological "truth". For if we are to look at society, I would certainly see our own, as evidenced by the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, as one of the most disordered of all.

Thanks.

Yes, exactly! John's Gospel (even the whole Johanine canon) is very exclusive in using the word Son/uios theologically as applied only to Jesus. John tells us that is his purpose:

RSV John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

Ironically, Douay-Rheims (DR) and King James (KJ) both have "sons of God" for the tekna theou of John 1:12. (Recall they had Matt 5:9 as "children of God" for uioi theou).

If there is an indication in John of a theology of sonship as noted in Galatians, I think it may be found in John 12:36. Consider the significance of Jesus, who has said of Himself (John 8:12; 9:5) "I am the light of the world," also saying:

RSV John 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light (uioi photos). When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them.

DR, KJ, NRSV and NAB have here "children of light."


Amen.


Dn. Anthony

Can you expand on this comment? I do not understand what you are saying?

I wonder what the difference is between 'technically disobedient' and 'disobedient'?

It sounds like something Fr. Taft (Jesuit-trained) might say. Jesuits are experts at being faithful to the Church, while openly reviling the tradition.

Nick

Dear Father David,

Of course, previous English translations of the Bible used inclusive language. It was not due to feminist issues, but the on-going search for a gender-neutral first person word. As the word *you* (originally a second person plural word) was adopted as the second person singular, some contemporary translators have unsuccessfully tried the same with the word *they* as a gender neutral third person singular. So, yes, even though feminism wasn't the reason over the past few centuries, it doesn't rule out it being the reason today. My neighbor attended a Catholic university where they had to take a one credit class in proper (politically correct) wording. Stiff penalties in academia for those who didn't accept the newspeak. The ones behind this PC newspeak are usually nuns.

I believe that the choice in English translations in your RDL is due to political correctness, not for proper English equivalents with the Greek. The choice was an adulteration of Holy Writ "to accomodate the new context of these biblical texts in the Liturgy" (the RDL hymnal, page 3). It was more accomodation than proper translation. If it was a proper translation, the authors of the new liturgyspeak would have use the correct English equivalent to the word written by the Evangelist, spoken by the Lord.

I am sure one can derive all sorts of new theologies. But I would rather listen to our Lord's own words spoken on the Mount. The theology of the *sons* of God has more ties in with Jewish tradition, thinking, events and institutions in the Scriptures, and mostly in the two biggest *son of* theologies: *Son of* Man and *Son of* God. Your new liturgyspeak is a denial or rejection of those biblical traditions.

I find it odd that your worship/hymnal committee can take the initiative to return to some Greek terms (presbyters, Theotokos), but not all of them. It seems that if it is too Orthodox, then don't use the old term; if it caters to the new liturgyspeak, then use it. This is a cafeteria-style method of translating. It is a method that caters to particular groups and their preferences (reject anything Orthodox; satisfy feminists), but is dishonest to those who matter the most - the people.

Ed

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.