There was a great deal of sociological rubbish which was the reason for the distortion of the language of the new Creed and other parts of the once Divine Liturgy. Here is some of the nonsense:




http://www.davidpetras.com/page/response (my comments in red)

The irony behind all of this is that in order to proclaim the gospel, of which the Creed is a summary, to "all those female peoples," the Creed has been distorted for the “outsider.” I believe, with St. Paul, that we are not to conform ourselves to this age, but rather we are to be transformed, transfigured if you will, "by the renewal of our minds" so that we "may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." This does not sound like an invitation to distort the Creed to fit the modern lifestyle.

Language, like the air we breath can be polluted. The text of the world of which Father David speaks has indeed been distorted. He believes he has pinpointed the cause: “In the world today, however, gender roles are changing. This bodes massive sociological realignments.” Have gender roles really changed? I say not. Have they been ignored, passed over and distorted? Absolutely. This new language has been "cultivated" in a society where pleasure is the highest good for man.

Whatever advances mankind has made since the time of the Enlightenment, it has certainly failed to recognize the truth of Genesis: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply...” In the land of plenty we are doing the opposite.

While we can often decry the horrors under which many of the faithful suffered under the communists and the Nazis, the Church has been consumed in this country about issues of “gender roles” and "gender language" while babies are murdered by the millions every year. When was the last time you saw your Bishop at an abortion clinic decrying the murder of millions? When did he last preach about this heinous crime which no man of good-will could ever support through some so called right? Abortion of course followed quickly upon contraception which is accepted by many who profess to be Catholic though it is clearly a teaching from which no Catholic can dissent without separating himself from the Church. When was the last time your Bishop preached the truth that the most fundamental sacrament, marriage, is ordered to new life? Many Byzantine parishes are dying because there are so few new members. The distortions of the language and culture continue to degenerate as "gay" marriage is now creeping into the legal and daily fabric of our times. And unfortunately the new Creed and Liturgy have driven many out of the temple who actually respect and welcome the true teaching about why God created man male and female.

The world’s language is ultimately a rejection of the truth about God’s plan for man and the perfection of that world which is in the God-man, Jesus Christ and his Bride, the Church. The world might indeed walk away from an authentic Creed. But the world always has done so. It is not our job to change the Creed to fit the world. Rather it is ours to preach the gospel so that world will learn the truth about the intimate love God has for man:

And here is a good article about Alexander Solzhenitsyn's address at Harvard which sees the sociological rubbish for what it is:



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=15417&R=13BB019386

The 60's may have been the apparent unraveling of traditional society but it was the previous generation or two who set the stage.

The depression had such a profound effect that parents wanted to be sure that their children would not have to experience such hardships and showered them with opportunity and lessened life's normal sacrifices.

In WW II the country became of one mind and all opposition was unthinkable to American society (therefore the herding of Japanese Americans in "concentration" camps (exaggeration mine). If you listen to and watch WWII cartoons, programs and movies you will agree that the nationalistic propaganda was overwhelming, stifling all opposing thought. This was the parent of the 50's exaggerated fear of American Communists (McCarthyism).
Then came the liberation from war, from worries and a turn to economic opportunity and such extravagant spending on material goods that it was necessary to ration and create waiting lists! The showering of opportunities and freedoms of parents to their children nurtured the "liberation" of the young generation and grew to rejection of old values.

God's servant Alexander Solzhenitsyn had much truth to expose and is a 20th century hero, but I think that relating the Revised Divine Liturgy to Solzhenitsyn's warnings is a bit too much.

I agree. There has been enough drama on this subject to embarrass a soap opera writer. Much of it by people who don't even belong to the Byzantine Church of America. What their loss was in all this is beyond me.

Except of course when you look at the reasons why the author of the RDL wanted the linguistic changes that he made. For these see my original post. The author of the RDL and Solzhenitsyn both see sociological change, but analyze it in different ways. I'd say Solzhenitsyn sees the truth of the matter. As the author noted, the Harvard speech anticipates political correctness.

As to why I care, I am Rusyn by birth and made a change of Rites to my mother's ritual Church on the encouragement of a Ruthenian Bishop who said that the Ruthenians had the tradition I was seeking.

There are two change to the Creed, first was a de-Latinization of the Creed, the removal of a serious theological (some would say heretical) issue:



The second change is:



Now, explain to me the theological implications of the second change. Are you making the assertion that the Council intended for only men to be saved? That
Christ came only for men? Or could it simply be that the English language lacks an inclusive pronoun as other languages have.

The first change regarding the removal of the filioque is legitimate, in accordance with an Ecumenical Council and in accordance with Rome's wishes for the Eastern Churches.

The second change drops a word from the Creed without the authority of a Council and contrary to Rome's teaching in Liturgiam Authenticam.

I hold the same meaning of "men" that my Slovak and Rusyn grandmothers, my wife, my daughters and the Fathers of the Church held. It is the same meaining that Lincoln gave it in the Declaration of Independence when he did not think Black women and chldren should remain slaves. I prevent my intellect from being formed by the modern secular feminist world that states that men only has one meaning--males. The word "men" is inclusive, and just like the Greek word anthropos, it serves several purposes. It can refer to males alone or to all men without regard to sex or age.

"For us" leaves out the meaning that the Word became flesh for all men not just those present in the Church that day. "For us" can tend towards other errors. Thus when Americans say "for us" they may, according to the meaning of the words, think it excludes the people of Iraq.

Dropping a word from the Creed is wrong and those who did so, know it.

There are two problems here, at the least.

1. Misrepresentation or ignorance of standard English: A standard dictionary gives for men "the plural of man"; and man, has the primary definition "an individual human" man. That it can also mean only males is an aspect that modern English shares with the Greek of the Creed, the word being translated as men is the masculine plural accusative of anthropos, which usually means a human being but can also mean a male.

2. The present translation has as you note "for us and..." As has been noted before link on the forum, the Greek of the creed has di'(for) hemas(us) tous anthropous(not translated???) kai(and)... If the Greek of the creed just wanted to say "for us and" it could have done so but it has that word anthropous, so what's its purpose, why is it there, and why is it not translated in the RDL version?

Is it proper to simply ignore in translation a word that is obviously there on purpose, with a purpose, in the Greek original (and the Slavonic of the Recension)?

I should also say that my understanding of "men" is the same as that understood by my Roman, Eastern Catholic and Orthodox brethren. I suppose you are forced into the position of maintaining that each of these Churches are in heresy because they believe that only men will be saved.

So, it is appropriate to add or change words, but not to drop any? Rome has continually changed the Creed, which is one of the points of disagreement between East and West.



I would argue here that you are trying to make the Creed into a universal statement covering all of mankind. I would argue that it is not; this is a Creed for the followers of Christ, not those of Muhammad, and that the "for us" rightly limits it to Christians.

If you believe that only a literal word-for-word translation is appropriate, then perhaps you should consider using only the following:

Слава Ісусу Христу!

Dropping the word “men”, could it not lead to questions of animal reincarnation of the soul? We are an "Eastern mysticism".

You must have missed the plethora of episodes of the soap opera where what was lacking in the RDL were discussed?

What has been lost, here's a flavor?

-- at least two verses in the antiphons

-- little Ekteniyas

-- rubics for proper opening and closing of the royal doors

-- rubics for the opening and closing of the liturgical curtain

-- The Ekteniya of Supplication before the Nicene Creed

-- practicing use of the Ekteniya of Supplication before the Our Father

-- good music

-- good translations

-- accurate creed

etc. etc.

Why do you think I can be in and out of the BCA parish I grew up in in 45 minutes yet when I go to the ROCOR church in Parma Ohio it takes nearly 2 hours? Do you think perhaps things have been lost? You don't know what's been lost when one takes 45 minutes and the other is almost 2 hours? And will the people who are ready to write that length of liturgy isn't important blah blah blah, please realize that the salient point is that you can't have a 45 minute liturgy and tell me that stuff hasn't been cut our or lost.

I'm still waiting for the episodes of the soap opera where Vespers and Matins actually occur in more than 10% of the parishes like is the case today. Also maybe the season finale will use the word 'orthodox'

Monomakh

Yes. This is exactly how I felt. Suddenly, a mandate ocurred and I was looking at a Liturgy that had surrendered to the world of gender neutrality and political correctness. There was a generic feel to the whole thing. I could no longer bear to chant/listen to the RDL.

Thank you for stating this so clearly and directly; it is exactly the conclusion to be drawn from the RDL version, and it is a conclusion that I believe is quite wrong. Perhaps we could induce Fr. David Petras to comment here on your interpretation or better to get a definitive and authoritative pronouncement from the Metropolia and even from those in Rome who sanctioned the RDL translation. Then some of us could be at peace knowing that in fact your interpretation, understandable from the rendering "for us and..." in the RDL translation, which I believe limits and diminishes the import of the Incarnation, is in fact what the Creed intends.

Right now I'm not at peace with the RDL rendering because I believe the intention of the Creed and why that word anthropous IS there and not just the words in the RDL translation is to make clear that "for us men" that is for all Mankind, Jesus became Man, most emphatically, and contrary to your interpretation.

Now if only the authorities, having exercised their rightful authority to promulgate, would also exercise their obligation, to teach clearly and definitively on such an important question, we could have it settled and move on. But regarding your understandable interpretation of the Creed in the RDL translation, I pray, Fr. David, IELC, "Kyrs" Basil, William, John, Gerald; Rome -- "say it ain't so."

So was the DL at your parish 2 hours prior to the implementation of the RDL? Was your parish taking all those litanies and verses, and opening and closing the doors and the curtain at the proper times? If that's the case, I'd be complaining too! Unfortunately my parish never did.

My (former) Ruthenian parish was one which was reduced by the RDL. It was very sad.

I would disagree, He came to offer salvation to all, but salvation, and the Creed, are only for Christians.

So the RDL version actually clarifies the words of the Creed which only seem to imply that God became Man so that Man could become God, i.e. for us Men (anthropous) and for our salvation ... He became Man (enanthropesanta), to the proper understanding that for us (Christians) and for our salvation ... He became Man? Is that closer to what is actually being professed in the RDL translation? And that it is not the case, as I have maintained before link, that

Intimately linked with these two differing doctrines of soteriology in the Creed is the translation of philanthropos/chelovikolubets, formerly rendered Lover of Mankind, now in the RDL as lover of us all [each in their various forms]. In line with your understanding of the Creed as clarified by the RDL translation, how do you contrast and interpret the us all of lover of us all as different from Mankind?

I haven't missed anything. What I was referring to, were those who left over this revised liturgy, but keep complaining - and with drama galore. Some of my good friends are traditional Latins who have fought for around 40 years now to get their liturgy back. Thanks to Pope Benedict their efforts finally have paid off. I haven't seen much of a fight put up by some of our complainers, current and former, to preserve what was supposedly so important to them. But they surely do keep complaining. What about prayer? Wouldn't it be more productive to organize prayer for the intention of revising the revised liturgy?

What a good idea! Do you think they would allow us to pray our old Liturgy for this intention?

Nick

I would agree that, here, mankind would be a better choice than "us all" as it is inclusive of those outside of the group. I never said that proper choices were made everywhere, in the Creed "us" is appropriate because it is written to be exclusive of those outside of the group.

Part of the problem is that the DL was written by, and during, a patristic age, where women were not considered equals. The NT itself seems confused on the status of women in the church, and even today we practice very patristic attitudes. Converting text is a very difficult thing to do, and the NRSV shows just how badly it can be done.

This is incorrect. When we profess, in the Creed, “who for us men and for our salvation He became man” we are professing the truth that Christ became man and suffered crucifixion for all men, that is every man from Adam and Eve forward to the last soul conceived before the Second Coming. [Whether an individual accepts that salvation is a different question.] To suggest that the Creed was “written to be exclusive of those outside the group” is heresy. [And I do not for a moment believe that the bishops considered this interpretation when they removed the term "man" ("anthropos") from the Creed, or that Proskvnetes intends to speak heresy!]


The above text was a response to an earlier draft of the English text of the Creed in the Roman Catholic Church were the translators embraced political correctness by omitting the word “men” in “who for us men and for our salvation”. The Roman Catholic Church has kept the clarity of doctrine in its new translation by leaving the text as “who for us men and our salvation He became man”. [The same problem is found throughout the RDL in texts which formerly were inclusive ("who is gracious and loves mankind") but are now, at best, doctrinally imprecise.] I pray daily that the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs will correct this mistake in translation, since here in this discussion we have a clear example of the doctrinal problems that come with the adoption of politically correct “gender neutral language”.

Most who have left (including myself) still have friends and/or family in the Byzantine Catholic Church. Most who are displeased with the RDL (including myself) have written polite letters to Rome explaining their disatisfaction with the RDL. Most who are displeased with the RDL (including myself) continue to pray for the Church.

So your continued accusations of bitter complainers is completely unwarranted.

I have obviously not succeeded in demonstrating to you otherwise. It is ironic to me that those who, I would say, tortured the language and the content of the Creed in order to impose an ill-informed solution to the questionable agenda of gender "inclusivity," have produced in your understanding an exclusivity, "those outside of the group" as you say. Christ is only the new partial-Adam. Once again, it would be good to know just what was intended by the RDL translation. But the failure to simply teach what is objectively there, what that word men/anthropous in the Creed means -- that it is very inclusive, that it is there for a good reason and on purpose, that it is necessary -- has produced instead a basic confusion about the significance and scope of the Incarnation in that sarkosis-theosis is professed to be, in your interpretation of the RDL version, intrinsically exclusive by divine intent.



Within the Church, whatever the deficiencies in its application, the teaching is actually quite clear: 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.

Unfortunately, lured by the fashion of the times, and based on an alleged need or demand for "inclusive" language -- a need that has never been substantiated -- someone or ones who will not step forward to claim credit and explain their translation, now are "mute as fish" and are hidden in anonymity. Apparently confusion on the part of the faithful, as witnessed by our disagreement over a significant dogmatic issue, is not provocation enough for the someone or ones who fostered this translation to go on record with an explanation.

I stand corrected, after re-reading with your explanation in mind I see that you are correct. apologies to all.

Sadly, the teaching is not consistent, I wish that teaching was the standard of the churches, so much would be different. However, in 1Cor 14:33 we read:

Were women truly considered equals, then they would not only be permitted to speak in the church, but to offer teaching as well. Did the Holy Spirit, in their thinking, limit His gifts to men only, or did He provide only certain gifts to women? Both teaching and practice are inconsistent.

Women were equal with regards to salvation, but full equality was not given to them.

This is what happens when one reads a 1st century, even inspired writing, with a 21st century outlook. Why limit the understanding of equality to speaking and teaching? How about the priesthood -- why limit that to only males; etc.? What does it take for full equality in your concept of the Church?

How unfair of St. Paul and the Church all this time in limiting women as only "equal with regards to salvation" and not the important stuff.

What is your conclusion then about the translation of the Creed concerning the RDL's "for us and for..." versus "for us men and for..."?

This points to the fact that the Bishops who approved the new version of the Creed are banking on the fact that the faithful will supply in their own minds, the missing word - men. It is not the meaning which the Bishops wanted to get rid of, but just the word. But we humans can't escape the fact that it is through words that we understand, and ultimately through the Word made flesh that we are united to ultimate meaning in God Himself.

One then has to ask the question, "Is it legitimate for some strange notion of the common good - not to upset certain women, to arbitrarily dismiss words from the Creed which was formulated by an Ecumenical Council?" For no other reason than the fact that word, 'anthropous - men" is in the Creed, this new version is not authentic or true. That's dangerous ground to be on when it is the Symbol of Faith that one is dealing with. Another question that must be asked is, "Whether four Bishops have the authority to change the Creed?" They most certainly do not. Finally, Bishops and faithful alike must approach the Creed, the Symbol of Faith, with faith seeking understanding.

I would say, and have said, that "for us men and our salvation....he became man" is the best translation and withour error. It is beautiful and theologically sound. For example, to say "for us human beings and for our salvation...he became a human being," while perhaps less offensive to some, is not elegant, is too abstract, and ignores that the Word became man -- a male human being. Because of the many meanings of the word, "men" does the job very well. For men, without regard to sex or age or anything else, God became man -- a man who is the Bridegroom of the soul and of the Church.

Bishops must always be careful when relying on the experts to make their judgments for them. In the case of the RDL, sociological nonsense trumped sound Christian doctrine. The wolf has obscured the truth and the sheep have scattered.

I am glad that you do pray for the church. I have no idea as to whether or not you are bitter. As for my take on the RDL, it's my church and no one is going to drive me away. It's worth staying and fighting for. These bishops are not going to be around forever, and anything they have promulgated can be changed. I find it surprising in so many forum posts, that some who profess great love for the BCA left so easily, and apparently did not find it worth fighting for. It seems to me that when one leaves, that one is no longer part of the problem or the solution.

Amen.

I have a friend who is a minister in the Church of Christ, one of his positive observations of the RCC is the tenacity of the people with regards to the church. I his church when people disagree they fracture off and create a new church/denomination. When people in the RCC disagree they stay and fight. It would seem that the BCC follows the former rather than the latter.

In my particular parish, over the last three decades every time there was a disagreement with the priest letters would be written, then the letter writers would leave, either for the RCC or the EOC. When changes were then made to address the issue, the people who complained were no longer there, and those who remained had to deal with the new changes (whether they liked them or not). We have gone from a parish of over 400 families to one that floats around 200.

My stand has not changed, I feel the current reading is as valid as the old, though perhaps "for all of mankind and our salvation...." would have been a better translation in lines of satisfying both sides.

My admission of error was with regards to the exclusivity of the Creed, not the validity of the translation. We live in a hypersensitive age, and many mistakes are being made to satisfy both sides.

I think that the revisers should have sent the new DL out to a few select parishes for commentary, made appropriate adjustments, then a distribution to the church. A grave disservice was made with the way things were done; I am particularly upset with the music, it's great for a trained choir, but near-impossible for the general laity to perform. It reminds me of many of the OCA churches I attended this summer, beautiful chanting, silence among the people. They love the sound of their choirs, but find it impossible to do themselves.

I had presumed your "error" resulted from the RDL wording, but if I now understand correctly that is not the case. Even the wording "for us men and for our salvation...", which says no more or less than the Greek original, was itself ambiguous in that it allowed you to ascribed to it the same exclusive interpretation (as in your previous posts). That is, since as you say " the current reading is as valid as the old," you had understood even "for us men and for..." in the same erroneous, exclusive way as the RDL wording "for us and for..."?

Also, do you not see a problem in that the word "anthropous/men" is simply not translated in the RDL version? If no problem, and the word is not necessary, then why do you think it is there in the Greek original since it is not required for one to say (in Greek), as in the RDL, "for us and for..."?

The Church has never equated equality with sameness.

Yes, the Holy Spirit did limit some gifts to men and others to women. Think fatherhood and motherhood. Just as the members of the Trinity are three distinct and different Persons living in a unity of love so, too, are men and women as a “unity of two” called to live in a communion of love. The seemingly endless competition between men and women was not part of God’s saving plan. It flows from human sinfulness and needs to be overcome. To reduce the innate differences between man and woman to plumbing and insist on sameness is to miss the Church’s teaching on equality, and even to garble the whole message of salvation. Pope John Paul the Great spoke to this with great eloquence.

Good for you. God bless.
Let us pray.
You do not know the reasons that people might leave the BCC nor how easy it was for them to leave.

You are not a reader of hearts.

Is this your theory?

It depends on what type of translation you are looking for. i.e., with the bible you have literal translations (Young's) where the translator attempts to translate every word and hopes that it makes sense to the reader. Then you have the Dynamic-Equivalent (or thought-for-thought) that attempts to translate the intent of the original text (NIV). Lastly, you have the Paraphrase, where they try to have the text make sense to modern readers (New Living Bible).

Translation from one language to another is not easy, and is often a compromise. How many different words in the LXX get translated into English as "love", and what is lost by this translation? Is agape = phileo?

In modern English usage, does "us" include the same group of people as "us men", or does "us men" exclude/include someone that "us" does not?

Those are physical characteristics, a man cannot give birth. Is that really the same as the gifts of the Spirit that Paul was speaking of:



Is there, beyond the decision of whom to give which gift, also a blatant discrimination against women being given the gift of teaching? Or was it a patristic decision to ignore the gift in women?

You clip far too much, had to go back to see the reference.

No, it is an observation based upon comments from members of this forum (and others), as well as the behavior of parishioners in my, and other BCC, parishes.

I have seen the membership in parishes diminish because of infant baptism, elimination of the "filioque", procession of the priest during DL, elimination of Slavonic in DL, and, yes, over the gender-neutral issue. Rather than staying and fighting for what they believe is right, they send off a few letters to anger the bishopric, then leave for what they assume are greener pastures.

When VCII swept the RCC church many hated (and still do) the vernacular mass; they fought and were allowed to create churches which still offer the Latin High Mass. Now, some have fought issues and when they lost they left the church, but at least they stayed until the fight was over.

It seems that way to me, as well. I have wondered if our church has become the Baptists of the east, since we are so fractious and prone to split when we don't get our way.

Yes, yes, yes, all the concepts. How about just treating the actual text under consideration, one phrase from the Creed. I've given it above and in the links I've provided; the syntax and grammar does not require rocket-science Greek; every other word in the Greek is treated very well in English except that troublesome anthropous which suddenly becomes invisible in the RDL. I've pointed out the rhetorical structure of the phrase and how it demands a translation that maintains the link "for us MEN ... He became MAN." And I've further indicated why dropping the MEN, driven solely by "inclusivity" and yet keeping MAN gives the wrong impression, that keeping MAN is ok since He's a male and that's all that the Creed is professing there -- one can therefore get away with it.

In standard English that all can understand if they allow, "for us men..." expresses exactly the theological intent of the Creed; it only becomes necessarily exclusive if one insists that it be so.

So to answer your question: For the given phrase of the Creed in its context, in modern English usage, "us" does not include the same group of people as "us men", and "us men" does not exclude anyone and does include all Mankind explicitly while "us" does not?

I was pointing out that the competition that exists between man and woman (and the desire by some for sameness) is not part of God’s saving plan. When we look to the Trinity as the example of how different persons – including men and woman – are equal we can then see that these other gifts [in 1 Cor 12] are properly understood as both different and equal. Different because each gift is unique. Equal because the Giver is the same. To insist that the Spirit distribute gifts equally among men and women is to embrace the world’s understanding of equality. Remember that Paul does not say that the gifts are distributed according to the desires of either the individual or the collective but that it is the Spirit “who apportions to each one individually as he wills”.


Are you suggesting that the Lord Himself discriminated against women because He gave different roles to the men and women disciples? And because the Church follows these roles exactly and feels she has no authority to change them?

You seem to approach the question as if the gifts of the Spirit are things one claims for himself. But the Giver of the gifts is the one who apportions them! I personally do not seem to have any great gifts. I am weak of faith. I cannot heal. I cannot work miracles. I am not a prophet. I cannot interpret prophecy. I know women who each have one or more of these gifts. Should I be jealous? Or should I rejoice that they are blessed with those gifts? Yes! I should rejoice. Likewise should a woman be upset because the Spirit has reserved some gifts (such as ordination) to men? No! She should rejoice for the wonderful gift that ordination and all that comes with this ministry of service (the Sacraments) is!

But I suppose according to the world I should be jealous that the women disciples were given the gift of approaching the tomb in the early morning and finding it empty. That gift was denied to the men disciples.

Christians have often unjustly discriminated against women. But there was no organized patristic effort to deny women the gifts of the Spirit because they were women.

Ah, but this is my point. Women were the first ones given the gift to preach the Gospel (tr: good news), the Apostles were not given this gift until after the descent of the Holy Spirit. Is this not the indication that women were meant for preaching/teaching/ordination as well as men, but ignored by the male-dominated society of the day?

The RCC church has decided that married men are not suited for the role of ordination, the Eastern Churches (with the exception of the Pittsburgh Metropolia) do not feel this is the wish of the Spirit. The Spirit felt that only women were suited to preach the word of the Resurrection, but the churches have deemed otherwise. Is it not possible that the churches got this wrong as well?

I question not that the gifts are something we claim for ourselves, but rather that the church has blinders on with regards to the will of the Spirit. There are many fine women in the western churches who have been given the gift of preaching the word, and many men in the RC/EO churches who have received ordination without being given the gift.

You are confusing gifts. The gift to proclaim the Gospel is one that all Christians have. We have a responsibility to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ to the entire world. This is not the same gift as ordination.


So you are suggesting that the Lord Himself unjustly discriminated against women by not specifically assigning them the same ministry as to the men disciples with the breathing of the Spirit? Even a cursory study of the Gospels shows that the Lord assigned different roles each to the men and women disciples. On Pentecost He gathered the disciples – eleven males – and breathed upon them the Holy Spirit.

Or maybe you are suggesting that the Lord did assign equal roles to women throughout His ministry and that the Gospel writers and early Christians conspired to re-write what actually happened because of a vast cultural hatred of women?

You may mean something else entirely, but your whole argument relies on twisting Scripture.


The decision of the Roman Catholic Church not to ordain married men is a discipline, not an authoritative Teaching. It is not a matter of right and wrong. There is absolutely no claim by the Catholic Church (and never has been) that is the doctrinal or dogmatic wish of the Spirit that only single men be ordained. The Roman Catholic Church is clear in stating that it restricts ordination only to celibate men for what it considers the good order of the Church.


Actually you question the Lord himself, and His decision only to breathe the Holy Spirit upon eleven males at Pentecost.

I'm not sure of the scope of meaning of your terms, gift to preach, Gospel=good news. Can you give the scripture verses you had in mind that were the basis for your statement?

Regarding "the Apostles were not given this gift until after the descent of the Holy Spirit," for instance, there is clearly: