Folks,

Haven't posted on this board for a while, but here's an important article concerning Roman Catholic liturgical translations. A number of the regulars (especially Rusnak) will be glad to hear that ICEL has been stopped dead in its tracks.

In Christ,
Steven

__________________________________________________________________________________

VATICAN CRACKS DOWN ON LITURGICAL TRANSLATIONS

VATICAN, May 7, 01 (CWNew.s.com) ? The Vatican has issued new norms for the translation of liturgical texts, repudiating the principles that have been used in recent English-language translations.
The new Vatican instruction specifically says that translators: - Should not adapt the original Latin texts, but render them faithfully in the vernacular language; - Should preserve gender-based references, especially in the Scriptures-rather than changing texts to more "inclusive" language; - Should obtain Vatican approval at each step in the process of translation, editing, and adaptation of texts.

In a 50-page document that was made public on May 7, the Congregation for Divine Worship stresses the need for a faithful rendering of the liturgical text approved by the Holy See. The document, entitled Liturgiam Authenticam, is signed by Cardinal Jorge Medina Estevez, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. But the document also stresses that the text has the explicit support of Pope John Paul II, who "approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority."

Although Vatican officials say for the record that there have been no serious problems with liturgical translations, informed sources acknowledge that the new document is a response to sharp disagreements over English-language translations. The International Committee on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), which has until recently produced all official translations for English-speaking countries, has been heavily criticized by Catholic activists? and, more recently, by some American bishops.

In fact, the principles set forth in Liturgiam Authenticam clearly contradict the policies used by ICEL for years. The Vatican's new definitive rules would raise questions about the translations now available in use in English-speaking countries, including the latest Lectionary. These same guidelines, if they were applied consistenly to translations of the Scriptures, could call into question the translations used in the New Revised Standard Version, the Revised New American Bible, and the Jerusalem Bible.

Some changes mandated by the new Vatican instruction are sure to command immediate attention. For example, the document insists on "the use of the first person singular" in the opening of the Nicene Creed, so that the Creed should begin "I believe" rather than "We believe." And the document calls for the Congregation to reply, "And with your spirit"-rather than "And also with you," when the celebrant says, "The Lord be with you." But the more important message of Liturgiam Authenticam is the rejection of ICEL's overall approach to translation.

Since the Second Vatican Council, liturgical translations have been done by national episcopal conferences-or, as in the case with English translations-by commissions set up jointly by the bishops of different countries that share a common language. These translations must be approved by the Holy See before being put into use. During the past decade, the Vatican has refused to grant approval for several English-language translations, and approved others only after having insisted on substantial modifications.

The Congregation for Divine Worship indicates that the purpose of Liturgiam Authenticam is to provide official norms for translations, to guide the work of the bishops' conference. The document makes it clear that these norms supersede the guidelines set forth in previous Vatican statements. Officials of the Congregation stress that there is "nothing new" in the document. Rather, they suggest, the Vatican is making the record clear in order to curb translators from indulging in their own novelties.

The Latin texts that are submitted to translators, the Congregation for Divine Worship points out, "are themselves the fruit of the liturgical renewal." Those texts do not need to be "renewed" by translators, the document emphasizes; they should merely be translated accurately.

Similarly, Liturgiam Authenticam denies that translators have the authority to prepare "alternative" texts. Again, the document stresses, the job of the translator is simply to render the Latin text into the vernacular language, without editorial changes.

The most heated disputes about liturgical translation have centered on the use of "inclusive" language. The Congregation rejects the effort to strip all gender-based references out of the liturgy. Thus, for example, the document says: "The term 'fathers,' found in many biblical passages and liturgical texts of ecclesiastical composition, is to be rendered by the corresponding masculine word into vernacular languages insofar as it may be seen to refer to the Patriarchs or the kings of the chosen people in the Old Testament, or to the Fathers of the Church."

Moreover, Liturgiam Authenticam dismisses the fundamental argument used by proponents of "inclusive" language: the idea that gender-specific language might cause some people (in most cases women) to think they were being "excluded" from the message of the liturgy. Preachers and teachers should ensure that no Catholic feels excluded from the liturgy, the Congregation for Divine Worship says. But that task is not a function of translation. The new document explains:

"Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy."

I've read the instruction and my first reaction was, "Finally!" a lot of the translations we have now are just bad and it's obvious even to my paltry Latin skills.

Incessant translation of texts by supposed experts gives me the feeling that they really aren't experts in the first place! If they were, wouldn't they have gotten things right by now?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ignatius:

"Incessant translation of texts by supposed experts gives me the feeling that they really aren't experts in the first place! If they were, wouldn't they have gotten things right by now?"

Yes, they are not experts. In fact, I believe that their first objective was to adopt the worst translation possible. The result: exit mystery.

Instead of trying to translate the Latin verbatim or trying to be politically correct, just adopt a translation that is poetic and reverent. A good translation need not be at odds with the original meaning of the text.

To be fair, the goal for these commitees is to maximize the congregations' understanding of the Mass, Scripture, etc. However, it is more important to enter into the mystery of God and experience His greatness than to have a modern, newspaper-like "understanding" of the texts.

Greg, accountant & sinner

Dear Greg,

Your "accountant and sinner" reminded me of how the Guild of Lawyers received their patron.

A lawyer tried to press Rome to declare a patron for his profession.

He was told to go to a church where there were statues of saints not yet assigned to guilds.

He was to be blind-folded, led around the Church three times and then the first saint whose statue he would grab would be the lawyers' patron.

He did so and then grabbed hold of something while he yelled, "We have our patron! We have our patron!"

When he took off his blindfold, he saw that he had grabbed hold of the statue of the devil that St Michael was standing on . . .

Thomas More and Ives of Brittany later became the patrons of lawyers . . .

Alex

Dear Steven,

And now if only the Ukrainian Catholic Church could have a single translation of the same calibre - well a lot of us are certainly "hotovy" (ready) for it!

Alex

Wonderful news! Actual translations, getting rid of the ICEL paraphrases and other errors (like ‘for all’ for pro multis), will get rid of about half the problems with the Novus Ordo. Next: restoring gestures and postures of Godward common prayer (which the Byzantine Rite has) with better rubrics, better architecture and interior design (both a return to old forms and a development of new forms that share their character) and a reversal of iconoclasm.

Iconoclasm lasted in the Byzantine Empire for about 100 years? In the Roman Church the restoration may already be under way in only 40. Good.

Serge

Old World Rus’

Does anyone know for sure if the corrected liturgical translations will indeed restore the Words of Christ in the Institution Narritave back to, "for you and for many"?

Is there a plan to print revised English Missals, etc., and officially mandate their use, and if so, what is the expected time frame for all this to come about? How long might it take before corrected translations actually replace the current ones?

Will some local priests be at liberty to drag their feet in implementing the change, or will there be a quick, sweeping change, once everything is approved and finalized?

[This message has been edited by Mirfsem (edited 05-17-2001).]

>>>Will some local priests be at liberty to drag their feet in implementing the change, or will there be a quick, sweeping change, once
everything is approved and finalized?<<<

You mean in the same manner that our God-loving bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches have done for the past 56 years?

Christ is Risen!!!

Of course, we now have a whole generation raised in the ICEL liturgy. If the RC Bishops order changes, they will get a whole new chorus of "we've always done it this way!". I suppose we shall see.

He is Risen Indeed!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

>>Of course, we now have a whole generation raised in the ICEL liturgy. If the RC Bishops order changes, they will get a whole new chorus of "we've always done it this way!". I suppose we shall see.<<

If by "we've always done it this way" you mean changing things on a fairly regular basis you may be right.

Besides, if the bishops and priests would take the time to actually educate the faithful regarding the history of the Church and the liturgy I think the chances of a problem will be reduced. The new guidelines are certainly more in keeping with the organic development of the Mass over the past two centuries than anything ICEL has put out in its illustrious career (kind of sad when a bunch of guys in Italy know more about the English language than people who are supposedly native speakers ).

The new guidelines seem to be an excellent implementation of tradition into the present life of the Church.

I think the rank-and-file Roman Catholics, both the faithful Mass-goers and the casual ones, will be happy as long as the Mass is still in the vernacular.

Serge

Old World Rus’

This document has been hotly debated in a number of Internet groups that appeal to a wide spectrum of RC believers. The reaction has been mixed, but hardly anyone is defending the quality of the current translations. Most of the critics of this document don't like the heavy-handed way in which it was implemented and how the document "ties the hands" of the translators. Also, the document takes a pretty hard line with regard to inclusive language, and that alone is sure to trigger a negative response from some.

Given the weakened state of the English language these days, it will take a minor miracle to produce a text that is simultaneously accessible to most people, theologically sound, and at the same has a touch of poetry.

In Christ,
Steven

"I think the rank & file RCs will be happy.."
"given the weakened state of the English language.."

I moved from my old RC parish several years ago. We must have been in a time warp? In kindness I deleted the specifics.

Unless my situation is irregular, this is what I have come to believe: when there is unfaithfulness, blatant sometimes, it is not due to ignorance or carelessness. Confusion, subtle changes in rites and the liturgy, may guide some along a path they might not otherwise trod.

I have a very deep pain inside, please pray for us.

I agree that there have been serious problems with translations in the Roman liturgy over the past years. I clearly remember 70 novices and young seminarians trying to suppress laughter when in the Gospel reading, the woman tore her house upside down looking for her 'lost dime'.

As a diplomaed theologian and an MS PhD linguist, I realize that rendering text from one language to another is not an easy task. There is a 'dictionary definition' of a word (semantic meaning); but there is also a 'pragmatics' type semantic that attempts to understand what the word meant in the cultural milieu. Thus, the 'dime' was the actual semantic meaning for that coin at that time. So, even in a mid-19th century rendering, a dime was a fairly decent sum of money. It would buy 2 loaves of bread. But today, even a piece of hard candy is worth 25 cents!

Thus, the liturgical (and scriptural) translator has got to work within linguistic frameworks, but has got to also decide which of potentially several conflicting theologies to incorporate into the translations. As an example, Byzantine translators use: "Trinity, one in ESSENCE (or SUBSTANCE) and undivided." If you're a 'Western scholastic', you choose substance; if not, then essence. And the people have no idea what the difference might be, so perhaps you ought to use: "Being".

This also leads to questions about referring to God as "He". Sure, it feels comfortable because 'that's the way we've always referred to God'. But, if one is being theologically (and linguistically accurate) since God is a spirit and has neither a pee-pee or a woo-woo, then shouldn't we be using a 'tertium quid'? (Hebrew doesn't have a neither-masculine-nor-feminine alternative. Latin and Greek do. So does English: "It". German does; but French and Italian don't. Neither do Spanish or Portuguese. So, is God: "It"?

The French use the 'formal' "VOUS" in speaking to God in prayers. The Germans use the "DU" familiar form. The Greek doesn't distinguish. Neither does English.

So, the question exists: use the purely semantic form (and get "dime") or use the pragmatic semantic form and get to play "Wheel of Fortune" with which theological perspective is going to determine the appropriate word? And then, you've got to find someone who not only knows the languages, knows the theology, but who can actually produce DECENT language to render the texts. (I love a lot of the Ruthenian hymns, but I CRINGE at some of the grammar. I only wish that there had been a cadre of nuns in the 'translators' grammar schools to impose ruler-justice on linguistic infelicities.)

I wish I could win the lottery to establish a Byzantine translation institute in America for all the Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics to produce a Pulitzer Award Winning translation of our liturgical texts. The Sisters in Uniontown and Bishop Kallistos have done great work; but we can, and should, do better.

Christ is Risen! (Christ HAS Risen!) (Christ HAS BEEN Risen!)

Does anyone know if this new translation/revised translation is only applicable for European languages or for all languages? I live in Japan and here, the Liturgy translation into Japanese is in very archaic Japanese, which is akin to the English of Beowolf. If it were based on the translations of St. Francis Xavier, then I could understand, but from what I have heard (Hearsay, mind you) the Liturgy we use is only about 30yrs old. Anyone know the answer as to whether or not the Japanese Liturgy will be revised?.....or will I have to wait until Sunday to ask our Priest.

Shuu no heiwa,

Jason Glavy
Yokohama, Japan

>>This also leads to questions about referring to God as "He". Sure, it feels comfortable because 'that's the way we've always referred to God'. But, if one is being theologically (and linguistically accurate) since God is a spirit and has neither a pee-pee or a woo-woo, then shouldn't we be using a 'tertium quid'? (Hebrew doesn't have a neither-masculine-nor-feminine alternative. Latin and Greek do. So does English: "It". German does; but French and Italian don't. Neither do Spanish or Portuguese. So, is God: "It"?<<

I think using “He” in reference to God might have more to do with divine revelation than with linguistics. Didn’t the SON become Incarnate as a MAN? Isn’t He eternally generated from the FATHER? Don’t we become SONS in the SON?

There’s more to this than linguistics, and there is (apparently) more to gender than primary sexual characteristics (i.e., Dr. John’s clinical expressions “pee-pee” and “woo-woo”) although since Christ became a man in the Incarnation then it could be argued that God now in fact DOES have genitalia.

It is my understanding from reading Liturgiam Authenticam that it's giudelines are to be applied to ALL languages, not just European ones.

Ignatius' post poses a conundrum.

"I think using “He” in reference to God might have more to do with divine revelation than with linguistics. Didn’t the SON become Incarnate as a MAN? Isn’t He eternally generated from the FATHER? Don’t we become SONS in the SON?"

The problem lies in the fact we have to use language to express our faith. And when using terms like MAN and FATHER, it becomes difficult to accommodate our other understanding of Who-God-Is. In the OT, when asked Who was present, the inspired writer said: "I-AM-WHO-AM", a nice metaphysical defining of God as the source of all that is. According to the OT, God has a personal name, the tetragrammaton, which was never to be uttered by Jews -- although many of our current scriptures and liturgies toss it around with wild abandon. (The misinterpretation of the Hebrew scriptures led to the unfortunate coining of Jehovah -- which certainly must have been a cause of amusement to early Renaissance Jews.) God is also referred to as Ha-Shemayim, literally One-Up-There-in-the-Heavens. Our Lord, in His prayer, referred to God as "Father", much to the chagrin of His contemporaries, who thought the term too 'familiar' for the Divinity.

My points are:

We are constricted by language, which being anthropomorphic, restricts us to gender labelling.

Second, our understanding of "God", ever widening, proposes to us a vast array of concepts that we use to understand Who God is. "Being", "Uncaused Cause" (Aquinas), "Ontos Oon" (Greek: "Being BEING!") inscribed on Greek icons, "King", "Ha-Shem", "Lord", "Master", "Creator", "Source" "Alpha and Omega", "Fortress", etc. The use of one term or another can hardly reflect a scintilla of God; our human minds are just too encumbered. And to reduce the concept/verbiage of "God" to one perspective like "Father" (though it, in itself is one of many terms used by Christ), is to fail to acknowledge that just one word can never be adequate.


Ignatius continues: "There’s more to this than linguistics, and there is (apparently) more to gender than primary sexual characteristics (i.e., Dr. John’s clinical expressions “pee-pee” and “woo-woo”) although since Christ became a man in the Incarnation then it could be argued that God now in fact DOES have genitalia."

No, I disagree since, unless we are talking about mystical experiences of the Divinity, we are forced to use language bound terminology. I.e., linguistics.

The last statement really puzzles me: "..
and there is (apparently) more to gender than primary sexual characteristics (i.e., Dr. John’s clinical expressions “pee-pee” and “woo-woo”)."

I don't understand how one can possibly talk about "MAN" and "FATHER" in human context without carrying along the 'primary sexual characterisics' of maleness. What more can there be to 'gender' except for 'primary sexual characteristics'?

If God indeed is a "Spirit", then how do we determine IF there is gender involved, and if so, which gender it is? And, in the absence of 'primary sexual characteristics', what is the meaning?

The fact that the Second Person of the Trinity appeared among us on earth as a male certainly validates the designation "Son" of God. And, in Jewish society of that time, certainly patriarchal, there would be a 'father/son' model that would be clear to His disciples. But I don't think it tells the whole story. (I find it interesting that our Jewish friends determine Jewishness if the MOTHER is Jewish, not the father. .. but that's another bulletin-board. Oy!)

(If I'm raving here, I must confess that I'm reacting to things I've seen and heard elsewhere through which the "man", "male", "father" etc. terms are used to deny womenfolk their legitimate status as Children of God -- and all that that implies, or worse: to subjugate female people to a lesser status. Somewhat like an ecclesiastical schoolyard where the boys won't let the girls play with them because they are 'only girls'. Sure, there are some women who are vehement about feminism, and who espouse all sorts of 'beyond the fringe' beliefs. But we shouldn't let these folks deter us from the basic Christian belief that every human soul is valuable in the sight of God, and that we as a community have the moral obligation to love ALL and respect ALL with equal fervor. So, if that means re-translating hymns about "Sons of God" to "Children of God", then, in imitation of Christ's unwavering love for people, we should do no less.)

Christ is Risen!

S

Brothers,
How interesting. Recently attended a graduation at Graduate Theological Union.
The language used was completely neuter and the liturgy could have been attnded by a jew, a moslem, bhuddist, hindu in fact it only seems that everyone but an atheist could have participated. I am sure they where working on trying to corrct that "problem"!

It was all that I could to refrain from laughing, especially as they all processed down from the altar swirling their rainbow streamers.

If this is where these future leaders of the Roman Church are trying to lead their people but that it should cease to exist from the face of the earth.

Stephanos

Stephanos' experience is, unfortunately, all too common among theological educational institutions. The reason? There is very little money to provide support to seminaries of the individual religious communities and so they are constrained to join with other groups to meet the accreditation standards for degree granting institutions. My own seminary training was conducted in a theological union that included Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Reform Church, Harvard Divinity (mostly Presbyterian and Methodist), as well as the diocesan Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox seminaries. Apart from the latter two, there was a lot of cross registration, especially in scripture (Harvard was the best for scholars, quel surpise!) but the local RC and Greek seminaries were considered too parochial and oftentimes of lesser academic quality than some of the other schools. Also, the Greek seminary conducted its courses in Greek, a definite dis-incentive for cross-registration.

I propose that in a pluralistic academic environment, especially among people who are geared towards humble ecclesiastical service, there is a tendency to accommodate each and every variation that presented itself. Thus, the behavior tended towards the least common denominator, i.e., K-Mart liturgics. So, rainbow pom-poms, etc.

I would hope that the seminary experiences of pluralistic communities like the GTU will allow people to be open to the wide variety of people who come to churches seeking salvation, but that they also will begin to realize that regular parish lives are less pluralistic because the people are more homogeneous.

HOWEVER, we also have to realize that if we are to engage in evangelization, we've GOT to get outside the frameworks that are so 'comfortable' and 'acceptable' to the members of the congregation, and break the mold to reach the unchurched. But, at the same time, this is not a license to go nuts. The question for the clergy is: where does one draw the line?

I think that sometimes the hidebound nature of the institutional church frustrates the daylights out of the praying clergy who are haunted by their incredible responsibilities towards God for outreach to the unchurched, and their 'obligations' to the institution.

The creative ones are able to utilize the canonical frameworks and manipulate the forms and the structures to do the outreach. Liturgy is vibrant; music is great; preaching is on target; people become loving and concerned; the priest is omnipresent. The non-creative ones just follow the form and let the chips fall where they may. If the attendance decreases, well, "It's God's will. I'm doing what the books and canons prescribe."

While some people seem to have no understanding of what is 'appropriate' in their dealings with others, there are others who seem to be so terrified of doing anything outside the books, that the church suffers from petrification, and those who need to be evangelized DON'T hear the Gospel.

Sure, there are those who respond to 3 and 4 hour services, conducted in a mixture of living and dead languages, with a sermonizing that admits of one and only one interpretation. This ecclesiastical format will work for them. But what about the other 99% who cannot respond to this?

We Byzantines represent less than 1% of the population. The Jews are slightly more than 2%. Who has had the bigger impact upon American life? And why?

It's not the ICEL, though it's a convenient scapegoat. (And, as a linguist, I admit that their translations oftentimes stink.) But that's not the whole story.

What do we do for true evangelization?

Christos Anesti!

>>Brothers,
How interesting. Recently attended a graduation at Graduate Theological Union.
The language used was completely neuter and the liturgy could have been attnded by a jew, a moslem, bhuddist, hindu in fact it only seems that everyone but an atheist could have participated. I am sure they where working on trying to corrct that "problem"!<<

Yet another excellent example of why the Vatican has released new translation guidelines. By completely getting rid of gender specific terms and other such innovations the worship becomes something less than Catholic, it seems to me. After all, God revealed Himself using gender specific terms. They must mean SOMETHING. They must somehow reflect His nature. To get rid of them is to basically say, “Sorry God, we know more about You than You do.”

>>It was all that I could to refrain from laughing, especially as they all processed down from the altar swirling their rainbow streamers.<<

Well, that was charitable of you. I am unsure if I could have refrained, myself. I still get the urge to trip any liturgical dancer that gets too close to me (Not a real common experience, thanks be to God.)

Dear Ignatius,

As for liturgical dance, I really have no use for modern dance, but the Ethiopian Church does make extensive use of liturgical dance and it can be a beautiful experience.

I have also participated in First Nations dancing with the two-step to drums.

Perhaps liturgical dance has a place in some liturgical contexts, but I think the simple integration of secular dance into the liturgy does an injustice to this ancient spiritual art-form.

Alex

Much of the inclusive language mess is driven by the fact that the Christian God is an intimately personal God. It will not do to refer to Him/Her as "It". Somehow a personal pronoun is demanded.

I would argue for using "Him" in the liturgy primarily because Jesus did refer to his Father, not Mother. This, by the way, is less a sexual connotation than an appeal to certain characteristics of fathers in general: setting standards of character, calling forth his children to the adult world, the source of ultimate appeal. This is not to say that mothers can't or don't do these kinds of things; it's just that these responsibilities are laid at the feet of fathers. And if contemporary society has a real hard time with this, it reflects the weakened state of fatherhood in our times.

This does not prevent us from experiencing God as feminine. Our spiritual lives are (or certainly ought to be) a whole lot richer than just the liturgies. I have no problem with people saying "God our Mother" in this context.

In Christ,
Steven

>>I think using “He” in reference to God might have more to do with divine revelation than with linguistics. Didn’t the SON become Incarnate as a MAN? Isn’t He eternally generated from the FATHER? Don’t we become SONS in the SON?<<

>The problem lies in the fact we have to use language to express our faith. And when using terms like MAN and FATHER, it becomes difficult to accommodate our other understanding of Who-God-Is.<

??? It does? Then WHY did GOD reveal Himself using these terms? To confuse us? It seems to me that “Father” is a much easier term to understand than “I Am Who Am.”

>In the OT, when asked Who was present, the inspired writer said: "I-AM-WHO-AM", a nice metaphysical defining of God as the source of all that is. According to the OT, God has a personal name, the tetragrammaton, which was never to be uttered by Jews -- although many of our current scriptures and liturgies toss it around with wild abandon... God is also referred to as Ha-Shemayim, literally One-Up-There-in-the-Heavens. Our Lord, in His prayer, referred to God as "Father", much to the chagrin of His contemporaries, who thought the term too 'familiar' for the Divinity.<

>My points are:
We are constricted by language, which being anthropomorphic, restricts us to gender labelling.<

God could have easily revealed Himself to be, not our Father, but an It. In fact, He wouldn’t be an It He would be The It (or IT would have been The It ). But my point is that "Father" is inherently bound up with God's nature, it seems.

>Second, our understanding of "God", ever widening, proposes to us a vast array of concepts that we use to understand Who God is. "Being", "Uncaused Cause" (Aquinas), "Ontos Oon" (Greek: "Being BEING!") inscribed on Greek icons, "King", "Ha-Shem", "Lord", "Master", "Creator", "Source" "Alpha and Omega", "Fortress", etc. The use of one term or another can hardly reflect a scintilla of God; our human minds are just too encumbered. And to reduce the concept/verbiage of "God" to one perspective like "Father" (though it, in itself is one of many terms used by Christ), is to fail to acknowledge that just one word can never be adequate.<

Oh, I’m not saying one word can be adequate to express all of God’s nature. But it makes you wonder why He used the particular words that He did when revealing Himself to man, doesn’t it?

>>There’s more to this than linguistics, and there is (apparently) more to gender than primary sexual characteristics (i.e., Dr. John’s clinical expressions “pee-pee” and “woo-woo”) although since Christ became a man in the Incarnation then it could be argued that God now in fact DOES have genitalia.<<

>No, I disagree since, unless we are talking about mystical experiences of the Divinity, we are forced to use language bound terminology. I.e., linguistics.<

I didn’t say linguistics didn’t play a part in this. I said there was MORE to it than linguistics (at least from my perspective). I don’t think everything reduces to words (does it?).

By the way, isn't ALL terminology language bound? I don't think I'm following your last point here.

>The last statement really puzzles me: "..
and there is (apparently) more to gender than primary sexual characteristics (i.e., Dr. John’s clinical expressions “pee-pee” and “woo-woo”)."
I don't understand how one can possibly talk about "MAN" and "FATHER" in human context without carrying along the 'primary sexual characterisics' of maleness. What more can there be to 'gender' except for 'primary sexual characteristics'?<

Maybe I wasn’t being clear. I said there was more to gender than primary sexual characteristics because there are things which have gender that aren’t people (or animals, for that matter). A boat is a “she.” But she’ll never hear the pitter-patter of little boat feet. I’m sure people would disagree with me on this, but I think that things have gender (hence gender terms in languages) but that this gender is perfected in persons. In fact, I think the term “sex” is better than “gender” when referring to people. (Boats have a gender, but not a sex.)

>If God indeed is a "Spirit", then how do we determine IF there is gender involved, and if so, which gender it is? And, in the absence of 'primary sexual characteristics', what is the meaning?<

Simple. He reveals it to us.

As for the meaning of it with the absence of primary sexual characteristics, THAT is a great question. I can only surmise that somehow OUR primary sexual characteristics are a pale shadow of God's creative power.

(Interestingly, Hans Urs Von Balthasar basically says that in the procreative act man is called to image his creator while woman is called to fulfill her nature as creature perfectly. It's in God's nature to create and in human nature to receive from God. Of course, this isn't a perfect analogy, but I do find it interesting.)

>The fact that the Second Person of the Trinity appeared among us on earth as a male certainly validates the designation "Son" of God. And, in Jewish society of that time, certainly patriarchal, there would be a 'father/son' model that would be clear to His disciples.<

Exactly. He reveals Himself to us.

>But I don't think it tells the whole story. (I find it interesting that our Jewish friends determine Jewishness if the MOTHER is Jewish, not the father. .. but that's another bulletin-board. Oy!)<

I never said it tells us the WHOLE story, did I? I don’t think I did, at any rate.

>(If I'm raving here, I must confess that I'm reacting to things I've seen and heard elsewhere through which the "man", "male", "father" etc. terms are used to deny womenfolk their legitimate status as Children of God -- and all that that implies, or worse: to subjugate female people to a lesser status. Somewhat like an ecclesiastical schoolyard where the boys won't let the girls play with them because they are 'only girls'.<

Yes, this overlooks the fact that people of both sexes have an equal dignity before God (albeit, different roles).

>Sure, there are some women who are vehement about feminism, and who espouse all sorts of 'beyond the fringe' beliefs. But we shouldn't let these folks deter us from the basic Christian belief that every human soul is valuable in the sight of God, and that we as a community have the moral obligation to love ALL and respect ALL with equal fervor.<

Exactly.

>So, if that means re-translating hymns about "Sons of God" to "Children of God", then, in imitation of Christ's unwavering love for people, we should do no less.)<

Uh, well here I have to disagree with you. I think in the long run it would be better to simply educate people as to 1) the faith and 2) basic English skills. If they don’t want to accept reality because of a particular ideology that doesn’t mean we should compromise the faith, or even continue on in the ambiguous way we’ve been going for 40 years (frankly, I’m ready to stop wandering in the desert). Give me a call after the Byzantine Church starts using gender neutral translations in the Divine Liturgy and then we’ll talk about how great an idea it is and how helpful it is to spreading the faith and catechizing people.

Does anyone else think discussion of Roman liturgical issues on this Byzantine board is out of place?
(Granted a number of folks here have Roman backgrounds, but still...)

Maybe I'm just confused.

Dear Kelly,

I have no problem with the discussion of Roman liturgical issues on this board and you raise a legitimate question.

Apart from the interesting theological and liturgical comparisons that can be made through just such a discussion, it seems that Byzantine Catholics have forever been studying Roman liturgy and theology, if for no other reason than simply to be "armed" in order to defend their own legitimate heritage (and other reasons).

One finds this throughout much Byzantine Catholic theological writing. For example, Fr. Prof. Robert Taft often appeals to the Western tradition to demonstrate that what the East does is a continuation of the once Universal practice of the Church e.g. 3 Sacraments of Initiation.

Being Byzantine Catholic, we are more likely to be frequently asked the question, "If you are Catholic, why do you do this or that differently from Roman Catholics?"

One answer is to say that that is "our Rite or Church's tradition."

A better answer is "This is what the Roman and the whole Church of Christ did for the first 1200 years and we are still doing it."

I remember when the Novus Ordo took hold of the Western Church and a whole series of new perplexing questions grabbed my Latin Rite friends.

Why is our altar not "facing the people?" Why this and why that?

The study of Roman liturgical questions lays bare many myths Western Christians have about the Eastern Churches.

The great myth is that we are somehow the "odd men (and women) out."

The more we study Roman liturgical practice, the more we see that it is the Eastern Church that is keeping to the tradition of the Apostolic and Early Church and the Roman Church is the one engaging in innovations in contemporary (and medieval) times.

It is a great way to witness to Byzantine Christianity, I say!

Alex