The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Galumph, Leon_C, Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W.
5,984 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 246 guests, and 50 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,389
Posts416,722
Members5,984
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 15 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 14 15
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Originally Posted by Serge Keleher
It is always pleasant to find that someone agrees with me. The point of importance is that what may seem like a small linguistic compromise may have large implications not immediately perceptible.

Fr. Serge

Indeed, that has been my point since the beginning. The implications of this change (IMHO) will be very positive for the reaching of our young people with the radical message of God's universal human-loving kindness and love. That is the motivation behind all of my writing -- to help today's young people realize that the love of God is for them -- every one of them, male or female. It is a message that many of them have not heard and do not understand. If they did understand it, our churches would be full because truly no one can resist the love of God for long, as St Elizabeth the Grand Duchess wrote so eloquently.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
I want to point out that the "Fr Stephen" referred to in my post is NOT the Fr Stephen who is priest at St Luke's in Sugar Creek, MO. The Fr Stephen I am referring teaches Eastern liturgy in Rome (he was originally at Rockhurst in KC, so I know him from there) and is an authority both on Eastern liturgy and on the Vatican directives vis-a-vis translation, etc.

(I can't remember his last name -- sorry. As an eastern priest, I am unfamiliar with the western tendency to call priests by their last name. Since I am lousy with names, I consider it a good sign that I can remember his first name. He comes to Sugar Creek for a doctor's checkup at least once a year, so that is when I had the opportunity to speak with him about the RDL.)

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 55
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 55
Quote
Most academic Greeks scholars that I know...

Herein lies the problem. You've admitted that, like me, you are a convert from Protestantism to a form of apostolic Christiantiy. One of the habits that Protestants pick up is an unswerving loyalty to the scholarship du jour. Not teaching authority, not lived experience of the Church, but a slavish kind of devotion to what academics say. NOTE: I'm not accusing you of this, I'm only observing that people who were metaphysically mauled by a Protestant upbringing -- self included -- have this tendency. Take a look at what the German Protestants did to Scripture scholarship. The years, the decades of biblical deconstruction. Do you know what the end result of form criticism has been -- the crown jewel of so much work? It's been abandoned. It's untenable, lacks any empirical evidence and carries thousands of assumptions that reflect modernist biases. Take a look at how feeble "scholarship" is when it becomes separated from the living instinct of the teaching Church.

Another problem I've seen MORE BROADLY (and I exclude PrJ) among academic theologians is the tendency to pit a linguist or a theologian against the magisterium. Dissenters are frequently treated as having an equal voice to the Holy Father, now gloriously reigning, when he teaches on moral matters. He's viewed as a peer who just happens to wear funny clothes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Lord did not call theologians and linguists, he called men raised up after his own heart. The successors of these men have spoken with true authority, calling the Church to an authentic adherence to liturgical tradition and custom. For the Greek Catholics, this INCLUDES WEARING THE SAME VESTMENTS AS ORTHODOX COUNTERPARTS. To turn this into a squabble between professional academics smacks of the Protestantism that *I* personally witnessed while growing up.

On a separate note, I've been predictably accused of making ad hominems. Just to rephrase what I said, using a different example: When one hears a person speak of the Catholic Church's "homophobia" regarding its characterization of same sex acts as "intrinsically disordered," one has been given a verbal signal that the speaker is of a decidedly different mindset than Holy Mother Church on the matter.

Likewise, when I hear words such as "patriarchal" and "chauvinistic" used in reference to the language of prayer and Scripture translation, I've a right to observe that the words are transmitters for a certain weltanschauung. I assume that PrJ and Fr. David do *not* mean to say that incalculable numbers of Christian women have been spiritually scared by attending Divine Liturgies and hearing things like "mankind." Further, I assume that they are fervent supporters of tradition. What I *pointed* out was that their style and pattern of word usage -- the slogans if you will behind their arguments -- on these fora mimics exactly my experience of feminist arguments against "patriarchy" in theological studies. Thus, one is well within reason to be concerned that the ideology of feminism, conveyed by certain trigger phrases and slogans, is being used here to signal to radical feminists a sympathy with their ideology. This is *not* a form of ad hominem.

It's not enough for PrJ or Fr. David to say that's not what they really *meant*. One cannot go around using ideologically-charged pet phrases and arguments and then get upset when it produces a reaction. The point is that confusion and hurt have been caused without Ed's substantive questions even being answered. And BTW, Ed is but the latest of many who've pondered what is pushing the use of gender neutrality given that so few laywomen have shown any support for it.

Incidentally, one would do well to read Steichen's Ungodly Rage to see how crucial the linguistic aspect of viral feminism is to the movement to destroy sex-differentiation in Christianity.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Quote
At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum, most academic Greek scholars that I know and have corresponded with would disagree with your assertion that dropping the word "man" is a change. Most academic Greeks scholars that I know and have corresponded with (and several names have been given in previous forum discussions of prominent scholars) would argue that the word "anthropos" is unnecessary in English.

Allow me to paraphrase a Father of the Church, "God did not become man, so that man could become an academic."

I have, ad nauseum, reviewed what academics have said about changing the translation of anthropos from man to something else or just dropping it altogether and what strikes me most about their opinion, is that they have ceased, in the core of their being, to be Catholic.

So perhaps among the academics (though indeed this has not been demonstrated but only asserted by PrJ), there is is a popular opinion that anthropos can be dropped from the Creed without altering it, nonetheless as has been pointed out quite frequently, Rome, in Liturgiam Authenticam has spoken quite clearly against this innovation. By the arguments made by PrJ and others, the simple faithful have been led to believe that the academics speak with more authority, scholarship and truth, than the Magisterium.

At the end of Liturgiam Authenticam, we find the following:

Quote
After the preparation of this Instruction by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in virtue of the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff transmitted in a letter of the Cardinal Secretary of State dated 1 February 1997 (Prot. n. 408.304), the same Supreme Pontiff, in an audience granted to the Cardinal Secretary of State on 20 March 2001, approved this Instruction and confirmed it by his own authority, ordering that it be published, and that it enter into force on the 25th day of April of the same year.

Since this is the will of the Holy Father, we have a duty as Catholics to follow him when he has expressed his desire even though techinically it may not apply to us. Certainly given the nature of what he has approved, we cannot truly imagine that he had something different in mind for Eastern Catholics in regard to this issue. What, therefore, does LA, ie the Holy Father, say?

Liturgiam Authenticam said this about the translation of anthropos:

Quote
30. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the �inclusive� sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word �adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.


Although it has been pointed out that LA does not technically apply to the Eastern Catholic Churches, it certainly does on the issue of the translation of anthropos in the Creed. It is part of the ordinary magisterium to which all Catholics are bound--whether they are academics, priests, Bishops or laymen. To argue otherwise is to argue that there is something which is peculiar to the Eastern Churches on this issue. But PrJ does not argue from anything peculiar to the East, rather he argues that the issue is one that is universal to English speaking world. On this issue, the universal Father of the Catholic world, JPII - a man quite sympathetic to the East, by his approbation, has expressed his view on this matter. As I think I analyzed some time ago on this forum, on the timing of the approval of the RDL and the first approval of the RDL by the Oriental Congregation (as we now know by Fr. Taft a proponent of ridding the English language of the term "men" and "mankind"), the timing of the approval of the RDL just prior to the issuance of Liturgiam Authenticam looks awfully suspicious.

In any event, the Greek "academics" are not the real experts that should have been consulted regarding the translation into English. The experts who should have been consutled were those who are experts in the English language.

But sometimes things are quite clear to the common man and no experts are needed. This is one of them. The exclusion of the word "man" and its derivatives from the English language is not organic. There is in fact a political crusade to get rid of the term. Those who have led the Crusade in the secular world want to change the language because they want to change how people think. They want to change how people think, because they want to erase from man's conscience, man's natural knowledge about God and man's natural desire for God. When man does this God gives man over to his lusts. See Romans chapter 1.

From any honest observation of American life, there are two issues in regard to which the secular elites have been turned over to their own lusts. These are their golden calfs--abortion and now gay marriage. I believe their desire to rid the English language of the word "men" comes from a desire to rid from our nation's "collective memory," the account of creation in Genesis--that the primary and most important relationship between man and woman, is one which makes them father and mother. The modern world hates the command given to man to be fruitful and multiply. Instead, between man and woman, the world sees, not relationship ordered to mutual love and procreation, but only a power struggle. And finally, the modern world, left to its own lusts, now attempts to see that the bodily differences between man and woman are merely accidental, and that the physical relationship between man and woman is only a matter of convention.

These things are at the root of the reason for elimination of the term "man" which continually reminds the modern world of that creation of the first man. And of course if you eliminate the memory of the first man, there is no need for the second -- for Christ himself.

Those in the Church who go along with the secular change, however sincere they may be, are gravely mistaken if they believe that the change in the English language is organic and arises from a true view of reality. Some, as the Sultan has pointed out, are driven by a desire to be priests even though they are females. What these fail to see, what they refuse to see, is that our religion is so incarnational that man's sex does matter. Christ is the bridegroom and those who act in his name, through their ordination, must be male. Others, who promote the elimination of "man," cannot bring themselves to recognize that those females who desire the priesthood have lost the faith. And for those females or males who may find this a chauvinistic attitude, they need only be reminded that a man must love his wife (and a priest the Church) as Christ loved the Church--sacrificing his very life for her.


Last edited by lm; 03/08/08 08:24 PM.
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
L
lm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Quote
One more point, when I was a Protestant I was very good at proof-texting. I could find quotes that backed up my presupposition and marshall them to buttress my argument. Part of my reconditioning (intellecutally speaking) when I became Orthodox was to stop proof-texting and instead to allow the tradition to speak and guide me from the standpoint of principles and theology.

And now Father that you are Catholic, you have the additional blessing of the Magisterium!

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461
Likes: 1
Quote
1) We ALL accept the Creed as written in Greek. No one has or will suggest that change the original Creed. The Creed - the autographa -- is in Greek. Unless you change the Greek, you cannot be accused of "changing the Creed." If you change the English, you have changed the translation. So PLEASE make your accusations correct. The translation has been changed; the creed remains as it was written by the holy fathers at the Council.

I think this statement of PrJ should be compared with Fr. Serge's later comments for their needed and very appropriate contrast:

Quote
The assertion that "we all support and accept the original Greek text of the Creed" is, perhaps, ingenuous. It is difficult to "support and accept" a text that one is unable to read, and the very creation and publication of translations implies strongly that the hierarchy and the experts are well aware that there are lots of clergy, monastics, paramonastics, and faithful who do not read Greek.

Once again I could not agree more with Fr. Serge. To propose that the ex orandi is only validated by one source prototext seems nonsensical - I would like to think I liturgically pray and confess my belief, in its entirety, and not a translation of a belief for which I have little access to the source text other than through what "scholars" tell me (I have on occasion prayed the Creed in Greek but do not usually do that on a weekly basis). There is such a thing as historical convention with translations, and has been abundantly documented by Fr. Serge and others the RDL clearly leaves that traditional convention of translation - another argument that indeed the Creed was changed in the RDL.

A very quick review would show that the Creed was changed in the RDL from its previous form in the Ruthenian Liturgikons (a physical change of words cannot hardly be claimed as NOT a change). I would also say the liturgical context, that which is actually and regularly prayed and proclaimed, is the ultimate and public manifestation of the text and not this or that proto-text as that is what the people proclaim and eventually internalize. And that is now different from its previous conventional forms with regard to the Creed.

And to address a comment from PrJ earlier, that would be Fr. Stephen Hawkes-Teeples, a convert from the Episcopal Church before his conversion and entering the Jesuit Midwestern Province, a good friend of myself and my family. And who also is not completely satisfied with the end product of the RDL.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
slavish kind of devotion to what academics say. NOTE: I'm not accusing you of this, I'm only observing that people who were metaphysically mauled by a Protestant upbringing -- self included -- have this tendency. Take a look at what the German Protestants did to Scripture scholarship. The years, the decades of biblical deconstruction. Do you know what the end result of form criticism has been -- the crown jewel of so much work? It's been abandoned. It's untenable, lacks any empirical evidence and carries thousands of assumptions that reflect modernist biases. Take a look at how feeble "scholarship" is when it becomes separated from the living instinct of the teaching Church.

I would encourage you to read carefully the introduction to Pope Benedict's recent book on Jesus. He highlights the importance of academic scholarship and rejects your "either-or" approach. Scholarship should inform our church life -- according to the Pope.

Futhermore, if you look carefully at what I said, I was talking about language scholars. When it comes to translation, we have to depend upon academic scholars who have spent their life studying the Greek language. My point is that these scholars do not object on a linguistic basis to the translation "for us ..." So you cannot argue that the Creed has been changed if language scholars tell you that the translation "for us ..." is an accurate translation of the original Greek.

However, refusing to accept the facts and to admit that the issue is a question of translation not of basic theology -- because of your presuppositional opposition to the RDL you chose to utilize (again) one of the argumentative ploys I mentioned earlier.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
And to address a comment from PrJ earlier, that would be Fr. Stephen Hawkes-Teeples, a convert from the Episcopal Church before his conversion and entering the Jesuit Midwestern Province, a good friend of myself and my family. And who also is not completely satisfied with the end product of the RDL.

I would note however that in my conversation with him the translation "for us and for our salvation" was not one of the items with which "he is not completely satisfied." That was my point. If this translation violated basic theology and/or violated an essential teaching of Rome, Fr Stephen would have indicated this. In fact, he indicated this was not the case in response to a direct question about it.

*I would also note that in all of my conversations with him he did not indicate any disapproval of anything in the RDL. This does not mean that Diak is incorrect -- just that Fr Stephen did not say anything about it when he talked with me.

Last edited by PrJ; 03/08/08 09:58 PM.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
I would like to think I liturgically pray and confess my belief, in its entirety, and not a translation of a belief for which I have little access to the source text

The source text is the Greek (when it comes to the Creed) and the Slavonic (when it comes to the Liturgy). These are the autographa. Translations are just that -- translations. And though it may be disturbing to some to realize that they are dependent upon imperfect translations and that their inability to access the original source often deprives them of a certain knowledge, the reality is that this is the case.

Of course, we should strive to make our translations as precise as we can. But the translations are impermanent and subject to change. It is the autographa which are permanent and must not be changed.

This is why I heartily encourage each Orthodox Christian to learn both Greek and/or Slavonic. Understanding the orginal texts is essential -- that this is so can be seen in the curricula of all Orthodox seminaries. They teach you the original languages. If you do not learn the original, like it or not, you will miss important nuances, etc. This is especially true if you are depending upon English -- which is a very imprecise language for theology.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
To propose that the lex orandi is only validated by one source prototext seems nonsensical

How could it be any other way? It is the only way that makes sense.

There has to be one original text to which we can refer -- if there are multiple original texts then there is no authority, it is a mess - that is truly "nonsensical".

By the way, this has always been the argument among biblical scholars. The text -- the autographa -- are the foundation for our biblical theology. When we discuss in depth what the text means we always go back to the Greek. If we relied on translations, it would be an ABSOLUTE mess.

Of course, this means that people who don't read Greek are dependent upon scholars. There is no other way for this to be done. It is the only "sensical" way smile

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
EdHash Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Getting back to my original topic---

Can Father David Petras answer the questions regarding those who pushed for inclusive language? It is my understanding that knowing WHO were able to grab the ears of church shepherds will radically transform this debate. If you think the end product is controversial ...

Thanks you.

Eddie Hashinsky

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
And of course if you eliminate the memory of the first man, there is no need for the second -- for Christ himself.

You have it backwards.

According to the Eastern Church Fathers, Christ is the first and Adam the second man. The Fathers state that Adam was made in the image of Christ -- not the other way around.

See Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way for an excellent introduction to this topic. See also Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church.

Last edited by PrJ; 03/08/08 10:51 PM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator
Member
Offline
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Quote
And to address a comment from PrJ earlier, that would be Fr. Stephen Hawkes-Teeples, a convert from the Episcopal Church before his conversion and entering the Jesuit Midwestern Province, a good friend of myself and my family. And who also is not completely satisfied with the end product of the RDL.

Deacon Randolph-

While in Rome in the summer of 2007, my bride and I had the pleasure to dine with Steven Hawkes-Teeples, SJ. Fr Steven had been the first Director of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh Diaconate Formation Program, and was our Liturgy instructor. During the course of that long, leisurely dinner at il Zodiaco, (which overlooks the Tiber and a good portion of the Eternal City) our conversation turned to the RDL. Now, I would not characterize his comments as "not cpmpletely satisfied with the end product of the RDL." In fact, he did not have a negative comment in our conversation about the RDL. I don't think he was being cautious, especially after cocktails, a few bottles of Italian wine, cigars and brandy. grin

His only negative comment was in reference to a book he had not read...

Last edited by Deacon John Montalvo; 03/08/08 10:58 PM.
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 40
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 40
On the one hand...

Originally Posted by PrJ
When it comes to translation, we have to depend upon academic scholars who have spent their life studying the Greek language.

on the other...

Originally Posted by PrJ
I heartily encourage each Orthodox Christian to learn both Greek and/or Slavonic.

Why bother learning the source languages when there are experts to tell us what to think? After all, they apparently are infallible (my emphasis):

Originally Posted by PrJ
So you cannot argue that the Creed has been changed if language scholars tell you that the translation "for us ..." is an accurate translation of the original Greek.

Pittsburgh locuta, causa finita est.

I would add in the interest of historical perspective that experts brought the Latin rite that raging success the Novus Ordo. The track record of liturgical experts is not encouraging. Why such faith in them?

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
ajk Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,357
Likes: 30
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
And of course if you eliminate the memory of the first man, there is no need for the second -- for Christ himself.

You have it backwards.

According to the Eastern Church Fathers, Christ is the first and Adam the second man. The Fathers state that Adam was made in the image of Christ -- not the other way around.

See Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way for an excellent introduction to this topic. See also Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Orthodox Church.

RSV 1 Corinthians 15:45 Thus it is written, "The first (prōtos) man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.

Bishop Kallistos, V. Lossky and even the Fathers get trumped by scripture; perhaps more specific references would clear things up. What exactly did they say?

Dn. Anthony


Page 6 of 15 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 14 15

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5