The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
That latin friend, Deacon Eric, Pastor Freed, Sebastian, Deepu
5,836 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
3 members (FloridaPole, jjp, 1 invisible), 84 guests, and 27 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
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
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,154
Posts414,836
Members5,836
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 15 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
Rome is correct to specifically direct against the use of gender neutral language in liturgical translations.

I hope you answer my question about the recent approval of a horizontally gender neutral lectionary by Rome in light of your repeated statements to the contrary.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
have been entirely without solid theological or linguistic support
This is completely untrue. If you are not willing to grant me the same kindness that I grant you, that is unfortunate. I have offered significant patristic support as well as presented significant scholarship from linguists (both English and Greek). You can disagree with me, but I am sorry to see that you can not even acknowledge that my arguments have weight.

I suppose I should take comfort in the fact that Fr Taft, a noted liturgical scholar, agrees with me and that Bishop Kallistos Ware has indicated (both in writing and in person) a sensitivity to the issues I have raised.
I am sorry, Father John, but you are not correct. You have offered some support for the proper treatment of women - something we all agree upon and on which the recent Holy Fathers have spoken to and which directives like Liturgiam Authenticam embraces (and which I accept and follow). You have not offered any theological support specifically demonstrating the need for gender neutral language. Standard English is not exclusive and has been demonstrated to be far more inclusive and precise then politically correct gender neutral language. It is not a matter of granting you kindness for I have been kind. Kindness is essential in all things but does not demand granting respect to a position that is easily dis-proven, has been dis-proven, and about which Rome has given clear guidance.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
Perhaps you might consider leaving a Jesuit university and attending a Catholic one? they seem to have corrupted you!
Your smile notwithstanding, this kind of talk has no place on a Catholic forum. It is objectionable and is another example of the kind of personal attacks that continue to be mustered against those who speak in support of the RDL.
I am a graduate of a Jesuit University. I know the good and the bad. There is no personal attack whatsoever. It is a standard joke.

But even if I did post it seriously, it would be legitimate. There is a real problem with Catholic universities not putting being Catholic first. Pope John Paul spoke to this in Ex Corde Ecclesiae and the loudest howl came from the Jesuits.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Originally Posted by Administrator
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
have been entirely without solid theological or linguistic support
This is completely untrue. If you are not willing to grant me the same kindness that I grant you, that is unfortunate. I have offered significant patristic support as well as presented significant scholarship from linguists (both English and Greek). You can disagree with me, but I am sorry to see that you can not even acknowledge that my arguments have weight.

I suppose I should take comfort in the fact that Fr Taft, a noted liturgical scholar, agrees with me and that Bishop Kallistos Ware has indicated (both in writing and in person) a sensitivity to the issues I have raised.
I am sorry, Father John, but you are not correct. You have offered some support for the proper treatment of women - something we all agree upon and on which the recent Holy Fathers have spoken to and which directives like Liturgiam Authenticam embraces (and which I accept and follow). You have not offered any theological support specifically demonstrating the need for gender neutral language. Standard English is not exclusive and has been demonstrated to be far more inclusive and precise then politically correct gender neutral language. It is not a matter of granting you kindness for I have been kind. Kindness is essential in all things but does not demand granting respect to a position that is easily dis-proven, has been dis-proven, and about which Rome has given clear guidance.

I am truly sorry that you have taken this position. One of the arts one learns in academics is how to recognize the scholarship of a position you disagree with. To say that Fr Taft, Fr David and I (along with many others) have taken a position without finding support for that position in our tradition is to argue with blinders on. No wonder the conversation goes nowhere. Unless you are willing to listen to the arguments presented by others, what is the point of having an argument??

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
Rome is correct to specifically direct against the use of gender neutral language in liturgical translations.
I hope you answer my question about the recent approval of a horizontally gender neutral lectionary by Rome in light of your repeated statements to the contrary.
This has been discussed many times and I have spoken to it many times. Both the Canadian and American bishops have been fighting against Rome's directives tooth and nail. Rome compromises sometimes in order to keep peace. That does not mean she embraces the ideas. We see rejections of the texts from ICEL and the U.S. Bishops. We see calls for accuracy. And we see musings from notables like Cardinal Francis Arinze about the Vox Clara commission (or something similar) to take on the Revised Amended Revised NAB when they are done translating the Latin-Rite Liturgical texts. I recommend spending some time at www.adoremus.org [adoremus.org] where they put the whole thing into proper context.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
It is a standard joke.

It is a bad joke, in poor taste, and very offensive to the thousands of committed Jesuits who are laboring to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the indigent, etc.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
EdHash Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
It is a standard joke.

It is a bad joke, in poor taste, and very offensive to the thousands of committed Jesuits who are laboring to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the indigent, etc.


The Catholics at their Jesuit university used to have a saying, "May all your sons become Jesuits" instead of "Go to ...." A Jesuit university is a wonderful place to loose one's faith; at least one can do it in the company of astute professors of religion who can show the way.

All in humor. Of course.

Ed

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Originally Posted by Administrator
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
Rome is correct to specifically direct against the use of gender neutral language in liturgical translations.
I hope you answer my question about the recent approval of a horizontally gender neutral lectionary by Rome in light of your repeated statements to the contrary.
This has been discussed many times and I have spoken to it many times. Both the Canadian and American bishops have been fighting against Rome's directives tooth and nail. Rome compromises sometimes in order to keep peace. That does not mean she embraces the ideas. We see rejections of the texts from ICEL and the U.S. Bishops. We see calls for accuracy. And we see musings from notables like Cardinal Francis Arinze about the Vox Clara commission (or something similar) to take on the Revised Amended Revised NAB when they are done translating the Latin-Rite Liturgical texts. I recommend spending some time at www.adoremus.org [adoremus.org] where they put the whole thing into proper context.

This is why the discussion is useless and this Forum should be closed. You argue that LA is absolutely binding and its meaning completely clear. Then when I present a counter argument that shows that you are misreading the LA because if your argument was correct Rome could not approve the Canadian lectionary, you tell me that Rome is compromising. But Rome does not really want to do what Rome has done. Thus the circle is completed.

You are right -- you have already made the decision that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Thus their arguments have no weight and when Rome disagrees with you, she is doing a "political thing" and thus you don't have to pay attention to what Rome has done. IN other words, the only time I have to pay attention to Rome is when she agrees with you.

I would also note that the only Bishops who should be listened to (according to you) are the Bishops who agree with you. The Bishops who do not agree with your position are in rebellion against Rome and should not be listened to.

The Circle is complete. You begin with a conclusion, construct the argument so that only the points that agree with your conclusion are allowable and then conclude with the very same conclusion you began with.


Last edited by PrJ; 03/12/08 01:26 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by PrJ
I am truly sorry that you have taken this position. One of the arts one learns in academics is how to recognize the scholarship of a position you disagree with. To say that Fr Taft, Fr David and I (along with many others) have taken a position without finding support for that position in our tradition is to argue with blinders on. No wonder the conversation goes nowhere. Unless you are willing to listen to the arguments presented by others, what is the point of having an argument??
Father John, you have not offered any support for your arguments. Please provide chapter and verse from the Church Fathers, and Catholic and Orthodox documents that speak directly to gender neutral language to support your position. In truth it does not exist. You have only spoken generally about the need to treat women correctly and then jump to the conclusion that we need to embrace gender neutral language. As you are an academic I expect you to quote a directive from Liturgiam Authenticam, state in what way it is wrong, and then provide the quotations and references supporting your position. And on the linguistic front you need to do the same. You have not proven that Standard English is not appropriate for the texts Divine Liturgy. You have only offered your own conclusions, without references.

You are the one arguing for the change. It is up to you to prove the case for change. I (and other) have more than proved the case for obedience to Rome, both in liturgical praxis and translation.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
EdHash Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
Rome is correct to specifically direct against the use of gender neutral language in liturgical translations.

I hope you answer my question about the recent approval of a horizontally gender neutral lectionary by Rome in light of your repeated statements to the contrary.

Dear PrJ,
Since you are so adament in pushing your question to the Administrator, maybe I should reconsider my decision to cease asking Father David Petras to reveal WHO was successfull in pushing inclusive language and getting it adopted in the RDL hymnal?

There seems to be something horribly at stake here in getting inclusive language to become a permanent hallmark of Byzantine Catholicism at odds with its Orthodox sister churches. But uniatism has always looked for the worst of the West to adopt as their own.

Why did your bishop accept inclusive language in your worship?

Ed

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by PrJ
Quote
It is a standard joke.
It is a bad joke, in poor taste, and very offensive to the thousands of committed Jesuits who are laboring to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the poor, the indigent, etc.
The source of the joke is a Jesuit. Father Joseph Allan Panuska, S.J., was president of the University of Scranton during the latter years my studies there. He told it constantly in many forms. Cardinal Avery Dulles has even told it on EWTN. You obviously don't know a lot of Jesuits!

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
With all due respect, your post proves that you have not read my posts carefully. You also have not read Fr David's posts carefully. Obviously, the fathers do not discuss the English language. They wrote in Greek! But the principles they laid down lead to my positions. This is how theology is done -- you find the principles in the fathers and in our liturgical tradition, then you seek to faithfully apply those principles to contemporary situations. Theology is not done by "proof-texting" from official sources -- theology must be contextualized.

As to where your interpretation of the LA is not the only one possible, I would point you to Fr David's excellent posts on this subject. I would respectfully note that just because you disagree with a position does not mean that it is without merit. Again, the art one learns in academic dialogues is how to recognize the legitimacy of arguments with which one disagrees. Only by recognizing legitimacy in another can one find the true humility to confront one's own mistakes in logic, thinking, etc.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
P
PrJ Offline
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 491
Quote
You obviously don't know a lot of Jesuits!

My outrage at the joke is an outgrowth of my personal knowledge of a dear Jesuit priest who has dedicated his life to bringing the Gospel to very, very, very poor Jamaicans. This particular Jesuit is a Ph.D. with a distinguished academic career. He comes from a wealthy family with more than adequate resources. Yet he now lives in abject poverty -- with not even a toilet or running water. He lives among those who do not have even an elementary school's education. He is more of a Catholic than I will ever be.

I have seen the pain in his eyes when the joke is told -- it is that pain that moves me to register my complaint.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
E
EdHash Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Originally Posted by PrJ
I have seen the pain in his eyes when the joke is told -- it is that pain that moves me to register my complaint.

Oh, get a grip. Some of the most vulgar jokes that I heard came from priests! There was pain in their eyes too. Lighten up, man.

Ed

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
John
Member
Offline
John
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,666
Likes: 12
Originally Posted by PrJ
This is why the discussion is useless and this Forum should be closed. You argue that LA is absolutely binding and its meaning completely clear. Then when I present a counter argument that shows that you are misreading the LA because if your argument was correct Rome could not approve the Canadian lectionary, you tell me that Rome is compromising. But Rome does not really want to do what Rome has done. Thus the circle is completed.
There is a fallacy in your argument. Anyone familiar with the history of the ongoing effort in the Latin Church to produce corrected translations of the Roman Mass can see the issue in context. The problem with translations grew worse beginning in the 1980s and through the 1990s, with texts so �dynamic� (paraphrase) and gender neutral that the Vatican started stepping in, first with calls for faithfulness but coming to a head with the issuance of Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001 and the rejection of the translation of the Roman Mass in 2002. ICEL was effectively disbanded and reorganized. Vox Clara was created by Pope John Paul II in 2002 (maybe announced in 2001). Rome has allowed existing translations that are not in conformance to be continued to be used, and even granted permission to new texts while looking ahead to more precise texts in the future. Nothing surprising here. Politics exists in the Church as it exists everywhere else. It is one thing to set a goal and not quite hit it. It is another think to set a goal and kick the ball in a different direction.

The point here that we keep getting away from is that, while it is obvious that you strongly hold to your position you have not argued it with the necessary supporting material. I and others have quoted exactingly and at length. Those supporting the changes have not. As an earlier poster posted, you are the ones arguing for change and you need to prove that (in this argument) that Standard English is not appropriate for use in the Liturgy both theological and linguistic reasons using LA as your starting point and (in the larger discussion on the RDL) that the official Ruthenian Recension is so theologically poor, or does not serve the needs of the people that it must be prohibited (and the discussion must include the issues of unity with both other Byzantines, both Catholic and Orthodox) making ample use of the Liturgical Instruction. No one who supports the RDL has yet done this.

Originally Posted by PrJ
I would also note that the only Bishops who should be listened to (according to you) are the Bishops who agree with you. The Bishops who do not agree with your position are in rebellion against Rome and should not be listened to.
Not at all. I have advocated no disobedience to the Council of Hierarchs. I have encouraged people on both sides of the issue to express their opinions appropriately. My letters to the Council of Hierarchs and to Rome have been polite and have offered extensive supporting documentation to back up my claims. I have not discarded the Vatican directives, nor told anyone that they should ignore them to follow me.

Originally Posted by PrJ
You begin with a conclusion, construct the argument so that only the points that agree with your conclusion are allowable and then conclude with the very same conclusion you began with.
No, I begin and end with the texts of the Liturgical Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam, and the other Vatican documents and directives. I use them as the measuring stick for all arguments; and conform my own opinions to them.

Page 11 of 15 1 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

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 - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5