|
0 members (),
335
guests, and
92
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,514
Posts417,578
Members6,167
| |
Most Online4,112
08:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
This really makes no sense, and really, questions about the faith should be directed to the Faith and Worship section.
Alexandr It's ok Alexandr. I actually have an answer for the person asking about Orthodoxy and the Catholic teaching concerning the Theology of the Body which is really what this topic is about with respect to secular gender-neutral language and why it is not appropriate to any liturgy. Well...It's not my answer really. It is David Hart's answer. David Hart is an Eastern Orthodox spiritual and theological writer and he has this to say: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/hart.htmMary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
The article looks very worthwhile. Here is JPII in the letter which I referenced above: As Saint Irenaeus would later say, along with many other Fathers of the Church of both East and West: "Christ Jesus, our Lord, the Son of God, became the son of man so that man could become a son of God". Does "for us" then in fact tend to dismantle the teaching of "deification" which is so dear to our Eastern Church?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
The article looks very worthwhile. Here is JPII in the letter which I referenced above: As Saint Irenaeus would later say, along with many other Fathers of the Church of both East and West: "Christ Jesus, our Lord, the Son of God, became the son of man so that man could become a son of God". Does "for us" then in fact tend to dismantle the teaching of "deification" which is so dear to our Eastern Church? "Dismantle" might be a tad strong here. "For us" certainly smudges things, blurs the vision that comes with the imagery of the Son of God, Son of Man, so that the power in the word is lost. It can blind the inner eye to a more important truth than gender neutrality. Mary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
Im,
Changing the words of Scripture is another story than a Creed. A "son of God" is different from a "child of God." Those who change this have no regard for the biblical author's intent; only their own. The Gospel writers meant something by it, something that some people will ignore if they consider their intentions more important. Meaning is lost in a world that cannot accept a theology of the body. I am a little familiar with the late JP's writings on this and find much of it long overdue. No sooner is the last Pope dead some bishops ignore him as well as Holy Writ. I know of several Christian seminaries who adopted a 60's theology and now their schools are either almost empty or have been closed. My Cath friends say the same thing about their schools of theology. Words mean a lot, especially in a religion's teachings. it stands out more in their Sunday service. how can one seminary school in a large community have only a few students and another in a smaller community be filled to the gills with emissaries of God? It is my experience and my Cath friends that those seminaries that are packed are stickin to their guns in regards to Christian teaching, especially the Bible. One only has to read the foreward to the new byzcath hymnal and see what I mean. Not only is it very confusing, it is self-contradicting. i've seen this happen in non-Cath congregations. its only the beginning. I had a chance to talk to my byzcath friends over the weekend about their new pew book. The people are ignoring the word changes whether the chorus is singing it or not. The intent of your shepherds are keenly felt and it has led to much silence where a community used to be vibrant. There is a joke going aroiund that the congregation will already 'doctor' up the hymnal to be more acceptable before it becomes church law. Their pastor went through the hymn books and edited some words here and there and added some favoritesongs they aren't allowed to sing now.
Eddie Hashinsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
A "son of God" is different from a "child of God." Those who change this have no regard for the biblical author's intent; only their own. The Gospel writers meant something by it, something that some people will ignore if they consider their intentions more important. Meaning is lost in a world that cannot accept a theology of the body. The difference between son and child is evident here. A son is an heir in the way a child is not: Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. 24 So that the law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. 29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
1 I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no better than a slave, though he is the owner of all the estate; 2 but he is under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3* So with us; when we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits of the universe. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. 6* And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir. There is neither male and female but sons, heirs according to the promise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
Im. How is the teaching maintained if removed? I asked this question on another thread and so far no one has attempted to answer or defend. Why is that? is there no teaching that goes along with it? I assume the shepherds can do anything they want, they are God's ministers. But can they change biblical teachings without explanation? Is this a "Don't ask" policy? My first post was in response to the eye-openers my byzcath friends got when the new pew books came out. One byzcath shepherd stated (and I only qouted his words not mine in that thread) that debate was not an option - at least he prayed. People were just supposed to take it like a ---. Wink.
Please direct me to the teachings of the changes. Why biblical quotes were changed in your worship. This is my only question. I don't want to entertain theories. Just a reason or two. I apologize if my question sounds derogratory or ill-willed. But the changes came from your shepherds and I thought there exists an explanation somewhere.
Thank you!
Eddie H.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,555 |
Im. How is the teaching maintained if removed? I asked this question on another thread and so far no one has attempted to answer or defend. Why is that? is there no teaching that goes along with it? I assume the shepherds can do anything they want, they are God's ministers. But can they change biblical teachings without explanation? Is this a "Don't ask" policy? My first post was in response to the eye-openers my byzcath friends got when the new pew books came out. One byzcath shepherd stated (and I only qouted his words not mine in that thread) that debate was not an option - at least he prayed. People were just supposed to take it like a ---. Wink.
Please direct me to the teachings of the changes. Why biblical quotes were changed in your worship. This is my only question. I don't want to entertain theories. Just a reason or two. I apologize if my question sounds derogratory or ill-willed. But the changes came from your shepherds and I thought there exists an explanation somewhere.
Thank you!
Eddie H. Mr. Hash, Do you suppose you could take this question and start a whole new thread with it? Your inquiry under this topic really has nothing to do with the discussion topic. Furthermore your question makes no sense actually. I don't know if that is because you are confused about something you've heard or if others are reporting things to you that are already confused. No one here is responding to you because the question you ask is not making sense and even if it were, we are talking about something specific in this thread that is apparently of no interest to you. So if you begin your own thread and try to be as clear as possible without the "Winks" then you might get a serious reply. Mary Lanser
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Gordo, I moved your comments from the other thread here. There is something very interesting about the terms God, man and beast and the remarks which you have set forth below. Have we not seen in the last century, unlike any other time in history, man acting like a beast? I think of the persecutions under Stalin, Hilter and now in our times the slaughter of the innocents in our country with abortion. As you point out, sanitizing the language is not the answer. In fact, it is a sign that we don't want to see reality for what it is. Using the foundational terms of "God," "man," "beast," keeps us grounded in eternal truths. These terms evoke our Christian memory--our anamnesis. As Benedict XVI wrote: The true sense of the teaching authority of the pope consists in his being the advocate of Christian memory. The pope does not impose from without. Rather, he elucidates the Christian memory and defends it JPII's theology of the body is a reminder to man than he is not a beast--and neither is he pure spirit. Men and women are called to live in life-giving communion with one another as they did in the garden. Eradicating foundational terms --Adam, anthropos, man-- is an attempt by the secular world to erase man's memory which is from the beginning. Erasing this memory is the work of the Beast. The Beast's attempt (we know he will fail) is to erase completely that memory of Man's creation in the garden. We cannot allow these foundational terms to be erased from our Creed and Liturgy. On the surface it appears to be a kind thing. Who would want to offend women? But the history of why the secular world is attempting to erase the terms "man" and "mankind" from our language and hence from our own memory is to make man forget about his origins where he walked with God and where he is called to return to God. Someone posted elsewhere about the fact that it was the women who first went to Christ and experienced the resuurection. Isn't this the beginning of the restoration of the proper relationship between man and woman that was lost in the fall? These holy women then announce the good news to the apostles who will take this good news to the ends of the earth. Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen! Originally Posted By: Fatherthomasloya
Christ is Risen!
I applaud the recent post by Im regarding the significance of the Bridegroom-Bride relationship in the whole matter of Sign, Sacrament and liturgical text.
Where there is gender confusion there is theological confusion.
Where there is theological confusion there is gender confusion.
Gender actually IS theology as it is the way (mystically) in which God reveals Himself and in which we in turn as humans are able to love as God loves. Our gender is an icon of the very interior life of the Holy Trinity. Gender is not arbitrary. It is revelatory. I hope to be picking this point up much more comprehensively in the future.
"..Christ emerges from the tombe like a bridegrooom from a bridal chamber" (Paschal Matins.)
--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB., MA.
Father Tom and Im,
Looking at Im's point about the Greek word "anthopos"/"anthropoi" and its ability to signify the one and the many, is there not an important connection here to our redemption "in Christ"? As the New Man/Adam, Jesus Christ is also the embodiment of the New People of God (both male and female) - hence the phrase "the Body of Christ" can also signify his individuality as man as well as our inCORPoration into His life. To drop all references to "man" in favor of the clinically correct phrase "human being" to my mind damages much of the very poetic symmetry between the Testaments and thus between Creation and Redemption.
It would be like the animal rights activists demanding that we no longer refer to the beasts of Genesis created on the 6th day as "beasts", but rather "animal beings", thus making any reference in the book of Revelation to the antichrist as "beast" and his association with 666 as the perfection of beastliness absolutely unintelligible.
There is an interdependence here between the testaments that should not be tinkered with in favor of the social agenda of a very vocal - and unfortunately very influential - minority. It appears that some of the pet theories of liberal academia have once again disfigured certain aspects of Catholic worship, despite anything else that is positive that may come with the RDL. As we have seen by the some of the exodus discussed here, liturgy is no laboratory for social experimentation. There are very real, very concrete pastoral effects on the lives of good people. And while it may, God forgive them, be in the heart of some clergy to simply dismiss this exodus as the loss of some "kook fringe" in the church, I will only point out that it is their "kook fringe" entrusted to them by God to shepherd. Will they leave behind their social agenda to maintain the peace of the flock? Will they leave the other 99 to go after the 1?
We shall have to see...
It is a shame that the Metropolia in its effort to "Americanize" the jurisdiction (which is not in itself a bad thing - there are many very positive aspects to American culture) has embraced one of our culture's more tangential and vapid elements - the move towards gender-neutrality.
God bless,
Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
I should add the rest of the quote on memory from Benedict. It is service to the double memory on which the faith is based�-and which again and again must be purified, expanded and defended against the destruction of memory that is threatened by a subjectivity forgetful of its foundation, as well as the pressure of social and cultural conformity. "Man" and "mankind" have been dropped from the Creed and the Liturgy in order to make them conform to American culture. But this is not the way it should be. St Paul tells us what to do: Do not be conformed to this world * but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
"Man" and "mankind" have been dropped from the Creed and the Liturgy in order to make them conform to American culture. Yes. Our Church has, in a sense, declared war on these words. The Ruthenian Catholic Church has made these words as taboo. And I have yet to read one logical explanation. It is a very dark period for the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 936 |
Genesis chapter 5, vs. 1: This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. 2 Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. Since God made man male and female, and named them "man," does man have a right to name male and female something else--does man have a right to change his God-given name? Isn't this to usurp God's dominion? Isn't this, in some sense what happened in the garden? God commanded man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." The tree that God told man not to eat of, man now looks and sees (names it) "good" and life-giving. And when he eats the fruit he believes that he becomes "like God" "knowing good and evil". Man now gets to decide--to name--for himself what is good and evil. But since he is not God, but a usurper, his dominion is truly disordered--and what disorder we have in the modern world, where man has a "right" to kill his own offspring. 1* Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God say, 'You shall not eat of any tree of the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4* But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; Is it an affront to God Himself to take away in the Creed, the name God gave to man, whom he created male and female?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
Do you suppose you could take this question and start a whole new thread with it?
Mary Lanser Dear Mary. I was only replying to the thread's topic "Why the translation of the Creed must be corrected" Why must it be corrected? Who changed it? Why is debate not p;ermitted? i don't thing it will be corrected no matter how much virtual ink is spilled in your community. The policy is simple - no debate. Your inquiry under this topic really has nothing to do with the discussion topic.
Mary Lanser Many byzcaths have been discussing the issue of your changed Creed. The concern was how biblical teaching is lost when the words are altered. THAT is a reason for correcting the Creed so loved by Orthodox Catholic Christians. Others in your community have posted reasons too. I've seen mainline Protestant Chritians have their pews emptied after adopting non-Biblical teachings or making accomodations to the current cultural climate. What is going on here is no different. Catholic bishops revised their NAB version of the Bible to include inlusive language and were met with a stiff response from Rome. I am sure th Pope - who was the Cardinal who responded - had reasons to correct. When one begins to change the Word of God to suit political correctness, accomodate cultural tastes at the expense of Christian teaching, and satisfy those who push for these things, then one begins the journey down the slippery slope. Furthermore your question makes no sense actually. I don't know if that is because you are confused about something you've heard or if others are reporting things to you that are already confused.
Mary Lanser Are you implying that my byzcath friends only capable of reporting misunderstandings? it is much deeper than that. several of them have been active in their byzcath communities for years. Some are singers/chanters in your church; several others have taught religion to their congregations' youth and adults. They are educated people, professionals in their industries. One is an iconographer and another is related to a byzcath priest. They are honest Christians. Anyway--- if I am confused then why don't you help me understand? i do remember learning that one of the cardinal virutues is educate the ignorant. I will try my best to ask questions better in the future. No one here is responding to you because the question you ask is not making sense and even if it were, we are talking about something specific in this thread that is apparently of no interest to you.
Mary Lanser Would you then like to educate me or would you rather see me leave? In my congregation we meet all sorts of people coming in from the war zone of religious hostility and personal warfare. They struggle with the demons in their lives and those who claim to be Christian. My uncle is a physician and has worked inthe ER for several years. He hsa very good manners and doesn't chastise those injured who enter the ER - even if they were at fault for their injuries. Our congregation is like an emergency room. We welcome all sinners with open arms. Even those whith the most stupid questions are not talked down. We love them because at least they ask questions. SOme of our best new members are former catholics. We are not anti-Catholic; we love the Catholic church because it sends us so many new members. So if you begin your own thread and try to be as clear as possible without the "Winks" then you might get a serious reply.
Mary Lanser I guess you misunderstood my last line about 'taking it like a ---" (man) I forgot that there were posting icons available. Are we allowed to use them? I hope not to offend. Just a little lite humor now and then. Eddie
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202 |
Re: Genesis 5:1
In making argumentation from Scripture, one must always return to the original. In Hebrew, as is well known, the word "adam" means "man." However, in Genesis, there is a play on words between the individual person given the name "Adam" and the concept "man." Genesis 5:1 has many different translations. Interestingly, the Septuagint Greek simply refuses to translate the word and retains the Hebrew word "adam" in the phrase, "and he named them Adam." Perhaps they were aware of the complexity of these concepts.
Fr. David
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
Re: Genesis 5:1
In making argumentation from Scripture, Dear Father David. Is Jesus the New Man or something else new in your teaching? 'Adam' means 'Man' (a personal name), but 'ha-adam' means 'man' or 'The Man' (we English would translate as mankind or humankind). What Hebrew word does 'us' come from? Eddie
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 202 |
"Us" does not seem to be in the Genesis 5:1 passage. I merely point out the word play.
Christ as the new Adam or "new man" is found in the Pauline epistles:
I cor 15:45: "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."
Also, Eph 2:13, where Christ is "one new anthropos"
|
|
|
|
|
