www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Open Question to Father David Petras

For a long time now I have been asking the question about why the Byzantine Catholic Church changed *sons* of God to *children* of God in the Beatitudes of your worship hymnal. So far, no one who was responsible for this book has answered my question.

I have given several times the ancient texts where *sons* was the ONLY word used, not *children*. The best answer to this was that the Byzantine Catholic RDL is based on the latest NAB text (1986), which is basically inclusive in its language. My NAB text (1983) had *sons* of God in it. This is only a statement of fact, not theology. It is not a theological answer.

And this brings me to my inquiry.

Since the good Father David Petras has insisted on the *theology* of the liturgy, I would like to learn the Byzantine Catholic theology of replacing *sons* of God with *children* of God. What was the purpose of changing Scripture when the *son of God* theology was/is very rich in history and meaning?

The claim has been made that the Byzantine Catholics were trying to recapture the essence of their worship as in replacing certain words with ancient Greek ones (Theotokos). But was this effort the same as replacing the ONLY word ever used in the ancient Greek texts (sons) with a contemporary egalitarian one (children)? I have made my commentary known several times on this. I believe that silent prime movers have pressured the adulteration of Holy Writ for the purpose of feminist, not Byzantine Christian, notions. I have also alleged that this comes from the Sixties generation making the last ditched effort to 'change the world'. But these, I confess, are my personal thoughts.

But back to my unanswered question...

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be sons of God."

What does it mean to become a *child* of God rather than a *son* of God? This is a theological question I would like to have an answer to.

Out of curiosity, since the *sons* was replaced, I would like to know what was about *sons* that was so objectionable? Was something wrong with it? I am curious.

I am posting this thread as an opportunity to the good Father David Petras to teach us as the learned liturgist and theologian he is. I have enjoyed reading many of his posts and think he is quite knowledgable. I hope he can afford his time and knowledge to convey to me (and the rest of the forum paricipants and readers/lurkers) the THEOLOGY on this subject.

Thank you.

Ed Hashinsky

Dear Mr. Hashinski:

A theology of the Liturgy is very important. To understand this passage, we must first look at the whole quotation: �Blessed are the peacemakers. For they will be called [sons] [children] of God.�
The basic theology of the Liturgy is that we participate, through the eucharist, in the life of God. If this is so, then our lives must follow the pattern of the life of our Lord. He is the Prince of Peace foretold in the Old Law (Isaiah 9:5). The message of peace is found in all the New Testament to the point where Jesus is called our peace. (Ephesians 2:14). How do our lives follow the pattern of Jesus� life? It is through the Paschal mystery, the death and resurrection of our Lord. Our Lord told us that we cannot find our life except by losing it. So when he was arrested in the garden, and the apostles attempted to fight for him, he told them to put away their swords, �for those who live by the sword, will die by the sword.� If we are to be followers of Christ, we also must be people of peace.
The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) are a series of teachings that reflect the Paschal mystery. Only by poverty can we find the kingdom, only by meekness, can we find power on earth, only by tears can we find comfort, only by being reviled and persecuted for God, can we find joy and gladness. The original place of the Beatitudes in the Liturgy was at Typika, the monastic rite of Holy Communion, even though the actual distribution of Holy Communion has disappeared from the service. The Beatitudes, then, are connected with Communion, in which we are united with God, who is our �peace,� and we are united with one another in peace. The Beatitudes were then taken into the Divine Liturgy, which is Christ, which is our peace, which is our participation in the paschal mystery of Christ�s death and resurrection. Thus, before the anaphora, we sing that the Anaphora is �mercy, peace, a sacrifice of praise.� �Blessed are the peacemakers - those who celebrate the Liturgy, priests and people together." Most interesting is St. Augustine�s comment, �Where there is no contention, there is perfect peace. And that is why the *children of God* are peacemakers, because nothing can stand against God. In this way the *children* possess a likeness to God the Father.� (PL 34:1233)

I was very reluctant to answer you, since I think this issue has, for some, already been decided. The decision, for some, is that the substitution of �children� for �sons� is wrong, a feminist agenda. Any response that I could give, therefore, for some, would only leave me two options, either I could say our translation was wrong, or I could say that it was acceptable, and then I would be wrong. A true lose-lose situation! Therefore, some may have been saying, �Aha, he is afraid to answer!� The mere question of whether to use �children� instead of �sons,� though, is not a theological question. We all agree, I think , that both men and women become [sons] [children] of God if they make peace. Correct me if I�m wrong on this point. Would anyone say that only men can be peacemakers? I think what one might say is that �sons� here stands for all people, in the same way as �men� means both men and women. Perhaps others might say, more subtly, that : (1) Christ is the peacemaker, (2) Christ is Son of God, (3) therefore when we make peace, we are �sons� of God. I think this argument might work for the priesthood, but I don�t think women can be excluded from peacemaking. Therefore, the issue would be: does �sons� in the English language stand for �men and women� in the same way as �sons of men� would be a generic term for a human being in the scriptures, as Christ would use "sons" on the Beatitudes? Think of it is this way, in English, could a man say, �I have four sons, two are boys and two are girls�? However, I am not trying to ridicule anyone here, I really don�t want to enter this controversy, I only bring up the question, and I say it is a linguistic question, or a sociological question, not a theological question, since I think we agree on the theology. You are correct in saying that this translation is not directly from the Inter-eparchial Liturgy Commission. Nor is it my personal work [I am not the author of all the translation, or even mainly of it, but I am a member of the Commission that produced it]. It came from the decision to import quotations from the Scriptures in the Liturgy from the New American Bible.

In Christ, peace,

Fr. David

Dear Father David,

Thank you for your words on this subject. However, I think you got the cart before the horse.

Are not the *peacemakers* the subject here? Peacemakers can be anyone, male or female or both. (My aunt is the peacemaker in our family). This IS inclusive, and rightfully so. But, peacemakers become *sons* (now a special, filial, and unique relationship with God). Sonship was a key notion in ancient thought. Matthew did not say that the *peacemakers* will become *children* or *daughters* of God; he said they will become *sons* of God. There was a reason for his choice in this word over the other. It wasn't a mere linguistic or sociological question. How are we related to the divinity if we adopt the virtues of the (Matthean) Beatitudes. However, your church adopted the sociological argument to incorporate inclusive language for the sake of inclusivity. Your church still refers to the bride as the church. Are men brides? Your church uses Paul's words about the bride being *obedient* to her husband. This makes some people cringe, but because of ignorance. Being an obedient church (bride) is theological nature. It is the essence of being a church community, not a reason to beat the wife with a knotted chord as in the past. (There is something about a church that once referred to it as *matrimonial* obedience - at least what I am reading in the books I received of late from my family). Matrimonial obedience? Is this the type of obedience that Paul was really referring to? But your church included these words to give extra oomph for male dominance and superiority in what was supposed to be a true equal relationship.

But back to *sons* of God. A church can really use contemporary needs to push and pull meanings and especially words to suit its causes, none of which really dig deep enought into the special relationship meant to occur when we are peacemakers. The same goes for the focus on *matrimonial* obedience instead of the *bride* (husband and wife; church community; Christians; believers) being obedient to God. In this case, a bride can also be a son. Now think about THAT one!

We do forget the Lucan Beatitudes. No one likes a Beatitude that puts down rich people. Churches need their money.

In conclusion, with words from my dear aunt, it is women who don't care too much for the patronizing in their new worship. When young Byzantine Catholic girls don't like it, then you have an interesting problem.

Be careful of the NAB of late, and DO be mindful of what your Pope has been saying. The decision to import quotations from the NAB is a poor excuse or explanation. The quotes were wrong. There are NO ancient textual sources for it until much later translations. Matthew did NOT write it; scholars did.

Ed

I've always thought of this text in the biblical context of "sonship" and all that that entailed. Not that "son" was being exclusive of women, but that by being a peacemaker, ALL people, men and women, received the biblical sonship. Quite a radical concept if "us all" think about it.

Below is an interesting point on this subject and I've also included a link to the entire article that contains the quotation.

http://www.adoremus.org/98-01_bonacci.htm


Monomakh

Note: I'm not familiar with any other of the author's writings.

I can agree with Father David that this is an area in which we will probably never agree. One of the reasons that gender-neutral language is a problem is that it very often does not accurately relay the exactness of the original text. One can see that the experiment with things like �dynamic translations� and �gender-neutral language� among the Roman Catholics and many of our Protestant brethren are being abandoned in favor of more literal and exacting translations. Directives like those contained in Liturgicam Authenticam are attempting to fix this. I am confident that they will be successful, and that the experiment in the Ruthenian Church will be very brief. It would have been better all around to simply have learned from the experiment in the Latin Church and skipped the whole experiment.

The systematic substitution of �children� for �sons� is wrong because it is not accurate. In Scripture a child and a son are not interchangeable. Sonship carries with it a different meaning.

Several of the more literal versions of Scripture (like the NASB) are very similar to the RSV (quoted above). Read it through substituting �child� or �children� for every case of �Son� or �son�. You wind up with a jumbled mess that says that children are no better then slaves but now that we are children we are heirs. The RAR-NAB uses the circumlocution of �not of age� for �child� because they are replacing �son� with �child�. So the problem just gets worse, and we wind up with something that is really not Scripture but someone�s idea of what we ought to get from Scripture.

Deacon Tony stated the problem very accurately in a post in another thread:
I pray that the petitions to Rome are successful, and that soon parishes may pray the Divine Services in their official and complete forms, in an accurate and exacting translation.

I am surprised that the good Father David Petras missed this important concept of sonship in the Sacred Scriptures. Maybe there were other issues in this translation that had to be dealt with for Byzantine Catholics? The good father mentions that it was not his decision. Whose decision was it and did they give an explanation or commentary for it? No one on the *committee* is stepping up to the plate to take responsibility for it. It is always someone else's decision. This is not a good thing. I don't like group or committee decisions. The finger is always pointed elsewhere and those who signed their name to it making it official are never called on the carpet. I think I have asked a number of times over the year for an official commentary on such changes. I have a copy of the critical notes to the NAB that were not published in the biblical texts which helps explain some of the mindset. However, there is no such critical text other than 'we simply used the NAB published by the Catholic bishops.' This is a cop out. It doesn't explain why you Byzantine Catholics had to adopt it wholesale, especially in its weekest spots. Who pushed for it? Why the 1986 version of the NAB (if there is such an edition)? In studying the music texts that I received from my Byzantine Catholic family a few months ago, I came across a number of inclusive language in the publications by Byzantine nuns.

The Orthodox are resurrecting the Septuagint. Why aren't the Byzantine Catholics involved in cooperating with them to publish a biblical text both can use? The Septuagint seems to the be the text of choice in Byzantine Christianity except for the Catholics. Probably for the same reason why they can't stomach the word *Orthodox*.

One more point--- Why is the Byzantine Catholic church so ready to accept anything the Catholic bishops publish in the United Staes - even poorly translated editions of the Bible - but simply refuse to accept anything the Pope of Rome writes about not using inclusive language?

Ed

Dear Ed,

I think once again your post is a little uncharitable.

I personally do not like the inclusive language, and I would prefer we use son instead of child, and other traditional language. I do not disagree with your apparent disapporval of inclusive language liturgy.

But I find these designations seem sarcastic in tone to me:

"the good father david;"
*committee*;

Even if I do not agree with Fr. David's views on inclusive language, he is a priest of the Church, and deserves respect. He also has some valid points, even if I disagree, respectfully, with his final conclusion on the particular question at hand.

Another thing: "Why the 1986 version of the NAB (if there is such an edition)?" There most certainly is a 1986 NAB and it is different than the 1983 edition you mentioned in an earlier post. The original NAB came out in 1970; the revised NT was published in 1986; the Psalms in 1991; the remainder of the OT will be coming out soon. Why such a incredulous attitude, expressed once again in a sarcastic tone?

I also would like to know if you are a Byzantine Catholic?
I assume you are not: "I would like to know why you Byzantine Catholics?" Why do we have to answer to you?

It is okay to comment on our RDL if you are not; I have no problems with other Catholics, Orthodox or any one else criticizing our RDL, and expressing the idea that they would not want it for their own practice. But I take strong exception to an outsider being so rancorous and caustic about it.


- Lance

I refer to the priest as *good* out of respect. It was the only intention I had. Do you wish me to call him vulgar names instead? The *committee* I mentioned was the one spoken about for over a year on these forums. Where were you?

I am glad we agree on the issue of inclusive language. This has been my point all along. I fail to find any direct answer into why it was adopted other than blindly accepting the NAB text over the ancient Greek manuscripts (which do NOT have the words that the Byzantine Catholics are putting into it). Scholars, not Matthew, included these words.

I believe I have shown respect to the Catholic priests on these forums. I can be quite opinionated, but that is me. The *good* Fathers and moderators have instructed me in the proper address to clergy in your church.

Ed

Dear Ed,

I have been here all along, I look on this forum nearly every day. I am a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church in America, and am well aware of the history and controversy surrounding the RDL.

I will grant you the benefit of the doubt that I have misinterpreted your intention. But often when people put a descriptor between italics or asterisks, they are conveying a sense of incredulity or sarcasm, and so I interpreted your posting that way. Forgive me for this.

As for the NAB: I get the sense that many of us on this forum are not a big fans of the NAB, in any of its incarnations. It seems to have some tortured language, and bows too much to skeptical scholarship in its commentary notes. But (unfortunately) it is the official bible for the Catholic Church in the US, and it is the most widely accept version among Catholics in general. In the Eastern Churches, some other translations have been used in the liturgy, but the NAB is probably still the most used version by Catholics at home. I think Fr. David's point is that it is a good thing to use the same bible translation in the liturgy that most Catholics read in their homes.

I do agree with you on inclusive language; I am against it in most cases. But often Bible scholars have not always translated the term sons from the Greek into sons in English. For example, the KJV translators render Matthew 5:9 thus: "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

I am glad that as a non-Catholic you feel welcome here, and free to express yourself. I hope you always feel welcome.


Blessings,

Lance

I am bored of quotes ("), so I use * instead. I've tried typing air quotes, but they never show up on my posts. I tried captial letters once. In fact, one of my first posts on the internet years ago was all in capital letters. I got at least eight replies to stop yelling. I didn't know I was yelling. I typed it very quietly.

I still like the one translation, *Blessed are the cheesemakers*.

Ed

Dear Fr. David,

Thank you for responding. I think your comments here actually hit the nail on the head with respect to how many are seeing the problem in a different light. If the issue is a linguistic question with respect to the English language, then it is because Americans and the language which they use (formed principally by protestant and Enlightment thinking) have not allowed themselves to be informed by the Liturgy and the Scriptures. I think sons is used in the beatitudes because by being incorporated into the body of Christ, every man who follows Christ, male or female, will have by adoption, the same relationship which Christ has to the Father, i.e., one of sonship. Rather than being exclusive this is dramatically inclusive.

That Americans want to change the language of Scripture and Liturgy to fit their world view and have not accepted the Liturgical and Scriptural truth, therefore, is not merely a linguistic issue. It is a theological issue which reflects a deep theological disagreement about the very nature of man's ultimate destiny. This destiny is found only in Christ the true Son of God.

In Christ,

lm

If this is inclusive, then why the need to use *children* instead of it? Sonship carried a lot of meaning in Jewish thought. Throughout the Old Testament there are a number of brotherly rivalries where both were vying for the inheritence and blessing of their fathers. The one who had a special relationship was the true son. Take for instance the Prodigal Son. He was not called the Prodigal Child. He learned he was lost and begged to be taken back by his forgiving father. Then there was Cain and Abel. We can see this in the parallel lives of John and Jesus. Jesus, not John, was called *son* because of his special relationship to the Father; he wasis the Son of God. Aside from all the sonship stories in the Old Testament and the deeper meaning of what is tied to being a son, especially the firstborn son, why would anyone want to rid of this by substituting *child*? Paul says that he was once a child, but no more.

My aunt says that a group of women is behind it all. But she won't say which group.

Ed

As an RC, I'm not even sure anymore what the correct liturgical language is for the Roman rite anymore. At the local cathedral, during the recitation of the Creed, there's an audible gap as half say "for us men" while the other half -- including the celebrant who's miked into the audio system -- just says "for us." It's quite jarring, but then, so is ad-libbing the prayers of the Church.

The question of children vs. son is interesting though. A son can and should grow into maturity, to become like the Son of God himself as much as possible. A son can also be a father of children and have his own family. He can -- as one poster alluded -- be both patriarch, brother and helper as in the Jewish tradition. (Here, I'm thinking of Joseph in the Torah.) A child though? Welp, St. Paul says that when he was a child, he thought as a child, but when he became a man, he put aside childish things. I don't want to remain a spiritual child my whole life.

So, here's the theological reflection in what was described as a sociological/linguistic issue: maybe by stressing sonship, we rightly orient ourselves towards becoming the models of sanctity found in the patriarchs of old and perfected beyond measure in the Lord.

...and there is also Monty Python's "Blessed are the Greek, for they shall inherit the earth..."