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

The use of Children in the Galatians passage is a particularly poor choice, as it undermines Paul's illustration; He is using a specific example from his culture that specifically involve a father and a son.

This is one of the reasons why I prefer traditional bible translations over contemporary ones.

It is interesting that both the King James and Rheims translations use children in Matthew 5:9, in the 16th and 17th century.

The way I understand the GIRM and Liturgitum Authenticum, the Roman Rite when properly carried out should use traditional rather than inclusive language.

What has happened here is simple. The word *sons* was purposely avoided. Matthew did not use *children*; scholars did, and they did for a purpose other than searching for archaic and pure Byzantine forms of worship. They were satisfying contemporary needs being pushed. It is the last ditch effort to *change the world*. When will they realize that the Sixties is over?

Ed

The concept of "sonship" is very clear and theologically viable. Yet it is YOU who seems to have turned this into a feminist issue.

Accurately translating the Greek as "sons" does not exclude women from peacemaking.

The Vatican directives are clear. No agendas. Translate accurately. I am sorry that the bishops and Father David reject this directive.

Yes, Rome has decided that such substitutions are wrong.


Is the job of the translator to translate or to correct the mistakes he thinks God has made in the Holy Scriptures?

As nice a man as Father David is I do not want the Bible or Liturgy to be rewritten to say what Father David or some commission of like minded men thinks it ought to say. I want the Liturgy to be translated accurately. Rome agrees. Read �Liturgiam Authenticam.�

Please reference the link provided for St. John Chrysostom, Homily XV on Gospel of St. Matthew, paragraph #7...infact google the homily xv, all links for it read the same in text for children MT 5:9


http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/110/1100023.htm

pax

james

ps- forgot the link for Galatians


http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/113/1130009.htm

So what does this say? Many of the church fathers quote differenty. This is also a translation which does not alter the original words written in the ancient biblical manuscripts. I remember one of the main rules of patrology: the fathers quote loosely. Many times they don't agree amongst themselves. I can show you many contemporary English translations of Matthew 5:9 which also uses the word *children* including the NAB. Please note that I have several versions of the NAB which also have *sons* in it. Even the Catholic bishops NAB text disagrees with itself!!! Yet the Pope has called them to task on it. Who do you support?

I see how the link you provided for John Chrysostom's sermon is based on the KJV. Was this the text he used?

Back to the sources. The ONLY word used in the Greek manuscripts is *sons*. Everything else is a house of cards; one translation on top of another. Even Jerome was wrong.

Ed

"the peacemakers: ... Reconciliation is a Christian office often recommended in the Gospels ... The reward is to be called sons of God. This is a title of Israel in the OT; those who reconcile quarrels are genuine Israelites." (p.70, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, by John L. McKenzie)

"be imitators of God as very dear children: ... be imitators of God's way of forgiving. In the Semitic use reflected in the NT, "children" often connotes the imitation of qualities rather than an ontological state; e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount, Christians are to be "children of their Father in heaven" by imitating the Father's universal love for men ..." (p.348, The Jerome Biblical Commentary, 1968, by Joseph A. Grassi)

The use of *children* in one case (qualities) and *sons* (ontological) can be understood in their context. Simply put, one can act and live like a child of God (loving all men) and be peacemakers so that they can become true Israelites or sons of God. Being a peacemaker doesn't make us *children* of God. That would be putting the cart before the horse. One has to be filled with true love, the type of universal love of the Father in heaven, to become peacemakers. What is peace-making without love? What is marriage without love? It's out of this love, the love of a child, that makes us want to be peacemakers. Only then can we gain the title of True Israelite (son).

Ed

In what way? Matt 5:9 has filii (sons)

VULGATE Matthew 5:9 beati pacifici quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur


Also, the present Nova Vulgata [vatican.va]

Beati pacifici, quoniam filii Dei vocabuntur.

The problem in the Byzantine Catholic Church regarding the use of inclusive language in its hymnal and Scriptures is also found in other communities. Here is a quote from Ron Kangas�s article �Children of God, Sons of God�.

Start quote:

�Every genuine believer in Christ agrees that it is a matter of most extreme seriousness to tamper with the Word of God � to add to it, to take away from it, to change it, or to dilute it. It is surely deplorable to alter the meaning of the Word for the sake of popular acceptance.

� to fail to translate accurately the Greek words for children and sons, and thus to obscure the difference between them, is to hinder the uninformed reader of the New Testament form understanding the crucial element of sonship in God�s purpose.

Was the erasure of the distinction between children of God and sons of God, possibly displaying the influence of the Zeitgeist upon Christian theological thought, motivated by a desire for so-called gender equality and political correctness?

The New Testament speaks of both children of God and sons of God and makes a distinction between them.

If we, the children of God, would become sons of God qualified to be heirs of God, we need to grown in the divine life unto maturity. Whereas all those who have the witness of the Spirit are children of God, only those who are led by the Spirit are sons of God (Rom 8:14).

Sons here indicates a more advanced stage of growth in the divine life than does children in v.16 � Children refers to the initial stage of sonship, the stage of regeneration in the human spirit. Sons are the children of God who are in the stage of the transformation of their souls. They not only have been regenerated in their spirit and are growing in the divine life, but they also are living and walking by being led by the Spirit.�

End of quote:

My comment:
*Transformation of the souls*? Isn�t this the doctrine of Theosis? The last paragraph I quoted seems to reflect this *partakers in the divine nature* notion. But maybe this is too foreign to those who have different ideas of what it means to be Orthodox � I mean, Christians of the True Faith. Some translations are just bad.

Ed Hashinsky

Jerome was wrong about other things.
Ed

"The Vatican directives are clear. No agendas. Translate accurately. I am sorry that the bishops and Father David reject this directive."

Actually the Vatican has not been clear at all. LA is an Instruction not Law. The Vatican has approved corrected NRSV and RNAB Lectionaries for use in Canada and the US. As we speak the NRSV is serving as the base text for the new wolrd-wide English Lectionary at the Vatican's behest. The only thing that is clear is that the Vatican has spoken out of both sides of its mouth on this issue. The Vatican rejects, and rightly so, inclusive language in reference to the Holy Trinity, the Christological title Son of Man, and in the Psalms many of which are considered Christological. It allows inclusive language, while it may not favor it, when the the reference is clearly a mixed group. Brothers becomes brothers and sisters, sons of God becomes children of God, although sons and daughters of God is a better choice in my opinion.

Also interresting the Vatican's own website has the RNAB minus the Pslams on its website. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVE.HTM

The idea of sonship some are espousing here seems to come dangeroulsy close to Gnostic ideas (see below) that somehow femininity is incompatible with theosis or our adopted status.

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven"(Gospel of Thomas).

Fr. Deacon Lance

The Vatican approved of it? Before or after it was a done deal? Tell us the history of how they approved it?


Certainly no agenda here.


Now Father Deacon Lance, you know quite well as an educated theologian that Matthew was not inferring gnostic teachings, but Jewish thought. To equate sonship with what the Gospel of Thomas taught is rediculous. To make the claim that those taking the side of the ancient manuscripts, the Gospel of Matthew (who was NOT a Gnostic!), and the words of Jesus is close to heresy is weird. This is reverse-think.

Matthew's Gospel was accepted; Thomas's was not. Hmmmm. Does that tell you anything? Yet, many feminist theologians and Scripture scholars love the Gospel of Thomas because it debunks the belief that the canonical gospels are the only correct ones. I have stated that children and peacemakers can be male and female, not one or the other. To read into it Gnostic tendencies is simply ... reading into it.

Do you think the notion of sonship - as understood by Jews and the early Christians (and Evangelists) should be debunked?

Ed

Both. The Vatican approved the NRSV as a bible/lectionary text then withdrew its approval for use as a lectionary. The Canadians had already sent the Lectionary to print, they got temporary approval for its use as is and fought to continue its use and reached a compromise with Rome on a corrected NRSV Lectionary that they may now use. Rome was involved with RNAB Lectionary from its inception resulting in a corrected RNAB Lectionary that is approved for use.


I believe the Jews had a very chauvinistic view of sonship. Orthodox Jews still do. They still recite the prayer: O Lord God thank you that I was not born a woman. Our Lord turned the Pharisees on their heads by including women among his closest disciples. I am not the one equating sonship with Gospel of Thomas. I think those that try and make a theological issue out of horizontal inclusivity because they dislike it are making arguements that skirt close to the example in the Gospel of Thomas.

Believe it or not, I am not a fan of inclusive language myself. I find it unlovely and unpoetic in most instances. That said if my bishop gives me a translation that says brothers and sisters or sons and daughters and I am not going to have a crisis of faith over it, especially when I see Rome approving similar usages for others.

Fr. Deacon Lance