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

In the case of both the RNAB and NRSV, aren't there going to be some amount of revision that makes these translations come more in line with Vatican directives on inclusive language? They will not simply be the same translations you buy in a single NAB or NRSV Bible in a book store, correct?

And why not simply take the RSV II for the whole English speaking Church?

Not correct and I have corrected you on this before. It is the USCCB that declines to print the Corrected RNAB in Bible format. Now perhaps this is their passive-aggressive way of getting back at Rome for forcing them to correct the RNAB. Pehaps they are simply waiting until the Old Testament is finished before publishing another version of the NAB.

As for the version of the NAB there is the original 1970 version which receives a lot of criticism for both its notes and its translation choices. The New Testament was revised in 1986, and included some horizontal inclusive language. The Psalms were revised in 1991 it did not include vertical inclusive language. It did change things like, for example, Psalm 1 "Blessed is the man" became "Happy are those". The Vatican refused to allow the 91 RNAB Psalter for liturgical use. The 63 Grail Psalms remain the approved version for the Roman Liturgy of the Hours. For Mass the 91 Psalms were corrected.


Some on this forum have left the Metroplia citing this issue as a major reason. I believe you have every right to petition that the RSV-CE be used rather than the Corrected RNAB. But while the Corrected RNAB and NRSV have approval you cannot accuse the hierachs of being disobedient. They are not.

Fr. Deacon Lance

My sources indicate that the Vatican is the one withholding permission. I would appreciate it if you list your reference. I would happily stand corrected, and such information would be useful in encouraging those in authority to strive for accuracy in producing both biblical and liturgical texts. Maybe the Vox Clara commission should also be charged with correcting the RAR-NAB.

The use of gender neural language is a perfectly acceptable reason to find another Church. I know plenty of Catholics who drive past the parish closest to them to a more distant parish for any number of reasons (be it better music, a better homily, whatever). A Ruthenian Catholic who finds gender neutral language irritating is not wrong for joining the nearby Ukrainian or Melkite parish because it offers a more accurate (or even less irritating) text. If the use of gender-neutral language were the only change to the "Red Book" and the full rubrics were allowed I would still be at the Melkite parish. A decision to choose a parish for reasons of music, homilies, faithfulness to liturgical tradition, accurate translations (and etc.) cannot be considered a "crisis of faith."

I am not sure I agree and it is a difficult question. The rubrics and text of the RDL are clearly disobedient to the Liturgical Instruction for our Church. And yet it somehow got approval. That smacks too much of "whatever you can get through a Vatican commission is authentic". We know there are politics even in Rome. It would seem to me that true obedience on the part of the USCCB would be to take Liturgiam Authenticam seriously without being forced to. And for the Ruthenian bishops a complete and accurate translation of the Divine Liturgy respectful of both "LI" and "LA". It is because the Latin Bishops were not respectful enough to the Vatican directives that the Vox Clara commission was created. Were the US bishops disobedient? Were the Ruthenian bishops? One can argue both yes and no.

For the record: I do not accuse and never have accused the bishops of not obtaining approval for their revision to the Divine Liturgy. I do believe that the RDL is disobedient to our Ruthenian liturgical recension and will continue to petition those in authority to rescind the RDL. I further petition that they prepare editions of our liturgical books that are accurately translated (whole and complete - both text and rubrics), and that such translations willingly adhere to the Liturgical Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam and the other appropriate directives, while respecting what the clergy and faithful have memorized over a lifetime.

John,

I thought I got this info from the Adoremus website but I can't seem to locate the article now. This info is several years old. But if you think about it, it makes no sense that Rome would refuse permission to publish a Corrected RNAB Bible while the uncorrected RNAB continues to be published. It is inconceivable that they would continue permission for a less accurate text and refuse it for a more accurate text.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Why not, Rome didn't look too closely at the RDL when it was submitted. As it contradicts their own Liturgical Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam and other important documents giving guidance to the Eastern Churches.

Maybe they're just too busy praying.

You statement is not correct. The Oriental Congregration, which issued the Liturgical Instruction, reviewed the RDL. Robert Taft, SJ, as a consultor of the Oriental Congregation, wrote the Liturgical Instruction. As a consultor, Fr Robert reviewed the RDL, to ensure it was free from doctrinal error and Latinisms. If anyone is able to apply the meaning of the Instruction to the RDL it would be Fr Robert.

Now one may not agree with Fr Robert's conclusions, but one better have the necessary scholarship to refute those conclusions.

As to LA, one can read Fr Robert's views on that document here. [fdlc.org]

1. The Orthodox (remember them?) were not involved in the RDL hymnal, so their input was lacking.

2. The Carpatho-Russian Orthodox, the *sister* church of the Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics, was especially not involved in any joint venture.

3. Why was there cherry picking in what words to change? Some returned to older terms (Theotokos; sounds very Orthodox, right?); other terms were avoided (Christians of the True Faith instead of Orthodox Christians); and some terms were adulterated to read what was not originally there (*sons* of God).

4. Why were clergy prayers (per previous posts on this matter) left alone in the inclusive language? If this is so, then this would demonstrate bi-polar theology; one type acceptable to clergy, another acceptable to particular groups in non-clergy circles. Their prayers are not available on the online copy of the RDL. It would be interesting if this bi-polar theology is so.

5. Your bishops (Byzantine Catholics) have preferred to remain silent about the issue.

6. Concerns and fears about women priests and latter-day Gnostics in the Byzantine Churches says a lot about the person more than it does about Scripture and the topic at hand. That one is not personally in favor of women priests and inclusive language renders the argument lukewarm, if not a fallacy in logic. �I�m personally not in favor of X, but I don�t like it when others aren�t in favor of it too. They must be Gnostic or members of the he-man�s woman haters club, not me.�

7. The Latin Vulgate has *filii* dei (sons of God) in Matthew 5:9. *filius* means son, not child. The Douay-Rheims is an English translation of the Latin Vulgate. I am not familiar with the DR version Deacon John Montalvo is using.

8. The prime movers who pushed this through remain hidden.

9. �Vicarius Filii Dei (Latin: Vicar or Representative of the Son of God) is a phrase used in the forged Donation of Constantine to refer to Saint Peter� (Wikipedia). The Pope was not referred to as the child or daughter of God.

10. CODEX SINAITICUS: The New Testament translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript (Discovered by Constantine Tischendorf at Mt. Sinai by H. T. Anderson, begun in 1861
Copyright �2004 Jackson H. Snyder II) has �9 Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called sons of God.�

11. My copy of the �Nouum Testamentum Latine� has the following for Matthew 5:9� �Beati pacifici quoniam ipsi *filii* Dei uocabuntur�.

12. Catholics usually like to rely on the Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and the nebulous NAB. The Septuagint and Codex Sinaiticus are rarely their choice texts.

13. Hebrew and English are always in search of a gender-neutral word referring to both sexes. First, it was *man* or *mankind*, but that reaked with men. So, in today�s conversations, women will refer to other women as �you guys� and not comment on how sexist the other woman is.

14. *Sons* is a Jewish theological term that has lost its meaning as much as *Son* of Man and *Son of David* or even *Son* of God.

Ed Hashinsky

I have no problem with those who are against inclusive language, since I am against it myself. My problem is when those who are against it try to make heretics out of those who favor it in horizontal use. One can refute inclusive language quite simply on translational grounds without involving theology at all. Again the bottom line is the Vatican has approved some use of horizontal inclusive language in translating Scripture and Liturgical texts, even if they aren't crazy about it as evidenced by LA. Obviously then they don't feel any theological errors are being introduced or they would be adamant and refuse all inclusive language. If you want to talk logical fallacy, how about appealing to Rome to enforce the Liturgical Instruction while at the same time accusing them of allowing theological error by approving horizontal inclusive language. I would also point out other Eastern Churches have submitted and got approval for Liturgical texts and practices that do not adhere to the Liturgical Instruction, so obviously that too is of limited value as Rome is not willing to strictly enforce it.

Fr. Deacon Lance

1. Mr. Hashinski challenged me to state a theology of �Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.� I did try to do so by placing it in the context of the paschal mystery, which is the form of the Liturgy. I think that road would have led to many insights about the use of the Beatitudes in our worship, but it was not followed up significantly in this thread, which it seems is more concerned about the words �children/sons.� When I finish my articles in the newspapers about faith, which should take most of 2008, I think I will turn to the theme of the Beatitudes.

2. Some interesting quotes were presented, particularly the translation in the King James Bible. Note also my quote from St. Augustine, but I could not verify whether in Greek St. John Chrysostom used �children� or whether the translation presented simply follows the King James translation. Since certainly the authors of KJ or St. Augustine were not involved in �feminism� issues, what this tells me is that you can �get away with� some interpretations for centuries so long as the interpretation doesn�t get entangled in (social) controversies. Actually, the Liturgy and preachers have used Scripture in this way frequently, so long as there is no apparent objection.

3. LA is cited as an authority, not by legal norm but by form of content, for the Eastern Church. One should take care, however, not to have a selective reading of church documents. Nor can an Eastern Catholic be technically disobedient to this document.

4. Respondents have made excellent points in showing the possible deeper meaning of �sons.� Particularly in noting that in the Jewish social system, �son� might mean �heir,� or also that �son� might mean �belonging to the people.� We do not know for certain the word Jesus used in Aramaic, but it would indeed most likely be the Jewish idiom for these or similar concepts. So this is one of the positive outcomes of this thread. Upon reflection, I would observe that these meanings, in English in the modern social context, would not be compromised by using the word �children,� though I can understand the feelings of those who would reject this usage.

5. Note, too, that some have quoted St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 13:11 �When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.� The Greek word used here is nēpios, which specifically means �little children.� Note also St. Mark 10:15 �Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." The Greek word used here is pais, which can mean �child� or �servant.� Jesus was often called pais in the very early Church, a usage which was dropped in favor of �uios.� St. John more significantly says, John 1:12 �But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name.� Here the Greek word used is teknon, which means more exactly a (young) child. These different Greek words would seem to have a different range of meanings than English, so that some concepts cannot be translated as precisely as we would want.

6. �Blessed are the peacemakers.� I am confident myself that a common ground can be found in these different terminologies used without the utter submission of one group to the other. Those who do find peace will be called �children� (or �sons� or even �daughters�) of God.

I am not so sure that Paul was speaking in hyperbole or merely about a notion of "equality" which consumes modern man:


Luke ch. 20

My logic does not mean that women can be priests... for in this age we are all bound by our bodies. In the age to come we will be one in Christ in such a way that our bodily sex will be insignificant compared to the oneness we share in Christ. The Scriptures are subtle. Rather than do violence to them and attempt to make them relevant to the day (and irrelevant to tomorrow), it is better to be faithful to the truth which speaks to men of all ages. Why must the sacred things always be tinkered with?

I am all in favor of translating Scripture as it is not as what I think it should be. As Father David rightly points out in John 1:12 children is the word in Greek:



I don't want to change children to sons. I do want to reflect on why tekna theou here and uios elsewhere. It seems on first glance because that John in the next line is distinguishing those who were "born" either of the flesh--by nature, or by adoption--"the will of man," and hence to use children is fitting because he has already spoke of those who are "born" of man.

In short, while I think there may be much to learn from the experts, they have a duty to be faithful to the text lest we get not the gospel truth but the gospel of Fr so and so or of Bishop so and so.

Fr. David:

You write:


To make your point from Scripture, could you please show us an example, as you have with the term children, where "daughter" instead of child or son is used? I think that would make your point valid and not simply a sociological "truth". For if we are to look at society, I would certainly see our own, as evidenced by the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, as one of the most disordered of all.

Thanks.

Yes, exactly! John's Gospel (even the whole Johanine canon) is very exclusive in using the word Son/uios theologically as applied only to Jesus. John tells us that is his purpose:

RSV John 20:31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.

Ironically, Douay-Rheims (DR) and King James (KJ) both have "sons of God" for the tekna theou of John 1:12. (Recall they had Matt 5:9 as "children of God" for uioi theou).

If there is an indication in John of a theology of sonship as noted in Galatians, I think it may be found in John 12:36. Consider the significance of Jesus, who has said of Himself (John 8:12; 9:5) "I am the light of the world," also saying:

RSV John 12:36 While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light (uioi photos). When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them.

DR, KJ, NRSV and NAB have here "children of light."


Amen.


Dn. Anthony

Can you expand on this comment? I do not understand what you are saying?

I wonder what the difference is between 'technically disobedient' and 'disobedient'?

It sounds like something Fr. Taft (Jesuit-trained) might say. Jesuits are experts at being faithful to the Church, while openly reviling the tradition.

Nick

Dear Father David,

Of course, previous English translations of the Bible used inclusive language. It was not due to feminist issues, but the on-going search for a gender-neutral first person word. As the word *you* (originally a second person plural word) was adopted as the second person singular, some contemporary translators have unsuccessfully tried the same with the word *they* as a gender neutral third person singular. So, yes, even though feminism wasn't the reason over the past few centuries, it doesn't rule out it being the reason today. My neighbor attended a Catholic university where they had to take a one credit class in proper (politically correct) wording. Stiff penalties in academia for those who didn't accept the newspeak. The ones behind this PC newspeak are usually nuns.

I believe that the choice in English translations in your RDL is due to political correctness, not for proper English equivalents with the Greek. The choice was an adulteration of Holy Writ "to accomodate the new context of these biblical texts in the Liturgy" (the RDL hymnal, page 3). It was more accomodation than proper translation. If it was a proper translation, the authors of the new liturgyspeak would have use the correct English equivalent to the word written by the Evangelist, spoken by the Lord.

I am sure one can derive all sorts of new theologies. But I would rather listen to our Lord's own words spoken on the Mount. The theology of the *sons* of God has more ties in with Jewish tradition, thinking, events and institutions in the Scriptures, and mostly in the two biggest *son of* theologies: *Son of* Man and *Son of* God. Your new liturgyspeak is a denial or rejection of those biblical traditions.

I find it odd that your worship/hymnal committee can take the initiative to return to some Greek terms (presbyters, Theotokos), but not all of them. It seems that if it is too Orthodox, then don't use the old term; if it caters to the new liturgyspeak, then use it. This is a cafeteria-style method of translating. It is a method that caters to particular groups and their preferences (reject anything Orthodox; satisfy feminists), but is dishonest to those who matter the most - the people.

Ed