www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Holy See Rejects Feminist "Baptism"

I will tell you the difference, Bishops have the authority from their apostolic office as teachers and guardians of the faith, feminist DO NOT. What apostle laid their hands on them tell me?
Stephanos I

I was being rhetorical. So, bishops have the right to change the Scripture for purposes no different than feminists? What exactly then is the Holy See rejecting?
Ed

Of course Bishops do not have the right to change Sacred Scripture, but they do have the right to aprove of certain translations, and submit that to approval by the Holy See.
Gender inclusiveness is a matter of how one translates a text,
The linguistic custom of using the masculine form men to include all people both men and women is hardly a change of scripture, when both are included.
I for one do not approve of such usage. Especially when it comes to the identification of God.
And I do not approve because of the understanding of inspiration.
"Scripture in all its parts and in all its words are inspired and infallible."
God revealed himself as Father for a reason. We all know that God's is spirit and does not have a gender either male or female.
But reveal himself as male he did, and was incarnated as a male.
That is the point of the Holy See.

Stephanos I

The point of Father Serge was about changing the words of the Lord. Did our Lord not say and mean *sons* of God? Limiting gender inclusive language to anything but the deity can be troublesome. If we can change the words from our Lord's mouth to satisfy *needs* then what prevents us from changing anything else our Lord said? Maybe there are a few more things we disagree with our Lord on, so a few word changes can be more satisfying to our taste. Your church leaders can change words in their worship, but when it comes to the Scripture being quoted or sung it is different. People who actually read the Scriptures will know when their church is pulling a fast one on them. I guess our Lord's very own words doesn't satisfy *needs* today.

Ed

Well some of Christianity doesnt have an infallible magisterium either do they?
Stephanos I

Not everyone believes in the dogma of papal infallibility, including the Orthodox. Is this the straw man argument so we can all be distracted from Fr. Serge's question? What do you mean by *some of Christianity*? The Holy See of the Catholic Church rejects feminist Baptism. They wouldn't have objected to it if infallible bishops weren't doing it. Holy Writ was purposely changed by Byzantine Catholic bishops to suit *needs* unspecified. Infallibility does not apply. *Needs* do.

Ed

Well them the only way to read the Gospels would be in their original written language. Whenever there is translation there will be some exetent of interpretation. Some languages assign male or femal to all words. In these cases the word for child could also be translated as boy. If translating the Bible from such a language it could say let the boys come to me or let the children come to me depending on interpretation. The society that translates the text interprets it.

"The point of Father Serge was about changing the words of the Lord."

I believe his question was centered on authority and if anyone has the authority to sidestep what has been "directly revealed to us in the Gospel."

If you wish to claim that "Holy Writ was purposely changed by Byzantine Catholic bishops to suit *needs* unspecified", then you need more supporting evidence. Father Stephanos has answered the questions you've had.

Bishops can authorize translations to be used during the liturgy or mass. They do not change the manuscripts which the translations are sourced from. If you have a problem with the translation they authorize, you are free to use any other translation for your private study and you are free to learn any language required to study the source documents.

The Church authorized the canon; scripture did not authorize the Church.

Terry

Great points Terry, That was exactly what I was getting at.
Stephanos I

Ed,

There is clearly a difference between re-translating a statement that was intended to be inclusive of men and women--even though it used only a masculine pronoun--and re-translating a statement that was intended to be indicative of a male person, as in the case of "Father" and "Son."


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard:

With all due resepct, what is the need to do this? The arguments for feminist language have for the last 40 years been utterly unpersuasive except to those who would drag the divisiveness of feminism into the Church.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

From a personal perspective I think we can say there is no "need". On the otherhand, if Rome sees fit to allow some use of it, which it currently does, perhaps those of us who don't see the need for it need to reflect that perhaps Rome sees a bigger picture than the American socio-politic landscape.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Father Deacon Lance,

But does Rome see fit to allow it or is it tolerating what it cannot control?

I've watched the bishops debates and followed the public statements. I've studied the issue quite a bit and even have RC priest friends who study it more. Rome has said don't use it. And they use it anyway. What is Rome to do? Look at the huge effort Rome has had to undertake with the translations of the Roman Mass. It could not get ICEL to conform to its directives so it finally cleaned house. And then it faced similar problems with the various national bishops' conferences. In the end it compromises for peace, possibly hoping for the best since for the Romans the normative texts are all in Latin. [Rome does not always get what it wants - just look at how many decades your own bishops have refused to implement her directives on Liturgy!]

Bob is absolutely right. Christian feminists have not demanded gender neutral language ("inclusive" is not an accurate description as we have seen in the discussions here). The success has been on the side of the secular feminists, who have convinced some well-intentioned people in the Church that neutering the language of the Liturgy is a good thing. They have succeeded, as Bob correctly notes, in dragging the divisiveness of secular feminism into the Church. True Christian feminism does not bring about such division.

John

Now that is a severe case of wishy washy...

We need it.
Rome permits some of it.
If Rome permits some of it.
Then we need to reflect on it.

What do you need to reflect on? Which way are you going with this?

Rome doens't approve of it.
Catholics bishops, including Byzantine ones, ignore them.
Feminists *need* it (thought no one goes into detail about the 'who' behind the need)
Catholics Christians get it anyway, big picture or no big picture. They are no different.

What big picture do you think they see?

Ed

Maura,

You are correct! The society that has translated the words of our Lord (see Beatitudes in the ancient Greek texts) mis-translates by substituting the heavily theological and meaningful *son* of God with *children* of God to satisfy *needs* of people that your church refuses to identify.

From experience, clergy typically fear feminists and will champion their *needs* to appease them and keep them at bay. But when the ordinary lay believers discover that their theology, spirituality, worship, and BIBLE has been co-opted to satisfy group-ism, they know the church's wrath will be greater and have far reaching consequences. This is why the readers of these forums only know that what was done was to satisfy someone's *needs*, but that someone remains anonymous.

That a number of church translators have opted to use society's norms instead of proper translation techniques - actually ignore them - says a lot. Don't let the argument that it was to restore proper terminology, especially since the same translators have a very difficult time in using the "O" word (Orthodox) in the same worship service. Like I've seen in other church communities, this is purposeful and calculated tinkering.

What it boils down to, Maura, is trust. If the Scripture and our Lord's words cannot be translated properly without agenda or for fulfilling *needs*, then what else can one not trust them with?

I apologize for being so hard, but this has become a joke as farcical as the feminist Baptism. Satan has done his work.

Ed