|
1 members (1 invisible),
680
guests, and
98
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,521
Posts417,614
Members6,171
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30
John Member
|
|
John Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,766 Likes: 30 |
I would argue that LA does not apply in the East as it does in the West. The liturgical context of the East is vastly different than the West, so I do not think that the LA can be put as a "straight-jacket" over the East. A �straight-jacket�? Curious. I find the call for accuracy in translation quite liberating. The idea that the East demands gender-neutral language because of its liturgical context and the West does not has been advanced before. It has never been developed or supported. It would be interesting to see an argument along these lines, one that is thoroughly supported by Church documentation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 730 |
the LA states that the translation has to be accurate. The RDL mistranslates the only word used in any of the ancient texts for our Lord's words in the Beatitudes. They chose to use *children* instead of *sons* of God. Your bishops purposely misquoted Jesus. Ed
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
Perhaps it is you who misunderstand LA? I think LA is quite clear. But I would like to see more language about this issue coming from Rome. The Corrected RNAB and NRSV Lectionaries were approved by the same Congregation that issued LA. The American Latin bishops have submitted their translation of the Roman Missal with the same inclusive language used in the RDL. Yet in the face of evidence that Fr. David and Fr. John understand LA correctly you refuse to admit you are wrong in attempting to use LA to support your position that no inclusive language can be allowed or even address the fact that the above have happened since LA was issued. What evidence that they understand LA correctly? The fact that Rome approved the documents does not mean that the translations hit the mark, and could certainly mean some compromise was made. "Should be allowed" and "is allowed" are two different things. In another discussion, Father John posted an article about the approval of the Canadian Lectionary which included the following: �I don�t know who won and who didn�t,� said Archbishop Weisgerber. �I actually think it�s kind of a compromise, and kind of a happy compromise between our tradition and more modern kinds of translation.� Here we have Archbishop Weisgerber of Winnipeg saying that it a compromise. So the point is logical and supportable. And when we think that Father Robert Taft has stated to several that he was the only reviewer of the RDL, that he only reviewed the texts (as he was not asked to review the rubrics) and called Liturgiam Authenticam �unfortunate�, the idea is very logical. Don�t forget that LA came just a month or after the approval for the revised text of the RDL. The delay in promulgation of six years allowed plenty of time to fix the problems. Let�s also remember that the issue is not about �inclusive language�. It is about �gender neutral language�. �Who for us men and our salvation� is inclusive. Removing the word �men� makes it potentially exclusive according to the now retired head of the Congregation of Divine Worship. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about petitioning Rome about this matter. So, let me understand this.... The more liberal "lung" of the Catholic Church says it's wrong to incorporate gender neutral language, and makes it a no-no. Instead, the more conservative "lung" of the Catholic Church adopts it into their Liturgy, and attempts to embrace it saying LA isn't meant for them. Do I have this correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Stephanie,
No, the Latin Church, which produced LA, is still approving texts with horizontal inclusive language, like that used in the RDL, for use in the English-speaking Latin Church.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 178 |
Thank you. So, does LA apply to the Eastern Catholics? Just to play devil's advocate (can I say that here??) what do you surmise will be the outcome for the Latin texts? If they don't allow it there, what will happen to us?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Stephanie, Most of what I do here is play devil's advocate!  From my perspective, Rome does not seem to have the will to refuse the use of horizontal inclusive language when the bishops make it clear they want it, even if Rome thinks it may not be the best idea, as expressed in LA. Which leads me to conclude it is not the grave theological matter many here make it out to be. If it were Rome would put its foot down. They are picking their fights and horizontal inclusive language does not seem to be one. As for us, you have three things going on with the RDL, translations people don't like, music people don't like and rubrics/omissions that do not conform to the 64 Liturgikon or Ordo Celebrationis. I think those writing letters will win the appeal to allow the 64 Liturgikon to be used. (and some places are still using it anyways) I do not think they will be successful in getting the 07 Liturgikon rescended. So ultimately pastors will be left with the decision based on parish reaction to the RDL and their own tastes. Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
The RDL mistranslates the only word used in any of the ancient texts for our Lord's words in the Beatitudes. They chose to use *children* instead of *sons* of God. Your bishops purposely misquoted Jesus.
Ed You are incorrect, and your continued accusation in this regard is without merit. Many old and venerable English translations (eg, the Douay-Rheims, which is championed by Catholic traditionalists, the KJV) use "children of God" in the Beatitudes. As indicated, the NAB was the translation of choice by our Bishops. As a result, the Beatitudes as used in our worship are consistent with the translation found in the NAB. There is a newer Orthodox translation, the EOB, which stands for Eastern / Greek Orthodox Bible. It is complete translation of the Holy Scriptures based on the Greek text of the Old Testament (Septuagint / LXX) and for the New Testament on the official ecclesiastical text published in 1904 by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. (from the website, The EOB [ orthodox-church.info]) Interestingly, this group of translators also chose to render the translation of Matthew 5:9, Blessed are the peacemakers,for they shall be called children of God. "Children of God" is an acceptable translation among any number of translators. BTW, Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount in Aramaic, not English, so you have no basis on which to make your accusation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I am simply using the terminology used here That is OK. They are wrong too. Fr. Deacon Lance But right in their wrongness IMHO! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 135 |
The RDL mistranslates the only word used in any of the ancient texts for our Lord's words in the Beatitudes. They chose to use *children* instead of *sons* of God. Your bishops purposely misquoted Jesus.
Ed You are incorrect, and your continued accusation in this regard is without merit. Many old and venerable English translations (eg, the Douay-Rheims, which is championed by Catholic traditionalists, the KJV) use "children of God" in the Beatitudes. The Douay-Rheims, the KJV, the NAB and the EOB are all INCORRECT. The word in Matthew 5:9 is �huioi� and it correctly translates only as �sons� (�huios� is son). This error was corrected in the NKJV. Sons have inheritance rights. Children do not. BTW, Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount in Aramaic, not English, so you have no basis on which to make your accusation. Not relevant. The original for us is in Greek.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,394 Likes: 33 |
The RDL mistranslates the only word used in any of the ancient texts for our Lord's words in the Beatitudes. They chose to use *children* instead of *sons* of God. Your bishops purposely misquoted Jesus.
Ed You are incorrect,... I've already given some of my views on the sons vs. children translation issue, link1 , link2 , link3. Within that context, a few comments here that are response, not rebuttal. 1. The valid concern in the quote above is only obscured by the imprecise, misleading, and inaccurate manner in which it is presented. It detracts from the point rather than advancing it. The statement about our bishops is libel [ merriam-webster.com]. 2. Thank you Deacon John for the informative and worthwhile link. 3. As I noted before, the use of sons/children in previous translations is very uneven. 4. I would venture that one cannot go wrong translating huios/huioi as son/sons. To insure that what I (and others) consider the very important theological concept of sonship is not obscured, teknon/tekna should be translated as child/children. These usages are accurate and safe. 5. Although Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, transliterations of the Aramaic in the Gospels are few, and often if not always not what one might call the essential words of the Gospel. Speculating on what His words in Aramaic might have been is interesting, but the words of Jesus are given to us in the form of a divinely inspired translation into Greek, and it is properly those Greek words that should be our primary focus. The chronological Jesus spoke Aramaic, the historical Jesus of the Gospels speaks Greek, and the Gospel is conveyed in that idiom. [I've wondered, for instance, and doubt that the Greek word play in John 3 (anōthen = again; from above) works in Aramaic, and it seems unlikely that Jesus and Nicodemus would be conversing in Greek.] Dn. Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1 |
Speaking as moderator of this Forum I agree with Deacon Anthony that Ed Hash has crossed the line in stating that the bishops have "purposely misquoted Jesus" in their translation of Matthew 5:9. I do not believe it rises to libel because Mr. Hash's comments are not necessarily negative in character as his sentence does not attribute motive. One could read negative motive into Mr. Hash's words but one could also read a positive motive, even as Mr. Hash disagrees with the decision of the bishops.
I will remind all posters to keep to the rule of charity or they will forfeit their posting privileges.
In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
From my perspective, Rome does not seem to have the will to refuse the use of horizontal inclusive language If I may reiterate John's comments: There is nothing "inclusive" about gender neutral language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
Christ our true God, through the prayers of His all-spotless and all-pure mother, of our Father among the saints John Chrysostom Archbishop of Constantinople (of the saints of the church and of the day) of the holy and just ancestors of Christ Joachim and Anne and of all the saints, may this same Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us and save us, for He is good and loveth every human being.
Kyr Jospeh Archbishop Raya
The Divine and Holy Liturgy of our Father among the Saints John Chrysostom
Alleluia Press, 2001
This substitution proved to be a step in the wrong direction, a spiritual disaster that added fuel in the laicization of our religion.Kyr Jospeh Archbishop Raya
Celebration
Eatern Christian Publication, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Recluse,
I have all three books, in fact I have every book written by Archbishop Jospeh of blessed memory. You will note that the 2001 Liturgicon is Archbishop Joseph's update of BDW in which he replaced "You" with "Thee" and "Thou" but he also replaced "... for He is good and loves mankind." with "... for He is good and loveth every human being."
He repented of his use of what he calls the casualness of "You" but still saw fit to replace "mankind" with "every human being". It seems to me misleading to quote Archbishop Joseph in an attempt to discredit horizontal inclusive language when the Archbishop used it himself in his last liturgical publication.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226 |
He repented of his use of what he calls the casualness of "You" but still saw fit to replace "mankind" with "every human being". I also have almost everything written by the Archbishop. His excellent book "celebration" (2003) seems to counter what you are saying about using the term "every human being". However, I will look into this. I did not think he was a proponent of gender neutral language. It seems to me misleading to quote Archbishop Joseph in an attempt to discredit horizontal inclusive language when the Archbishop used it himself in his last liturgical publication. Again, there is nothing inclusive about gender neutral language.
|
|
|
|
|
