When it comes to news, those of us who are in the Conservative camp are caught between a rock and a hard place. One the one hand we have the Mainstream Media which is –and has been–hostile to tradition, Christianity, and of course the Republican Party for about as long as I have been alive.
On the other hand, FOX News, which has been right-of-center since its inception is no bed of roses either. Sure, the graphics, the sets, the intro music, the anchors and the anchorettes are easy on the eyes and ears. All things being equal, it has been refreshing to tune in the news and not be told that All Conservatives are Pure Evil. As I wrote in a previous column, the choice between MSNBC and FOX is not a choice at all. We literally have no other place to go.
That being said, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to swat away the impression that FOX is the house organ of the Republican Party Establishment. Intimations of this were apparent in previous election cycles when the presidential debates were stacked against non-interventionists like Ron Paul. The drive to winnow the field in favor of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 was obvious even to those of us who had reservations about Paul.
This was also the case with non-politicians who had well-received shows on that network. I’m thinking of Glenn Beck and Judge Andrew Napolitano in particular. Both men had decent shows but once they started getting too close to talking about the Federal Reserve, their shows were cancelled faster than you could say “Jack Robinson.” It became clear that there was only so much that could be discussed in polite Conservative circles and they were going off the reservation. You can get close, just not too close.
Now please understand, I think that Romney is an honorable men. I voted for him and would do so again all things being equal. McCain has his peccadilloes to be sure but I gave him the benefit of the doubt simply because of his time in the Hanoi Hilton. That’s not nothing. Likewise, I bear no ill-will to Glenn Beck (although I must say that he has the all peculiarities of an ill-educated autodictat). Still, he’s not a bad egg. As for Judge Napolitano, he clearly is a man of immense integrity.
Which brings me to my current embarrassment.
The other day on The Kelly File, he made a complete fool of himself as regards the 14th Amendment. Being a Libertarian, his political beliefs inhabit an ethereal world of Platonic ideals and thus little contact with mundane reality. In the matter of the 14th Amendment, he clearly did not know what he was talking about.
First of all, he repeated the mantra that that particular Amendment to the Constitution was to be understood as universal, that is to say, applying to all persons residing in these United States. That is a falsity. The 14th Amendment was crafted to enfranchise the former slave population specifically because the crafters of the Constitution had excluded them from the onset of the Republic. This is clear from the ipsimma verba of the Amendment itself.
As if his understanding regarding the newly-freed blacks wasn’t bad enough, he further beclowned himself by stating that the Amendment applied to all those born in America, even the American Indians! This is false on its face: the Indians were viewed from the outset as foreign nations outside of the jurisdiction of these United States. It even says so right in the Constitution –you can look it up for yourself. In fact, Indians weren’t enfranchised until 1924 by a special act of Congress. (To this day, enrolled Indians enjoy dual citizenship, both as American citizens and as members of their respective tribes.)
Permit a digression on the issue of American Indians, one which will show the Napolitano’s historical illiteracy. There was even a case in 1884 —Elk v Wilkins–which ruled against the plaintiff, an American Indian named John Elk. The Court ruled against Elk, stating that citizenship in a Republic can only be granted by that Republic, in other words, that it is not automatic. Towit: “no man can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”
This ruling –and these words–were uncontroversial in 1884, a mere nineteen years after the War Between the States.
Napolitano then went on to say that any foreign woman can simply walk across the border and the baby she delivers in (say, Brownsville) would automatically be an American citizen. This was never the intention of the 14th Amendment. This curious idea sprang de novo from a footnote written by Justice William Brennan in a ruling by the Supreme Court in 1982 (Plyler v Doe). Like other insane SCOTUS rulings (such as Dred Scot, Roe and most recently, Obergefell), this has muddied the waters and needlessly led to much acrimony, strife and bloodshed. It simply cannot stand in the long run.
Leaving aside the merits of the Amendment, simply speaking, such an ethereal, universal understanding of it not only tortures its plain meaning, it defies common sense. As public policy it is lacking in prudential judgment, which according to all sane political philosophers is nothing short of evil. After all, as Aristotle said, prudence was one of the primary functions of the ruling class; if they don’t exercise it then they lose all political legitimacy. We might as well open the phone book and put our finger on one name and make that person president instead of choosing men who are trained to exercise sound judgment.
The purpose of a government is to govern wisely; to restrain evil but also to understand that not all evils can be eradicated. This is common sense: one can derive it from Aristotle, from Scripture, and from the very nature of things. Ultimately, this is why I could not long reside in the precincts of Libertarianism in that I believe in ordered liberty. The Libertarian impulse always leads to licentiousness if not outright anarchy.
To take Napolitano’s fantasies to its logical conclusion, one would say that the population of these United States is not 330 million, but 7 billion. Indeed, the entire planet should decamp from Bangalore, Kinshasha, Athens, Kiev and points in between and hie to our shores. This is insane. Any country has the right to define its borders, otherwise it’s not a country.
This of course explains the rabid popularity of Donald Trump. Clear majorities of both parties believe that our nation is under assault by waves of illegal aliens. Whether Trump’s nostrums are the answer (or even workable) is not the point. There is real, seething anger at our political class for allowing the situation to get out of hand. This anger may be rabid but it is justifiable as well. Just ask the families of Kate Steinle, Marilyn Phares and others too numerous to mention here.
In future installments, I will talk about the nature of the State, and how it has a role in God’s plan for mankind. For now, we will conclude with my earlier observation of how the Establishment is fixing the system and FOX News’ role in making sure that only the received orthodoxy is promulgated. Clearly, they are pulling out all the stops to derail the Trump juggernaut, hence the rehabilitation of Judge Napolitano.
You’re right, George, and Mr. Napolitano and several current conservative candidates are wrong: Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not read ” All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside” If it did, he and they would be right.
However, it does not. Rather it reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” Note the conjunctive introduced by AND, for which there would be no purpose if such jurisdiction was automatic upon someone’s being born on U.S. territory.
No, the provision intentionally adds the conjunctive: “AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF”–i.e. not foreign nationals or subject to the jurisdiction or another nation as the subject or citizen thereof. To read the provision as Mr. Napolitano and most other do is simply to ignore and excise this conjunctive, but the conventions of statutory construction is to give each word and clause there of meaning, not to ignore it.
You are also right about prudence and common sense and it is foolish for conservatives to think and say that a constitutional amendment is required. What is required is an Executive Branch willing to interpret and enforce the amendment with such common sense and prudence and a Congress willing to implement it with appropriate legislation as required. Likewise, it takes members of these CO-EQUAL branches willing to stand up to the unelected, elitist Federal judiciary and assert equal rights of the Legislative and Executive Branches to interpret the Constitution within the power granted to each.
lxc
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is meant to exclude the children of foreign diplomats.
And even they are not completely outside the jurisdiction of the state.
There is no one who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the state they are in. That would be ridiculous. Nobody is outside the reach of the law. If you commit a crime, foreigner or not, you can be prosecuted.
Also, a fair number of Orthodox Christians here are citizens solely by the birthright clause or descended from immigrants who became citizens that way. We’re all from somewhere, and we’re all still pilgrims on the way to the kingdom of heaven.
The truth is America’s population is now being sustained by immigration. Our birth rate is below that necessary to maintain the population. Maybe we should look first at reducing our abortion rates and encouraging traditional families and spend less time looking down our noses at foreign people. Stop projecting the Orthodox ethnic club mentality onto national policy.
Your comments fail to take into account the matter of illegal foreigners. This is the issue…not foreigners here legally, which the 14th Amendment does apply to, but those here apart from legal jurisdiction.
To my knowledge the question of illegal foreigners and anchor babies has never been challenged to the Supreme Court. It needs to be challenged. Not that I would expect the court to interpret it according to intent, as they should, but at least it would be put to bed.
First, this is probably the most cogent piece you have written in the past few years. That said, I have a problem with your assertion: “the Establishment is fixing the system and FOX News’ role in making sure that only the received orthodoxy is promulgated.” I do not think that it is so cut and dry; while there are elected officials who represent the “country club” Republicans, there are also elected officials who represent Libertarian-leaning and traditional conservatives. The party establishment and perhaps Fox News are mainly neutral until the time when all must get behind a candidate who can lead the Party to victory.
Thank you for your compliment Carl. Regardless, the cheerleading for Neoconservatism by FOX and its disdain for non-interventionism/Paleoconservatism is obvious. Perhaps someday Republican candidates will openly declare their love for closing half of our bases overseas and not provoking foreign countries or how they’re committed to stopping all foreign aid.
As a traditional conservative, I do have some discomfort with the Libertarians and Paleoconservatives in the Republican big tent. That said, I think we should emphasize those issues that unite us; quit emphasizing our differences; and recapture the White House and hold the Senate and House with super majorities. Not only must we stem the current projectory of our country, but we must return to the rule of law.
Google Rich man conspiracy.A stunning and credible bullet by bullet explanation of the Kennedy Assassination. Tibbits was nicknamed JFK by fellow policemen. Here, they describe an incredible body switch. And name the assassin who shot the kill shot from a manhole 15 feet in front of the almost motionless car he was riding in. They describe a massive conspiracy. And they also inform us of who wrote the Treaty of Versailles the German were forced to sign to end WW!. Family connection here, my daughter’ great uncle and great grandfather wrote it. When they were Wall Street LAWYERS from Kuhn and Loeb. I figure this might be an acceptable post pertinent to the political subject matter. I think they finally nailed. GET A ROPE!!!
Native Americans were a special case. They didn’t satisfy the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” prong of the 14th Amendment, as the Elk case holds. (That was remedied by statute in 1924 — ever since, all Native Americans born within the territory of the US have been automatically citizens of the US.) But I think you are mistaken about the provenance of the “universal birthright citizenship” rule. See, e.g., United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898):
(Emphasis added.)
Wong Kim Ark continues to be controversial to this day. Even Liberals have pointed out its many errors (as Larry Tribe did with Roe.) It’s main defect was that even after it granted relief to the plaintiff, it had no universal application –i.e. to others born here such as American Indians, illegal aliens, etc. For a landmark ruling, it had very little practical standing in this regards.
The only mitigating factor in its favor was that plaintiff’s parents –though foreign nationals–were not slaves or otherwise in a state of indentured servitude.
There is another objection to Wong in this particular instance: Napolitano and the “universalists” (for want of a better word –in both the Liberal as well as Libertarian camps) make little or no mention of it at all. My guess is that the defect of Wong was apparent almost from the start. Or perhaps its specific application in regard to Wong and other legal laborors was not viewed as a licence to grant citizenship to every baby born in the US. Otherwise, the children of foreign diplomats would be citizens. It was understood that they could not because their parents’ vocation violated the subjunctive clause that Lexcaritas so helpfully pointed out.
The key words in Wong are resident aliens. That means that they are here legally and have abided by the entry laws.
Consider: prisoners-of-war, their children (from liaisons with “camp followers”), migrants (both legal and illegal), and even former Confederates were not considered to be citizens. In fact, those who fought for the South had to take loyalty oaths in order to receive American citizenship. Robert E Lee’s citizenship was granted posthumously by Gerald Ford by Executive Order (for example).
Also, the term “domiciled” indicates legality.
Our brother Dcn. David’s contribution is appreciated. It shows that the Wong court at least purported to give effect to the conjunctive “and subject to their [the United States’] jurisdiction.” It apparently did not, however, give much credence to the legislative history and the expressed intent of the Amendment’s authors and sponsors in this regard. Mr. Binney’s treatise is hardly authority and analogizing from old cases dealing with “subjects” of a realm is not necessarily applicable to citizens of a republic. the initial statement in the quotation is false, basing the court’s reasoning on an alleged “ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship.” But to what does this refer: Protestant Geneva? Ancient Rome? Ancient Athens? Citizenship was not a widely held concept before the American Revolution. In Rome and Athens, slaves were not citizens and they ; made up a large portion of the population.
We do not typically get into deep thought in internet discussion, but what exactly are the duties and rights that flow from citizenship, which do not apply to resident aliens or, indeed, to all persons? With a handle on this one be able to think and argue more rationally as to what the fair, just and prudent policy of the law ought to be.
lex
As a survivor of 6 years of Latin, I was pain, agonized, and despairing, George. The phrase is “ipsissima verba,” OK? “Verbum” is the singular; “verba” is the plural. Please don’t ever again slaughter that noble tongue!!!
Sorry.
Father Philip wrote, “I was pain, agonized, and despairing, George. The phrase is “ipsissima verba,” OK?”
Et ego quoque supra hanc errorem dolebam, sed ipsam solummodo ut digiti lapsum iudicavi.
That’s a good one: ‘digiti lapsus’ = typo in Latin! HA!
Translation: I too was grieved by this error, and even so far as I decided to cut off his finger.
As bad as Fr Patrick’s Latin was, it certainly didn’t mean THAT!
Thomas Barker mis-translates my Latin as, “I too was grieved by this error, and even so far as I decided to cut off his finger.”
It has been about a half-century since I did textual history under Carlo Maria Martini, but let me tell you what I do remember: In traditional usage the idiom lapsus digiti means “accidental misspelling.” It is commonly distinguished from a lapsus mentis.
Both expressions are older than the typewriter.
Also, “I too was grieved” fails to account for the imperfect tense of dolebam..
With respect to the verb iudico, the context determines its sense. In Cicero this verb normally means, “to assess,” “to render an opinion,” or, in most cases, simply “to judge.” I never break ranks with Cicero.
Let me mention, in passing, that Martini’s lectures (and his exams) were given in Latin.
Let me, first, apologize to those of you that read Latin. I regret that what I am about to write may seem condescending. So, a million apologies.
Thomas Barker’s inane rendering of my simple sentence, however, persuades me that the number of non-readers of Latin is perhaps larger than I imagined.
The only possible grammatical meaning of “Et ego quoque supra hanc errorem dolebam, sed ipsam solummodo ut digiti lapsum iudicavi” is:
“And I, too, felt sadness over this mistake, but I judged it as merely a lapsus digiti.”
A lapsus digiti (literally, “a failure of the finger”) is, as I mentioned, an idiom denoting any sort of merely mechanical scribal error.
I have no idea what Father James means by “As bad as Fr Patrick’s Latin was.” My simple sentence was perfectly grammatical and, in my day, would have been intelligible to any second semester Latin student in high school.
I keep forgetting that I was already somewhat “up in years” when most of you were born. When I did theological studies, the classes were conducted in Latin. Indeed, I wrote my first thesis (on Baldwin of Canterbury) in Latin and defended it in Latin.
It was a very different world, but I am still part of it.
Thank you for the lesson, Father.
Hi Father Patrick,
Sorry to bother but I have a question:
Is Eve created in the Image and likeness of God as a derivative from or of Adam being made in the image and likeness of God ditectly?
In other words Eve is in the image and likeness of God because she came out of Adam. She is not made in the image and likeness of God directly by God as Adam was.
Thus, her image and likeness of God is derivative not direct. Is this correct? Let me know as I was reading Genesis tonight and the thought just hit me so I wanted to ask to make sure if it’s correct.
Thanks,
Peter
If I may — not speaking for Fr. Patrick, but perhaps assisting him: There is no settled patristic opinion on what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God, but the Fathers do teach that the woman bears the image and likeness on account of being made from the man and sharing his human nature. The scriptural basis is Genesis 2 and 1 Cor. 11. The Apostle Paul stops short of saying the woman is the image of the man, calling her only the “glory of the man” (1 Cor. 11:4), but some Fathers go further. St. Cyril of Alexandria writes:
Elsewhere, in his commentary on 1 Cor. 11:4, St. Cyril writes:
Theodoret also speaks of the woman as the “image of the image” in his commentary on 1 Cor. 11.
I would argue (and have written in SVTQ, 54 2 2010) that the derivative or “archical” relationship between the man and the woman (one coming from the other and therefore sharing equally the same nature) is one way they bear the image and likeness of God, for the same can be said of the Father and the Son.
Peter, there are two approaches this question:
First, each human being is created in God’s image in such a way that he resembles God before he resembles man; he resembles other human beings because he first resembles God.
In this approach, Eve receives God’s image directly.
Second, each human being receives the image of God by reason of being a member of the human race. He resembles God because he resembles other human beings.
In this approach, Eve receives God’s image derivatively.
Although I am persuaded that the second approach best serves the interest of Orthodox Christology, one can cite serious Christian authors on both sides. (And I suspect that further comments on this thread may do the citing.)
I became interested in this question many decades ago, when I first started reading Plato seriously. (Those influenced most by Plato will pick the first option.)
I did not see the Christological implications of this matter until years later.
Because this philosophical question does not touch–or come anywhere near touching—the faith once delivered to the saints, it is not the sort of thing the Church feels obliged to decide. (Some folks on this blog may know if this matter was ever considered in the debates of the Ecumenical Councils. I, for one, do not know of it.)
Over the years, however, I have wondered if we are not dealing here with a genuine aporia, an insoluble epistemological impasse, the subtle perception of a mystery inherent in human consciousness and freedom.
Father Patrick and Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell thank you both for your responses. I wanted to get clarification on this issue because I did see Eve as being in the “Image of the Image” as St. Cyril states. I also picked up on the fact, the same as St. Cyril writes, that “the nature of the woman differs in some small way” to that on man.
IF Eve’s Image and likeness is derivative of Adam then what does this tell us about God, specifically about Jesus Christ and his incarnation?
Further, does this “Derivative” image of Eve thinking (Theology?) serve as the basis for the exclusivity of Men in the Holy Priesthood?
I know I just jumped over several major theological hurdles, but as I read Genesis 2 and I Corinthians 11:4 the exclusion of Women from the priesthood kept coming up in my mind. Here we do not have the rule telling us why women are excluded, but the reason, or part of the reason for their exclusion.
Further until Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell told be about St. Cyril’s commentary I did not know about it, but I was going down the same road as St. Cyril.
Also, am an Aristotelian, not a Platonist so you caught me on that Fr. Pat. Most people these days don’t even know there is a difference. Kudos to you.
Let me know your thoughts as I want to work through this, especially from the point of view of the Fathers. I know Michael Stankovic is excellent in this area and would greatly welcome his input as well.
Thank you all.
Peter
If I may continue this question, the current argument that Peter has been raising refers to the word gender as a purely modern social construct that, for the moment, is suggested as “fluid,” but undoubtedly will disappear entirely in the future. Nevertheless, it is an ancient term from the root γένος we have used referring to an animal’s “genus”/species, or a specific type (e.g. “But this kind/type [γένος] does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” (Mat. 17:21). In society, bi-sexuality or transgender, for example (from someone who is filling out government forms!), is now being referred to as “third gendered” or “other-gendered” and “sex” refers to the genitalia one is born with (“original equipment?”). And to carry this a step further, Jesus tells the Sadducees, “For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as/like the angels [ὡς ἄγγελοι] which are in heaven,” (Mk. 12:25) and according to St. John of Damascus, according to the nature of angels, “they have no need of marriage for they are immortal.” (Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, PG 96, Book II, Ch. 3).
Is it implied that “created in the image and likeness of God” means “gendered” and with sexual attraction/desire and when did their relationship actually become sexual? The only direct reference to sexual expression occurs at their expulsion from the garden: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16) An allegorical interpretation could suggest this is a qualitative warning based on past experience, rather than “prophecy.”
And after reading this afternoon, I would also add the words of Met. Anthony of Sourozh (of blessed memory!) in a lecture entitled, Man & Woman He Created Them:
Thank you Michael. That is alot to think on. I welcome the impute of others on this topic of Eve being the image of the image or derivative image from Adam’s original image. I think this is a great mystery that we need to unravel as much as possible. Thank you Michael. Your insights are greatly welcomed.
Peter A. Papoutsis
I am trying to figure out how three people (at last count) found sufficient meanness in their hearts to vote “thumbs down” on this well-informed theological reflection.
I don’t remember voting on the reflection, but I can see why others might have voted against it not out of meanness but out of suspicion. It is well known that Met. Anthony leaned left on issues of gender. There is evidence of that here. Notice that he does not provide any basis for the actual distinction of male and female; he reduces “helpmate” to merely “mate” — an equal and no more, to which he initially applies a male pronoun: It is another “he.”
This is a common problem with social Trinitarians. They see the similarity (likeness) between the multiplicity of persons in man and the multiplicity of Persons in the Trinity, but they are determined not to see any real difference between the persons.
Yeah, I noticed that, too. The whole bit about “the texts speaks of someone who will unite his… strength to his…” I don’t personally find that in biblical passages about Adam and Eve (or at least I assume those are the texts referred to), but apparently Metr. Anthony found it there present. Or perhaps his gender-neutral reflexes are stronger than his grammatical sensibilities I can rarely make it through a full paragraph of anything he writes, so perhaps he makes it clear later.
My eye did, in passing, light upon the mention of a “twosome,” making me wonder if Metr. Anthony thinks of the Most Holy Trinity as a “threesome,” but by that point I was reminded of why it is really just more spiritually healthy for me if I don’t read folks like him at all.
Met. Anthony was indeed a character. You don`t see anything of the Fathers in this save St. Basil`s touching remark about his parents. I have read some of Schmemann, Meyendorff, and Mt. Anthony. For Met. Anthony it has mostly been passages quoted by those who like his flowery prose and ascribe some significance to it, which I cannot. You alaays get the feeling he never really said anything at all. Perhaps that is the mark if a true academic these days . . .
If you want to know what the Tradition is, consult Traditionalists who are happy to quote the Fathers on any given subject. If you want to find an attempted spin which judges Tradition in light of contemporary Western sensibilities, consult modernists, neo-patristics, etc.
Met. Anthony does not refer to Eve as another “he,” but Adam – in the words of St. Methodist, whom you are actually accusing of being a “Social Trinitarian” & “leaning left on issues of gender” – refers to Eve as the other “me” in the sense of the completed “humanity’.” This would be congruent with Fr. Patrick’ assertion that Eve receives God’s image derivatively, as do we all by being members of the human race. It is you who are equally ascribing a lack of distinction to St. Methodist, Met. Anthony, and Fr. Patrick by assuming Adam to infer “maleness” or a male character to his description of Eve as the “other me” when the clear intention is to convey the completion of created “humanity.”
St. Methodius of Patala. Damned auto-correct!
I find no fault with St. Methodius or Fr. Patrick, only with those who relate relations within the Trinity to relations among humans so as to deny fundamental differences and insist on absolute, indistinct, anarchical “equality.” Many social Trinitarians do that, though not all. Some, like John Paul II, just don’t go far enough. They write insightfully of the communio personarum, but they don’t know what to make of male and female.
There is an obvious difficulty in carrying the analogy further. Most who have tried (e.g., Balthasar, Hopko) have tended to assign sexes to the Persons of the Trinity. I have gone about it the other way around, using relations within the Trinity to enlighten our understanding of many human relationships, including sexual distinction.
Briefly, the Father and the Son share a common nature but relate in different ways: the Father as archic source; the Son as eucharistic response. Human fathers and sons mirror this relationship, but so do priests and people, kings and people, and the man and the woman. You can read more here and here.
Blah, blah, blah. Of what bearing does all this posturing of whatever have to do with this exposition based on the commentary of St. Methodius of Pentala? Nothing. As a matter of fact, absolutely nothing. Your interjection of blather distracts from what was an otherwise interesting exposition led by Fr. Patrick on the creation of man. Start your own “Let’s sandbag Met. Anthony’s” discussion elsewhere, since you have have managed to kill this discussion.
Patara. St. Methodius of Patara. Not Pentala, not Patala, not Petala. (You’ve used all three.)
Pardon my dyslexia. Perhaps you could suggest a learned remedy for learning disability as well.
Because they will vote thumbs down on anything Michael Stankovitch says.
It’s a natural, visceral reaction to vote down Stankovich’s posts.
As far as the above musings of Met. Anthony, what is the point? That woman was not originally created as a helper for Adam but an equal and thus all inequality between the genders is a product of the Fall? We might consult the Fathers on this proposition. In fact, searching a database of the Church Fathers with the word “woman” might be very enlightening to modern minded souls.
I mean, that is the political spin. Making lots of beautiful flowery words and interweaving valid theology with ones own political proclivities might impress some, not so much others.
Clement of Alexandria:
Nor are women to be deprived of bodily exercise. But they are not to be encouraged to engage in wrestling or running, but are to exercise themselves in spinning, and weaving, and superintending the cooking if necessary. And they are, with their own hand, to fetch from the store what we require. And it is no disgrace for them to apply themselves to the mill. Nor is it a reproach to a wife–housekeeper and helpmeet–to occupy herself in cooking, so that it may be palatable to her husband. And if she shake up the couch, reach drink to her husband when thirsty, set food on the table as neatly as possible, and so give herself exercise tending to sound health, the Instructor will approve of a woman like this, who “stretches forth her arms to useful tasks, rests her hands on the distaff, opens her hand to the pool, and extends her wrist to the beggar.”
St. John Chrysostom:
There are in the world a great many situations that weaken the conscientiousness of the soul. First and foremost of these is dealings with women. In his concern for the male sex, the superior may not forget the females, who need greater care precisely because of their ready inclination to sin. In this situation the evil enemy can find many ways to creep in secretly. For the eye of woman touches and disturbs our soul, and not only the eye of the unbridled woman, but that of the decent one as well.
St. Augustine of Hippo:
Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one.
Tertullian:
Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly.
St. John Chrysostom:
Amongst all the savage beasts none is found so harmful as woman.
St. Gregory of Nazianzus:
Fierce is the dragon and cunning the asp; But women have the malice of both.
St. Ambrose:
Remember that God took the rib out of Adam’s body, not a part of his soul, to make her. She was not made in the image of God, like man.
That is not to say that I agree with any particular statement of any particular Father above. It is simply to say that, perhaps, Met. Anthony missed the spirit of the Tradition on this subject. One can find many other quotes from the Fathers which go down the same roads as the above (and the consensus of the Fathers is Tradition), so far in fact that I tend to agree with the more radical feminists that Christianity is inherently patriarchal to the core and cannot possible be “feminized” as some progressives have endeavored to do.
I”m sure Vladyka Anthony grieves not having lived long enough to have had the pleasure of being schooled by you and Orthowiki, may he rest with the saints and his memory be eternal!
Met. Anthony may be grieving, though I`m sure it has nothing to do with me but rather his poor judgment in refusing to be corrected by the MP and his handpicking of a successor that bolted to Constantinople. The latter was simply poor judgment, but I could see how the former might cause post mortem grief.
I didn’t vote one way or another on this one. It was such typically impenetrable Sourozhian mush that I couldn’t be bothered to finish it. A gold star on the report card to those who did. I know some people find this sort of thing to be deep and meaningful — vive la différence. I find it to be on a continuum with the same sort of Aridian studied ambiguity.
But you are right that a large collection of folks will vote down anything MS posts. In fact, the sins of the fathers are visited on multiple generations. In spite of my not infrequent dust-ups with MS, I tend to vocally support him just often enough that I have collected my own little coterie who reliably vote thumbs down on what I write, down to the proverbial “Christ is Risen.”
Your post is an interesting case study that will doubtless perplex the Stankovich haters. Do they vote you up, agreeing that they do indeed vote down anything he says — or do they vote you down, knowing that you are implicitly condemning their mindlessly reflexive voting? Decisions, decisions…
Edward,
Some, apparently, live for those little “thumbs,” as if they are actual confirmation of truth, integrity, or significance. I believe Misha has offered the only honest comment in acknowledging a “visceral response,” which I presume is driven by any disagreement with his Google-fueled “authority.” Nevertheless, I respect his honesty. Otherwise, the “thumbs,” in my estimation, is but another tool of the anonymous internet creep to cry “havoc” without consequence. And, pardon me, but who cares? I ask for prayers for a newly departed Orthodox priest, 5 dislikes. I ask for the monk James to set aside his pride & arrogance, admit his error and insult – which should be the first order for a “monk” – and apologize, +25 dislikes. Truth, integrity, significance? Like patients running my clinic. My final point, Edward, is a statistical question of probability, the significance of which only you may determine: what are the possible outcomes when one enters an elevator with a skunk? That’s all.
At least the thumbs are easier to figure out than the old “net” score method…
Like I’ve said before Father, you could simply say “Christ is Risen!” or “Isn’t it nice we’re having weather.” and get 2 “dislikes” right off the bat. Sure enough, you’ve gotten 2 “dislikes” already! Who knows? Stankovich and Vladyka could simply post the time of day and get clobbered. A lot of folks have “feelings” and, I suspect, position their cursors over the “dislike” button then read the article or comment. Then again, we do get some very strange visitors here.
I just said thank you and I received two thumbs down. So much for manners.
Peter
Thank you also Michael.
You are always in my prayers, Michael Bauman, my champion.
Thank you Michael S. I am not as diligent in my prayers as you, but I am grateful for you, even when I disagree. Our conversations public and private have taught me a great deal. May you walk in the way of God.
Peter,
I won’t venture to answer for Fr. Patrick, but I do know the Scriptures quite well, and I thought you might find this passage from Saint Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians interesting in light of your question. Even setting aside what many consider to be the culturally contextual topic of head-covering , it nevertheless speaks to your question.
This may, however, speak to the question in a way that is somewhat different than the manner in which your question was posed. Personally, I often ponder the implications of this passage in the light of Christ and His Mother, the Theotokos – as they are in themselves, as they have been revealed through the iconography of the Church from the very beginning, and as they are foreshadowed in the Old Testament (which always speaks of Christ). Even if one edits out St. Paul’s words about head-covering, something beautiful and profound about the essence of man and woman as the Church understands them seems to be revealed as a feast for our meditation. If understood in this way, one could substitute the words Christ for man and the Theotokos for woman, in which case it would read something like this:
I have always felt that, while not necessarily providing ‘direct answers’ to modern questions about what it means to be male and female, there is something here that has shaped the mind of the Church from the beginning, something that gives us a more beautiful and profound way of pondering the questions themselves. For if we meditate on man and woman in the light of Christ and His Mother there is hierarchy, to be sure. And yet there is nothing He is that He has not wholly given to her. Neither is there anything she is that she has not wholly given to Him.
Thank you Brian. I actually had Saint Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians in mind when I was reading Genesis. I love the way you phrased this discussion and won’t even try to match it because you did a very good job. I think I am on the right track, and what you have written looks like I am, but I want to guard myself against so-called “Theological Innovation.” Thank you again Brian. I appriciate it greatly.
Peter
“Nevertheless, neither is Christ independent of the Theotokos, nor the Theotokos independent of Christ, in the Lord.”
Well, not exactly. Christ existed as the Son of God from all eternity, long before there was a Theotokos and so He was indeed “in the Lord”. He is the Lord. Furthermore, Adam was not begotten by a woman, as were all other men. Thus, Adam was most certainly “in the Lord” before the creation of woman.
Met. Anthony, in his hybrid version of Anglican-Orthodoxy, would also have preferred to edit out St. Paul’s remarks about women’s head covering. That was one of his differences with the ROC.
Yes, indeed. One can magnify the Theotokos too much. She was not Christ’s equal.
Apparently Jesus NEEDED a mother. Mary DIDN’T NEED a son. Hint to amateur theologians: this is a tough one.
True, but Jesus had no personal need to become incarnate. Mary did need a savior. Your comments are as amateurish as any…
And Jesus did not need a mother either, any more than did Adam . . .
God simply chose to do it that way.
Misha in order to be fully man, Jesus did need a mother. Without Mary, there would be no body and no blood.
“Misha in order to be fully man, Jesus did need a mother. Without Mary, there would be no body and no blood.”
So, by your reasoning, Michael, I suppose Adam was not “fully man”? He had no mother.
Michael Bauman, we needed him to become man. We need his Body and Blood. The second person of the Trinity had no ontological need to become man. He did so as an act of divine will — out of the same profound love that led to his choosing to create us.
Edward,
There are, however, apophatic Fathers, such as St. Dionysisus, who would argue that God Himself could not truly be God in Essence without His creation, known before the ages and before time to fall by disobedience into corruption. And therefore, the Son of God could not truly be the Son of God and Creator without an obedience to the Father before the ages and before time to become incarnate of the Theotokos for the salvation of his creation. These Fathers would say, “A personal need speaks to his satisfaction, while to say “the Son of God could not truly be the Son of God and Creator” speaks to the very nature of God Himself.” There is wonderful poem of the 16th century Spanish St. John of the Cross that begins in the timelessness of eternity as a discussion among the members of the Holy Trinity. The Father explains the necessity of the creation, the Holy Spirit joins to “warn” the Son that, despite all His efforts (e.g. the Laws, the Prophets, etc.), man will disobey, will worship idols, etc. and will necessitate the Incarnation & sacrifice on the Cross to save them. And when the deliberations have concluded, and the Son has accepted His obedience to the Father, the poem concludes with the opening words of the Book of Genesis: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth…” The claim “amateurish,” on both sides, is premature, when “variation” is more appropriate.
I am aware that there are those kinds of speculation out there, but that is all they are. I also would rather have heard a quotation from St. Dionysius. (BTW, didn’t they teach you to call him pdeudo-Dionysius at SVS? You are slipping!)
Quoting John of the Cross is not a good way to convince me. I know some Orthodox find parts of his writings to be close to Orthodoxy, but I personally find most of what he writes to border on creepy, and they reek of the same kind of prelest one finds in the ecstatic visions of Francis of Assis, Catherine of Sienna, Therese of Avila , etc. Granted, it has been many, many years. I read all of that stuff at a time of life when I had convinced myself that had to leave Anglicanism and become RC. So I was reading it with an extremely friendly eye. Even so, the best I could do was swallow it. When I discovered Orthodoxy, I no longer had to, and I also had explanations for what I was reacting against.
In any event, to put out an idea that contradicts the idea of the wholeness and self sufficiency of the Holy Trinity in a quip is indeed amateurish in my opinion.
Edward,
Holy Cow, man! I wrote “the creepy 16th century Spanish St. John of the Cross,” but thought it untoward. It, nevertheless, is a beutiful poem in translation and proof of concept. I also recall a patient in my residency, a big ‘ole boy in fade bib over-alls, a native of Oklahoma (sorry, Mr. M.), asking for help in clinic because he had been rejected in his application for SSI. I asked his primary diagnosis and said, “Puh (like “potato”)-SWAY-do seizures,” “puh_SWAY-do seizures” you say. So, I’m scrolling through the electronic ICD-9, and I asked him, “What type of seizures are they? Did they give you information?” He said, “They said they’re in my mind.” A nurse was leaning against the door and I looked at her and said, “In his mind?” And said, “PSEUDO-siezures, you idiot.” And she walked away. Oh. So, Edward, at that moment I deleted the word – by executive function – from my memory. But, obviously not emptied the trash.
It believe it is important to consider this apophatic way of thinking that approaches the salvation history in terms of what St. Gregory of Nyssa described as “Glory to Glory.” And as (Pseudo-)Dionysisus wrote, God is so beyond our understanding that it is better to say absolutely nothing, than attempt to approximate something. But in the complete context of nothingness to the Eternal Kingdom (as Fr. Florovsky simply terms, The End), the “inter-dependencies” make sense – no, God in His Eternal Essence & Divinity did not need the Creation & His creatures to share with Him the Eternal Kingdom for all time, but in the complete context of the Eternal Kingdom, He could not be fully God without them; the Son of God did not need a mother, the Theotokos, but in the complete context of the Eternal Kingdom, He could not be Son of God without her, and so on. Met. Hilarion (Alfeyev) points out the same in his volume regarding Saint Simeon the New Theologian, and there is a commonality in the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor. This is hardly a quip from a pip, but a reasonable Patristic variant.
I know those speculations are out there. I just think that in the context of the clear statements of the Creed on the Son being begotten of the Father before all ages, it takes a lot of explanation to make a statement that he “needed” the Theotokos in order to be the Son of God avoid heresy.
I admit to having limited interest in speculative theology, mainly because only in the most saintly hands is it possible for it to go beyond mere avoidance of error and become something that actually helps anyone achieve theosis. More often , it is idle and distracting — or worse. It certainly requires far more than a quip for it to be spiritually safe, which is all I was objecting to in OOM’s original post.
Let me be clear: alternate is significantly different than speculative. The writings of Sts. Dionysius, Symeon the New Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, and Maximus the Confessor are, perhaps, “complex,” but none the less dogmatic. One man’s “idle distraction” is another man’s passionate pursuit into the densely philosophical “Triads” of St. Gregory Palamas. But I believe Tolstoy summarizes this entire point nicely in his story of The Three Hermits. I believe we may trust God as to matters of “spiritual safety,” and as to what “harm” might be derived from the Truth. “Setting one free,” immediately comes to mind… If you are asking me to be a “research assistant” and provide links & leads to my commentary, hey, it’s all online for the scholars to find! I’m tired, man! People seem to be able to refute me without blinking an eye, so let them increase their knowledge of the Fathers with the same zeal & acuity!
Here is wonderful article that I found from a Romanian Orthodox Theologian and Priest that touches on the “Image of God” theme I want to further explore:
http://orthodox-theology.com/media/PDF/IJOT3-2011/Stan-Human.pdf
Peter
Today, Mary and motherhood in general is not lauded enough.
It is proven out by women aborting their pregnancies and divorcing their families.
Misha,
I began prayerful study of this about twenty years ago looking for answers framed according to the questions being asked in today’s sick world. I did not do so as an innovationist seeking to change the Church’s understanding or practice (as so many do in these days of apostasy), but rather in an attempt to come to some degree of understanding and participation in the Church’s ethos on the subject, being that the she has never found it necessary to give it dogmatic definition. I gather that Peter is doing the same.
I wish I could say that I now have it all figured out in terms of understanding, but I don’t. I have, however, come to some small degree of participation in the ethos. And it is here, I believe, in the ethos that the ‘answers’ (if one can call them answers) can be found. They are the sort of answers that are not nearly as much the result of study as they are the kind of understanding that is the reward of faith. These kinds of answers come of acceptance and obedience rather than ‘historical criticism’ or (God forbid) some delusional revision of apostolic teaching.
It should be added as an aside that I had never seen Met. Anthony’s reflection on this topic prior to it being posted here. Neither would I dare edit out any words about head covering from Saint Paul’s teaching. I simply acknowledged that some believe them to be culturally contextual lest any modern controversy distract from Saint Paul’s larger point.
Being that it is apostolic, Saint Paul’s teaching is echoed in all the Fathers I have read. Saint Maximos delves into the subject in a more mystical manner than most. Modernists, I believe, purposely choose to misunderstand Maximos, reading him in isolation from the Apostles, other Church Fathers, and completely apart from the Liturgical tradition. These are generally the same sort of ideological heretics who extol Saint Paul’s theological genius when he writes that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” while at the same time deriding him in regard to his other instruction for his supposed ignorance, misogyny, and patriarchal prejudice– and this when a good look in the mirror, a demand from their employer, or even a casual glance at their own genitalia ought to provide them with sufficient evidence that the Apostle had a different, more profound sort of unity in mind.
With regard to your criticism (which is not without merit), I would simply say that Orthodox Christians do not and cannot understand Adam by reading Genesis alone. Adam can only be fully understood as revealed in the Light of Christ who is the Logos of all creation. It is the incarnate Son of God, His Mother, and – through her – the Church who is the subject of the Scriptures, both Old Testament and New. Saint Paul speaks directly to this manner of understanding the Scriptures when he writes of the union of man woman in the Mystery of Matrimony. Referring directly to Genesis he writes, “For the two, saith He, shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak of Christ and the Church.” We simply do not know the God of the Old Testament Scriptures nor can we fully understand His creation apart from the revelation of His only begotten incarnate Son who, as Saint Paul writes, was slain before the foundation of the world.
Several comments brought up the idea of “necessity” –the theoretical necessity of creation, Christ’s ‘need’ of a mother, etc. This strikes me as philosophy gone awry, for there can be no necessity in God. It could, perhaps, be said that “It is not good for the Man [Christ] to be alone [in His humanity],” but this does not imply necessity in God. It is noteworthy that many Fathers and our Liturgical tradition itself see the death of Christ in the “deep sleep” of Adam and the Blood and Water that flowed from His pierced side as bringing the Church (the Woman) into being. Here again this is alluded to by Saint Paul when he writes “for we are His Flesh and His Bone,” echoing the words of Adam upon the creation of the woman.
The good Protodeacon writes truthfully that the Theotokos was not Christ’s equal, but he precedes this by saying we can magnify her too much. Quite frankly, I wonder if this is true. If he means she ought not to be worshipped as deity, she herself would perish the thought. But if he means that she can be magnified too much above all creation, Saint John of Damascus, countless other Saints, and her own divine Son who is the One who exalted her would appear to disagree.
The exaltation of the Theotokos illustrates the ethos of the Kingdom of God to which I refer. We throw about silly egalitarian words like “equality” – the supposed “equality” of women and men or the fear of making the Theotokos “equal” to Christ. When will we ever get over these stupid ideas? When will we learn to live in the ethos of the Kingdom of God – that Kingdom in which “He who is greatest among you shall be your servant…For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve…”? No, the Holy Theotokos is not equal to Christ, and she would be the first to correct anyone who dared make such an assertion. But…and this is again the ethos of the Kingdom…we cannot name one thing Christ is, save divinity, that He has not freely bestowed upon her (and indeed upon all His Saints). This is the great scandal of our salvation, that weak human creatures can be made gods by Grace – and this in a measure so unimaginable that what can be said of Christ can be said of those He divinizes, save that they themselves are not divine by nature as He is. Our failure or hesitation to recognize the degree to which she (or any of the Saints) has been exalted by her Son can be either a failure to honor those whom He Himself honors or a view of our salvation that is less than the fullness of Orthodox Christianity. Moreover, although our Lord Jesus Christ is God incarnate, He Himself keeps the commandment to honor His Father and His mother.
The problem, of course – and the thing all faithful Christians loathe – is that this glorious truth is co-opted by ideologues who want to claim these gifts of Grace that can only be known by participation as “rights.” In their grasping for ‘liberation’ they cannot seem to comprehend that there are no ‘rights’ in the Kingdom of God. What is bestowed is bestowed as a gift of Grace through participation in the ethos. It could be said that in the Kingdom of God the Saints have everything while possessing nothing, whereas ideologues seek to grasp and possess the gifts of God as their own. This is the great error of our time – particularly as it relates to men and women. It begins with a refusal to participate in the ethos, and it usually ends in complete apostasy. Some men demand the authority of the being the image of Christ who is the Head, but they do so while shunning the humility, obedience, and total self-giving of Cross that He bore for His Bride. Some women point to the woman who is glorified above all creation and demand that they, too, be afforded the ‘equal’ opportunity to ‘fulfill’ themselves while bypassing the humility, obedience, and total self-giving that this fulfillment requires.
Participation in the ethos of the Kingdom requires that we gratefully and simply acknowledge our creation as male and female and live according to the image we are. And while I would never begrudge anyone for desiring a greater understanding of the mystery, I have found that far too much effort is expended attempting to understand the Mystery of our creation as male and female when this energy is better spent on the asceticism required to simply live in it. Thus after many years of studying this mystery, although I cannot say the study has been entirely fruitless, I have ultimately learned nothing better for our salvation than simply heeding the apostolic instructions already known to most people.
“Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore, seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.”
Brian,
Your comments are thoughtful, coherent, and unnecessarily tentative. You speak to what Fr. Florovsky mourned as the loss of the “Patristic” mind, the ethos being the manner by which the Church unites what was, what is, and what is to come in its eternal present: “He Who is born today, for us and our salvation…” “He was transfigured on the mountain today before His disciples, for us and our salvation…” “He who today experienced bitter crucifixion and death on the Cross…” And ultimately, “He who today rose from the dead..” We are not children “re-creating” a yearlong drama series to “keep the myth alive,” beginning the Holy Week not peeking ahead to spoil the surprise, or attempting to provoke emotions of piety by Feasts, but rather to “unite” ourselves in the Eternal Present of the salvation of our God; in the daily feasts of the Saints, of the Lesser & Great Feasts; in the octoechos cycle of the Liturgy; in the ordo of daily services and personal disciplines of prayer. We cannot deny that “Today, all things are filled with Light! Heaven and earth, and all places under the earth!” says the Pascha Canon; the Lord has returned to the Father; and the Comforter has been Given. And we live for that day “when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” (1 Cor. 15:28). In the Eternal Present of the Patristic Mind, the Beginning is only sensical in the context of The End, as Fr. Florovsky notes, and vice versa; and without this context, for example, she who was chosen from all eternity to be the Theotokos is nonsense. Yours is a wonderful point.
Brian,
I’m not sure what all of that was supposed to signify; however, I would make the following points.
It is a tactic of progressives to make God dependent on the necessity of the human female. It raises the status of women (in their eyes) and gives them fodder to pursue the women’s ordination heresy. We should avoid this. God the Son existed from all eternity and this was in no way dependent on a human female. God the Son became incarnate from a human female, but this was His choice. God could have created the body of another Adam from the earth, like the first, rather than through a human mother. This Second Adam would be just as human as the first, the ancestor of all mankind.
As to magnifying the Theotokos too much, the only ones I have ever encountered who magnify the Theotokos “too much” would be those Roman Catholics who wished her named co-redemptrix, a fourth person of the Trinity. Thankfully, that movement was defeated within Roman Catholicism.
That would certainly be one (among many more important) aspects of the ethos.
Brian, I don’t want to disparage what you have written, which is certainly quite thoughtful and well stated, but like Misha I don’t quite see what your reflection signifies with regard to male and female. It would seem to tend in a familiar direction, toward belief in an active male God and a passive female creation. The implications of such thinking can be quite odd. I once heard a well-respected OCA priest say publicly that the robes worn by our clergy as really “dresses” signifying the essentially feminine character of humankind.
As for magnifying the Theotokos too much, no one, of course, worships her as God, but we do sometimes speak of her as if she were God, attributing qualities to her more appropriate to God, like omniscience, omnipotence, and authority. Here’s an example:
I’m not saying these words are wrong. Whether they are right or wrong depends upon how we understand them. I’m just not sure everyone understands them rightly. Some people do seem to see the Theotokos as their savior, and their veneration of her does tend at times to eclipse their worship of Christ. In this day and age, one can only wonder where that tendency might lead.
Pdn Brian,
I apologize for the delayed reply. I have been on vacation.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that anyone would fail to see the implications of what I have written for our living as male and female. The ‘connections’ are there, but they are not necessarily as obvious to modern minds (including my own) as they were to our holy Fathers or, for that matter, to anyone who lived prior to the time radical individualism took hold in the culture. When Peter preached Christ risen from the dead, they responded, “Brethren, what shall we do?” I suspect the response today would be, “I believe you that He is risen, but what does that have to do with me?”
I think another difficulty we Orthodox Christians – again myself included – have grasping the implications is due to the fact that our tendency is to look for answers to modern challenges for the purpose of framing theological/anthropological arguments against those whom we know are distorting the truth for ideological ends. As I wrote earlier, this is the reason I began my own study. But it led me beyond the answers I thought I was seeking and into the contemplation of (and, more importantly, a small degree of participation in) the greater mystery of our creation as male and female. I don’t deny the need for arguments to be framed; it’s just that without a sense of – and participation in – the ethos of this mystery our arguments tend to be drawn primarily from the history of the Tradition rather than from the kind of understanding that comes of actual participation in the ethos of the Tradition here and now. In other words, arguments can easily come across as merely conservative, as a sort of desire to ‘preserve’ what has always been done because – and only because – the Church has “always done it this way.” Although it is not at all ‘wrong’ to adhere to the Tradition as it has been handed down to us and practiced historically, mere ‘conservatism’ can be little more than fear of change (and, quite frankly, for some that is all it is). But while living in the Tradition (or what I have called the ethos of the Kingdom of God) leads to practices that appear to reflect a conservative mindset, in truth it transcends any notion of merely preserving the good of the past. It is, after all, living in the ethos of the Kingdom of God that made whatever was good in the past good. We will not preserve the good of the past merely by preserving the practices of the past, nor will we convince modern minds merely by arguing from the past. For this ethos is not – nor was it ever in its essence – a set of rules to be followed (only men can be priests, the husband is the head of the wife, etc.). It is primarily the Way of life that not only makes sense of the practices, it precludes any notions that these practices are somehow outdated, motivated by patriarchal prejudice or misogyny, or in the process of being superseded by some delusional “moving of the Holy Spirit.” The Way of truth, love, and total self-giving that is the ethos of the Kingdom renders these ideas unthinkable.
I believe it is critical, especially in our age in which everything is being questioned, to have this in mind. Otherwise arguments fall flat not only upon the hearer, but upon our own selves. As the Apostle warns (James 2:19), it is not sufficient to be ‘right.’ I myself must live rightly. Being ‘right’ is a matter of pride; living rightly requires humility. It is one thing to know what is true or ‘correct’ about male and female while using this knowledge as a weapon for argument. It is quite another to live in the love, humility, and total self-giving that is the ethos of the Kingdom of God. If knowledge of the ethos doesn’t engender repentance first and foremost in me, it cannot be said that I know as I ought to know or that I, in reality, know anything at all except, perhaps, the history of the lives of godly people from whose way of life I myself am estranged.
I hesitate to make assertions about the ‘connections’ (by which I mean how what I wrote in my previous comment relates to what it means for us to be male and female). I approach the subject with fear. My hesitation to specify connections is motivated by a number of concerns.
1.) The Church has never found it prudent to dogmatize the subject, although it is thoroughly woven into the Scrptures, as well as the liturgical and iconographic tradition.
2.) The entire subject is a mystery and, as with all mysteries, should be spoken of with the greatest of reverential caution.
3.) I am not a trained theologian and may therefore fail to express it in a manner that is altogether true.
4.) I have neither the purity of heart nor holiness of mind that is required to speak to the heart on a subject that is known primarily in the heart.
Nevertheless, I would be glad to correspond with you about it, knowing full well that I am incapable of expressing it in its fullness and would doubtless fall far short of the mark. if you care to, feel free to contact me directly via email, as it would require many more words than George’s generosity should be required to allow.
Bvjb2018@gmail.com
Brian,
It seems to me you have moved from the ethereal to a concern for how your thought might might be conceived by and in the “world.” How many people do you run across that are promoting the Theotokos as a “fourth member of the Holy Trinity, or express a piety toward the Mother of God so inappropriate as to be scandalous? Me? Not so much. It pretty much comes back to a traditionally punitive, traditionally reactive responses to movements outside the Orthodox Church deemed “pre-emptive.” I have seen pastors, for example Frs. John Breck, Thomas Hopko, and Alexander Schmemann carefully explain these issues in the theological context of the Tradition of the Church, and let s/he who has ears let him/her hear. I direct you to Fr. Florovsky’s Creation & Creationism
I disagree that the Church has not found it prudent per se to dogmatize these issues in that they are intimately woven into the Creation Theology of the Church. The Fathers are explicit in regard to the creation of humanity:There is an infinite distance between God and creation, and this is a distance of natures. All is distant from God, and is remote from Him not by place but by nature- ού τόιτω, άλλα φύσει – as St. John Damascene explains. And this distance is never removed, but is only, as it were, overlapped by immeasurable Divine love. There is always an impassable limit, there can always be perceived and revealed the living duality of God and creation. “He is God, and she is non-God,” said Macarius “the Great” of the soul. “He is the Lord, and she the handmaid; He – the Creator – and she the creation; He the Architect, and she the fabric; and there is nothing in common between Him and her nature.”Yet
And this ironically enough, brings us back to our friend St. Methodius (as quoted by Met. Anthony (Bloom)
And ultimately, “And that this cause must consist of the unchangeable and sempiternal will and command of God? Does it not follow that once the world is impossible without God, God also is impossible without the world?” [Note which he has drawn from St Dyionysius’s The Divine Name] Holy Cow!
And moving ahead, let’s conclude with St. Maximus the Confessor, such that
And consider these astonishing thought of Sts. Simeon the New Theologian & Gregory Palamas
Finally, Brian, the Church has always done it this way – viewing humanity pursuant exactly to what we read in the Scripture – because it is the Truth given to us.
Michael,
We do not disagree. But the truth imparted to us is Life and the Way of sharing in divine life apart from which truth so-called has no impact upon us, and we are left with little but fruitless argument.
Then here we differ: the Truth imparted to us is always “the light of mankind” (Jn. 1:4); “the way” (Jn, 14:6);” the door” (Jn. 10:9);” the good shepherd” (Jn 10:11); “And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.” In the Church’s Eternal Present, there is no “fruitless argument”, but only an abundance of ghostly “bishops” from CS Lewis’ The Great Divide who, when offered the opportunity to look upon the very face of God Himself, offer the lame excuses of preparing yet another book – who knows what, the definitive exploration of “wives be subject to your husbands in all things” – while completely missing the apocryphal message of St. Paul to the Hebrews:
If, in fact, “the truth imparted to us is Life and the Way of sharing in divine life apart from which truth so-called has no impact upon us,” meaning that the incomprehensible manner by which our God, so vastly beyond our nature and understanding would create a nature specifically for us -“male and female did he create them – in order to both complete Himself & us beyond time and in time to share with him all of eternity leaves us with but “fruitless argument” is quite astonishing. We are rendered, quite frankly, gift-shop puppets. By the Breath of Life we are human beings, and by the imparting of Truth we are Sons of the Day and Heirs of the Kingdom. You need to re-think this statement.
Michael,
We may be talking past each other due to my poor communication. One aspect is a simple fact: a man is created in the image of God regardless of how he lives. The other is our living according to the image and likeness…
To be a true man is to be the image of Christ who is the image and glory of God.
“Now is the Son of Man glorified...”
Brian, you have offered a novel reading of Holy Scripture, replacing the plain reading and common patristic understanding of a passage with a strictly Christological interpretation not suggested by the text, stressing the equality of Christ and the Virgin Mary. You have offered this novel reading in response to a question about Adam and Eve and the image and likeness of God, but when questioned about the relevance of your novelty to the issue at hand, you claim to see “connections” that “modern minds” miss because they are not as immersed in the ethos of the Church as you are; then you decline to explain the connections.
Well then, having nothing more to go one, I can only believe that your novelty is an abuse of Holy Scripture: You have read into the passage a meaning never intended, which, whatever its worth, tends to obscure the intended meaning concerning the mystery of man’s creation as male and female. Call me modern, if you like; I can still quote the Fathers to back me up.
If you would refer to St. Dyonisius, St. Gregory the Theologian, our Blessed Father John of Damascus, writer of the Exact Expostion of the Orthodox Faith, St. Macarius the Great, St. Methodius of Olympus, and Sts. Maximus the Confessor & Symeon the New Theologian as “novelty.” so be it. This would, indeed, set you left of modern and in denial of the apophatic theology of the Church. You have dismissed Brian as a modern-day “Montanist,” seemingly promoting a “confection” of the Holy Scripture revealed only to him and his half-baked “ethos,” while it is you who are unfamiliar with the writings of the Mystical and philosophical Fathers. I would love to see you contradict the Fathers I have presented, as well as Fr. Florovsky.
Mary is of and in God by grace and obedience made the new Eve. Jesus is God and by condescension through Mary He became man. We creatures are never equal to God in the modern sense. We are the heirs to His Edenic Kingdom by adoption. No matter how we are transformed though we will always be created.
It is in that Realm when all is made new(not better)that male and female synergy beyond and wthout the carnal can be experienced. In the fallen world, carnality is inescapable thus the need for marriage and celibacy. The fact that in the Kingdom we are neither married nor given in marriage does not mean we are no longer male and female. Such bipolarity is at the core of creation.
Michael Stankovich, the novelty in question is his reading of 1 Cor. 11:2-16. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that none of the saints you mention read the passage as Brian suggests, but if you can show me where any of them have, I shall be pleased to see it.
Pdn Brian,
I am at a complete loss as to how you drew this conclusion. But okay.
No, I believe the only “novelty” here is to somehow imagine that in the “Eternal Present,” of the Church, He Who Was, Is, and shall forever be unknowable to us in His Divine Nature would literally place some intrinsic value – positive or negative – in whether a woman prays with her head covered; that the Creator of Heaven & earth and the fashioner of our humanity – cast in the His very image & likeness as the King & crown of the Creation specifically to rule over the Kingdom prepared for him; and having sacrificed Himself on the Cross as a “ransom” for our slavery to sin would again willfully make us slaves to the judgment of the length of one’s hair? Within the context of the eschaton, where, again, there will be no time save the one “day without evening,” who cares? This is not theology, this is Jose Saramago’s All the Names, an unending compendium of pettiness in a village clerk’s office, stacked to the ceilings. This is exactly how Fr. Florovsky could mourn the loss of the “Patristic Mind” of the Church, given over instead to “technicians.”
Michael,
In fairness to Pdn. Brian…
I could be mistaken, but I suspect he was not referring to length of hair or head-covering when he wrote of “the novelty in question.” At least I didn’t read him that way.
Brian,
As I noted from the beginning, I found your meditation appropriate, articulate, & refreshing. I made no claim to being your attorney, pro bono nor ad litem, and I enjoyed it simply for the way you distinguished it by your measured thoughtfulness. For what it’s worth, and with full refund…
You can’t do that.
Monk James have you seen this and if so what do you think? It sound really good, but wanted to gey our thoughts on it:
http://www.hchc.edu/about/news/news_releases/digital-study-bible
God Bless
Peter
I haven’t seen any of the work yet, so I don’t have an opinion. It’s good, though, that the BEST project recognizes biblical ‘traditionS’, so maybe the Greek 70 will have a place at the table.
Fr Eugen Pentiuc enjoys a tremendous amount of scholarly respect for his very talented work. He and I were elected to OTSA (The Orthodox Theological Society of America) on the same day, although I must admit that his contributions far exceed mine, which have been limited by circumstances largely beyond my control. It’s a joy to see him respectfully recognized by the international community of scripture scholars.
Hi Fr. James,
I found this article on yahoo this morning and wanted to share. I am not doing this to start a conversation, but just to give you a chuckle.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-popular-grammar-myths-debunked-141500488.html
Peter A. Papoutsis
I’m grateful to Peter Papoutsis for linking us here to a review of Stephen Pinker’s book The Sense of Style. Since I’ve disagreed with Fowler and Strunk & White for years, this book might function iike a long-needed laxative for obstructed usage.
However, neither the book nor its review seem aware of — let alone able to resolve — the general confusion over the fact that that is no longer a relative pronoun. Maybe I’ll mention that to Professor Pinker. Now I’ll just have to find the cheapest copy!
Father James observes, “that is no longer a relative pronoun.”
I would not presume to argue with Father James on a point of English grammar.
If it is the case, however, that “that” is no longer a relative pronoun, the grammar check on my computer seems not to know about it.
I wonder who decides these things. As recently as this past week I several times chose “that” instead of “who” when the cadence or the sonority of the sentence seemed to call for it.
For instance, “you that” will almost always sound better than “you who.”
I am not citing my computer’s grammar check as an authority, by the way. It is old. I got it at a yard sale at Mount Vernon . . . maybe Montecello.
I believe that for academics, the Modern Language Association is the international standard for English grammar, and their Stylesheet and MLA Handbook is recognized by most major universities as “the definitive guide to writing research papers.” Most accepted changes in written English grammar (e.g. from an historical to a historical), like it or not, are voted upon and published first by members of the MLA.
For some of us educated in the American “grammar schools” during the 1950s and 1960s, the gold standard is still Elements of Style by Oliver Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White. To be sure, the most recent edition seems to yield, needlessly I would add, to some of the current deformations of the English language: for example, avoiding the historic use of masculine pronouns in generic references to mankind for fear of giving “offense.” Alas, even the classic rules may have reasonable–and rare–exceptions. Winston Churchill once said wryly, ” Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put.”
Here, there’s a bit of anachronistic muddling. The construction ‘ye that’ is correct but archaic. The construction ‘you who’ (or ‘you, who’) is also correct, but contemporary. But ‘you that’ is not correct, even if it can be understood.
Sonority is important, especially in poetry, preaching, and hymnody. (Yes, I prefer the ‘Oxford Comma’ even when it’s not strictly necessary.) Still, while there has always been ‘poetic license’, I doubt that ‘sonority’ will ever be invoked as a license for bad grammar, nor will ‘taste’ — as vague as that category is wont to be.
Since mechanical spell-checkers are mostly unhelpful to me (I don’t do magic, anyway), and grammar-checking software tends to follow MLA (Modern Language Association) criteria, which annoy me, I generally disable them and do my best to proofread my writing in magnified type, God bless my poor eyes.
What do you mean in saying that that is no longer a relative pronoun? Of course it still is, though “who” is now preferable when speaking of people.
“That” cannot stop being a relative pronoun. How can it cease to be something it is, even though its usage has declined?
That’s because languages change, and Pdn BPM pretty much answered his own question: the same underlying reasons recommending ‘who’ instead of ‘that as a relative pronoun referring to a person also recommends ‘which’ when referring to impersonal nouns.
This came about, it seems, because it was noticed, albeit subliminally, that (depending on the preferred construction or style of a clause/phrase, we depended on ‘who/whose/whom’ and ‘which/whose/which’, avoiding ‘that’ since it has no possessive or objective forms.
So, regardless of patterns of speech current four centuries ago, ‘that’ is now a demonstrative pronoun or a conjunction. Except in ‘low’ speech (colloquialism), its function as a relative pronoun hath, forsooth, expired.
Generally, scholars of linguistics prefer to observe and describe these changes. Such is the contribution of Stephen Pinker’s The Sense of Style, which seems much more disciplined than, say, some of Noam Chomsky’s theories.
But apart from descriptive linguistics, there is also prescriptive linguistics, which seeks to enforce rules even when they no longer make sense. MLA standards lean in that direction.
You’re confused, Monk James. Sure, many people use which when they should say that. Many people always have. You’ll find which used for that in the King James. But that doesn’t mean that “that is no longer a relative pronoun,” because many people — better educated people — also say and write things like “I saw the car that was stolen,” in which that is a relative pronoun properly used to introduce a restrictive clause essential to the meaning of the sentence. I doubt any style manual or dictionary denies this. So whether one is a prescriptivist or a descriptivist, that is still very much a relative pronoun.
Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell (September 2, 2015 at 10:56 am) says:
You’re confused, Monk James. Sure, many people use which when they should say that. Many people always have. You’ll find which used for that in the King James. But that doesn’t mean that “that is no longer a relative pronoun,” because many people — better educated people — also say and write things like “I saw the car that was stolen,” in which that is a relative pronoun properly used to introduce a restrictive clause essential to the meaning of the sentence. I doubt any style manual or dictionary denies this. So whether one is a prescriptivist or a descriptivist, that is still very much a relative pronoun.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In this exchange, Pdn BPM is already ‘hoist on his own petard’, since he previously acknowledged that ‘who’ is now preferred to ”that’ as a relative pronoun.
People can be so stubborn, so deliberately dense when they want to be, even in the face of the facts which they’ve already admitted.
‘We played the pipes for you, but you wouldn’t dance. So we sang dirges for you, but you wouldn’t mourn, either.’
Monk James, you seem to think that relative pronouns refer only to persons. They do not. They refer also to things. Thus, among acceptable uses of the pronoun that listed in the American Heritage Dictionary (third edition), we find these words: “Used as a relative pronoun to introduce a clause, especially a restrictive clause: the car that has the flat tire.”
It is true, as I have said, that other relative pronouns are now preferred when referring to persons, but that was not your claim. Your claim was simply that that is “no longer a relative pronoun,” which is nonsense. I asked you to explain what you meant, but you responded with only more nonsense, never bothering to check the definition of relative pronoun and still apparently assuming that relative pronouns refer only to persons. So if anyone is being stubbornly dense, it is you.
Pdn Brian Patrick Mitchell (September 3, 2015 at 8:36 am) says:
Monk James, you seem to think that relative pronouns refer only to persons. They do not. They refer also to things. Thus, among acceptable uses of the pronoun that listed in the American Heritage Dictionary (third edition), we find these words: “Used as a relative pronoun to introduce a clause, especially a restrictive clause: the car that has the flat tire.”
It is true, as I have said, that other relative pronouns are now preferred when referring to persons, but that was not your claim. Your claim was simply that that is “no longer a relative pronoun,” which is nonsense. I asked you to explain what you meant, but you responded with only more nonsense, never bothering to check the definition of relative pronoun and still apparently assuming that relative pronouns refer only to persons. So if anyone is being stubbornly dense, it is you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps, then, Pdn BPM can explain why I wrote this earlier:
Monk James (September 2, 2015 at 9:20 am) says:
That’s because languages change, and Pdn BPM pretty much answered his own question: the same underlying reasons recommending ‘who’ instead of ‘that as a relative pronoun referring to a person also recommends ‘which’ when referring to impersonal nouns.
This came about, it seems, because it was noticed, albeit subliminally, that (depending on the preferred construction or style of a clause/phrase, we depended on ‘who/whose/whom’ and ‘which/whose/which’, avoiding ‘that’ since it has no possessive or objective forms.
Dense, am I, then?! And I thought that***I*** had trouble reading….
More nonsense. You give evidence now of not understanding the difference between restrictive and non-restrictive clauses.
The bottom line: You say that cannot be a relative pronoun and must be either a demonstrative pronoun or a conjunction, but all published authorities say that is still properly used as a relative pronoun, and every day provides us with ample examples proving that point.
And I continue to ask you to assume responsibility for your error in judgment, for wrongfully insulting me and calling into question my integrity, and simply humbling yourself and apologizing. I am not asking for a dance, for genuflection, nor mourning. Two words: “I apologize” would suffice and what this situation demands. Like the parable of the widow who demanded justice of the judge that did not fear God (Lk. 18:1-18), the Lord preached persistence, and you are foolish to imagine “magical thinking” will bring resolution this time. You took advantage exactly once too many times. You need to apologize before this forum.
You really are an obsessive pip. Get over it already; better yet, go gaze into a mirror.
Languages change indeed. But people still refer to the house that Jack built….That hasn’t changed at all—in fact, if someone would refer to the house WHICH Jack built, one might opine that they knew something ABOUT English, but didn’t really GET IT—–TONE-DEAF!
Was it not T.S. Eliot who opined that the KJV was composed at a time when even a committee could write good English?
You didn’t seem to have a problem with monk James chasing me across two forums to accuse me of unfounded, uncorroborated accusations for which he has never taken responsibility, or referring to me as having “demonic delusions” or offering up medical information for which he suggested I had misinterpreted and therefore offered advice that was “immoral.” But the issue here, Aaron Little, is Truth, which apparently escapes you. It’s not about me, it is about honesty, integrity, and Truth. Four bishops have already said to me, “He will never apologize to you.” “Why?” I asked. “Because he does not tell the truth.” I gaze in the mirror with no conflict, Aaron Little. A man came into our clinic today with a long kitchen knife, floridly psychotic, terrifying our receptionist. I “obsessively,” quietly, and stupidly demanded he give it to me. He did. I fear no one and I’m as pretty as a young girl.
Vladyka wrote: Was it not T.S. Eliot who opined that the KJV was composed at a time when even a committee could write good English?
Now that is one I’ve never heard, but truer words were never spoken. I remember reading things scribbled in diaries in earlier eras, and being struck by the fact that writers who today agonize over their prose couldn’t approach it…
Certainly in Orthodox liturgical translations today, one has a hard time imagining a committee arriving at anything that wouldn’t be wooden.
In honour of the Pre-Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mother of God, the Theotokos, the Protectress of the Holy Mountain, Athos, and the Patron of all real monastics, I conclude my request of seeking an apology from James Silver, whose arrogance and pride prevents him. And rather than “expound” on what anyone who read his words and witnesses his actions knows, I remind him of the words of St. John Climacus, and hope they bring him to his senses:
You may “act” as if I am not here, but it will only be an “act” as long as I am here, waiting. I will not ask you again.
M. Stankovich September 7, 2015 at 6:09 pm) says:
In honour of the Pre-Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Mother of God, the Theotokos, the Protectress of the Holy Mountain, Athos, and the Patron of all real monastics, I conclude my request of seeking an apology from James Silver, whose arrogance and pride prevents him. And rather than “expound” on what anyone who read his words and witnesses his actions knows, I remind him of the words of St. John Climacus, and hope they bring him to his senses:
A proud Christian argues bitterly with others. The humble Christian is loath to contradict them.The cypress tree does not bend to the ground to walk, nor does the haughty Christian bend down in order to gain obedience. The proud man wants to be in charge of things. He would feel lost otherwise. “God resists the proud” (James 4:6). Who then could have mercy on them? Before God every proud man is unclean. Who then could purify such a person? For the proud correction is a fall, a thorn (cf. 2 Cor. 12:7) is a devil, and abandonment by God is madness. Whereas in the first two instances there are human cures available, this last cannot be healed by man. To reject criticism is to show pride, while to accept it is to show oneself free of this fetter.
You may “act” as if I am not here, but it will only be an “act” as long as I am here, waiting. I will not ask you again.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I wrote earlier, I forgive Michael Stankovich without reservation, and I ask his forgiveness, too.
May the Lord be merciful to His servant Michael, and to us all.
Father James says, “grammar-checking software tends to follow MLA (Modern Language Association) criteria, which annoy me.”
That closing relative clause seems to be the root of the difficulty.
Anyway, in the several publications I write for (observe the recklessly dangling preposition), “that” is certainly an acceptable relative pronoun in some cases, whether the reference is second or third person.
There are times when “who,” “whom,” or “which” simply do not carry the right weight in a balanced line.
An author’s proper criterion for such choices is, I think, gustate et videte.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
But our individual tastes are not in any way to be understood as an index of what is true and right and correct, and useful in our prayers.
We need corroboration and unbiased support for our opinions about usage, not just school-book iterations.
The old stuff won’t do anymore.
Every ;language is a living experience among the people who speak it.
We Christians deserve to hear and pray our services in a language we can understand on the first go-round.
Referring to people/a person as ‘that’ fails the test.
Fr. James,
I never asked you, but what English translation of the Bible and/or Divine Liturgy do you prefer?
I know your do a two part translation from the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint, and then into English, but if you were going to recommend an English Bible translation, which one would it be?
Peter
Actually, I work through three screens when they’re all available: Greek, Latin, and Church Slavonic, always favoring the Urtext (Greek for the scriptures) but informed by other churchly translations.
Although it is rightly criticized for its determined use of politically correct ‘inclusive language’, I think that the most accurate bible in English is the New Oxford annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, but I’m privileged by education and experience to know when the translation is being inappropriately inclusive, so I can make adjustments. Since not everyone is in a position to know the differences and their implications, the Holy Synod of the OCA forbade this translation to be read publicly in the services, a decision made about twenty years ago.
Now, the accuracy of this version must be understood in the context of its original texts. The Old Testament of the NOAB relies almost entirely on hebrew sources, yet occasionally it identifies significant variations from the Greek 70 — but not nearly enough. Obviously, the OT will need more and better attention, especially for the prophets and the psalms (my bailiwick), and the psalms are often very different in Greek when compared to their hebrew ancestors.
The NOAB’s New Testament is wonderful, except for that inclusive language problem. On balance, though, it must be admitted that the AV and other texts rely on ‘men’ when it’s clear from the greek anthrOpoi that the meaning ‘people’ or ‘human beings’ is intended. The same goes for adelphoi, which clearly means ‘brothers and sisters’ at some points rather than just ‘brethren’ or ‘brothers’ — sometimes, the schwestern are there, too. It’s been said by some that ‘brethren’ includes ‘sisters’, but that’s just laziness talking.
In the matter of the Divine Liturgy: Although it’s far from perfect, I prefer the OCA’s 1967 edition. It’s one of the best in English, although it uses ‘ascribe’ (always incorrect) at the end of nearly every ekphonesis. At the elevation of the Holy Gifts, OCA1967 renders kata panta kai dia panta as ‘on behalf of all and for all’. They even made that mistranslation the theme of an All-American Council a few years ago. Oy!
The CS books have O vs&kh” i za vsya there, which is of no help, being just as mistaken. The idiomatic greek phrase here means merely ‘in every place and at all times’, a line incorporated (in reverse) very early into the roman liturgy as semper et ubique (‘always and everywhere’).
Then, of course, there’s ‘Our Father’….
Altogether, though, I think that OCA1967 is capable of only some minor tweaking to make it our best effort in English.
I wonder if Peter Papoutsis regrets opening this particular can o’ worms….[[;-D33
Both men and man still often mean “people” or “human beings.” Only feminists insist that they don’t and shouldn’t.
Laziness? Nonsense. Brethren has included both men and women for a very long time, which is why it has no feminine equivalent in English. It still includes both for those who have not let feminism degrade their language and corrupt their thinking.
Hear how a Christian thinks and speaks:
St. Basil the Great, Homily on Psalm 1
Fr. James Said:
ctually, I work through three screens when they’re all available: Greek, Latin, and Church Slavonic, always favoring the Urtext (Greek for the scriptures) but informed by other churchly translations.
Although it is rightly criticized for its determined use of politically correct ‘inclusive language’, I think that the most accurate bible in English is the New Oxford annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, but I’m privileged by education and experience to know when the translation is being inappropriately inclusive, so I can make adjustments. Since not everyone is in a position to know the differences and their implications, the Holy Synod of the OCA forbade this translation to be read publicly in the services, a decision made about twenty years ago.
Now, the accuracy of this version must be understood in the context of its original texts. The Old Testament of the NOAB relies almost entirely on hebrew sources, yet occasionally it identifies significant variations from the Greek 70 — but not nearly enough. Obviously, the OT will need more and better attention, especially for the prophets and the psalms (my bailiwick), and the psalms are often very different in Greek when compared to their hebrew ancestors.
The NOAB’s New Testament is wonderful, except for that inclusive language problem. On balance, though, it must be admitted that the AV and other texts rely on ‘men’ when it’s clear from the greek anthrOpoi that the meaning ‘people’ or ‘human beings’ is intended. The same goes for adelphoi, which clearly means ‘brothers and sisters’ at some points rather than just ‘brethren’ or ‘brothers’ — sometimes, the schwestern are there, too. It’s been said by some that ‘brethren’ includes ‘sisters’, but that’s just laziness talking.
In the matter of the Divine Liturgy: Although it’s far from perfect, I prefer the OCA’s 1967 edition. It’s one of the best in English, although it uses ‘ascribe’ (always incorrect) at the end of nearly every ekphonesis. At the elevation of the Holy Gifts, OCA1967 renders kata panta kai dia panta as ‘on behalf of all and for all’. They even made that mistranslation the theme of an All-American Council a few years ago. Oy!
The CS books have O vs&kh” i za vsya there, which is of no help, being just as mistaken. The idiomatic greek phrase here means merely ‘in every place and at all times’, a line incorporated (in reverse) very early into the roman liturgy as semper et ubique (‘always and everywhere’).
Then, of course, there’s ‘Our Father’….
Altogether, though, I think that OCA1967 is capable of only some minor tweaking to make it our best effort in English.
I wonder if Peter Papoutsis regrets opening this particular can o’ worms….[[;-D33
_______________
Nope, I like to get different opinions. I also assume from what your have written you are referring to the NEW RSV/NOAB not to the OLD RSV/NOAB, correct?
As for service books what do you think of Fr. Lash’s translations of our service books in contemporary English? I really like his translations. However, have you seen what his Divine Liturgy book is going for on Amazon? over $200! I have seen some go as much as $500 on some sites. Now this was a few years ago so the price may have gone down, but still I would prefer any good English translation to be more economical.
Peter
Monk James is wrong about inclusive language. See above.
Peter A. PapoutsisSeptember 4, 2015 at 1:04 pm) says:
SNIP
(quoting me)
Altogether, though, I think that OCA1967 is capable of only some minor tweaking to make it our best effort in English.
I wonder if Peter Papoutsis regrets opening this particular can o’ worms….[[;-D33
(end quote)
_______________
Nope, I like to get different opinions. I also assume from what your have written you are referring to the NEW RSV/NOAB not to the OLD RSV/NOAB, correct?
Yes — I meant the NRSV with the Apocrypha, but specifically in its New Oxford Annotated edition.
As for service books what do you think of Fr. Lash’s translations of our service books in contemporary English? I really like his translations. However, have you seen what his Divine Liturgy book is going for on Amazon? over $200! I have seen some go as much as $500 on some sites. Now this was a few years ago so the price may have gone down, but still I would prefer any good English translation to be more economical.
Father Ephrem Lash and I have been in conversation both in person and by e-mail over the years, and we’ve had a few discussions in person. I owe him a great debt for some of his clarifications of cruxes in translation which were difficult for me. At a conference — not realizing then that he was responsible for the translation — I pointed out a few inconsistencies and errors in the Thyateira (Constantinople in England) DL book. He was not amused….
Thanks to the kindness of a correspondent in England, I’m blessed to have copies of both the 1995 and the 2011 Oxford editions of the book. I had no idea they were so highly valued!
BTW: Just in case anyone is interested, both editions indicate that the homily is to be given immediately after the Gospel. 1995 modestly quotes from the greek hieratikon: ‘Then the Preacher instructs the people in the Word of God’. But the 2011 version precedes this rubric with a bold-face heading, THE HOMILY, just to get our attention.
Generally — very generally — I cannot fault FrEL for his accuracy, but his work in English is flat and quirkier than my own (as if that were possible). For example, he (for reasons he explains) insists on ‘Holy God, holy Strong, holy Immortal’ and he refuses to use Theotokos, preferring ‘Mother of God’ — and that’s a great impoverishment, I think.</strong>
There’s a New Oxford Annotated Bible with the RSV, and a New Oxford Annotated Bible with the NRSV.
The NRSV translation is the version with the “inclusive language”, whether it is the New Oxford Annotated version or not.
Pdn Patrick wrote: Laziness? Nonsense. Brethren has included both men and women for a very long time, which is why it has no feminine equivalent in English.
Indeed. I remember old-fashioned clergy in my Protestant youth address the congregation as “brethren” — no one imagined that the female sex was going to be able to evade what he had to say on the grounds that he was speaking only to men. Nor did we imagine when singing the old hymn, “Brethren let us join to bless,” that women were not supposed to sing.
Likewise when singing “Remember, O thou man,” did we imagine only males were being addressed, just because the hymn didn’t sonorously say “Remember O you human beings.”
How did we know these obscure facts? Answer: We spoke English. To quote Sen. Sam Ervin in the Watergate hearings, “it’s my mother tongue.”
Hey, there are also South Koreans and Chinese that misuse the 14th amendment. Well too do Chinese have came to the US to give birth in order to later on come back to the US if they need to leave their country. The South Koreans give birth in the Us to avoid the South Korean draft. so people that committed fraud to have a child here should not become automatic citizens.
The current case law interprets all persons in the United Staes as subject to its jurisdiction, since they are subject to arrest and prosecution for crimes committed here. I don’t like it either, but thats the lay if the land at the moment.
I wish this were the worst of Napolitano’s errors.
So, I am preparing to go home at 7:30 am from work on the long weekend, and was looking again at the issues of “language” and “grammar” that have gone on this week, as well as the discussion of the distinctions of gender in the creation, etc., and I had forgotten to mention our weekly “Clinical Conference” that follows our staff meeting on Friday. This is especially for those monitoring the “real-world” impact of society, SCOTUS, etc. on Christians, and my comment that I believed I was more vulnerable than any priest to the “implications.” The first case was a very complex situation of a 19-yr. old severely mentally ill young woman on a bucket of prescribed meds and was just released from a 72-hr involuntary hold for methamphetamine-induced psychosis, and tested as 4-months pregnant. Child Protective Services would not get involved because the “child was not viable.” Meth intoxication is not criminal, and, in and of itself, does not constitute hospitalizable ‘harm to yourself,” even when you’re pregnant (at least in CA). Decision: stop providing her psych meds to protect the fetus. Feel good about that? It happens all the time.
But the second case is a “first go-round” in my clinic: female-to-male transitioning transgender. We got the lecture from our assistant program manager that we need to be compliant with the county’s rules (there are no “laws” yet) of “inclusion,” beginning with a “consistency in the medical records as to the patient’s preferred gender identity.” i.e. if the patient identifies as “he,” we must address the patient as “he” and the medical record must address the patient as “he.” The psychologist who did the initial assessment said, “S/he had no preference at this point.” Silence. Another therapist said she had been to a training the week previous, and members of the trans community – in prediction of the loss of “gender slavery” altogether preferred the pronouns “it” and “they.” I began to drawn open the curtain of the theater of the absurd. Admin staff staff said, “I saw him, and he looks and dresses more like a him.” “But at this point, he is genetically a woman?” “Yes.” The program manager asked why s/he is being admitted to treatment. “Generalized anxiety, depression, adjustment to transitioning.” Because she has pretty much described all the symptoms, I say, “Why not Gender Dysphoria?” “Well, blah, blah, blah…” Supervizing psychiatrist chimes in, “Blah, blah, blah…” General chatter, blah, blah, blah until psychologist says, “I’m not really familiar with the criteria.” There you have it! Supervizing psychiatrist, “I not sure the county would allow us to treat it.” I say, “We are a psychiatry clinic, we would admit him/her for treatment of the symptoms of Gender Dysphoria, but not Gender Dysphoria?” (i.e. the implication being it is a mental disorder!) Silence. I said, “Please do not assign these cases to me. I do not morally nor ethically agree with this.” “Sometimes we do not have a choice.” “When that time comes, I will make the decision as to what action to take, but I am asking you to respect me and not and not assign them to me.” Next case. And so it goes…
RE: ‘I said, “Please do not assign these cases to me. I do not morally nor ethically agree with this.” “Sometimes we do not have a choice.” “When that time comes, I will make the decision as to what action to take, but I am asking you to respect me and not and not assign them to me.”‘
Well done, Dr. S., and, presumably, at some professional cost. Prophets for common sense and sheer logic in many of our politicized professions in America are not without honor except in their own houses.
Thank you for your support, Fr. Alexander, but more important is the point you make: we admit patients only by medical necessity. To not allow us to treat Gender Dysphoria as a primary mental illness, but allow us to treat all of its symptoms instead as “illnesses,” the county is allowing itself to be immorally & unethically “bullied” & coerced by the LGBT “mob” to accept “delusion.” And in a discussion with my supervisor after the meeting, I said, “I have been trained & equipped with the traditional tools to evaluate delusion: a belief or opinion held despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Now you would ask me to assist or join this patient’s delusion that because they feel like the opposite gender, they are the opposite gender.” This is a therapeutic alliance of madness: there is no genetic derangement; there is no physiological deformity; there is no neuro-developmental difference. There is simply the “word” of the individual, and the word of a 5-yr old is every bit as “diagnostic” as 65-yr old Caitlyn Jenner. This is madness & mental illness.