After Easter Mass this morning being confronted by liberals.

[RobbyS]

Were you supposed to say it? That is, was the word “sisters” included in the text in front of you?

If it was included in the written text, then your job was to read it. Neither you nor I have the authority to change what we are given to read. If it was not in the written text and you chose not to add it, then you did the right thing. Just as you are not authorized to add to the next, you are not authorized to delete from the text.

If a publisher publishes them I think we can assume they are written down. And since your pastor has selected the material from that particular publisher that is what you are authorized to read.

Changing the words you have been given to read strikes me as a huge abuse. It is quite simply not your job to make those decisions. As I said earlier, if you did that in my parish you would be corrected and it would be made clear that you are not to do it again. If you did it again you would no longer be put on the schedule.

Why do you keep saying they’re not written down? You’re reading text on a page, aren’t you?

It sounds like there are attitude problems on both sides. That doesn’t justify either side making unauthorized changes in the texts they are given to read.

Until Father asks he not depart from the text , then he is free to do this. But I agree that he should not try to pick a fight or seem self-righteous. There are many things I dislike about the way our mass is “performed” but there is a wide variation among congregations, such as one did not find fifty years ago. Of course, then the laity–except for altar servers-- had no active role and priests were more or less attentive to the prescribed rubics.

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

The reason it was changed was to make it faithful to the Latin. As a Traditionalist you would want that, wouldn’t you?

Faithfulness to the Latin rubrics is not a traditionalist issue. It is an issue that should concern all Catholics.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Until Father asks he not depart from the text , then he is free to do this. But I agree that he should not try to pick a fight or seem self-righteous. There are many things I dislike about the way our mass is “performed” but there is a wide variation among congregations, such as one did not find fifty years ago. Of course, then the laity–except for altar servers-- had no active role and priests were more or less attentive to the prescribed rubics.

Does being free to depart from the text apply equally to all readers? In your view would it be OK for someone to change a petition to say “We pray that young people will be open to the priesthood and religious life [and that the Church stop being so sexist and start ordaining women]. For this we pray to the Lord.”

I’m quite certain that you didn’t really mean that readers should be able to ad lib the petitions.

 

[Jenny_Z]

“Brothers AND SISTERS” is what was written by Saint Paul. It has nothing to do with being Traditional or not… that’s the Word of our Lord through the Bible, you shouldn’t change it.

 

[ProVobis]

And I’m far from being a feminist–very opposed!–but I have to admit, I don’t think I would like it if someone just addressed the congregation as “brothers” and didn’t say “sisters.” The way I see it, I’m not a brother. I’m a woman, and that makes me a sister. St. Paul refers to his “sisters in Christ.” If it was good enough for St. Paul…

Whatever happened to “brethren”? Seems that would avoid a lot of controversies.

And how does the OP know that they were “liberals?” Did they wear a big “L” on their choir robes?

 

[BayernAnhaenger]

“Brothers AND SISTERS” is what was written by Saint Paul. It has nothing to do with being Traditional or not… that’s the Word of our Lord through the Bible, you shouldn’t change it.

drbo.org/chapter/53003.htm
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ.

The Douay-Rheims Bible has “Brethren”

The Latin has “fratres”
1 Et ego, fratres, non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritalibus sed qua si carnalibus, tamquam parvulis in Christo.
archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookit.pl?latin=fratres
fratres
frater : brother.

Looks like the beloved NAB may have used some more of that pesky “inclusive language.”

But, I agree, we ought to change it. But, starting at the texts.

 

[Joan_REDirector]

I’ve been a parish musician for fifty years. Through the years, I’ve been approached after Mass by parishoners who feel moved to comment on how I did. Most of the time, people are very kind, taking the trouble to say something nice. The appropriate response is a simple, “Thank you. How kind of you to say so.” Rarely, someone has a negative comment. Very rarely, (I can count the times on the fingers of one hand) I’ve encountered someone who is mean, spiteful, nasty, hateful. The correct response is, “Thank you for your comments. If I didn’t have somebody to tell me what I did wrong, I’d never improve.” Try that, Mr. Reader.

 

[almightyservant]

I don’t know what to say about many things regarding this matter, but the suit and tie seems to be appropriate clothing for the occasion as long as there are no vibrant ties or scarves. I agree that many people are too relaxed on the clothing (e.g. flip flops, shorts with untucked polos, t-shirts, etc.)

 

[ProVobis]

The reason it was changed was to make it faithful to the Latin. As a Traditionalist you would want that, wouldn’t you?

I’ve said this on another thread but I don’t think a true traditionalist really wants any translation.

 

[RobbyS]

According to the Lectionay for Mass, many of the readings from St. Paul are begun with “Brothers and Sisters.” The lector has no right to omit “sisters” since it is written in the Lectionary. Also, the proper ending to the reading is “The Word of the Lord.” Not “This is the Word of the Lord.” The reason it was changed was to make it faithful to the Latin. As a Traditionalist you would want that, wouldn’t you?

I must also ask, how old are you. You said you went from being an altar server to a lector. Those who complain also might be thinking that it is quite arrogant for a young person to be taking his or her own initiative to change things. If I am wrong about your age I apologize.

I moderate the lectors in my parish, and if they did the things you do I would have a sit down with them and tell them to only read what is written and not to add or subtract anything if they want to keep doing their ministry.

As an aside I would like to ask you about reading from the lectionary. After twenty years, I still find the NAB version a very awkward translation. One has to be a very good “actor” to make it sound attractive, at least this is my experience. What is your opinion.

 

[RobbyS]

Does being free to depart from the text apply equally to all readers? In your view would it be OK for someone to change a petition to say “We pray that young people will be open to the priesthood and religious life [and that the Church stop being so sexist and start ordaining women]. For this we pray to the Lord.”

I’m quite certain that you didn’t really mean that readers should be able to ad lib the petitions.

I mean the small changes that he cites. If Father can tolerate them, then he must them them to be of no matter.

 

[buffalo]

One should not seek to be either conservative or liberal in the Church. They should seek to be orthodox, not heterodox.

 

[thunderballs75]

You know what man, all these people who posted before? I most say, respectfully, I disagree with them. I think that you were in the right. It is very correct to not refer to the altar as a “table” and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as a “community meal”. At the very least, if people complain, simply refuse to call it that.

On the other hand, I do agree with them that you should mention “sisters”. Women are just as deserving of respect and acknowledgment, and they are no lower or lesser than a male. This is just prejudice and injustice. God considers all His people equal to each other. Not man before woman. Sorry if you are so bigoted that you truly consider yourself superior to another human being.

Still, continue to hold on to the traditions!

 

[dulcissima]

drbo.org/chapter/53003.htm
1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. As unto little ones in Christ.

The Douay-Rheims Bible has “Brethren”

The Latin has “fratres”
1 Et ego, fratres, non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritalibus sed qua si carnalibus, tamquam parvulis in Christo.
archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookit.pl?latin=fratres
fratres
frater : brother.

Looks like the beloved NAB may have used some more of that pesky “inclusive language.”

But, I agree, we ought to change it. But, starting at the texts.

“Brethren” is inclusive. “Fratres” is inclusive. “Brothers and sisters” is inclusive.

“Brothers” is not inclusive.

If one were speaking Latin and addressing a group that included 10 women and one man, they would be correct if they were to address them as “fratres”. In English, one would not be correct to address such an audience as “brothers”.

To state that the correct translation for “fratres” is “brothers” could be missing the mark. If one were to be reading from an approved English translation and substituted “brothers” for “brothers and sisters” of their own volition, one would be in the wrong.

 

[OAKIE]

I wish you were in my parish. At the Easter Vigil, the sixth reading was from Baruch (Baruch 3:9-15, 32-4:4) and the reader was happy to read the parts describing Wisdom as “She”, but then rewrote the reference to God as “He” and “Him” later in the same reading. They have an agenda and it is un-Catholic. If anyone disagrees with this last statement, please defend your position. Show your work.

 

[MikeDunphy]

“Brethren” is just the plural of “brother”, but given the comments of dulcissima and thunderballs, maybe it would have been a better word to use than “brothers”, in order to quote the Bible accurately without getting people riled up. [My NAB has “brothers”, *not “brothers and sisters”].

Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary has inclusive examples of the use of the word “brother” [scroll down to the bottom of the webpage].

BayernAnhaenger;5070090:

Looks like the beloved NAB may have used some more of that pesky “inclusive language.”

“Brethren” is inclusive. “Fratres” is inclusive. “Brothers and sisters” is inclusive.

“Brothers” is not inclusive.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I DO NOT CHANGE ANY of the WORDS of SCRIPTURE! I read it VERBATIUM. I do say This is the Word of the Word and forget to say Sisters before the second reading. This is what some liberals have a problem with me.

If I came across as arrogant, I am sorry. I just tried to paint a picture. The reason why they confronted me is because I did not say the word “SISTERS” before the second reading. That is it.

Do you NOT CHANGE ANY of the WORDS of SCRIPTURE!? Or do you omit words (I did not say the word “SISTERS” before the second reading) at your whim?

Which is it?

While it is true that the word “SISTERS” does not appear in the day’s scriptural passage, neither do the words “BROTHERS AND” – Such introductory (and sometimes concluding) verses are common in the approved lectionary. As a liturgical reader, it is your role to read the approved lectionary text.

tee

 

[John_Augustine]

Now during the petitions I make changes when they refer to the Altar as a “Table”, and when they say a “Comunion Meal, or Communial Gathering” I change it to the Holy Sacrafice of Mass.

Perhaps if you read the petitions as you receive them you’d be able to demonstrate a “reform of the reform”. Coming towards Catholicism from Protestantim, I still believe that the Eucharist is a “communion meal”, a “gathering”, and that insofar as the Mass is also a Supper, then the atlar is also a “table”; yet in Catholicism there is another layer to the mystery: the “meal” is also a sacrifice, the “gathering” is also an offering, and the “table” is also an holy altar.

If you demonstrate that you believe what an Anglican would call the “low church” stuff, you will be able to show them that it is not incompatible with the “high church” theology of the Traditionalists. Show them that Catholicism is big enough for a good Catholic to believe it all!

 

[Joannm]

As an aside I would like to ask you about reading from the lectionary. After twenty years, I still find the NAB version a very awkward translation. One has to be a very good “actor” to make it sound attractive, at least this is my experience. What is your opinion.

Yes, the translation is not the best, but it is what is in the Lectionary and it is what we are called upon to read from. We do not have the right to change that to suit what we believe might be a better translation or to leave out something we do not like.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I wish you were in my parish. At the Easter Vigil, the sixth reading was from Baruch (Baruch 3:9-15, 32-4:4) and the reader was happy to read the parts describing Wisdom as “She”, but then rewrote the reference to God as “He” and “Him” later in the same reading. They have an agenda and it is un-Catholic. If anyone disagrees with this last statement, please defend your position. Show your work.

If you look at the readings for the day on the USCCB site, the word “sisters” was included:

Reading II
Col 3:1-4 or I Cor 5:6b-8

Brothers and sisters:
If then you were raised with Christ, seek what is above,
where Christ is seated at the right hand of God.
[snip]

or

I Cor 5:6b-8

Brothers and sisters:
Do you not know that a little yeast leavens all the dough?
[snip]

So the OP made exactly the same kind of change you just condemned. As you said, “They have an agenda and it is un-Catholic. If anyone disagrees with this last statement, please defend your position. Show your work.”