After Easter Mass this morning being confronted by liberals.

[MikeDunphy]

Assuming that the word “Brothers” is actually a quote from 1 Corinthians 3:1, the OP read the words found in Holy Scripture, and skipped the words not found.

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

 

[Orogeny]

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.

Baruch 3:15 - “Who has found the place of wisdom, who has entered into her treasuries?”
Baruch 3:32 - “Yet he who knows all things knows her; he has probed her by his knowledge-- He who established the earth for all time, and filled it with four-footed beasts”

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/baruch/baruch3.htm

Are you suggesting that the reader change the readings to change Wisdom from her to a him? What is your agenda?

Peace

Tim

 

[tee_eff_em]

Assuming that the word “Brothers” is actually a quote from 1 Corinthians 3:1, the OP read the words found in Holy Scripture, and skipped the words not found.

Assuming the scripture citation of the reading is 1Cor 3:1a, 5:6b-8, I would agree with you. But it is not.

Otherwise, one could claim each word I write here is scripture. I believe they all appear there, in one place or another. :ehh:

But I make no such boast.

tee

 

[crm114]

Jesus always said He came to save the sinners, not the righteous, and so I guess that means He came to save the liberals, too. Whenever you deal with them, remember our Lord’s teaching, whatever you do for the least of My brethren, you do for Me.

Now, on a more serious note, you are, in many cases, correct on substance, but wrong on the important matter of obedience. The bishop has put the pastor in charge of the parish, and the pastor has instructed you on how he wants things done. You have several options: you can resign your liturgical ministry, you can swallow your pride and do as you’re told, or you can do as you’re told while you appeal the question to the bishop. IMHO, disobedience is not a valid option.

How did all these improprieties get into the liturgy in the first place? Disobedience. And two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Joseph_Palmer]

Malkin71,

Any act without charity (love) is worthless. I understand your desire for orthodoxy and reverence at the Mass. I am one who usually avoids “liberals” as much as I can because I know that engaging them, even charitably, on Church teachings and traditions can be a fruitless endeavor. I have also seen to what great extent they will do to destroy one who has engaged them. So, for those who wish to speak of “liberals” as an innocent bunch of people who just see things differently under this “big tent” of Catholicism, I’d like to let them know that they don’t really know what they are talking about. Usually, they dissent on one or two dogmas or core doctrines in the first place. Their anger is not directed at traditional Catholicism itself, but at the dictums of Catholicism as a whole. Their struggle is to redefine Catholicism in their image, and because they find around every turn that they cannot, they become embittered. This explains why they engage in calumny and detraction against those who oppose them. This explains why they organize and secretly set to depose a traditional priest, who is loyal to the magisterium, or make his life more difficult. This type of behavior is described in the first 4 books of Wisdom as that of the “heathens”, so it is all the more treacherous for Catholics, who are supposed to have knowledge and be responsible for the teachings of Truth. So, I make no apologies for the enemies of the Church who, in disquise, lie within her waiting to pounce on Catholics who wish to follow Her to Our Lord.

That being said, based on your comments, it appears that you are engaging in the same exact warfare as that launched by your “opponents”. From the title of the thread, to your tone, to your assumptions, to your apparent pride in your own orthodoxy (like that of the praying Pharisee). You are not the arbiter of Catholic Truth or orthodoxy. I am always wary of one who tries to “prove” their orthodoxy on public forums by detailing some of their prayer habits. That sort of pride is repulsive. That is an unnecessary part of the “picture” you are trying to paint. Enjoying orthodoxy without the element of charity reduces it to a mere matter of taste, just like the “liberals” version of Catholicism. It sounds like you were picking a fight and now you are boasting about it and taking the opportunity to boast about your own orthopraxis.

Humility is everything. If you want your Rosaries to count for something, you’re going to have to reorient yourself. Without humility, you will never be able to attain virtue and holiness; without virtue and holiness you will never see God. And because you have a greater knowledge of authentic Church teaching than those obstinate and ignorant choir folk, you are even more culpable than they are.

I hope you take this as a humble rebuke by a fellow faithful Catholic who wishes one day for what is known as “liberal” Catholicism to be dragged out by the same diseased alley cat that dragged it in originally (note: I didn’t speak of any one person, but an ideology). Without charity, everything is useless. Without humility, our work is not for God, but for the devil.

 

[crm114]

Palmer, nice first post!

 

[Matt33]

There is an interesting point here that no one has picked up on. When we read from Pauls writings at Mass. Many times the "greeting " is transposed. That is added from the front of Pauls letter to the verses being read that day. Paul does not begin every verse with Brothers and Sisters… But as a way to make the reading flow and to keep the context clear we “greet” in the readings of letters. It would be interesting to be as acurate as possible to find what the closes translation to the begining of Paul’s letters was. I have a hunch since he was writing to Church leadership it probably was not “inclusive”

All of that aside. Read what is in front of you. If you believe it to be wrong or don’t agree with what you think the reasons are for it to be the way it is… There are channels to go through, but making the mass your battleground makes you no better than “liberal” Catholics who try to push thier misguided agenda.

 

[Jenny_Z]

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.

Exactly this. It doesn’t matter what WE think it should be; unless it’s changed by the USCCB, you should read it as it is.

 

[crm114]

If you look at the present reform of the ICEL translation, you have to be optimistic. The new lectionary has had its day and will eventually be placed on the trash heap along with the Kumbaya hymnals. I am rooting for the RSV-CE to be the new-new lectionary.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

If you look at the present reform of the ICEL translation, you have to be optimistic. The new lectionary has had its day and will eventually be placed on the trash heap along with the Kumbaya hymnals. I am rooting for the RSV-CE to be the new-new lectionary.

Probably unlikely since the USCCB holds the copyright – and gets the royalties – for the NAB translation.

As an aside, a friend of mine wrote a book the cited scripture passages. In his manuscript he used the NAB since he figured he was writing for an American audience. His publisher changed it to the NRSV because of the difference in royalties paid to the copyright holders to use their material.

 

[crm114]

The Holy Spirit does not need the revenue!

 

[OAKIE]

Baruch 3:15 - “Who has found the place of wisdom, who has entered into her treasuries?”
Baruch 3:32 - “Yet he who knows all things knows her; he has probed her by his knowledge-- He who established the earth for all time, and filled it with four-footed beasts”

nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/baruch/baruch3.htm

Are you suggesting that the reader change the readings to change Wisdom from her to a him? What is your agenda?

Peace

Tim

My apologies to Tim, I was unclear as to where the reader restated the reading. In verse 36 “Such is our God; no other is to be compared to Him” was read as “Such is our God; no other is to be compared”.

I agree with the Church when she translated Wisdom to the pronoun “She”. It is how it was written, and how is should be read. I would have objected if the reader had changed “She” to “He” or “It”. This did not happen.

I do object to the intentional omission of masculine pronouns simply because they are masculine. It is how it was written, and how is should be read. Lest you think is an innocent mistake, this error was carried out in all seven readings. In the seventh reading, Ezek 36:28 “You shall live in the land I gave your fathers; you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” was changed to “You shall live in the land I gave your ancestors; you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” It should be read as written, no more, no less.

If we give up this fight, it is only a matter of time before we all hold hands during the “Our Parent”.

 

[tee_eff_em]

If you look at the present reform of the ICEL translation, you have to be optimistic. The new lectionary has had its day and will eventually be placed on the trash heap along with the Kumbaya hymnals.

Could be. But unless and until the lectionary is re(re-re-re-re-)vised, it should be proclaimed as written. To do otherwise is to exhibit disobedience to the legitimate authorities charged with producing it.

tee

 

[Orogeny]

My apologies to Tim, I was unclear as to where the reader restated the reading. In verse 36 “Such is our God; no other is to be compared to Him” was read as “Such is our God; no other is to be compared”.

No apologies needed.

I do object to the intentional omission of masculine pronouns simply because they are masculine. It is how it was written, and how is should be read. Lest you think is an innocent mistake, this error was carried out in all seven readings. In the seventh reading, Ezek 36:28 “You shall live in the land I gave your fathers; you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” was changed to “You shall live in the land I gave your ancestors; you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” It should be read as written, no more, no less.

I agree with you on this. Scripture readings should NEVER be changed by the person reading, be they laity or ordained.

Peace

Tim

 

[MikeDunphy]

Assuming the scripture citation of the reading is 1Cor 3:1a, 5:6b-8, I would agree with you. But it is not.

Otherwise, one could claim each word I write here is scripture. I believe they all appear there, in one place or another. :ehh:

Ha ha. I know of a musician, who, when asked to play a piece of music he did not know or did not like, would say he knew another one with “the same notes”.

However, I don’t think the word “brothers” in this case was randomly plucked from Holy Scripture. Aren’t the introductory verses you mentioned earlier taken as a rule from the same book of the Bible as the main body of the reading? I might be mistaken.

Matt33 referred to “transposed greetings”. 1 Cor 3:1 is not the start of the letter, but it does start with a salutation addressed to the recipients of the letter, and using it would provide the context Matt spoke of.

 

[Dauphin]

Just escape. Go to the Traditional Latin Mass. I used to bother myself with all the nonsense that goes on in places like that, but it’s not worth it.

Just get out.

 

[MikeDunphy]

Malkin, I greatly admire what you are trying to accomplish, and I believe that what you say and write is for the glory of God, not for your own glory. However, despite what you have written and I have written, if I were in your shoes, I would probably not forget the “and sisters” in the future. After the word in question, St. Paul goes on to say “I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now”. He moderated his speech to accommodate the weakness of his listeners, and perhaps we should imitate his prudence in this matter.

Saying “brothers” rather than “brothers and sisters” evidently provokes anger in some, and others apparently think that an unauthorized change towards greater fidelity to the text of Holy Scripture is “exactly the same” as an unauthorized change towards lesser fidelity. It seems very odd to me that people think this way, but you can see it in this thread, and need to take into account the effect your words have [even if they are St. Paul’s words, too].

Since the greeting is not part of the explicitly cited reading, and comes before any of it is read, maybe you could view it as introductory material added to the Liturgy by due authority, rather than as a misquotation of St. Paul? I know that’s a stretch.

Regardless of what you do, I hope you are better at remaining calm and kind in the face of confrontation than I am. If the other guy gets loud, I do, too. :nope:

Happy Easter! Christ is risen!

Something happened to me after Mass this morning. I am a Lector at my Parish. I was confronted by two of our choir members about the way I lector. …

 

[LCMS_No_More]

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!

GASP! You mean that things can be both/and and not either/or…how terribly Catholic of you.

 

[Malkin71]

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.

I am 39. I was an Altar boy in the middle 1970’s till 1985. I became a lector about 5 years ago. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Malkin71]

Malkin, I greatly admire what you are trying to accomplish, and I believe that what you say and write is for the glory of God, not for your own glory. However, despite what you have written and I have written, if I were in your shoes, I would probably not forget the “and sisters” in the future. After the word in question, St. Paul goes on to say “I could not talk to you as spiritual people, but as fleshly people, as infants in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were unable to take it. Indeed, you are still not able, even now”. He moderated his speech to accommodate the weakness of his listeners, and perhaps we should imitate his prudence in this matter.

Saying “brothers” rather than “brothers and sisters” evidently provokes anger in some, and others apparently think that an unauthorized change towards greater fidelity to the text of Holy Scripture is “exactly the same” as an unauthorized change towards lesser fidelity. It seems very odd to me that people think this way, but you can see it in this thread, and need to take into account the effect your words have [even if they are St. Paul’s words, too].

Since the greeting is not part of the explicitly cited reading, and comes before any of it is read, maybe you could view it as introductory material added to the Liturgy by due authority, rather than as a misquotation of St. Paul? I know that’s a stretch.

Regardless of what you do, I hope you are better at remaining calm and kind in the face of confrontation than I am. If the other guy gets loud, I do, too. :nope:

Happy Easter! Christ is risen!

I do remain calm and hold on to myself. I have learned that throughout the years. What puzzels me is all the inovations to the Mass, I.E. Holding hands, Luturgial Dance, band music, etc… this is status quo while omitting a word is offensive.

When you challenge the status quo, you are seen as a relic from the Dark Ages and in need of an exercism. I have the utmost respect for Mother Angelica when she criticized Cardnial Mahoney and others on t.v. I also liked her apology.