..For the Praise and Glory of "God's" name and the good of all of God's Chruch?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mperea75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mperea75

Guest
┼JMJ

What is this? I have heard it a few many times in a chruches around town. I thought it was supposed to “For the Priase of HIS name and for the good of all of HIS church.” The good of all of God’s church just doesn’t sounds right to me it is denying something. I think it is His Father-hood but then I could be wrong. Any opions would be appriciated
 
Inclusive language in action! That screwy parish I visited a couple of weeks ago sang the Gloria, you know the one where everyone sings the refrain; Glory to God in the Highest, Sing Glory to God, Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to God’s people on earth. Um, the word is His .

At the Creed, they say: “For us and our salvation,” cleanly excising the word “men.”

I guess RS doesn’t mean anything to some priests. 😦
 
Detroit Sue:
At the Creed, they say: “For us and our salvation,” cleanly excising the word “men.”

I guess RS doesn’t mean anything to some priests. 😦
Click to expand...
No kidding. But let me speculate on why this particular omission in the Creed will not be “corrected.” The word “anthropous,” which we translate “men,” means “human beings” not “males” Thus, when inclusivists omit the word “men” the meaning is unchanged – and is actually clearer.

Half of winning a point is to know what can and cannot be won.
 
Oh, yes. And it’s not limited to the Catholic church, that “inclusive” language. My good friend, who is a member of the United Church of Christ, and I were looking at the new hymnal the church had purchased. Lots of “old favorites”, true. . .but instead of “His eye is on the sparrow”, Lo and behold, it’s “God’s eye is on the sparrow”. . .and instead of , “and I know He watches me”, it’s “and I know God watches me”. Not a “His” to be found! We went through and found SEVERAL “howlers” (let’s not even start with the “faith of our mothers”) of this nature.

What I find equally appalling lately is the incredibly bad gospel and epistle readings. It’s bad enough that “He”, “His” etc. are no longer capitalized when they refer to God, but it is nearly impossible to follow the scripture at all! He said to him, yadda yadda, and he replied, yadda yadda, and he said. . .it is completely UNCLEAR who “he” is, 90% of the time!!!
 
40.png
mercygate:
No kidding. But let me speculate on why this particular omission in the Creed will not be “corrected.” The word “anthropous,” which we translate “men,” means “human beings” not “males” Thus, when inclusivists omit the word “men” the meaning is unchanged – and is actually clearer.

Mercygate, you get it! “of us men” has become a poor trasnslation in our present society which does not equate the word “men” with all humanity. Living languages change over time and poor old Rome is caught in the time warp. That does not mean that moral principles and doctrine should also change, but sometimes we need “new words” to give them meaning in our present context.
Click to expand...
 
“For the Priase of HIS name and for the good of all of HIS church.”

“for the Praise and Glory of His Name, for our good and the good of all His Holy Church” is the correct form.
 
Here’s another one:

“Loving God, hear our prayer.”

instead of the pro-monarchical and pro-masculine and very majestic words: “LORD”, hear our prayer. And I am a woman, too.

Something else that I noticed recently: “To Stand in Your Presence” was changed to: “To be in Your Presence.” I suppose they are very PC and don’t want to offend those with disabilities?

Too, too sensitive, IMHO. And I have a disability, too. I find the unnecessary attention to this point quite offensive. The word Stand has other meanings besides the physical act of standing up. Especially Standing for the Lord!
 
Ehh. I don’t have a problem with the concept of inclusive language, but in practice it can be quite ugly and I really wish the people most frequently responsible for it didn’t tend to have tin ears. I’ve seen some inclusive translations that should be hanging offenses. But the reality is that changes in translation are inevitible due to the way that English (as an example) is constantly changing and if it is clear in the original texts that a word is meant to be inclusive then it should be translated inclusively in order to preserve the meaning of the original language in contemporary English.

All things in moderation and good sense though. Neutering God is a totally different story. In most cases, that’s going to be changing the meaning of the original texts. If they’re going to do that why stop with the Bible? Let’s go and change Shakespeare’s words too! (I should shut up now. There’s probably someone out there right now already working on that.)
 
If the missal truly needs reworked in order to more accurately reflect the changed state of the language, so be it. I won’t like it, but I’ll accept it. UNTIL that time, however, those who change the prayers of the Mass are being sinfully disobedient.

Plus, when only a few make their arbitrary changes they create disunity among the members of the congregation, changing our shared prayer into a battle of linguistic ideologies. Who can shout their version louder?
 
Mperea75 said:
┼JMJ

What is this? I have heard it a few many times in a chruches around town. I thought it was supposed to “For the Priase of HIS name and for the good of all of HIS church.” The good of all of God’s church just doesn’t sounds right to me it is denying something. I think it is His Father-hood but then I could be wrong. Any opions would be appriciated
Click to expand...

You are right, it implicitly removes references to His Fatherhood, which is tantamount to denying it.

Another sad case of accomodation with linguistic inclusivists.

Besides it sounds awkward to say the least.

Gerry 🙂
 
Andreas Hofer:
If the missal truly needs reworked in order to more accurately reflect the changed state of the language, so be it. I won’t like it, but I’ll accept it. UNTIL that time, however, those who change the prayers of the Mass are being sinfully disobedient.

Plus, when only a few make their arbitrary changes they create disunity among the members of the congregation, changing our shared prayer into a battle of linguistic ideologies. Who can shout their version louder?
Click to expand...
I do agree with this. Everyone should be saying the same words and there shouldn’t be a deviation from what’s in the lectionary or the missals. I was at a Mass recently where someone sitting next to me replaced “he” or “his” with the word “God” in every prayer and it was a distraction. I don’t care at all how people pray in private, but in church we should be praying as a community.
 
“Lord, accept the sacrifice at his hands, for the praise and glory of His name…”

This makes it sound like we’re talking about the Priest. The pronoun references are iffy. It’s not a gender reference problem.
 
Mperea75 said:
┼JMJ

What is this? I have heard it a few many times in a chruches around town. I thought it was supposed to “For the Priase of HIS name and for the good of all of HIS church.” The good of all of God’s church just doesn’t sounds right to me it is denying something. I think it is His Father-hood but then I could be wrong. Any opions would be appriciated
Click to expand...

Political correctness and feminism run amuck!!
 
40.png
mercygate:
The word “anthropous,” which we translate “men,” means “human beings” not “males” Thus, when inclusivists omit the word “men” the meaning is unchanged – and is actually clearer.
Click to expand...
Yes, and “human beings” is exactly what the word “men” means in the context of the Creed. The language didn’t change; it was hijacked.

When we say “for us and our salvation,” who is us? The congregation? The entire Church? Catholics? All Christians? All of humanity? Is it really clearer?
 
Argh. :mad:

Folks, I really think the reason they do this is NOT because of some sort of feminism but because the pronoun references are unclear.

“LORD, accept the sacrifice at his hands”

Look: What is the pronoun refering to? We don’t quite know, but assume the “his” is refering to the priest, whom has Jesus at his hands.

What it really means is:

“Lord, accept the sacrifice at the the hands of your priest, for the praise and Glory of Your name, for the good of all Your Church.”

Do you see know why some simply replace the undefined pronouns with “God”?

“Lord, accept the sacrifice at his hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name for the good of all God’s Church.”
 
40.png
moira:
Political correctness and feminism run amuck!!
Click to expand...
Exactly. Soon they would likewise attempt to remove the term “Lord” from our prayers, because it sounds so “male”. 😦

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
RobedWithLight:
Exactly. Soon they would likewise attempt to remove the term “Lord” from our prayers, because it sounds so “male”. 😦

Gerry 🙂
Click to expand...
Yeah. But you forgot “patriarchal.” Let’s toss all this dead, White, European, male, phallocentric, patriarchal, female-oppressing, linear logic and rational thought and move to a relativist rheology (not a typo) based on democratic principles, MY subjective experience, and MY feelings.
 
Exalt,

You might have a point if your quotation were correct. In our US translation (via ICEL) the response is not “Lord, accept the sacrifice at his hands…”

it is “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and for the good of all His church.”

I see no confusion with pronouns here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top