How do You Feel about Inclusive Language

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholiclady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can see merit in using inclusive language in the liturgy, however, it has to done with great care so that the inclusive language doesn’t change the meaning entirely. I’ll give to examples. First, in the Creed we profess,"…Who for us men and our salvation…" I see no harm and greater meaning for all if we pray “… Who for “US” and our salvation…” I think the intent or meaning is preserved. On the other hand there is no way other to pray the “Our Father” with out saying “Our Father” along with the fact those are Jesus’ words (a minor point some seem to overlook)
One quick note about using the word “Stand”. I believe that the use of “To Be” isn’t use as inclusive language, rather, it is to signify that we are called to be more than in mere presence. The
“To be…” signifies that it is out total being (Body, Souls - Mind) that is present before the Lord. Again, I see the merit of Inclusive Language but I’m also aware of the possibility of its abuse.
 
I haven’t noticed the use of inclusive language in our liturgy ( in Canada), but perhaps I should pay more attention. We use the New Revised Standard edition for bible readings here.

I don’t like the use of inclusive language.
 
Further to the merits or otherwise of the phrase “for us and for our salvation”, I noticed that the CDW singled it out particularly in the document that it sent to the (old) ICEL rejecting its 2002 translation of the Missal. The Congregation’s comments on the matter can be found in section III.B. at natcath.com/NCR_Online/documents/observations.htm, for those who haven’t read the letter already. Although this is slightly apart from the issue of neutering pronouns (as the problem here is due to omission), it still seems to increase the case for fidelity to the editio typica.
 
I don’t like “inclusive” language myself and avoid using it at all costs. But I’m somewhat curious, isn’t it a liturgical abuse to use inclusive language?
 
It is a liturgical abuse to change, alter or remove any text, or words from the texts, in the Liturgy… Therefore it is an abuse to change the words that the Church wants you to read, for words you feel are more appropriate.

So, lets say the Priest wants to use inclusive language in his homily… that’s fine ( Liturgically that is ). But if he feels compelled to change words that aren’t his, which is practically all the words in the entire Mass, it is an abuse.

Here is where I got this from:

Redemtionis Sacramentum

Chapter I
THE REGULATION OF THE SACRED LITURGY
  1. Priests
[31] [Priests] ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.

God bless
 
40.png
catholiclady:
One of my pet peeves is inclusive language in the liturgy - what are your toughts?
I don’t like inclusive language. It has no basis in the historical texts of Scripture or the writings of the Church fathers. It is only used to appease feminists and modernists who want to re-make the Church in their image and likeness.
 
The so-called “inclusive language” is distracting, irritating and has no place in our Liturgy. I recently went to an anniversary celebration at the Convent Motherhouse of an order of which I was a member in the 60’s. At the closing Mass, upon entering the chapel, I was asked if I wished to sit in the Sanctuary. I replied with a horrified, “no, I don’t belong in the Sanctuary” and proceeded before I got a lecture about how I did belong there …
The Mass was as described in most of the above posts…using God instead of His, and avoiding any and all use of the words:man, Him, His. When singing a refrain of the Communion hymn which said His grace…I think I was the only one singing the correct words (as they were printed in the program). I forgot to mention that the chapel was totally redesigned with a "lovely , modern looking table (the altar) "in the center, surrounded by chairs on either side and behind for the "sisters, because they “belonged there”. The kicker was at the end, when we should have received a blessing from the celebrant, all the sisters raised their hands and sang a blessing and that was the end of Mass. The Gospel was read by a nun and she also delivered the Homily. I was grateful that it was on a weekday, not my Sunday obligation. I’ve been tempted to write to the Cardinal of that Archdiocese to see if he is aware of these types of things. It was good to return to my home Parish in Ocala. I used to be saddened by the fact that so many of these nuns no longer teach in the Catholic schools…maybe 'tis a blessing.
Pax et bonum! :cool:
 
40.png
PaxVobis1331:
It is a liturgical abuse to change, alter or remove any text, or words from the texts, in the Liturgy… Therefore it is an abuse to change the words that the Church wants you to read, for words you feel are more appropriate.

So, lets say the Priest wants to use inclusive language in his homily… that’s fine ( Liturgically that is ). But if he feels compelled to change words that aren’t his, which is practically all the words in the entire Mass, it is an abuse.

Here is where I got this from:

Redemtionis Sacramentum

Chapter I
THE REGULATION OF THE SACRED LITURGY
  1. Priests
[31] [Priests] ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.

God bless
Thanks much, that’s what I heard. I haven’t ever been shown the actual proof though.
 
Inclusive language is a horrible idea, worst ever, right up there with Hitler’s father saying to Hitler’s mother, “Say, Brunhilda, you’re looking particularly lovely this evening…”
 
40.png
catholiclady:
One of my pet peeves is inclusive language in the liturgy - what are your toughts?
I believe that God chose the way
He wanted scripture written and we should leave it that way.
maggiec
 
It doesn’t matter how I feel about inclusive language because it manifests the Satanic by attempting to characterize God as He, has chosen NOT to be. Is that a sleight against women? Is the Blessed Virgin Mary’s feminity a sleight against the dignity of men? What a stupid premise.

These nuns you describe are, sadly, just one more example of lost souls, flopping around on the deck of the seductive Bad Ship Militant Feminism, baited and reeled in by the false promise of power over others, a lie which is the domain of the Father of All Lies and a Murderer from the very beginning. The evil one can even seduce consecrated religious sisters, even while convincing them they are doing a greater good than holy mother Church provides for her children. The tragedy, as with all lies, is that they believe these lies to be a “better” truth they are “obliged” to enact. The dictatorship of relativism?

Satan is the ape of God, capable of nothing more than a lousy counterfeit at best. I think nuns presuming to act in persona christi in any way or degree constitutes a pretty clearly visible counterfeit. Consider their VOWS for starters.

I fear there are all kinds of women reading this and enthusiastically forming prejudicial views about me, and characterizing me as a hateful, chauvanistic, woman-hating so-and-so. That’s the offensive modus operandi of all hate-based ideologies like militant feminism: directing the language of emotional violence at people. Unfortunately, enthusiastic killing of the messenger prevents understanding the critically important message: God is God, and his Church has authority over us and these nuns in all matters of faith and morals but also in a very special way BY THEIR EXPRESS CHOICE TO CONSECRATED RELIGIOUS LIFE MADE OVER YEARS OF DISCERNEMENT. The Church is not “infringing their rights.” Rather, it is THEY who, sadly, attempt infringing the rights of God. Somebody has had the wool pulled over their eyes, and it’s not Satan.

To those who may be reading this and writing me off, personally, as a “(fill in the blank)-ist” because I would dare to suggest that this example of Militant Feminism is something less than God’s Natural Law itself, consider that I’m condemning doing violence to God’s Divine Liturgy, which is The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I’m not condemning nuns or women. That would be absurd.

But they, of all people should know better.

I don’t care how many degrees these nuns – not to mention their Priest(s) – have, I don’t care if there’s a “million-woman march” on the Capitol building supporting their “rights” to re-make God in their own androgynous image and likeness if they FEEL like it: defying the clearly expressed will of God – NO MATTER THE REASON NOR MODE – is still opposition to God’s will. I’m sure Eve would have a few tips for these nuns on the wisdom of this approach to living out their vows of obedience to the Church.

It takes a VERY CONFUSED MIND not to understand this. Unfortunately, the deeply confused moral understanding has become the statistical norm. Nuns are not immune to this confusion, and are they ever targets! Satan is an evil angel. Angels DO have the ability to affect our minds in certain ways. These nuns’ minds have definitely been prevented from seeing this as evil, because I personally believe not one of them would have anything to do with this for even one second longer if they actually understood the evil inherent in what they are being led down the primrose path by the nose to do. They took Holy Orders, which remain holy, even when Satan can appear “as an angel of light,” say the scriptures.

This wilful alteration of the intention and form of the liturgy is dedicated, by the nature of its existence, to opposing the will of God and His Church. Who dares oppose the will of God? Faithful nuns living out their vows fully? Who can “correct” or “improve” God by imposing bizarre notions of gender neutrality upon Him – from within His Divine Liturgy itself! Who would dare to do such a sacreligious thing? Nuns? Demons? Which? Who is responsible for this outrage against the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? Some holy little old nuns in Florida? I DON’T think so.

I am NOT characterizing consecrated Roman Catholic nuns as evil. They are confused and seduced as anyone could be. Except because they are consecrated religious, they have been specially targeted by Satan for just such confusion. They desperately need our prayers, as do the priests, and bishop who allow this liturgical abuse to continue in the name of God, when it is within their authority to prevent. JMJ, save souls!

I think these nuns who spend so much time devising creative ways to oppose the rights of God in his Divine Liturgy, believing themselves to be some wierd kind of “freedom fighters” should spend a little more time in adoration, and ZERO time pretending to play priestess. If the situation you describe wasn’t so intrinsically, objectively, and demonstrably opposed to God’s will in His Church’s Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it would just be pathetic.

I believe the mercy of God is that in His wisdom, they are at least NOT instruments of the enemy who seeds weeds among the grain. God always prevents evil from being the worst it COULD POSSIBLY be. He’s arranged it so they don’t teach anymore.
 
Not in the readings or out of the sacramentry! Outside of the liturgy I have no problem.
Mike
I guess I need to edit his …in bible studys etc. I don’t think the text should be changed either.
God Bless.
Mike
 
Chysogonus, thank you for your refrence to the NCR report of the Congregation for Divine Worship, I would hope that all involved in this thread read it. As I stated before, I do see the merit of “Inclusive Language” being used but I also acknowledge that the English Language presents some unique problems, which could cloud the meaning of words if not change them all together. I was unaware that the example I gave, had been singled out as one oftheir examples, however, I found that there explanation for rejecting “Who for us…” was rather poor but this illustrates the difficulty of such an endevor achieving the goal of Inclusive Language that doesn’t cloudy the meaning. For me, our English Language is always in such a flux that I conceed that the best route (the only route) is to willing accept the language provided by the Church and to whom she has given the ministry of providing us with the proper translation from Latin to English. My special prayer, and I think all who are participating in this thread, should be with the Vox Clara commitee.
 
I haven’t noticed the use of inclusive language in our liturgy ( in Canada), but perhaps I should pay more attention. We use the New Revised Standard edition for bible readings here.

I don’t like the use of inclusive language.
You hear and hear the NRSV at Mass and you haven’t noticed the inclusive language? And you’re serious about this?

:banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top