J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Do you happen to know where this quote is from?
- Status
B
benedictgal
Guest
I see it differently – I support inclusive language because I do not want individuals or groups of people to feel excluded or second rate. It’s not only about gender it’s about other characteristics like being left-handed, being seen as being less useful or valuable because you are older or young, have a disability.
I use inclusive language so people feel included. We say “ladies and gentlemen, girls and boys” at meetings and at other places so all feel welcomed. Sometimes this sounds forced so we use inclusive language like “all are welcome here.”
I have not been hoodwinked, I wanted this years before it became popular after realising that non-inclusive language can be, and is used, to exclude something accidentally and sometimes intentionally.
There was a time when things like the abolition of slavery and votes for women were considered diabolical. This seems to be the fate of many new and inclusive ideas
So then you are saying that political correctness and inclusive language are more important than following the Church? As I said, as a woman, I am not offended by the so-called lack of “inclusive language.” It is those folks who seem to be “enlightened” who, in my opinion, just don’t get it.
The ideal example of true feminism lies in the Blessed Virgin Mary. God did not force Himself on her. He asked for her consent. Mary made the free will choice of agreeing to the be the Mother of Jesus, the only-begotten Son of the Father. Nowhere in Scripture does she concern herself with trifles such as language.
B
benedictgal
Guest
I would be most interested to know what you have against calling God, “Father”? After all, this title was used by no less than Jesus, the Son of Man, himself. To not want to call God “Father”, in my opinion, is to deny God’s universal Fatherhood. What gives s person the right to want to negate the Fatherhod of God in favor of worshipping at the altar of political correctness?
How do you tackle the Pater Noster, then? Are you averse to calling God Father that you would change the words of a prayer composed by Jesus, Himself? What right would anyone have to dare change the words of prayer, that is scriptually based, all in the name of the false god of political correctness and inclusive language?
Thiese are fair questions.
K
KarenElissa
Guest
The just don’t understand the whole changing hymns. I mean if you want to go out and write a song with inclusive language, great, that doesn’t bother me at all.
But we have all these great traditional hymns and first we change all the “men” to “us” or “people” or whatever, then we need to change any of the old sounding words, then the rhythm is off so we need to change a few more words, and soon you have practically a whole new song. And then you have half the people at Mass singing the old version cause that is how they know it and then the other half singing the new one cause they are actually looking at the music and it is just awkward.
But we have all these great traditional hymns and first we change all the “men” to “us” or “people” or whatever, then we need to change any of the old sounding words, then the rhythm is off so we need to change a few more words, and soon you have practically a whole new song. And then you have half the people at Mass singing the old version cause that is how they know it and then the other half singing the new one cause they are actually looking at the music and it is just awkward.
B
benedictgal
Guest
It’s from the homily that the Holy Father preached at this year’s Midnight Mass.
S
Salonika
Guest
I don’t agree that using inclusive language puts someone outside the Church. Therefore I don’t see that they need to change their language to avoid putting themsleves outside the Church.
And as I have said, as a women, I am offended by the lack of inclusive language.
S
Salonika
Guest
I don’t think they are follow-on quesions from my earlier posts. I was very careful to talk about using inclusive language about the congregation so those at Mass/services all feel included.
I possibly blurred this when I responded to Dirk Skene’s "Next thing you know somebody will try to get us to pray “in the name of the creator, the redemmer & the sanctifyer” with “creator, redeemer and giver of life”.
Therefore if you wsh to discuss the questions you asked me I suggest you start a new thread.
P
PacoG
Guest
Ericka, don’t you see. The people who are for the inclusive language were also the ones that got rid of all the supplication language in the Mass. We no longer implore God or even say please or address Him as if he were God. The translation we have used the last 30 years has rendered God at best an equal and in most places a subordinate. Seriously, read through your missellette. When you really think about the language, the language isn’t fit for worship.
Now that the Salonikas of the world have rendered God to employee status, they can redefine Him and emasculate Him.
S
Salonika
Guest
Acknowledging/referring to God as Creator, Redeemeer and Giver of Life - an attempt to reduce and weaken God? No, an attempt to do the opposite.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
And how about those who are offended by the use of inclusive language?
B
Brendan
Guest
If you are refering to strictly the Godhead, yes that works. A Jew could say the exact same thing about God.
But it fails to address the Trinitarian Nature of God that is at the Heart of Christianity, that God is One God, Three Distinct Persons.
Your titles fail to address that, as each person of the God Head Creates, Redeems and Gives Life, equally and together.
Their distinction lies in their relationships (see my above post).
So if one seeks to address God as He actually is, Three Persons, and to do so with the fullness of the understanding that God Reveled Himself to be, your formula fails.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Thank you.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Not for use in liturgical or sacramental capacities. This is straight from Rome:
QUESTIONS
First question: Whether the Baptism conferred with the formulas «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Redeemer, and of the Sanctifier» and «I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and of the Liberator, and of the Sustainer» is valid?
Second question: Whether the persons baptized with those formulas have to be baptized in forma absoluta?
RESPONSES
To the first question: Negative.
To the second question: Affirmative.
S
Salonika
Guest
First, try to understand the reasons for it - then they might not find it offensive.
Second, if this doesn’t work or they don’t wish to hear inclusive language in churches they can go where such language is not used.
Thrdly, recognise that those of us who are offended by non-inclusive language have the right to be offended and live and let live.
A
ASD
Guest
Because saying it makes it so? Because we can be counted on to put up with it when we’re told that X is Y and not X.A theme of the Second Vatican Council can be summed up in these words: “in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." The slight changes in texts of carols and hymns are not part of some “political” agenda by a group of music editors or publishers of hymns and carols; rather, our common goal is find the best texts to express our praise and worship of God.
Why would they have to write such a thing?
Obviously, use of “inclusive” language is political, and aggressively so.
Liberty? For whom, to do what? Charity? Toward whom? Best? By what kind of standard?
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
A
ASD
Guest
I think everybody understands the reason for it.
That can be pretty tough.
Sure. Nobody is trying to say that that point of view is incomprehensible or unreasonable. The point is different. Like, why do some sensibilities matter more than others?
See, we started with texts that some people liked and others didn’t. Then somebody, by some authority that I don’t understand, made changes. Now we have texts that some people like and other people don’t like. Hmm.
Unless you think the feelings of some people are more important than the feelings of other people, I don’t know how you can see that as a step forward.
Fair enough. Nobody does.
But, what do you say to tradition-minded Catholics who feel excluded and . . ., well, kinda robbed by those kinds of changes?
ASD
Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar
C
chrisb
Guest
I was always under the impression that “in Christ there are no Jew or Greek or Male or Female” yet we find ourselves clinging to these identities and now we see ourselves trying to force these identities into the Liturgy.
Are we not suppose to be Children of God and allow these other identities to remain outside of the Faith?
Are we not suppose to be Children of God and allow these other identities to remain outside of the Faith?
S
Salonika
Guest
Yes, it can be. And it also is for the non-traditional/those for whom inclusive language is important. The pain is on BOTH groups whatever some traditionalists may say we also have feelings.
Unfortunately sometimes the live and let live formula is the best. It’s preferable to digging the trenches on both sides and firing (figurative bullets at each other). I don’t believe that the “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. Think there is plenty evidence that this isn’t so.
That I understand.
I would also say that I hope they can understand the other point of view.
P
PKinsale
Guest
B
benedictgal
Guest
Actually, it is not necessary to start a new thread because the topic deals with inclusive language, something that you vehemently support and I passionately oppose. Thus, these questions are appropriate for me to ask you, since you have issues with language and would rather use, as you seem to note, terms that are in defiance to the Church’s directives on the proper names of the Persons in the Holy Trinity.
As I have said before, and, with all due respect, as a woman, I am educated and mature enough to not need to worship at the altar of political correctness and inclusive language and try to change things just to suit my idiosyncracies. I don’t need to toy with the words of the Church nor with sacred music just to appease my pride. True feminism means being comfortable in my own shade of lipstick (which is bright red) and not seeking to gut things just because my pride is hurt.
The word “catholic” means “universal.” That being said, the Church is universal, inclusive and all-encompassing. There is no such thing as an American Catholic, an Italian Catholic, a Mexican Catholic nor a Polish Catholic. We are all Catholics. We check our nationalities at the door when we worship the living, Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
- Status