Inclusive Language in the Mass

[kristie_m]

Braille on the ATMs is because the keypads are produced generically; that is, the same keypads are produced for drive-up ATMs and for walk-up ATMs, and blind people most certainly do use walk-up ATMs.

Awwwww! You took all the fun out of the speculation!!!

 

[peary]

My opinion: I think those that refuse to stay with the literal translation of Scripture do not TRUST Scripture. People know the intent as to what is written; they are not stupid, and they don’t need the thought police to tell them what ‘he’ means in the bible, and when it is inclusive of women.

 

[kristie_m]

My opinion: I think those that refuse to stay with the literal translation of Scripture do not TRUST Scripture. People know the intent as to what is written; they are not stupid, and they don’t need the thought police to tell them what ‘he’ means in the bible, and when it is inclusive of women.

I agree! Also with the poster that mentioned that the pc versions are actually demeaning to women…to think that we’re too blind to figure out when “mankind” means all people, etc.

It’s an interesting perspective, and not one I’d really considered, but on the whole, I find it to be an accurate assessment.

 

[justin_sd]

During mass at our parish there are a few word changes in the liturgical text intended to be “inclusive” in nature. A few examples:

During the Gloria, instead of “…and peace to His people on earth…” we recite “…and peace to God’s people on earth…”

During the preparation of the gifts, instead of “…for the praise and glory of his name…” we recite “…for the praise and glory of God’s name…”

During the Eucharistic Prayer, instead of “…It is right to give him thanks and praise…” we recite “…it is right to give God thanks and praise…”

I’m going to a parish now where I notice this happening, though inconsistently. The first two instances are true in my parish (“and peace to God’s people,” “for the praise and glory of God’s name,” though they still say “it is right to give Him thanks and praise.”) Go figure. I’m glad they’re inconsistent, because it indicates to me that perhaps the incorrect inclusive language isn’t willful disobedience, but simply evidence that many in the parish learned it from someone (who was either willfully disobedient, or simply misguided) long ago.

I always (not loudly, but clearly) continue to say - or sing “and peace to HIS people on earth.” To my ears, it always sounds like I’m the only one, but who knows? Maybe I can start a trend. I always figure that if someone asks me, “why don’t you say 'God’s people,” I would just say “‘His people’ means 'God’s people. What’s the problem?”

Why should I have to apologize? I’m not the one who changed it - for no reason.

 

[benedictgal]

The song book…and you know this, How…during mass do you just flip thru the song book?

I have read alot of post, from all of them, and I see a pattern coming on…Is this the year we run off all the priest and WE do the masses? It sure seems that from what I’ve read, there are very few priest really appreciated for what they do and have done.
You know, they did give up their life just so some people put them down at every chance…

No. Perhaps you are not reading the posts in their entirety. No one is calling for an elimination of the priesthood. However, what many of us are saying is that the intergrity of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass must be protected and safeguarded.

Auntie M, no one, not the bishop, not the priest, not the laity, has the right to change any part of the Mass. The Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity. It is the Church’s most precious treasure that she received directly from her Divine Spouse. As Redemptionis Sacramentum indicates:

[18.] Christ’s faithful have the right that ecclesiastical authority should fully and efficaciously regulate the Sacred Liturgy lest it should ever seem to be “anyone’s private property, whether of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated”.38

In another section, the document also holds that:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms. Likewise, the Catholic people have the right that the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass should be celebrated for them in an integral manner, according to the entire doctrine of the Church’s Magisterium. Finally, it is the Catholic community’s right that the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharist should be carried out for it in such a manner that it truly stands out as a sacrament of unity, to the exclusion of all blemishes and actions that might engender divisions and factions in the Church.32

When the celebrant begins to take excessive liberties with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he is violating the vows that he took at his ordination. The most important duty of a priest is to worthily celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. At his ordination, his hands are annointed with the Chrism oil. He is presented with the chalice and the paten. He is given a chasuble and stole. He is charged with the faculty to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

When that faculty is compromised, then there are some very serious problems.

 

[system]

Auntie M, no one, not the bishop, not the priest, not the laity, has the right to change any part of the Mass. The Mass is not some free form exercise in creativity.

When the celebrant begins to take excessive liberties with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, he is violating the vows that he took at his ordination. The most important duty of a priest is to worthily celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. At his ordination, his hands are annointed with the Chrism oil. He is presented with the chalice and the paten. He is given a chasuble and stole. He is charged with the faculty to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

When that faculty is compromised, then there are some very serious problems.

Reading your post reminded me of something that bothered me recently. Not “inclusive language” exactly, but changing things for no reason.

A priest at my parish has decided to use this phrase during the preparation of the Eucharist: ***“He broke the bread, gave it to his friends and said…” ***

I brought this up with a guy I work with, a traditional Catholic and he gave me more or less the answer you did above.

I guess now, I have to figure out what to say or do to make them get back to what is right?

 

[benedictgal]

Reading your post reminded me of something that bothered me recently. Not “inclusive language” exactly, but changing things for no reason.

A priest at my parish has decided to use this phrase during the preparation of the Eucharist: ***“He broke the bread, gave it to his friends and said…” ***

I brought this up with a guy I work with, a traditional Catholic and he gave me more or less the answer you did above.

I guess now, I have to figure out what to say or do to make them get back to what is right?

It might help you to read this portion of Redemptionis Sacramentum:

1. The Eucharistic Prayer
   [51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. "It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers"129 or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.130

[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.131

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”,132 except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See”.133

[55.] In some places there has existed an abuse by which the Priest breaks the host at the time of the consecration in the Holy Mass. This abuse is contrary to the tradition of the Church. It is reprobated and is to be corrected with haste.

[56.] The mention of the name of the Supreme Pontiff and the diocesan Bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer is not to be omitted, since this is a most ancient tradition to be maintained, and a manifestation of ecclesial communion. For “the coming together of the eucharistic community is at the same time a joining in union with its own Bishop and with the Roman Pontiff”.134

While it doesn’t specifically address the scenario you noted, it is implicit that the celebrant can’t be taking the Eucharistic Prayer apart simply because he thinks that one section is better suited elsewhere.

The same concept applies to the matter of inclusive language. Just because the celebrant or a group of people don’t care for the language of the prayers, that does not give them the right to make changes at will.

 

[Cara_Serrano]

I am always surprised at how well inclusive language is tolerated at Mass among Catholics who would not tolerate it in other areas.

If you were to go to a lIve performance of “Romeo and Juliet” and someone had decided to “correct” the script and make it inclusive, you would probably want your money back because you had not attended Shakespeare’s play, but some poor imitation.

If you were to buy the written works of any classic authors and found that they had been altered to “include” everyone, you would also have a right to complain and demand the original.

Certainly our faith is so much more important than any work of literature, and yet we allow it to be abused. The Mass and the Scriptures are not just classic works, they are sacred works. They should be kept intact.

 

[peary]

I am always surprised at how well inclusive language is tolerated at Mass among Catholics who would not tolerate it in other areas.

If you were to go to a lIve performance of “Romeo and Juliet” and someone had decided to “correct” the script and make it inclusive, you would probably want your money back because you had not attended Shakespeare’s play, but some poor imitation.

If you were to buy the written works of any classic authors and found that they had been altered to “include” everyone, you would also have a right to complain and demand the original.

Certainly our faith is so much more important than any work of literature, and yet we allow it to be abused. The Mass and the Scriptures are not just classic works, they are sacred works. They should be kept intact.

 

[Auntie_M]

To benedictgal

Maybe you could just clarify some of these “abuses” for me. Maybe I am misinformed…Please tell me what is being changed.

 

[Phemie]

To benedictgal

Maybe you could just clarify some of these “abuses” for me. Maybe I am misinformed…Please tell me what is being changed.

Some priests are fond of changing the words of the Eucharistic Prayer. This is not allowed but it doesn’t seem to deter them. ‘Disciples’ becomes ‘friends’ and various other changes. Some priests even invite the congregation to say “Through Him, with Him and in Him…”, a practice that is also forbidden.

 

[benedictgal]

To benedictgal

Maybe you could just clarify some of these “abuses” for me. Maybe I am misinformed…Please tell me what is being changed.

First of all, as Phemie indicated, there are some priests who will ad lib the Eucharistic Prayer. While there are four main Eucharistic Prayers with some variations, a priest can’t mix and match the language (mingle EP I with EP IV, for example). Iinviting the faithful to join in on the Final Doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer is also forbidden, as Phemie noted.

Other instances include having the priest remain seated in the sanctuary while EMHCs distribute Holy Communion. There are also instances of laity reading the Gospel and preaching, something that is expressly forbidden under Redemptionis Sacramentum. Also forbidden is the priest ad-libbing the Ordinaries of the Mass (Collect, Post-Communion Prayer).

There are a plethora of other things that have gone on, all in the name of the Spirit of Vatican II that absolutely have nothing to do with what the documents of Vatican II actually said.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please stick to the thread topic. Take side discussions to new or existing threads. Thank you all.

 

[Auntie_M]

Reading your post reminded me of something that bothered me recently. Not “inclusive language” exactly, but changing things for no reason.

A priest at my parish has decided to use this phrase during the preparation of the Eucharist: ***“He broke the bread, gave it to his friends and said…” ***

I brought this up with a guy I work with, a traditional Catholic and he gave me more or less the answer you did above.

I guess now, I have to figure out what to say or do to make them get back to what is right?

Please forgive me, but I seem to feel that all of this is just “splitting hairs”, as the saying goes.

Whether you say “friends” or “Apostles”, (?) Weren’t the Apostles Jesus’s friends also, and are we not “meant” to “spread” the word as the Apostles did. Does this not mean that we aren’t Jesus’s friends also. He did say that who be with us, cannot be against
us.

And the part of “God’s people or His people” If we are God’s people are we not His people also?

This just seems so trivial to be making such a “offense” out of. Please if you have a REAL problem, let’s talk of that.

What if we say, “All God’s children” or (as today’s) people might say, “All God’s kids”, are we not saying the same thing?

Do I have to say “All God’s children” to say “it” right. This really seems to me that we are saying that the laity are so dumb that they couldn’t possibly (Know) what the sentence (Means) if it were not said the EXACT way.

Well, we DO NOT talk EXACTLY the way Christ and HIS apostles, (friends) talked.

Thou hast said it wrong, and thee knows this.

Please lets give people the benefit of the doubt. We are a more educated society now, give us all credit for being able to interpret what God’s people or HIS people are.

Are we “splitting” hairs or “splitting” the church. Think about it.

I do feel much more at “peace/religious” when hearing a priest says mass (even if he says “friends” rather than “apostles”)
than listening to others condemn him and say he is saying it wrong.

If a priest gets up and preaches “hate” then that’s another story.

Please, let’s stop this “right” or “wrong”. We are GOD’S people AND we are “HIS” people.

Seems like there’s alot of Catholic bashing being done BY CATHOLICS!!!

 

[system]

Seems like there’s alot of Catholic bashing being done BY CATHOLICS!!!

Seems there’s alot of creative rearranging of words that are not supposed to be changed.

The word is supposed to be Disciples not Friends

These have their own meanings and are two different places in the dictionary. Maybe the dictionary writers are just splitting hairs.

• It happened in my church.
• I brought it up with the most knowledgeable Catholic I know
• I found out it is dead wrong and not allowed.
• I mentioned it here because it fits the topic

None of that is Catholic bashing

As I just remembered my 9th grade Latin - Disciplina means “Student” In my life I have had students and friends, in rare cases they can be both.

And as to your opening line - of course I forgive you:thumbsup:

 

[Brendan]

Well, we DO NOT talk EXACTLY the way Christ and HIS apostles, (friends) talked.

Correct. That is why we have an approved translation.

Thou hast said it wrong, and thee knows this.

Please lets give people the benefit of the doubt. We are a more educated society now, give us all credit for being able to interpret what God’s people or HIS people are.

Are we too assume that the priest is somehow more educated in the interpretation of Liturgical texts that the Vatican and the collective US Bishops who created and approved the translations we are supposed to use?

If so, I would like to see his academic credentials.

And if it such a minor issue, why would such a parish not change back to the approved texts as soon as someone complained about it.

Would not the Christian thing to do be “Oh, you don’t like the changes we made, no prob, we change them right back”

After all… it’s ‘trivial’

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Trads tend to ignore details, when reading the Constitution of Sacred Liturgy;

1. 1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.

1. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.

Pay close attention here, bold is my emphasis.

1. Within the limits set by the typical editions of the liturgical books, it shall be for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to specify adaptations, especially in the case of the administration of the sacraments, the sacramentals, processions, liturgical language, sacred music, and the arts, but according to the fundamental norms laid down in this Constitution.

Priest substituting God for Him or His, is approved by many Bishops in their dioceses. It doesn’t change the meaning of the liturgy in the slightest bit.

You and I may prefer that the priest not do this, but he’s not prohibited from doing so, if the Bishop has allowed it. Fact is, my Bishop has done the same thing.

Jim

 

[system]

Priest substituting God for Him or His, is approved by many Bishops in their dioceses. It doesn’t change the meaning of the liturgy in the slightest bit.

You and I may prefer that the priest not do this, but he’s not prohibited from doing so, if the Bishop has allowed it. Fact is, my Bishop has done the same thing.

Jim

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

So what’s the ruling on changing "Disciples" to “Friends” ?

 

[Brendan]

You and I may prefer that the priest not do this, but he’s not prohibited from doing so, if the Bishop has allowed it. Fact is, my Bishop has done the same thing.

Jim

The Bishop does not have the authority to change litugurical texts.

Your own posts show that.

22-2 indicated that the right to regulate the norms is set to the territorial bodies of bishops ( in the case of the US it is the USCCB). The Individual bishop was not granted that right, only the territorial body.

We see this again in SC 36-4

1. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

1. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

1. These norms being observed, it is for the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used; their decrees are to be approved, that is, confirmed, by the Apostolic See. And, whenever it seems to be called for, this authority is to consult with bishops of neighboring regions which have the same language.

1. Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned above.

An individual bishop cannot approve changes to the approved texts.

He must first petetion the USCCB who may then seek a recognito for the change.

I’ll refer again to Redemptionis Sacramentum

Of course liturgical formation is necessary for all in the Church. “It is vitally necessary,” says the Second Vatican Council, “that attention be directed, above all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, no. 14). But it is also true that “in various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, no. 10). “Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty” (Instruction on the Eucharist, no. 7). “Arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal” (Instruction, no. 11) for which the Second Vatican Council hoped. “These abuses have nothing to do with the authentic spirit of the Council and must be prudently and firmly corrected by Pastors” (John Paul II: Letter on Fortieth Anniversary of Sacrosanctum Concilium, Spiritus et Sponsa, no. 15).

As for those who modify liturgical texts on their own authority, it is important to observe with this Instruction that “the sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine, so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the diminution or to the elimination of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi” (Instruction, no. 10).

 

[justin_sd]

Please forgive me, but I seem to feel that all of this is just “splitting hairs”, as the saying goes.

Whether you say “friends” or “Apostles”, (?) Weren’t the Apostles Jesus’s friends also, and are we not “meant” to “spread” the word as the Apostles did. Does this not mean that we aren’t Jesus’s friends also. He did say that who be with us, cannot be against
us.

I knew someone would eventually go down this road.

Here’s the way it works:

There’s a set prayer or statement in the liturgy. Let’s say it’s the prayer “Glory to God in the Highest, And peace to his people on earth.” Shouldn’t be a problem, right?

Then YOU decide to change it to “Glory to God in the Highest and Peace to God’s people on earth.”

Why? Obviously something was wrong, or inferior, or unsatisfactory, with “peace to His people on earth.” I think it’s fair to assume that you have a problem with a male pronoun for God. But while God isn’t female, the Church clearly teaches that He is a Father. He is a Son. He does reveal himself as a “he.” So the implication of your little change does have rather large theological implications, and they imply something that is WRONG.

But let me go back to my first point. You say “come on” - it’s one little word. It’s no big deal.

I’ll grant you that. I’ll agree with you. It’s no big deal. So let’s leave it the way it was. After all, it’s no big deal. Right?

(or is it possible you actually think it IS a big deal?)