inclusive language

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rand_Al_Thor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would remind him that we are obligated to use the translation that was submitted for and received recognitio from Rome…

Any other approach, in my experience, will go round and round forever because it’s difficult to change someone’s ideological viewpoint.
 
CHCatholic said:
I always give the example of bears. Think of bears sitting in a church and the priest says “for us bears and for our salvation” Bears aren’t going to stand up and say hey Im a grizzly, include me, or hey im a polar, include me. Man, as used in the liturgy, doesn’t refer to male species, but humankind as a whole, so really, its already inclusive.
Click to expand...
The problem is, bears don’t pray the Divine Office!😃 They’re mostly presbyterians- they only want the ‘bear’ necessities.

Sorry. Couldn’t resist the awful joke.

As for the actual topic, we use the more inclusive language at our church. When I lead morning prayer I don’t use it, but the sisters & congregation respond with it. At least I avoid being an accesory to liturgical abuse.
 
If you can’t talk to him, pray for him. Our priest refers to GOD as He/she and as I get tongue tied trying not get undiplomatic I pray for him. I don’t know what else to do.

Don’t forget our priests need our prayers !!
 
feargalmac said:
If you can’t talk to him, pray for him. Our priest refers to GOD as He/she and as I get tongue tied trying not get undiplomatic I pray for him. I don’t know what else to do.

Don’t forget our priests need our prayers !!
Click to expand...
I don’t understand how they are able to get away with this?

Kendy
 
drforjc said:
I would remind him that we are obligated to use the translation that was submitted for and received recognitio from Rome…
Click to expand...
In the case of psalms, this is not strictly true - when psalms are set to music, composers are allowed a certain amount of literary license in order to enable rhyming, etc.
 
Yes, this has become a big problem at the Masses I frequently attend at my university.

During the Gloria, the choir (and a large part of the congregation) sings “Glory to God in the highest, and peace to God’s people on earth.”

And before the Eucharistic prayer, people are now saying “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all God’s Church.”

And at the end of the Eucharistic prayer, one priest always says “All glory and honor is yours, almighty God, for ever and ever.”
 
  • slightly off topic, sorry *
Corki,

The Magnificat missal has been known to make a mistake.

One weekday during advent I attended mass and the readings used were not what was in the Magnificat missal. Well, I stopped the priest after mass and asked him, and we checked the missals in the pews. That missal provided readings for the feast of st. whoever, and also listed the regular weekday cycle readings. He said he couldn’t figure why the regular weekday readings were even listed, because at least in the US it is not an optional feast, apparently.
  • back to the thread topic *
 
My wife and I are taking a year long class through our diocese that has been fun and educational. The class consist of reading a book and hearing a lecture once a month. This month we’ve been reading Vatican II Today: Calling Catholics to Holiness and Service with a Imprimatur by Carl K Moeddel, Vicar General and Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Cincinnati. I has been a good book (light read 115pg) but from time to time the Authors oppinion will shine through. In chapter four they go on and on about being sensitive and inclusive language. At same time it lets you know the churches stand.

Has any read this book and know anything about the authors, Judy Ball and Joan McKamey.

Also what is the name of the document the changed the language we use in mass today.

Thanks and God Bless
 
I think it is very irreverent to change language inspired by the Holy Spirit may God assist you. You must write to the Bishop of your diocese, as I have done for a very similar issue. The Bishop did respond, though I am still waiting, I also could post you the letters if that would assist you. Also you could forward the following documents
adoremus.org/397-Roper.html - for the important roper study re inclusive language
ourladyswarriors.org/articles/inclusive.htm a good defence you could use
Finally others worldwide have similar problems, so you could ask them about their experiences as well.
regards and God bless
Derrick
 
I think it is very irreverent to change language inspired by the Holy Spirit may God assist you. You must write to the Bishop of your diocese, as I have done for a very similar issue. The Bishop did respond, though I am still waiting for a change, I also could post you the letters if that would assist you. Also you could forward the following documents
adoremus.org/397-Roper.html - for the important roper study re inclusive language
ourladyswarriors.org/articles/inclusive.htm a good defence you could use
Finally others worldwide have similar problems, so you could ask them about their experiences as well.
regards and God bless
Derrick
 
reidtgang said:
My wife and I are taking a year long class through our diocese that has been fun and educational. The class consist of reading a book and hearing a lecture once a month. This month we’ve been reading Vatican II Today: Calling Catholics to Holiness and Service with a Imprimatur by Carl K Moeddel, Vicar General and Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Cincinnati. I has been a good book (light read 115pg) but from time to time the Authors oppinion will shine through. In chapter four they go on and on about being sensitive and inclusive language. At same time it lets you know the churches stand.

Has any read this book and know anything about the authors, Judy Ball and Joan McKamey.

Also what is the name of the document the changed the language we use in mass today.

Thanks and God Bless
Click to expand...
For a wealth of solid, reliable information re the proper use of the vernacular in the liturgy, as well as examples of widespread abuses and other “infelicitous renderings”, see the web site of Adoremus,

www.adoremus.org

and click on the link for “Translations”. You won’t need to read much elsewhere.

Manfred
 
If your priest wants to include inclusive language go tell your bishop–if he won’t listen to you go to Rome and tell the Pope.

You might not get to see the Pope but I believe if you try your problem will be solved.
 
All the talk about whether inclusive language is proper in liturgical translations is beside the point. The OP asked whether another psalter could be substituted in the Mass. The answer is no. Only the translation approved for use in the US can be used in the Mass in this country. The only alternative is the Latin. And it’s as simple as that.

About what you can do: of course you could always go to the bishop if the pastor isn’t following the rules. However, I’d leave the parish. What good is a community if it doesn’t even agree within itself over important things such as obedience to the Church in matters liturgical? What kind of unity is that? I say: if community is so important, find one of which you can be a part! After all, community isn’t about geographical boundaries; it’s about holding the same faith.

Maria
 
Kendy said:
My parish priest wants to use a psalter with more inclusive language during mass. Is this permissible? What can I do?

BTW, I want the calm, rational not the liturgical-heretic hunter answer. 🙂

Kendy
Click to expand...
No Liturgical-heretic hunter? 😦

So much for being “inclusive”😛
 
MTD said:
All the talk about whether inclusive language is proper in liturgical translations is beside the point. The OP asked whether another psalter could be substituted in the Mass. The answer is no. Only the translation approved for use in the US can be used in the Mass in this country. The only alternative is the Latin. And it’s as simple as that.

About what you can do: of course you could always go to the bishop if the pastor isn’t following the rules. However, I’d leave the parish. What good is a community if it doesn’t even agree within itself over important things such as obedience to the Church in matters liturgical? What kind of unity is that? I say: if community is so important, find one of which you can be a part! After all, community isn’t about geographical boundaries; it’s about holding the same faith.

Maria
Click to expand...
I agree Maria that obedience is the primary issue, in my case the entire country has only one parish, so I was left with no choice than to approach the Bishop after approaching the Parish Priest, since I could no longer participate without a sense of sin.
Kendy also has the right firstly to approach the Bishop and if that fails the Congregation of the Curia headed by Cardinal Francis Arinze. Since it is a matter of conscience it needs to be escalated.
Thanks
Derrick
 
CHCatholic said:
I always give the example of bears. Think of bears sitting in a church and the priest says “for us bears and for our salvation” Bears aren’t going to stand up and say hey Im a grizzly, include me, or hey im a polar, include me. Man, as used in the liturgy, doesn’t refer to male species, but humankind as a whole, so really, its already inclusive.
Click to expand...
And if the priest just said “For us and for our salvation…” the meaning would be the same without any question or discussion.
 
And if the priest just said “For us and for our salvation…” the meaning would be the same without any question or discussion.
Click to expand...
And in fact many have ‘anticipated’ that this phrase will be adjusted to say just that in the proposed new translations ICEL. But that example I feel is the ‘exception that proves the rule’, so to speak. It is one thing to argue that “for us” and “for us men” mean the same so that ‘men’ COULD be dropped.

Having spent most of my life first (as a young girl) approving the idea of “no more making MEN mean men AND women, hooray” and now (as a 50 year old woman totally comfortable with the idea that language does not have to convolute itself or to become so top heavy it collapses in order to convey meaning), I find the majority of the ‘inclusive phrases’ are not really ‘inclusive’ at all.

Sisters and brothers, men and women. . .well okay but what about children? Children aren’t men or women, are they? What about transsexuals. . .males who feel they are women, females who feel they are men? Which do THEY identify with? And God is a Spirit but He is not a ‘feminine’ spirit so “Father/Mother” is ridiculous. “Generator” meant to be feminine just sounds robotic instead, etc. etc.

I feel that, as a ‘woman’ who has spent 50 years on this earth, both ‘before’ and ‘after’ inclusive language, I can categorically state that regarding language itself, ‘inclusive’ language is a BUST. It is divisive at worst, and cumbersome at best.

I do not need to have the word “sisters” tacked onto every ‘brother or brethren’ to feel that , a Catholic woman, am being addressed just as much as any Catholic man reading or hearing the Bible, or anything else. Quite frankly, I am sick of tired of having unnecessary words and phrases and definitions forced onto me because somebody ‘feels’ that unless ‘this word’ is used, she (or he, or it) ‘feels’ unappreciated, unaddressed, unloved, uncared for, uncatered to, etc. by Holy Mother Church. . .or should that be “Holy–but not equivalent to God/Father/Mother holy–Mother/Father (but also Mother/Mother or Father/Father) Church (not the building but we the people/male/female/other?”
 
I’d ask him for a theological opinion on the follwoing passage, and read it verbatim:

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. Satan came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” she said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
" ‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Jesus answered her, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. “All this I will give you,” she said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

Jesus said to her, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

I mean, doesn’t anyone understand how offensive it is for men to constantly hear Satan referred to in strictly masculine terms? I think it’s high time we start being completely inclusive, and start referring to the Princess of Darkness in her feminine role. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top