J
John_of_Woking
Guest
Actually you are wrong. It is not dominated by males but proud feminists who demythologise Church doctrine and vote for abortion
- Status
P
patg
Guest
John of Woking:
Who makes the rules? How many women are part of the magesterium?
Who sets the doctrine? How many women are part of the magesterium?
Who has the power? How many women are bishops or popes?
Who has the money? How many women are part of the hierarchy?
Let us summarize - who has made all the rules, held all the power, and controlled all the money for 2000 years?
Not the women… And if we let them say God instead of Father a few times it will be the end of life as we know it. It’s interesting that the Church may be protected from the “gates of hell” but not from women…
Oh really…
Who makes the rules? How many women are part of the magesterium?
Who sets the doctrine? How many women are part of the magesterium?
Who has the power? How many women are bishops or popes?
Who has the money? How many women are part of the hierarchy?
Let us summarize - who has made all the rules, held all the power, and controlled all the money for 2000 years?
Not the women… And if we let them say God instead of Father a few times it will be the end of life as we know it. It’s interesting that the Church may be protected from the “gates of hell” but not from women…
J
John_Higgins
Guest
I have no problem with it, as long as it’s not clumsy. For instance, “For us men and our salvation…” could/sholud be properly interpreted “For us and our salvation…”
John
John
E
Edwin1961
Guest
I don’t know if the quote in the Book of Revelation refers only to that book or the whole Bible, but there is a curse in there for adding or subtracting for ‘this book’. IMO the curse comes at the end of the Bible so I would think it includes the whole BIble.
Language, obviously, does change through time…I have no problem with it, BUT if the revisions take away from the true interpetation, then we have a problem here!
For example, isn’t Psalm 1 about Christ? as the man described as in ‘blessed is the man who…’
In some bibles it says, ‘blessed are those who…’ If Christ is forshadowed even in the Psalms and He is taken out, then what’s to say that other passages, with underlying meanings about Christ, be taken out and changed too.
I’d go with the RSV-CE, it’s approved by the Church.
Go with God!
Edwin
Language, obviously, does change through time…I have no problem with it, BUT if the revisions take away from the true interpetation, then we have a problem here!
For example, isn’t Psalm 1 about Christ? as the man described as in ‘blessed is the man who…’
In some bibles it says, ‘blessed are those who…’ If Christ is forshadowed even in the Psalms and He is taken out, then what’s to say that other passages, with underlying meanings about Christ, be taken out and changed too.
I’d go with the RSV-CE, it’s approved by the Church.
Go with God!
Edwin
M
mfundis
Guest
I find it interesting that these arguments all boil down to who has “power”. Is your argument is that things must be changed solely because men have been in “power”? A couple of thought come to mind, if that’s the case… Since we know that the gates of hell won’t prevail against the church- what makes some people so sure that the magesterium keeping radical feminizism at bay is a problem. Perhaps the church needs to be protected from those who’s ecclesial views are based on who is in “power” and who “makes the rules”. It’s my understanding that the Holy Spirit “makes the rules” through the church (the pillar and stalwart of truth). If the Holy Spirit deems it fit that the church has run the way she has for 2000 years, who are the feminists to complain? Could it be that those who want to make the church into a democracy are raising man (wo/man) to the place of God by second guessing His church?
On a more secular level, just because men make rules- doesn’t mean those rules are bad. The constitution and the declaration of independence were written by men- yet few forms of government have been as successful as the u.s. government- even with all of its faults.
As for the importance of language, I think we can all agree that language is extraodinarily powerful. With that in mind- one must look to the underlying reasons for a push to inclusive language. It’s the first step in the re-education of the sheeple, isn’t it. Just as in Orwell’s 1984, if “newspeak” is spoken long enough- the sheeple will be brainwashed into big brother’s ideology…
C
catsrus
Guest
Because I attended RCIA and was confirmed in a “liberal” parish, I learned;
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
I did not know, until it was pointed out to me by a fellow parishoner, that the word is His. The parishoner explained to me that the word was changed to be “more inclusive”. I now attend a more traditional parish where the prayer is offered using His.
Is this change allowable? As I grew in my faith, I saw and heard other practices that did not seem correct to me but being a newbie did not wish to address. I certainly feel more comfortable attending where I am now.
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
I did not know, until it was pointed out to me by a fellow parishoner, that the word is His. The parishoner explained to me that the word was changed to be “more inclusive”. I now attend a more traditional parish where the prayer is offered using His.
Is this change allowable? As I grew in my faith, I saw and heard other practices that did not seem correct to me but being a newbie did not wish to address. I certainly feel more comfortable attending where I am now.
T
tgdanne
Guest
Of course it’s not allowed, but there seem to be many priests who believe that they can change the words of the mass at their discretion. However, note what the Second Vatican Council said in the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy:
See Liturgical Laws - Why They Matter
S
Sweetcakes
Guest
I’m fine with it and I think there are more important things to be concerned with–you know, war, poverty, injustice and so on.
S
Stu
Guest
As my father once told me, “Take care of the small things and the big things will take care of themselves.” Through obedience to Him in ALL facets (such as not tinkering with the Liturgy and the Churchs teaching), we will see the things you mentioned lessen or go away. We can’t fight the battles you mentioned alone and the best way to get His help is to respect Him and the teachings of His Church no matter how small they may seem. He will be pleased and as usual do all of the “heavy lifiting.”
D
dalcent
Guest
“We believe a Christians should live for the glory of God and the well-being of his fellowmen others, that his their conduct should be blameless before the world; that he they should be a faithful stewards of his their possessions; and that he they should seek to realize for himself themselves and others the full stature of maturity in Christ.”
Contemporary English the world over has changed. It is no longer a feature of the English language to exclude women when refering to people of both sexes as “men” “he” and “him”.
Racist language has gone the same way too. I have an old 1936 Olympic Games video. As the runners approach the final bend: Smith is in first place, Moore in second and some “negro is looking dangerous”. He doesn’t even get named!
Come on, don’t be a dinosaur! These changes from racist and sexist language have already happened across the world.
It is the job of those who prepare Bible translations and the liturgy to translate into modern English as it is spoken TODAY, not English as it was spoken in a bygone age. (Nor merely to transliterate a dead langauge as in an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: that’s not “translation”, its a study tool).
Is there anyone here who would speak to a room full of men and women by saying “Hello Men”. It’s simply ridiculous.
When the Bible refers to God the Father, or Mary, of course there is no reason to neuter their gender. But with the generic “he”, “him” and “men”, “mankind”, modern English now selects inclusive words. English is a living, developing language, not a fossil.
Dalcent
Contemporary English the world over has changed. It is no longer a feature of the English language to exclude women when refering to people of both sexes as “men” “he” and “him”.
Racist language has gone the same way too. I have an old 1936 Olympic Games video. As the runners approach the final bend: Smith is in first place, Moore in second and some “negro is looking dangerous”. He doesn’t even get named!
Come on, don’t be a dinosaur! These changes from racist and sexist language have already happened across the world.
It is the job of those who prepare Bible translations and the liturgy to translate into modern English as it is spoken TODAY, not English as it was spoken in a bygone age. (Nor merely to transliterate a dead langauge as in an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament: that’s not “translation”, its a study tool).
Is there anyone here who would speak to a room full of men and women by saying “Hello Men”. It’s simply ridiculous.
When the Bible refers to God the Father, or Mary, of course there is no reason to neuter their gender. But with the generic “he”, “him” and “men”, “mankind”, modern English now selects inclusive words. English is a living, developing language, not a fossil.
Dalcent
S
Stu
Guest
dalcent said:
The problem is that the changes that you are talking about are used to push even more changes that do have an agenda (i.e., creator, redeeemer,sanctifier); changes which by your post I believe you too are against. Unfortunately to those pushing such drastic measures you too are a dinosaur. Welcome to the club. Let’s leave scripture alone and not try to change it for us. Rather, let us change ourselves and understanding of scripture for God.
P
patg
Guest
No, things should change because it is ridiculous to assume that half the church membership is unsuited to leading us to God.
I see you are resorting to radical tactics also – assuming that any increased involvement of women in the church is “radical feminism” and anyone who points out the inequity is a “feminist” rather than just saying women should be recognized as having equal access to God. I guess equal pay for equal work was “radical feminism” also? Funny you should use the Holy Spirit in your example of the guide for the church – you do realize that the Holy Spirit was the feminine embodiment of God in the early church (you know, father, mother, son – a real trinity)? This concept was quietly discarded, of course, as the worldly hierarchy of the Church was built into the power structure it has today.
It doesn’t mean they couldn’t be better either. Finding an example of how excluding women produced something that has worked out pretty well may be only pointing out the exception, you know.
Wow, you are really into end-of-the-world, gloom and doom scare tactics! That is very powerful language! Sure, there are radical feminists who should be ignored just as there are radical adherents to every cause. Accepting that women have something to offer and that their (name removed by moderator)ut can be valuable at even the highest levels is really very natural (you know, like “natural” family planning…)
C
cecelia
Guest
I don’t think that inclusive language is necessary, and who says that half of mankind is being ignored? I never understood that argument. God made both man and woman, and the human race is referred to as “mankind.” Women are not being ignored. Inclusive language is based on an assumption that there should be no differences between men and women. Any difference is presumed to be a indictment against women who, radical feminist believe, were deliberately placed in an inferior position by God Himself. So the goal of radical feminism is to squelch all differences, and of course, as with everything else, the squelching starts with the manipulation of language. Inclusive language is the instrument by which this perceived mistake on God’s part gets rectified by the radical feminists. What’s really dangerous about inclusive language taken to the extreme is that it negates hierarchy and renders everything seamless, no differences, no distinction, no innate roles, and then as such because there are no innate differences between men and women, we are free to change our roles at will. We become cultural constructs if you will. I don’t like inclusive language. It’s another tool of Satan to destroy the God-given roles of men and women under the specious guise of “equality.” But this equality is not a recognition of our living out our roles as men and women in the way that God intended. Instead, this erstatz “equality” is one based on the eradication of complementarity and the pushing of fluid, indistinguishable gender roles.
S
Stu
Guest
No assumption like that has been made. Rather it is recognition of differing roles and different types of leadership based on those roles. Women do in fact lead but not in the open leadership roles within the Church and the Church language reflects this distinction as the Lord wanted it. Equal in spirit and dignity, but not equal in strengths. That is why man and woman complement each other. It’s when we abandon our God given roles that things start to break down. (See Genesis, Fall of Man). But I guess the grass is always greener.
7
777
Guest
I say the inclusive, whatever it is SHOULD be included–it avoids confusion when it comes to gender desinations and such The church is changing a lot, we should change with the times. i mean, it would sound stupid for a woman to say in her prayers, “For us men and for our salvation…” Get the picture?
7
777
Guest
What does gender have to do with politics?
S
Stu
Guest
Yes. Actually here are a few showing the final goal.
http://www.womensordination.org/resources/gallery/9lg.jpg
http://www.womensordination.org/resources/gallery/07lg.jpg
http://www.womensordination.org/resources/gallery/08lg.jpg
K
katherine2
Guest
Is it? I think you have the crux of the matter. It is not a matter of theology or religion. We should look at what the common and standard use of English is. I am sure with computers, a review of writing could be done rather economically. If in most writing and speech people now use inclusive language, then that is the way English speaking people now speak and the liturgy can reflect that.
P
PeterK
Guest
Inclusive language is a broad category.
Are you talking Bible translation, the entire liturgy, parts of the liturgy, supression of all masculine forms,???
For example with some occurances in scripture, I might tolerate the term ‘human’ as a substitution for ‘man’ when the context is dealing with all of humanity. It may be a clearer expression of the ancient content.
However, following are examples of what I am definately** NOT** in favor of…
“Our ‘Parent’ who art in heaven…”
or
“Our ‘Custodian’ who art in heaven…”
or even
“Our ‘God’ who art in heaven…”
You get my point. The ‘meaning’ of the verse is drastically altered in these examples. The idea of ‘family’ evaporates with the exclusion of the word ‘Father.’
Also, I see much of this discussion as fall out from the ‘politically-correct speech’ frenzy. Yeah, it’s a fad.
So I don’t believe it’s a very black and white question.
pk
Are you talking Bible translation, the entire liturgy, parts of the liturgy, supression of all masculine forms,???
For example with some occurances in scripture, I might tolerate the term ‘human’ as a substitution for ‘man’ when the context is dealing with all of humanity. It may be a clearer expression of the ancient content.
However, following are examples of what I am definately** NOT** in favor of…
“Our ‘Parent’ who art in heaven…”
or
“Our ‘Custodian’ who art in heaven…”
or even
“Our ‘God’ who art in heaven…”
You get my point. The ‘meaning’ of the verse is drastically altered in these examples. The idea of ‘family’ evaporates with the exclusion of the word ‘Father.’
Also, I see much of this discussion as fall out from the ‘politically-correct speech’ frenzy. Yeah, it’s a fad.
So I don’t believe it’s a very black and white question.
pk
V
Voice_Of_Reason
Guest
Australian ‘priest’ refused to baptize “In The Name of The Father, The Son, and Holy Spirit.” Thus, hundreds of baptisms are invalid. See where liberalism and feminism is taking us?
- Status