Modernizing the Hail Mary

  • Thread starter Thread starter mullenpm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Should I compare thee to a…?😃 Blessed art thou amongst women.

Modern English needs a second person singular so why not revive the old, thou, thee, thy thine- but let’s not use the old delclinations: have, hast, hath, that really is over the top.🙂
 
ihm1993 said:
Oh i definately agree. These modern “catholics” think that they can make prayer apeal to more people by changing everything. I think its discusting and offensive to true Catholics as well as to the Blessed virgin who deserves to be spoken to like the Queen that She is.
Click to expand...
How would you address the pope???

Catholics speak the language of the era not some archaic one. I don’t think God would be more impressed with my prayer if I used Old Norse instead of Swedish for example, it would sound very amusing though ,.😛
 
Somewhere on this thread a poster made a comment about the Douay-Rheims Bible using inclusive language.

I can’t find the post so please help me here. 😊 I was just about to purchase a pocket sized Douay-Rheims Bible when I read this comment. I do not want a bible that used inclusive language.

Does anyone know anything about this or will that poser explain his/her comment to me. Thanks.🤷
 
mullenpm said:
Somewhere on this thread a poster made a comment about the Douay-Rheims Bible using inclusive language.

I can’t find the post so please help me here. 😊 I was just about to purchase a pocket sized Douay-Rheims Bible when I read this comment. I do not want a bible that used inclusive language.

Does anyone know anything about this or will that poser explain his/her comment to me. Thanks.🤷
Click to expand...
Why don’t you want a bible that uses inclusive language? :confused:
 
Hee hee, what does ‘inclusive’ mean in the context of prayer, anyway? My impression is it’s one of those social-engineering, politically-correct buzz-words cluttering up our language today.

The Douay-Rheims Bible is a good thing to have in itself. It’s how you’d expect a bible to read if you only knew about Catholicism from Hollywood movies; fine sonorous language and the commentaries are informative.

Some of the English is a bit opaque. This is made up for by it’s ‘poetry’, for want of a better word.

It’s also a nice thing to own. A real piece of Catholic history.
 
Layman, what is the point to cluttering up a thread with a posting that is designed to confuse.

I do not want a bible with inclusive language anymore than I want to hear Marian Priests say you and your in the Hail Mary.

Is that not my right without being treated to sacrasm and ridicule.

I would appreciate it if the poster who made that comment would answer me - do it with an email.
 
Errr… actually I was agreeing with you. I was not being sarcastic. I was trying to convey that I found that word, inclusive, funny, in the context of our religion, not you or your use of it.

The Douay-Rheims is a good buy. The pocket edition has small type, so if your sight is bad, maybe have a look at a copy in a shop before purchasing. I have one myself.

If I understand that word in its modern use correctly, the Douay-Rheims is not inclusive. As I say, I don’t know how that word, in it’s modern meaning, can be used in relation to a Bible anyway.

Just a general comment, not aimed at you.

PS: Google doesn’t seem to think there’s a reference to inclusive plus the D.R. Bible in this thread, apart from ours. Just an occasional mention of the word ‘inclusive’ (you’ll have to search for it on the pages found):

google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Aforums.catholic-questions.org+inclusive+hail+mary
 
Layman, I am sorry I got prickly at your post; I am definitely interested in a small Bible. I don’t want to throw my own thread off track, but here I go.:o

On EWTN recently a re-broadcast of Mother Angelica Classics, she mentioned that she would not buy the new version of the Jerusalem Bible because she considered the “inclusive” language to be heretical.😦

I understand that a “feminist” group sued to have the wording in the new Bibles to be “inclusive” - I take that to mean - no gender.

I will keep looking. Sorry again.😊
 
That’s ok. No offense taken 🙂

I was looking for a bible for my Godson years ago. I ended up buying a King James (wrong, I now know) as modern ones had very bland language.

I didn’t know about the D. R. bible then. He’s getting that for his First Communion!
 
atassina said:
I will repeat my question. Perhaps if you answered it we could make deeper progress into the central issue here. Does thee, thine, and thou sharpen your faith or dull it? Thanks, Anthony
Click to expand...
As others have said, thee and thou vs. you is a matter of formal and timeless vs. informal and timely. It’s not a matter of faith, but of tradition and liturgy.

Catholics are sacramental people. We see that there is power in liturgy and tradition to shape and color our spiritual lives. Especially the Hail Mary…come on, that prayer is part of the fabric of our very beings as Catholics. If the wording is so unimportant as you are suggesting, then why change it? CS Lewis also had some things to say about progress for the sake of progress. (Hint: it’s not good)
 
atassina said:
I am still waiting for someone to establish an rational, non-emotional, basis for using thee and thy or thine in any modern prayer. Will somebody get to it please.
Thanks,
Anthony
Click to expand...
In a way I think it’s a shame we have lost thee and thy as they did distinguish it as a singular you or your.

Sorry if that’s been said already, and it’s only a minor point (English changes, it’s never been a fixed language and is perhaps one of the most volatile and mercurial of all languages).
 
Personally, I think it’s another sign of the modernism rampant in today’s society…“we” know better than the previous centuries of tradition. I prefer “thee and thou” to the banal “you”. (with that said, I also get annoyed with the tendency in the medical field in the US to “change” everything to “Americanized version”…EKG’s are now ECG).
 
mullenpm said:
Somewhere on this thread a poster made a comment about the Douay-Rheims Bible using inclusive language.

I can’t find the post so please help me here. 😊 I was just about to purchase a pocket sized Douay-Rheims Bible when I read this comment. I do not want a bible that used inclusive language.

Does anyone know anything about this or will that poser explain his/her comment to me. Thanks.🤷
Click to expand...
The Douay-Rheims version is the traditional English-language translation that was used in pre-conciliar days. It is the one you will generally hear used for the readings at the EF, and is the version normally used in the various editions of the pre-conciliar Latin-English missals. It’s often considered to be the Catholic equivalent of the KJV, and employs traditional English grammar.
 
Dear mullenpm:
I don’t think inclusive language was a concept at the time of the translation of the Douay-Reims
lh_flower01

Let’s all get a good night’s sleep
 
Actually, Atassina, I believe the inclusive language concerns are with NEW EDITIONS of Catholic bibles.😦

On a recent re-broadcast of Mother Angelica’s program and her objection to the NEW Jerusalem Bible she said she would not buy that edition; she considered the inclusive language to be heretical; the date of the original broadcast was in the 1990s.

But, this thread is not about inclusive language. Perhaps I will start a new thread and we can learn if this should be a concern.🤷
 
But, I do want to thank molphono and Layman for their (name removed by moderator)ut on my concern about the Douay-Rheims Bible.
 
I started this thread because I object to changing the wording of the prayer “The Hail Mary” from the traditional “thy and thou” to the common “you and your”.

It is difficult to explain how that just jars my senses when I hear priests use the common wording.

But I was curious about another topic - inclusive language - and I googled it to learn the reasoning behind it.

I learned much and will follow the lead of the Vatican when it comes to this concern but on one web site I read an article by David Bennett on this topic.

Almost at the end of the article he says this:

“Perhaps my mixed opinion of inclusive language is that I perceive an inherent cultural egotism in much of it. I get uncomfortable when our worship is amended because of the trends of an era. In this respect, I think changing the old hymns is a very bad idea. The arrogance of changing ancient texts and hymns saddens me. We must understand the writers lived in a different era than we do, and it is troubling to me to force modernism on every era before us. Perhaps future post-post-postmodern people will amend our writings because we are not “enlightened” as they are. The obsessive desire to “correct” every writing, thought, or idea that doesn’t meet modern standards of political correctness is arrogant.”

This paragraph by David Bennett explains my feeling precisely as to why I dislike the you and your of some current versions of the Hail Mary as said by Marian priests on television. Thank you David.:angel1:

:harp:
 
Mother Marys little children sure can find things to fuss about it seems;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top