"More inclusive" language in prayers

[ac_claire]

“became flesh” is just wrong - Jesus was a man, as has been stated there’s no getting around this.

I’m not leaving the parish over it - I actually bring this up now because he DIDN’T do it today.

You know what’s best for you I’m sure, but I would seriously consider leaving such a parish. I’m currently wrestling with leaving a parish for similar reasons. Reason being, this kind of thing-- adding “inclusive language”-- to sacred prayers is almost always just the tip of the unorthodox iceburg. And I’ll second the advice of a previous poster that if I were you, I would NOT give any money to this pastor anymore. Just my :twocents:.

 

[ac_claire]

I guess I’ve failed to represent my point effectively. English has evolved much more than most people realize. English, like modern French and Spanish, used to have a gender for all nouns. English used to have inflection (like Japanese). Our vowels have changed considerably. The list goes on and on.
Whatever the case may be, you should know that language evolves by common usage.

Ex: Younger speakers of English noticed that the past tense of drive, is drove, and thus many speakers in certain regions have adopted an “incorrect” past tense of the word “dive”–dove. The “correct” historical past tense follows the general linguistic rule of adding a syllabic [d] (this is in IPA) to [daɪ̪v] resulting in the word **dived ([daɪ̪vd] **.

Dove is now a commonly accepted form of the past tense for American speakers of English. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dove#Verb
My point being that English evolved by common usage.

But using man/men to mean all human beings is still common usage in the United States and English speaking countries. As others have pointed out, we still say mankind, we still say man-eating shark, etc., etc. These phrases and usages have not evolved into other phrases in the popular language of the people. Those who are concerned about this don’t want to change it because of the evolution of grammar but because of political correctness.

 

[Mel_Stones]

I honestly think my priest had a bit of a wake up call during a recent workshop. He came back saying “I also gained a deeper understanding and appreciation of the tremendous importance of the Liturgy in our life as Church, and a desire to prepare and pray it ever more carefully.” (quote from our parish bulletin). And has been doing just that. I think my pointing out his changing the prayers woke him up to the habit and the fact that it shouldn’t be happening. The weekday Mass I attended this week didn’t have any ‘inclusive’ language for the first time since I started attending at that time.

You know what’s best for you I’m sure, but I would seriously consider leaving such a parish. I’m currently wrestling with leaving a parish for similar reasons. Reason being, this kind of thing-- adding “inclusive language”-- to sacred prayers is almost always just the tip of the unorthodox iceburg. And I’ll second the advice of a previous poster that if I were you, I would NOT give any money to this pastor anymore. Just my :twocents:.

In terms of liturgical abuses, my parish hardly has any. In fact the 2 or 3 that do exist seem to be happening less and less. I have a very good relationship with my priest and can talk to him about these things.

I don’t give any money to the parish now - I support with my time (lector, catechist, etc). I love my parish and doubt I can find any ‘better’.

There will always be battles such as this - better small matters that are easily resolved than blatant disobedience that requires trying to get the Bishop involved.

 

[ac_claire]

In terms of liturgical abuses, my parish hardly has any. In fact the 2 or 3 that do exist seem to be happening less and less. I have a very good relationship with my priest and can talk to him about these things.

I don’t give any money to the parish now - I support with my time (lector, catechist, etc). I love my parish and doubt I can find any ‘better’.

There will always be battles such as this - better small matters that are easily resolved than blatant disobedience that requires trying to get the Bishop involved.

Changing words in the liturgy would qualify as a “liturgical abuse” and as “blatant disobedience”…But I’m very glad to hear that your priest seems to have changed course on this.

 

[JimG]

Our language has not evolved in recent decades, it has been manipulated by academics, publishers, and the political correctness gangs of thugs who have forced their own notions of what language should be upon the rest of our English-speaking society.

I agree with Fr. David that the language has not so much evolved as been manipulated. I well recall when working for the bureaucracy the attempts to change the way we wrote and spoke. And there is not really any satisfactory substitute for the generic “man” in the language. John Donne in his poem said “no man is an island,” but he didn’t intend to exclude women. You couldn’t change the poem without hopelessly messing up the meter!

 

[musicality]

I agree with Fr. David that the language has not so much evolved as been manipulated. I well recall when working for the bureaucracy the attempts to change the way we wrote and spoke. And there is not really any satisfactory substitute for the generic “man” in the language. John Donne in his poem said “no man is an island,” but he didn’t intend to exclude women. You couldn’t change the poem without hopelessly messing up the meter!

That was also originally written in English…
Don’t forget that we’re translating!

 

[benedictgal]

That was also originally written in English…
Don’t forget that we’re translating!

Perhaps you might want to read this document:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

Liturgiam Authenticam is the document that ICEL used (in fact, it came as a result of some of the faulty translations that ICEL did in the first place) to get the job done right this time.

 

[musicality]

Perhaps you might want to read this document:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

Liturgiam Authenticam is the document that ICEL used (in fact, it came as a result of some of the faulty translations that ICEL did in the first place) to get the job done right this time.

Thanks for the info!
I suppose that this would be the most relevant selection from the document:

1. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

Although I personally do not believe that the presented modification of the Creed would change the meaning, I do not believe that a change is necessary. Furthermore, the change I presented would most likely go against the ruling in the selection above, at this particular time. Perhaps, in the future, there would be need for a change in wording, but that time is not in the foreseeable future, and therefore, I would have to agree with benedictgal.

 

[Mel_Stones]

But the English language has not “evolved” when it comes to political-correctness. Using the word “evolved” connotes a natural process of gradual change of a language. People speaking a language change the way they speak it. That is not what we have experienced. Our language has not evolved in recent decades, it has been manipulated by academics, publishers, and the political correctness gangs of thugs who have forced their own notions of what language should be upon the rest of our English-speaking society.

The change from thee and thou to you is an example of language evolving; but political correctness “gender neutrality” is not an example of evolution but genetic manipulation. There is quite a difference.

Perhaps you might want to read this document:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html

Liturgiam Authenticam is the document that ICEL used (in fact, it came as a result of some of the faulty translations that ICEL did in the first place) to get the job done right this time.

I agree whole heartedly - no change needed and it would be wrong change it anyway.

 

[pickguard1]

I just want to point out that using the phrase “and became flesh” as opposed to “man” is probably a more accurate literal translation of the original Latin which is "et incarnatus est. The root of “incarnatus” is the Latin word for flesh.

That being said, it is the duty of the Priest (through his promise or vow of obedience) to follow the justly established rubrics and guidelines, which includes the approved translations. So, until the translation is changed to say “flesh”, he should use the word “man.”

As benedictgal posted, the new English translation of the Nicene Creed will render the Latin directly and use the English equivalent “incarnate.” Hopefully this will wipe out tampering of this kind.

 

[japhy]

I just want to point out that using the phrase “and became flesh” as opposed to “man” is probably a more accurate literal translation of the original Latin which is "et incarnatus est. The root of “incarnatus” is the Latin word for flesh.

You’re confusing parts of the Nicene Creed. The Latin text is:Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.The current English translation of that is:By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.Currently, incarnatus est is mistranslated as “was born”. The phrase “was born” would be natus est (as it appears in the Apostles’ Creed); homo factus est is translated well as “became man”, although you could argue for “was made man” instead.

The new translation reads:by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.This properly translated incarnatus est as “was incarnate”, which means “was made flesh”.

 

[pickguard1]

You’re confusing parts of the Nicene Creed. The Latin text is:
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
The current English translation of that is:
By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
Currently, incarnatus is mistranslated as “born”. The word “born” would be natus (as it appears in the Apostles’ Creed); homo factus est is translated well as “became man”, although you could argue for “was made man” instead.

The new translation reads:
by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
This properly translated incarnatus as “incarnate”, which means “made flesh”.

Oops:blush: Thanks for the correction Japhy! I humbly apologize for the goof.

I think I confused it with the feast fo the Incarnation, where Christ’s taking on “human flesh” as it were, is celebrated.

I think the issue is that, yes, there are many words in English that can be used somewhat interchangeably today to translate the original texts. “humankind” could be substituded for “man” in many, but not all instances, for example. However, if there is a premium on obedience (which I think there is) I agree with other posters here that willy-nilly substitution of vocabulary does a disservice to the idea that the Church has authority over such things.

Even if the translation is bad, as the current English arguably is in many places, it is still the approved translation until legitimately changed. A prime example that comes to mind is the “pro multis/for all” translation in the consecration of the wine. While a priest in the Ordinary Form may want to be faithful to the original Latin and, of his own volition use the words “for many,” which is the correct translation of the word multis, until it is formally adopted in the new translation, doing so is an act of disobedience (of what gravity I’m not sure) but disobedience nonetheless.

 

[Mel_Stones]

Even if the translation is bad, as the current English arguably is in many places, it is still the approved translation until legitimately changed. A prime example that comes to mind is the “pro multis/for all” translation in the consecration of the wine. While a priest in the Ordinary Form may want to be faithful to the original Latin and, of his own volition use the words “for many,” which is the correct translation of the word multis, until it is formally adopted in the new translation, doing so is an act of disobedience (of what gravity I’m not sure) but disobedience nonetheless.

That would be disobedience to the point of making the Mass invalid. Many things can make a Mass illicit and valid, but few can make a Mass illicit and invalid. Changing the words of consecration is one of the few.

 

[pickguard1]

That would be disobedience to the point of making the Mass invalid. Many things can make a Mass illicit and valid, but few can make a Mass illicit and invalid. Changing the words of consecration is one of the few.

I don’t think the “many/all” change would make it invalid, as long as the words “this is my blood” are there and the proper intent is there - I would agree that the gravity would probably be high since it affects the central point of the Mass - but that’s for a topic on another thread - which I’m sure has been covered extensively.