My priest changed Jesus words today

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theresa1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Theresa1

Guest
Hi everyone,

The priest today while reading the Gospel read Jesus words as “Come after me and I will make you fishers of men and women”.

I don’t know why I feel that some may think that’s fine but just wondering if anyone here thinks it’s wrong what he did?

Thank you all
 
Last edited:
Matthew 4

Douay-Rheims-Challoner
19 And he saith to them: Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men.
Click to expand...
NABRE
19 He said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.”
Click to expand...
NRSVCE
19 And he said to them, “Follow me, and I will make you fish for people.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In my opinion I think it would be better to explain such things afterwards .In this case, say that it was a translation issue, that ‘men’ stands for ‘humans’.

But I don’t think it was actually wrong to change the words, except for the fact it may trouble some people. . I wonder sometimes if people think Jesus spoke English and don’t realise how translations vary.
 
Theresa1 said:
The priest today while reading the Gospel read Jesus words as “Come after me and I will make you fishers of men and women”.

I don’t know why I feel that some may think that’s fine but just wondering if anyone here thinks it’s wrong what he did?
Click to expand...
He should not have done that. Obviously the Bible was not written in 21st-century English, but the translations approved for Mass are not to be changed at will by the lector or priest/deacon.

I thought this kind of nonsense had died out by now. Back in the 70s and 80s, especially if you were traveling (I got spoiled from living in a very liturgically conservative diocese), Mass at a strange parish was like Forrest Gump’s chocolates — "you never knew what you were gonna get". A couple of times I just got up and walked out.

It was especially bad in Southern dioceses — fewer Catholics, more converts, less-widespread Catholic education, perhaps the priests knew they could get by with it, without as great a likelihood of having their hand called on such shenanigans? I don’t know. I’m just happy it’s kind of calmed down now.

Yet one more reason I strongly prefer the TLM. (At this point I’m reminded of the tagline from the TV commercial — “and that’s why I - love - Nestle’s Crunch!”)
 
Last edited:
Last week at daily Mass, the retired priest skipped the consecration of the wine. I understood that it was an accident, not something he decided to change, it didn’t bother me (I just noted it and prayed for the priest). However, when a priest changes the rubrics (we have a priest in my parish who likes to say, “sisters and brothers”) they are taking away from God and making the Mass about themselves. I pray for him as well, but this changes does bother me.
 
MikeInVA said:
Last week at daily Mass, the retired priest skipped the consecration of the wine. I understood that it was an accident, not something he decided to change, it didn’t bother me (I just noted it and prayed for the priest). However, when a priest changes the rubrics (we have a priest in my parish who likes to say, “sisters and brothers”) they are taking away from God and making the Mass about themselves. I pray for him as well, but this changes does bother me.
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but if the Precious Blood was not consecrated, it wasn’t a Mass.

It’s not your fault, and if he truly forgot, it’s not really his fault either, but still, it wasn’t a Mass.
 
It was silly, unnecessary for the reason Dorothy said, and wrong of the priest to change the words of the approved Lectionary. He’s supposed to read what is there, not be tweaking it as he goes along.

However, it was not incorrect in terms of what Jesus said.
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
242297_2.png
HomeschoolDad:
I thought this kind of nonsense had died out by now.
Click to expand...
Not until the priests of that era retire.
Click to expand...
Yes, younger priests almost without exception are pretty darned orthodox.

Our generation, and the generation or two that follow us, are going to have to spend a hundred years cleaning up all that mess. CAF and its emerging online replacement forums are part of that clean-up.
 
As I understand it, if he intended to consecrate it, it is still essentially consecrated.

I’m basing this on a thread I read about a ciborium that wasn’t placed on the altar but was still valid for Communion.
 
MikeInVA said:
As I understand it, if he intended to consecrate it, it is still essentially consecrated.

I’m basing this on a thread I read about a ciborium that wasn’t placed on the altar but was still valid for Communion.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The question of “what gets consecrated” does depend upon intent — “I intend to consecrate those hosts in that ciborium, even though they’re not on the altar” is different from “I forgot to say the words of consecration”. The Precious Blood didn’t get consecrated.

What’s done is done, but I would think it behooves the priest to vest, set up the altar, and privately continue that errant Mass from the point at which the Precious Blood would have consecrated, to the end of Mass. I don’t know of there being a “time frame” by which an interrupted Mass — and that’s technically what this was — has to be resumed.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
It was silly, unnecessary for the reason Dorothy said, and wrong of the priest to change the words of the approved Lectionary. He’s supposed to read what is there, not be tweaking it as he goes along.

However, it was not incorrect in terms of what Jesus said.
Click to expand...
No, clearly Our Lord meant “men and women” — He didn’t mean “go fish for men, but don’t fish for women” — but English lacks an efficient, euphonic, neutral word for “people regardless of gender”. The French gens comes much closer.

But the priest may not make such changes on his own authority.

(Once upon a time, back in the 1980s, I had just moved to the big city from a small town where gender roles were very, very clearly defined — oh, boy, were they ever! — and I heard a coworker say “we’ve got so many pregnant people in this office!”. I stifled the urge to say “yeah, and I bet a lot of those ‘people’ are women, too!”, because country-come-to-town is expected just to defer to the city folks, after all, they’re so much smarter…)
 
The Greek for “fishers of men” is ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων. That last word (anthropon) can mean “people” irrespective of gender. It can be legitimately translated as “men and women”. So your priest didn’t change Jesus’ words but he did change what was written in the Lectionary.
 
Theresa1 said:
I will make you fishers of men and women”
Click to expand...
The priest should not have changed the approved lectionary text but, if he truly wanted to be inclusive, he should have said something like, “I will make you fishers of men and women, boys and girls, and sexual and gender minorities of all ages.” 😜
 
Last edited:
Our priest and readers frequently do this. Much prefer if they stuck to the Jerusalem Bible readings.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I thought this kind of nonsense had died out by now. Back in the 70s and 80s, especially if you were traveling (I got spoiled from living in a very liturgically conservative diocese), Mass at a strange parish was like Forrest Gump’s chocolates — " you never knew what you were gonna get".
Click to expand...
Sadly, no. I know a priest who doesn’t just change texts like this but goes a whole lot further, changing “Son of Man” to “Son of Humanity”. :scream:I used to cringe inwardly every time I heard that. 🤦‍♂️ Sadly, priests like this are still around but fortunately that sort of thing, like those who do it, is part of a bygone era. So really, it’s just something that we’ll have to put up with for a little longer.

If nothing else, “inclusifying” this particular reading ruins the very deliberate double entendre - nobody ever says “fisher person” or “fisher people”.
 
Well there are Fisher PRICE people of course.

Keep praying for the end of Father Changey McWords, though. There’s still one going strong at my old parish. And he’s in his mid 60s and pretty healthy.
 
I don’t know if it was wrong, however it was most certainly silly and confusing.
 
Same thing with all of Saint Paul’s readings from the NAB:
“Brothers and sisters” did he never write.
And our Lord:
“Who do people say I am?” did Jesus never say.

Political correctness.
Inclusiveness.
Can’t we all just get alongness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top