My priest changed Jesus words today

[Anesti33]

I was once a member of a community that had pervasively changed the liturgy to “inclusive language” no matter the context.

“For us and for our salvation” was the tip of the iceberg. They changed the Gloria, the readings, everything. One time I asked if I could recite the “Our Parent” and the staff was rather curt with me. Well, gee, take it to the logical conclusion!

 

[Gorgias]

Whatever “cooties” got into priestly formation and the priesthood in general from the period roughly from 1958 to 1998

I don’t know that I’d say that it ran through 1998, at least not in general. The 70s and 80s were kinda sketchy, though, in terms of things men were being taught in seminary, the way I hear it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Whatever “cooties” got into priestly formation and the priesthood in general from the period roughly from 1958 to 1998

I don’t know that I’d say that it ran through 1998, at least not in general. The 70s and 80s were kinda sketchy, though, in terms of things men were being taught in seminary, the way I hear it.

My 1958-1998 figure was just a “ballpark”. Putting the most charitable spin on it possible, there was a common conception that John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council were going to “make all things new”, people got their hopes up, and that included seminarians and their professors. There was an expectation that priestly celibacy would eventually be done away with, and that “the Pill” would be judged an acceptable “natural” form of birth control — if I’m not mistaken, Dr John Rock’s original intent was to find a way to achieve natural results via a pharmaceutical regime, if that makes any sense. Humanae vitae left these people crestfallen. Also, Catholics didn’t want to be “ghettoized” anymore, at least in the United States, they wanted to be more like the Protestants they lived among — it’s very true that every American is culturally a Protestant, or at least that’s the way it’s been up until fairly recent times. In short, the Church didn’t change the way people hoped it would, but the priests and seminarians got their hopes up, and many have continued to act accordingly. Taking liberties with liturgical texts and rubrics has been just a part of that.

In the meantime, the growth of the Traditional Latin Mass, and even the “reform of the reform” among those who prefer the newer liturgy, continues apace. TLM seminaries are packed. Can the “regular” diocesan ones say that?

 

[TwoNames]

I speak Croatian and we say “čovjek” which literally means man. But the way this word is used, for example: “kad čovjek želi na more”

Cool!
I speak Slovenian. Over here it’s ČLOVEK.
“Kadar človek želi na morje”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Rozellelily:

I speak Croatian and we say “čovjek” which literally means man. But the way this word is used, for example: “kad čovjek želi na more”

Cool!
I speak Slovenian. Over here it’s ČLOVEK.
“Kadar človek želi na morje”

The Polish word is “człowiek” (chwo-vyek) and it means the exact same thing. Slavic languages are not really mutually intelligible (except for Czech and Slovak), but if you know one, you can figure out a lot of what is being said in any other. I find myself being pretty much able to “hack through” Slovenian or Serbo-Croatian when the occasion arises. There are exceptions.

 

[dochawk]

Slavic languages are not really mutually intelligible (except for Czech and Slovak),

church slavonic was “distilled” by SS C&M for the purpose of being intelligible to the various slavic tongues. I think that it’s old Bulgarian to which it is closest, but don’t hold me to that.

 

[Reverent_Howler]

Apparently there are other “naughty/scary” words in Scripture like submissive and destroy which must somehow be moderated for the sake of sensitive ears it seems. Hence, wives are to be subordinate to their husbands, and Sodom and Gomorrah were dissolved. The angels are to do no damage to the land and sea until…

 

[Uliana988]

I love all mustelids! That’s an interesting story. Is it accessible online? I’m picturing a carpet of fishers running toward the helicopter , but I’m sure it didn’t happen that way.

 

[Uliana988]

Boo! I just looked up the story. It was humans. It would have been much better if it were wild fuzzy woozels.

 

[dochawk]

Hence, wives are to be subordinate to their husbands,

in fairness, when I’ve seen linguistic breakdowns from people that actually know the language, in modern english “subordinate” may well be a better translation.

The gist was to the effect that the wive was to place herself under (sub) the husband’s duties/mission/role/direction thereof. (a naval executive officer might be a good example).

I forget which church I was in, but I recall being bewildered that beyond changing the name of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”, the word “thunder” was apparently to violent and replaced . . .

 

[neophyte]

Last week at daily Mass, the retired priest skipped the consecration of the wine.

I’m pretty sure that invalidated the sacrament. HUGE deal!

 

[neophyte]

Greek actually does have the distinction between “humans” and “males,” and the word used there is the general one … so while I wouldn’t go so far as to translate it as “men and women,” “men” in the sense of male humans is also not what Jesus said…

It’s also not what “I will make you fishers of men” means in English either.

Yet, this is the Bible we’re talking about. So, since we believe it’s divinely inspired, we’d say that the words that are in the Bible are what God wanted to share with us. So, if it’s “anthropon” (that is, “humans”) in the Gospel, then that’s what God wanted to be expressed.

In English, it’s expressed as “I will make you fishers of men”.

 

[Gorgias]

In English, it’s expressed as “I will make you fishers of men”.

In days gone by, “men” would be used to express the idea “humans” (or “people”). These days – rightly or wrongly – it’s seen as being a somewhat inappropriate usage. So, “people” gets used where “men” would have been used 100 years ago.

So, I wouldn’t be too hasty to assert that “men” is standard English usage here. In the past? Sure. In present-day English usage? Hmm…

 

[Gorgias]

My 1958-1998 figure was just a “ballpark”. Putting the most charitable spin on it possible, there was a common conception that John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council were going to “make all things new”

Right. But, as you mention, the documents of 2VC and Humanae vitae put the end to those expectations, if you read them in their context and at face value (without adding in a healthy dollop of “the spirit of the council” to color your reading). Nevertheless, the formation that was found in seminaries in the 70s and the 80s often shaded things in ways that were in discontinuity with the council. So, we can’t really blame 2VC for these ideas.

In the meantime, the growth of the Traditional Latin Mass, and even the “reform of the reform” among those who prefer the newer liturgy, continues apace. TLM seminaries are packed. Can the “regular” diocesan ones say that?

That’s an interesting dynamic that you raise. On one hand, “no ghettoization”; but on the other hand, “let’s build fences to keep others out.” Umm… no conflict, there?

The Polish word is “człowiek” (chwo-vyek) and it means the exact same thing. Slavic languages are not really mutually intelligible (except for Czech and Slovak)

Meh. I’m calling ‘bollocks’ on that claim. A native speaker of any Slavic language might want to claim that the others are unintelligible, but they understand nevertheless.

Anyone who says that čovjek (chov-yek), človek (chlov-ek), człowiek (chwov-yek), and even человек (che-lo-viek) is “not really mutually intelligible” is making a statement that is more political or nationalistic than it is linguistically reasonable.

The languages differ in orthography (Latin or Cyrillic), grammar (western or eastern, generally speaking), and provenance (historical as opposed to recent ‘creation’), but they’re not – so to speak – “as far as the east from the west”.

 

[Dovekin]

In English, it’s expressed as “I will make you fishers of men”.

And therein lies the problem.

English is not adequate for translating the Greek.

Long before a generation of priests disappears, another translation will appear and be approved, while discussions of the translation will continue.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

My 1958-1998 figure was just a “ballpark”. Putting the most charitable spin on it possible, there was a common conception that John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council were going to “make all things new”

Right. But, as you mention, the documents of 2VC and Humanae vitae put the end to those expectations, if you read them in their context and at face value (without adding in a healthy dollop of “the spirit of the council” to color your reading). Nevertheless, the formation that was found in seminaries in the 70s and the 80s often shaded things in ways that were in discontinuity with the council. So, we can’t really blame 2VC for these ideas.

It was a case of dashed expectations. Keep in mind (and I’m sure you’ve already thought of this, I know you are a very astute commentator) what the larger secular society was like during this time. Everything, and I do mean everything, was being challenged and the “change agents” were working overtime, much as they do right now. To look at the United States in 1958 and then again in 1968, you’d hardly know you were looking at the same country. The litmus test of pretty much everything from that period from around 1966 to 1980 (again, ballparking here) was “is it new? is it modern? is it ‘up with the times’?”. In those days, to accuse someone of being “behind the times” was about the rankest insult you could bestow upon anyone. In this environment, many people in the Church were just itching, just chomping at the bit, to remake Catholicism from top to bottom. When this didn’t happen to their liking, they did not have a good reaction, much less a docile one.

HomeschoolDad:

In the meantime, the growth of the Traditional Latin Mass, and even the “reform of the reform” among those who prefer the newer liturgy, continues apace. TLM seminaries are packed. Can the “regular” diocesan ones say that?

That’s an interesting dynamic that you raise. On one hand, “no ghettoization”; but on the other hand, “let’s build fences to keep others out.” Umm… no conflict, there?

There are no “fences” around the TLM community, nor of the “reform of the reform” advocates of the newer liturgy. Nobody is excluded. It’s there for anyone who wants to partake of it. I’ve never seen a person turned away yet. (Even modes of dress that are not universally regarded as acceptable, in practice don’t get a person barred from entering.)

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

The Polish word is “człowiek” (chwo-vyek) and it means the exact same thing. Slavic languages are not really mutually intelligible (except for Czech and Slovak)

Meh. I’m calling ‘bollocks’ on that claim. A native speaker of any Slavic language might want to claim that the others are unintelligible, but they understand nevertheless.

Anyone who says that čovjek (chov-yek), človek (chlov-ek), człowiek (chwov-yek), and even человек (che-lo-viek) is “not really mutually intelligible” is making a statement that is more political or nationalistic than it is linguistically reasonable.

I have found that, in practice, they don’t understand one another. They would recognize words and that’s about it. My wife told me she really couldn’t understand Ukrainian or Czech (native Polish speaker and had studied Russian, as was compulsory at that time). Even within English, comprehension is sometimes difficult. I had to watch both The Full Monty (Leeds/Sheffield) and O Brother, Where Art Thou? (1930s Mississippi) with subtitles, and it is difficult for me to understand the more profound, if that’s the word, speakers of Appalachian English and AAVE (African-American Vernacular English). I’ve found myself having to ask speakers of both to repeat themselves, something that is not always well-received.

Mutual intelligibility is a sticky wicket. An English speaker will understand when a Dutchman says “mijn hand is in warm water” -– “mijn” sounds almost exactly like “my” — but that is a different critter from placing that English speaker in front of a TV set and turning on an episode of Gooische Vrouwen (NL’s equivalent of Desperate Housewives).

 

[Gorgias]

My wife told me she really couldn’t understand Ukrainian or Czech (native Polish speaker and had studied Russian, as was compulsory at that time).

I’m still not buying it. It smacks of politics. A native speaker of Polish who had studied Russian grammar, and who says “I don’t understand Ukrainian” is making a fairly incomprehensible statement. Now, if she said “I can’t read it”, then I’d get it. I still have a hard time reading Polish, even though it makes sense when I hear it. And I’m a native speaker of English. So… I dunno. I’m not buying it.

There are no “fences” around the TLM community, nor of the “reform of the reform” advocates of the newer liturgy. Nobody is excluded. It’s there for anyone who wants to partake of it.

Sure. But still, it meets the criterion of a “ghettoized” community which you said that Catholics didn’t want.

 

[PeterT]

I still do not know if it is fine to stand during communion.

It can be.

It’s up to the Bishop of your Diocese to decide whether to stand or not during Holy Communion. And it varies between diocese to diocese. In my diocese, the former bishop wanted everyone to remain standing until the last individual received Holy communion. At the neighboring archdiocese, the archbishop wants people to keel (if they’re physically able) after receiving Holy Communion. Both the bishop and the archbishop are correct. It’s their decision to make, not ours.

Do what your bishop wants you to do.

 

[gam197]

gam197:

I still do not know if it is fine to stand during communion.

It can be.

It’s up to the Bishop of your Diocese to decide whether to stand or not during Holy Communion. And it varies between diocese to diocese. In my diocese, the former bishop wanted everyone to remain standing until the last individual received Holy communion. At the neighboring archdiocese, the archbishop wants people to keel (if they’re physically able) after receiving Holy Communion. Both the bishop and the archbishop are correct. It’s their decision to make, not ours.

Do what your bishop wants you to do.

Actually, there were two churches close by one which required standing and one which kept people kneeling. so It got very confusing.

Thanks for the information as i was not sure if they were changing the ,mass. I do not think it had anything to do with the bishop but it is possible one church could belong to one diocese and the other to another.