Pray brethren

  • Thread starter Thread starter DSJJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DSJJ

Guest
With the new translation card that we are reading off of during Mass it says “Pray brethren that our sacrafice my be…”., Our priest say "Pray brothers and sisters…is this O.K.
 
In my Roman Missal it says:

“Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), …”.

Thus it seems this alternative phrase is fully permitted.
 
I kind of hate when they do that, because of the weird feminists were the ones that pushed for that, but it’s ok, apparently.
 
DihydrogenOxide said:
I kind of hate when they do that, because of the weird feminists were the ones that pushed for that, but it’s ok, apparently.
Click to expand...
I agree. Anyone who is rational and has an understanding of the english language knows that “brethren” means “brothers and sisters.”
 
Our pew cards say ‘Pray brethren/brothers and sisters’.
 
DihydrogenOxide said:
I kind of hate when they do that, because of the weird feminists were the ones that pushed for that, but it’s ok, apparently.
Click to expand...
I guess, but when is the last time that you heard someone use the word “brethren” outside of liturgical English? It seems to me that “siblings” might be a better option in some cases, since that’s a synonym that we at least still use. Then, I still think “brothers and sisters” is probably a more realistic usage, and one cannot even argue that “fratres” carries the same theological weight as “consubstantialem”. I understand why we got “consubstantial”; it’s a matter of better understanding the faith by better understand the vocabulary of the church’s teachings. I don’t think adding “brethren” to our vocabulary will really help this cause.
 
FrancisB said:
I guess, but when is the last time that you heard someone use the word “brethren” outside of liturgical English? It seems to me that “siblings” might be a better option in some cases, since that’s a synonym that we at least still use. Then, I still think “brothers and sisters” is probably a more realistic usage, and one cannot even argue that “fratres” carries the same theological weight as “consubstantialem”. I understand why we got “consubstantial”; it’s a matter of better understanding the faith by better understand the vocabulary of the church’s teachings. I don’t think adding “brethren” to our vocabulary will really help this cause.
Click to expand...
I understand where you’re coming from, but how hard is it to understand? You only need to be taught once and that’s it. Brethren is formalized English, which to me, is much more fitting for something to be used in the Mass. Ask most any grade school child what that word means and they’ll tell you. It’s got nothing to do with understanding.

If someone has to throw a fit about saying thee, thou, brethren, etc., I’d suggest that they need to study some English vocabulary. Even, heaven forbid, look it up in the dictionary. Just because our education system is lacking, doesn’t mean excuses should be made to “simplify” vocabulary in the Mass for the “stupid” populous. Make people exercise their sloth brains once in a while.

It was originally an attempt of feminists to push modernism, because they didn’t want to be considered “one of the brothers”. Feminists pushed for “sisters” because of inclusive language.
 
FrancisB said:
It seems to me that “siblings” might be a better option in some cases, since that’s a synonym that we at least still use.
Click to expand...
I’ve been considering the usage of the word “siblings” recently, and it is used in one or two particular translations of the Bible, at least a couple times in Paul’s letters, but never in the vocative case. Whenever the vocative case is called for, the translator rendered it “brothers and sisters.”
 
Spirithound said:
I’ve been considering the usage of the word “siblings” recently, and it is used in one or two particular translations of the Bible, at least a couple times in Paul’s letters, but never in the vocative case. Whenever the vocative case is called for, the translator rendered it “brothers and sisters.”
Click to expand...
This is exactly my feeling. In the vocative, “brothers and sisters” is a more natural construction.
 
DihydrogenOxide said:
I understand where you’re coming from, but how hard is it to understand? You only need to be taught once and that’s it. Brethren is formalized English, which to me, is much more fitting for something to be used in the Mass. Ask most any grade school child what that word means and they’ll tell you. It’s got nothing to do with understanding.

If someone has to throw a fit about saying thee, thou, brethren, etc., I’d suggest that they need to study some English vocabulary. Even, heaven forbid, look it up in the dictionary. Just because our education system is lacking, doesn’t mean excuses should be made to “simplify” vocabulary in the Mass for the “stupid” populous. Make people exercise their sloth brains once in a while.

It was originally an attempt of feminists to push modernism, because they didn’t want to be considered “one of the brothers”. Feminists pushed for “sisters” because of inclusive language.
Click to expand...
First of all, as a teacher I can assure you that grade school children do not know the meaning of brethren. I think you would be shocked by the number of high school students that cannot differentiate between “well” and “good” or “shall” and “will”. These things are simply disappearing from our language, whether we try desperately to protect them or not. Similarly the use of “an” instead of “a” and the change in pronunciation between “the” before a consonant and “the” before a vowel is disappearing.

Let us not mince words, though, Water. Þou canst insisten til þou’rt blewe in þe onlete þat we nedes not wincen from ould and prive construcciouns, but langages chaunge. Or are we to pretend that we live in Elizabethan England because that somehow sounds more church-like to some? If we need it to sound old to be holy, we have only to revert to Latin. It makes no sense to insist on archaic constructions and vocabulary and then call them vernacular. Clearly I’m not along here, since the new translations for the most part avoided these things, except where the vocabulary was required to adequately explain the faith. This is obviously not the case with “brethren”.

I’m not suggesting that banal translations are somehow superior to those that make use of the beauty of language; I am merely saying that we cannot continue to act as though everyone should be expected to understand Early Modern English. And at any rate, if we were to look at the history of our language, the time in which Catholics were persecuted seems to be a very bad time-frame from which to draw our liturgical language. I should think it far better to either revert to pre-Reformation Middle English (although it is difficult to understand) or else, more logically, accept the fact that if we are going to use the vernacular, we should use the vernacular, which is not the language of the city of 17th Century London, but rather a compromise of all of the modern dialects of the language.
 
FWIW, in Polish it’s avoided, sort of (but keeping the second person plural thought)

(Módlcie się, aby moją i waszą ofiarę przyjął Bóg, Ojciec wszechmogący)

although in the older handmissals (and you still may hear it) it is:

(Módlcie się, Bracia, aby moją i waszą ofiarę przyjął Bóg, Ojciec wszechmogący)

Bracia being along the lines of “brothers,” “brothers and sisters,” or “brethren” take your pick.
 
FrancisB said:
First of all, as a teacher I can assure you that grade school children do not know the meaning of brethren. I think you would be shocked by the number of high school students that cannot differentiate between “well” and “good” or “shall” and “will”.

I’m not suggesting that banal translations are somehow superior to those that make use of the beauty of language; I am merely saying that we cannot continue to act as though everyone should be expected to understand Early Modern English. And at any rate, if we were to look at the history of our language, the time in which Catholics were persecuted seems to be a very bad time-frame from which to draw our liturgical language. I should think it far better to either revert to pre-Reformation Middle English (although it is difficult to understand) or else, more logically, accept the fact that if we are going to use the vernacular, we should use the vernacular, which is not the language of the city of 17th Century London, but rather a compromise of all of the modern dialects of the language.
Click to expand...
I’m a teacher, too. I won’t be shocked, believe me. Whether they know it or not, it can be taught. One cannot put limits on expectations of students’ learning. If you make the sky the limit, the only limit is that in the student’s mind.

Regardless of which version of formality of the language is used, the traditional terms that had been used for many years should not be made to seem foreign. We have excluded formal English for a while. This is why the Catholic Church, and indeed many protestant churches deemed it useful to keep some formal terms reserved for religious purposes.

You could use the very same reasoning to try to reason that we no longer need Latin. It isn’t as though the Romans always treated Christians well, either.

The point is, it’s traditional.

Feminists wanted that changed because they didn’t want to be grouped with men. They thought it was an insult. The reasoning behind the change had very little to do with “modernizing” the language. It had more to do with the sexual revolution and the feminists.
 
DihydrogenOxide said:
I’m a teacher, too. I won’t be shocked, believe me. Whether they know it or not, it can be taught. One cannot put limits on expectations of students’ learning. If you make the sky the limit, the only limit is that in the student’s mind.

Regardless of which version of formality of the language is used, the traditional terms that had been used for many years should not be made to seem foreign. We have excluded formal English for a while. This is why the Catholic Church, and indeed many protestant churches deemed it useful to keep some formal terms reserved for religious purposes.

You could use the very same reasoning to try to reason that we no longer need Latin. It isn’t as though the Romans always treated Christians well, either.

The point is, it’s traditional.

Feminists wanted that changed because they didn’t want to be grouped with men. They thought it was an insult. The reasoning behind the change had very little to do with “modernizing” the language. It had more to do with the sexual revolution and the feminists.
Click to expand...
I’d love to see some substantiation of the claim about the feminists. I haven’t seen any indication that the new translations were made by feminists. This isn’t a matter of inclusive language, gender neutrality, or an attempt to otherwise subjugate the traditional beliefs of the church. I certainly do not support such efforts and I loudly say/sing He/Him/His whenever it is removed. In point of fact, there were parts of the old translation that were so unacceptable that I prayed much of the responses in Latin awaiting these new translations.

For the most part the new translation strikes a nice balance by remaining formal whilst (mostly) avoiding being arcane. I just simply do not see the danger in offering the option of “brothers and sisters” for “brethren” when they are unequivocally synonymous. I’m not suggesting that we debase the Pater Noster by beginning it “Our Daddy”, as some do because they misunderstand the peculiarities of Semitic languages. Neither would I suggest that we rephrase the creed with “one, holy, universal, and apostolic” since I think it undermines the fact that we call ourselves Catholic for a reason.

Not everything that is modern is dangerous, leftist, or feminist. Sometimes the best language is the easiest to understand and formality just becomes a barrier. As I said before, if we want formal, we have Latin. If we are going to use the vernacular, it makes no sense to look to the language as it was 400-500 years ago. That’s no longer the language of the people. The only time I can see it useful to borrow antiquated words for the mass is when there is no true equal in the modern language. There are some instances when the etymology or connotation of one word makes it superior to another. You have yet to show me how this is the case with “brethren”.

In this particular case, the etymology of “brethren” is that it was an archaic plural for the word “brother” from the Middle English “brothor” which follows the plural for the weak declension, whereas “brothers” uses the strong declension. They are of essentially the same meaning, except that in modern English “brothers” refers exclusively to to men, and “brethren” has largely lost the meaning of true kinship and been replaced by the concept of a “fraternal” organisation, that is “brethren” are members of a “brotherhood”. Tell me again how this is preferable?
 
FrancisB said:
I’d love to see some substantiation of the claim about the feminists. I haven’t seen any indication that the new translations were made by feminists. This isn’t a matter of inclusive language, gender neutrality, or an attempt to otherwise subjugate the traditional beliefs of the church.
Tell me again how this is preferable?
Click to expand...
The new translations are an improvement of the old translation from the 60s. I’m not criticizing the new translation specifically, but the post VII English translation as a whole. You can’t tell me that the change in wording was not related to inclusive language.
They are still too informal, but they are more reverent than they had been

I’m not saying there is any sort of maneuver toward subjugation within the Church. Feminists have been pushing to intrude and crawl out of the woodwork of the Church over the years.

Once again, I think most people know that brethren means sibling. I still can’t understand why you would consider it such a huge hurdle to use that term. It is a term that has been used often for years. It doesn’t make any sense to say that NOW for some reason, it’s not good enough. Besides, it makes me wonder if you think people are too stupid to understand the purpose of it.

Regardless of what I say, I’m pretty sure I’m spot-on when I say that I’m a bit more of a traditionalist that you. Thus, you will probably never agree with my stance. I will more than likely never agree with yours.

I’d expect you’re a different generation of catholic than I am.
 
If they are using the term “brethren” then they should also be using the terms “thy” and “thou” instead you and your. It seems rather archaic, and King Jamesish to me.
Is your prayer card saying “and with THY spirit”?
 
I’m sure you’re more “traditionalist” than I if you feel that there is any kind of measure of such a thing. To me, there is the authentic Tradition which comes to us from the Apostles and there is the rest. You can pretend that I’m a progressive or a cafeteria Catholic if you like, but assure you that such is not the case. I may well be younger than you, but I gathered this more from the fact that you think people still use the word “brethren” and I do not.

I should like to clarify a few things for you, though:
  • The translation from the 1960’s was done for the 1965 usage, which largely followed the 1963 missal, and isn’t what this new translation replaced. This new translation replaced the one from the 1970s that followed the Missal Pope Paul VI issued in 1970. I do not believe that the changes had anything to do with inclusive language, because I have witnessed actual inclusive language being used, which is not in keeping with any official translation ever issued. I believe the old translations are inferior because they do not accurately reflect the Latin text, not because they used simpler words.
  • The word that we have had for centuries was neither “brethren” nor “brothers and sisters” but “fratres”. Perhaps we should just use the Latin, since it is not that hard for people to learn a new word.
  • I have not at any point said that I think that people are too stupid to understand the use of the word “brethren”, nor any other word. What I said was that it was an archaic form the meaning of which has shifted. In the same way that “thou” used to be familiar and informal and now seems quite formal, “brethren” used to refer to ones’ kinsfolk but now more commonly refers to figurative brothers, members of the same organisation.
 
CHRISTINE77 said:
If they are using the term “brethren” then they should also be using the terms “thy” and “thou” instead you and your. It seems rather archaic, and King Jamesish to me.
Is your prayer card saying “and with THY spirit”?
Click to expand...
Of course not; it isn’t supposed to be Elizabethan English; we’re not Anglican.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top