"Pray my sisters and brothers..."

[Jack_Bauer]

Liturgically speaking this is not the words of the mass the priest is supposed to say. How would you feel about this being said during the mass by a priest and why? Keep it simple and charitable as best you can. Remember, we’re talking about the “holy ones” ordained to lead.

 

[Batfink]

I don’t understand what the problem is.

If you’re refering to the Orate, Fratres, then I assume your issue is with the term ‘sisters and brothers’ rather than ‘brethren’? But the Missal states:

At the discretion of the priest, other words which seem more suitable under the circumstances, such as friends, dearly beloved, my brothers and sisters, may be used.

It says ‘brothers and sisters’, check and it says ‘words…such as’ (i.e. the reversal of the gender forms is fine), check.

So what’s the problem? Is there some other issue with it that I’m missing?

To answer your question briefly, I have heard this said and have no preference between it and ‘brethren’ or any of the other legitimate options.

 

[Joan_M]

I don’t understand what the problem is.

If you’re refering to the Orate, Fratres, then I assume your issue is with the term ‘sisters and brothers’ rather than ‘brethren’? But the Missal states:

It says ‘brothers and sisters’, check and it says ‘words…such as’ (i.e. the reversal of the gender forms is fine), check.

So what’s the problem? Is there some other issue with it that I’m missing?

To answer your question briefly, I have heard this said and have no preference between it and ‘brethren’ or any of the other legitimate options.

I’m not sure if this is what the OP has in mind, but saying “sisters and brothers” really scrapes on my nerves. For hundreds of years if those words were said it was “brothers and sisters” for reasons of the language, just as it was “ladies and gentlemen” and “men and women” and “boys and girls”. The usage was to place the shorter sounding word first followed by the longer one. Now, however, the emphasis is on Political Correctness and trying to avoid “offending” the feminists. Yak! Using PC language offends me, a woman.

 

[Batfink]

I’m not sure if this is what the OP has in mind, but saying “sisters and brothers” really scrapes on my nerves.

Using PC language offends me, a woman.

A few times I’ve been the only woman, and once the only congregant, at a weekday Mass, then my priest says “Pray, my brothers and sister” or “Pray, sister”. It makes me smile!

If the priest is doing it to be PC, then wouldn’t he be better off avoiding gender specific language altogether and going for one of the legitimate gender neutral options such as dearly beloved (which is a term I love, I often call my daughter agapite)? To me, sisters and brothers/brothers and sisters is just the same.

 

[japhy]

Every now and then, I wonder if saying “sisters and brothers” instead of “brothers and sisters” is an attempt to make up for centuries and centuries of injustices done against women. And then I realize that if everyone in the world, at the same moment in time, said “sisters and brothers” together, it wouldn’t make up for a single thing.

So I figure it’s just using personal preference in a place where the Missal allows it.

 

[Joannm]

Maybe since the majority of people at mass happen to be women it makes sense to put them first.

 

[TimothyH]

We have a priest from India and when he says “Pray sisters and brothers” it sounds like he is saying “Pray Cistercian Brothers”

If we spent our time and energy in an effort to live virtuous lives, we’d be a Church full of saints. Instead we worry about such nonsense as whether a priest says sisters and brothers or brothers and sisters.

-Tim-

 

[zab]

If the priest is doing it to be PC, then wouldn’t he be better off avoiding gender specific language altogether and going for one of the legitimate gender neutral options such as dearly beloved (which is a term I love, I often call my daughter agapite)? To me, sisters and brothers/brothers and sisters is just the same.

If the priest is doing it to be PC, then wouldn’t he be better off avoiding gender specific language altogether and going for one of the legitimate gender neutral options such as dearly beloved (which is a term I love, I often call my daughter agapite)? To me, sisters and brothers/brothers and sisters is just the same.
Many people who attend Sunday Mass are not family or close friends of the priest and that is what the term “dearly beloved” implies. While the term “dearly beloved” sounds nice, I really don’t think it would be appropriate. But I agree with you that brothers & sisters/sisters & brothers is the same thing to me. And I never had a problem with the use of “brethern” before they started using “brothers and sisters”.

 

[Batfink]

Many people who attend Sunday Mass are not family or close friends of the priest and that is what the term “dearly beloved” implies. While the term “dearly beloved” sounds nice, I really don’t think it would be appropriate.

1. the beloved in dearly beloved comes from koine Greek agapiti, it is what St. John, for example, calls the whole community he is writing to in his letters. So the love described is agape, not eros/philia and therefore it doesn’t rely on the strength of friendship between the speaker and audience.
2. I had always understood the term to imply that we are beloved of God rather than of the priest so even if it were a different kind of love it does not refer to the relationship between priest and people.

I like it, anyway, but it won’t be around for long. I believe the options in the new translation are limited to brethren or brothers and sisters.

 

[Love_Divine]

I’m not sure if this is what the OP has in mind, but saying “sisters and brothers” really scrapes on my nerves. For hundreds of years if those words were said it was “brothers and sisters” for reasons of the language, just as it was “ladies and gentlemen” and “men and women” and “boys and girls”. The usage was to place the shorter sounding word first followed by the longer one. Now, however, the emphasis is on Political Correctness and trying to avoid “offending” the feminists. Yak! Using PC language offends me, a woman.

Ugh, I know! I hate political correctness. I once sat in front of a guy at Mass who changed all the male pronouns in the responses into neutral pronouns.

“May the Lord accept this sacrifice at God’s hands. For the praise and glory of God’s name. For our good and the good of all God’s church.”

Bleh!

 

[johnnykins]

Liturgically speaking this is not the words of the mass the priest is supposed to say. How would you feel about this being said during the mass by a priest and why? Keep it simple and charitable as best you can. Remember, we’re talking about the “holy ones” ordained to lead.

It’s clearly allowed at the option of the priest.

Therefore just accept it and move on. There is so much that is illicit and wrong I do not believe it prudent to get ones panties in a twist over personal preferences that differ from allowed options.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I’m not sure if this is what the OP has in mind, but saying “sisters and brothers” really scrapes on my nerves. For hundreds of years if those words were said it was “brothers and sisters” for reasons of the language, just as it was “ladies and gentlemen” and “men and women” and “boys and girls”. The usage was to place the shorter sounding word first followed by the longer one. Now, however, the emphasis is on Political Correctness and trying to avoid “offending” the feminists. Yak! Using PC language offends me, a woman.

Yes. This is what I am referring to. I hate it when I end in a preposition, but I’m trying to get over it even though I know better…

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Maybe since the majority of people at mass happen to be women it makes sense to put them first.

I see it as a tenderizing of the congregants to prepare for women clergy. It that does happen from the papacy down, then I’m out of hear and would be fully convinced that the Orhtodoxy Church is the true Church. As it is, I still have many questions and doubts. I try not to allow them to bother me at the moment. But I keep watch for gay priests and political correctness, which I find terribly offensive because it’s quite deceiving.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

It’s clearly allowed at the option of the priest.

Therefore just accept it and move on. There is so much that is illicit and wrong I do not believe it prudent to get ones panties in a twist over personal preferences that differ from allowed options.

I didn’t know the other was allowed. It still strikes me as a term I read here once that is really a move to control the peoples thoughts. By conditioning us similar to subliminal effects. The fact that I find it more uncomfortable to say sisters and brothers compared to brethren or brothers and sisters is part of why I though it was incorrect.

As far as my panties are concerned, my wife wears those in the family. So stop talking about clothing close to her private areas. I find that distasteful.

 

[Rolltide]

Interesting, Father Z has an article today that references this exact question. Apparently, the use of “brothers and sisters” goes back a surprisingly long way (at least to the twelfth century), and has been identified in at least 28 old manuscripts. According to the church, this is indeed and old and traditional rendering of the phrase, and more importantly, it is faithful to the Latin. It also mentions “brethren” as a perfectly acceptable alternative.

wdtprs.com/blog/2011/07/quaeritur-our-sacrifice-and-my-sacrifice-and-yours/

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Well, this has been bothering me for several years. My reasons for concern are valid if you want to hold fast to the traditions passed down to us by words and writings. I think a study of women’s roles in the liturgy should be studies and compared to previous generations when vocations were at a much higher calling. Introduction of inclusive language that follows the agenda of feminism appears to be what’s killing vocations to the priesthood.

There’s an old saying, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. My reasons for not like the mixing of genders in a way that confuses people in the role of women in the Church and their place concerns me and my wife. My wife refuses to serve in any liturgical capacity because she also believes its wrong. And she’s a convert. She only brings our children to the priest for communion or for a blessing if they’re going to do it. Call me a bigot is calling my wife a bigot. We believe in the traditional family and traditional family roles.

 

[TheMc]

Ugh, I know! I hate political correctness. I once sat in front of a guy at Mass who changed all the male pronouns in the responses into neutral pronouns.

“May the Lord accept this sacrifice at God’s hands. For the praise and glory of God’s name. For our good and the good of all God’s church.”

Bleh!

I know! This drives me nuts!!

 

[Jack_Bauer]

Our bill from the diocese states my wife’s name and then mine plus last name. This, too, is very peculiar to us. This is not something you’d ever see in our previous Protestant faith. Ironically, during our very first meeting for a 2 year program required for all deacon candidates, this priest that distributes the bill also opened the discussion about ordaining women to the diaconate as potentially valid. Thankfully, our pastor clearly states to stay away from anyone that makes such statements because they are truly misguided.

 

[TigerKitty]

“May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name…”

The congregation at the abbey attached to the parish we belong to always says it this way. But at the main church, everyone uses the “His” pronoun. I don’t get the “God’s” reference, because in my mind, “the Lord” is Jesus, and he was a male, so what’s the big deal in saying “His”?

Another question, at the elevation of the bread and the wine, when the priest typically bows/genuflects, the entire congregation bows as well. Not just the con-celebrating priests (and there are many, because it’s an abbey), but almost the entire congregation.

To clarify, there are no kneelers in this church, so everyone stands during the litury of the eucharist.

I haven’t bowed at the elevations because I thought that bowing/genuflecting was only for the concelebranting priests. But then aren’t we all called to actively participate in the holy sacrifice of the mass? I’m so confused! What is correct in this case?

 

[TheMc]

Another question, at the elevation of the bread and the wine, when the priest typically bows/genuflects, the entire congregation bows as well. Not just the con-celebrating priests (and there are many, because it’s an abbey), but almost the entire congregation.

To clarify, there are no kneelers in this church, so everyone stands during the litury of the eucharist.

I haven’t bowed at the elevations because I thought that bowing/genuflecting was only for the concelebranting priests. But then aren’t we all called to actively participate in the holy sacrifice of the mass? I’m so confused! What is correct in this case?

Two things come to my mind here:

Yes, you should make a profound bow if you can’t kneel, per GIRM no. 43:

Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow [ie, a bow from the waist, like a concelebrant] when the priest genuflects after the consecration.

Second, don’t forget that barring infirmities, lack of kneelers is not an impediment to kneeling. Just so you know.

Also, some people, including myself, do a profound bow at that time, even when kneeling.