Saying God's instead of His

[Dietrich]

I have a question about the consecration. On this web site, there’s an article about the difference in the words of consecration between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo (ordinary Mass said today). It states:

The Novus Ordo phrases it this way: "This is my body, which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men [Latin, “for many”] so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."

However, the missal we use (Oregon Catholic Press) omits the word, “men,” and so do all the priests of our diocese, as far as I can tell. Is this technically an abuse?

It depends on who you ask. Most hardcore Traditionalists find that this passage of the Mass more problematic than any other, and it is often what prevents them from adhering to the Novus Ordo. In fact, the latin text at this part of the Mass in both the Tridentine and the Novus Ordo use the same words, “…pro multis”. Although the English translation (wrongly) translates the word ‘multis’ to ‘all’, the word would actually be translated to the plural form of ‘many’. I don’t remember any priest ever saying “…all men.”

Those on one side of the controversy point to this and shrug their shoulders, thinking it’s no big deal. Opponents of this often point to this seeming insignificance and counter by arguing that if it’s not big deal, why was it translated incorrectly? For it is certain that it was no accident, but a deliberate act. Another part that is always mistranslated are the words of the Creed. Whereas the Latin form of the prayer, called the ‘Credo’, is translated as “I believe…”, in English we see again that it is mistranslated to “We believe…”, or ‘Credemus’ if rendered into Latin.

So I don’t know about the ‘men’ part, but that would seem to qualify as an ad-lib of an already apparent ad-lib of the official form of the Roman Rite.

 

[JimG]

I have a question about the consecration. On this web site, there’s an article about the difference in the words of consecration between the Traditional Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo (ordinary Mass said today). It states:

The Novus Ordo phrases it this way: "This is my body, which will be given up for you. . . . This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all men [Latin, “for many”] so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me."

However, the missal we use (Oregon Catholic Press) omits the word, “men,” and so do all the priests of our diocese, as far as I can tell. Is this technically an abuse?

I don’t have current Novus Ordo missal in front of me, but I’m pretty sure that the phrase “It will be shed for you and for all” is the current approved English translation.

There has been some controversy over the use of “for all;” future approved translations may revert to using the phrase “for many.”

 

[drpmjhess]

I would counter that there is far more naiveté on part of those members of the church who would discard the foundations of the faith in order to shape it into what they desire.

Saying “God” instead of he is discarding the foundations of the faith? That’s quite a stretch.

 

[reggieM]

Certainly, the replacement of the term “Father” with that of “Creator” is destructive of the foundations of our faith in the Trinity.

The Blessed Trinity is a relationship between Father, Son and Spirit. Christ used those terms and especially referred to His Father continuously and with purpose.

The term “Father” indicates a vast deal more about the nature of the 1st person of the Trinity than “Creator” does. The term “Creator” is not the personal term that “Father” is, and it indicates an entirely different relationship between God and mankind.

The idea that the ancient doxology Father, Son and Holy Spirit be changed as suggested is indeed a fad – and a particularly destructive one. It removes the Father and the Son as if these are not essential and primary in understanding the Trinity.

In my diocese the feminist-theologians who dominate virtually all of the liturgical policies have done everything possible to remove all masculine references from prayers and from the Scripture readings themselves. In many parishes, parishoners are not given missallettes so that they can’t see what the official readings actually are.

There is a widespread recognition that fatherhood already is degraded by a number of factors in society (not just by feminism), and this kind of language-manipulation would only contribute to that problem.

 

[Dietrich]

Saying “God” instead of he is discarding the foundations of the faith? That’s quite a stretch.

Way to lase that target and get to the heart of the matter! By the way, I stand by that statement.

 

[drpmjhess]

Way to lase that target and get to the heart of the matter! By the way, I stand by that statement.

Thanks. For want of a pronoun, the kingdom was lost!

 

[Dietrich]

Thanks. For want of a pronoun, the kingdom was lost!

…or for want of a mature and insightful argument, but I have been accused of being too idealistic. I guess we’re back to trying to impress each other with our tough hides without getting deeper into the subject, something I definitely did not get into this for. Maybe if I was still in college I’d lap all this up but I suppose having feet on the ground in the real world has made me far more skeptical than when I was a freshman. I don’t buy your arguments for the most part and I think many theologians and priests who think along the lines you’ve drawn are like mathematicians teaching calculus to a class that has never been taught how to add and subtract. Good day.

 

[drpmjhess]

thout getting deeper into the subject,

This long thread started with someone’s complaint about distraction over an omitted pronoun.

 

[davy39]

Let’s all pray:: “Our Mother, whom art in Heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, etc” A look into the future? I hope not!

 

[drpmjhess]

Let’s all pray:: “Our Mother, whom art in Heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, etc” A look into the future? I hope not!

“Who,” not “whom.”

 

[mschrank]

Poppycock! These models were articulated by people – including Jesus – living in a culture imbued with patriarchal imagery. Of course they would imagine God exclusively in masculine terms. Orthodox theology included other interesting alternative models, such as being suckled in faith by the breasts of the Holy Spirit.

I am not arguing against people referring to God as “father.” I am merely cautioning against a reactionary rejection of any other way of imagining God.

Petrus

Not this old canard again… so Jesus wasn’t really sinless as he was all too willing to bow down to popular prejudice on some things, but on others, he was willing to die for the truth.

yawn

I don’t get it, if someone wants to believe in the pseudo-pagan tenets of Modernism, then go well ahead, worship “Christa” and adore a female corpus (true story)- but why try to mix it with Christianity? The appeal of a watered down Christianity eludes me. I mean, Modern Paganism at least allows you to have a lot more fun when you take it ‘straight up’ rather than mixed in with a little Jesus cola.

 

[drpmjhess]

The CTSA has always been very Jesuit-heavy, and as such carries very little weight in the realm of serious thought as far as I’m concerned.

You’re quite wrong about the CTSA, a fine,prayerfu, and scholarly theological organization:

“Our purpose, within the context of the Roman Catholic tradition, shall be to promote studies and research in theology, to relate theological science to current problems, and to foster a more effective theological education, by providing a forum for an exchange of views among theologians and with scholars in other disciplines. In this way the Society seeks to assist those entrusted with a teaching ministry of the Church to develop in the Christian people a more mature understanding of their faith, and to further the cause of unity among all people through a better appreciation of the role of religious faith in the life of human beings and society.”

 

[reggieM]

Plus, how can you take any organization seriously that awards Fathers McBrien and Curran?

Fr. Curran was disciplined by the Holy See for teaching erroneous doctrine. He was stripped of his licence to teach Catholic theology.

Here’s a recent story from the outgoing CTSA president:

Public statements by the Catholic Theological Society of America criticizing the Vatican and the bishops “have done us damage,” the body’s outgoing president said today, concluding that the prerequisite to fostering dialogue is “making fewer public statements defending ourselves against ecclesiastical power.”

“The price has been too high compared to what we have gained,” said Daniel Finn of St. John’s University in Collegeville, Minnesota. “I wish we were not facing this trade-off, but I believe we are.”

Finn made clear that he was not trying to stifle criticism, but said that in the future, such statements should come from individual theologians, perhaps with others signing on, but not in the name of the CTSA.

The comments by Finn came in his “Presidential Address” at the conclusion of the annual conference of the Catholic Theological Society of America in Los Angeles, California.

Over the years, the CTSA has issued a number of critical statements on official church teaching or disciplinary interventions against theologians. In 1997, for example, the CTSA issued a statement on the ban on women’s ordination, concluding that there are “serious doubts regarding the nature of the authority of this teaching and its grounds in tradition.” More recently, the CTSA board issued a statement in 2005 defending American Jesuit Fr. Roger Haight after he was censured by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Those statements have produced backlash, including Cardinal Bernard Law’s famous declaration that the CTSA has become a theological “wasteland.” Also in 1997, then-Fr. Avery Dulles, now a cardinal, said that the CTSA “constitutes a kind of alternative magisterium for dissatisfied Catholics.”

ncrcafe.org/node/1172

 

[drpmjhess]

Those statements have produced backlash, including Cardinal Bernard Law’s famous declaration that the CTSA has become a theological “wasteland.”

Coming from the architect of the sex-abuse cover up, I’d say that was high praise for the CTSA!

 

[ac_claire]

Saying “God” instead of he is discarding the foundations of the faith? That’s quite a stretch.

Maybe “discarding the foundations of faith” is a hasty overstatement. But my qustion is, why would anyone advocate for inclusive language for God…? What possible benefit does it produce? Are you saying that it is somehow detrimental to women that the standard pronounds for God are male…?

I am truly not understanding the logic here.

Now, if your next question would be: Well, why then should we use any pronouns for God, or why get upset when female or inclusives are used instead? The answer: We know that God isn’t male or female the way we are. But we do have to refer to him as one or the other, or else be left with the unacceptable “It”.

So…if we have to choose one, why not choose the pronoun God uses for himself in scripture? Though God himself is genderless, Jesus is not. Jesus was born as the Son, not the “child.” God isn’t referred to as Jesus’s parent, or his mother. Jesus already has a mother. God is his father.

Again, if we have to choose a standard pronoun, why not use the one that the Church and the Bible have used for 2000 years?
.

 

[drpmjhess]

Again, if we have to choose a standard pronoun, why not use the one that the Church and the Bible have used for 2000 years?.

No one is saying you cannot refer to God as"he." The Church is a big tent, big enough for both those who want to say “he” and “men” and those who want to say "God "and “us.” That’s all.

 

[Phemie]

In my diocese the feminist-theologians who dominate virtually all of the liturgical policies have done everything possible to remove all masculine references from prayers and from the Scripture readings themselves. In many parishes, parishoners are not given missallettes so that they can’t see what the official readings actually are.

While it isn’t quite that bad in our diocese, the inclusive language germ has taken hold and it manifests itself in odd places. The other day one of the readings had a reference to someone being “a sinful man”. Now this wasn’t in reference to mankind, it was a reference to a specific man. This is what we heard: “he was a sinful man, er, sinful person.”

Another example that comes to mind was a reading from a letter of Paul to Timothy that starts ‘Brother’ and which the reader rendered “Brothers and Sisters”. Er, this letter was written to one person, a man.

It is common in our ORDO, published by the bishops’ conference, to find suggested changes to the text of the Roman Missal, usually the Preface, to make it inclusive. I doubt that they have the permission to do that considering how Rome feels about inclusive language and the fact that we have to change our present Lectionary to rid it of a lot of its inclusive text.

 

[benedictgal]

No one is saying you cannot refer to God as"he." The Church is a big tent, big enough for both those who want to say “he” and “men” and those who want to say "God "and “us.” That’s all.

ea

I was watching Fr. Mitch Pacwa last night as he was leading a discussion on one of Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Somehow the discussion came to the word “Father”. Fr. Mitch said that anyone who does not call God, “Father” is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit, for as St. Paul says, we have the Spirit who urges us to call God, “Abba”, which is “Father.”

The problem is that you seem to be succumbing to a trend of feminism that makes itself superior to scripture and to the Church by advocating a wholesale linguistic switcheroo when it comes to the texts used in the Mass. Switching a pronoun here and there is not so innocuous as you may think it is. It leads to a dangerous slippery slope, especially when priests start to drop the word Father from the Eucharistic Prayer and its prefaces. I have heard this myself.

Furthermore, just because Bernard Cardinal Law made some huge mistakes and serious lapses n judgment, that doesn’t take away the validity of his observations regarding matters of faith. The two are entirely separate matters.

 

[ac_claire]

No one is saying you cannot refer to God as"he." The Church is a big tent, big enough for both those who want to say “he” and “men” and those who want to say "God "and “us.” That’s all.

Of course you can and have the right to say whatever you want…
I guess my question is less rhetorical and more specific. I am curious.

Those of you who change the standard pronouns for God in your personal speech, why do you choose to do so?

 

[drpmjhess]

ea

I was watching Fr. Mitch Pacwa last night as he was leading a discussion on one of Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals. Somehow the discussion came to the word “Father”. Fr. Mitch said that anyone who does not call God, “Father” is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit, for as St. Paul says, we have the Spirit who urges us to call God, “Abba”, which is “Father.”

The problem is that you seem to be succumbing to a trend of feminism that makes itself superior to scripture and to the Church by advocating a wholesale linguistic switcheroo when it comes to the texts used in the Mass. Switching a pronoun here and there is not so innocuous as you may think it is. It leads to a dangerous slippery slope, especially when priests start to drop the word Father from the Eucharistic Prayer and its prefaces. I have heard this myself.

Furthermore, just because Bernard Cardinal Law made some huge mistakes and serious lapses n judgment, that doesn’t take away the validity of his observations regarding matters of faith. The two are entirely separate matters.

(1) It is dangerous and arrogant for people to claim that if one doesn’t think as they do, one is not being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Cult leaders think like that.

(2) Switching a pronoun does not lead to a slippery slope to a unisex world. Even the people in my parish who tend to say “God” and “he” can still tell the difference between men and women.

(3) Law cannot be trusted, and Avery Dulles fabricated his version of what happened at the 1997 CTSA meeting; he wasn’t even there!

I do sympathize with people who don’t like what others may do at Mass. There are things that I don’t like hearing at Mass, like singing off key, cell phones ringing, people coughing, people saying “Febuary” instead of “February.” But these things are not the end of the world. Our parish functions beautifully with a wide diversity of parishioners.

Petrus