Saying God's instead of His

[benedictgal]

Both Jesus and Paul instruct us to call God Abba - which means Father, but is really more familiar, closer to “Dad”. We should follow this instruction, but understand what it means. It means that God is not a fearsome and remote being that we do not know and cannot relate to, except through fear. Many of those Jesus taught, and most if not all of those Paul taught, saw God that way. They are emphasizing God’s relationship to us - not God’s circumscribing God’s nature. They are telling us how to approach God, not describing a limitation on God. So yes, we should call God Father, but we can also call God Mother.

But, not during the Mass. We can’t very well start chaning texts at will to just conform to the latest fads of inclusive language. Nor, should we say “Our Mother” to replace the Pater Noster. After all, Jesus calls God, Father. Oddly enough, I don’t recall Jesus saying anywhere in the Gospels to call God, “Abba”. This reference comes only, as far as I can tell, from St. Paul.

 

[drpmjhess]

So far, you have not given us one concrete shred of bona fide commentary to support your position. You gave book citations, but, I suspect that these authors may not be in line with authentic Church teaching, whereas, you cannot get more authentic than Pope Benedict XVI.

JimG had implied that inclusive language was new; I was pointing out that the recency of a phenomenon is irrelevant to its being wrong or right. Female suffrage is new, but – unrelated to its newness – permitting women to vote is probably a good thing.

Inclusive language is new, but its newness is irrelevant to whether or not we should use it. I have extensive daily contact with people in academe, government, the medical community, and the business world. When I’ve conducted an informal survey by broaching to some of them in the last week your claim that inclusive language is a “feminist fad,” they look at me with a blank stare and [some] ask what planet you come from, or where you’ve been living for the last twenty years that you are unaware that it’s not just a “fad.’”

Clearly, inclusive language is here permanently in the wider culture, at least among white collar and professional people. If we wish to keep it out of the Church, it will be up to Catholics to mount a cogent defense campaign in seminaries, churches, and diocesan offices.

 

[benedictgal]

JimG had implied that inclusive language was new; I was pointing out that the recency of a phenomenon is irrelevant to its being wrong or right. Female suffrage is new, but – unrelated to its newness – permitting women to vote is probably a good thing.

Inclusive language is new, but its newness is irrelevant to whether or not we should use it. I have extensive daily contact with people in academe, government, the medical community, and the business world. When I’ve conducted an informal survey by broaching to some of them in the last week your claim that inclusive language is a “feminist fad,” they look at me with a blank stare and [some] ask what planet you come from, or where you’ve been living for the last twenty years that you are unaware that it’s not just a “fad.’”

Clearly, inclusive language is here permanently in the wider culture, at least among white collar and professional people. If we wish to keep it out of the Church, it will be up to Catholics to mount a cogent defense campaign in seminaries, churches, and diocesan offices.

Of course, you would be equating this to the heresy of gnosticism that keeps cropping up every few generations. It’s still a feminist fad. Just because it’s 20 years old doesn’t make it any less of a fad than bell bottom jeans, that are, about 35-40 years old and still keep coming back.

You forget one very important thing. The Church is not a democracy. All of the letter writing campaigns you want to impose to force the Church into accepting some idiosyncracy is only going to harm the environment because of all the waste of paper. You quote the Petrus establishment in your signature line. Do you not realize that such a decision rests on Peter alone. And, Peter just happens to be Joseph Ratzinger. So, it’s not going to happen any time soon.

 

[japhy]

After all, Jesus calls God, Father. Oddly enough, I don’t recall Jesus saying anywhere in the Gospels to call God, “Abba”. This reference comes only, as far as I can tell, from St. Paul.

Jesus uses the word in Mark 14:36, and Mark translates it into Greek. For all we know, it was the word he used in the Pater noster!

 

[JimG]

Inclusive language is new, yes, and not because it is a new phenomenon that just happened to have developed in the culture. Rather, it was a development of the language that was created and imposed by coercion from above, by academic and liturgical bureaucracies. Just try to write an academic paper in what in 1970 would be called “Standard English,” and you will feel the full force of academic censorship. It is rather like Winston in the novel 1984 failing to use “Newspeak.” The same applies to those preparing liturgical texts or translating scripture. They are under great pressure in many cases, not to translate a passage as it is written. It must be translated into ‘inclusive language’ often at the cost of losing some of the original meaning, or some of the original allusions.

Some of the references in the OT using the word “man,” for example, are considered by the Church not simply as references to particular persons in the OT, but also as pre-figurative references to Christ. That allusion is lost in ‘inclusive language’ translations.

But I do not consider the use of standard English an entirely lost cause. Academia is also subject to fads which come and go; they need not last forever. Bureaucracies change, and so do their agendas.

 

[TMC]

But, not during the Mass. We can’t very well start chaning texts at will to just conform to the latest fads of inclusive language. Nor, should we say “Our Mother” to replace the Pater Noster. After all, Jesus calls God, Father. Oddly enough, I don’t recall Jesus saying anywhere in the Gospels to call God, “Abba”. This reference comes only, as far as I can tell, from St. Paul.

This is not a fad, and its not new. It would be amusing to see the idea that God is not male referred to as some fad or reflection of our culture if it were not such a sad development. It is human culture that wants to force God into a human role. It is a modern ‘fad’ for some to suppose that they understand God well enough to hold Him into those roles. John Paul II (hardly a feminist) said this in Mulieris Dignitatem:

This characteristic of biblical language - its anthropomorphic way of speaking about God - points indirectly to the mystery of the eternal “generating” which belongs to the inner life of God. Nevertheless, in itself this “generating” has neither “masculine” nor “feminine” qualities. It is by nature totally divine. It is spiritual in the most perfect way, since “God is spirit” (Jn 4:24) and possesses no property typical of the body, neither “feminine” nor “masculine”. Thus even “fatherhood” in God is completely divine and free of the “masculine” bodily characteristics proper to human fatherhood. In this sense the Old Testament spoke of God as a Father and turned to him as a Father. Jesus Christ - who called God “Abba Father” (Mk 14: 36), and who as the only-begotten and consubstantial Son placed this truth at the very centre of his Gospel, thus establishing the norm of Christian prayer - referred to fatherhood in this ultra-corporeal, superhuman and completely divine sense. He spoke as the Son, joined to the Father by the eternal mystery of divine generation, and he did so while being at the same time the truly human Son of his Virgin Mother.

Although it is not possible to attribute human qualities to the eternal generation of the Word of God, and although the divine fatherhood does not possess “masculine” characteristics in a physical sense, we must nevertheless seek in God the absolute model of all “generation” among human beings. This would seem to be the sense of the Letter to the Ephesians: “I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” (3:14-15). All “generating” among creatures finds its primary model in that generating which in God is completely divine, that is, spiritual. All “generating” in the created world is to be likened to this absolute and uncreated model. Thus every element of human generation which is proper to man, and every element which is proper to woman, namely human “fatherhood” and “motherhood”, bears within itself a likeness to, or analogy with the divine “generating” and with that “fatherhood” which in God is “totally different”, that is, completely spiritual and divine in essence; whereas in the human order, generation is proper to the “unity of the two”: both are “parents”, the man and the woman alike.

 

[JimG]

Of course the theology of God as pure spirit is not new. The concept of God as pure spirit—having no body and no gender—has been taught by the Church for centuries. The Father eternally generates the Son. No one I know, even in the days before “inclusive language,” ever thought that Divine generation ever implied a masculine gender for God, or that God’s generating is like ours.

Humans are created in God’s likeness, not He in ours. I don’t think that this is a new insight that requires a radical change in the English language to express.

 

[benedictgal]

This is not a fad, and its not new. It would be amusing to see the idea that God is not male referred to as some fad or reflection of our culture if it were not such a sad development. It is human culture that wants to force God into a human role. It is a modern ‘fad’ for some to suppose that they understand God well enough to hold Him into those roles. John Paul II (hardly a feminist) said this in Mulieris Dignitatem:

I think that the point that perhaps you may not have understood is my contention that we shouldn’t be substituting words and phrases in the Mass (swapping “for us men and for our salvation” for “for us and for our salvation” or deleting any references to God the Father). That is the problem that the OP was addressing.

It doesn’t matter what you prefer to call God in private prayer. However, the ***Mass is a public prayer ***and it is the Church’s treasure. We shouldn’t be fooling with things over which we have no authority to touch, especially if we are basing them on idiosyncracies that have no place in the liturgy.

 

[drpmjhess]

Of course, you would be equating this to the heresy of gnosticism that keeps cropping up every few generations. It’s still a feminist fad. Just because it’s 20 years old doesn’t make it any less of a fad than bell bottom jeans, that are, about 35-40 years old and still keep coming back. :

I said nothing about Gnosticism. As culture and society have evolved over the last hundred years, linguistic consciousness has developed along with it. Just as we will likely never revert to the racially insensitive language of the 1940s, once the threshold of gender-sensitive language was crossed in the 1980s and 1990s, it became less and less likely that we would revert to gender-insensitive terms.

As for liturgical language, I don’t have a dog in that fight. Although personally somewhat on the conservative side myself (unlike that feminist nun in the story) I regard it as an indifferent matter. As I’ve said before, our parish has numerous people (and priests, including a seminary professor) who quietly use either their inclusive or their exclusive terms, without attempting to drown out anyone else. It works marvelously to preserve parish harmony and devotion.

 

[drpmjhess]

But I do not consider the use of standard English an entirely lost cause. Academia is also subject to fads which come and go; they need not last forever. Bureaucracies change, and so do their agendas.

Referring to racial minorities using certain derogatory terms was “standard English” at one time. I doubt you would dream of employing those terms in 2008! Gender-inclusive language is no more a fad than racially-inclusive language.

 

[JimG]

Referring to racial minorities using certain derogatory terms was “standard English” at one time. I doubt you would dream of employing those terms in 2008! Gender-inclusive language is no more a fad than racially-inclusive language.

OK, that gave me a chuckle. Derogatory terms were never a part of standard English.

(Mark Twain does use the “n” word repeatedly in “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” but he does it to convey the dialect, and not as a part of standard English. The novel actually has an anti-discrimination message. When trying to make up his mind whether or not to turn Jim the slave in to the authorities, or help him run away, Huck ponders that he has been told that helping a slave escape is a sin which will send him to hell. He ultimately decides, ‘Well, I’ll go to hell then.’! Unfortunately, because of his use of that word, the book is now probably on nobody’s reading list.)

Sorry for the lengthy aside.

 

[drpmjhess]

Unfortunately, because of his use of that word, the book is now probably on nobody’s reading list.).

I love Huckleberry Finn, and will make sure my boys read it even if they don’t get it in school. I will of course discuss carefully with them how language evolves along with cultural sensitivity, but I have no real fear they would use that word.

 

[TMC]

I think that the point that perhaps you may not have understood is my contention that we shouldn’t be substituting words and phrases in the Mass (swapping “for us men and for our salvation” for “for us and for our salvation” or deleting any references to God the Father). That is the problem that the OP was addressing.

It doesn’t matter what you prefer to call God in private prayer. However, the ***Mass is a public prayer ***and it is the Church’s treasure. We shouldn’t be fooling with things over which we have no authority to touch, especially if we are basing them on idiosyncracies that have no place in the liturgy.

OK. I think we are much closer on this issue than I originally thought. Personally, it doesn’t bother me theologically if someone near me in Mass uses inclusive language or does other little things that are different. I assume they are trying to express the liturgy faithfully, even if they are doing it different than me. It annoys me personally because, well because its annoying. I remember posting about what I call “asynchronous responders” on another thread. Those are people that consistently respond a half beat before or after the congregation. I feel the same way about that.

So yeah, if someone wants to pray a couple “Our Mothers”, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. At Mass I still think its OK (while recognizing that others may not) but I would appreciate if it was done in a way that didn’t call attention to oneself or annoy the neighbors.

 

[Irish_Saints]

So yeah, if someone wants to pray a couple “Our Mothers”, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Wow. Just…wow. :bigyikes:

Man, I guess I just picked the wrong time to drop in at the end of a thread. I’ll be leaving now.

 

[Elizabeth2]

However, if that’s not what St. Paul actually wrote, then the translator is putting words into his mouth. Not the translator’s job.

Technically yes. But that’s what he meant and that’s what’s important.

 

[pprimeau1976]

Our church changes the Gloria from “His” to “God”.

“Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s [His] people on earth.”

When I am singing with the choir, I will occasionally try to slip the right word in. (I am so rebellious)

I really don’t care if hymns are changed though. But changing the Mass sections are ridiculous.

Just an update on this. I cantored the 11:00 mass this past Sunday and sang the Gloria as “peace to his people on earth” when everybody else sang “peace to God’s people on earth”.

I know!! I am such a male chauvenist pig!!!

 

[drpmjhess]

I remember posting about what I call “asynchronous responders” on another thread.

So yeah, if someone wants to pray a couple “Our Mothers”, I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. At Mass I still think its OK (while recognizing that others may not) but I would appreciate if it was done in a way that didn’t call attention to oneself or annoy the neighbors.

TMC, I feel the similarly about people who cannot sing on key – it annoys me as a singer, like it annoys me when a company’s receptionist cannot speak English. However, in church I recognize that not everyone has the same gifts, and I rejoice in the fact that others they are praising God in their singing, even if they cannot hear that they are a semitone or even a third off key. In our parish we celebrate the diversity of gifts!

 

[TMC]

TMC, I feel the similarly about people who cannot sing on key – it annoys me as a singer, like it annoys me when a company’s receptionist cannot speak English. However, in church I recognize that not everyone has the same gifts, and I rejoice in the fact that others they are praising God in their singing, even if they cannot hear that they are a semitone or even a third off key. In our parish we celebrate the diversity of gifts!

You have the right attitude. I try to do the same, but don’t always succeed.

Straying off topic, but an interesting (to me) anecdote on this – someone that regularly site near me is a major asychnronater (made-up word alert). She also does an odd little thing with the way she pronounces certain words that makes her voice stand out even more. Used to annoy me (not to any serious extent, but it was there.) After years of sitting near her, I now find it somehow comforting and I miss it when she’s not there. I think a lot of things are like that.

 

[drpmjhess]

a major asychnronater (made-up word alert)…After years of sitting near her, I now find it somehow comforting and I miss it when she’s not there. I think a lot of things are like that.

Thanks, TMC – I like your neologism" – asynchronater has a certain cachet to it! We could also use the politically correct “synchronally challenged.”

Years ago I used to teach theology at a Trappist monastery, and one of the novices – a Nigerian with a huge great laugh – told me that the monk who formerly directed the choir had had perfect pitch, and once during choir practice – in frustration at monks who could not sing on key – brought a chair crashing down on the pew!

That sounds extreme to me, but even monks are human. I used to be much more of a perfectionist. When the jackass pastor at my former church fired the classical choir and hired a crooner instead, I almost walked out on the singing of the Easter Exultet. This great, ancient, a capella chant was being accompanied by guitar and tambourine !!! However, I didn’t walk out. Humans are not perfect, liturgies are not perfect, and liturgical expressions often leave something to be desired. Love and charity and understanding go a long toward ameliorating the human condition.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[Sheeniac]

Forget the pronoun haters and just pray, or, better yet, show me proof of God’s exclusive maleness. The center of gravity in the Church is moving away from a male-only conception of God.

Have you mentioned that to the Pope? While theologians are important, the Pope and the Bishops hold the Faith.

NO ONE is allowed to change the wording in the celebration of Mass unless it is mentioned specifically. (Just after the consecration, for example, we have ‘pray brethren*’ , with the asterisk at the footnote, indicating that other wording may be substituted.

I would rather hear ‘pray brethren’ since that is what is in the wording. I am not offended in the least to hear it that way, but I don’t care exactly what words are used. Substitution is explicitly permissible.

What has been mentioned here is changing other words, which the Church has said is not allowable. Theologians, priests and lay people who would like to be Pope are more then welcome to apply. Then, they could institute their modifications world-wide. Until then, OBEDIENCE is necessary. Yes, it’s a quaint notion, but it still stands.

If and when inclusive language is introduced officially, I will accept it. Whether I will like it has nothing to do with my acceptance of it. I will not whine. I will not complain. I will not loudly use my own choice of wording during Mass.

Obedience in little things reinforces obedience in great things. While you may defend (and rightfully so) the theology that incorporates the feminine in God, that has no place in Mass unless it is proposed by the Magesterium (or the Council of Bishops in a given country since I believe that they draw up the giudelines).

So, the theology of the feminism inherent in God is a separate issue from the obedience of using the proper wording in Mass. We should not place ourselves above the Pope and our Bishops in this case. This seems to be Pride and has no real place in Mass.