Saying God's instead of His

[drpmjhess]

It used to be you could refer to a man who dated alot as a ladies’ man. Now he’s a person’s person.

Or a parson’s parson.

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t know what “fad” you are talking about. I’ll respond when you explain the fad to me.

The “fad” is the issue of “inclusive” language that has crept up in the liturgy. It also reminds me of the magnificent homily that the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger preached the day before he was elected as our Holy Father which contained the now famous phrase: “dictatorship of relativism.”

How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves * thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what Saint Paul says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf Eph 4, 14). Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and “swept along by every wind of teaching”, looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today’s standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.

However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an “Adult” means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today’s fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth. We must become mature in this adult faith; we must guide the flock of Christ to this faith. And it is this faith * only faith * which creates unity and takes form in love. On this theme, Saint Paul offers us some beautiful words - in contrast to the continual ups and downs of those were are like infants, tossed about by the waves: (he says) make truth in love, as the basic formula of Christian existence. In Christ, truth and love coincide. To the extent that we draw near to Christ, in our own life, truth and love merge. Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like “a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal” (1 Cor 13,1).

You may think that my opinion is stretching the Holy Father’s words, but, I submit to you that it is not. The fad of inclusive language is simply one such thing that is akin to relativism, liturgical relativism. When we allow ourselves to be swayed by every idiosyncracy, be it political correctness or feminism or a false sense of inclusivity, then, we, too, are being tossed around in the winds of relativism. We make our idiosyncracies and our personal views more important than what the Church holds true. Our faith becomes immature because we want it our way. This isn’t Burger King. This is the Church.

You may not know this but one of the biggest bones of contention with the initial re-translation of the U.S. lectionary was its heavy use of inclusive language. The Holy See had to send it back to the drawing board. What came out is still a bad translation (inclusive language is very, very minimal–there are other issues that have been covered in other threads), but, it did manage to at least appease the Holy See somewhat.

The OP discussed inclusive language in the lturgy. You can’t make arbitrary changes to the Roman Missal. Nor can you make changes that reflect your idiosyncracies and your personal tastes to make the Mass “politically correct.” No one has the authority to do that. In fact, all of the Church documents make that very clear.

 

[drpmjhess]

The “fad” is the issue of “inclusive” language that has crept up in the liturgy.

Feminism is not a fad; it’s merely a corrective to the masculinism that has reigned supreme in the Church for 2,000 years.

Why are you threatened if a few few people refer to God as “God” rather than exclusively as “he” or “him”? If they irritate you to the point you are distracted in prayer, wear ear plugs, or move a few pews away, or choose a different Mass.

 

[benedictgal]

Feminism is not a fad; it’s merely a corrective to the masculinism that has reigned supreme in the Church for 2,000 years.

Why are you threatened if a few few people refer to God as “God” rather than exclusively as “he” or “him”? If they irritate you to the point you are distracted in prayer, wear ear plugs, or move a few pews away, or choose a different Mass.

Why are you so adamant that it should be as you wish it to be? Why are you also so quick to discard the patrimony that makes up so much of our Church’s history and Tradition?

I have tried to be respectful of you and I have also tried to present my point of view without being offensive. I would be most appreciative if you were to respond in kind.

Furthermore, where in the documents does it indicate that your view is the prevailing one of the Church’s? The so-called “sacred feminine” is something akin to the gnostics and gnosticism has been condemned as a heresy by the Church. It’s one of these things that keeps regurgitating itself every few hundred years or so.

 

[drpmjhess]

Why are you so adamant that it should be as you wish it to be?

I have tried to be respectful of you and I have also tried to present my point of view without being offensive. I would be most appreciative if you were to respond in kind.

Furthermore, where in the documents does it indicate that your view is the prevailing one of the Church’s? The so-called “sacred feminine” is something akin to the gnostics and gnosticism has been condemned as a heresy by the Church. It’s one of these things that keeps regurgitating itself every few hundred years or so.

For one who wants to avoid giving offense, referring contemptuously to the divine feminine as something “regurgitated” certainly does not achieve your objective.

I don’t recall having said that “my view” (and I never indicated it was mine personally) prevails. My intent was to respond to the original poster by suggesting that people who are offended by others’ expression of spirituality should move to a different pew. If someone refers to God as “God” instead of as “he,” what does that matter to you, or to eternity? Why are you so hostile to women who desire to speak to the feminine dimension of God?

Petrus

 

[benedictgal]

For one who wants to avoid giving offense, referring contemptuously to the divine feminine as something “regurgitated” certainly does not achieve your objective.

I don’t recall having said that “my view” (and I never indicated it was mine personally) prevails. My intent was to respond to the original poster by suggesting that people who are offended by others’ expression of spirituality should move to a different pew. If someone refers to God as “God” instead of as “he,” what does that matter to you, or to eternity? Why are you so hostile to women who desire to speak to the feminine dimension of God?

Petrus

You have not given any substantial documentation that indicates that this is something that the Church has supported from the get go. Your insistance of this position seems to be indicative that you are advocating it. When I submitted to you that we have no better proof than Jesus, Himself, referring to God as His Father, you were rather insulting and referred to Our Lord as someone who lived in a time that was culturally patristic.

The fact that feminism is very hostile towards God’s paternity is very troubling and does find its roots back to this alleged sacred feminism that traces its origins to gnosticism, a well known and condemned heresy.

What you also fail to realize is that no one has the right to tinker around with the texts of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass just because their sensibilities or their notions of political correctness are disturbed. Changes based on idiosyncracies and novelties have no real basis and should not even be considered when discussing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. No one has the right to alter any part of the Mass (norms, rubrics and texts) of their own voltion, be they priests, deacons, bishops or the laity. That is what the OP brought up in this thread.

As I indicated before, allowing ourselves to have the winds of political correctness and feminism dictate our positions does not make for sound Catholic theology. When we make our own opinions greater than the Church’s (who has the authority, granted by Jesus, Himself) we fall under the sin of pride, which, after all, was man’s downfall to begin with and was the root cause of all of our problems.

 

[drpmjhess]

The fact that feminism is very hostile towards God’s paternity is very troubling and does find its roots back to this alleged sacred feminism that traces its origins to gnosticism, a well known and condemned heresy.

What you also fail to realize is that no one has the right to tinker around with the texts of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass just because their sensibilities or their notions of political correctness are disturbed. Changes based on idiosyncracies and novelties have no real basis and should not even be considered when discussing the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. No one has the right to alter any part of the Mass (norms, rubrics and texts) of their own voltion, be they priests, deacons, bishops or the laity. That is what the OP brought up in this thread.

(1) I said culturally patriarchal, not patristic (that refers to a period of church history). It is historically undeniable that the cultures in which Early Christianity was embedded – Hebrew, Roman, Hellenistic Greek – were all very patriarchal. Obviously Jesus reflected this patriarchy as did other religious leaders, even though he demonstrated more independence of thought.

(2) Feminism is not Gnosticism. Women appropriately addressing God as “she” is not Gnosticism. And the feminist theologians I know are not rejecting male models of God, they are merely adding other models. After all, God is not literally a father or a king or a judge or a shepherd – these are only fallible human constructs. We enrich our conception of God when we use other models, including God as mother.

(3) You seem to suggest that replacing male pronouns with the word “God” in hymns is heresy. If so, you are in grave error!

(4) You can always sit in a different pew if someone offends you. I have changed pews when someone is coughing or talking during the Mass. It’s not a problem to change pews, or Masses, or even parishes, if they offend you (Mt. 5:28-29)!

(5) You might explore the roots of your own apparent contempt for any woman’s spirituality that is different from your own. Why not leave people alone, rather than pillory them for changing a pronoun in “Joy to the World”?

 

[benedictgal]

(After all, God is not literally a father or a king or a judge or a shepherd – these are only fallible human constructs. We enrich our conception of God when we use other models, including God as mother.

(3) You seem to suggest that replacing male pronouns with the word “God” in hymns is heresy. If so, you are in grave error!

 

[feargalmac]

To my own mind the use of so called inclusive language is anything but inclusive.

There is an excellent article on this at Our Lady’s Warriors %between%

 

[drpmjhess]

When anyone starts tinkering around with the texts of the Mass simply because they don’t like the pronouns, they are placing themselves in a role that is not theirs.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3235163:

At my parish we’re too busy praying and participating in the Mass to notice what pronouns other people are using. If it’s a big deal to you, why not confront the offenders? Give them the ultimatum: “Say ‘he’ and ‘his’ or hit the high road!” Or change pews…

We pray as we believe, is that not true? Nonetheless, what we pray and how we say those prayers are very impoortant, indeed. If they were not so very important, the Holy See would not have issued a document called Redemptionis Sacramentum, which speaks loudly against liturgical abuse and warns both clergy and laity about the dangers of tinkering around with the Mass and cobbing up the liturgy for ourselves. Furthermore, the 2005 Synod on the Eucharist and the resulting document issued by the Holy Father, Sacramentum Caritatis, also carry some serious exhortation about maintaining fideilty to the texts.

You seem to be rather flippant about words. The Church is not so haphazard with her sacred texts. These are texts that she has had for centuries, dare I say two millenia. Who are we to challenge the texts that she has seen fit to use for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

You still have not provided any documentation that would support changing the pronouns used in the Mass just to merely cater and satiate the political correctness of the times. That, in itself, is very poor justification for such a change.

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess;3235279:

We pray as we believe, is that not true?

Yes – we pray each in our own way, showing the vitality and diversity of the Church.

 

[Dietrich]

Obviously Jesus reflected this patriarchy as did other religious leaders, even though he demonstrated more independence of thought.

How generous of you!

(2) Feminism is not Gnosticism. Women appropriately addressing God as “she” is not Gnosticism. And the feminist theologians I know are not rejecting male models of God, they are merely adding other models. After all, God is not literally a father or a king or a judge or a shepherd – these are only fallible human constructs. We enrich our conception of God when we use other models, including God as mother.

Referring to God as ‘She’ seems explicitly to exclude men in it’s description, whereas the male pronoun in all forms have long been used and understood to address all people, man and woman. There are a great many people who either aren’t aware of this, don’t understand, or just want to stir people up for no good reason. I’m thinking you may be one of them. To insist that you must literally understand the male pronoun as excluding women is preposterous and false in the view of history.

(3) You seem to suggest that replacing male pronouns with the word “God” in hymns is heresy. If so, you are in grave error!

Prove it. Where’s the support for this accusation?

1. You can always sit in a different pew if someone offends you. I have changed pews when someone is coughing or talking during the Mass. It’s not a problem to change pews, or Masses, or even parishes, if they offend you (Mt. 5:28-29)!

Why do you keep saying this? Are we not allowed to question the questionable? Must we shut up and let every innovation and ad lib that occurs in Mass be tolerated without comment? I don’t understand why you keep saying this.

(5) You might explore the roots of your own apparent contempt for any woman’s spirituality that is different from your own. Why not leave people alone, rather than pillory them for changing a pronoun in “Joy to the World”?

Why not leave the Mass alone? In an age where confusion is the chief marker of Catholics raised from Vatican II onward, why not strive for a little more clarity in place of constant innovation and appeasement for the easily offended and ignorant? If people really invested themselves in their faith and made an effort to understand context, we wouldn’t have to be circling the drain with this ridiculous topic.

Finally, why can you not come up with any textual support for your positions? Why has every post on this subject been based on your interpretation and opinion? There have been several quotations from Pope Benedict, Cardinal Arinze, etc. to back up the counterargument. Why can you not (or will you not) provide textual support for your claims? It all seems very gauzy and vague. How about you concentrate on a solid argument for your next post instead of flippant remarks?

 

[drpmjhess]

Finally, why can you not come up with any textual support for your positions? Why has every post on this subject been based on your interpretation and opinion? There have been several quotations from Pope Benedict, Cardinal Arinze, etc. to back up the counterargument. Why can you not (or will you not) provide textual support for your claims? It all seems very gauzy and vague. How about you concentrate on a solid argument for your next post instead of flippant remarks?

How about you concentrating on constructing a solid theological argument for why God is to be conceived – both genetically and anatomically – as exclusively male? Until you can demonstrate this, I will regard angry attacks on expressions of the feminine dimension of God as utter rubbish.

More importantly, to return us to the original topic of this thread, why not pray yourself during the Mass rather than keeping your ear attuned to other people’s “heretical” expressions of prayer? When I am at Mass, there is a lot going on around me: children crying, people talking, cell phone rings, mistakes made during recitation of the creed, bells rung at the wrong time by inexperienced alter servers. If I got upset by all this and by people saying “God” instead of “he” or “him” or “his,” I can imagine that the liturgy would be a less-than-prayerful and less joyful community experience.

Prayerfully yours,
Petrus

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess;3235279:

You seem to be rather flippant about words. The Church is not so haphazard with her sacred texts. These are texts that she has had for centuries, dare I say two millenia. Who are we to challenge the texts that she has seen fit to use for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?
.

I have never proposed a change to the texts of the Mass. I’m only suggesting that we respect how some people want to express their love for God, even if it is different from the way we ourselves express it.

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3235316:

I have never proposed a change to the texts of the Mass. I’m only suggesting that we respect how some people want to express their love for God, even if it is different from the way we ourselves express it.

However, when this involves changing words and pronouns in the Mass that should concern us a great deal. This is because whoever is doing this is taking it upon herself to do something that she has no authority to do in the first place. In other words, no one has the right to fool with the Rites.

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess;3237978:

However, when this involves changing words and pronouns in the Mass that should concern us a great deal. This is because whoever is doing this is taking it upon herself to do something that she has no authority to do in the first place. In other words, no one has the right to fool with the Rites.

You could report these Pronoun Haters to the Vatican’s Holy Office of the Inquisition, or the Swiss Guard, or the Diocesan Orthodoxy Police, or some other locally responsible party! (We have such people in our diocese, who report female altar servers to the bishop.) I’ll continue to pray and participate in the liturgy.

Petrus

 

[benedictgal]

benedictgal;3238682:

You could report these Pronoun Haters to the Vatican’s Holy Office of the Inquisition, or the Swiss Guard, or the Diocesan Orthodoxy Police, or some other locally responsible party! (We have such people in our diocese, who report female altar servers to the bishop.) I’ll continue to pray and participate in the liturgy.

Petrus

Throughout these posts, I have tried to explain to you that even changing pronouns sends a dangerous message that people can change the wording of the Mass at will. This is something that no one has the authority to do. It’s not an issue of praying as one wishes. It is personally changing the official and approved texts of the Mass in order to satisfy a politically correct whim or idiosyncracy.

Your disrespect and sarcasm demonstrates that you do not want to engage in debate and are merely posting statements just for the sake of posting.

 

[drpmjhess]

drpmjhess;3238834:

It’s not an issue of praying as one wishes.

Benedictgal, I thought that we had been engaging in theological debate for the past two days, but evidently it’s only debate if you prevail in browbeating you interlocutor into accepting your own position. I have taught theology and philosophy since 1984 (in seminaries and universities on both the graduate and undergraduate levels), and have rarely encountered such intransigence! Your pronoun obsession is truly astonishing to me, as I have never come across it in all my years in the Church, despite participation in liturgies in a dozen languages on five continents. Since constructive discussion is clearly not possible, I will continue to pray.

However, in parting, let me recommend two books bearing upon the topic of our discussion:

William E. Phipps, Genesis and gender: Biblical myths of sexuality and their cultural impact

Kari Elisabeth Borresen, Image of God and Gender Models in Judaeo-Christian Tradition.

Petrus

 

[SpiritMeadow]

drpmjhess;3238834:

Throughout these posts, I have tried to explain to you that even changing pronouns sends a dangerous message that people can change the wording of the Mass at will. This is something that no one has the authority to do. It’s not an issue of praying as one wishes. It is personally changing the official and approved texts of the Mass in order to satisfy a politically correct whim or idiosyncracy.

Your disrespect and sarcasm demonstrates that you do not want to engage in debate and are merely posting statements just for the sake of posting.

I find it hard to believe that no one has authority to change the mass, in terms of minor language. Priests do this all the time. I’ve noticed it in every parish regarding one thing or another. They are not of import to the purpose of the Mass, and I’ve never known anyone to object. My first priest always omitted “men” in the “for us and our salvation:” from the creed. . And if you go to different parishes, you find some differences, although minor. I cannot believe anybody is seriously upset by this. A Hispanic mass for instance is certainly different in some language from a Polish one. Certain idiosyncracies exist with a particular priest sometimes. Nothing of substance is changed. The Ordo mass is much different than the Latin mass. I see no reason why a parish may or priest may not decide to alter some language to be sensitive to others. Surely God is not Male or Female, so it’s arbitrary in the first place that we assigned him male gender in general speech. It’s comes from what was common in paternalistic communities thousands of years ago.