And you think that Fr. Curran is correct, then? Avery Cardinal Dulles is a respected theologian and his books and works stand in complete agreement with the Magisterium.
Did I say Fr. Curran is correct? I only said that not having been in attendance, Avery Dulles fabricated his account of the CTSA meeting.
No one (ordained or not) has the permission to change the language of the Mass. The only exception to this rule is where the Roman Missal expressly says that, instead of the given formula of words, the person speaking may use “similar words”. However, that exception is a) possibly not present (I don’t know for certain) in the official Latin version of the Missal, and b) only in particular cases. And it’s over-employed and dangerous therefore: it requires the person speaking the “similar words” to not accidentally speak heretical words. No one has the authority to change the text. Just because they do it does not make it right. And I certainly object (as does benedictgal).
Do you think the Nicene Creed, which has been spoken in the Church for centuries upon centuries – the last change to which was over a millenium ago – contains “minor language”? Don’t you see the problem of two people in the same pew who claim to profess the same faith speaking different words when they recite the Creed?!
We’re not talking about things getting changed in translation (which is never a good thing, mind you), but about things simply being omitted without any authority whatsoever.
Huh? The “Ordo mass” and the “Latin mass”? Perhaps you are comparing the Ordinary Form (the Mass of Paul VI) with the Extraordinary Form (the Mass of Bl. John XXIII); that is, the “Novus Ordo” with the “Tridentine” or “Traditional Latin Mass”. Your terminology is all wrong. The Novus Ordo is officially in Latin (and can be celebrated as such, and was expected to be by Vatican II), as is the Tridentine. Calling one of them Latin (to the exclusion of the other) is a fallacy, brought about by poor catechesis. Now, if you meant to say that the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) differs from the Tridentine (Extraordinary Form), you are right. But the differences do not include a carte blanche for improvisation or novelty.
You are calling inspired Scripture arbitrary. You are calling Jesus’s reference to God as “Father” arbitrary. You are calling Paul’s admonition that we are to cry out “Abba!” (which means “Father”, or more accurately, “Dad”) arbitrary. That’s not kosher.
The CTSA has been marked by dissent against the Holy See, as the above indicates. Fr. Curran is another example.
‘This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female, and he blessed them and he named them Man in the day when they were created.’ (Genesis 5:1,2)It also shows a denial of the First person of the Trinity, who is God the Father.
Interesting article.
Interesting article. Gender neutral language is here to stay in business, government and academe; it will be interesting to see whether the Roman Church follows, as many local parishes have. Of course, we must effect changes without affecting theology.
The Church is in the world, but it is not of the world. This will certainly not happen, not with Pope Benedict XVI on the Chair of Peter.
Benedictgal, that’s great that you are not offended by the words “For us men and for our salvation.” There are many women in Afghanistan who likewise are not offended by being required by the Taliban to wear the full burqah. But there are women who are offended, and who would rather not have to wear the burqah.
The relativism claim that I made is very much appropriate. What you are suggesting is that the Church conform to the world. That is an error. The Church recognizes the signs of the times, but, she is to remain a constant beacon. She is in the world, but, she is not of the world. She should not be guided by the whims of political correctness and idiosyncracy. That is something that you do not understand.
I submit to you that this last section certainly would include the fashion of inclusive language. Those who want to change language in the Mass are only doing it because they are blindly following the novelty of political correctness and so-called inclusivity. It’s often the ones who are supposedly well-educated who want this kind of change. But, the truth of he matter lies in the fact that their pride is behind it. Since they are at the “forefront” of things and they “know better” than the rest of us, including the Church, they succumb to these fads and fancies.
How does your position differ from that of the Taliban, who also reject the idea that Muslims need to conform to “the world”?
They are remaining in a world without the light of Christ. That’s the difference. Islam is a step backwards from Christianity (not in “lineage”, but in “progress”). They are subject to a darkness that can be dispelled by Christ (as is much of the world).
But everyone knows that the use of primarily male pronouns in scripture (such as mankind, or for all men…) is sometimes to be understood as referring to all human beings, both male and female. Everyone honestly knows that the spirit of God is generless. It’s just the way the words are written. Why is this nonissue suddenly an issue?
