Sisters and Brothers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tdmavens
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tdmavens

Guest
Is it OK for the deacons at my parish to say, “My sisters and brothers, the Gospel of the Lord,” following the reading of the Gospel at Mass, rather than saying, “The Gospel of the Lord?”

Is it OK for them to say, “Sisters and brothers,” when reading from St. Paul’s letters during Mass? I’m pretty sure my Bible says, “brothers and sisters” in these instances.

It seems to me that they are going out of their way to do this, but should I just ignore it?

Thanks!
 
tdmavens said:
Is it OK for the deacons at my parish to say, “My sisters and brothers, the Gospel of the Lord,” following the reading of the Gospel at Mass, rather than saying, “The Gospel of the Lord?”

Is it OK for them to say, “Sisters and brothers,” when reading from St. Paul’s letters during Mass? I’m pretty sure my Bible says, “brothers and sisters” in these instances.

It seems to me that they are going out of their way to do this, but should I just ignore it?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
No, he is to read/change the text without adding, removing, or changing anything. The church is very clear on this. If it is continual (ie, not one time), you have a duty to write to the bishop.

Redemptionis Sacramentum
  1. In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.
  2. Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.
 
tdmavens said:
Is it OK for the deacons at my parish to say, “My sisters and brothers, the Gospel of the Lord,” following the reading of the Gospel at Mass, rather than saying, “The Gospel of the Lord?”

Is it OK for them to say, “Sisters and brothers,” when reading from St. Paul’s letters during Mass? I’m pretty sure my Bible says, “brothers and sisters” in these instances.

It seems to me that they are going out of their way to do this, but should I just ignore it?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Ignore it. It doesn’t matter whether ‘sisters’ is first or ‘brothers’. It doesn’t change the reading.

You could ask the Deacon why he is doing it this way. He may have an interesting answer for you.
 
JM3 said:
Ignore it. It doesn’t matter whether ‘sisters’ is first or ‘brothers’. It doesn’t change the reading.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but it does matter. If “brothers” is written first in the book, then it should be said first. If “sisters” is written first, then it should be said first. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

All you have to do is read the text. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is this that hard to accept?
 
TheMc said:
I’m sorry, but it does matter. If “brothers” is written first in the book, then it should be said first. If “sisters” is written first, then it should be said first. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

All you have to do is read the text. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is this that hard to accept?
Click to expand...
Matthew 7:2
 
JM3 said:
[bibledrb]Matthew 7:2[/bibledrb]
Click to expand...
[12.] On the contrary, it is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, and in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms.
Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Redemptionis Sacramentum
​
At the end of each of the readings, the proper thing to say is: Verbum Domini.

(In this case, the translation is “The Gospel of the Lord”)

It doesn’t say “Fratres, Verbum Domini” – just “Verbum Domini”

Is it too much to ask that the clergy simply proclaim the liturgy according to the liturgical books rather than coming up with some little unique innovation?
 
I would talk to the priest/pastor of the parish first before writing to the bishop.
 
markomalley said:
Is it too much to ask that the clergy simply proclaim the liturgy according to the liturgical books rather than coming up with some little unique innovation?
Click to expand...
How do you know that the Deacon does not have permission from the Bishop? Thus, I said to ask the Deacon.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.[45] Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.[46]
 
JM3 said:
How do you know that the Deacon does not have permission from the Bishop? Thus, I said to ask the Deacon.

Redemptionis Sacramentum

[21.] It pertains to the diocesan Bishop, then, “within the limits of his competence, to set forth liturgical norms in his Diocese, by which all are bound”.[45] Still, the Bishop must take care not to allow the removal of that liberty foreseen by the norms of the liturgical books so that the celebration may be adapted in an intelligent manner to the Church building, or to the group of the faithful who are present, or to particular pastoral circumstances in such a way that the universal sacred rite is truly accommodated to human understanding.[46]
Click to expand...
Glad you’re reading it.

But you need to keep reading a few more paragraphs:

[27.] As early as the year 1970, the Apostolic See announced the cessation of all experimentation as regards the celebration of Holy Mass[62] and reiterated the same in 1988.[63] Accordingly, individual Bishops and their Conferences do not have the faculty to permit experimentation with liturgical texts or the other matters that are prescribed in the liturgical books. In order to carry out experimentation of this kind in the future, the permission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments is required. It must be in writing, and it is to be requested by the Conference of Bishops. In fact, it will not be granted without serious reason. As regards projects of inculturation in liturgical matters, the particular norms that have been established are strictly and comprehensively to be observed.[64]

If there was permission to use those words, they would appear in the Misssal (it would say, “for dioceses in the United States…”). They don’t.
 
JM3 said:
Condescension noted. 🤷
Click to expand...
Really? That’s odd since there was no condescension given.

I am actually sincerely glad when somebody reads what the Church teaches on a given subject. It is genuinely important. Because rather than having an argument based on “I feel” versus “fact”, the argument ascends to the level of “fact” versus “fact.”

I cannot think of the number of times I’ve had disagreements with folks (both in the real world and online) where the other party is arguing from the perspective of “feeling” versus objective fact.

And if the argument can be elevated to the level of Redmptionis Sacramentum says this, Ecclesia in Eucharistia says this, Missale Romanum says this, and so on, rather than “this doesn’t feel right,” then some solution to the dispute can be found.

If that’s condescension, sorry.
 
Statement 1) Jesus died for us.

Statement 2) For us Jesus died.

How does the meaning of statement 2 change the meaning of statement 1?

Should statement 2 be considered a ‘grave abuse’ of statement 1?

As Matthew 7:2 says - For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
 
JM3 said:
Statement 1) Jesus died for us.

Statement 2) For us Jesus died.

How does the meaning of statement 2 change the meaning of statement 1?

Should statement 2 be considered a ‘grave abuse’ of statement 1?

As Matthew 7:2 says - For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Click to expand...
While I haven’t looked much at the text, no one is saying there is anything wrong with the text, and no one is saying that the main idea of the text is any different.
The issue is that this text is not an approved text, that is, the text is simply not in the missal, and during that time, only one of the four memorial acclamations are to be used. Here they are:

Priest: Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:
All: A - Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
or B - Dying you destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus, come in glory.
or C - When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.
or D - Lord, by your cross and resurrection, you have set us free. You are the Savior of the World.

This is no more an issue of “judging others” than saying that murder is wrong. Using “We remember” as a memorial acclamation is wrong to use, and if the music director and/or pastor is aware of that, it is also ** sinful** for them to use it.

The liturgy is not ours to tinker with.
Say the Black, do the red. It’s that simple.
 
JM3 said:
Statement 1) Jesus died for us.

Statement 2) For us Jesus died.

How does the meaning of statement 2 change the meaning of statement 1?

Should statement 2 be considered a ‘grave abuse’ of statement 1?

As Matthew 7:2 says - For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Click to expand...
The issue comes in not with the statement 1 or statement 2

The issue comes in with version 3 or 4, below:
  1. My brothers and sisters, Jesus died for us “My brothers and sisters” not in the original Latin nor in an approved translation]
  2. Jesus died for all [changed the meaning]
I will give you a local example that I hear from a priest who celebrates Mass every now and again in our parish (he visits and is not assigned to the parish)

The opening (in Latin) says:

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

The current approved translation says:

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

What he says:

We gather together as a family and community of God who has revealed Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So what?

First of all, he has changed the meaning of the initial greeting. The Roman Missal says nothing even close to resembling that. Nor can it be inferred from a reading of the text.

Secondly, simply making the sign of the cross and saying “In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen” is an indulgenced prayer. (Enchiridion Indulgentiarum 4ed N 28). Making a declarative statement that God has revealed Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not discussed as an indulgenced act.

Third, the Mass is the worship of the universal Church. As Pope John Paul II said in his encyclical letter “Ecclesia de Eucharistia” no. 52, Liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated.

You have twice cited Matthew 7:2 in your discussion. Please show me where I have judged the state of anybody’s soul in this discussion. I have correctly identified errors. But identifying errors and abuses is my responsibility as a member of the faithful:

[183.] In an altogether particular manner, let everyone do all that is in their power to ensure that the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist will be protected from any and every irreverence or distortion and that all abuses be thoroughly corrected. This is a most serious duty incumbent upon each and every one, and all are bound to carry it out without any favouritism.

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

And identifying errors and abuses is dramatically different than judging the state of another person’s soul.
 
Clergy should not be changing the wording of the Mass texts. People should not drive faster than the posted speed limit. People will be people…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top