F
fmuenkel
Guest
Some people replace “God” with “he” during group responses in Mass. They are mostly from one parish in our area. Is this substitution something that should be actively discouraged?
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
blackforest
Well-known member
My answer won’t be representative of traditional Catholicism, but I never had a problem with it. Men and women are both made in the image and likeness of God, so its likely that the feminine and masculine co-exist. I also don’t throw a stink when people say “He.” Our Church has bigger Friday fish to fry . . .
P
phil19034
Guest
I think you have a typo.Some people replace “God” with “he” during group responses in Mass. They are mostly from one parish in our area. Is this substitution something that should be actively discouraged?
They are not replacing “God” with “He,” they are replacing “He” with “God.”
This is typically done by people who for some reason find it offensive to refer to God as the Father.
The reason we use “He” instead of “God” is because we are emphasizing God the Father or God the Son everything time we are using the pronoun “He.” We are not referring to the Holy Trinity.
If we were referring to the Holy Trinity, then using only “God” would ok.
It’s not something to get bent out of shape over, but it is theologically incorrect because by substituting “God” instead of “He” the person is either denying the Fatherhood of God or not focusing on the correct member of the Blessed Trinity during the particular prayer.
God bless
Last edited:
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
And how do you plan to do that?Is this substitution something that should be actively discouraged?
W
Wesrock
Guest
This reminds me of someone I sat in front of who replaced every instance of “the Father” with “our Father” with loud and deliberate enunciation during every hymn and response during mass.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I roll my eyes when someone insists on substituting gender-neutral language pretty much anywhere, including Mass.
Having said that, if some place wanted to do this, it’s not morally objectionable in any way, but would get pretty clumsy especially if the word God had to also substitute for every other form of the pronoun (he, him, his)
Having said that, if some place wanted to do this, it’s not morally objectionable in any way, but would get pretty clumsy especially if the word God had to also substitute for every other form of the pronoun (he, him, his)
C
chessnerd321
Guest
It would be a waste of time and effort to get them to do otherwise, but everyone should follow the norms of the church for mass.
Plenty of micro-abuses (or sometimes not so micro ones, but that’s a different issue) are tolerated.
Plenty of micro-abuses (or sometimes not so micro ones, but that’s a different issue) are tolerated.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
As moderately non-conservative as I am with regard to Catholicism, I think we need to follow the words that are in the Missal. If the Missal states “God,” we use God. If the Missal states, 'he," we use he.
L
Lea101
Guest
This is one of those issues that I really don’t care enough tbh.
I think it’s weird to insist gender neutral pronouns and say ‘He’ is offensive, but if someone were to actually use God instead of He…I don’t care. Since it is still accurate anyway. So it’s not really the language but the intention behind it.
I think it’s weird to insist gender neutral pronouns and say ‘He’ is offensive, but if someone were to actually use God instead of He…I don’t care. Since it is still accurate anyway. So it’s not really the language but the intention behind it.
C
commenter
Guest
Actually the Church doesn’t have “bigger fish to fry”. The Mass is the most important work of the Church.
This isn’t about references to the parish schedule, to events in the diocese, etc. It’s about God.
Even if it doesn’t bother you personally, allowing it sets the precedent for allowing other things that might upset you a great deal.
This isn’t about references to the parish schedule, to events in the diocese, etc. It’s about God.
Even if it doesn’t bother you personally, allowing it sets the precedent for allowing other things that might upset you a great deal.
blackforest
Well-known member
“Allowing?” Is it not allowed?
GospelOfMatthew
New member
My diocese does this God for He stuff at almost every parish and my college does it for sure, the priests say it as well and intentionally emphasize it.
Like “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s holy Church.
Plenty of other times in mass everyone does this also but ESPECIALLY here, the priests put huge emphasize on it (they aren’t even suppose to say this part but they do loudly). In the creed when it says “for us men and for…” the people and the priests say “for us and for…” Rarely sometimes the people say “men” but the priest who is on the mic says nothing and then says ‘and’ so everyone knows he skipped man. The part that is “and He came down from heaven and became Man” the people and the priests say “and He came down from heaven and became essence”
I don’t like this stuff because the creed and prayers are written to be said a certain way, people should say it how it’s written
Like “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s holy Church.
Plenty of other times in mass everyone does this also but ESPECIALLY here, the priests put huge emphasize on it (they aren’t even suppose to say this part but they do loudly). In the creed when it says “for us men and for…” the people and the priests say “for us and for…” Rarely sometimes the people say “men” but the priest who is on the mic says nothing and then says ‘and’ so everyone knows he skipped man. The part that is “and He came down from heaven and became Man” the people and the priests say “and He came down from heaven and became essence”
I don’t like this stuff because the creed and prayers are written to be said a certain way, people should say it how it’s written
Last edited:
C
commenter
Guest
The root of liturgical abuses is the sin of pride.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
I’m with you. As Catholics, we are all members of Christ’s Body and we should be acting in union with each other.
There are plenty of places during the Mass where the priest has a choice of options, and there are the prayers of the Faithful where the laity has a chance to ‘give voice’, but if the Church has gone to all the time and trouble to provide specific prayers in specific words that (presumably) everyone at every Mass should be saying, to me it is a sin against Christ’s Church for some individuals or groups to decide, "What the Church says here just does not suit ME, I will substitute something ‘better’. I mean, it’s kind of like having some stable boys shoving their way onto the Globe Theatre in the early 17th century, pushing Shakespeare aside, grabbing the actor playing Hamlet as he starts “To be or not to be” and loudly stating, "Oy, mate, life inna a bowl o’cherries, too right? and then loudly arguing with the Bard that HIS speech was 'too fanciful for ‘us regular blokes’.
Just total prideful arrogance that “The Church” (in its prayers in the Mass) is 'not doing it right–too ‘fancy’, too ‘sexist’, too ‘rote’, and that “What I say is just perfect, and I demand that we do it instead.”
There are plenty of places during the Mass where the priest has a choice of options, and there are the prayers of the Faithful where the laity has a chance to ‘give voice’, but if the Church has gone to all the time and trouble to provide specific prayers in specific words that (presumably) everyone at every Mass should be saying, to me it is a sin against Christ’s Church for some individuals or groups to decide, "What the Church says here just does not suit ME, I will substitute something ‘better’. I mean, it’s kind of like having some stable boys shoving their way onto the Globe Theatre in the early 17th century, pushing Shakespeare aside, grabbing the actor playing Hamlet as he starts “To be or not to be” and loudly stating, "Oy, mate, life inna a bowl o’cherries, too right? and then loudly arguing with the Bard that HIS speech was 'too fanciful for ‘us regular blokes’.
Just total prideful arrogance that “The Church” (in its prayers in the Mass) is 'not doing it right–too ‘fancy’, too ‘sexist’, too ‘rote’, and that “What I say is just perfect, and I demand that we do it instead.”
P
Phemie
Guest
Before 2011 they used to do that in my parish, particularly in this " May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s Church .Some people replace “God” with “he” during group responses in Mass. They are mostly from one parish in our area. Is this substitution something that should be actively discouraged?
Is it a problem?
Well, lets consider this section in the March 2002 letter from the congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to the English language Bishops regarding the rejected 1998 translation of the Roman Missal " Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal"
C. After the Orate, fratres , the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “ May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church. ” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.
0
0331
Guest
The bishop needs to be made aware of this.The part that is “and He came down from heaven and became Man” the people and the priests say “and He came down from heaven and became essence ”
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Dis Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) or Greek (the language in which the NT was written) have sex-specific pronouns? I’m used to using a language that doesn’t and these debates seem stranger and stranger to be the more fluent I become.
C
commenter
Guest
Protestants teach Private interpretation of Scripture, rather than the Magisterium. If you apply this to Mass, every one will say their own understanding of the intent of Scripture, rather the intent of the Magisterium.Dis Aramaic (the language Jesus spoke) or Greek (the language in which the NT was written) have sex-specific pronouns? I’m used to using a language that doesn’t and these debates seem stranger and stranger to be the more fluent I become.
Of course the various perceived intents would be very different. Some people who are indifferent about modifying certain passages that appear to them to be optional or discretionary will be horrified when people monkee with something else, which they consider basic, essential.
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
Well, the point isn’t the ‘sex-specific pronouns’ of a particular language (in the case under discussion, English).
The point is that the specific English prayers and wording as set forth in a specific publication and the instructions for how priest and people are to pray in a Catholic Mass are being disregarded by individual priests and people.
IOW, these ‘dissenters’ are no longer praying with the entire Church in union in the specific and required places FOR union.
Again, it’s like having a USA wide Shakespearean festival in which every town in the US is performing “Hamlet” on Shakespeare’s birthday, April 23, and 95% of the towns are performing exactly what the script says, some of them with terrific actors, some good, some mediocre and some terrible, but all ‘abiding by the script’, but 5% of the towns, even if they have terrific actors and drop dead scenery and props, have decided to ‘rewrite’ bits of the script to make it more ‘relevant’, some changing all the references about Denmark to New Jersey, some having Ophelia blast out with a feminist broadside, some having Hamlet in love with Laertes instead of Ophelia, etc. etc. The whole unity of the gesture of performing the one play on the Bard’s birthday is spoiled. And based on the accident of geography or the whim of someone more powerful, innocent people are deprived of what ‘all people’ were supposed to receive.
The point is that the specific English prayers and wording as set forth in a specific publication and the instructions for how priest and people are to pray in a Catholic Mass are being disregarded by individual priests and people.
IOW, these ‘dissenters’ are no longer praying with the entire Church in union in the specific and required places FOR union.
Again, it’s like having a USA wide Shakespearean festival in which every town in the US is performing “Hamlet” on Shakespeare’s birthday, April 23, and 95% of the towns are performing exactly what the script says, some of them with terrific actors, some good, some mediocre and some terrible, but all ‘abiding by the script’, but 5% of the towns, even if they have terrific actors and drop dead scenery and props, have decided to ‘rewrite’ bits of the script to make it more ‘relevant’, some changing all the references about Denmark to New Jersey, some having Ophelia blast out with a feminist broadside, some having Hamlet in love with Laertes instead of Ophelia, etc. etc. The whole unity of the gesture of performing the one play on the Bard’s birthday is spoiled. And based on the accident of geography or the whim of someone more powerful, innocent people are deprived of what ‘all people’ were supposed to receive.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Um… what? Are you sure that isn’t misheard?The part that is “and He came down from heaven and became Man” the people and the priests say “and He came down from heaven and became essence”
- Status
- Not open for further replies.