"We cannot defend saying only 'Brothers,' when reading St. Paul at Mass"

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

TheMortenBay

Guest
My parish priest felt the need to correct my reading at Mass, when I read only “Brothers…” rather than “Sisters and Brothers…” at the beginning of today’s epistle. I did not argue, because I don’t like to discuss anything with a priest that could possibly be seen as ill will towards a priest. Certainly not in front of other people.
Now, I did not deviate from the approved scripture by reading only “Brothers”, rather the “Sisters and” was pencilled into the margin.
His argument was that we cannot defend saying only “Brothers” when it is clear St. Paul meant to address everyone in attendance.
On the contrary I feel that today it’s technically more acceptable to read a straight translation of the texts, we can always reflect on what it means, but we’ve never been more knowledgeable or able to discern for ourselves than this present generation.
The parish council chair mentioned she thought women may be the most important elements in the Church. I just argued that without men there wouldn’t be any families - and that’s what’s most important to the Church in that regard.
But I don’t know what the original texts say, and I’m interested in hearing perspectives on this question. I think, for example, it’s generally accepted to say “brothers and sisters” in the Confiteor in most translations? I just don’t like changing scripture on the whim of a single priest…
 
Here, you can replace “brothers and sisters” with brethren. Which is generally what my pastor does.
 
TheMortenBay said:
On the contrary I feel that today it’s technically more acceptable to read a straight translation of the texts…
Click to expand...
His point is that using “sisters and brothers” is more of a straight translation into contemporary English. That isn’t the whim of a priest, but rather recognition of the evolution of the vernacular. It really has changed that much even in the span of my lifetime.
It’s kind of like using human in place of man. The use of “man” as both a masculine noun and one that encompasses both sexes is falling out of use. It isn’t wrong so much as it is becoming archaic. The use of “brethren,” in contrast, is appropriate in contemporary English when the letter is meant to address bishops or priests, or some other group who really are all men.
At any rate, I don’t see a reason to resist being obedient about this. He is not asking you to change the plain meaning of the text. If anything, by his reasoning he is asking you to retain it. (As for retaining the less contemporary wording being something that we “cannot defend,” though, that is going a bit far.)
 
Last edited:
It almost certainly says “brothers” or some other masculine thing in Greek, but a literal translation is not always the best, especially for Mass. Brethren, brothers, and brothers and sisters are all fine, it is really only up to the parish. Everyone knows what is meant anyway, that is “all of you present”
 
If you do not want to change the text you have to read it in Greek. Every translation makes decisions about what the words mean.

This is an adaptation for the liturgy. Brothers, or Brothers and sisters, is not really a translation of anything here. St Paul has just addressed the Corinthians as my loved ones, agapitoi moi. Something like that should precede the verses being read, in order to associate the hearers with the reading.

In the US they use Brothers and sisters. Canada must do the same. I am guessing you are using a British lectionary based on the Jerusalem Bible? The intent of the passage is we become one, so it is awkward to exclude some who will be communing.

But you are right, ad hoc changes to the lectionary are not a good idea, even if the translators got it wrong.
 
Last edited:
TheMortenBay said:
The parish council chair mentioned she thought women may be the most important elements in the Church.
Click to expand...
Sad. Doesn’t that defeat the whole idea of Christian love and being one in Christ to start talking about who might be more important? 😦
 
I think it’s worse in context because we only have one approved translation in Danish and I know this priest holds heterodox views on other subjects. His comment that “we cannot defend saying only ‘Brethren’” is very politically charged to my ears anyway. But I see, like most of the other things he g
ACTUALLY says in his sermons, this is within the boundaries.
 
And if it’s approved, it’s approved. Then we can disagree with it on a personal or a theological plane (or, as is mostly the case in real life, a little bit of both), but in the end it’s legal, prudent or not.
 
As a Lector at Mass I read what I’m TOLD, whether I agree or not. At the end of the day it is not my place to decide what’s good for the parish. I will gladly go into an hour long conversation with the priest about why he is wrong, but not publically and not in order to question Father’s authority.
 
You are talking about 1 Cor 10:6-7, right? The salutation “brothers” does not appear in the text of 1 Cor 10, so it is not an issue of correctly translating Paul. My understanding is that it is added in the Lectionary as a salutation/introduction, and according to the on-line readings provided by the USCCB, the correct salutation to use is “brothers and sisters”: Solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ | USCCB
 
The problem is that a parish may buy a hard copy or copies of the Lectionary at one moment in time but other versions may replace it later. Why would it not be OK for the pastor to make minor changes to the hard copy so that it agrees with the version being used by that nation’s conference of bishops? In that case, this is not a single person altering the translation but rather a parish updating what they have to match the version that the Vatican has approved for their country.
I would not disagree with the premise that when the pastor makes these kinds of alterations, he would do well to mark the page and state that he is the one that made the changes, so that readers don’t have to wonder if the altered version is an approved translation or not.
 
Father should not be changing the texts used in the Mass on his own authority.

The change from “brothers” to “sisters and brothers” is not a big one, nor does it change the meaning of the text; however, that’s not the point. Nobody should be changing the approved texts or ad-libbing the liturgy.

As far as infractions go, it’s on the minor side. But it’s still a no-no.
 
Last edited:
Please correct if I misinterpreted @TheMortenBay’s post, but I believe he (or she) is referring to a Danish (probably the 1992) edition of the Scriptures.
 
CTBcin said:
Father should not be changing the texts used in the Mass on his own authority.

The change from “brothers” to “sisters and brothers” is not a big one, nor does it change the meaning of the text; however, that’s not the point. Nobody should be changing the approved texts or ad-libbing the liturgy.

As far as infractions go, it’s on the minor side. But it’s still a no-no.
Click to expand...
No, I mean that the reading of the day on the USCCB web site does read “brothers and sisters” where it would formerly have read “brethren.” In other words, what the pastor is suggesting would be in accordance with an approved version, were he in the US. That is different than other “alternative translations” a pastor or lector might come up with de novo. It is more like deciding to write in the changes into an older book rather than springing for the more recent edition that has been approved since the parish purchased a copy of the lectionary.
If there were a single allowed version, then it would be the current one, not the old one.
Bithynian said:
Please correct if I misinterpreted @TheMortenBay’s post, but I believe he (or she) is referring to a Danish (probably the 1992) edition of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
Oh! Well, still, consultation with Danish versions that the Vatican have approved for his or her region would answer the question. I would think his or her own bishop’s conference would also have a recent edition on their web posting of the readings for the day. That would answer the question for that region.
 
Last edited:
This is why I will not be a reader; I’ve spent too many years of my life studying Sacred Scripture to be told to read something that I know it doesn’t say.

D
 
DaveBj said:
This is why I will not be a reader; I’ve spent too many years of my life studying Sacred Scripture to be told to read something that I know it doesn’t say.
Click to expand...
You realize, of course (and one of the important points almost glossed over up-thread) is that the lectionary isn’t Scripture verbatim anyway. So no one is reading Scripture exactly as it’s written. They’re reading a version modified for proclamation during liturgy.

Early in my tenure working in the Church I was tasked with making a worship aid and copied the readings from the USCCB website (NAB) Bible. The priest was floored thinking I had invented something because it deviated from the lectionary so much! 😂 (Fortunately, my version wasn’t printed or distributed before correction.)
 
PetraG said:
In other words, what the pastor is suggesting would be in accordance with an approved version, were he in the US. That is different than other “alternative translations” a pastor or lector might come up with de novo .
Click to expand...
Oh, well that makes much more sense then.
 
As others have said, in the US it is approved to say “Brothers and sisters”. I hear it everywhere and all the time here in USA so it’s difficult for me to see this as being a concern.

If there is a similar approval for saying “Brothers and sisters” in your country, then the priest is not doing anything wrong and as the parish priest he is the authority.

You could check on whether the use of “Brothers and sisters” is approved for Denmark.
Alternatively, if you don’t like how the parish priest is handling the readings, then don’t be a reader at his parish.
 
Last edited:
Cor_ad_Cor said:
So no one is reading Scripture exactly as it’s written.
Click to expand...
You confirmed my point. If I’m going to read Scripture, I’m going to read Scripture, not what someone thinks Scripture should have said if it had been written in our generation. So I’m not a reader. It’s no big deal; we have plenty of readers in our parish.

D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top