D
DaveBj
Guest
You don’t want to know what I would think :bigyikes: However, I would know that phrase is NOT in the lectionary. I might be only a 10-year convert, but I do know that much.
- Status
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
You don’t know the half of it. Besides choir director, she is the liturgical minister who announces “Call to Action” for public recognition along with other groups. [Call to Action is a dissident group of Catholics who supports things the church condemns, like abortion. About 10 years ago, a Nebraska bishop excommunicated all of the members of the local chapter, and it was approved by the Vatican.] She also drives around with an “Obama” bumper sticker when the Church has done everything possible except mention his name as a supporter of abortion. One would think a person in a position of church leadership would be more discrete.
E
Elizium23
Guest
It is considered a problem in Spanish as well. I frequently see (secular) translations with “hermano/as” and so on. It will leak into liturgical use soon enough.
J
JimG
Guest
Oh, it’s fine with me. Not something I’ve noticed. I would have thought that “a reading from…” would be a sufficient introduction to the text. But that’s why others are liturgists and compilers of lectionaries and I’m not!
P
pianistclare
Guest
That’s kind of what I was thinking. Because the readers are addressing the people…and as such, begin with a greeting, to underscore the teaching aspect of the reading.
Just my 2 cents. It doesn’t bug me. It’s more of a selected message from the Lord to the people( in my mind) than someone reading the Bible out loud to me.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Why not “siblings” instead? I understand that some consider “God our Father” to be offensive because their fathers abused them as children and so have a negative feeling about “father”. Well, I find most modern changes to be offensive. This leads to the question, are we to tailor Catholicism to suit every one of our 1.5 billion members or only the politically correct?
P
pianistclare
Guest
This doesn’t seem relevant or plausible. “Siblings” is not anywhere in the Bible as a word.Why not “siblings” instead? I understand that some consider “God our Father” to be offensive because their fathers abused them as children and so have a negative feeling about “father”. Well, I find most modern changes to be offensive. This leads to the question, are we to tailor Catholicism to suit every one of our 1.5 billion members or only the politically correct?
We’re talking about Scripture, not political correctness.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
But political correctness is taking over the church. That’s what this thread is about.
P
pianistclare
Guest
I don’t see that…I think it was about why don’t they read the text exactly as written in the Bible, without preliminary words that are not in the original text.
I doubt very seriously that the OP is at all concerned with political correctness.
You should ask him.
I don’t know what your parish is like, but my parish doesn’t give two hoots about being politically correct.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good point. I’ve even heard some wanting to reverse it and make it “Sisters and Brothers.”
But it’s an Anglophone thing so I don’t worry about it too much.
I don’t think so. The question is more like why the phrase “brothers and sisters” is in the Lectionary reading when it isn’t in Scripture, not why it’s translated the way it is. The answer has already been given along multiple good angles: it gives an emphasis that it’s being addressed to the congregation present; it has a longstanding custom of use in the Church.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Perhaps then one needs to look at other parts of the Mass if he doesn’t think political correctness is an issue. In 1973 the consecration formula was changed from “for you and all men” to “for you and all” and it wasn’t made to rectify the translation of the Latin either. And here we’re talking about the very heart of the Mass.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
It’s in it because of political correctness.
P
pianistclare
Guest
Can you provide some official documents to substantiate this claim?
L
LightBound
Guest
.As explained before, “brethren” is the plural of “brothers”, and in our times, it would be indicating the intended audience was men, not both men and women. Word meanings change over the course of time and language evolves within a culture. There is a difference between being inclusive (as in, to “include” those who are to be included") and being politically correct. I’m sorry you are unable to see that difference with this particular issue.
X
Xpiatio
Guest
My thoughts exactly. God’s nature doesn’t change due to my perspective of God. If it does, then all truth would be relative.Why not “siblings” instead? I understand that some consider “God our Father” to be offensive because their fathers abused them as children and so have a negative feeling about “father”. Well, I find most modern changes to be offensive. This leads to the question, are we to tailor Catholicism to suit every one of our 1.5 billion members or only the politically correct?
P
pianistclare
Guest
So what would be more acceptable to those who feel like this is a political issue?
Hey you people?
Dear Christians?
What is offensive about “Brothers and Sisters”? The culture in which these books were written plainly uses these terms all the time. Christ was certainly speaking to all people with no regard to gender.
Why does it always have to be a sticking point? It’s unnecessary and tiresome. :coffeeread:
I still believe the POINT of the OP is whether or not there should be a greeting at all.
Considering a given 2nd reading is not taken from the first part of one of Paul’s letters.
the original post:
***When we hear a reading at Mass from one of Paul’s letters it often starts with “Brothers and Sisters” even though that phrase does not show up in the letter.
snip
Why is it there, and what’s the history of that phrase being included in the reading?
Thanks! ***
It’s because the readings are lessons. And when you teach people, you address them. These passages are parts of letters written to the various churches. It’s not a stretch to include the greeting…when citing a portion of a letter.
Hey you people?
Dear Christians?
What is offensive about “Brothers and Sisters”? The culture in which these books were written plainly uses these terms all the time. Christ was certainly speaking to all people with no regard to gender.
Why does it always have to be a sticking point? It’s unnecessary and tiresome. :coffeeread:
I still believe the POINT of the OP is whether or not there should be a greeting at all.
Considering a given 2nd reading is not taken from the first part of one of Paul’s letters.
the original post:
***When we hear a reading at Mass from one of Paul’s letters it often starts with “Brothers and Sisters” even though that phrase does not show up in the letter.
snip
Why is it there, and what’s the history of that phrase being included in the reading?
Thanks! ***
It’s because the readings are lessons. And when you teach people, you address them. These passages are parts of letters written to the various churches. It’s not a stretch to include the greeting…when citing a portion of a letter.
I have actually been somewhat amused by this thread from the beginning because of the two interpretations to the OP’s question.The question in the title of the thread is ambiguous in meaning although given the subject matter of previous discussions in this forum
it is not surprising that it was interpreted to be a questioning of translation.The question in the actual thread is still somewhat ambiguous but the additional information in the post makes it clear that the question concerns why any phrase of any translation is included at the beginning of a reading when it does not actually occur in that particular spot in scripture.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Et al.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Do I have to have official documents to back up my opinion, which, BTW isn’t just my opinion. See “Worship and Inclusive Language” by Richard C. Leonard
laudemont.org/a-wail.htm
- Status