CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > Controversies about Catholicism
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22nd June 2007, 10:15 PM
Paul Bellett Paul Bellett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 534
Default Corruption of Praise & Worship using inclusive language

There has been a growing tendency these days to use more inclusive language in songs, worship, nicene creed , and sometimes holy scripture.
While the intention is to appease the sensitivity of some women, mainly feminists, it has dire consequences in what we generally believe in.

Take for instance the 4th century Nicene creed: - It was once said like this at mass:-
"who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary".
Now becomes:-
"For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven", etc..
Someone thought that the term men was sexist so they removed it, not knowing it actually refers to all mankind (this obviously)includes women)
So what effect does it have by removing mankind from the equation. Well lots actually. For us and for our salvation, now becomes a profession of faith
that you say on behalf of all of God's spiritual creatures, namely the choirs of good angels, the fallen angels, demons, satan and the like. So the original Nicene statement made in the context of for the exclusive salvation of mankind no longer is made valid for the sake of inclusive language.
Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in July 1969 and said the famous words, "one small step for man, one giant step for mankind". I don't believe he was trying to be sexist by saying one small step for man, by not also mentioning women".

Has anyone heard of this song:-
"I am the bread of life, he who comes to me shall not hunger,
He believes in me shall not thirst"
The words of this song were clearly shown on the overhead projector at Mass. Meanwhile we have a Singing Mums female only choir, who delibrately alter these words to :-
"I am the bread of life, you shall not hunger,
you shall not thirst"
So then, they don't need feel the need to go to Jesus, since they now believe that will never hunger or thirst.

A feminist nun was reading one of the scriptures at mass a few years ago, and got the pip at what she was supposed to say that was put in front of her. She used her inclusive own words and phrases instead of the non-inclusive language used in the bible.

This post will probably no doubt get tails wagging!

Last edited by Paul Bellett : 22nd June 2007 at 10:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29th June 2007, 08:51 PM
Joan
 
Posts: n/a
Default inclusive = intrusive

The creeping progress of "inclusive" language into liturgy, Scripture readings, hymns is very annoying and disturbing. Inclusive language at Mass always presents me with the opportunity to wrestle with anger, and win, before walking up to receive the Eucharist. "Inclusive" language is intrusive, ugly it seldom fits as well as the correct, original words. But most infuriating is the intrusiveness of banal, petty, political ideology into worship and doctrine.

Feminist ideology, when it succeeds in gaining "inclusiveness" of language, succeeds in the task of indoctrination, it forces itself into the thoughts and prayer life of everyone. I am pro-woman, pro-life, and grateful to the grandmothers in the saffragist movement who faced ridicule, physical abuse by police, personal punishment by their fathers and husbands and brothers, who were force-fed, beaten and jailed for winning basic adult civil rights status for all women, rights that I treasure today.

The indignity, the betrayal of all women and of society, began in my generation as communist ideology merged with feminism to produce an Orwellian nightmare of abortion, sexual perversion, anti-male and anti-motherhood attitudes, the unisex definition of equality, along with relentless anti-Western deconstruction of culture and society. Perhaps worst of all the outcomes has been the ability to gain permanent hegemony in social thinking, in pedagogy, in intellectual life and the laws, by installing "inclusive" language, and labeling any "non-inclusive" language as hate speech. This is the Orwellian technique of defining, rooting out, sanctioning and then re-programming beliefs and attitudes (called thoughtcrimes by Orwell).

This loathsome, unethical tampering with worship and holiness is so upsetting. They dared to start re-writing poetry as well, as for Memorial Day here we had to sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic with altered words, "He is sifting through all human hearts before His judgment seat" No. The lady in her poem wrote, that Christ was sifting through the "hearts of men" and of course, "He died to make men holy," but we had to hear that "He died to make all holy." And, wherever possible in Scripture or prayer, the "inclusive" language Partisans eliminate the personal pronoun for Deity, and thus eliminate the male personal pronoun. So, it's "God" loves "God's" children, and "God so loved the world that God gave God's Only Begotten Son,"

This is so repulsive. Final rant: my daughter is looking at colleges, and one recruiting letter had the banality, the arrogance, the thumping bureaucratic totalitarian effrontery, to refer to "freshpersons" and "freshpeople" in their literature describing programs for freshmen at their school.

This is so disturbed, so perverse.

There--enough tail wagging, Paul?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 30th June 2007, 11:36 AM
untamed_angel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

This too is heartbreaking. I have never felt excluded or any less loved by the Lord with the words men and he etc. It doesnt phase me atall. I heard very recently that there are nuns in Glasgow who have done the self same thing to everything including scripture. I dont know where they are coming from and have no understanding of why they should feel the need to do this.

It doesnt anger me. I feel sad for those who are doing it. They definitely have issues. On the other hand "winterville" instead of Christmas as they have been doing here does anger me. Taking "Christ" out of Christmas upsets me greatly and its getting to the point that they are not just writing xmas anymore but they are saying that as a result of our multicultural society we should be more inclusive and Christmas excludes many so Winterville, winterfest is being introduced. Have you ever heard such tripe in your life.

All I will say to that is "over my dead body". I will make them myself if necessary but I wont permit them to take "Christ" out of Christmas without a fight.

God bless
Eileen
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 3rd July 2007, 01:16 PM
garabandalg garabandalg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,657
Default Inclusiveness is yet another of the devil's sweet lies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan View Post
The creeping progress of "inclusive" language into liturgy, Scripture readings, hymns is very annoying and disturbing. Inclusive language at Mass always presents me with the opportunity to wrestle with anger, and win, before walking up to receive the Eucharist. "Inclusive" language is intrusive, ugly it seldom fits as well as the correct, original words. But most infuriating is the intrusiveness of banal, petty, political ideology into worship and doctrine.

Feminist ideology, when it succeeds in gaining "inclusiveness" of language, succeeds in the task of indoctrination, it forces itself into the thoughts and prayer life of everyone. I am pro-woman, pro-life, and grateful to the grandmothers in the saffragist movement who faced ridicule, physical abuse by police, personal punishment by their fathers and husbands and brothers, who were force-fed, beaten and jailed for winning basic adult civil rights status for all women, rights that I treasure today.

The indignity, the betrayal of all women and of society, began in my generation as communist ideology merged with feminism to produce an Orwellian nightmare of abortion, sexual perversion, anti-male and anti-motherhood attitudes, the unisex definition of equality, along with relentless anti-Western deconstruction of culture and society. Perhaps worst of all the outcomes has been the ability to gain permanent hegemony in social thinking, in pedagogy, in intellectual life and the laws, by installing "inclusive" language, and labeling any "non-inclusive" language as hate speech. This is the Orwellian technique of defining, rooting out, sanctioning and then re-programming beliefs and attitudes (called thoughtcrimes by Orwell).

This loathsome, unethical tampering with worship and holiness is so upsetting. They dared to start re-writing poetry as well, as for Memorial Day here we had to sing the Battle Hymn of the Republic with altered words, "He is sifting through all human hearts before His judgment seat" No. The lady in her poem wrote, that Christ was sifting through the "hearts of men" and of course, "He died to make men holy," but we had to hear that "He died to make all holy." And, wherever possible in Scripture or prayer, the "inclusive" language Partisans eliminate the personal pronoun for Deity, and thus eliminate the male personal pronoun. So, it's "God" loves "God's" children, and "God so loved the world that God gave God's Only Begotten Son,"

This is so repulsive. Final rant: my daughter is looking at colleges, and one recruiting letter had the banality, the arrogance, the thumping bureaucratic totalitarian effrontery, to refer to "freshpersons" and "freshpeople" in their literature describing programs for freshmen at their school.

This is so disturbed, so perverse.

There--enough tail wagging, Paul?

I agree with all of you, but the irony is so hellish that it is dripping with the devil himself. In their efforts to be more "inclusive" these fools are actually being less so, and in far worse ways. First, they are attempting to exclude God from His own Church, which is an absuridity. They are doing this by arrogantly ignoring His Word and pretending to be qualified to alter it, as if He needed help in any way. Second, they are excluding those who truly follow our Church by pretending that those faithful are somehow distorted, confused or wrong. One introduces "changes" and "reforms" only where there is something wrong and there is confusion. The mere effort to be more "inclusive" is misguided, secular and often loaded with the feministic virus that is infecting our Church. Third and last, they are excluding themselves and those who follow their example from possible salvation, since in sin they are leading others to the same path. Let us pray that this vile influence will not claim so many souls.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 9th July 2007, 05:05 PM
garabandalg garabandalg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,657
Default Inclusiveness not all good

Inclusiveness is treated by many as if it were a good unto itself when, in fact, its relative goodness is grounded in what is being included and for what reasons. Inclusively joining with evil purposes just to be included, for example, actually damages our exclusivity with God
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.