Replies

Now I'll come at you from the opposite side:

I wouldn't presume heterodoxy because they argued for the adoption of "inclusive" language. While nonsense such as "Our Parent who is in Heaven" gives it a bad name, there are places where the use of a masculine, added to the text, can be theologically misleading. We're not talking changing "Fall of Man" to "Fall of Person." Sorry, I wish I remembered it better, but I remember getting my dander up, and then reading through it saying, "no, I have to agree with this."

And I've blasted the NAB (70s edition) as being apostate AND I sing the original whenever they change "men" to "all" in our songs. So, I'm no lefty on this issue.

You guys are better at this than I am. Until I found all the Catholic info on the Internet a few years ago (3 ?) I had no idea about all the behind the scenes stuff. I was walking around still dazed and baffled by what had and what was still happening at the parish level. Felt that way since I was about 14 or 15.

Ya know, sometimes I think I was better off back then! ;-)

The inclusive language... it changes the meaning of the main idea sometimes and sometimes it is just bs... like my parish priest during Lent last year... a few times he had to lead the Stations of the Cross and he says "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with YOU" (instead of THEE) it's just annoying because it's pointless - like why bother. He was the only one using the more modern language, though. And most of the parishioners were younger than he is.

PS - wasn't the inclusive language thing - that those bishops went to Rome to see the pope about - regarding the Catechism (which was originally Law's idea, I think) and not the stuff associated with the ICEL?