Fr. Michael Gilmary wrote:
But Philip ... isn't that precisely the *opposite* of "inclusive"? It
seems to be the same with so-called "inclusive" language (this, I
believe is a very recent English-speaking phenomenon): in fact, it
actually /divides/ male and female rather than including them together
under some universal term. This, however, is the limit of our language
that needs to be accepted. I don't think it can be changed.
Well, let us not get into "inclusive language", since I am still
a dinosaur who writes and thinks "Chairman", "fireman", "actress",
"waitress" and so on :-)
Speaking from experience, in the world of Catholic parishes, when there
was /one/ liturgical language for Roman rite Catholics (Latin), one
could go anywhere in the world and find a prayer by which to commune
with others. Not uncommon in wartime (esp. in Europe) a soldier from one
army could serve Mass for a chaplain from the opposing army --- it
wasn't unknown to happen. Interesting, no?
Now, to illustrate the point from present time, in typical parishes here
in the US, you'll find the English (i.e., American) Mass, the Spanish
Mass, the Polish, Vietnamese, etc. Whatever benefits it brings, it
certainly /divides/ the community in one parish, since the English
speaking parishioners are unlikely ever to attend the Vietnamese Mass.
But Father, when all the Catholic world used the Latin Mass, how many
of the congregation in England, let alone Latin America, China,
Vietnam or the Belgian Congo, had more than the faintest idea
exactly what "Pater noster, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen
tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in
terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis
debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne
nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen." actually
meant ? How many /today/ know what "Amen" means ? How many can
explain why Jesus apparently had two names ("Jesus" and "Christ")
when all of his disciples had only one ? How many can explain
why sometimes he is referred to as Jesus Christ and at other times
as "Christ Jesus" ? Yes, the Latin Mass united the whole Catholic
world, but did it not unite it in ignorance rather than in understanding ?
How did it differ from the Mennonite Church today, which insists
that the only bible that a Mennonite may legitimately read is the
Old High German version, which almost none apart from the Elders
can now understand ? And which has excommunicated one of its
members for daring to say in public that Mennonites should be
allowed to use a bible written in a language accessible to all ?
Please do not get me wrong : I love the Latin Mass, the King James
Bible, and all the similar now out-of-fashion carryovers of
archaic language (you have probably seen in my posts that I continue
to spell "shewn" with an "e" to this day), but I have the benefit
of having English as a first language, of having had an education
that included Latin, and in being sufficiently interested in language
that the KJV is accessible to me. But my wife is Vietnamese, and
for her, modern English is far easier to understand; her knowledge
of Latin is nil; and so her needs are very different to mine.
Enough : this was seriously off-topic, and I apologise
whole-heartedly to the list.
** Phil.
--------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
