The Bishops of Ireland, New Zealand and Australia have
made a new updated version of the Lectionary,
the Lectionary is the book that
contains the scripture readings for Mass.
They claim that it was necessary to make it more "inclusive"
and "gender-sensitive", but they insist it is not "woke".
Nevertheless, those 2 words ( inclusive and gender-sensitive)
tells us that it is indeed woke, a politically correct ideological
effort to "update" the Word of God, although they claim that
their motive for this is to try and draw people deeper into God's
Word.
Ever since Vatican II, bishops and parishes have been trying
various "new ways" "to attract people back into the Church",
and this is yet another effort.
"What can we do to get people to come back?" they have been
lamenting, ever since they witnessed the faithful leaving in droves
as the Novus Ordo; the New Mass, was imposed on the Catholic
faithful in the latter half of the 1960s.
They left because of the new Mass, the new liturgy carried with it
a new doctrine, in fact the doctrine was taught less and less, and
today it has, but for the Traditional Parishes, become extinct, or
largely unknown in any case.
Many Catholics think that the religion consists of, and is limited
to, "being nice and helpful".
Fr. O'Donoghue, a member of the editorial group behind the
new Lectionary, says in The Irish Catholic newspaper on
August 14, in regard to the Jerusalem Bible, which has been
used in the current Lectionary for the last 50 years,
"that it was something that was done very well", mentioning
J.R.R. Tolkien's ( a high fantasy writer)
involvement as a factor which contributed to this
"being done very well".
But then he seems to contradict himself as he goes on to say
that the same Bible, (The Jerusalem) was
"a hurriedly prepared Bible" following Vatican II.
He points out the very serious problem of the fact that
compared to the Hebrew and Greek texts, "it (the English)
doesn't always quite say what they say", in other words; it
is a different text with a different meaning.
He says it was a "rushed job" and it "doesn't have the nuances".
But in spite of not knowing Hebrew, he says that the text in the
Revised New Jerusalem Bible seems to be a more faithful rendering
of the original languages.
Which is strange, because the bishops said that their approval was
based on it's "inclusive language and gender-sensitivity".
Instead of man or men, it is now men and women or
women and sisters or people.
This kind of language did not exist in the original text, that is why
they changed it, how can they say it is more true to the original?
At the same time as Vatican II changed the liturgy of
the Catholic Church and wiped out, bit by bit, it's doctrine,
the women's liberation was happening in all western countries.
Women wanted "equal rights", this ideology wanted women
to be so equal to men that they would become as much men
as possible, thus denying and wiping out the perfect
complimentary role of men and women that God made.
We are not the same, it ought to be obvious! but we do
have equal worth.
But this nuance has always been lost on the militant feminist
movement, and it certainly made it's way into the church
too.
Hence demands for women to become priests, and now with
this new Lectionary they are succumbing to it in
an effort to appease "the women" ;it is not only woke, it is
embarrassing and stupid.
The Old and New Testament are set in a completely patriarchal
world; but we today are intelligent and educated enough to understand
that and to take that into account when we read or listen to the Word
of God. We do not "feel excluded", we understand.
But the relentless women's liberation brainwashing that has been
ongoing for 50 years, makes some women believe that they
should feel indignated and "excluded".
What about the text that says that women should submit to
their husbands, (Ephesians 5:22-24), are they going to delete
that too, saying that it is not in line with today's world?
We know that Palestine of 2025 years ago can not be juxtaposed
on the Western world of 2025, but the deep spiritual wisdom of a
married woman submitting to her husband, where the husband
loves and treats his wife well, has not changed.
A Catholic Priest can only be a man, he gives his life ("his seed")
through his ministry to The Church; feminine.
In a marriage the man has authority in the same way as the priest
in the Church, the wife is the "church", through her comes more
faithful believers into the world.
Feminism is spiritual blindness.
All human efforts, including this one, of modernising
the Church, the liturgy, "coming up with new ideas",
"making it more inclusive" are attempts to
compete with God, to get the "numbers up".
It is doomed to fail, it has always failed, and worse still; it
destroys the Church from within.
The parishes that flourish now, and that attracts vocations
to the priesthood, are the Traditional parishes.
They do not "try" to please people, by coming up with
modernizing ideas or schemes, their only objective is to
please God, by a Holy and Reverend Mass with beautiful
Liturgy, and by passing on, unequivocally and without fear,
the clear doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church.
Because it is God who attracts.
In addition to the difficulties in regard to nuances in translating
a language, even today,
(which can make the whole difference in the globality of the
understanding), there is also Pope Francis' Magnum Principium
where he gave authority to the Bishops' Conferences of each
individual country to make their own vernacular translation.
This also has it's roots in Vatican II.
Their stated aim with this change is for spiritual formation
and renewal of the faith.
I doubt very much if that will happen as a result of
this, but I think it will happen, and I think it is already happening.
The young generation are searching authenticity, what is real,
what is true, the "modernity" and the time for "updating" are
things of the past.
Regarding inclusivity, that has always been a basic principle of the Church;
She is for everyone.
