Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [liturgy-l] Digest Number 2098

Expand Messages
  • John Dornheim
    The problem with the alternative form is that it assigns separate roles to the persons of the Godhead as though there was no overlap, no shared responsibility.
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      The problem with the alternative form is that it assigns separate roles
      to the persons of the Godhead as though there was no overlap, no shared
      responsibility.
      Any discomfort which hearers might experience could be due more to the
      fact that they are unaccustomed to such language. They can get used to
      it, they can be stretched. I use the pronoun "she" in reference to the
      Spirit to force people to think. I also don't beat them to death with
      it. But when I speak of the First person, I try to eschew a male
      pronoun as much as possible.
      Of course "your" construct sounds ridiculous. Couldn't one say
      something like "We have been created in God's image so that we might be
      drawn back to God"?
      John Dornheim
      On Jan 2, 2006, at 10:46 PM, cfortunato@... wrote:

      > In a message dated 1/2/2006 8:38:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      > liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com writes:
      > The Son has taught us to pray to God as Abba, Father. The Father has
      > designated Jesus as his Son.
      > True. But do you think that in the use of the terms "Father" and
      > "Son" a
      > statement was being made about gender. It seems to me that it is more
      > likely to
      > be a statement about relationship and likeness.
      >
      > This is the reason that I do not like other Trinitarian formulas, like
      > "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier," nor do I like substituting "Creator"
      > for Father in
      > the creed. It is not only hubris, but depersonalizes a God whom Jesus
      > personalized.
      >
      > But using "She" for the Spirit does none of these things. As far as I
      > can
      > tell, it's Biblically and theologically sound. The only argument I
      > see against
      > it is that it causes discomfort in some congregants. But the
      > exclusive use of
      > the male pronoun causes discomfort in other congregants, and discomfort
      > caused by "she" probably doesn't last: it didn't last in me, at least.
      >
      > And you do have to use some pronouns. I'm sorry, but "God created us
      > in
      > God's image so that God could draw us back to God's self" just sounds
      > ridiculous.
      >
      > My 1.5 cents.
      >
      > Carl Fortunato
      > NYC
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > Visit the liturgy-l homepage at
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the
      > owners/moderators, please send an email to:
      > liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      "We are, each of us, angels with only one wing; and we can only fly by
      embracing one another."
      Luciano de Crescenzo



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Frank Senn
      Apparently my observation that in the Trinitarian economy the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that therefore the Holy Spirit is not an
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Apparently my observation that in the Trinitarian economy the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that therefore the Holy Spirit is not an independent operator, has made no dent on the issue of pronouns. Since the God revealed to us is revealed in Jesus as God's Son, yes, I do think there are theological implications for gender.

        Frank C. Senn

        cfortunato@... wrote:
        In a message dated 1/2/2006 8:38:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
        liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com writes:
        The Son has taught us to pray to God as Abba, Father. The Father has
        designated Jesus as his Son.
        True. But do you think that in the use of the terms "Father" and "Son" a
        statement was being made about gender. It seems to me that it is more likely to
        be a statement about relationship and likeness.

        This is the reason that I do not like other Trinitarian formulas, like
        "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier," nor do I like substituting "Creator" for Father in
        the creed. It is not only hubris, but depersonalizes a God whom Jesus
        personalized.

        But using "She" for the Spirit does none of these things. As far as I can
        tell, it's Biblically and theologically sound. The only argument I see against
        it is that it causes discomfort in some congregants. But the exclusive use of
        the male pronoun causes discomfort in other congregants, and discomfort
        caused by "she" probably doesn't last: it didn't last in me, at least.

        And you do have to use some pronouns. I'm sorry, but "God created us in
        God's image so that God could draw us back to God's self" just sounds ridiculous.

        My 1.5 cents.

        Carl Fortunato
        NYC


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
        liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
        Yahoo! Groups Links










        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • James Morgan
        I hope your first sentence was not a reference to the dreaded filioque !~ Rdr. James Olympia, WA ... From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I hope your first sentence was not a reference to the dreaded 'filioque'!~

          Rdr. James
          Olympia, WA

          -----Original Message-----
          From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Frank Senn
          Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:07 PM
          To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Digest Number 2098

          Apparently my observation that in the Trinitarian economy the Spirit is the
          Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that therefore the Holy Spirit is not
          an independent operator, has made no dent on the issue of pronouns. Since
          the God revealed to us is revealed in Jesus as God's Son, yes, I do think
          there are theological implications for gender.

          Frank C. Senn
        • Frank Senn
          No, I m not talking about procession, but bonding. That is, not moving out of the Godhead but relationships within the Godhead. Frank C. Senn James Morgan
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            No, I'm not talking about procession, but bonding. That is, not moving out of the Godhead but relationships within the Godhead.

            Frank C. Senn

            James Morgan <rdrjames@...> wrote:
            I hope your first sentence was not a reference to the dreaded 'filioque'!~

            Rdr. James
            Olympia, WA

            -----Original Message-----
            From: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com [mailto:liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
            Of Frank Senn
            Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:07 PM
            To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Digest Number 2098

            Apparently my observation that in the Trinitarian economy the Spirit is the
            Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that therefore the Holy Spirit is not
            an independent operator, has made no dent on the issue of pronouns. Since
            the God revealed to us is revealed in Jesus as God's Son, yes, I do think
            there are theological implications for gender.

            Frank C. Senn





            Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
            liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
            Yahoo! Groups Links










            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • DJP4LAW@aol.com
            Frank, I think I missed your original post, and that may explain (better than my own obtuseness) why I don t quite get your point. Since I have no luck going
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Frank, I think I missed your original post, and that may explain (better than my own obtuseness) why I don't quite get your point. Since I have no luck going into the archives (if that's where it would appear), would you comment further (either or, if it would be redundant, privately)?

              I don't disagree with what you say here (although my pneumatology is terribly unformed and I try to make sense of "Jesus' spirit," "God's Spirit," "the spirit blows where it wills"), but I don't make the connection from what you say to invoking the Spirit in linguistic feminine gender.

              Too, in what sense is the Spirit's not being an independent operator any different from the other two members of the Trinity's not being independent operators? Do you mean something different from the point that none of the Persons acts independently of the interests and intents of the other two members? (That's something that I find hard to dispute. Does anyone?)

              Thanks and

              Peace
              Dwight Penas
              Minneapolis
              ____________________________
              We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity." -- Umberto Eco



              -----Original Message-----
              From: Frank Senn <fcsenn@...>
              To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:07:19 -0800 (PST)
              Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Digest Number 2098


              Apparently my observation that in the Trinitarian economy the Spirit is the
              Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that therefore the Holy Spirit is not an
              independent operator, has made no dent on the issue of pronouns. Since the God
              revealed to us is revealed in Jesus as God's Son, yes, I do think there are
              theological implications for gender.

              Frank C. Senn


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Frank Senn
              I m playing catch up with posts on my email lists, so this response may be a little late. In Trinitarian theology no person is an independent operator. But
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                I'm playing catch up with posts on my email lists, so this response may be a little late. In Trinitarian theology no person is an independent operator. But there has been a tradition, associated especially with German idealism, that sees the Spirit as the agent of creativity. Thus does the Spirit function in Goeth'e Faust, the creative force of God inspiring creativity in human beings. Such a Spirit may be identified as "she" (e.g. a muse). But in the Gospel of John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. "The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26).

                Frank C. Senn


                DJP4LAW@... wrote:
                Frank, I think I missed your original post, and that may explain (better than my own obtuseness) why I don't quite get your point. Since I have no luck going into the archives (if that's where it would appear), would you comment further (either or, if it would be redundant, privately)?

                I don't disagree with what you say here (although my pneumatology is terribly unformed and I try to make sense of "Jesus' spirit," "God's Spirit," "the spirit blows where it wills"), but I don't make the connection from what you say to invoking the Spirit in linguistic feminine gender.

                Too, in what sense is the Spirit's not being an independent operator any different from the other two members of the Trinity's not being independent operators? Do you mean something different from the point that none of the Persons acts independently of the interests and intents of the other two members? (That's something that I find hard to dispute. Does anyone?)

                Thanks and

                Peace
                Dwight Penas
                Minneapolis
                ____________________________
                We are supposed to live in a sceptical age. In fact, we live in an age of outrageous credulity." -- Umberto Eco



                -----Original Message-----
                From: Frank Senn
                To: liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 16:07:19 -0800 (PST)
                Subject: Re: [liturgy-l] Digest Number 2098


                Apparently my observation that in the Trinitarian economy the Spirit is the
                Spirit of the Father and the Son, and that therefore the Holy Spirit is not an
                independent operator, has made no dent on the issue of pronouns. Since the God
                revealed to us is revealed in Jesus as God's Son, yes, I do think there are
                theological implications for gender.

                Frank C. Senn


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                Yahoo! Groups Links











                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • James O'Regan
                ... Probably the most under-studied but amazing Spirit texts is also from John - 16:13b. All the commentary that I have come across deals with 13 a and /or c,
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Frank wrote and I snipped:

                  > But in the Gospel of John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. "The
                  > Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he
                  > will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I
                  > have said to you" (John 14:26).

                  Probably the most under-studied but amazing Spirit texts is also from
                  John - 16:13b. All the commentary that I have come across deals with
                  13 a and /or c, or 13 as a whole but really a & c.

                  (RSV): a. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all
                  the truth; b. for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever
                  he hears he will speak, c. and he will declare to you the things that are
                  to come."

                  Nobody pays attention to the notion of "authority" and "speaking
                  what is heard." For liturgy, which is all about speaking alien [what is
                  heard] texts by some authority, that this pericope has not received
                  attention is astounding. If this isn't reportage on the inner working of
                  the Trinity, I'll eat my boo0ts, which conveniently, since Christmas,
                  are liquorice.

                  So, who's picking up 13b for a PhD, quid? let me know. I could use the
                  results.

                  James O'Regan
                • alleluieva
                  ... In Trinitarian theology no person is an independent operator. But there has been a tradition, associated especially with German idealism, that sees the
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, Frank Senn <fcsenn@s...> wrote:
                    >
                    > I'm playing catch up with posts on my email lists, so this response may be a little late.
                    In Trinitarian theology no person is an independent operator. But there has been a
                    tradition, associated especially with German idealism, that sees the Spirit as the agent of
                    creativity. Thus does the Spirit function in Goeth'e Faust, the creative force of God
                    inspiring creativity in human beings. Such a Spirit may be identified as "she" (e.g. a muse).
                    But in the Gospel of John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. "The Counselor, the Holy Spirit,
                    whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your
                    remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26).

                    German idealism is hardly a good source for Christian theology, though, yes?

                    On a technical point, I'm not sure you can say the Spirit is primarily the Spirit of Jesus in
                    John's gospel. Jesus does send the Spirit from the Father, but the Spirit proceeds from the
                    Father alone, in terms of his eternal origin-- I recognize, of course, that this takes us to
                    the Filioque issue, but for John, the matter seems clear: see Jn 15.26.

                    But in any case, as I understand it, you would seem to want to refer to the Spirit (primarily)
                    in the masculine because he/it originates either according to his mission from the Son, or
                    according to his eternal procession, from the Son or from one who is always referred to by
                    the Son as masculine. If I understand you correctly, you would be saying, somewhat as I
                    have, that the gender of our langauge about the Spirit is (almost necessarily) a reflection
                    of his relation of origin and mission, and that, to make him/it feminine might be to
                    suggest that he/it had some other origin, or that, in terms of his/its mission, he/it
                    "operated independently" in the world, as you put it. If this is what you mean, i would tend
                    to agree, while still observing that the Spirit is referred to by different genders in different
                    languages, without theological significance.

                    And this lack of theological significance is theologically significant. But what becomes
                    apparent is that the issue is entirely one of language and its theological implications, not
                    one of the gender of the persons of the Godhead per se, because the persons of the
                    Godhead have no gender, except in the case of the incarnate Word. And the issue of
                    language is partly universal (i.e., true for any language) and partly specific for each
                    particular language.

                    With regard to the latter, the main problem with using the feminine in English is that it
                    does seem to specify a concrete female person in a way that is not true for languages
                    where every noun has one 'gender' or another, often indifferent to the actual sex of the
                    thing named. In english, we can call a baby or an animal, 'it' and not mean anything by
                    this. But if we use 'he' or 'she', we are being specific: this one is female; that one is male.
                    And that specificity is what we have to avoid when we speak of the persons of the
                    Godhead-- for, as people who want to use the feminine of the Spirit rightly point out,
                    there is no gender in God, except by way of the incarnation.

                    If we use the masculine pronoun, gender is somewhat less of an issue, because the
                    masculine has been historically used as the generic, and it's possible to say 'he' without
                    really intending much, if anything, by it. To be sure, we are more aware today of problems
                    with that way of speaking. But nonetheless, the historical usage is there, in a way that has
                    never been the case with the feminine pronoun-- and thus if we use the feminine, we
                    would-- unavoidably, I think-- seem to be specifically referring to a female. And thus we
                    would actually be introducing gender into God. If someone could show that this is NOT the
                    case-- not even remotely suggested-- especially in the context of Trinitarian theology
                    where the others MUST be referred to as masculine-- then it might make sense to use the
                    feminine of the Spirit, in English. But I don't think that can be done.

                    Thomas's point that

                    > It's tricky though. Calling God an "it" would carry baggage in
                    > English well beyond grammar.

                    is a good one, and throws light on the issue from an opposite angle.

                    Kim writes:

                    > So now, think about how the women of our communities have been told to think about
                    God. Once again - God is male. God - the creator of all humankind is male. Is there any
                    other place that is so innately personal and important, and yet even here we don't see a
                    reflection of ourselves - as women.

                    It strikes me that-- however legitimate the desire to respect, honor, and recognize women
                    is-- this is the whole problem in a nutshell: we want to find in God, "a reflection of
                    ourselves - as women". Or as anything else, for that matter.

                    But God is not a reflection of ourselves. So the question has to be decided on its
                    theological merits, not on the basis of a socio-political agenda, however worthy.

                    All best to everyone,

                    Svetlana Alleluieva
                  • alleluieva
                    ... problems ... has ... we ... the ... the ... I just wanted to add to this that in any case our use of the masculine pronoun for the other persons of the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 8, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, "alleluieva" <alleluieva@g...> wrote:

                      > If we use the masculine pronoun, gender is somewhat less of an issue, because the
                      > masculine has been historically used as the generic, and it's possible to say 'he' without
                      > really intending much, if anything, by it. To be sure, we are more aware today of
                      problems
                      > with that way of speaking. But nonetheless, the historical usage is there, in a way that
                      has
                      > never been the case with the feminine pronoun-- and thus if we use the feminine, we
                      > would-- unavoidably, I think-- seem to be specifically referring to a female. And thus
                      we
                      > would actually be introducing gender into God. If someone could show that this is NOT
                      the
                      > case-- not even remotely suggested-- especially in the context of Trinitarian theology
                      > where the others MUST be referred to as masculine-- then it might make sense to use
                      the
                      > feminine of the Spirit, in English. But I don't think that can be done.

                      I just wanted to add to this that in any case our use of the masculine pronoun for the other
                      persons of the Trinity is not based primarily on the use, in English or any other language,
                      of the masculine as the generic pronoun. It is most certainly based on the fact that the
                      Word incarnated as male, and called his eternal Souce, "Father". If it were merely a case of
                      generic usage, then there would be no reason to keep to the masculine pronoun for ANY
                      of the persons.

                      Thanks again,

                      Svetlana Alleluieva
                    • Frank Senn
                      I agree in the main with this post. Just a few points of clarification. No, German idealism is hardly a good source of Christian theology. That doesn t stop
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jan 9, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I agree in the main with this post. Just a few points of clarification.

                        No, German idealism is hardly a good source of Christian theology. That doesn't stop Hegel from having been influential on theologians---I would note Paul Tillich as one well-known example.

                        In John 15:26 the Father sends the Spirit, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father, but the Spirit bears witness to Christ. The incarnation is the dominant note of the Fourth Gospel. The eternal Word becomes flesh and the eternal Spirit bears witness to this.

                        This post recognizes that my concern is theological---that language must sometimes be bent to serve theological purposes. But this is a matter of finding appropriate human language for theology and implies nothing about the sexuality of God.

                        I also recognize the pastoral problem of how people respond to language. My solution is to avoid the use of personal pronouns for God WHERE THIS IS POSSIBLE. Sometimes this can even improve our liturgical speech, as when we return to the use of compound sentences with dependent clauses requiring the use of the relative pronoun "who." Many of us grew up reciting the Creeds in English with far more "who's" than "he's" and I'm glad to see the "who's" making a comeback in the new translations.

                        I'll probably learn to live with "and became truly human."

                        Frank C. Senn

                        alleluieva <alleluieva@...> wrote:
                        --- In liturgy-l@yahoogroups.com, Frank Senn wrote:
                        >
                        > I'm playing catch up with posts on my email lists, so this response may be a little late.
                        In Trinitarian theology no person is an independent operator. But there has been a
                        tradition, associated especially with German idealism, that sees the Spirit as the agent of
                        creativity. Thus does the Spirit function in Goeth'e Faust, the creative force of God
                        inspiring creativity in human beings. Such a Spirit may be identified as "she" (e.g. a muse).
                        But in the Gospel of John the Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus. "The Counselor, the Holy Spirit,
                        whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your
                        remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:26).

                        German idealism is hardly a good source for Christian theology, though, yes?

                        On a technical point, I'm not sure you can say the Spirit is primarily the Spirit of Jesus in
                        John's gospel. Jesus does send the Spirit from the Father, but the Spirit proceeds from the
                        Father alone, in terms of his eternal origin-- I recognize, of course, that this takes us to
                        the Filioque issue, but for John, the matter seems clear: see Jn 15.26.

                        But in any case, as I understand it, you would seem to want to refer to the Spirit (primarily)
                        in the masculine because he/it originates either according to his mission from the Son, or
                        according to his eternal procession, from the Son or from one who is always referred to by
                        the Son as masculine. If I understand you correctly, you would be saying, somewhat as I
                        have, that the gender of our langauge about the Spirit is (almost necessarily) a reflection
                        of his relation of origin and mission, and that, to make him/it feminine might be to
                        suggest that he/it had some other origin, or that, in terms of his/its mission, he/it
                        "operated independently" in the world, as you put it. If this is what you mean, i would tend
                        to agree, while still observing that the Spirit is referred to by different genders in different
                        languages, without theological significance.

                        And this lack of theological significance is theologically significant. But what becomes
                        apparent is that the issue is entirely one of language and its theological implications, not
                        one of the gender of the persons of the Godhead per se, because the persons of the
                        Godhead have no gender, except in the case of the incarnate Word. And the issue of
                        language is partly universal (i.e., true for any language) and partly specific for each
                        particular language.

                        With regard to the latter, the main problem with using the feminine in English is that it
                        does seem to specify a concrete female person in a way that is not true for languages
                        where every noun has one 'gender' or another, often indifferent to the actual sex of the
                        thing named. In english, we can call a baby or an animal, 'it' and not mean anything by
                        this. But if we use 'he' or 'she', we are being specific: this one is female; that one is male.
                        And that specificity is what we have to avoid when we speak of the persons of the
                        Godhead-- for, as people who want to use the feminine of the Spirit rightly point out,
                        there is no gender in God, except by way of the incarnation.

                        If we use the masculine pronoun, gender is somewhat less of an issue, because the
                        masculine has been historically used as the generic, and it's possible to say 'he' without
                        really intending much, if anything, by it. To be sure, we are more aware today of problems
                        with that way of speaking. But nonetheless, the historical usage is there, in a way that has
                        never been the case with the feminine pronoun-- and thus if we use the feminine, we
                        would-- unavoidably, I think-- seem to be specifically referring to a female. And thus we
                        would actually be introducing gender into God. If someone could show that this is NOT the
                        case-- not even remotely suggested-- especially in the context of Trinitarian theology
                        where the others MUST be referred to as masculine-- then it might make sense to use the
                        feminine of the Spirit, in English. But I don't think that can be done.

                        Thomas's point that

                        > It's tricky though. Calling God an "it" would carry baggage in
                        > English well beyond grammar.

                        is a good one, and throws light on the issue from an opposite angle.

                        Kim writes:

                        > So now, think about how the women of our communities have been told to think about
                        God. Once again - God is male. God - the creator of all humankind is male. Is there any
                        other place that is so innately personal and important, and yet even here we don't see a
                        reflection of ourselves - as women.

                        It strikes me that-- however legitimate the desire to respect, honor, and recognize women
                        is-- this is the whole problem in a nutshell: we want to find in God, "a reflection of
                        ourselves - as women". Or as anything else, for that matter.

                        But God is not a reflection of ourselves. So the question has to be decided on its
                        theological merits, not on the basis of a socio-political agenda, however worthy.

                        All best to everyone,

                        Svetlana Alleluieva












                        Visit the liturgy-l homepage at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liturgy-l/To write to the owners/moderators, please send an email to:
                        liturgy-l-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        Yahoo! Groups Links











                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Gregory Holmes Singleton
                        FCSenn wrote:
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jan 9, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          FCSenn wrote:

                          <<Many of us grew up reciting the Creeds in English with far
                          more "who's" than "he's" and I'm glad to see the "who's" making a
                          comeback in the new translations.>>

                          That's fine, as long as we don't revert to the experimental usage of
                          several liturgies in the last '60s and early '70s that moved us
                          quickly from ". . .Thou that takes away. . ." in both the Gloria in
                          Excelesis and the Angus Dei to "You who." In too many spoken and sung
                          instances it came out as "Yoo-hoo!"

                          I guess is that we should use who as an avoidance of pronouns and not
                          in conjunction, which is the direction Frank was going in his initial
                          post, but I can't resist reminding us all about that wonderful gaffe
                          of yesteryear.

                          Pax et curmudgeum,

                          Greg

                          Gregory Holmes Singleton, Ph.D.
                          Professor of History Emeritus
                          Resident Old Curmudgeon
                          Northeastern Illinois University
                          http://www.neiu.edu/~ghsingle/retiredprof.htm
                        • Ormonde Plater
                          ... In the late 1960s, when my parish in New Orleans started using the Jerusalem Bible in replacement of King James, one reader pronouced Yahweh as Yahoo.
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jan 9, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            > That's fine, as long as we don't revert to the experimental usage of
                            > several liturgies in the last '60s and early '70s that moved us
                            > quickly from ". . .Thou that takes away. . ." in both the Gloria in
                            > Excelesis and the Angus Dei to "You who." In too many spoken and sung
                            > instances it came out as "Yoo-hoo!"

                            In the late 1960s, when my parish in New Orleans started using the Jerusalem
                            Bible in replacement of King James, one reader pronouced "Yahweh" as
                            "Yahoo." And the response "And with your spirit" became "And witcha spirit."

                            Ormonde Plater
                            oplater@...
                          • Michael T. Hiller
                            Update for http://www.hillerleiturgia.com Two new hymns for Lent. -- The Rev. Mr. Michael T. Hiller 415.468.1001 (home) 415.999.8606 (cell)
                            Message 13 of 14 , Feb 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Update for http://www.hillerleiturgia.com

                              Two new hymns for Lent.

                              --
                              The Rev. Mr. Michael T. Hiller
                              415.468.1001 (home)
                              415.999.8606 (cell)
                              mailto:priestly@...
                              webpage: http://www.hillerleiturgia.com
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.