Was the 'Dies Irae' "speciesist"?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    A priest friend of mine sent me a section from the Wikipedia article on the Dies Irae, which included this passage which he highlighted.

    Nevertheless, the Consilium felt that the funeral rite was in need of reform and eliminated the sequence as such from the Masses for the Dead, because they felt that it was speciesist, and unfairly stereotyped goats.

    I have never come across this line of reasoning before in all my reading about the liturgical reforms of V2. I know Bugnini was probably a little crazy, but I have an odd feeling that this is Millennial-think being applied retroactively - especially considering that the word "speciesist" (which spell-check does not recognize as a real word, btw), wasn't coined until the 1970s.

    Has anyone else heard this thought about the elimination of the Sequence at Requiems?
    Thanked by 3Vilyanor Kathy CHGiffen
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    What utter bollocks. Never heard it, and now I can't unhear it! Grr.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Salieri,

    I've never heard the argument. Then again, Wikipedia is user-edited content, and has an established bias against anything non-leftist, so I wouldn't be surprised to see this sort of thing there.

    Thanked by 2CCooze Ben
  • VilyanorVilyanor
    Posts: 388
    I'd be surprised if this isn't a joke. Honestly, I can't think of goats except in an at least somewhat humorous manner, and I think most millennials are the same.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bayV3wez50
    14333144_10157508071340038_5615821628132289956_n.jpg
    887 x 960 - 101K
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    Probably satire.
    Thanked by 3Vilyanor Andrew_Malton Liam
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,187
    In fact the wikipedia history shows that this particular idiocy was added anonymously three times in the past, twice reverted by an editor, and finally (today, who was it?) marked "dubious". Sure is dubious.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Yeah, that totally looks like somebody edited the post and added that as either a joke or a stab at someone. Either way, it's utter nonsense.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    twice reverted by an editor, and finally (today, who was it?) marked "dubious".

    My guess is that it would have to be someone computer-savvy on this board; my guesses are Chonak, Yanke, and Giffen.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,325
    Nah, I think it was sideways-Adam Wood.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Salieri Kathy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,980
    I had never heard this one. I was in my teens during Vatican II, so I witnessed all the craziness. We were all told the "Dies" was dropped because it was too negative and the requiem was too doom and gloom and dark. The desire, so we were told, was to make the funeral liturgy emphasize the resurrection and the hope of life eternal rather than the lop-sided emphasis on eternal punishment.
    Thanked by 2ClergetKubisz Vilyanor
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    Whoever "felt" that way never actually read through the entire Sequence to the last lines asking for mercy, something that the all-merciful God has to be asked for - it doesn't just happen. This is why I don't want to buried using anything from the current Rite of Christian Burial.
    Thanked by 1Vilyanor
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Someone has since edited the article to remove the silly claim.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    It's almost too bad it was removed -- it did create some humor on a boring day.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Nah, I think it was sideways-Adam Wood.


    Wikipedia doesn't allow for local editing, nor do they have a hook to git push, so I haven't been able to figure out how to make edits...
    Thanked by 1Ben
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    Wikipedia doesn't allow for local editing

    Not sure what this means as I have been able to edit as I please and even write articles for Wikipedia without any problem.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Used to be a Wikipedelian, but haven't involved myself with that for a few years.
Add a Comment