Because they see “men” as being exclusive of women. Just as mankind has fallen out of favor as a word to describe humanity for the same reason. And rightly so, it is an exclusionary term that can be interpreted to exclude women both accidentally and intentionally.
It is true that words like man and mankind can be used in a sense that only refers to the male sex, and such restricted meaning can usually be discerned from the context of the text within which it is found. When the context is ambiguous is not the more charitable interpretation the more inclusive one? The context of the creed offers no evidence of the exclusive interpretation so clearly only an uncharitable reader would interpret the phrase to exclude women. I hope you’d agree that such an interpretation is mistaken and that any investigation into the drafting of the creed would immediately expose the error. Persistence in the exclusive interpretation after the error was uncovered would then be not only uncharitable but a
deliberate misinterpretation. If we are to alter the text of the liturgy of the Mass, the very heart of our Catholic communal worship of God, based on a deceitful misinterpretation by an uncharitable reader, then absolute chaos would result.
You claim that “for us and for our salvation” conveys the same concept, but what if a vocal minority deliberately misinterpreted that version to mean that Jesus only came to earth for the salvation of Catholics and that members of any other faith are doomed to burn in hell forever? What would you change it to then? Where would it stop?
Also, an authorized change could give credence to the claim that the Catholic Church taught for over 2000 years that Jesus did not come for the salvation of women. An outrageous falsehood to be sure but one that would be used by various Protestant sects to undermine the authority of the Church established by Christ himself. “A HA!” they will exclaim, “the Catholic Church has finally admitted that it taught a false doctrine for over two millennia!”
The only real argument for keeping it is tradition, though even that is questionable since it’s not always been used in even Catholic translations.
…
You may deny my claim, but it doesn’t negate the fact that it’s so. I can assure you that the missal versions my parish used were by no means unauthorized nor were they produced by disaffected factions to anyone’s knowledge. Unless you’re accusing the entire Diocese my parish was apart of growing up, of being some sort of rogue diocese. Which I suppose is possible.
I do not deny that you had such materials in your diocese, I simply deny that any changes in the wording of the creed were officially sanctioned by the Magisterium. While it is unfortunately not unusual for Bishops to exceed their individual authority on occasion, I believe it is more likely that some unordained editor tasked with the secretarial duty of preparing the text for publication took it upon himself to make the change and it went unnoticed until it was too late. Thereafter it remained, as it is the sort of thing that can be easily overlooked when one does not consider the implications.
The original submitted version for the changes leading up to 2011 omitted “men” as well as I understand it as submitted by several bishops.
adoremus.org/0706NiceneCreedChanges.html
Thanks for the link. The fact that the ordained Bishops tasked by the Magisterium with updating the English translation of the Catholic creed officially considered omitting the word “men” and, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, subsequently rejected it makes the matter closed in my mind.
At no time in all of history has the creed of the Catholic Church excluded women from salvation. The text itself does not require an exclusive interpretation and anyone who exerts even a modicum of effort to learn the history of the creed will quickly discover that such an interpretation has never been the intent of anyone who was involved in either the drafting of the original Latin text, or of any involved in producing the English translations made therefrom. The Church should not alter the text at the behest of those who are at best ignorant of its meaning or at worst selfish and dishonest.
