Altering the Nicene Creed at Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kay_Cee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jaimeleglise said:
Sadly. I can fully believe it was nuns who were criticizing you. Some want to be “politically correct”, modern, or hip rather than theologically or linguistically correct.
Click to expand...
I’m sure it will come to no surprise to you that they don’t wear habits.

However, I should also point out in all fairness that both of them are very sweet ladies, and this is the only bone of contention I’ve had with them.
 
Ah yes, the political correctness of the liberals - those whose mantra is “You must be tolerant!” and who too often are so intolerant.
 
Padres1969 said:
Does it not make sense to eliminate the latter sexist sense when some do read it un-hypothetically as sexist and removing it subtracts nothing from the meaning.
Click to expand...
Those still reading it as sexist obviously do not care enough about the true meaning of the creed or they would have long ago discovered that there has never been a sexist connotation. It also does not make sense when you factor in the virtual certainty that anti-Catholic factions will use such a change as an admission by the Church that it has been teaching false doctrine.
Padres1969 said:
As for your hypothetical Catholic-centric reading, that’s easily dismissed when you consider any Protestant or Anglican church using the “for us and our salvation” version would be making the same claim and would have agreed to do so ecumenically in 1975 and 1988 (which of course makes no sense).
Click to expand...
With a brief examination of Church history the masculine-centric reading is just as easily dismissed.

I understand your point. Had the creed originally been written without the word “men” in that position I would not be arguing for it to be inserted. My point is that the objections to the word are patently invalid and officially making the change now would make it appear as if they had some legitimacy.
 
Padres1969 said:
How is removing “men” theologically or linguistically incorrect when the meaning is the same?
Click to expand...
Actually it is a very serious omission. The use of men is very important. It was so written to make clear that the angelic beings are not saved by Christ’s incarnation. This was disputed by some and thus the inclusion of this phrase in the creed. The creeds weren’t just slapped together.
 
exnihilo said:
Actually it is a very serious omission. The use of men is very important. It was so written to make clear that the angelic beings are not saved by Christ’s incarnation. This was disputed by some and thus the inclusion of this phrase in the creed. The creeds weren’t just slapped together.
Click to expand...
Why would angelic beings even be a consideration? They’re not the ones saying the creed. Only humans say the Creed so by default “us” refers to humans.
 
Padres1969 said:
Why would angelic beings even be a consideration? They’re not the ones saying the creed. Only humans say the Creed so by default “us” refers to humans.
Click to expand...
The creed is not just something to recite but a statement of doctrine. The words were very carefully chosen. The issue was whether angels could be saved. The doctrine expressed in the creed by the precise words says they can not.
 
ProVobis said:
Apparently there is no workable (or 100% acceptable) English translation for homines in this case. 🙂
Click to expand...
Untrue. The claim is absurd. For anyone knowing anything of Greek and Latin, ἄνθρωποι and its Latin equivalent homines, besides from referring only to male, refer to the group of men and women. The translation, confirmed by this and the use in all centuries, is both in English and Spanish men. Depending on the context though it could take different forms such as* people*, humans, etc. Tradition and a correct approach tell us this is entirely unnecessary.
 
I doubt God is offended by it.
There is so much more to offend Him going on in the world.
 
Marie5890 said:
I doubt God is offended by it.
There is so much more to offend Him going on in the world.
Click to expand...
I often think God must be watching us all and just laughing (or crying) at the minutia that we all get worked up over in life.
 
Padres1969 said:
I often think God must be watching us all and just laughing (or crying) at the minutia that we all get worked up over in life.
Click to expand...
If He is offended at something like that, that would make Him pretty “thin skinned”
 
Marie5890 said:
If He is offended at something like that, that would make Him pretty “thin skinned”
Click to expand...
Well as the old Testament proved the Lord can be pretty “thin skinned” when it comes to humans and our foibles. 😉

Luckily the almighty has seemingly mellowed a bit in recent centuries per the NT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top