are girls not important?

[Nom_the_Wise]

One example of a successful “edit” of a prayer is the little doxology:

*Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.

Amen.*

That was edited down to:

*Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever.

Amen.*

I think there is resistance to editing “For us men” simply because it *seems *like a political agenda. I don’t know anymore. Even if it began as someone’s political agenda, it doesn’t have to end there. Two me it’s a matter of killing two birds with one stone: 1. eliminate wordiness/archaic usage 2. if we edify a few women along the way, whom does it hurt? The Church? It began in crucifixition. It could survive this.

And yet we still embrace the archaic Shakespearian language of “Our Father who **art **in heaven…**Thy **kingdom come, **Thy **will be done,” etc. That’s not even biblical. But someone might claim it’s a political agenda, so…

I really am beginning to think that our hanging on to “For us men” in the Creed is a patriarchal political agenda, and that we really do fear (I would suggest subconsciously) a feminist uprising. But that’s silly as the Doctrine of the male priesthood cannot be changed. Why are we so defensive? Still? I add this last consideration to remain true to the thread starter. Somehow, girls becoming altar servers, is not so innocent as it seems on the surface. We still carry a lot of baggage from the last century. If you review the posts, all of this started with that one simple question about altar girls. But that speaks to the greater role of women in the church, and it’s all related.

 

[snhs]

You’re being sarcasting suggesting a “quick change to Canon Law” and you are exaggerating my point. And it **would **be edifiying to men if women didn’t wear skimpy clothing to Mass. Women, we try not to, but we look. Please help us. This isn’t quite the joke you intended you know. That is an issue for me.

I think many of us are sensitive to feminist attacks, and the appearance of compromising the faith. On this thread I tried to clarify the character of the priesthood to GemmaRose. I hoped someone would have elaborated on that, as I did a very superficial job of it, but the only reaction to my posts have been for this suggestion I made about the Creed.

I specified that as an edit, it makes sense, and could work. It is a “petty” edit at that.

I did cover in an earlier post about “Man” being Mankind, all humanity. I mentioned that in Greek (the language that the New Testament was written in) that “male” and “humanity” share the same word, anthropos. In modern academic writing in general, the use of the word “Man” for “humanity” is outlawed. People get expelled from major universities over things like this, being accused of using sexist language. The use of “Man” is considered archaic.

The Church has made no official move to change the wording of the Creed, and who knows if they will. Doctrine is doctrine, and it is unchangeable. But this “edit” isn’t doctrine. It is wordiness.

No I’m not. Changing Canon Law is far easier than changing the Nicene Creed. If we do not draw a line and prevent one political interest in having their way with what is, at its heart, a statement of the faith of the Church then what is there to prevent other political interests in the future demanding further change? You’ll know that at one point Canon Law stated than women were to cover their heads in Church, there is a precedent for it and there are lines from the Bible which would support a demand for greater modesty. (I was exaggerating your point, though only to emphasise the nature of what you propose.)

It is an issue for men in general, which is precisely why I raised it. I don’t know of many men who would object to an instruction that their have to wear trousers which reach the knee or below at Mass, for example, but I think many women would object to being told that their dresses must be a certain length or their tops must cover a certain amount or even that they should wear a hat/chapel veil. What other people wear to a Mass is far more distracting than one word/phrase a few people might disagree with. However many women see the phrase “For us men…” as objectionable there are probably at least twice as many men being distracted because of what some of them are wearing (or rather not wearing). I don’t go to Mass looking for my own edification though, that is not why anyone should go to Mass.

I would have said that changing the words of the Creed for what is at heart a political movement is compromising the faith. Look at the motion the American Congress passed welcoming His Holiness, they had to remove all trace of his “support for all life” because the Dems were worried it would hint at supporting a pro life stance. The words of the Creed and the Mass should not be up for the debate in the way a motion is on the floor of any House. Allowing a political motive to change even a syllable of the Liturgy of the Church is wrong and that is regardless of what movement proposes it.

I did actually write a considerably longer post dealing directly with what she had said. I have less basis for commenting on the nature of the Priesthood than you, hence apart from a few brief mentions I’ll leave it to those more qualified than a few years of school RE and background reading could make me.

In certain Universities the use of B.C. and A.D. is also considered archaic. I am not going to be party to the change of translations and conventions which have been the standard for centuries just to be P.C… What you propose is relativism, just because academic practice has changed does not mean that the Church should change the words of the Mass.

 

[snhs]

One example of a successful “edit” of a prayer is the little doxology:

*Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.

Amen.*

That was edited down to:

Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever.

Amen.

I think there is resistance to editing “For us men” simply because it *seems *like a political agenda. I don’t know anymore. Even if it began as someone’s political agenda, it doesn’t have to end there. Two me it’s a matter of killing two birds with one stone: 1. eliminate wordiness/archaic usage 2. if we edify a few women along the way, whom does it hurt? The Church? It began in crucifixition. It could survive this.

And yet we still embrace the archaic Shakespearian language of “Our Father who **art **in heaven…**Thy **kingdom come, **Thy **will be done,” etc. That’s not even biblical. But someone might claim it’s a political agenda, so…

I really am beginning to think that our hanging on to “For us men” in the Creed is a patriarchal political agenda, and that we really do fear (I would suggest subconsciously) a feminist uprising. But that’s silly as the Doctrine of the male priesthood cannot be changed. Why are we so defensive? Still? I add this last consideration to remain true to the thread starter. Somehow, girls becoming altar servers, is not so innocent as it seems on the surface. We still carry a lot of baggage from the last century. If you review the posts, all of this started with that one simple question about altar girls. But that speaks to the greater role of women in the church, and it’s all related.

When was it changed, we still use the “world without end” version in my Parish. This stems from a mistranslation in the first place hence any amendment which is made will be truer to the translational, unlike the change you propose for the Creed.

It does not seem like a political agenda it is a political agenda. I genuinely have no problem with women’s rights, I agree that they should be paid the same as men doing the same job, not be treated differently/victimised for their sex in the workplace, fully support their right to vote. But the Mass and Creed transcends such things and to bring it down to a human level for our edification is wrong.

Do you have a problem with Shakespearian language? The reason we have “art”, “thou” etc is just the language used at the time it was initially translated, just as there are differences in Latin with time. Everyone knows what they mean, just as everyone knows “For us men…” means for all of mankind. If it ain’t broke why fix it?

Doesn’t your closing point justify what I’m saying? A few hundred years ago I doubt there were even a handful of Catholic women who thought they should be Priests. I also doubt a few hundred years ago anyone would even have contemplated the possibility of women serving on the Altar or distributing Communion or Reading. The Church remains the Church, the Doctrine remains the same. The only difference is social and political, I don’t think the Church should change what/how we pray to suit that, unless there are incredibly good reasons to do so. I can see no such reasons for the Creed being changed.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.