"...for us (MEN?) and for our salvation..."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lepanto

Guest
A nearby parish that I am often forced to attend projects the prayers of the mass on the wall with two projectors. This is not necessarily a bad idea, because otherwise many people wouldn’t know what to say or when to say it. (Although before mass, the slideshow they run reminds me of the commercials you see in a theater before the movie.)

However, in the slide showing the Nicene Creed, the word “men” has been omitted from the prayer in the line “…for us men and for our salvation…”

So, not only do the pastor and associate pastor omit the word “men,” during the recitation of the Creed, but the people are taught to do likewise. I guess that many of the people, especially the younger ones, believe that this adulterated Creed is the proper way to say it.

I would like to write the pastor about this, but before I do, I’d like to know if it is within his authority to change the Creed. If not, what official Vatican document prohibits him from doing so? (Even if the pastor did not himself alter the prayer in the slide, he surely must know about it because this has been going on for years and he drops the word “man” when he recites the prayer.)
 
I go to a church with the same situation.

Two screens, for us and for our salvation.

One Sunday it said for us men and for our salvation.

I was excited because I thought that meant they were fixing it.

But apparently it was just the “media minister” as they call them who changed it before their Mass, and by the next Sunday they “fixed” it to be gender neutral.

I wonder if we’re talking about the same parish?
 
Even if they left Men in the screens are beneath the dignity of Mass on a weekly basis. It might be okay after a storm or disaster but follow the yellow ball is too slocky.

I think there is a concerted effort by these folks to do this. I just sent an e-mail to my pastor about his changing the words when men appears in the propers. He said that is what the seminary said to do to be inclusive. He also said the archbishop’s office authorized this by a directive to be inclusive. Our archbishop mind you is not Fabian Bruskewitz but is still concidered to be highly orthodox.

The missalettes are bad enough. We need to go back to the old missals and stop this. Is this going to end the world? Probably not but just because they could do worose things does not mean we should give them a pass.

Have your say with him and let him know people out here are neithe as stupid as he must think nor in awe of his brilliance.
 
Screens are tacky, tacky, tacky, unnecessary, inappropriate, silly…

Unfortunately, they fit perfectly into the fascist mentality of the liturgy in many locales…posture police, say and sing what we command when we command it, drop off your envelope, etc., etc.
 
i thought that a couple years ago the words had been officially changed, because i heard many people saying for “us”. i think a few priests were, too. a couple years ago i was still in my “i’m an intelligent master’s degree student and i am smarter than the church” phase, so i always said us because, after all, i’m not a man.

so have people just gone about and done this on their own? i now say for us men (and don’t really care; i mean, we are all mankind, right?) but just yesterday the woman behind me said for “us”.
 
This is a tough one that comes up here once in a while, and we have a spectrum of opinions, with perhaps the weight being on the side of retaining the double meaning of “man” and “men” that is a problem in English but not so much in Latin (or even German, for that matter).

My own feeling is that languages change and that English has moved far enough beyond this usage of the ages that some weight has to be given to the sensibilities of those who think women are at least implicitly being excluded, and they include plenty of educated people who know the old usage, and not just old-style radical feminists. I’ll let someone else determine the wisdom of following the letter of the approved English version of the Ordo. I think in general it is a good idea and the worst violators, of course, are not a congregation reciting part of the ordinary together, but the priests who seem to make up their part as they go along. I know that I go silent at the word “men” in that context and don’t feel I’m omitting anything essential, as obviously “us” refers only to humans in the first place–we are not taling about animals on the one hand or angels on the other.
 
I would not like screens either, I hate those. We say men and to be honest I don’t understand the problem with this. We also say mankind as a general rule. I guess I don’t feel excluded when saying it.
 
lepanto said:
A nearby parish that I am often forced to attend projects the prayers of the mass on the wall with two projectors. This is not necessarily a bad idea, because otherwise many people wouldn’t know what to say or when to say it. (Although before mass, the slideshow they run reminds me of the commercials you see in a theater before the movie.)

However, in the slide showing the Nicene Creed, the word “men” has been omitted from the prayer in the line “…for us men and for our salvation…”

So, not only do the pastor and associate pastor omit the word “men,” during the recitation of the Creed, but the people are taught to do likewise. I guess that many of the people, especially the younger ones, believe that this adulterated Creed is the proper way to say it.

I would like to write the pastor about this, but before I do, I’d like to know if it is within his authority to change the Creed. If not, what official Vatican document prohibits him from doing so? (Even if the pastor did not himself alter the prayer in the slide, he surely must know about it because this has been going on for years and he drops the word “man” when he recites the prayer.)
Click to expand...
The prayers must be said exactly as writtem in the Roman Missal, the Scripture readings must be read exactly as written in the Lectionary and book of the Gospels.
 
I am a woman, and I don’t see the problem with saying things like ‘man’ or ‘mankind’. It’s just the collective way to refer to the human race, and also happens to be the term for human males. In naming animals, for example, sometimes you’ll get a common name that is gender neutral and encompasses the whole species (ie, horse) but different, more specific names for each gender. (ie stallion and mare) But in some, the common species name is the same as the specific name for one of the genders. (a male dog is simply that, a dog. We all know what the ladies can be called. ^^;; ) Unless someone invents a good, gender neutral noun for the whole human race, we’ll have to stick to ‘man’. ‘Humankind’ isn’t that bad, but ‘us’? Who’s us? ‘Us’ could mean just Catholics, just Christians, just ‘us’ in this pew… etc. It’s not specific enough. And the priests should stick to what’s written, unless the pope(or whoever else desides these things) says otherwise. If they wish to change it, write to the Vatican! Starting little rebellions against lawful and God-given authority doesn’t help anybody.

Our priest sticks to ‘man’ and ‘mankind’, thank goodness. ^^
 
fantrl said:
I go to a church with the same situation.

Two screens, for us and for our salvation.

One Sunday it said for us men and for our salvation.

I was excited because I thought that meant they were fixing it.

But apparently it was just the “media minister” as they call them who changed it before their Mass, and by the next Sunday they “fixed” it to be gender neutral.

I wonder if we’re talking about the same parish?
Click to expand...
Media Minister? You won’t find that in any Church documents. That should give you a clue about this parish.
 
Br.Rich_SFO said:
Media Minister? You won’t find that in any Church documents. That should give you a clue about this parish.
Click to expand...
At least the media minister was trying to insert “men” back in. 🙂 I’ve always heard that we say men to differentiate us from ohter beings, namely angels. Angels didn’t get a second chance through Jesus. Human beings did. So there has to be some differentiation.
 
If you leave out the “men” in “for us men and for our salvation,” then the significance of “and became man” is lost. For us men, He became man. It’s beautiful and balanced. To balance it without the “men,” you’d have to say He became “one of us,” and that would be mighty awkward and ugly.

If the Church is looking for a word to substitute for “men,” I’d suggest “mortals.” That’s what the ever-elegant-but-liberal Episcopalians have done in a number of texts. I think it’s a bad idea to pursue this, but there is an elegant solution if we insist on being unwise.

To make my position perfectly clear, I fully support obedience to the norms which forbid the changing of any liturgical texts on one’s own authority. I say “for us men” loudly and clearly during the Creed.

Betsy
 
Wasn’t there rumor a while back that the English translations were being reviewed and changed by the Vatican? Whatever happened to that?

I used to Lector, when I lived in California and saw “men” whited out in the Lectionary. Disgraceful. Since I became a Catholic in that parish, I was brought into the Church learning to drop “men” from the Creed. I have since corrected it, but it is a shame that we (both sides) are hypersensitive about that one part of the Creed, rather than just saying it as it is written as a community. Our Creed is supposed to unify, not divide.
 
i dont see what the big deal is
do they really think Jesus meant just those with penises are going to heaven/going to be saved
I mean c’mon you’re just being ridiculous

the way I see it, they us men in the sense of a general species, just like we call a bears bears, even though there are grizzlies, black bears, polar bears etc. A bears not gonna stand up and say hey don’t call me a “bear” Im a grizzly (if they could talk that is:p
 
Actually “for us men” signifies that Jesus died for all mankind, as opposed to “for us [Catholics]” or “for us [Christians]” or “for us [here at my parish]” …

“For us men” is essential to preserve the meaning of the creed (which contains the essential truths in which we must believe as Catholics - kind of a big deal), which is why no priest on his own has the authority to alter the wording or exhort others to do likewise

What Catholic Answers Apologists have said on this topic:
Is it o.k. to remove words from the Creed?

May a priest or bishop edit the Creed?

Is it proper to misstate the Nicene Creed?
 
Just say men. You’d be right, and they’d be wrong. And if with this word still in it you are out of step, maybe you’ll alert others that the creed has been castrated (pun intended).

Catholig
 
Yes, we had a priest that did that. He would leave a pause where men was supposed to be said. But most said the word men anyway. It’s just another case of political correctness run amok.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top