For us men and for our salvation

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LovingIt

Guest
Our priest recently changed the words we use in the creed from “for us men and for our salvation” to “for us and for our salvation”, i’m pretty sure this is okay (he says it is) but I have a niggling feeling like somehow some of the meaning has been taken away - am I just exhibiting natural fear of change or are my fears well founded?
 
He is trying to not offend the feminists. A feminist such as John Paul II speaks of would not be offended. But offense seems to be the rule of the day for too many feminists, particularly the radical ones.
My recollection is that the Latin word used would perhaps translate better as “people”. But changing that would be one more issue to ruffle everyone’s feathers.
 
As a basis principle, it is always wrong for anyone-priest or not-to change the prescribed words in the Mass. The Mass doesn’t belong to any one person to change around, no matter how good their motivation is (and I would opine that political correctness is not the best of motives). At the same time, the faithful have a right to hear the Liturgy celebrated as the Church has prescibed. It is our common patrimony which should be safeguarded.

For more info. see Jimmy Akins book on the Mass available at www.catholic.com. “Mass Confusion” I beleive it’s called.
 
LovingIt!:
Our priest recently changed the words we use in the creed from “for us men and for our salvation” to “for us and for our salvation”, i’m pretty sure this is okay (he says it is) but I have a niggling feeling like somehow some of the meaning has been taken away - am I just exhibiting natural fear of change or are my fears well founded?
No, it is not okay, partly because it is a violation of the rubrics (priests are not permitted to ad lib) and partly because it demonstrates this priest’s ignorance of English.

The words “man” and “men” in the first instance are generic words. They refer to humanity in general. (Think of “man-eating shark”–does this mean the shark won’t eat a female?)

“Man” and “men” are used secondarily for males. Intelligent women know this and are not bothered by it. Poorly-educated priests are.
 
LovingIt!:
Our priest recently changed the words we use in the creed from “for us men and for our salvation” to “for us and for our salvation”, i’m pretty sure this is okay (he says it is) but I have a niggling feeling like somehow some of the meaning has been taken away - am I just exhibiting natural fear of change or are my fears well founded?
In a word, NO, it is not permissable for anyone to change the words of the prayers in the Liturgy. Your priest is flat-out wrong to do so.
 
Karl Keating:
No, it is not okay, partly because it is a violation of the rubrics (priests are not permitted to ad lib) and partly because it demonstrates this priest’s ignorance of English.

The words “man” and “men” in the first instance are generic words. They refer to humanity in general. (Think of “man-eating shark”–does this mean the shark won’t eat a female?)

“Man” and “men” are used secondarily for males. Intelligent women know this and are not bothered by it. Poorly-educated priests are.
In fact, by dropping the word “men,” the priest in question is doing many a serious injustice. Throughout history, “men” has been used in the generic sense by people who intended to use it as a generic word. What this priest is effectively doing is supporting the claims of those feminist revisionists who would like us to think that everyone who has used “men” in the generic sense was anti-woman.

As someone who has used the masculine in the generic sense, I feel personally insulted.
 
Karl Keating said:
“Man” and “men” are used secondarily for males. Intelligent women know this and are not bothered by it. Poorly-educated priests are.

I am intelligent ! 😃

I always say that line really really loud at Mass, that is “For us MEN and for our salvation”.

It is creeping in to our Parish that the word MEN is left out, but I still understand it is not a literate term.

Love Kellie
 
In addition to what has already been said, it is good to also keep in mind what a certain cardinal at the Vatican said (I think it was the one who came before Card. Arinze at the Divine Worship office) and that is this: when one leaves out “men” and only says “for us and our salvation”, you are implying that Jesus became incarnate ONLY for those present at that Mass. Something to consider…
 
Karl Keating:
No, it is not okay, partly because it is a violation of the rubrics (priests are not permitted to ad lib)
Could you give me some references to Church documents on this matter, our priest (who is on the whole a good fellow, else I would have more to complain about than the word ‘men’ in the creed) seemed quite sure it was okay for him to do this. Could the rules be different here in the UK?
 
I agree with Karl, and this goes beyond a technicality about rubrics. This omission DOES change the meaning. Bro. Dan, your point is right on! Who is the “us”? It sounds like only those in the room. (That was my thought the first time I heard this done in a church.) But it could also be interpreted as only those in the parish? Or, how about just everyone on the planet, in which case does this include animals, or trees, or “spirits”? By being deliberately vague, the true meaning is lost, not enhanced!

“Us men” clearly refers to humanity, and that’s probably why it’s specifically stated that way.

Language should be used to make things more clear, not less. When language is altered or manipulated, not to improve communication, but to convey a political viewpoint, that is moving in the direction of deceit. I think this priest might have good intentions (in a cowardly, appeasing way) but has not carefully thought through what he is doing by messing with this very important phrase, that has a very specific meaning.

I have seen it in many churches. I believe it could possibly be considered “liturgical abuse”? Also, it’s not unusual to change the words in songs too, sometimes also ruining the meaning, or at least the rhythm!

Get this: recently I visited a supposedly conservative Catholic Convent (order shall remain nameless to protect the innocent, but a highly respected and very old one). On the first night we had a prayer gathering outdoors to bless a new field being planted. The prayer included invoking not only God the Father, but “the Earth, our Mystical Mother.” (I KID YOU NOT, that’s an exact quote!)

These Sisters also have gone way beyond what this priest did (apparently with the complete cooperation of the local abbott who says their masses; he’s from a nearby monastery). They have changed several phrases in the Mass. Any possible mention of “he” or “him” that could be rearranged to leave out the masculine gender has been done. After a few days, I was surprised they left the “Father” in the “Our Father” instead of saying “Our Parent”!

I asked one of the Sisters why they seemed to have an aversion to masculine pronouns. I was told to “show solidarity with women who have been abused.”

I did not know what to think…!
 
Another problem with dropping “men”:

Consider this sentence: “Men are fallible.” Clearly this refers to all human beings. But people of the feminist persuasion like to modify such sentences. This one would turn out to be “Men and women are fallible.”

What’s wrong with that? you say. When rephrased, the sentence has a whole new meaning. The word “men” now does not refer to mankind but to males. “Men and women” ends up not being the equivalent of “men” in the original sentence because the new phrase leaves out children.

The result is that the revised sentence now means “Men and women are fallible but children, by implication, are not.”

This will be news to parents.
 
Karl Keating:
No, it is not okay, partly because it is a violation of the rubrics (priests are not permitted to ad lib) and partly because it demonstrates this priest’s ignorance of English.

The words “man” and “men” in the first instance are generic words. They refer to humanity in general. (Think of “man-eating shark”–does this mean the shark won’t eat a female?)

“Man” and “men” are used secondarily for males. Intelligent women know this and are not bothered by it. Poorly-educated priests are.
Can you tell my Parish that. In addition to that, the Holy Spirit becomes a she (among some people, not the priest, yet – though he was a she in the intentions recently), and Jesus becomes flesh, not man (when man is generic gosh darn it).

I’ve complained a number of times to the pastor and the pastoral associate (who might be part of the problem), I am thinking of going to the Cardinal, what should I do, how?
 
A bit of a tangent… but you just reminded me when you said that your church refers to the Holy Spirit as “she” in the intentions.

If people are so desperate to include female pronouns in the liturgy, why don’t they use acceptable female references?

They could say:

“For the Holy MOTHER Church and all HER priests and bishops. We pray to the Lord.”

or

“For a renewed respect for the beautiful design of God’s creation, Nature and all HER laws. We pray to the Lord.”
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
Can you tell my Parish that. In addition to that, the Holy Spirit becomes a she (among some people, not the priest, yet – though he was a she in the intentions recently), and Jesus becomes flesh, not man (when man is generic gosh darn it).
“Man” being generic aside, even for those misguided folks who think it is not: Jesus became flesh in a **male ** body. How can they possibly have an argument with saying He became man!?!? :banghead:
Oy vey!
 
This same thing happens at our parish. I’ve written a cordial note to our pastor and got the answer that the word ‘men’ is offensive to some and his pastoral answer was to leave it out. Hooey. I haven’t gone any further because I didn’t know what to do. He is being reassigned in July for some reason, so now I’ll have a new pastor to bother about this! It is frustrating!!! Any ideas would be welcome.

Jennifer
 
Here is what I do when that happens: After the us, i yell “men” as loud as I can without being too disruptive. I figure the priest can change his words to appease the politically correct police, but I am going to do it the right way.

The same thing when they tell me to stand for the eucharistic prayer. It would take 10 large men with weapons to get me off of my knees for the eucharistic prayer.
 
Jennifer J:
This same thing happens at our parish. I’ve written a cordial note to our pastor and got the answer that the word ‘men’ is offensive to some and his pastoral answer was to leave it out. Hooey. I haven’t gone any further because I didn’t know what to do. He is being reassigned in July for some reason, so now I’ll have a new pastor to bother about this! It is frustrating!!! Any ideas would be welcome.

Jennifer
Write a letter to the diocesan bishop (copying the priest) informing him that the priest continues to alter the words of the Mass. If he does not respond or responds that he can’t do anything, then write to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments at the vatican.

Also, pray.
 
The other incorrect variant that I’ve heard (thankfully, not in my own parish) is to say that Jesus became “a man” (my emphasis, not noted when said). Again, PC-idiocy changes the meaning of the phrase–“became Man” (gender-neutral) is different than “became a man” (specifically male–while true, you’re missing the theological point the Creed is making).

Same thing with “became human”–again, not quite true, because now you’re denying the divinity of Christ, who is as much God as Man. The elegance of the parallel “for us men” and “became man” is also lost (and present in the Latin: “Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.”)

I don’t know, it’s almost enough to make me say “let’s say at least the Creed in Latin” just so men (whether male or female) who seem to know nothing about linguistics or theology can stop messing with what they seem not to understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top