For Us Men and Our Salvation Is Not Sexist

[Steve40]

Sometimes I get annoyed when our priest cuts out the word men in the creed. When we say for us men and our salvation it means mankind where women are a special kind of man.

I feel like it is an attack on humanity that has crept into the Church.

It’s wrong to bring in the language of the world that divides humanity into the Church. God made man, male and female to be one. We are man made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

I am ashamed to admit that I used to do the same thing. As a young adult I was heavily influenced by people around me who had a feminist agenda.

Fortunately, as an older adult, I have been able to “escape” that mindset since then.

Unfortunately, I get annoyed now just as you do! At my parents’ church, a lot of people avoid the word “He” entirely when referring to God; they substitute the word “God” wherever the personal pronoun is called for in the prayers of the Mass (I think they may be following the lead of a pastoral associate, a religious sister, who does it.) Drives me crazy! Something to “offer up” …

 

[Steve40]

Something to “offer up” …

That’s the attitude that I should have, instead I just say “MEN!” when we get to that part of the Creed.

I can still say it but perhaps offering it up would be to say in normally to the Lord.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Christ referred to God as His Father (male), and like many things in life, we must decide whether we are going to follow the precepts of the world (in this case, the feminists) or that of God.

Nothing irks me so much as people calling Catholicism “inherently sexist.” I always tell them that to say so demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholicism. I usually also remind them that name-calling never furthers civilized debate.

In that respect, it seems to me that nobody can publicly insult Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, Homosexuals, Feminists, etc., etc., etc…, but Catholics are fair game for open, unanswered derision. Anyone else get this feeling?

 

[FrankLawrence]

I never heard of someone trying to change the Nicene Creed in that manner. I would find such actions to be morally reprehensible, as it would constitute a denial of Sacred Tradition.
On a lesser note, I also don’t like the term, “altar servers.” It should be altar boys and altar girls. “Altar servers,” reeks of P.C.
And finally, I can’t stand it when churches take the old song, “Let There Be Peace On Earth,” and change the words “brothers,” and “brother,” just to appease the EDIT feminist movement, especially given the title of the song. It is kind of like when people say, “Stop the War.” Such a statement constitutes fighting words in such a politically and emotionally charged war.
Alright, I’m rambling. I’ll bring my remarks to a close…for now…on this thread…

 

[Cat]

I’m a woman, and I’m not offended in the least when people say “Men” meaning “humankind.” Our English language has all kinds of quirks. This is one of them.

 

[cue]

I feel like it is an attack on humanity that has crept into the Church.

That is exactly what it is. The ‘men’ (homines) is specifically in there to connect with ‘man’ (homo) in “He was born of the virgin Mary and become man.” The omission of ‘men’ (homines) is not only an act of disobedience but it tears away at the idea that the Church places before us, the wonderful reality that Christ, God, become exactly what we are.

I’m a woman, and I’m not offended in the least when people say “Men” meaning “mankind.” Our English language has all kinds of quirks. This is one of them.

Yes, this case is a limitation of English, but then translations into the vernacular will always fall short because they are simply that, translations.

 

[christcnection1]

If using all this “patriarchal” language is sinful, and the “patriarchal” institutional hierarchy of the Catholic Church is fundamentally flawed and/or sinful, we can also conclude that our Lord Jesus Himself suffered from the same sin of sexism. Logically, this would destroy our faith and trust in our Lord, and there would be no reason to embrace Christianity if Jesus Christ was a sinner.

 

[Sure]

I cringe when people sing the Gloria as “Glory to God in the highest and peace to God’s people on earth.” They try to cram “God’s people” into “His people” while singing and it just doesn’t work.

I mean, that’s just horrible English.

 

[sphilomena]

That’s the attitude that I should have, instead I just say “MEN!” when we get to that part of the Creed.

I can still say it but perhaps offering it up would be to say in normally to the Lord.

As I’ve said elsewhere, I also say it nice and loud!
I am so tired of our shepherds caving in to the feminist agenda; and what about those of US who are offended by this agenda! I am intelligent enough to know I am part of mankind.

 

[Penny_Plain]

I never heard of someone trying to change the Nicene Creed in that manner. I would find such actions to be morally reprehensible, as it would constitute a denial of Sacred Tradition.

On a lesser note, I also don’t like the term, “altar servers.” It should be altar boys and altar girls. “Altar servers,” reeks of P.C.
And finally, I can’t stand it when churches take the old song, “Let There Be Peace On Earth,” and change the words “brothers,” and “brother,” just to appease the EDIT Feminist movement, especially given the title of the song. It is kind of like when people say, “Stop the War.” Such a statement constitutes fighting words in such a politically and emotionally charged war.

Alright, I’m rambling. I’ll bring my remarks to a close…for now…on this thread…

Language changes, or we’d be saying Mass in Aramaic.

It’s neither insane or particularly radical to suggest that the term “man” means something different today that it meant in 1950. Language changes, and the same words mean different things at different times and in different places. (Where I’m from, for example, it’s perfectly reasonable to say “I went to her house and knocked her up.” Here in the USA, not so much.)

Maybe “men” meant “humankind” in 1950, but that’s not how people understand it today. Unless you’re arguing that the words “for us men and for our salvation” have some sort of magic property, the phrase “for us and for our salvation” captures the meaning much better in 2007.

 

[sphilomena]

Language changes, or we’d be saying Mass in Aramaic.

It’s neither insane or particularly radical to suggest that the term “man” means something different today that it meant in 1950. Language changes, and the same words mean different things at different times and in different places. (Where I’m from, for example, it’s perfectly reasonable to say “I went to her house and knocked her up.” Here in the USA, not so much.)

Maybe “men” meant “humankind” in 1950, but that’s not how people understand it today. Unless you’re arguing that the words “for us men and for our salvation” have some sort of magic property, the phrase “for us and for our salvation” captures the meaning much better in 2007.

To leave out the word “men” may be to your liking for modern meaning, but NO ONE may change the words of the Mass, particularly a prayer like this one. (“No one, not even a priest may…”)

 

[Sure]

Language changes, or we’d be saying Mass in Aramaic.

It’s neither insane or particularly radical to suggest that the term “man” means something different today that it meant in 1950. Language changes, and the same words mean different things at different times and in different places. (Where I’m from, for example, it’s perfectly reasonable to say “I went to her house and knocked her up.” Here in the USA, not so much.)

Maybe “men” meant “humankind” in 1950, but that’s not how people understand it today. Unless you’re arguing that the words “for us men and for our salvation” have some sort of magic property, the phrase “for us and for our salvation” captures the meaning much better in 2007.

Yes. Languages change. Fortunately, this use of the word “Men” has not; it still means “human being” regardless of sex. This is still an overwhelmingly accepted usage of the word as you can see here:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/man

 

[LDNCatholic]

In that respect, it seems to me that nobody can publicly insult Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, Homosexuals, Feminists, etc., etc., etc…, but Catholics are fair game for open, unanswered derision. Anyone else get this feeling?

Yes and I am glad for it, Christ promised us that the world would hate us for our devotion to Him. To me it is just further proof that we have the Truth.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Yes. Languages change. Fortunately, this use of the word “Men” has not; it still means “human being” regardless of sex. This is still an overwhelmingly accepted usage of the word as you can see here:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/man

Eh. The first meaning (which is the most common) is “an adult male person, as opposed to a boy or a woman.”

It could (and does) lead to misunderstanding. If you can unambiguously convey the same sense either by substituting “people,” or by simply omitting the word “man,” what’s the big deal?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The substitution is worse than the ‘ambiguity’ (which actually had to be inculcated into people’s beliefs in the 60s and 70s. I was there, and saw the ‘frenzy’ whipping as we ‘womyn’ were called upon to thrust off the shackles of ‘half the population’ and to CLAIM OUR RIGHT TO BE RECOGNIZED.)

But again, one can argue that language changes are intrinsic and extrinsic, so to speak. If a new ‘creation’ comes about, it ‘needs’ a word. (nylon, rockets, the internet, etc.) But something as ‘old’ as man (vir), human does not need to be redefined. “Man” means humanity. The idea that it ONLY MEANS the "male half of humanity’–that so-called definition is a red herring which has been FALSELY put forward as a ‘definition’ in order to FORCE people into supposedly making it ‘clear’ that we HAVE to say, “man and woman” else we are ‘neglecting’ women.

Take ‘marriage’ for example. Instead of accepting marriage as it has always been understood --the union of a man and a woman–we are now being TOLD that it means the union of ‘two people who LOVE each other --regardless of their sex". One small aspect of marriage ‘in contemporary Western society’ I hasten to add as many societies still practice ‘arranged’ marriages etc. --the idea that two people ‘love each other’ --is being FOISTED onto people as the "true definition’ of marriage. . .and as a result, we are being castigated, that, since marriage REALLY is about ‘two people loving each other’, if we try to LIMIT that to one man and one woman, we are NEGLECTING and DENYING the gay and lesbian and transgendered etc. etc. etc.

All this ‘redirection’ is not about ‘redressing wrongs’ IMO but rather into trying to enforce an agenda that is wholeheartedly based on destroying Catholicism/Christianity from within, by redefining it to suit the taste of the destroyers --the world, the flesh, and the devil.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

The substitution is worse than the ‘ambiguity’ (which actually had to be inculcated into people’s beliefs in the 60s and 70s. I was there, and saw the ‘frenzy’ whipping as we ‘womyn’ were called upon to thrust off the shackles of ‘half the population’ and to CLAIM OUR RIGHT TO BE RECOGNIZED.)

But again, one can argue that language changes are intrinsic and extrinsic, so to speak. If a new ‘creation’ comes about, it ‘needs’ a word. (nylon, rockets, the internet, etc.) But something as ‘old’ as man (vir), human does not need to be redefined. “Man” means humanity. The idea that it ONLY MEANS the "male half of humanity’–that so-called definition is a red herring which has been FALSELY put forward as a ‘definition’ in order to FORCE people into supposedly making it ‘clear’ that we HAVE to say, “man and woman” else we are ‘neglecting’ women.

Take ‘marriage’ for example. Instead of accepting marriage as it has always been understood --the union of a man and a woman–we are now being TOLD that it means the union of ‘two people who LOVE each other --regardless of their sex". One small aspect of marriage ‘in contemporary Western society’ I hasten to add as many societies still practice ‘arranged’ marriages etc. --the idea that two people ‘love each other’ --is being FOISTED onto people as the "true definition’ of marriage. . .and as a result, we are being castigated, that, since marriage REALLY is about ‘two people loving each other’, if we try to LIMIT that to one man and one woman, we are NEGLECTING and DENYING the gay and lesbian and transgendered etc. etc. etc.

All this ‘redirection’ is not about ‘redressing wrongs’ IMO but rather into trying to enforce an agenda that is wholeheartedly based on destroying Catholicism/Christianity from within, by redefining it to suit the taste of the destroyers --the world, the flesh, and the devil.

Amen, sister! All this gender-inclusive language has made people so hypersensitive about nothing. When I was younger, I never had to pull my hair out when I was writing a paper to figure out whether to say “he” or “he or she,” etc. What a waste of energy for all the wrong reasons!

We call a dog a dog even though technically the word “dog” is male and “*****” is female. (Wow, the website censored that out, even though I used it in a correct context!)

To quote a great poet, “Speaking of cows, which no one was doing …” (or is that “cattle”? will the bulls feel left out?)

The French use the pronoun “ils” (plural of “il,” = “he”) to mean “they” for a mixed group of men and women; they don’t say “ils et elles” (“hes and shes”).

In everyday speech, to each “his” own. (“one’s” own? “his or her” own? Groan!)

In the liturgy, I’ll stick with the words that Holy Mother Church, in “her” wisdom, has given us.

 

[cue]

It could (and does) lead to misunderstanding. If you can unambiguously convey the same sense either by substituting “people,” or by simply omitting the word “man,” what’s the big deal?

I do not mean any offense, but for those who are familiar with the English language, and do no try to fabricate issues, there is no misunderstanding nor ambiguity, as there continues to be no confusion in countless our languages spoken daily around the globe with similar usage rules for masculine plural forms.

It is the same situation with the words ‘no’ and ‘know’ when speaking. Two very different words which sound the same but do not confuse people who use it in daily conversation. Language occurs in context and that context prevents confusion, as the context of faith prevents the confusion in the Nicene Creed. The problem could be the rejection of the context.

 

[Lepanto]

“Past injustices against women are not atoned for by current or future injustices against the English language.”

–Peter Kreeft

 

[Steve40]

Language changes, or we’d be saying Mass in Aramaic.

It’s neither insane or particularly radical to suggest that the term “man” means something different today that it meant in 1950. Language changes, and the same words mean different things at different times and in different places. (Where I’m from, for example, it’s perfectly reasonable to say “I went to her house and knocked her up.” Here in the USA, not so much.)

Maybe “men” meant “humankind” in 1950, but that’s not how people understand it today. Unless you’re arguing that the words “for us men and for our salvation” have some sort of magic property, the phrase “for us and for our salvation” captures the meaning much better in 2007.

If that is the case than they should replaced “us men” with “us humanity” or “us man kind” just saying “us” doesn’t do it. Us could imply just us in the building or just us in my town. Us has a different meaning from “us, man kind”.

Besides the language hasn’t changed that much. My female boss is still my manager. She is one of the best managers I have had and she manages both men and women.