For Us Men and Our Salvation Is Not Sexist

[historybrat]

I agree with a previous poster who basically said if you really understand the English language than you know that “men” can have multiple meanings. If you know the context than you know what it meant by it. I frequently say something like “come on guys” to my friends which include both men and women. No one gets offended because they know what I mean by it. To a certain degree language does change, but that doesn’t mean we should constantly being changed how mass is said.

I teach at a high school and my students constantly complain because I make them use proper English, and leave the slang words at home. There is a time and a place for certain types of language. I don’t believe that when I go to mass it should start sounding like my students going out to the mall. We don’t need to dumb down mass, we need to set high expectations people will meet them.

Historybrat (who knows when we say “for us men and our salvation”, I am included even if I’m a woman)

 

[Petergee]

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.

I hate to tell you, but it seems pretty certain that the new English text of the Mass, to be adopted in a year or so, will indeed omit “men” from the Nicene Creed. I’m sure the Pope and bishops are not adopting a feminist agenda nor denying Sacred Tradition. They are recognising that words do change their meaning. Many people (including me) still accept that “men” means “all human beings” in this context, but it seems that the majority today do not accept this meaning of the word in this context. And no they are not just raving man-hating feminists, but include many good Christians.

It will be interesting to see if anyone complains that saying “for us and our salvation” implies that Jesus came ONLY for Christians/Catholics/the people actually saying the Creed, instead of for all human beings. Especially considering the bitter controversy re “for many/for all” in the Consecration, which has now been resolved in favour of “for many”.

You’ll be pleased to know though that the new text does not adopt the silliness of using “God” in place of “He”. Because 99% of English speakers simply don’t speak English that way.

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.

What do you call the servers who aren’t boys and girls? Altar men, altar women, altar youths, altar teens? “Altar ladies” is already taken - it means the ladies who supply and arrange the flowers, wash the altar cloths etc. And when you talk about all the servers as a group do you call them “altar people”? Oh dear it sounds like you’re clericalising the laity.

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 feminazi movement, especially given the title of the song.

What on earth do they say? “Sibling/s”? And it’s by no means an “old” song by Church standards.

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.

What the…? So when there’s a war going on and someone wants to tell one of the beliggerents to stop fighting it, what would you like them to say? Or do you think they should just say nothing, just because you disagree with them?

 

[ronyodish]

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

We still do that in the Chaldean Catholic Church

But, for the sake of some of our people who grew up with Arabic in Iraq, and English in the US, we also offer Arabic and English Liturgies.

Rony

 

[ronyodish]

Oh and yeah, we also say in English: “for us men and for our salvation”

Rony

 

[allaussie]

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.

I don’t have a problem with altar servers if they are being referred to as a group, if you are referring to an individual then yes you can refer to their sex but Altar servers as a collective noun is much easier than altar boys and girls, I think Altar server is the only apropriate term available for an adult performing that role (as frequently happens in my church).

 

[Sure]

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?

Read the section in there that contains an examination of the use of the word “man” as meaning human being. The scholars that vote on the meanings that are put into the dictionary vote 80% for the usage of man as meaning “human beings or humanity.” Also, that is the first definition. The second is “human being”. In a dictionary, the meaning of a word is not limited to the first definition only.

The “big deal” is why substitute at all? Why does it help anything? The meaning is clear why change it? Also, in English it is a translation from Latin so for the sake of accuracy, we should keep the translation literal.

 

[Miserissima]

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.

Ironically, I think that’s the argument of those who are vying for inclusive language.

But I never had a problem with it. In Catholic school we were taught that man = mankind. That includes everyone. We are all a part of mankind, whether male or female. There was never any intention to use divisive language.

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.

I honestly don’t see an agenda. Although I do not support the movement toward inclusive language, I can understand what may fuel it. Those who do not have an “agenda” are the people who are genuinely hurt by the lack of “inclusive language.” These folks just have a poor grasp of what the words actually mean (men = humankind), and need to be gently educated, bringing them into understanding.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

**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.**

I honestly don’t see how ANYONE,
other than
a) an idiot
or
b) a person motivated by malice
could be confused by “men” in the context of the Creed.
It clearly refers to humankind, you’d have to be braindead
to believe and profess that Christ became man to
save only males. How ludicrous.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Sure]

Many people (including me) still accept that “men” means “all human beings” in this context, but it seems that the majority today do not accept this meaning of the word in this context. And no they are not just raving man-hating feminists, but include many good Christians.

Good news…you are not a minority, but a majority!

Read this…

Usage Note: Traditionally, many writers have used man and words derived from it to designate any or all of the human race regardless of sex. In fact, this is the oldest use of the word. In Old English the principal sense of man was “a human,” and the words wer and wyf (or wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to “a male human” and “a female human” respectively. But in Middle English man displaced wer as the term for “a male human,” while wyfman (which evolved into present-day woman) was retained for “a female human.” Despite this change, man continued to carry its original sense of “a human” as well, resulting in an asymmetrical arrangement that many criticize as sexist. · Nonetheless, a majority of the Usage Panel still accepts the generic use of man, although the women members have significantly less enthusiasm for this usage than the men do. For example, the sentence If early man suffered from a lack of information, modern man is tyrannized by an excess of it is acceptable to 81 percent of the Panel—but a breakdown by sex shows that only 58 percent of the women Panelists accept it, while 92 percent of the men do.

This is from the American Heritage Dictionary published by Houghton Mifflin. So, “man” as a generic term for humanity is still completely acceptable in the modern English language.

 

[Penny_Plain]

I honestly don’t see how ANYONE,
other than
a) an idiot
or
b) a person motivated by malice
could be confused by “men” in the context of the Creed.
It clearly refers to humankind, you’d have to be braindead
to believe and profess that Christ became man to
save only males. How ludicrous.

If you want to wilfully misunderstand the point and call names, go right ahead. It is possible, you know, for people to have a different view than yours without being stupid or evil.

 

[Sure]

If you want to wilfully misunderstand the point and call names, go right ahead. It is possible, you know, for people to have a different view than yours without being stupid or evil.

So, are you saying that there are actually people who are CONFUSED by the wording of the creed? I don’t mean offended or irritated, I mean confused. Wouldn’t any reasonable intelligent person understand the meaning?

What other option besides lack of intelligence or ill motive could cause one to claim that it needs to be changed???

 

[Jennifer_J]

I hate to tell you, but it seems pretty certain that the new English text of the Mass, to be adopted in a year or so, will indeed omit “men” from the Nicene Creed. I’m sure the Pope and bishops are not adopting a feminist agenda nor denying Sacred Tradition. They are recognising that words do change their meaning. Many people (including me) still accept that “men” means “all human beings” in this context, but it seems that the majority today do not accept this meaning of the word in this context. And no they are not just raving man-hating feminists, but include many good Christians.

?

Could you please cite where this is being changed? I don’t remember reading or hearing that this is changing.
Thanks,
Jennifer

 

[cue]

If you want to wilfully misunderstand the point and call names, go right ahead. It is possible, you know, for people to have a different view than yours without being stupid or evil.

I agree there is no need to call names, but in all honesty, Jaypeeto4 never said a person was evil, but only that a person is motivated by malice.

If you follow the rules for the language we speak (English) and given the context, there cannot be confusion or offense taken during the Credo. If, then, people are offended, it is not because the language is offensive, but only because that the individual is offended, from either ignorance (which means a lack of knowledge or being provided with misinformation) or intentionally speaking another language or being offended. All of these issues are personal and have nothing or very little to do with the text of the translated Credo or the English language.

 

[edwest2]

The word sexist is fake and devisive. I am glad some here have realized that our culture is bombarded by divisive feminist baloney which is meant to separate men and women instead of create love and respect between them.

“What’s the big deal?” is the non-argument of one who does not realize the reality of sin and does not recognize attacks on the dignity of the human person, both male and female.

The Bible teaches that husbands should love their wives and that wives should love their husbands. Calls for “equality” where women (presented as a victim class) need to run exactly 50% of all government and business jobs is anti-God and anti-family. Instead of promoting diviseness and creating a feeling of victimhood, and an us vs them/men mentality among women, why not realize that cooperation and reconciliation are the better way to go?

Jesus is a man, The Father is referred to as a man. This is historical, true and Biblical. Mary, as the mother of God, is an example to all women, except those who want to live outside the true teachings of the Church.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Penny_Plain]

I agree there is no need to call names, but in all honesty, Jaypeeto4 never said a person was evil, but only that a person is motivated by malice.

My mistake. Substitute “malicious” for “evil.”

The point doesn’t change.

 

[cue]

My mistake. Substitute “malicious” for “evil.”

Actually, you did more than substitute ‘evil’ for ‘malicious’, you also replaced the motivation of a person with the person himself. Jaypeeto4 asserted that some people are motivated by a motive that is malicious, not that evil people or malicious people are motivated.

We all do things for wrong intentions, wrong motives. That doesn’t make it right, but it also cannot make us, who were created good, evil. No matter how sinful we are, we can never become totally evil. Therefore, evil intentions do not make evil people.

The reason I objected to your criticism of Jaypeeto4 is that it was unfair. You exaggerated his remarks to try and make those statements look ridiculous. That is dishonest. I agreed with your statements about name-calling, which was a fair criticism, but also defended Jaypeeto4 from your unfair criticism (twisting his words).

The point doesn’t change.

And the point here is that language matters. Communication is the sending and receiving of messages between two or more parties. Since this involves more than one person, language cannot just be whatever one individual decides he wants it to be. While he may know what he means, because he betrays the rules of the language he appears to be communicating in, no one else will understand. Engaging in the activity of language means conceding to the rules of the language. One of those rules is surrendering the ability to define any word as you like.

But why bicker between ourselves about it when the experts and authority have spoken in Liturgiam Authenticam:

Many languages have nouns and pronouns capable of referring to both the masculine and the feminine in a single term. The abandonment of these terms under pressure of criticism on ideological or other grounds is not always wise or necessary nor is it an inevitable part of linguistic development.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

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.

It’s wrong because the texts of the mass are not to be changed for any reason. Period. Regardless of what one may think about the language being used.

 

[Petergee]

Could you please cite where this is being changed? I don’t remember reading or hearing that this is changing.
Thanks,
Jennifer

ad2000.com.au/articles/2007/jun2007p3_2551.html

The following will be the most obvious changes to the lay people’s responses when the revised Missal finally becomes available:

• ‘And with your spirit’ instead of ‘And also with you’;

• ‘through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault’ as well as ‘and you my brothers and sisters’ instead of ‘and you here present’ in the Confiteor;

• ‘peace on earth to people of good will’ instead of ‘peace to his people on earth’ and ‘Only-begotten Son’ for ‘Only Son of the Father’ in the Gloria;

• In the Nicene Creed, ‘I believe’ instead of ‘We believe’, ‘all things visible and invisible’ for ‘seen and unseen’, ‘by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary’ instead of ‘born of’ and ‘for us and our salvation’, with ‘men’ deleted;

• ‘Pray, brothers and sisters, that the sacrifice which is mine and yours [not our], may be acceptable’;

• ‘We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come in glory’ instead of ‘Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again’;

• ‘Behold the Lamb of God … Blessed are those called to the banquet of the Lamb … Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed’.

 

[Penny_Plain]

It’s wrong because the texts of the mass are not to be changed for any reason.

Why not?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, Penny, there ARE places in the Mass where the priest can use ‘his own words’. And there ARE places in the Mass where there are options (four major and several minor Eucharistic prayers, three options for the penitential rite, for example).

What there are NOT options for is for the texts of the Mass–the Gloria, the gospels/readings, the texts of the Eucharistic prayers, the Our Father, Sanctus, Creed, Agnus Dei etc–to be turned into ‘ad lib’, ‘personalized’, ‘off the cuff’, or worst of all, so completely slanted and biased that they wind up conveying an antithesis of what the texts say. When Jesus taught us the Our Father, He didn’t teach us “Our Father/Mother” or “Our procreator/generator” or “Manitou, great spirit”; He didn’t teach us to 'do unto others as we would have them do unto us".

Now mind you, God being a spirit has certainly as much of a “mothering” spirit as a ‘fathering’ one. And many people ‘equate’ Manitou with “God”. And ‘forgive us our sins as we forgive those who trespass against us’ is SIMILAR to the ‘Golden Rule’.

But we don’t tinker with prayers because when we start doing that, we get so caught up with “our” interpretation, and “our” understanding, that we wind up forgetting, throwing out, downright deleting what doesn’t ‘go’ with our understanding. . .and what we wind up with is a FRACTION of the ‘whole’ which the Mass prayers represent.

Believe me, Penny, as one who has been through many, many ‘ad lib’ Masses where Father X ‘tweaked’ the words here (Father X was a big fan of ‘dualism’. We never for example said “the Lord be with you”. Too plain for Father X! No, it was “the Lord and Savior be with you now and always”. When it was time to “lift up your hearts” it was, “rejoice as we lift and raise your hearts and souls”, etc. See, all the ‘words’ of the text were pretty much there. . .but they were so OBSCURED by all the other ad libs, it was hard to tell!)

And that was just Father X. Fathers A-W (not to mention Y and Z) had, each of them, their own little ‘changes’ to make. . .word, posture, gesture, ‘order of Mass’, little extras like having people stand up to be ‘cheered’ for birthdays and anniversaries, or having people come up round the altar, or bring ‘your own bread’ to be distributed at communion. . .