For us men

[Atreyu]

I was under the impression that, in the Creed, we say the following words:
For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven
Then we bow from the waist while we say the following:
By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
I sometimes feel like my wife and I are the only two people in the entire Church who say the word “men” in the first line, and then bow for the second line. I would approach the priest about this, but for two reasons:

1. 
   *]I want to know for certain that I have the right of it here. Has there been some kind of approved translation or something that omits the word “men”?
   *]These two things seem to be so incredibly wide-spread, that it feels like it would be an absolutely useless exercise to undertake.
   
   Is it one of those, “all you can do is pray” things?

 

[rush176]

In our parish “men” is said as part of the creed and I have never noticed any change. The bowing is kind of scarce though.

 

[Atreyu]

In our parish “men” is said as part of the creed and I have never noticed any change. The bowing is kind of scarce though.

I’ve been to probably half a dozen parishes in the past two years, and I think only one of them actually says the word “men”. At the church I’m attending at the moment, they display the words of the Creed on two massive screens at the front of the church, with the word “men” conspicuously absent.

 

[japhy]

I was under the impression that, in the Creed, we say the following words:
For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven
Then we bow from the waist while we say the following:
By the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.

Well, the English translation I hear in the US is: “For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven. [Bow:] By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

Granted this is a poor translation, because “became incarnate” is more accurate, and I guess “was made man” is a better translation of homo factus est. (By implying that only when he was born was he man, it could be seen as a concession that the unborn are not yet man.)

Regardless, yes, you’re supposed to bow (and on March 25 and December 25, genuflect!) at “By the power…”. And yes, in the US, the approved translation of the Roman Missal says “for us men”.

If the projected words of the creed are missing “men” there, and do not mention the bow, that’s two “sins of omission”. Point it out to your priest. Ask him to look in his copy of the Sacramentary: the Nicene Creed says “men”. It says it for theological reasons, and also because it says so in Greek (Τόν δι’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους) and Latin (Qui propter nos hómines). This is “men” in the gender-inclusive (“male and female”) sense, not “men” in the gender-exclusive (males only) sense.

“For us and for our salvation” sounds exclusive. He did this only for us? Who is us? The people in this particular church building?

 

[NetNuncio]

The unofficial translations that have been floating about over the last few years reads “For us and our salvation”, removing the “men”. However, currently, it is “For us men and our salvation”.

 

[Seatuck]

My husband and I are one of the few who bow at those words in our church as well. I showed someone that it was right there in the missalette but they remain unconvinced because the Priests don’t do it.

 

[lizaanne]

My husband and I are one of the few who bow at those words in our church as well. I showed someone that it was right there in the missalette but they remain unconvinced because the Priests don’t do it.

Continue to be the living example. Perhaps one day your priest will notice and recall that EVERYONE is supposed to bow.

DH and I say “for us men” no matter if we are at a parish that doesn’t say it. Our parish does, fortunately. We also bow regardless of what anyone else around us is doing.

There is right and there is wrong. I’m not willing to do wrong just because it is socially popular to do so.

~Liza

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The unofficial translations that have been floating about over the last few years reads “For us and our salvation”, removing the “men”. However, currently, it is “For us men and our salvation”.

Note that an unspecified us has its own problems. It carries the implication that we are saved and they are not; leaving unstated who are the *they *who are not saved - heretics, schimatics, infidels, pagans?

 

[maryj]

For us men, and our salvation…
Profound bow
By the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man

always the way it is done at my parish. I’m not sure how many bow, because my head is down in a bow. but you can hear the change in tone when all are bowed.

 

[sphilomena]

For us men… is supposed to be said; it’s still in the missalette. It appears to be the priests who have left it out in recent years, thinking they must cave in to the feminists. Where there is no missalette, it is easier for them to change the wording and carry the whole congregation along with them - which I have observed. So much for obedience!

 

[Fidelia]

Well, the English translation I hear in the US is: “For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven. [Bow:] By the power of the Holy Spirit, he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.”

Granted this is a poor translation, because “became incarnate” is more accurate, and I guess “was made man” is a better translation of homo factus est. (By implying that only when he was born was he man, it could be seen as a concession that the unborn are not yet man.)

Regardless, yes, you’re supposed to bow (and on March 25 and December 25, genuflect!) at “By the power…”. And yes, in the US, the approved translation of the Roman Missal says “for us men”.

If the projected words of the creed are missing “men” there, and do not mention the bow, that’s two “sins of omission”. Point it out to your priest. Ask him to look in his copy of the Sacramentary: the Nicene Creed says “men”. It says it for theological reasons, and also because it says so in Greek (Τόν δι’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους) and Latin (Qui propter nos hómines). This is “men” in the gender-inclusive (“male and female”) sense, not “men” in the gender-exclusive (males only) sense.

“For us and for our salvation” sounds exclusive. He did this only for us? Who is us? The people in this particular church building?

I am late to the thread. I am glad someone pointed out the language. The words mean “human” or “person” and the fact that “men” is used in the translation is because of the way the word is used in English. English doesn’t really have an equivalent term that would be as practical to use.

I think the problem would be solved if the prayers were recited in Latin, and everyone was properly catechized to know what’s being said. Then there wouldn’t be any opportunity for the ignorant to claim that our Creed is sexist.

 

[thomasf]

I guess I lucked out. We’ve got both ‘for us men’ and the head bow during the creed.

 

[Brendan]

I guess I lucked out. We’ve got both ‘for us men’ and the head bow during the creed.

Yea, same here. It actually kinda’ wierd going to other parishes and being the only one who bows.

The striking of the breast during the Penitential Rite Form A " I confess to Almighty God"… as well. I was at a different parish on Sunday and that form was used. The priest and my family were the only ones who struck our breasts or bowed during the Creed.

Most of the congregation ‘remembered’ to hold hands during the Our Father though

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

We always say “for us men” and bow in our church. I noticed some even genuflect.

 

[buffalo]

One of our priests substitutes the word flesh. He always uses inclusive language.

 

[thistle]

The word “men” does not arise at our Masses as we only say the Apostles Creed.

 

[japhy]

The word “men” does not arise at our Masses as we only say the Apostles Creed.

How come you say the Apostles’ Creed? Are these Masses with children?

 

[AHapka]

I am late to the thread. I am glad someone pointed out the language. The words mean “human” or “person” and the fact that “men” is used in the translation is because of the way the word is used in English. English doesn’t really have an equivalent term that would be as practical to use.

I completely agree. The only word I know of in english used in common conversation refering to a person that does not denote a sex is “baby.”

i.e. “Are you bringing baby today?” or “What did baby eat today?”

There just isn’t a good word in english that covers what is meant to be said. There is no truly unisex word for the older-than-baby set.

Andy

 

[thistle]

How come you say the Apostles’ Creed? Are these Masses with children?

The GIRM does not require the Nicene Creed to be said. It only requires the Creed (which is the Nicene or the Apostles Creed).

 

[Atreyu]

I completely agree. The only word I know of in english used in common conversation refering to a person that does not denote a sex is “baby.”

i.e. “Are you bringing baby today?” or “What did baby eat today?”

There just isn’t a good word in english that covers what is meant to be said. There is no truly unisex word for the older-than-baby set.

Andy

I remember checking the Oxford Dictionary years ago, and the first definition under the word “man” was “human being”. I wish I could check that just to be sure; I have such a terrible memory that I’m always in doubt of what I remember from years ago. C. S. Lewis says some choice words about changing the definitions of words in Mere Christianity; in the introduction, I think. I hope the word “man” doesn’t lose it’s true meaning. The English language can develop, but it can also be abused!