Inclusive language in Eucharistic prayers

[Cavaille-Coll]

It seems that whenever I visit a different parish, the priest always feels compelled to remove words like “mankind” from the text of the Eucharistic prayers, especially the fourth one ("You formed man in Your own likeness and set him over the whole world . . .). I cannot remember the last time I heard this prayed as it is written, and even the more traditional priests seem compelled to change the text. Since I am not a priest, I don’t know what kinds of pressure they endure before they cave in and do this. Do people threaten to withhold funds or leave the parish? Death threats from angry women suffering from chalice envy, perhaps?:banghead:

 

[AlexV]

I know of one priest in a religious order who was told to change the words for inclusivity…he refused. He was told he was being asked “in obedience”. He still refused. He was then removed from the schedule of those priests who said Mass for students in the college chapel.

 

[jbuck919]

The best way to deal with this, IMO, is for the bishops to correct the language. It is not a qustion of being unfaithul to the Latin because of the known difference of the significance of “man” in English and and “homo” in Latin. In fact, I haven’t heard that fourth E.P,. in a long time and am surprised the language is still there.

If they can make as trivial a change as “This is the word of the Lord” to “The word of the Lord,” they should be able to do this.

 

[AlexV]

The language doesn’t need to be “corrected”. It’s a political, not grammatical issue.

But, it’s a good case for Latin…you get spared the vicissitudes of modern languages.

 

[Eileen_T]

Deo gratias!

 

[jbuck919]

The language doesn’t need to be “corrected”. It’s a political, not grammatical issue.

But, it’s a good case for Latin…you get spared the vicissitudes of modern languages.

Even educated women (and many men) who know about the double usage of “man” are increasingly upset by this, especially as the generic meaning falls increasingly out of usage in English-speaking society as a whole. An analogy would be the spot where St. Paul says, “Once, I was stoned.” This is usually rendered in modern translations as “Once, I received a stoning.”

“Humankind” or just “humans” is a perfectly good and not klutzy way to translate “homo” and to avoid the clumsy repetition of the word in the phrase that was cited, substitute “us” for the next occurrence. At least that’s one suggestion.

Perhaps it is different elsehwhere in the English speaking world, but the words “for us men and for our salvation” are seldom if ever used in the US anymore (just leave out “men”;everyone who has ever prayed this prayer or ever willl is human, and we’re is something called the Community of Saints)." Similarly, the words “which shall be shed for you and for all men” are never used. I don’t even know if that change is official or not because I have that stuff memorized and haven’t look at a missal text in years, but if it has not been, it should be, and if it has been than so should the wordings in the Eucharistic prayers.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

“Humankind” or just “humans” is a perfectly good and not klutzy way to translate “homo” and to avoid the clumsy repetition of the word in the phrase that was cited, substitute “us” for the next occurrence. At least that’s one suggestion.

Perhaps it is different elsehwhere in the English speaking world, but the words “for us men and for our salvation” are seldom if ever used in the US anymore (just leave out “men”;everyone who has ever prayed this prayer or ever willl is human, and we’re is something called the Community of Saints)." Similarly, the words “which shall be shed for you and for all men” are never used. I don’t even know if that change is official or not because I have that stuff memorized and haven’t look at a missal text in years, but if it has not been, it should be, and if it has been than so should the wordings in the Eucharistic prayers.

“For you and for all men” is not part of the ICEL translation. With regard to the Nicene Creed, there is no authorized change in the text. “For us men” is the official English translation and no priest or bishop may change or omit it. I have been to many Masses around the US, and if anyone is going to omit the word “men,” it is the priest and the sister. Nobody else does this, except perhaps in your parish. If it were my parish, I’d find another one. Substituting words like “humankind” is purely a political move promoted by radical feminists (who are often males) and weak-willed clergy afraid to “offend” anyone. Mankind still means humanity, even if some people don’t like it. Before jumping on any bandwagon, it is best to see who else is riding on it.

Pick up the average CCD elementary textbook and count the number of times the name of God is repeated in a given paragraph to avoid saying “Him.” Then turn to the title page and notice the large number of religious sisters who are listed on the editorial committee.

My message to female and male feminists: Join some other church instead of always trying change ours. Get ordained, pray to your goddess, sing a new church into being, spell the word “wymyn,” but please do it somewhere else.

 

[Elzee]

Perhaps it is different elsehwhere in the English speaking world, but the words “for us men and for our salvation” are seldom if ever used in the US anymore (just leave out “men”;everyone who has ever prayed this prayer or ever willl is human, and we’re is something called the Community of Saints).

We still say this in my parish - and we’re a “progressive Catholic community”! Actually, I don’t ever remember NOT saying these words in any parish I’ve been in across the U.S.

 

[baltobetsy]

“Humankind” or just “humans” is a perfectly good and not klutzy way to translate “homo” and to avoid the clumsy repetition of the word in the phrase that was cited, substitute “us” for the next occurrence. At least that’s one suggestion.

The Episcopalians, liberal yet elegant, use the word, “mortals.”

For the record, I side with those who find changing the word from “men” to something else to be reprehensible. First and foremost, it is disobedient. Secondly, it is caving in to the feminists of both sexes. However, if we are going to change the text officially, let’s go elegant. I vote for “mortals.”

Betsy

 

[jbuck919]

"y message to female and male feminists: Join some other church instead of always trying change ours. Get ordained, pray to your goddess, sing a new church into being, spell the word “wymyn,” but please do it somewhere else.

My post was not about feminism, it was about linguistic drift. We also don’t say Holy Ghost anymore because God is not a ghost in the modern way that word is used, but he is in an archaic meaning of it. Let me make it clear that I do not favor altering Bible texts in which God is clearly intended to be a “he” (which is all of them).

But let me ask you this, in the matter of translation of the liturgy. Do you favor retaining the almost meaningless phrase “eternally begotten of the father,” which is retained in the provisional new translation, instead of returning to “begotten of the father before all ages,” which is a literal and meaningful translation of the Latin (et ex patre natum ante omnia saecula, which actually means “born of the father” but in this case being modern would create a certain confusion, would it not?).

 

[prv]

Even educated women (and many men) who know about the double usage of “man” are increasingly upset by this, especially as the generic meaning falls increasingly out of usage in English-speaking society as a whole. An analogy would be the spot where St. Paul says, “Once, I was stoned.” This is usually rendered in modern translations as “Once, I received a stoning.”

“Humankind” or just “humans” is a perfectly good and not klutzy way to translate “homo” and to avoid the clumsy repetition of the word in the phrase that was cited, substitute “us” for the next occurrence. At least that’s one suggestion.

Perhaps it is different elsehwhere in the English speaking world, but the words “for us men and for our salvation” are seldom if ever used in the US anymore (just leave out “men”;everyone who has ever prayed this prayer or ever willl is human, and we’re is something called the Community of Saints)." Similarly, the words “which shall be shed for you and for all men” are never used. I don’t even know if that change is official or not because I have that stuff memorized and haven’t look at a missal text in years, but if it has not been, it should be, and if it has been than so should the wordings in the Eucharistic prayers.

I have never been to a Novus Ordo Mass w/o “for us men…”.

 

[Pug]

I have never been to a Novus Ordo Mass w/o “for us men…”.

I’ve seen it omitted. It is done by saying “for us … and for our salvation”. As a member of the congregation, I just kept saying the word “men” in the gap left by the celebrant.

I find this sort of thing mildly annoying. Also, I have seen the creed recited as I believe, I, I, throughout. I understand why a priest might do that, but I’d rather we were all on the same page. It makes the creed feel disunified. I dislike having it be I at the 10am and We at the noon mass. I feel psychotic that way. I’ve gotten used to that, however.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

My post was not about feminism, it was about linguistic drift. We also don’t say Holy Ghost anymore because God is not a ghost in the modern way that word is used, but he is in an archaic meaning of it. Let me make it clear that I do not favor altering Bible texts in which God is clearly intended to be a “he” (which is all of them).

But let me ask you this, in the matter of translation of the liturgy. Do you favor retaining the almost meaningless phrase “eternally begotten of the father,” which is retained in the provisional new translation, instead of returning to “begotten of the father before all ages,” which is a literal and meaningful translation of the Latin (et ex patre natum ante omnia saecula, which actually means “born of the father” but in this case being modern would create a certain confusion, would it not?).

I prefer the latter, as it is a better translation. The translation of the Credo in the Eastern Rites uses this version. However, it is not within my authority to change these phrases. Personally, I’d rather see the Sign of Peace come before the offertory as the Anglicans have it (make peace with your brother before bringing your gifts to the altar), but I could never take it upon myself, were I a priest, to change this. As for phrases like “Holy Ghost,” or even the archaic familiar form of you, “thou,” if people are confused by such terms, blame their education. When I was a second-grader and a Protestant, we used the King James Bible and we all knew what the words meant. Sometimes we had to ask the teacher. She told us the meaning. Then we knew. End of story.

I know that your post was not about feminism per se, but the drive for inclusive language is rooted in the feminist movement, not in the natural evolution of language. It is more accurately called an anti-establishment movement, since it emerged in the university system where it is wreaked havoc since the 1960’s. These are the same people who brought us “BCE” and “CE” (before common era, common era) to replace the “Christian” terms “BC” and “AD.” I have heard these senseless terms used by instructors in Catholic seminaries, so you can see where it comes from.

 

[chicago]

I’ve seen it omitted. It is done by saying “for us … and for our salvation”. As a member of the congregation, I just kept saying the word “men” in the gap left by the celebrant.

At one Mass which I sometimes attend, I even have seen the creed printed this way in the worship aid.

 

[jbuck919]

Let me tell you something about exact text. When I was in college, and this was 35 years ago, s I got to attend daily Mass often, and there were several old lady traditionally devout women there (well that’s what they were, meaning they even covered their head). One of them insisted on saying “for the sake of his holy name for our good and the good of all his holy church.” The word “holy” has never been in front of the word “name” in that respond in either Latin or English. She just liked to say “holy name.”

Now that one drove me crazy.