Leaving out words in the Profession of Faith

[Melissa]

My former pastor not only removed ‘men’, but inserted an ‘a’-- Jesus became ‘a’ man. Apparently he bought into Mary Daly’s psychosis that ‘If God is man, then Man is God’.

Of course this diminishes Christ and his role in our lives since he become someone somewhen, as opposed to entering into our mutual humanity.

But the God of Political Correctness is much more to be feared and served these days…

How true–and how sad.

The question, IMO, comes down to a simple matter of obedience vs. pride. Obedience is a virtue, pride is one of the deadliest sins.

 

[John_Augustine]

I do not think the meaning has changed. The mass is not invalid, this language change is pretty common in many parishes I have been too and it is nice to include all the women in salvation.

The word ‘men’ is a translation of ‘homo’ which includes both male and female in this context. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

 

[japhy]

I think the resolution we all are obliged to accept is this: until the words of the prayer are changed officially, we say the words as they are given to us by the USCCB. That means, we pray “for us men and for our salvation” until the Church (and not just our local Bishop who has no authority to change the words of the Mass) tells us otherwise.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The importance of the phrase “for us men” becomes much clearer in the Latin **(“qui propter nos homines” which is clearly a direct parallel to the “et homo factus est” **a few lines later–note that is “homo” not “vir”. Both are translated as “man” but one is inclusive of all humanity and the other is referring to adult human males.)

That said, it isn’t going to invalidate the Mass. These sorts of liberties are illicit, but not invalidating. It’s when the words of consecration get mucked with that you have to worry about that.

A very good explanation
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by Melissa The importance of the phrase “for us men” becomes much clearer in the Latin (“qui propter nos homines” which is clearly a direct parallel to the “et homo factus est” a few lines later–note that is “homo” not “vir”. Both are translated as “man” but one is inclusive of all humanity and the other is referring to adult human males.)

That said, it isn’t going to invalidate the Mass. These sorts of liberties are illicit, but not invalidating. It’s when the words of consecration get mucked with that you have to worry about that.

While that is true, changing the words on one’s initiative is still an abuse. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

The liturgical words and rites, moreover, are a faithful expression, matured over the centuries, of the understanding of Christ, and they teach us to think as He Himself does.

…10.] The Church herself has no power over those things which were established by Christ Himself and which constitute an unchangeable part of the Liturgy.23 Indeed, if the bond were to be broken which the Sacraments have with Christ Himself who instituted them, and with the events of the Church’s founding,24 it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm. For the Sacred Liturgy is quite intimately connected with principles of doctrine,25 so that the use of unapproved texts and rites necessarily leads either to the attenuation or to the disappearance of that necessary link between the lex orandi and the lex credendi.26

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

Therefore, while you do have a point that the change does not invalidate the Mass, it is still illicit.

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Language changes. Language evolves. There are words in the dictionary today that did not exist forty years ago.

more the reason to go back to latin.
Also - feminists are the ones who have a problem with the word “men” or “man”. They also have a problem with “father, son and holy spirit”.

 

[GemmaRose]

more the reason to go back to latin.
Also - feminists are the ones who have a problem with the word “men” or “man”. They also have a problem with “father, son and holy spirit”.

You shouldn’t generalize like that.

I have absolutely no problem with “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” however, I do not want to be referred to as a “man” or glumped together with “men”.

 

[benedictgal]

You shouldn’t generalize like that.

I have absolutely no problem with “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” however, I do not want to be referred to as a “man” or glumped together with “men”.

But, GemmaRose, it is not what you want, it is what the Church has prescribed, and she has used this term for nearly two millenia. The problem is that gender pride gets in the way. Remember, it was pride that opened the door for the first sin. It wasn’t what God wanted, it was what Adam and Eve wanted when they sought to be like God because they couldn’t bear being creatures.

 

[GemmaRose]

The word ‘men’ is a translation of ‘homo’ which includes both male and female in this context. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

If the full meaning of “homo” means men and women, then “men” is not the literal translation of “homo.” A closer translation would be “human” or “people.” In the specific phrase we are discussing, either the word “men” should be eliminated, which would basically solve the problem, or to remain true to the Latin, supplanted with either “men and women” (which could lead to youth feeling left out) or “people.”

 

[benedictgal]

If the full meaning of “homo” means men and women, then “men” is not the literal translation of “homo.” A closer translation would be “human” or “people.” In the specific phrase we are discussing, either the word “men” should be eliminated, which would basically solve the problem, or to remain true to the Latin, supplanted with either “men and women” (which could lead to youth feeling left out) or “people.”

GemmaRose, your insistance on having it your way indicates that you may or may not be willing to submit to the legitimate authority of the Church. The Church is not bound to follow any norms of “political correctness.” We are called to receive what has been given to us and these words have been used for nearly 2,000 years. The problem is that many people have been infected by the error of political correctness and have made the issue of inclusive language more important than it should be.

We are called to pray the Creed as is. According to the GIRM:

The Profession of Faith

1. The purpose of the Symbolum or Profession of Faith, or Creed, is that the whole gathered people may respond to the word of God proclaimed in the readings taken from Sacred Scripture and explained in the homily and that they may also call to mind and confess the great mysteries of the faith by reciting the rule of faith in a formula approved for liturgical use, before these mysteries are celebrated in the Eucharist.

Substitutions are illicit because they have not been approved. Even if the USCCB were to send an inclusive-language version of the Nicean Creed, it would not get any recognitio from Rome simply because it violates the principles set forth by Liturgicam Authenticam.

You have yet to produce any authoritative Church documentation to support your argument. You are only arguing on the basis of what “feels right to you” and whether or not you have a “problem” with words. THe Church is not guided by whether or not something “feels good.” She is guided by something much deeper and something much more profound than fleeting feelings or the current fashion.

The Church is called to read the signs of the times and respond accordingly. However, she is not called to change her ways just to suit a few disgruntled feminists who can’t see past the word “men” and get to the real heart of the Faith, the fact that Jesus came down for “us men and for our salvation.”

 

[GemmaRose]

But, GemmaRose, it is not what you want, it is what the Church has prescribed, and she has used this term for nearly two millenia. The problem is that gender pride gets in the way. Remember, it was pride that opened the door for the first sin. It wasn’t what God wanted, it was what Adam and Eve wanted when they sought to be like God because they couldn’t bear being creatures.

And for nearly two millenia we have suffered with a patriarchal society. Wrong is wrong - for two days or to millenia.

As for gender pride, every man should be proud to be a man and every woman should be proud to be a woman. We should be proud to be who and what we are because we are made in the image and likeness of God. This is not the sin of pride. This is truth.

 

[benedictgal]

And for nearly two millenia we have suffered with a patriarchal society. Wrong is wrong - for two days or to millenia.

As for gender pride, every man should be proud to be a man and every woman should be proud to be a woman. We should be proud to be who and what we are because we are made in the image and likeness of God. This is not the sin of pride. This is truth.

Whose truth, yours or the Church’s? I am afraid that you are walking on very dangerous ground when you say that your “truth” is more important than what the Church teaches and what the Church has professed for nearly 2,000 years.

The fact of the matter is that this argument centers around pride and around what you want rather than what the Church professes and the manner in which she professes the Faith. You are relying on your pride. I am citing docuemtation from legitimate Church liturgical documents.

What you propose is a do-it-yourself, cafeteria approach. I’m sorry, but you cannot change any wording of the Mass based on your own initiative. The fact that proponents of the femnist movement want to tinker around with the words of the Mass shows that they have placed their own agenda in place of the Faith of the Church.

 

[japhy]

If the full meaning of “homo” means men and women, then “men” is not the literal translation of “homo.”

Well, the person you quoted said homo means male and female, not men and women. There is a difference. Male and female are exclusive; but men (as we have seen) is not necessarily exclusive of women.

A closer translation would be “human” or “people.” In the specific phrase we are discussing, either the word “men” should be eliminated, which would basically solve the problem, or to remain true to the Latin, supplanted with either “men and women” (which could lead to youth feeling left out) or “people.”

How would you then translate et homo factus est (“and was made [or: became] man”)? “And was made human”? I hope not “And was made a person”. Or do you not have a problem with saying Jesus was made (or became) man?

 

[GemmaRose]

GemmaRose, your insistance on having it your way indicates that you may or may not be willing to submit to the legitimate authority of the Church.
I am not insisting on having it my way. I am stating my opinion. I am entitled to have an opinion, especially on a subject such as translation. We are not arguing dogma. To suggest that I might “not be willing to submit to the legitimate authority of the Church” is slanderous.

The Church is not bound to follow any norms of “political correctness.”
Of any institution on earth, the Church should act with charity. To ignore half of the human race is not acting in charity.

We are called to receive what has been given to us and these words have been used for nearly 2,000 years.
And the original word used means men AND women so why aren’t we using a word nearer to the actual meaning?

The problem is that many people have been infected by the error of political correctness and have made the issue of inclusive language more important than it should be.
That’s only your opinion.

We are called to pray the Creed as is. According to the GIRM:

Substitutions are illicit because they have not been approved. Even if the USCCB were to send an inclusive-language version of the Nicean Creed, it would not get any recognitio from Rome simply because it violates the principles set forth by Liturgicam Authenticam.

You have yet to produce any authoritative Church documentation to support your argument.
My argument is that a change should be approved. Besides, quoting Church documents is your job, isn’t it?

You are only arguing on the basis of what “feels right to you” and whether or not you have a “problem” with words. THe Church is not guided by whether or not something “feels good.” She is guided by something much deeper and something much more profound than fleeting feelings or the current fashion.
The Church should be guided by truth, not patriarchal habits. And the truth is that Jesus came for the salvation of all men and women.

The Church is called to read the signs of the times and respond accordingly. However, she is not called to change her ways just to suit a few disgruntled feminists who can’t see past the word “men”(1) and get to the real heart of the Faith(2), the fact that Jesus came down for “us men(3) and for our salvation.”

1. The word “homo” is not adequately translated as “men.”
2. Another slanderous accusation that implies that only you can get to the “real heart of the Faith.”
3. If you want to be referred to as a “man” and don’t happen to care that you’re a woman - to each his or her own.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

In a discussion with a woman, (unnamed) about the Church relegating women to an inferior status (which it does not) I pointed out several things.

1. The most revered human ever created is a woman, i.e., Mary the mother of Jesus. God took flesh from a woman to become man. His incarnation was from a woman and the Holy Spirit. A man, had nothing to do with it.
2. Each of us, since Adam and Eve, has been made flesh in the womb of a woman. A person who partners with God in a unique way in the creation of new human beings.
3. Each person alive or that has ever been alive, was made incarnate because of a woman. This is a unique role in creation. Yes man gives the seed, God gives the soul and the woman gives the flesh.

You do not see men crying about this. We love our spouses and our children. Jesus gave us his Father as our Father, not as our mother as some feminist want to say. Men and women each have a unique role, established by God, not by man. Even our creed refers to the human race as us men, meaning mankind.

What I am saying is don’t be so defensive over the role God determined for us. Don’t forget women, God could have created you a man.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[GemmaRose]

Well, the person you quoted said homo means male and female, not men and women. There is a difference. Male and female are exclusive; but men (as we have seen) is not necessarily exclusive of women.
I submit that in English, in America, in 2008, “men” is exclusive of women. I am not the only woman who feels this way.

How would you then translate et homo factus est (“and was made [or: became] man”)? “And was made human”? I hope not “And was made a person”. Or do you not have a problem with saying Jesus was made (or became) man?
Quite frankly, I think that “…and was made human…” is a clearer translation. We do not celebrate that Jesus became a male human (i.e., with male reproductive parts), we celebrate that He became a human being, just like us "in all things but sin."

It’s kind of the same as in the beginning of the Gospel of John. John writes that the Word became “flesh,” but he’s not just saying that the Word of God became human with skin and bones. He’s saying in that one word that He became fully human (and skin and bones do not a full human make): skin, bones, emotions, hopes, fears, aspirations, etc. etc. because the word he used which has been translated “flesh” is the Greek word “sarx” for which there is not an adequate translation in our language.

And so my argument is not that we should go about changing words willy nilly, but that Rome should recognize what we are saying and either make a change or issue a believeable excuse why it shouldn’t change.

 

[japhy]

I submit that in English, in America, in 2008, “men” is exclusive of women. I am not the only woman who feels this way.

And that’s another reason why the vernacular isn’t ideal for the Mass, because every decade or so you’ll need to have it changed to better reflect the language of the day.

 

[Melissa]

And so my argument is not that we should go about changing words willy nilly, but that Rome should recognize what we are saying and either make a change or issue a believeable excuse why it shouldn’t change.

And what “excuse” would be satisfactory to you?

The fact is that we owe obedience to the Church. The Church does not owe us ‘an excuse’ for not falling in with the PC fad of faux gender-inclusive language. Whether you accept it or not, the fact remains that “homo,” translated in English as “man” is authentically inclusive language. To monkey with this text is to monkey with the theology behind the words.

 

[cathochic]

Once upon a time, before American television media slaughtered American English, “Man” in that context meant mankind. Do not be fooled and roped into the liberal marketing which says that “Man” in this context does not mean mankind.

I am secure in my feminimity - male gender plural references are correct grammar and do not offend me at all.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/469758086_051b1dd752.jpg

 

[Lepanto]

Once upon a time, before American television media slaughtered American English, “Man” in that context meant mankind. Do not be fooled and roped into the liberal marketing which says that “Man” in this context does not mean mankind.

I am secure in my feminimity - male gender plural references are correct grammar and do not offend me at all.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/469758086_051b1dd752.jpg

cathochic – your grossly insensitive and exclusivist post has single-handedly offended every canine in America. Shame on you!