Leaving out words in the Profession of Faith

[KathleenElsie]

Our priest does not use the words as written. He consistently leaves out the word MEN. Can he do this and does it make the Mass invalid? What does this men to baptism and conformation?

So

For us men and for our salvation
he came down from Heaven.

becomes

For us and for our salvation
he came down from Heaven.

This same priest has said that he would like it if women could become priests .

 

[benedictgal]

Our priest does not use the words as written. He consistently leaves out the word MEN. Can he do this and does it make the Mass invalid? What does this men to baptism and conformation?

So

becomes

This same priest has said that he would like it if women could become priests .

No one, no bishop, no priest, no lay person has the authority to change any part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass on his own authority, let alone his own whim.

According to the Second Vatican Council, as noted by His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze:

***The liturgy is never anyone’s private property, be it of the celebrant or of the community in which the mysteries are celebrated.***13

He made this address in 2007 before a liturgical conference. It appears in the May 2008 online edition of Adoremus. In his address, which centers around liturgical norms, Cardinal Arinze further notes that:

Liturgical norms also safeguard the lay faithful from possible extravagant opinions of their pastor. They come to Mass knowing what to expect in readings, prayers, gestures and movements. Redemptionis Sacramentum defends often the right of the Catholic community to receive a liturgy celebrated according to the approved books of the Church.14

Therefore, while what you witnessed is a minor abuse, it is still troublesome, nonetheless.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Our priest does not use the words as written. He consistently leaves out the word MEN. Can he do this and does it make the Mass invalid? What does this men to baptism and conformation?

So

becomes

This same priest has said that he would like it if women could become priests .

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.

 

[GemmaRose]

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.

THANK YOU! I do so like to be included.

 

[Melissa]

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.

All women were ALREADY included in the words “for us men”. It may be a common error, but common does not turn error into no error. “For us men” includes ALL human males and females of any age whether living or deceased. “For us and …” is just too unclear. Mucking with the wording by people who don’t understand language nor respect the struggles of getting the theology correct leads to bad practices like this.

Personally, I’d be in favor of resuming the Latin for the Creed (the language used here at the Papal Mass at Yankee Stadium, incidentally). 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.

 

[Brendan]

THANK YOU! I do so like to be included.

You already are.

This is what the word means

Main Entry: men, plural of man
Pronunciation: \ˈman, in compounds ˌman or mən\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural men \ˈmen, in compounds ˌmen or mən\
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English man, mon human being, male human; akin to Old High German man human being, Sanskrit manu
Date: before 12th century
1 a (1): an individual human; especially : an adult male human (2): a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination (3): husband (4): lover

(5): the human race : humankind c:a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family;

broadly : any living or extinct hominid d (1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2)obsolete : the quality or state of being manly : manliness e: fellow, chap —used as mode of familiar address f—used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling <man, what a game>

Are you trying to tell us that you are NOT a member of the species homo sapiens.

Or are you trying to tell us that those who do not consider themselves mentioned in the Creed as published by the USCCB are actually incapable of articulate speach or abstract reasoning

 

[Tonks40]

Growing up Catholic, I never had problems when they referred to the human race as “man.”

When they started to inject inclusive language after Vatican II, tho, I began to wonder why they were diminishing the scope of the human race?

 

[GemmaRose]

You already are.

This is what the word means

Are you trying to tell us that you are NOT a member of the species homo sapiens.

Or are you trying to tell us that those who do not consider themselves mentioned in the Creed as published by the USCCB are actually incapable of articulate speach or abstract reasoning

Dear Brendan,

If at all possible, let’s play a little game of make-believe. Let’s make believe for a moment that the word “women” means all of humanity. Then, think of how many times in your life that you have said the Creed and have had to say, “… for us and for all women…” No matter what your head knows, I guarantee that at some point your heart is going to say, “Hey! What about me!”

That how that line makes me (and many, many others) feel. I don’t want gender-inclusive language for God, but I do not want to be referred to as a man or a brother or a son. I am a woman, your sister in Christ, and a daughter of the King.

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

The example I like to use is the name Richard. I had a older cousin named Richard. However, no one called him Richard. He was known as [D]ick. I’ve had to type [D]ick in that fashion because if a didn’t, here’s what would happen: ****.

The CAF program automatically does that to bad words. But [D]ick didn’t used to be a bad word. It was a nickname for Richard and a slang term for a detective.

If the Latin word means all of humanity, then I submit that in the English language in 2008, the phrase should read either “…for us and for all humanity…” or “…for us and for all …” I think we can all understand that “all” means human beings and not turnips.

 

[Brendan]

Dear Brendan,

If at all possible, let’s play a little game of make-believe. Let’s make believe for a moment that the word “women” means all of humanity. Then, think of how many times in your life that you have said the Creed and have had to say, “… for us and for all women…” No matter what your head knows, I guarantee that at some point your heart is going to say, “Hey! What about me!”

Gemman, what does having the capability of abstract reasoning mean?

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

Fine, but the word ‘men’ meant all human kind 200 years ago, and it means the same thing now. The dictionary entry I posted was from the modern Miram-Webster edition.

We are talking about the modern defintion of the word used is a lingistically correct sense. Why should anyone have a problem with that?

I think we can all understand that “all” means human beings and not turnips.

But that is not what ‘all’ means. We are restricting it to those who have Spiritual Souls, which is who Christ came to save. We have a word that accomplished that, that the bishops have agreed upon. It is the plural noun ‘men’.

Gemma, you said that you do know that the word encompasses you, but your heart doesn’t.

The Creed is about what we know, not what we feel. The two are different things. If you want a Creed that expresses feelings instead of knowledge, petition for one.

 

[acadian]

So how about - “For us folks and our salvation…”

or maybe “For us peeps…”

Men is just fine, thanks. I’ve never thought- what about us women…

 

[LRThunder]

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.

Women are included in salvation; I don’t think mentioning just men would change that.

 

[benedictgal]

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.

Unfortunately, this probably shows a poor understanding of language. “Homines” means mankind. This includes both genders. When we start making the gender more important than anything else, we have effectively lost the forest because of the trees.

As a woman, I am not offended by the word “men” in the Creed because I was taught that this word included both genders. I don’t need to have an addendum to know that Christ came down from heaven for my salvation. To bemoan the notion that women are excluded shows a very poor understanding of both the Faith and of language.

 

[GemmaRose]

Unfortunately, this probably shows a poor understanding of language. “Homines” means mankind. This includes both genders. When we start making the gender more important than anything else, we have effectively lost the forest because of the trees.

As a woman, I am not offended by the word “men” in the Creed because I was taught that this word included both genders. I don’t need to have an addendum to know that Christ came down from heaven for my salvation. To bemoan the notion that women are excluded shows a very poor understanding of both the Faith and of language.

Ah, yes. Another area of expertise… language !

Women who do not wish to be referred to by male gender nouns and pronouns understand language just as well as you do. We just don’t want to be referred to in the male gender. Additionally, the last time I checked, “men” and “mankind” were two separate words.

I’m glad you’re not offended, and I know many women are not. However many women are. There is no poor understanding of Faith. Where there is poor understanding, however, is amongst those who cannot fathom why some women object to non-inclusive language (again, not in terms of referring to God).

 

[bilop]

Ah, yes. Another area of expertise… language !

Women who do not wish to be referred to by male gender nouns and pronouns understand language just as well as you do. We just don’t want to be referred to in the male gender. Additionally, the last time I checked, “men” and “mankind” were two separate words.

I’m glad you’re not offended, and I know many women are not. However many women are. There is no poor understanding of Faith. Where there is poor understanding, however, is amongst those who cannot fathom why some women object to non-inclusive language (again, not in terms of referring to God).

But, what you are objecting to is the English (and Latin) language.

Just like in English, when you are refering to someone of indeterminate gender you say he or his. He/she or “their” is bad English.

Referring to “man/men” refers to all of mankind.

Should men be offended when we call the Church (including both mne and women) the “Bride of Christ”?

God Bless

 

[benedictgal]

Ah, yes. Another area of expertise… language !

Women who do not wish to be referred to by male gender nouns and pronouns understand language just as well as you do. We just don’t want to be referred to in the male gender. Additionally, the last time I checked, “men” and “mankind” were two separate words.

I’m glad you’re not offended, and I know many women are not. However many women are. There is no poor understanding of Faith. Where there is poor understanding, however, is amongst those who cannot fathom why some women object to non-inclusive language (again, not in terms of referring to God).

Sorry, but that argument doesn’t hold much water. The real issue is when women place gender pride above the approved texts of the Church (Latin) and its translation. Homines means “men” in the universal sense. Men refers to both genders. Unfortunately, one very bad aspect of feminism involves misplaced pride and pseudo feelings of discrimination that result from a serious misunderstanding of language and the Faith.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…

These are the words found in the US Declaration of Independence, one of the most cherished secular documents our country possesses. Would you really think of taking a quill pen and scratching out the word “men” just to sut your own pride? Would you edit Thomas Jefferson’s words? He knew what he was talking about.

Surely, if Jefferson’s words are still cherished and honored by this country, how much more so and more valuable are the words of the Roman Missal of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

None of us has any right to add or subtract anything from the texts just to suit our own gender pride. It was pride, after all, that got both Adam and Eve in trouble because they wanted to be like God and fell for the lies Satan told them.

 

[Brendan]

Women who do not wish to be referred to by male gender nouns and pronouns understand language just as well as you do. We just don’t want to be referred to in the male gender. Additionally, the last time I checked, “men” and “mankind” were two separate words.

English is a neuter Language, the words do not have gender, so there are no “male gender nouns or pronouns”

There are words that refer exclusively to males or females ( boy, girl, etc…)

But ‘Man’ or "Men’ are not among those.

If you think they are, then you are mistaken and there is no need for your personal mistakes to be brought into the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

English is a neuter Language, the words do not have gender, so there are no “male gender nouns or pronouns”

There are words that refer exclusively to males or females ( boy, girl, etc…)

But ‘Man’ or "Men’ are not among those.

If you think they are, then you are mistaken and there is no need for your personal mistakes to be brought into the liturgy.

This is what Liturgicam Authenticam says regarding the Creed:

B. The Creed or Profession of Faith

1. By means of the Creed (Symbolum) or profession of faith, the whole gathered people of God respond to the word of God proclaimed in the Sacred Scriptures and expounded in the homily, recalling and confessing the great mysteries of the faith by means of a formula approved for liturgical use.42

The Creed is to be translated according to the precise wording that the tradition of the Latin Church has bestowed upon it, including the use of the first person singular, by which is clearly made manifest that "the confession of faith is handed down in the Creed, as it were, as coming from the person of the whole Church, united by means of the Faith."43

In addition, the expression carnis resurrectionem is to be translated literally wherever the Apostles’ Creed is prescribed or may be used in the Liturgy.44

Brendan, you are on target regarding your statement. In the paragraphs preceeding the section on the Creed, Liturgicam Authenticam (the document that oversees translations for bibles and the liturgy), the paper states that:

Similarly, it is the task of catechists or of the homilist to transmit that right interpretation of the texts that excludes any prejudice or unjust discrimination on the basis of persons, gender, social condition, race or other criteria, which has no foundation at all in the texts of the Sacred Liturgy. Although considerations such as these may sometimes help one in choosing among various translations of a certain expression, they are not to be considered reasons for altering either a biblical text or a liturgical text that has been duly promulgated.

1. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

1. In particular: to be avoided is the systematic resort to imprudent solutions such as a mechanical substitution of words, the transition from the singular to the plural, the splitting of a unitary collective term into masculine and feminine parts, or the introduction of impersonal or abstract words, all of which may impede the communication of the true and integral sense of a word or an expression in the original text. Such measures introduce theological and anthropological problems into the translation.

Therefore, those who insist on changing the words of the Creed to fit their particular idiosyncracies really have no concept of what the Church requires. They are placing their feelings above what the Church mandates.

 

[Phemie]

So how about - “For us folks and our salvation…”

or maybe “For us peeps…”

Men is just fine, thanks. I’ve never thought- what about us women…

I argued that at a conference and almost got lynched by the women in attendance. In that same conference, when I also said that to me God had no gender, I was told I didn’t have much of a relationship with God.

That year I was also taking a course on justice in the Church and inclusive language was a hot topic. Two women, myself and one other young gal told the instructor that we thought this was much ado about nothing, that there was nothing that excluded us in the language. We were made to feel very wrong and at the end of the course, given by a man, we were both invited to a private ‘coffee chat’ with him. She couldn’t make it, but I went. In the end I ended up comparing my non-belief in inclusive language to an abused woman who lives with the abuse so long that she thinks it’s normal. He smiled, I smiled, knowing I’d just BS’d my way to a PASS, and I still don’t agree with ‘inclusive language’.

 

[GemmaRose]

Sorry, but that argument doesn’t hold much water. The real issue is when women place gender pride above the approved texts of the Church (Latin) and its translation. Homines means “men” in the universal sense. Men refers to both genders. Unfortunately, one very bad aspect of feminism involves misplaced pride and pseudo feelings of discrimination that result from a serious misunderstanding of language and the Faith.

These are the words found in the US Declaration of Independence, one of the most cherished secular documents our country possesses. Would you really think of taking a quill pen and scratching out the word “men” just to sut your own pride? Would you edit Thomas Jefferson’s words? He knew what he was talking about.

Surely, if Jefferson’s words are still cherished and honored by this country, how much more so and more valuable are the words of the Roman Missal of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

None of us has any right to add or subtract anything from the texts just to suit our own gender pride. It was pride, after all, that got both Adam and Eve in trouble because they wanted to be like God and fell for the lies Satan told them.

:banghead:

 

[Sam_Maloney]

Here’s an alternate mind game for you: imagine people are offended by the word ‘women’. A small number of vocal bigots beleives the word must be scrubbed from the Mass, and the language in general. How would that affect your self esteem?

Ever wonder why teenage boys are four times more likely to kill themselves than teen girls? Ever wonder why their self esteem is so low?

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…