Leaving out words in the Profession of Faith

[Eric_Olsen]

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”.

yeah well for a very long time, men meant all of humanity.
It seems you have taken the feminist attitude towards the meaning.

 

[LRThunder]

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”.

Obviously, you shouldn’t be referred to as a man if you’re a woman, but men can be considered a general term for humans. In the creed, it mentions “for us men and for our salvation”, I don’t think it was talking about only males.

 

[LRThunder]

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

I expect that line from NOW. There is nothing inherently wrong with a patriarchal society except in the eyes of the radical feminists.

 

[benedictgal]

Originally Posted by GemmaRose
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.

GemmaRose, we don’t follow the standards of the changing times just to suit our sensibilities. So far, the only arguments that you have produced come from a negative reaction to a word that has, for two millenia, represented both male and female. Remember what Genesis says: God created man in his own image; male and female he created them both.

Your insistance on having it your own way shows that you are governed more by pride than by a Sensus Fideum and a genuine understanding of this particular article of Faith. You want the Church to go with the “flow”, so to speak when she is not called to do that. You and I are called, in obedience, to receive what has been transmitted down to us throughout the centuries.

What you propose is something that the Holy See has repeatedly rejected. What is also lamentable is your rudeness when I (and others) have repeatedly pointed this out to you. Letting gender pride and anger get in the way of professing the Faith is something very sad. You are basing the Creed then, on your own interpretation, rather than the Church’s.

 

[brockmac]

For us men and for our salvation. This is the English translation of the Nicean Creed.

Previous posters have suggested that either we drop the word men, making it read “For us and for our salvation.” This doesn’t work because it sounds like we are only praying for those physically present with us as we pray the creed, when the intention is that we are praying for the whole Church.

It has also been suggested that we change the text to, “For us and all humanity…” Jesus did not die for humanity. He died for each individual person. His sacrafice was not offered for some collective group. He died for me, for you, for your mother, my mother, your friend, my friend, etc. Suggesting that Christ died for “humanity” robs his sacrafice of its personal connection to each of us.

I suggest that we accept that the use of the word “men” in this context refers to anyone who is of the human species.

As a cathechist who teaches the Creed, I have learned that each and every word has a significant impact on the meaning of the Creed. Since this is a basic sythesis of what we as Catholics believe, I believe we should stick with the best possible English translation of the Creed as originally composed by the early fathers.

 

[benedictgal]

For us men and for our salvation. This is the English translation of the Nicean Creed.

Previous posters have suggested that either we drop the word men, making it read “For us and for our salvation.” This doesn’t work because it sounds like we are only praying for those physically present with us as we pray the creed, when the intention is that we are praying for the whole Church.

It has also been suggested that we change the text to, “For us and all humanity…” Jesus did not die for humanity. He died for each individual person. His sacrafice was not offered for some collective group. He died for me, for you, for your mother, my mother, your friend, my friend, etc. Suggesting that Christ died for “humanity” robs his sacrafice of its personal connection to each of us.

I suggest that we accept that the use of the word “men” in this context refers to anyone who is of the human species.

As a cathechist who teaches the Creed, I have learned that each and every word has a significant impact on the meaning of the Creed. Since this is a basic sythesis of what we as Catholics believe, I believe we should stick with the best possible English translation of the Creed as originally composed by the early fathers.

Well said!

In fact, one of Pope Benedict’s first books was about the Creed. It is called “Introduction to Christianity.” Unfortunately, I lent my copy to my PV who is teaching a course on the Creed. The Holy Father takes the Creed apart and devotes a chapter to each section. Maybe I can get it back from my friend.

 

[KathleenElsie]

And for nearly two millenia we have suffered with a patriarchal society. Wrong is wrong - for two days or to millenia. Maybe you feel “we” have suffered. But, I don’t feel this way.

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. HuMAN kind should take pride in their human image. We are made in the image of GOD.

I find it far more insulting, that instead of being proud of being a human made in GOD’s image, we are now expected to separate 50% of the people from the other 50%.

The words human, male, female, woman, man or men does not exclude me nor make me special. It is the language we speak. I could be insulted if someone meant the word “woman” in a derogatory way. I would also be insulted if the word “men or man” was meant is a derogatory way.

I am always insulted when things are changed to be “inclusive”. Because this is forced and not a genuine change in most cases. There are some people that spit the inclusive words at people. And this is an actual insult because it was meant to be an insult.

 

[GemmaRose]

And what “excuse” would be satisfactory to you?
An “excuse” that could explain why the word “homo” which means ALL of mankind, i.e. men AND women, has been translated into the word “men” which in today’s language can be interpreted as exclusive of women, and as such is not the best translation which could be made.

The fact is that we owe obedience to the Church.
You are correct. And I am obedient to the Church.

The Church does not owe us ‘an excuse’ for not falling in with the PC fad of faux gender-inclusive language.
I think the Church does owe every woman an explanation as to why we have been treated as second class citizens for 2,000 years… but that’s another thread.

Whether you accept it or not, the fact remains that “homo,” translated in English as “man” is authentically inclusive language.
2,000 years ago - yes. 100 years ago - yes. Today - no, it is not.

To monkey with this text is to monkey with the theology behind the words.
To “monkey” with the text in the manner suggested would make it more theologically correct than it is now.

 

[Brendan]

An “excuse” that could explain why the word “homo” which means ALL of mankind, i.e. men AND women, has been translated into the word “men” which in today’s language can be interpreted as exclusive of women, and as such is not the best translation which could be made.

IF it IS interpreted to be exclusive of women, then the problem is with the person doing the misinterpretation.

The correct solution is to give that person a copy of Websters so they can educate themselves on what the word truely means.

The Church should not pander to ignorance in any form, but rather educate.

 

[GemmaRose]

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

And I am secure in my feminimity, so much so that male gender plural references do offend me.

I fully understand that for time immemorial, “man,” “men,” and male gender pronouns were universally accepted to include women. When I was younger, I accepted it too. However I no longer accept it and now consider it to be another example of the denigration of women which has been darn near worldwide for as long as history and is still continuing today.

America might not force us to wear burqas, but we shouldn’t forget that it was just last century that we were granted the right to vote. Female salaries still are not comparable in many places of employment (unless there is a lawsuit).

Not all “feminists” are rabid abortion supporters who don liturgical vestments and “celebrate” “Mass”. Some of us are faithful Catholics who just want to be included by our language in the human race, and wish that our beloved Church would feel the same about half of its membership.

P.S. Love the cat!

 

[GemmaRose]

yeah well for a very long time, men meant all of humanity.
It seems you have taken the feminist attitude towards the meaning.

And the problem with that is ??

 

[GemmaRose]

I expect that line from NOW. There is nothing inherently wrong with a patriarchal society except in the eyes of the radical feminists.

Why don’t we try changing society to matriarchal? Live with that all your life… then come talk to me.

 

[GemmaRose]

GemmaRose, we don’t follow the standards of the changing times just to suit our sensibilities. So far, the only arguments that you have produced come from a negative reaction to a word that has, for two millenia, represented both male and female. Remember what Genesis says: God created man in his own image; male and female he created them both.
Yes, I know what Genesis says. I would like to think the Magisterium has read it also.

Your insistance on having it your own way shows that you are governed more by pride than by a Sensus Fideum and a genuine understanding of this particular article of Faith. You want the Church to go with the “flow”, so to speak when she is not called to do that. You and I are called, in obedience, to receive what has been transmitted down to us throughout the centuries.
You obviously either don’t read my posts or interpret them to your liking and post accordingly.

The fact that you have, in more than this post, accused me of pride, a sin of which I am surely guilty, BUT NOT IN THIS SITUATION, is judgmental on your part. That is a sin. Posting it here is the sin of detraction. Additionally, I have lost count of how many times you have accused me of “not understanding” some article of faith, not being obedient to Holy Mother Church, or not reading and/or understanding some Church document. Frankly, it’s getting old.

Rather than repeat myself, ad nauseam, to you, you can read my other posts which refute your presumptions.

What you propose is something that the Holy See has repeatedly rejected. It’s not the first time that English translations issued from the Holy See have not been ideal. What is also lamentable is your rudeness - Hah! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! - when I (and others) have repeatedly pointed this out to you. Letting gender pride and anger get in the way of professing the Faith is something very sad. And now are you accusing me of not professing the faith? You are basing the Creed then, on your own interpretation, rather than the Church’s.
No, I’m basing my opinon on the fact of what the Latin word “homo” truly means, which I’ve explained in many of my posts.

 

[Brendan]

I fully understand that for time immemorial, “man,” “men,” and male gender pronouns were universally accepted to include women. When I was younger, I accepted it too. However I no longer accept it and now consider it to be another example of the denigration of women which has been darn near worldwide for as long as history and is still continuing today.

Could you explain how your personal non acceptance of the definition of the word actually changes what the word means?

The fact is, the modern definition means the same as it did in ages past, inclusive of all.

Your personal acceptance or rejection does not change that. So why should the Church pander to your misunderstanding?

 

[japhy]

In most English translations, Gen. 1:27 says something very much like: “God created man in his own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.”

In the Latin text, the word “man” is hominem (the singular accusative of homo). The Greek text uses anthropon (ανθρωπον). The Hebrew text uses adam (האדם).

The name of us-as-organism is adam (“man[kind]”) Scripturally speaking.

But this is probably not going to get us anywhere.

 

[GemmaRose]

Could you explain how your personal non acceptance of the definition of the word actually changes what the word means?

The fact is, the modern definition means the same as it did in ages past, inclusive of all.

Your personal acceptance or rejection does not change that. So why should the Church pander to your misunderstanding?

I believe I have explained this before, but I’ll try it again: In the evolution of language, some words mean different things at different times. I remember my 7th grade history teacher telling us that when she was young, the word “terrific” meant something was bad, as in: “Did you see the new movie? Was it good?” She said that if it was terrible, one would answer, “No. It was terrific,” as in “terrifically” bad. Since it was in the 60’s when she was teaching us, obviously by that time, “terrific” meant “great!”.

Another example which I use most often is the nickname for the name Richard. I had a cousin Richard who was known as [D]ick (can’t type that word as a whole because it automatically gets **** out). Today, if someone names their child Richard, they may call him Ricky, they may call him Rick, but they assuredly no longer use [D]ick as a nickname.

In today’s society, some women, myself included, feel that the word “men” can now be considered exclusive, despite its long use as an inclusive word. In fact, the dictionary stored in my laptop (which is the handiest thing available since I’m typing on it) states:

man

man [man]
n (plural men [men])

1. adult male human: an adult male human being
2. particular type of man: an adult male human being with a particular occupation, responsibility, background, or nationality (usually used in combination)
   the TV repairman
3. person: a person, regardless of sex or age (often offensive)
   a six-man crew
4. human race: the human race in general (often offensive)
5. modern or earlier human being: a member of the group that comprises modern humans and their ancestors.
   Genus: Homo (sometimes considered offensive)
6. employee or worker: an employee or worker of either gender (often offensive)
7. male member of armed forces: a male member of the armed forces, especially one who is not an officer (usually used in the plural)
8. servant: a man who is a servant (dated)
9. virile person: the personification of qualities traditionally associated with the male sex, including courage, strength, and aggression, or somebody with such qualities
10. husband or male companion: a husband, or a man who is another person’s companion or lover (slang)
11. term of address: a term of address to a person of either sex (slang) (sometimes considered offensive)
    Cool it, man!
12. Manauthority figure: somebody in a position of authority, or a group that is seen as having an unfair advantage or undue power over others (dated slang) (sometimes considered offensive)
    in trouble with the Man
13. piece used in board games: a piece used in playing board games such as checkers
14. medieval vassal: in feudal societies of the early Middle Ages, an adult male human who swore allegiance to a lord in return for help and protection
15. ship: a ship, especially one of a particular kind (used in combination)
    man-of-war

vt (past and past participle manned, present participle man·ning, 3rd person present singular mans) (often offensive)

1. supply something with workers: to provide something with workers, operators, or military personnel
2. be ready to use something: to be ready to operate or defend something

interj
used for emphasis: used to add emphasis (slang)
Man, that was exciting!

Old English man < Indo-European, “person, man”]

-man·like, , adj
a poor man’s… a cheaper or inferior version of something, especially one that is more widely available than the original

as one man unanimously or without exception (often offensive if used of women)

be your own man to have the resources or confidence to be responsible for yourself or your actions (often offensive if used of women)

to a man everyone, without any exceptions (often offensive if used of women)

See person.

The etymologically primary sense of man is “human being, person,” and that is what it generally meant in Old English: the sexes were usually distinguished by wer “man” (which survives probably in werewolf) and wīf (source of modern English wife) or cwene “woman.” But during the Middle English and early modern English periods “male person” gradually became the primary meaning, and today man, meaning “person,” is decidedly on the decline (helped on its way by those who feel that the usage discriminates against women).
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

(emphasis mine)

I sincerely doubt that I am the only person who feels this way. If I were, I really don’t think the Encarta ® World English Dictionary © people would have recognized my feelings alone.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I started this thread with a question that has been answered. The topic has been changed to feminism. So as the OP I am thanking all who participated and answered my origional post.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.