My Priest and the Nicene Creed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_DiMitri
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Peter_DiMitri

Guest
I thought I’d bring this up here, since I’m not really sure what to make of it.

There is a particular priest who comes to my parish on the first Sunday of every month. He’s very popular, especially among the kids because of his somewhat over-the-top style.

A while back, during the recitation of the Nicene Creed, I noticed that at the part “For us men”, he said “For us”, deleting the word “men” from the Creed. I wasn’t absolutely positive that he did it.

Last Sunday, during the creed, I watched him and saw without question that he again deleted the word “men” from his recitation of the Creed. While I can’t be sure what his reasons are for doing this, it seems to me to be some form of political correctness or something.

Is it appropriate for a Priest to deliberately leave that word – or any word – out of the Creed when he recites it? Am I making too much of this?

My view is that the Creed is the Creed, and that whatever his own political/social views he should say it properly. He certainly has enough ability to express his views during his homilies (which are a bit too circus-like for me).

Opinions?
 
No, it is not appropriate to leave out a word when saying the Creed.

Too many people (like this priest) think that they are more intelligent than the entire council that hammered out that creed–but the result is that they are changing the theology because they do not understand what they’re doing.

Usually, the “men” is dropped from the phrase “for us men” because of utter ignorance. “Men” is the proper translation for “homines” which is gender-neutral, but it’s dropped by people who like to patronize women by treating us as though we’ll be offended by the use of “men” in ths manner.

The problem is that you’ve just cut out an essential part of the theology, a parallel which is beautifully seen in Latin–us-homines; Christ-homo (the subsequent phrase “and became man”). So now, we’re left wondering just who this “us” is … is it those of us who are present in this location? Those of us who say this creed anywhere it’s said? what about those who lived in centuries past–are we including or excluding them? what about those who will live in the years yet to come? No, “for us” is too restricted, doesn’t include everyone who is included in “for us men”. “For us men” includes every man, woman, and child … those in centuries past, those living now, and those, God willing, who have yet to be conceived.

Yes, this is important.
 
It is my understanding that in the upcoming revisions, the word “men” has been deleted.

That, of course, leaves us with the confusion of who “us” is: Christians? Catholics? All people? You clear up one supposed confusion – over the word “men” as opposed to “men and women” only to introduce a more troublesome confusion.
 
Thanks for the replies, but I have to ask, is it actually the case that the word “men” is being deleted in the new revision? Is it possible that the priest is doing this because of that?
 
I would say he is doing wrong, but advise saving your breath for larger battles. I would guess that up to 90+ percent of the folks reciting the creed are mouthing the words and that little of what it says is registering anyway. No one is confused because the ones that could be don’t even notice
 
Peter_DiMitri said:
My view is that the Creed is the Creed, and that whatever his own political/social views he should say it properly.
Click to expand...
Your view is correct. No priest may intentionally deviate in any way from the prescribed form of the Mass (although it happens - far too often). A priest has an obligation (and the laity has the right) to participate in an authentic Catholic Mass (not somebody’s personal opinion of what an authentic Mass ought to be).

It’s easy to celebrate a proper mass. Say the black and do the red. Period.
 
It’s absolutely important that it is “For us Men”, because Christ’s salvific grace is not effective for angels–the Devil’s damned, end of story. Obviously, if there are aliens, they would probably be included in “men”, since they exist in time, not aeviternity like angels, and so can be changed. That, however, would probably have to be defined by a Council if and when we make First Contact.

Yes, I know that’s a weird point to bring up, but you can’t tell me you’ve never wondered about it, can you?
 
The priest at my church also omits “men”. I just take it as more of the politically correct stuff that you see a lot of these days.
 
Peter_DiMitri said:
Thanks for the replies, but I have to ask, is it actually the case that the word “men” is being deleted in the new revision? Is it possible that the priest is doing this because of that?
Click to expand...
Umm, 1. Yes. and 2. Yes. The new translation omits “men” to avoid the confusion it creates in some people. I agree that it means “mankind” but some people don’t understand. I think “for all of us” or “for mankind” would be better than “for us”, but “for us” is certainly no less confusing than “for us men”.
 
I think if someone is confused, then someone should teach them.👍

I’ve experienced a priest or two also making this omission, in one case going back as much as maybe 10 years ago.
 
TMC said:
Umm, 1. Yes. and 2. Yes. The new translation omits “men” to avoid the confusion it creates in some people. I agree that it means “mankind” but some people don’t understand. I think “for all of us” or “for mankind” would be better than “for us”, but “for us” is certainly no less confusing than “for us men”.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Is it: . . . for us human beings? For us Christians? For us Catholics? For us who are baptized and believe? For us who do the will of God . . . For us adults who affirm the faith?

However you slice this, you need catechesis.
 
Bad bad stuff. He can’t delete any words from the creed. To be honest, I would think twice about staying in this kind of church. These things are the first sign that a priest is a liberal.
 
Follow procedures please.

Two verbal warnings

One written warning

One informal meeting

One formal meeting (with Legal representations as optional)

If he persists…

Sack him!!

:cool:
 
mercygate said:
Agreed. Is it: . . . for us human beings? For us Christians? For us Catholics? For us who are baptized and believe? For us who do the will of God . . . For us adults who affirm the faith?

However you slice this, you need catechesis.
Click to expand...
Well I’m not sure how much catechesis is needed, its simply for us men, meaning for mankind. There is nothing in the Creed (or elsewhere in our faith) to suggest Christ came for any subset of mankind. We believe that it is Christians of orthodox faith who are responding fully to his gift of salvation, but the gift was brought for all who would accept it. Translating prayers is difficult because words have nuanced meanings and those nuances change over time (I mean changes in how the words are understooed and being used, not changes in the true meaning of the prayer). “For us” is good enough for me.

I agree with Hesychios that this is just a tempest in a teapot, and can’t believe I am taking the time to comment on it.
 
Can someone point me to a document of the Church that SPECIFICALLY addresses this issue? I would like to then bring this document to the attention of my priest. I believe that having the magisterium’s authority behind my request will make a bigger impression.
 
TMC said:
Umm, 1. Yes. and 2. Yes. The new translation omits “men” to avoid the confusion it creates in some people. I agree that it means “mankind” but some people don’t understand. I think “for all of us” or “for mankind” would be better than “for us”, but “for us” is certainly no less confusing than “for us men”.
Click to expand...
Where have you found this? Everything I have read so far says, “for us men and for our salvation.”
 
Peter_DiMitri said:
I thought I’d bring this up here, since I’m not really sure what to make of it.

There is a particular priest who comes to my parish on the first Sunday of every month. He’s very popular, especially among the kids because of his somewhat over-the-top style.

A while back, during the recitation of the Nicene Creed, I noticed that at the part “For us men”, he said “For us”, deleting the word “men” from the Creed. I wasn’t absolutely positive that he did it.

Last Sunday, during the creed, I watched him and saw without question that he again deleted the word “men” from his recitation of the Creed. While I can’t be sure what his reasons are for doing this, it seems to me to be some form of political correctness or something.

Is it appropriate for a Priest to deliberately leave that word – or any word – out of the Creed when he recites it? Am I making too much of this?

My view is that the Creed is the Creed, and that whatever his own political/social views he should say it properly. He certainly has enough ability to express his views during his homilies (which are a bit too circus-like for me).

Opinions?
Click to expand...
Here in the Philippines we don’t have this issue because only The Apostles Creed is said at Mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top