Nicene Creed Deviation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anduril11623
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anduril11623

Guest
I was attending Mass a few weeks ago and heard the priest utter “and was made human” instead of “and was made man.”

This, of course, set some alarm bells off in my head.

Quick question: Am I right that this is a violation of canon law?
 
Anduril11623 said:
I was attending Mass a few weeks ago and heard the priest utter “and was made human” instead of “and was made man.”

This, of course, set some alarm bells off in my head.

Quick question: Am I right that this is a violation of canon law?
Click to expand...
Man derives from human.

Of course the priest was trying to be politically correct and probably thinks its a way of being popular among the females in the congregation. However, from what I’ve been told, by my wife and many women, they do not like playing with words to satisfy radical feminist.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Of course the priest was trying to be politically correct and probably thinks its a way of being popular among the females in the congregation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe so – but altering the wording of the Creed is not within the priest’s competence.
 
stpetric said:
Yeah, maybe so – but altering the wording of the Creed is not within the priest’s competence.
Click to expand...
Redemptionis Sacramentum affirms the fact that no one, not the priest, not the bishop, is allowed to alter the words in the texts of the Roman Missal.
 
Yeah, that bothers me a lot. I know a priest whom I admire very much and who is very faithful to the Missal generally (he doesn’t ad lib prayers, routinely change the words to fixed texts, etc., which many other priests do), but he has that one quirk. When a Preface says “mankind”, he will say “humankind” and during the Creed he says “became a man” instead of “became man.”

Why does he feel he needs to do that, especially when he obviously is not into improvisation otherwise? Oh well…
 
Like Pope Benedict says, we aren’t called to be creative with the liturgy. We are called to receive it as a gift. This comes from The Spirit of the Liturgy.
 
Ours substitutes the word “flesh”. He is obsessed by inclusive language and said he can’t wait for the day women will give homilies.
 
benedictgal said:
Like Pope Benedict says, we aren’t called to be creative with the liturgy. We are called to receive it as a gift. This comes from The Spirit of the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
And in this case, the Spirit was moving this priest to be more inclusive to more people.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
And in this case, the Spirit was moving this priest to be more inclusive to more people.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the Spirit is moving a priest to openly disregard and ignore the rubrics and norms regulating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It may be a spirit, but, it’s not the right one for the rite.
 
benedictgal said:
I don’t think the Spirit is moving a priest to openly disregard and ignore the rubrics and norms regulating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It may be a spirit, but, it’s not the right one for the rite.
Click to expand...
The zeitgeist, maybe?
 
benedictgal said:
I don’t think the Spirit is moving a priest to openly disregard and ignore the rubrics and norms regulating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It may be a spirit, but, it’s not the right one for the rite.
Click to expand...
I do not feel this minor word change goes against the rubrics and is within the norms. It did not make the mass “invalid” or anything like that.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
And in this case, the Spirit was moving this priest to be more inclusive to more people.
Click to expand...
You honestly don’t believe that do you? The Creed has been around for a long long time. Are you trying to say that an entire segment of the population was left out for all those years and now needs to be included at this late date?
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Holy Spirit/Ghost of course. 🤷
Click to expand...
Just like the spirit that was moving under the reign of the person whose monicker you adopted? I seriously doubt it, friend. Remember what Pope Paul VI said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” Unfortunately, that was one of its manifestations.

As I said earlier, the Holy Spirit would never prompt someone to go against liturgical rubrics. The Holy Spirit would not lead us to commit errors. Don’t we pray “Lead us not into temptation” during the Our Father?
 
Anduril11623 said:
I was attending Mass a few weeks ago and heard the priest utter “and was made human” instead of “and was made man.”

Am I right that this is a violation of canon law?
Click to expand...
There was another thread about this particular change, maybe a month ago. The problem is more than just canon law. Jesus had a human nature, but he was not a human being. “Human” is an adjective here, not a noun. Jesus was not “made human”, he remained divine.

Jesus became man: that is, he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary through the power of the Holy Spirit.
 
To play the other side…

We can’t change the words of the liturgy - but does that refer to the Latin or the English? Technically, this line is “homo factus est.” Homo is not the same as Vir. There is a sense in which (IMHO) *homo *is more equivalent to human in contemporary English, though I prefer the use of man myself. Vir is man as mulier is woman; both are homines.

I’m sure scholars have debated this ad nauseum. I just wanted to point out that this particular line does not (seem to) emphasize masculinity as other lines of the liturgy. And it does grate on my nerves when they insert “God” for every instance of “He.”

But the greater question is how much a particular priest is allowed to change translated words without permission from higher up. I’ve also heard of a Latin scholar priest who changed the liturgy to be more consistent with the Latin. Would he draw similar scorn?
 
mizznicole said:
To play the other side…

We can’t change the words of the liturgy - but does that refer to the Latin or the English? Technically, this line is “homo factus est.” Homo is not the same as Vir. There is a sense in which (IMHO) *homo *is more equivalent to human in contemporary English, though I prefer the use of man myself. Vir is man as mulier is woman; both are homines.

I’m sure scholars have debated this ad nauseum. I just wanted to point out that this particular line does not (seem to) emphasize masculinity as other lines of the liturgy. And it does grate on my nerves when they insert “God” for every instance of “He.”

But the greater question is how much a particular priest is allowed to change translated words without permission from higher up. I’ve also heard of a Latin scholar priest who changed the liturgy to be more consistent with the Latin. Would he draw similar scorn?
Click to expand...
The prohibition remains the same. No one, not a priest, not a bishop can make any changes to the Roman Missal. Only the Holy See can do that.
 
mizznicole said:
We can’t change the words of the liturgy - but does that refer to the Latin or the English? Technically, this line is “homo factus est.” Homo is not the same as Vir. There is a sense in which (IMHO) *homo *is more equivalent to human in contemporary English, though I prefer the use of man myself. Vir is man as mulier is woman; both are homines.
Click to expand...
Which is why we don’t say in English “and became a man”, we say “and became man”. Vir is a male “man”, mulier is a female “man”. Genesis 1:27 says that “God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them” (creavit Deus hominem ad imaginem suam; ad imaginem Dei creavit illum; masculum et feminam creavit eos). So “man”/hominem doesn’t mean males, it means people. Of course, this was not controversial until people started insisting that “men” meant “male people”.
mizznicole said:
But the greater question is how much a particular priest is allowed to change translated words without permission from higher up. I’ve also heard of a Latin scholar priest who changed the liturgy to be more consistent with the Latin. Would he draw similar scorn?
Click to expand...
Yes. The translated Missal has to be approved by the Holy See, and that translation is the one used. Thus, it is still wrong to change the text to a “better” translation without the explicit approval of the Holy See. We’re going to have a better translation in a couple years.

If you seek purity, there’s always the Latin!
 
ET HOMO FACTUS EST

From the Latin text, derive many possible translations:
  1. He became a HUMAN - The Vietnamese Bishops took this word. Anyway, Homo means a ‘a human’. And Jesus lived on eath as a human to be Our Borther and Aviour to all of us male and female
  2. He became MAN . Homo means also ‘man’, similar to human
  3. Even if one says He became a Man, it’s still within the meaning of Et Homo Factus Est - Jesus the Son of God and Mary, The Man.
    Hope you get out from confusion
    NguyenCongBinh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top