Omitting the word "men" in the Creed

[Pax_Vobiscum_57]

We don’t have a pastor. We’re a cluster who gets a bunch of visiting priests. Last week we had the vocations director from the diocese. It seems to be a growing trend. Our bishop won’t do anything about it, so it’s pointless going to the chancery.

How can I gently and charitably ask the rationale behind this without scandalizing the priest?

 

[FrDavid96]

We don’t have a pastor. We’re a cluster who gets a bunch of visiting priests. Last week we had the vocations director from the diocese. It seems to be a growing trend. Our bishop won’t do anything about it, so it’s pointless going to the chancery.

How can I gently and charitably ask the rationale behind this without scandalizing the priest?

Unfortunately, you can’t. A priest who decides to change the words of the Mass isn’t likely to listen to anyone who points-out to him that what he’s doing is illicit. Just reality speaking here.

 

[aimee]

Our pastor does the same thing…I don’t understand why he does it…

 

[Letchitsa1]

You can always pray for them. Although you might never see it, you’d be amazed what it can do for their spiritual life. Also - it may help you find patience to tolerate their abuses when you know nothing else you say/do will have any effect.

 

[TLM08]

We don’t have a pastor. We’re a cluster who gets a bunch of visiting priests. Last week we had the vocations director from the diocese. It seems to be a growing trend. Our bishop won’t do anything about it, so it’s pointless going to the chancery.

How can I gently and charitably ask the rationale behind this without scandalizing the priest?

Instead of “brethren” or even “brothers and sisters”, Often I hear priests saying “Sisters and Brothers”, It sounds totally stupid.

 

[ASD]

As long as one is civil, I don’t see anything at all wrong with a straightforward question and a plainspoken statement of the real effect. After all, aren’t “progressive” clerics all about “empowering” laity? In fact, if you have the courage to speak to him, many of us will applaud you & thank you.

Q: Hi, Father. Thanks for coming today. [etc] I have a question:

I read recently that the Holy Father has decreed that the plain meaning of the words pro multis in the consecration of the Precious Blood is to be restored to “for many.”

Similarly, the upcoming translation of the Creed has corrected the longstanding mistake of translating Credo as “We believe.” Obviously, It means “I believe.”

So, it seems like there’s a trend back to plain meanings.

Now, along those lines, regarding the Creed, as far as I know, filius (filium, filio) means “son,” pater (patrem, patre, patri) means “father,” & homo (homines) means “man.”

But you didn’t use those words today. Whatever reason you might have for not reciting the Creed faithfully, Father, I have to ask: Are you and I really entitled to change the Creed?

A: [Presumably something about the glory & splendor of almighty diversity & holy inclusiveness. Maybe a suggestion that trendiness is next to Godliness. If long-winded, some mention of “spirit of Vatican II,” which is, um, tangentially related to the council decrees in http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html”]Sacrosanctum Concilium. Sorry, but it’s hard not to be sarcastic here.]

R: OK, Father.

With all due respect, I would like you to know that, although your innovations today may have made some people feel more “included,” Father, taking away our ancient Creed makes me feel excluded, to say the very least. So, even if inclusiveness were a legitimate reason for refusing to say the Creed faithfully, maybe you aren’t furthering your goal all that much. Maybe you’ll hurt as many people as you’ll help.

Thanks so much for your understanding.

Sad to say, I will be surprised if you get a positive response. Nevertheless, I believe you would be doing the Church a service. And, the cumulative effect of many such complaints might be worthwhile.

Consider this: Ultimately, you could take your collection envelope, your volunteer time, etc, and go where the Priest simply says the words pro multis, Credo, Filium, etc, without any changes.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

We don’t have a pastor. We’re a cluster who gets a bunch of visiting priests. Last week we had the vocations director from the diocese. It seems to be a growing trend. Our bishop won’t do anything about it, so it’s pointless going to the chancery.

How can I gently and charitably ask the rationale behind this without scandalizing the priest?

I would just start and ask your friends to start saying it correctly and if necessary, put emphasis on the word “Man” or “men”. Which ever part you are talking about. Those around you will pick up on it.

 

[JEAWebster]

I have had a similar problem with my parish for years, and when I recite prayers at mass, I use the official language, although most around me “go with the flow” of the so-called “inclusive language” (which in many instances is also grammatically incorrect). This is a difficult trend to stop, unless doing so is pursued by the bishops and priests.

Our parish has gone so far as to also use the Canadian version of the New American Bible for all of the readings, due to its incorporation of “inclusive language.” Does anyone know whether this practice is officially “allowed” in the USA?

 

[ASD]

I would just start and ask your friends to start saying it correctly and if necessary, put emphasis on the word “Man” or “men”. Which ever part you are talking about. Those around you will pick up on it.

It would be great if that would work. Maybe it can is some situations. However, discouraging anecdotes:

I have attended NO/OF Mass where one parishioner was kinda yelling out his gender-neutral, “inclusive” version of the Creed: “God” or “God’s” instead of those loathsome, offensive, out-of-date pronouns “His” or “Him.” Terrible distraction.

In another NO/OF parish, the choir sometimes sings a gender-policed version of the Gloria. It’s hard to be heard. Maybe if I had a better voice, I could compete.

 

[JEAWebster]

A related disturbing change at my parish was the replacement several years ago of the missalettes with hard-bound hymnals, which contain some portions of the Order of The Mass, but not everything (e.g. the Eucharistic Prayers are not in these particular books).

Then, shortly after this, we changed to the Canadian NAB (“inclusive”) version of the readings, which differ from the versions in these hard-bound books. So, now, one cannot even follow along with the readings using the books that we have. I have heard what I believe to be misguided folks (including a previous pastoral associate) say that parishoners should just be listening and not reading along, although I have always found it more enriching for myself when I listen AND read at the same time.

Anybody else dealt with this problem? If so, I’d love to hear some suggestions on how to deal with it. I have thought about offering to buy the missalette subscription for the parish.

 

[T700]

As long as one is civil, I don’t see anything at all wrong with a straightforward question and a plainspoken statement of the real effect. After all, aren’t “progressive” clerics all about “empowering” laity? In fact, if you have the courage to speak to him, many of us will applaud you & thank you.

[Trimmed to save space]

Bravo! Excellent and reasoned response. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Paul

 

[Timothysis]

I used to go to church where the priest would say “He was born of the Virgin Mary,” and then look up at the congregation and say “and became one of us.” I was much younger then and didn’t know the faith as I do now but even then I knew that it was a ridiculous thing to say. He seemed to be a sincere enough priest but I guess he just employed some bad judgment, something that we all do at times. Nevertheless, he died some years ago of a brain tumor.

 

[ProVobis]

Now, along those lines, regarding the Creed, as far as I know, filius (filium, filio) means “son,” pater (patrem, patre, patri) means “father,” & homo (homines) means “man.”

*Homo, hominis * has more of a “human” connotation. Vir is strictly a male person.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have had a similar problem with my parish for years, and when I recite prayers at mass, I use the official language, although most around me “go with the flow” of the so-called “inclusive language” (which in many instances is also grammatically incorrect). This is a difficult trend to stop, unless doing so is pursued by the bishops and priests.

Our parish has gone so far as to also use the Canadian version of the New American Bible for all of the readings, due to its incorporation of “inclusive language.” Does anyone know whether this practice is officially “allowed” in the USA?

No it’s not allowed. Unless of course you have one foot on the Canadian side of the boarder during Mass.

 

[ASD]

*Homo, hominis * has more of a “human” connotation. Vir is strictly a male person.

Yea. Although I thought vir was man in a sense something like, “he’s her man,” or “he’s a real man.” Is that off base?

What about the original Greek? Wasn’t Nicene Creed originally Greek? If so, I don’t know what the Greek word was.

From William Whitaker’s WORDS:

[SanctaMissa 523]$ latin homo
homo N 3 1 NOM S M
homo N 3 1 VOC S M
homo, hominis N M
man, human being, person, fellow;

[SanctaMissa 524]$ latin vir
vir N 2 3 NOM S M
vir N 2 3 VOC S M
vir, viri N M
man; husband; hero; person of courage, honor, and nobility;

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

After all, aren’t “progressive” clerics all about “empowering” laity?

In the diocese I currently find myself, the majority of priests omit the word “men” during the Creed. I have never asked any of them about it, but from those friends who have, the question tends to make the priest angry. Most “progressive” priests talk a lot about empowering laity, but if the laity approaches with a Catechism or a GIRM in their hand, good old clericalism rears up.

 

[seagal]

Instead of “brethren” or even “brothers and sisters”, Often I hear priests saying “Sisters and Brothers”, It sounds totally stupid.

I’m sorry, I just can’t let this go by. You find it “totally stupid” to say “sisters and brothers” instead of “brothers and sisters”? I’m not especially pc, but this sounds ex-clusive to the point of absurdity :ehh:

 

[Newbie2]

I would just start and ask your friends to start saying it correctly and if necessary, put emphasis on the word “Man” or “men”. Which ever part you are talking about. Those around you will pick up on it.

Good idea.

I wonder how many see it as a grammatical redundancy (the reflexive use of “us men”)?

In our parish, I get the sense that some say it and some not, mostly because they don’t know which is correct.

 

[japhy]

Hey, if the priest thinks he can change the words HE says in the Mass, I think you should ask him if it’s ok if you change the words YOU’RE supposed to say.

If he does not permit it, he’s not being inclusive enough and clearly suffers from clericalism. (Please detect the sarcasm in that comment.)

If he permits it, [can’t think of a nice thing to say here].

 

[benedictgal]

Incidentally, the word “man”, I believe, in the new translation of the Roman Missal:

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

I am wondering how those who omit the word “man” are going to react. Incidentally, Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses this issue, although not directly, when it notes that:

[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

It should not matter how I feel about the text. What should matter is that the text, as mandated by the Church, is recited in its entirety without any superflous cosmetic surgery.