Priest does not say "men" in Nicene Creed

[ProVobis]

I see now where you are. So it was revised again to bring it closer to the latin then as there is no mention of men in * pro vobis et pro multis* where as the creed does contain the word for men - homines. I don’t see it being dropped from the creed on an authentic translational basis then.

You’re right. It’s qui propter nos homines, “who {on account of, because of} us {humans, men},” quite different than pro vobis et pro multis “for you and for {multitudes, many}”

 

[superamazingman]

As in ‘man is a mammal, and suckles his young’? In fact, research shows clearly that the word ‘man’ invokes an image of - wait for it - a man. The word is not neutral between sexes, and normal use of English over many centuries indicates this.

Um, I don’t know how else to say this in a nicer way, but you’re wrong. Man can mean male, or man can mean human. It’s just a fact of the english language.

 

[ProVobis]

Um, I don’t know how else to say this in a nicer way, but you’re wrong. Man can mean male, or man can mean human. It’s just a fact of the english language.

Indeed. It’s also used frequently as an interjection. “Man, did you see that lightning?”

Homines, however, is specifically mankind. Vires would be male persons. (like “virile”)

 

[ProVobis]

Um, I don’t know how else to say this in a nicer way, but you’re wrong. Man can mean male, or man can mean human. It’s just a fact of the english language.

Indeed. It’s also used frequently as an interjection. “Man, did you see that lightning?”

Homines, however, is specifically mankind. Viri would be male persons.

 

[Irishgal49]

Say ‘for us humans’ instead. It is more accurate. Or ‘people’.

I am tired of people thinking that women will feel left out or be offended. I do not like altering the language of our precious, sacred documents and I do not feel left out or excluded. Inclusive language is not inclusive, it’s divisive–I do not appreciate it and wish they would leave it alone.

 

[LucyLight]

Regardless of whether you think it more accurate (and sorry, in English ‘men’ does not refer solely to ‘male humans only’ but both male and female humans, so it is PERFECTLY accurate). . .the GIRM and the English translation of the Mass as promulgated in 2011 do not permit ‘ad libbing’ or changes of words.

What I believe might be happening is that the priest may be saying the word ‘men’ (which is a short word of one syllable) so quietly that he is not heard. And he may not even be doing so deliberately. The combination of a 'meh- and ‘nnnn’ sound after a ‘sssss’ sound (us) may have the ‘sss’ sound overriding the ‘meh’ part, and the ‘nnnn’ sound might be overridden by the following ‘and’ with ITS -nnnahhnd sound.

Many people tend to ‘drop’ their voices or pitch at the end of a word or phrase, or to unconsciously ‘soften’ the voice at same.

So it is possible that Father’s personal voice quality just isn’t ‘registering’ the ‘men’ part.

Or this may be where he takes a breath. I actually realized I was doing that myself. I can’t remember where now but I was taking a breath during the same part of the crede and omitting the same word everytime.

 

[sasg]

Thank you, everyone, for your thoughtful and respectful responses in this thread. I happen to have a meeting with my priest on an ordinary and unrelated matter next week, and thanks in part to your (name removed by moderator)ut I have decided to briefly and respectfully mention this to him. I know that nothing may change as a result, but I hope that by respectfully mentioning it to him he will at least see that there are some people who are bothered by the omission, and perhaps that will figure into his decision in the future. And of course if it is not an intentional omission, or if I have just been mishearing him, as many have suggested here, he will set me straight

Thank you again for your respectful and civil responses!

 

[Rence]

As in ‘man is a mammal, and suckles his young’? In fact, research shows clearly that the word ‘man’ invokes an image of - wait for it - a man. The word is not neutral between sexes, and normal use of English over many centuries indicates this.

You’re funny Hokamai

Personally, I wouldn’t say anything to the priest. But then, I appreciate him using inclusive language. Some priests say the ‘man’ and others don’t. However, if someone is bothered by the priest’s omiting of “man”, then they should say it aloud during the pause. No problem

 

[Fiasco]

Um, I don’t know how else to say this in a nicer way, but you’re wrong. Man can mean male, or man can mean human. It’s just a fact of the english language.

You took the words out of my mouth! You only have to pick up a novel or an article from 50 or more years ago to see the proof. Neil Armstrong`s historic words in July 1969 say it all. Would anyone have the hide to brand that humble man as sexist?!

**Hi.Why would it be a problem to replace ‘men’ **with ‘people’? If the word ‘men’ means ‘people’ in this context then it would be just as accurate and that way any women who were feeling excluded would feel more comfortable. Incidently, the word man needs a capital letter Man to mean Mankind (ie men and women); man with a small m just means male human. Thank you.

Because it`d be yet another surrender to the shrill demands of the radical feminists who have already done so much to mangle secular language by turning it into politically correct “newspeak”. And the stupid imploding West has just dumbly followed along!
This business about “inclusive” language is a lie!!!

 

[Filii_Dei]

Hi.Why would it be a problem to replace ‘men’ with ‘people’? If the word ‘men’ means ‘people’ in this context then it would be just as accurate and that way any women who were feeling excluded would feel more comfortable. Incidently, the word man needs a capital letter Man to mean Mankind (ie men and women); man with a small m just means male human. Thank you.

Because it has not been approved as part of the translation of the creed. While gender-neutral, using ‘people’ is absolutely pedestrian and dilutes the dignified value of the language. It is not in our place to substitute words as and when we wish simply because we think it appropriate. We cannot imagine ourselves to be above the Magisterium of the Holy Church.

It is also incorrect to say that ‘man’ is only inclusive when it is capitalised. We do not speak of ‘Mankind’ but call it ‘mankind’. People only capitalise it when they speak with reference to other species or in science-fiction novels.

Let’s just put it this way: has anyone ever read the creed and thought it to apply strictly to males only? In my opinion, this is much ado about nothing. To use ‘men’ is perfectly appropriate.

As for that part about “radical feminists” and “imploding West”, um.

 

[ProVobis]

Because it`d be yet another surrender to the shrill demands of the radical feminists who have already done so much to mangle secular language by turning it into politically correct “newspeak”. And the stupid imploding West has just dumbly followed along!
This business about “inclusive” language is a lie!!!

I don’t know if I’d blame the radical feminists for this one. English (as many vernaculars) is a changing language and it changes for a whole host of reasons, political, social, national, regional, and philosophical. Vernacular may be a good thing in our minds but the Church doesn’t control the vernacular, especially a half-barbaric language that doesn’t exactly breed a whole lot of Mass-going Catholics. The Church has carefully selected the words in its Latin texts; they are authoritative. How they are translated is most subjective and at best, educated guesses in their local interpretation. It’s just the way it is.

 

[superamazingman]

Hi.Why would it be a problem to replace ‘men’ with ‘people’?

There’s one very good reason: because that’s what the text of the Mass says. Can we accept this and be done?

 

[Fiasco]

Because it has not been approved as part of the translation of the creed. While gender-neutral, using ‘people’ is** absolutely pedestrian and dilutes the dignified value of the language**

As some commentators have said: Liturgical language has largely been reduced to the language of supermarkets and television advertisements.

As for that part about “radical feminists” and “imploding West”, um.

Even if you dont blame the radical feminists, youd have to admit that the West is imploding! A society which hasnt lost its way wouldnt be so twisted as to fall for such nonsense, along with all of the other evil stuff it`s taken on board (abortion, “gay” “marriage”, etc.).

I don’t know if I’d blame the radical feminists for this one. English (as many vernaculars) is** a changing language **and it changes for a whole host of reasons, **political, **social, national, regional, and philosophical…

Changing language: Bang on! And far too many of the changes in the past forty years have been due to radical feminism: “spokesperson”, “chairperson”, “humankind”. Ugly, ugly, ugly words!
**Political **reasons: Political correctness!

Hi. Just because some women are not happy being sidelined in the church that does not mean we are shrill or radical. Very rude. English is an evolving language and** the word man now tends to be thought of of as male humans **not humankind. Thank you.

Only because those radical feminists have been hammering that lie into peoples brains for the past 40 years. :shrug: Tell some people the same lie often enough and eventually theyll fall for it.
Some of us have managed to keep our balance and see this thing for what it is.

There’s one very good reason: because that’s what the text of the Mass says. Can we accept this and be done?

The answer would appear to be a resounding “NO!”.
Some plagues are extremely difficult to eradicate.

 

[superamazingman]

Only because those radical feminists have been hammering that lie into peoples brains for the past 40 years.
Tell some people the same lie often enough and eventually they`ll fall for it.
Some of us have managed to keep our balance and see this thing for what it is.
.

Exactly!!!

 

[Fiasco]

Exactly!!!

i wonder how many people here are old enough to remember the women who climbed the Statue of Liberty in the early 1970s and burned womens underclothing as a sign that they were no longer prepared to be "imprisoned" (or whatever term they used) by their female anatomy! Womens Liberation??? Baloney!!! They DENIED their womanhood!!!
Ever since, weve had to put up with their lie that theyre fighting for women!

Of course, these days it`s not PC to utter such words!
Too bad!!! As Mr Pilate said: “What I have written, I have written!”

 

[ProVobis]

As some commentators have said: Liturgical language has largely been reduced to the language of supermarkets and television advertisements.

You nailed it. You can include village hall meetings as well.

Perhaps the unintended consequences of using the all-vernacular in the liturgy, no matter how it’s translated.

 

[Filii_Dei]

As some commentators have said: Liturgical language has largely been reduced to the language of supermarkets and television advertisements.

That doesn’t mean we can’t salvage a little scrap of reverence wherever possible. You have to admit, ‘men’ sounds far more solemn than ‘people’.

 

[Daniel1Catholic]

Say ‘for us humans’ instead. It is more accurate. Or ‘people’.

Hu-Mans? That has “man” in it. Oh my gosh im sexist. You need to look at your facts son. The word Human comes from the Latin word “homines” The EXACT word used in the prayer in Latin! “Qui propter nos ‘homines’ et propter nostram salutem”. Here ill be your google translate, friend: “Who for us men, and for our salvation”. Whats this? The word “Human” translates into homines, which translates back into man? Perhaps when we say “for us men and our salvation”, we believe that we are including women as well? Do we not believe that Christ died for all men, AKA, all people? Even for you the unbeliever.

 

[ProVobis]

That doesn’t mean we can’t salvage a little scrap of reverence wherever possible. You have to admit, ‘men’ sounds far more solemn than ‘people’.

The point is, however, that both are used in everyday conversation. Or do you bow when you say or hear the word “men”?

 

[Fiasco]

You nailed it. You can include village hall meetings as well.

Perhaps the unintended consequences of using the all-vernacular in the liturgy, no matter how it’s translated.

There`s a sense of MYSTERY, of a higher OTHERNESS when Latin is used.

That doesn’t mean we can’t salvage a little scrap of reverence wherever possible. You have to admit,** ‘men’ sounds far more solemn than ‘people’**.

It certainly does! And imagine how beautiful the wording would have been if JRR Tolkien had been given the task back in the 1960s.

Hu-Mans? That has “man” in it.

Dont choke, but in the early days of this plague, there was some discussion as to whether the word "per-SON" could be changed to "per-OFFSPRING"!!! When theyre playing, ie when they`re dancing around cauldrons or whatever, some of these RF practitioners relate their “HER-story”…

The point is, however, that both are used in everyday conversation. Or do you bow when you say or hear** the word “men”? **

Block ears!!!

This whole thing is a farce; and if it were not so tragic, it`d be a comic farce.