Priests removing every reference to "man" and "mankind" ... common practice?

[gez722]

I go to daily Mass in 2 differerent dioceses and I’ve noticed multiple priests changing the wording to various prayers so that they completely eliminate the words “man” and “mankind”. Since I follow the Mass in my missal, it’s very obvious when it’s done and I just don’t get it. Are there really women out there that don’t know that the word “mankind” includes them? I personally don’t know of any that feel that way. And as for Jesus becoming man… that’s what He did. Do we have to say that He became a “person”???

It seems like some priests are going so overboard trying to not offend anybody that they end up not making sense. Jesus was a man… period! Why not say it!!!

I’m just curious if others have noticed this happening at Mass. I’ve also noticed it during the gospels and it’s amazing how some of these priests modify the readings as they go. I have to hand it to them … they get pretty creative sometimes.

I just wish that everyone could just stick to the script and stop trying to improve what the Church has approved.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I go to daily Mass in 2 differerent dioceses and I’ve noticed multiple priests changing the wording to various prayers so that they completely eliminate the words “man” and “mankind”. Since I follow the Mass in my missal, it’s very obvious when it’s done and I just don’t get it. Are there really women out there that don’t know that the word “mankind” includes them? I personally don’t know of any that feel that way. And as for Jesus becoming man… that’s what He did. Do we have to say that He became a “person”???

No, of course not! This is not allowed and we should always use the proper words or actions even if someone else is using the improper words or actions. I might even say that we are required to.

 

[jbuck919]

No, of course not! This is not allowed and we should always use the proper words or actions even if someone else is using the improper words or actions. I might even say that we are required to.

Which is precisely why 99% of the priests in the US are under probation or threat of disciplinary action because they do the opposite. This action comes of course from their bishops, who know better.

Christ became man becaus he was a man. For us (not for us men) and for our salvation, he came down from heaven. This is never going to be easy or obvious or a point of universal agreement or maybe even consensus, in spite of the ripostes of some other posters (not Br Rich who is usually quite on the mark) who wish to make the problem go away by taking the Polyanna approach. We’re stuck with the necessity for a theology, and we’re stuck with a language that developed (and is still developing) many centuries after the time of Jesus. It is not, nor is it supposed to be, easy to reconcile the two.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I disagree with this part:

…

It seems like some priests are going so overboard trying to not offend anybody …

The priest is making a decision to offend one group of people. Perhaps he believes it will please another group.

He knows that a group of people will be offended because he is not following Roman Missal’s approved translation. As the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum has:
“[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.”

 

[Morning_Star15]

This “man” issue is one of the many reasons I like Latin Mass! The original Latin word for man used is “homo” which is a general word (in Latin class we actually prefer to translate homo as person rather than man). There’s another word, vir, that means man in the masculine sense of man (this word also means husband). I think the problem is that English doesn’t make this distinction - for us, man almost always to a masculine person, so people aren’t aware that “man” doesn’t have to refer to the masculine gender.

 

[buffalo]

One of ours substitutes “flesh” for man in the creed.

 

[Michael_Welter]

Several months ago, you may recall, the US Bishops submitted to the Vatican proposed changes to some of the words in the Mass. Why did they submit this to the Vatican instead of just making the changes? Because no one, including our Bishops, has the authority to change the words of the Mass, other than the Vatican. We can’t have the Mass being different in different parishes. Christ prayed for unity, not disunity. No priest is allowed to make such changes, and, if they do, it should be dealt with immediately.

 

[Walking_Home]

Start contacting the bishops–folks. The bishops are accountable for what happens in their diocese. We need to win the Church back from these wayward priests.

 

[Karl_M]

I know of a priest who removes all references to God as a man, except for “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” That’s the only one. Everything else, and I do mean everything else, he either repeats “God,” or “Jesus,” instead of the “his/he” pronoun.

I guess I’m a little offbeat, he does occasionally alternate “his/he” with “hers/she,” and every once in a while says “his or her.” But that’s rare.

 

[jbuck919]

“Et ex patre natum, ante omnia saecula.”

From the Latin version of the Nicene creed, meaning literally, though never translated this way for obvious reasons, “born of the father, before all ages.” In case it has escaped anyone’s attention, males are not born of other males, and Jesus was in fact born (in the mystery of the incarnation) of a woman having pre-existed as the son of God. Yet God was in fact the father of Jesus.

We are not supposed to understand these things or be able to stuff them into our linguistic limitations. I sought counsel on the obvious intellectual difficulties presented by this when I was a young man. I spoke to several priests. The only answer they could offer, the only correct one, IMO, is "this is a mystery. God’s ways are not our ways.

 

[edward_george]

This is a maddening trend I noticed first with my parish priest, and then with a professor I had last semester–everytime I’d make mention of “man,” “mankind,” etc., she’d make a note such as “what about woman?” or “what about womankind?” It got to be annoying, but I tend not to let political correctness muddy up good grammar. A great number of languages–English included–have a masculine gender-neutral collective (i.e. “men” including men and women).

-ACEGC

 

[Al_Masetti]

Out of curiousity, how do they express: “Son of Man”?

 

[Kendy]

I go to daily Mass in 2 differerent dioceses and I’ve noticed multiple priests changing the wording to various prayers so that they completely eliminate the words “man” and “mankind”. Since I follow the Mass in my missal, it’s very obvious when it’s done and I just don’t get it. Are there really women out there that don’t know that the word “mankind” includes them? I personally don’t know of any that feel that way. And as for Jesus becoming man… that’s what He did. Do we have to say that He became a “person”???

It seems like some priests are going so overboard trying to not offend anybody that they end up not making sense. Jesus was a man… period! Why not say it!!!

I’m just curious if others have noticed this happening at Mass. I’ve also noticed it during the gospels and it’s amazing how some of these priests modify the readings as they go. I have to hand it to them … they get pretty creative sometimes.

I just wish that everyone could just stick to the script and stop trying to improve what the Church has approved.

God Bless,
Gary

I prefer the word persons when refering to both sexes unless we are talking about Jesus since he did become man.

 

[gez722]

I prefer the word persons when refering to both sexes unless we are talking about Jesus since he did become man.

That’s fine… we all have our preferences, but the main thing to remember is that none of us (including the priest) has the right to change the approved text of the Mass.

God Bless,
Gary

 

[gez722]

Out of curiousity, how do they express: “Son of Man”?

That’s too funny … but now that I think about it, would it be too far-fetched to hear it changed to “offspring of person”?

God Bless,
Gary

 

[Karl_M]

That’s too funny … but now that I think about it, would it be too far-fetched to hear it changed to “offspring of person”?

God Bless,
Gary

You’re not too far off base, try “Child of God.”

 

[Al_Masetti]

Out of curiousity, how do they express: “Son of Man”?

One day I was flipping through the psalms and found the hebrew for “son of man”… it’s apparently “ben Adom”. (using an english alphabet for hebrew).

So, how does “ben Adom” get one to “child of God”???

Strange stuff that the PC brigade comes up with!!!

 

[palmas85]

Out of curiousity, how do they express: “Son of Man”?

From my experience often they don’t.

 

[francesco920]

No, of course not! This is not allowed and we should always use the proper words or actions even if someone else is using the improper words or actions. I might even say that we are required to.

You are absolutely right, Br. Rich. In my opinion, this practice shows a disdain for Tradition and suggests that the priest thinks he knows better than Rome. These words have been the same for 2000 years!!! By what authority do these priests change the words of the Sacred Liturgy? These priests must be confronted and if they refuse to stop committing this terrible abuse, the bishops must get involved.

We have enough to fight in this world with secularists and islamic fascists gaining more and more power than to have to worry about dissenting priests/bishops/theologians. These people are doing the Church a terrible disservice by confusing the laity instead of guiding us.

 

[genealogist]

In a mixed marriage I have ample opportunity to find inclusive language at worship if I wanted it. That’s what galls me is the mainline churches have capitulated on all these issues and if RCs want that then go there, please.

My understanding from a high school classmate now a priest and seminary professor is that 1) the English translation of the Mass is abysmal and 2) you have to say the prayers as written and not change any of it, even if you do have legitimate translation criticisms.

As far as homo versus vir.

Homo means man as opposed to animals.

Vir means man as opposed to woman.

I am a man in both senses of the word. Hillary Clinton is a woman(femina) but she is also a man(homo) because she is not an animal but a human being with an immortal soul created in the image and likeness of God. I believe the Creed uses homo not vir but it is not the priest’s place to use for us, for us humans, for us people. Another good reason for a return to a Latin liturgy.