Striking "man" from creed?

[Fiat]

katherine2:

You must make the Amish look modern.

Until she does something you disagree with!

How do you charitably conclude this, exactly?

Also, if you think that time was not full at the moment of Christ’s incarnation, perhaps that is an argument you should take up with Our Father or St. Paul? Perhaps you could organize a lay review board for it? (Now who’s being mean. Shame on me.)

Fiat

 

[MaggieOH]

Church Militant:

I agree…be hardheaded like all us Irish Catholics. All this PC trash…those inclusive language folks need to grow up.

Oh I agree, they really do need to grow up. On the secular side there is nothing more irritating that hearing a female thespian being called a female actor. The word is actress

Maggie
(Mrs please)

 

[katherine2]

buffalo:

Because it’s a recent innovation.

Silly.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

How do you charitably conclude this, exactly?

Also, if you think that time was not full at the moment of Christ’s incarnation, perhaps that is an argument you should take up with Our Father or St. Paul? Perhaps you could organize a lay review board for it? (Now who’s being mean. Shame on me.)

Fiat

I don’t think that the social arragements of the first century are somehow endorsed because of the historical moment of the incaration.

I’m also betting you don’t live as if 33 AD was the “fullness of time” in that sense either.

 

[Fiat]

Katherine2:

Of course I don’t. However, how does 2,000 passing years change attitudes and perceptions of God given that God’s revelation came to us specific tot that time period? I’m not at all seeing how your criticism of Nichevo in your earlier post make sense.
Fiat

 

[buffalo]

Fiat:

Katherine2:

Of course I don’t. However, how does 2,000 passing years change attitudes and perceptions of God given that God’s revelation came to us specific tot that time period? I’m not at all seeing how your criticism of Nichevo in your earlier post make sense.
Fiat

We have no authority to change Christ’s teachings to suit the current times. Truth is eternal and lasts through generations. Since He is perfect and omniscient we should realize what He taught and left us is for the future too, even though it was 2,000 years ago.

 

[Fiat]

buffalo:

We have no authority to change Christ’s teachings to suit the current times. Truth is eternal and lasts through generations. Since He is perfect and omniscient we should realize what He taught and left us is for the future too, even though it was 2,000 years ago.

Exactly!!! For some reason, though, Katherine2 is content to let linguists dictate what sort of pronouns we use within a religious context.

Fiat

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just a few not-so-random thoughts…

1. The Greek word used in the passage in question is ενανθρωπήσαντα – which come from *enanthrôpeô *meaning “to put on man’s nature.” The word is very specifically a very and, therefore, not subject to issues of gender (although it contains within it the root word *anthrôpos *which is a generic term for human beings and is usually translated as “man.”
2. The Greek word for “flesh” is sarx and this is not found in the Creed at all.
3. Both Aramaic and Greek do, indeed, have gender-based words.

Deacon Ed

 

[Sara_Bickley]

Stephen-Maguire:

I will continue to say the Creed the way I was taught, and I suggest you do the same, God Bless.

Church Militant:

I agree…be hardheaded like all us Irish Catholics.

kmktexas:

It’s not allowed.

Thank you for answering my question. Now I can be confident that I’m doing at least one thing right!

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

Katherine2:

Of course I don’t. However, how does 2,000 passing years change attitudes and perceptions of God given that God’s revelation came to us specific tot that time period? I’m not at all seeing how your criticism of Nichevo in your earlier post make sense.
Fiat

Nor am I seeing the sense in yours. The question had to with Mary and how she spoke. I didn’t belong to her Hassassah Chapter or Ma Jong Club, so I don’t know. Did the common language of her time (which was not English, so using English Scripture quotes does not help us) have gender suggestive terms or not? I don’t know. Someone suggest it might have because society then was very patriarhcial. Well, if that is the case, that is not a very good reason to resist any evolution in Englis, is it?

 

[solanus]

Silly.

Silly?

To think that men and *women *martyred over the centuries for Christ and His Church for the right to say that prayer or to attend or Celebrate a Mass…Katherine2 your way of getting your point across falls on def ears, you are preaching to people who embrace the Church and Her Traditions.

It does not matter what bothers you or what the social arguments were of the 1st century. What matters is the Church has spoken and you being a Catholic should stand by Her teachings and share them with people who need Christ in their life. You or I do not have the power to change anything in regards to the mass other then our souls…

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

Nor am I seeing the sense in yours. The question had to with Mary and how she spoke. I didn’t belong to her Hassassah Chapter or Ma Jong Club, so I don’t know. Did the common language of her time (which was not English, so using English Scripture quotes does not help us) have gender suggestive terms or not? I don’t know. Someone suggest it might have because society then was very patriarhcial. Well, if that is the case, that is not a very good reason to resist any evolution in Englis, is it?

English may evolve as it will. Why does the evolution of the English language dictate whether or not the phrase “for us men” is used in the Nicene Creed exactly? Why should this change the fact that God revealed Himself to us in the gender of a man? I’m still not seeing your logic, here.

Fiat

 

[buffalo]

katherine2:

Nor am I seeing the sense in yours. The question had to with Mary and how she spoke. I didn’t belong to her Hassassah Chapter or Ma Jong Club, so I don’t know. Did the common language of her time (which was not English, so using English Scripture quotes does not help us) have gender suggestive terms or not? I don’t know. Someone suggest it might have because society then was very patriarhcial. Well, if that is the case, that is not a very good reason to resist any evolution in Englis, is it?

That would beg the question as to why society was patriarchal.

It is curious as to why we need to do this linguistic thing when everyone from a child to adult understands the context as written orignally. It is a PC fight to neutralize the history and orignal purpose of the writings. Once the door is fully opened it will lead to other rewrites.

 

[rlg94086]

rlg94086:

Katherine2,

Do you believe it is okay to change the creeds on your own?

Robert.

No answer? Am I supposed to guess?

If no, then I agree with you. As I stated before, we are allowed to have opinions on what should be changed in the Church, but we are still supposed to follow the teachings of the Magisterium. Yes?

If yes, then I guess I don’t understand. I’ve known others (and myself in the past) who have done their will instead of the Church, using “conscience” as an excuse, while calling for change. This doesn’t seem right to me. There are a lot of difficult issues people struggle with (ABC, divorce, etc.). If we can just change the rules on our own, we might as well be non-denominational and create our own creed.

To me, the whole argument about whether Mary used the masculine or feminine sense of words is completely irrelevant to the issue.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[Exporter]

Sara Bickley http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/statusicon_cad/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register(“postmenu_403515”, true);
Junior Member

Your Priest is most likely a P.C. Freak. He has changed “Who for us men”, “And was made flesh by the Holy Ghost”.

He probably thinks he can change Liturgy and get away with it. He hasn’t since you told all of us that the Priest has decided to change the Nicene Creed all by himself. He needs waking up. Who is he to change the Nicene Creed which has the blessings of Rome. He thinks he is making some prideful feminist happy. To mix P.C. and Catholocism leads to shakey groung.

 

[katherine2]

Fiat:

English may evolve as it will. Why does the evolution of the English language dictate whether or not the phrase “for us men” is used in the Nicene Creed exactly? Why should this change the fact that God revealed Himself to us in the gender of a man? I’m still not seeing your logic, here.

Fiat

Fiat, dear friend, no one here is arguing with you that God revealed Himself to us in the gender of a man. I certainly am not. You have having an arguement with yourself (and I can’t tell who is winning an who is losing)

 

[Digitonomy]

MaggieOH:
Church Militant:
I agree…be hardheaded like all us Irish Catholics. All this PC trash…those inclusive language folks need to grow up. Oh I agree, they really do need to grow up. On the secular side there is nothing more irritating that hearing a female thespian being called a female actor. The word is actress If I’m talking about a mixed cast of thespians, I prefer the non-inclusive “actors” for the lot of them.

But I know many, like yourself, prefer the inclusive language “actors and actresses”.

 

[jimmy]

katherine2:

filoque?

There is a difference between a pope or a council making a declaration than an individual preist changing it on his own. The filioque was allowed by the pope.

The GERM does not allow for the change of the wording of the creed by the preist.

 

[Stephen-Maguire]

Nichevo:

It took the Council of Nicea two years to get the creed to a point where they all accepted it. Who are these people to change it?

True.

Well, we know that God never looked down on Mary, that’s fairly obvious. It is also highly likely that Mary was far more concerned with raising her son and doing the will of God than obsessing over the use of masculine/feminine/gender neutral pronouns just so everyone could have a warm fuzzy feeling

Is it obvious ?

How do you know that?. Mary would have a hard time fitting in at a VOTF meeting that’s for sure.

Sorry VOTF I don’t understand the abbrevation.

I’m not sure where your coming from, can you explain please, so I can give an answer.

 

[Church_Militant]

JimO:

And there’s no gender in Aramaic or Greek? Admittedly I am no linguist and have not researched it, but I sense that if I did and found that Mary did not say “she” in reference to God, you would be unmoved.

You still haven’t answered my questions. I’m honestly not trying to provoke an argument. I really don’t understand the objections.

Blessings

Aramaic -No…Greek (unfortunately)-Yes.