Striking "man" from creed?

[Stephen-Maguire]

mommy:

We need some word to denote “people as a race” “Man” is the name of the race of “people” It wasn’t a problem until we had to come up for a word for everything to make every one “happy” that they weren’t being offended. I think perhaps people shouldn’t go looking for offense where non is intended.

Great point here, this is a woman that speaks the truth, if you know the first book of the Bible ???

You will see that woman means to be taken from man, and I know that some ladies would take exception to this.

But look in Genesis.

 

[ThornGenX]

I have always heard the creed said with “man” and “us men” kept in tact at the masses I went to. If the priest did try to edit that, the people were drowning him out but I think he left them in too. This would include parishes in Fresno CA, Placerville CA and a really small town between Chowchilla and Merced called Le Grand CA.

 

[Bulldog]

Speaking of PC and gender, I remember when I had to fight, back in college, with my “Intro to Theology” teacher about the Holy Trinity she was using PC terms [including writing them on the board] like Creator, Redeemer and Sacdefier (Sp?-- spellcheck could not help), and not use Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So I argued over that the use of the terms she conceded a bit about the traditional Trinity terms but how could I say it – she did not explain them what I expect from a theology class. Otherwise, I was afraid that people would not understand and get confused, its almost by not using F,S,HS people would get in the PC loop and forget about the Word Incarnate and everything in relation to salvation history. Its like being abstract when it is really in front of you by using inclusive terms.
I understand though at times when to use Creater, Redeemer … which there are several prayers that use these terms, but its all about the proper time and place to use them and not use the terms for some type bad agenda.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This abuse should be reported to the local Bishop.

 

[Michael_s_Sword]

Hey it could be worse. At the “Catholic” womyn’s college my wife attended the trinity was referred to as the Creator, The Savior and the Everlasting Redeemer.

I could never figure out what they had against Holy Spirit.

 

[rcballi46]

ThornGenX:

I have always heard the creed said with “man” and “us men” kept in tact at the masses I went to. If the priest did try to edit that, the people were drowning him out but I think he left them in too. This would include parishes in Fresno CA, Placerville CA and a really small town between Chowchilla and Merced called Le Grand CA.

When I recite the Creed and come to the points in question I say:

“… For us, and for our salvation, He came down from heaven … and He became man …” To me, saying: For us men, and for our salvation is redundant - who else but us did He come down here for?. The word ‘us’ includes both genders! The words “and He became man” means He assumed our human nature, so the word ‘man’ in that context isn’t gender specific. Perhaps that is the reason why some priests ‘change’ the recitation of the creed. It really isn’t a change, per se, because it doesn’t change the meaning.

 

[john_ennis]

rcballi46:

When I recite the Creed and come to the points in question I say:

“… For us, and for our salvation, He came down from heaven … and He became man …” To me, saying: For us men, and for our salvation is redundant - who else but us did He come down here for?. The word ‘us’ includes both genders! The words “and He became man” means He assumed our human nature, so the word ‘man’ in that context isn’t gender specific. Perhaps that is the reason why some priests ‘change’ the recitation of the creed. It really isn’t a change, per se, because it doesn’t change the meaning.

Not significantly, that’s true. Yet there is something helpful to the clarity and emphasis when you say “We the people…” instead of “We of the United States, in order to…”

 

[Bulldog]

Sir Knight:

This abuse should be reported to the local Bishop.

Sadly, I don’t think it will help he is not in control of the school, as it is an independent run but associated with the the diocese [he is a figure head on the board]. I come from the conservative diocese from across the river so the standard joke is I’m from the “Right” and they are from the “Left” [though I have not heard it in along time]. Anyway, I volunteer my time over at the school (and starting my Masters degree in couple days), I try to be a good Catholic beacon, let my light shine through the darkness.

 

[Teresita]

katherine2:

Do we know this? How do we know this?

HE that is mighty has magnified me, and holy is HIS Name…

Lots more. Look it up yourself.

Sue

 

[Teresita]

I too don’t know Aramaic. However, one can check everything on the Net (amazing resource!) and not only did the Aramaic of our Lord’s time have clear genders, they were extended into areas where Indo-European languages such as our own don’t go: for instance, imperatives were either masculine or feminine. So if I’d told my sons in Aramaic to sit down, I’d have used a different form than the one I’d have used for daughters.

Not that it terribly matters, since the basic point being made is that the priest shouldn’t change words on his own initiative.

I find here that priests have a terrible problem with sticking to the ICL translation of the second half of the Ecce Agnus Dei. We should say: "Happy are those who are called to his supper’ - for once, a fairly accurate translation of the Latin “Beati qui ad cenam vocati sunt”, though ‘cena’ means a meal in general - I suppose it’s recalling the Last Supper. I’ve never quite known whether this refers to our reception of Holy Communion, or the Marriage Feast of the Lamb. Anyway, priests here tend to change it all to the first or second person: “Happy are we who are called…” or “We are happy to be called…” or “You are happy to be called…”. Sometimes they really get excited: we’ve got a temporary priest at the moment who cries: “Here is the Lamb of God, Jesus, who died for our sins - we are so happy to be called to His supper!” Unfortunately, I’m so busy trying to process what they’re saying that I forget Whom I’m just about to receive.

Seriously, the main reason for not changing the words off one’s own bat, apart from obedience (clearly the best motive), is that it’s like changing the steps of a dance or the notes of a piece of music: fine if one’s on one’s own, but it really throws the other participants. Liturgy is a sort of sacred dance with words and actions, and one subordinates one’s own personality to the greater pattern. At least, one should.

Sue

 

[Pravoslavo]

I wish folks would study John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. Man means humanity. Just because our modern mind and use of language is defective doesn’t mean we need to drop the use of the word man to imply humanity. Rather, we need to conform to Holy Tradition and scripture on this matter.

To tamper with the Nicene Creed is not our place.

In Christ,

John

 

[katherine2]

Pravoslavo:

. Man means humanity.

It certainly is meant to mean humanity. if it actually does or not depends on the evolution of the English language.

Just because our modern mind and use of language is defective doesn’t mean we need to drop the use of the word man to imply humanity. Rather, we need to conform to Holy Tradition and scripture on this matter.

Ah! And here is the admission that modern English does not use the word “man” this way. Its not a defect. God does not require all languages to have a term that is both masculine and general and another term which is exclusively feminine. Neither Scripture nor Tradition dictate this.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

It certainly is meant to mean humanity. if it actually does or not depends on the evolution of the English language.

Ah! And here is the admission that modern English does not use the word “man” this way. Its not a defect. God does not require all languages to have a term that is both masculine and general and another term which is exclusively feminine. Neither Scripture nor Tradition dictate this.

We do not change language of the Church to fit the “modern” language.
If we did then we would have no need to remember Jesus’ sacrifice to worship our Lord, acoustic guitars and swaying hands would suffice.

 

[katherine2]

Trelow:

We do not change language of the Church to fit the “modern” language…

Sure we do. Otherwise everything would be in Old English.

 

[Bulldog]

Originally Posted by Trelow
We do not change language of the Church to fit the “modern” language…

katherine2:

Sure we do. Otherwise everything would be in Old English.

The language of the Church is Latin not “old English”, English or some other vernacular and since Latin is a dead language, it does not change in any form include additions of slangs. So Latin is a good basic to start with … you just need to know latin…

 

[Digitonomy]

Bulldog:

since Latin is a dead language, it does not change in any form include additions of slangs.

I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. The Vatican recently published a volume of new Latin words.

The Latinitas Foundation was established in 1976 by Pope Paul VI with the Pontifical Chirograph Romani sermonis and it has the following objectives:

 1) to promote the study of the Latin language, classical literature and Medieval Latin;

 2) to promote the increased use of the Latin language by publishing texts in Latin and other suitable means.

Among its principal activities are:
…
- the promotion of the Lexicon recentis Latinitatis, an important dictionary of neologisms: it contains over 15,000 words. Experts from all over the world have contributed to this work;

 

[Sara_Bickley]

katherine2:

Ah! And here is the admission that modern English does not use the word “man” this way. Its not a defect. God does not require all languages to have a term that is both masculine and general and another term which is exclusively feminine. Neither Scripture nor Tradition dictate this.

But that is still how English – even modern English – works. In the future that may change. There will be nothing wrong with that change.

But it has not come yet – that is, it has not come naturally. Attempts to mechanically or artificially induce change don’t count. When the natural, the gradual, evolution of the language dictates such an alteration, then the Church will have to sit up and take notice. But I don’t expect that to happen in my lifetime.

 

[Flounder]

Interesting thread…

I think if we’re afraid someone hearing “for us men…” will conclude Jesus came for men only, we should be more worried about them safely crossing the street.

 

[Bulldog]

digitonomy:

I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. The Vatican recently published a volume of new Latin words.

Well, the study of and understanding of it, with possible new words is good news so then why would by Latin Idiot’s book say its dead. Even if sciences and the Church still use it, it still would not be shape by the standard joe that why they mean it dead, I think…

 

[DaveBj]

Nobody else caught this, so I’ll take it, in spite of the fact that it’s not really pertinent to the on-going discussion.

Nichevo:

Exactly!

Greek Pronouns

He = Αυτή

She = Αυτός

These should be reversed. Αυτός is he, and Αυτή is she.

DaveBj