Striking "man" from creed?

[Nichevo]

Thanks, I didn’t pick up on it until it was too late to edit.

 

[katherine2]

Sara Bickley:

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

People will debate if that changed has happened or not. I am happy to identify with those like you Sara who are willing to accept whatever is standard English. What the current usage is in standard English is another discussion.

 

[Fiat]

As a former English teacher, we may all rest assured that “for us men” is standard English. Likewise “for us” is also standard English. I suppose the difference lies in the fact that the English version of the Nicene Creed specifies “for us men”. It seems to me that anyone who wishes to change this language has the onus of establishing that the change is necessary based on some reason OTHER THAN whether the phrase is standard English or not. An example of nonstandard English would be to say “for we” or “for we men.” Perhaps people here misunderstand what the term “standard English” means?!

Fiat

 

[rlg94086]

katherine2:

People will debate if that changed has happened or not. I am happy to identify with those like you Sara who are willing to accept whatever is standard English. What the current usage is in standard English is another discussion.

Katherine2,

Debating whether the “change” has happened in the English language is begging the question. The Church decides if there is a change in the creeds, not us. I’m not sure why this isn’t clear.

If you want “men” dropped from the creed, I encourage you to petition the Bishops to have the change adopted in the next Council. Until then, we should follow the Church’s current wording.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[katherine2]

rlg94086:

Katherine2,

Debating whether the “change” has happened in the English language is begging the question. The Church decides if there is a change in the creeds, not us. I’m not sure why this isn’t clear.

If you want “men” dropped from the creed, I encourage you to petition the Bishops to have the change adopted in the next Council. Until then, we should follow the Church’s current wording.

God Bless,

Robert.

Dear Robert,

I’ll review my posts if you would like, but I believe I’ve only spoken in the abstract here. I agree with you this is a matter of wording and is not something unchangable. That has been my only point. I’ve not said anyone should unilaterially change anything.

On the other hand, i do remember once returning home after spending some months at my daughters. I thought I had turned my hearing aid up at Mass, until I realized that our congregation just did a good job at tuly saying the Creed. I had grown accustomed to my daugther’s parish where the cognergation mumbled or half-recited the people’s parts of the Mass.

My point is (and I do have one, I think) is that if we get people to the point where they are only not audiblely saying one word int eh creed, that would be a lot better than the places where people only say a couple lines and then go mute.