Unnecessary Gender Neutralization of the Nicene Creed

[psteichen]

I’ve noticed over the last several years that liberal leaning parishes are making it a practice to remove the word ‘men’ from the Nicene Creed.

Proper: For us men and for our salvation…
New: For us and for our salvation…

This is ridiculous of course, because anyone with half a brain understands that this is a reference to mankind rather than members of the male gender. So even if one is bothered by male references, this isn’t one.

My concern is that I thought we were supposed to recite the Nicene Creed according to the approved translation. Wasn’t there a big hoopla made a few years ago about the new translation, and like it or not, I was under the impression that we all are required to adopt this wording. Not that this phrase is new, but shouldn’t these parishes honor the approved translation just as all the rest do?

Please let me know if there are any documents that I can refer to when writing the pastors, as I plan to put together a resource for them to use when explaining the requirements to their ‘liturgy committee’.

 

[prayerandstudy]

This is what it says in

Sacram Liturgiam
Sacred Liturgy
1964

“For this reason, nobody else, not even a priest is entitled to add, subtract or change anything in the liturgy.”

 

[zab]

Liturgiam authenticam
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html
4. Norms pertaining to special types of texts
B. The Creed or Profession of Faith

1. By means of the Creed (Symbolum) or profession of faith, the whole gathered people of God respond to the word of God proclaimed in the Sacred Scriptures and expounded in the homily, recalling and confessing the great mysteries of the faith by means of a formula approved for liturgical use.[42] The Creed is to be translated according to the precise wording that the tradition of the Latin Church has bestowed upon it, including the use of the first person singular, by which is clearly made manifest that “the confession of faith is handed down in the Creed, as it were, as coming from the person of the whole Church, united by means of the Faith.”[43] In addition, the expression carnis resurrectionem is to be translated literally wherever the Apostles’ Creed is prescribed or may be used in the Liturgy.[44]

 

[Mumbles140]

I haven’t noticed it in the Creed, but I have heard it during the Liturgy of the Eucharist:

“May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s holy church.”

 

[PJH_74]

including the use of the first person singular,

That would mean I and my.

 

[Phemie]

I haven’t noticed it in the Creed, but I have heard it during the Liturgy of the Eucharist:

“May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s holy church.”

Oh ICEL tried to make that one official when they were translating the revised Second Typical Edition of the Roman Missal but it was rejected.

From **March 2002 “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal”
**Your Excellency,

After some time to reflect upon contacts in recent months with the Presidents of a certain number of Conferences of Bishops in whose territory the Liturgy of the Roman Rite is habitually celebrated in English, this congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments addresses the present letter to you and to your brother Bishops regarding the translation of the* Missale Romanum, editio typica altera.
*
Obviously the promulgation of the *editio typica tertia *would have necessitated a number of adaptations to the translation in any event. Even so, as many have already correctly surmised, there are additional substantial reasons for which this Congregation is regrettably unable to accord the recognitio to this text in the form in which it was submitted.

(snip)

C. After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy * a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.

 

[Brendan_64]

This is what it says in

Sacram Liturgiam
Sacred Liturgy
1964

“For this reason, nobody else, not even a priest is entitled to add, subtract or change anything in the liturgy.”

The Liturgy is not the property of either the priest or the congregation. The Liturgy is supposed to be celebrated exactly as prescribed with no alterations. If only that was observed, but often it isn’t observed. The Liturgy should reflect the mind of the Church, not the mind of the priest or the congregation. The priest has no right to alter the words or actions of the Liturgy (outside of the options already laid down as part of the Liturgy).

 

[zab]

That would mean I and my.

Yes, that would be correct—“I believe in one God…” is what we now recite instead of “We believe…” (off hand , I’m not sure where the “my” fits in the Creed. I’d have to recite again )

 

[pnewton]

Please let me know if there are any documents that I can refer to when writing the pastors, as I plan to put together a resource for them to use when explaining the requirements to their ‘liturgy committee’.

The only document that should be needed is that Sacramentary. The correct words are in black and white.

These other translations are accurate, and would be fine, if the were approved. They weren’t approved though, at least in the last translation.

 

[ProVobis]

Please let me know if there are any documents that I can refer to when writing the pastors, as I plan to put together a resource for them to use when explaining the requirements to their ‘liturgy committee’.

I suggest submitting the Latin:

Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem
Who for us men, and for our salvation

if that’s what you’re arguing.

 

[ProVobis]

C. After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy * a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.

FWIW, here’s the Latin

*Orate, fratres: ut meum ac vestrum sacrificium
acceptabile fiat apud Deum Patrem omnipotentem.

Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis,
ad laudem et gloriam nominis sui,
ad utilitatem quoque nostram, totiusque Ecclesiæ suæ sanctæ.*

if you don’t like the translation.

.

 

[commenter]

I haven’t noticed it in the Creed, but I have heard it during the Liturgy of the Eucharist:

“May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good and the good of all God’s holy church.”

This is likely a graver wrong than the example in the OP, which bends the wording for “horizontal” inclusive language - make women and men feel equally welcome.

This represents “vertical” inclusive language - clumsy wording with reference to God.

 

[LongingSoul]

I suggest submitting the Latin:

Qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem
Who for us men, and for our salvation

if that’s what you’re arguing.

Does it mean only male person salvation or does it mean human salvation which could be conveyed by ‘us’ alone in modern English? I can understand if it was changed to ‘for us women and our salvation’ there’d be cause for uproar… but for clarity, dropping the ‘men’ seems so inconsequential to the meaning.

 

[ProVobis]

Does it mean only male person salvation or does it mean human salvation which could be conveyed by ‘us’ alone in modern English?

Vires would be “males” and homines is mankind, if you will. Us alone would be too vague IMO. Thanks for asking.

I’m not sure how it works in Spanish.

 

[graciew]

Vires would be “males” and homines is mankind, if you will. Us alone would be too vague IMO. Thanks for asking.

I’m not sure how it works in Spanish.

Homines as mankind.
No issues with that in Spanish.

And funny though :MANkind…and we understand it .

 

[LongingSoul]

Homines as mankind.
No issues with that in Spanish.

And funny though :MANkind…and we understand it .

I wonder why we don’t just say “for mankind and for our salvation” in English? It’s the proper translation afterall! I think that sometimes we ‘English first language’ speakers are just trying to excerpt our dominance! We’re egotists!

 

[graciew]

I wonder why we don’t just say “for mankind and for our salvation” in English? It’s the proper translation afterall! I think that sometimes we ‘English first language’ speakers are just trying to excerpt our dominance! We’re egotists!

You are funny,guys!!:yup:

 

[otjm]

I wonder why we don’t just say “for mankind and for our salvation” in English? It’s the proper translation afterall! I think that sometimes we ‘English first language’ speakers are just trying to excerpt our dominance! We’re egotists!

Because then the push would be for “humankind”?

 

[Chatter163]

This unauthorized practice is not new. I head it done many times in the 80s and 90s. It slowed down after Liturgiam Authenticam in 2001, and when the new translation of the missal in 2011 continued it. There may be a disgruntled priest who is left over from that period, and figures that the current pontificate is a good time to try it again.

 

[graciew]

Because then the push would be for “humankind”?

…and humanus comes from homo in latin so…the merry- go- round ,goes.round and round to leave it as it is and it was for a reason !!