was it wise to change the mass?

[MarkThompson]

Sorry, are you saying that you think those pictures illustrate “homo” being translated as “person”?

No, but “homines” being translated as “people,” which is of course equivalent. For reasons which ought to be obvious, it is difficult to do much of a search for the word “homo.”

I said there’s no difference in English between “people” andthat sense of “men”. However in Latin “hominibus” means “to/for men”.

So are you back to thinking that “homo / hominibus” means “men” in the gender-restricted, male-only sense? Otherwise, which is the sense of “men” in which “hominibus” does mean “to/for men” but not “to/for people”?

I was pointing out your inconsistency that **you **say you find. “people” in the Creed, but not so in the Gloria.

There’s nothing inconsistent about it at all. It is awkward in the one place, and not in the other. Just like the word “chalice” would have been awkward in “when we eat this bread and drink this chalice,” but is perfectly fine in “he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands,” even though it is the same Latin word, “calix,” that appears in both places.

 

[nickybr38]

Are you kidding me?

Can’t we just trust the Church to make the proper translation and leave it at that? Must we split hairs?

 

[Petergee]

No, but “homines” being translated as “people,” which is of course equivalent.

You mean “people” is equivalent to “person”? Well no, of course it’s not.

So are you back to thinking that “homo / hominibus” means “men” in the gender-restricted, male-only sense?

No, because I have never thought, or written, that. “Viri” is the Latin word which means “men” in the gender-restricted, male-only sense.

There’s nothing inconsistent about it at all. It is awkward in the one place, and not in the other. Just like the word “chalice” would have been awkward in “when we eat this bread and drink this chalice,” but is perfectly fine in “he took this precious chalice in his holy and venerable hands,” even though it is the same Latin word, “calix,” that appears in both places.

OK, a fair enough opinion, though not sure I agree.

 

[zab]

We have been using the new translations for over four and a half months now and the responses come so natural now. It may take a little longer for those who do not attend daily Mass. Yesterday we attended Mass near the state capital prior to the annual March For Life, and it was awkward having some parts of it with the new translation ("…and with your Spirit") and the rest, for example the Kyrie and Sanctus using Marty Haugen’sMass of Creation. I thought we were supposed to use all of the new translations.

 

[MarkThompson]

You mean “people” is equivalent to “person”? Well no, of course it’s not.

“People” is a standard plural of “person.” (See, e.g., here (modern), here (1874), here (1855); see also King Lear II.4.244, Macbeth I.7.36, Othello III.4.57, etc., etc.). Therefore the comparison holds. Homo : person :: homines : people.

No, because I have never thought, or written, that. “Viri” is the Latin word which means “men” in the gender-restricted, male-only sense.

Then I confess I must be totally missing your point. It’s not that you think the English word “people” can only be used in the sense of “a people” (populus), is it?