Does the Nicene Creed Have Sexist Language?

Yes I have indeed noticed this error. I asked several local priests about it and they all said that no words can be omitted. I even went as far as calling in on an EWTN radio show for further clarification.

The consensus was; No words of the Nicene Creed can be changed or omitted. That goes for the rest of the liturgy as well. Unfortunately this does not stop certain feminist liberal factions within the Church. These cafeteria Catholics force their twisted view of Catholicism on the rest of the congregation including the priests.

I have witnessed several priests in my diocese omit the word "men" from the Nicene Creed. Thankfully mostly all the parishioners did not follow suit. I think these priests succumbed to the nonstop onslaught by these people.(The same people who loudly shout "God" rather than "His" during responses).

When the priest started doing this in my childhood church I switched to a different Catholic Church. That was the last straw for me.

Dear Daniel and Nate,

Let me start with being clear that I do not think we should translate personal pronouns that refer to God or Jesus (in the Bible or Creeds with anything other than "he" or "him." But when referring to human beings in general, this is another matter all together.

There is really no error involved in the use of “for us, and for our salvation he came down from heaven” when reciting the creed. There is no error, nor are we insulting or infringing upon the teaching of the Fathers of the council of Constantinople by using “us” instead of “men.”

Why not?

Because, the problem is with the limits of English translations of the Greek and Latin versions of the Nicene Creed (Greek text found in Acts of the First Council of Constantinople in Mansi, Conc. Tom. III. P.565; Latin text found in Canones Concilii Constantinop. Ex interpr. Dionysii Exig. In Mansi, Tom. III. P. 567).

The Greek text reads: “ton di’ hēmas tous anthrōpous kai dia tēn hēmeteran sotērion katelthonta ek tōn ouranōn.”

This translates thusly: “ton di’ hēmas” = “for us”; “tous anthrōpous” = human beings/men; “kai dia tēn hēmeteran sotērion” = and for our salvation; “katelthonta ek tōn ouranōn”= he came down from heaven.

The Greek “tous anthrōpous” is best represented in English, as far as meaning goes, with “human beings”, or “human kind”, because that is what the word “anthrōpos” in Greek means. That is what the Fathers of Constantinople would have understood when they heard the word “anthrōpos”. They would not have imagined putting together the letters M-A-N to phonetically produce “Man”. In fact, in Greek the word for “man” as in “male” is “anēr” not “anthrōpos” as the creed has it. The word for the female (woman) is “gynē”. And neither “anēr” nor “gynē” appear in the Creed.

The problem is the same with the Latin version where the word in the creed is “homines”=”human being” or “human kind” as far as meaning goes. The male word for “man”= “vir” is not in the creed, nor, of course, is either “femina” or “mulier”=”woman”.

So, you see, there is a problem with English, and not either Greek or Latin. The problem is that in English the same word is used colloquially for male human beings AND for human beings in general = “man”. So, the use of “us” or “human kind” or something like that, is simply clarifying exactly what the Fathers were intending to articulate.

Again, when they recited the Creed, they did not even imagine the word in question possibly being misunderstood the way it is in English because Latin and Greek are much more precise than Enlgish is (man? Male? Not female? What about women? Etc. etc.). The Problem is with the limits of English.

I wish that we could clearly articulate what the Fathers intended by “tous anthrōpous” in our translation of the creed into English, without leaving it out (using just “us”). But to use “human kind” or “human being” is too awkward. So I think “us” is just fine.

The folks at EWTN are simply reacting negatively to change at this instance, and not thinking clearly about what the Fathers intended to say.

I just wanted to be clear about what I think are the ramifications of my suggestions made to Daniel and Nate as far as the English translation of the Nicene Creed goes. And i think its easiest to do this, by quoting Daniel, and responding in light of the longer response.

"Also, one should probably err on the side of obedience before deciding to change a statement of the Faith that has been formulated by the bishops at the Council of Constantinople."

Because the words used in the Greek and Latin versions of the creed intend to refer to "human kind" in the first place, there is no disobedience involved in trying to find the best way to articulate that intent. Our English word "man" can mean both "man" as in male, and "man" as in "human kind" or "human beings." It is no wonder that some would have a problem with the choice of "man" given its dual meaning. English has clearer ways to articulate the intent of the ancient Fathers, clearer than "man."

Put another way for Daniel, it is not "disobedience" to use "us" because the ancient Fathers surely did not intend for us English-speaking folks, a number of centuries later, to be sure and use the English word "man" to translate either "anthropos" or "homines". We just did what we thought was our best, at the time, using a relatively cumbersome language.

Peace.

I personally have never heard the word "men" being left out of the Creed. The parishioners at the very traditional Catholic Church I attend wouldn't take well to a change like that. Of course "men" or "man" means humankind. Just the same as when I hear "Man doesn't live by bread alone...", I know I'm included in that statement. I'm a woman and have never felt as if the Creed didn't include me in the statement "For us men...". There is no reason for the clarification....ridiculous. On a smaller scale, I've noticed that my most favorite childhood Catholic hymn has been changed. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brother, that you do unto me" has been changed to "Whatsoever you do to the least of my people....". I guess "sisters" felt left out... who knows?

This political correct stuff has gotten way out of hand... just my opinion.

Mary,

Interesting you bring up "Man does not live by bread alone," because where that appears in the NT (Matt 4:4 & Luke 4:4) anthrōpos is the word in the Greek. Again, the ancient authors meaning that humans do not live by bread alone.

I think that this discussion is really only symptomatic of a larger, lingering struggle in the Church. On one hand, you have Traditionalists who, in the interest of faithfully protecting the integrity of the Church's Tradition, are inclined to see any changes as an attack on that integrity. On the other hand, you have progressive Catholics who are interested in articulating Tradition faithfully and relevantly to people, where they are at. And of course, all of this translates into, or is often transalted out of political motivations - in our divide political climate today.

Political correct-ness has gotten out of hand, but I think that there is much to learn, and that we have learned about ourselves, from it.

That's what I think.

Jack,

Very interesting information. Still, would it not be easier for the pastor to explain his omission rather than causing scandal? I see no benefit in this practice outside of bolstering the liberal agenda inside the Church.

I always remember the phrase, "those who are obedient in small things will be obedient in great things". Likewise I think the opposite is true.

If "human kind" is the most direct translation I suppose I would be most comfortable with that. The ultimate decision to change or omit words approved in the Creed does not lie with a parish priest. I don't wish to nit-pick priests because they deal with enough criticism, but things like this annoy me because they should know better.

This may be a little off the subject, but I think it ties together with liberalism in the Church.

My family recently attended a Catholic Church outside our parish. When giving the homily, the priest stated that he believed that priests should be allowed to marry. About half the congregation clapped. My husband and I (along with others) looked at each other with wide eyes and disbelief. Are priests allowed to say things against Church doctrine during Mass? Maybe if he wants to give his opinion on his own time, that's fine, but we thought it was totally inappropriate to say that during Mass.

I just think that opinions that go against official Church teachings, and omitting words from the Creed during Mass should not be done unless the Magisterium OK's it.

I love my traditional Catholic Parish Church and my conservative priest!!

I agree with you Nate, that causing scandal is not a good thing. This is where/when a pastor/priest/bishop should exercise caution and utilize sensitivity before just making a change without talking about it first.

Case, in point. A priest at my parish, pushing a conservative/traditionalist agenda, right in the middle of the liturgy of the Eucharist says this:

"Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Accípite, et manducáte ex hoc omnes hoc est enim corpus meum."

Needless to say, the unannounced, sudden insertion of Latin threw the majority of the congregation off - and right in the middle of their prayer! This caused a scandal that bothered even the traditionalists in the congregation who want to have the Latin rite as a regular part of our Parish's life, but want it introduced properly, without ambushing an unwitting congregation in a way that disrupts their experience of the Eucharist.

Peace.

John Jack Mary Nate

A pretty neat conversation. I do have a question for John.

You imply that unlike the traditionalists, progressives seek to articulate Tradition faithfully. In the next breath, you note that political correctness has gotten out of hand.

Is your prior statement on automaton traditionalists a non "politically correct statement?"

In Love

when we were one

we were one,

I wrote On one hand, you have Traditionalists who, in the interest of faithfully protecting the integrity of the Church's Tradition, are inclined to see any changes as an attack on that integrity. On the other hand, you have progressive Catholics who are interested in articulating Tradition faithfully and relevantly to people, where they are at.

I can see how that can be read as suggesting that Traditionalists are not faithfully seeking to articulate Tradition. I did not mean to say that. I think most Traditionalists are faithful, just as I think that some progressive Catholics seek change for no-good reason. But neither change “as such” is bad, nor “change for the sake of change” good.

My experience of some Traditionalists is that they react negatively to any change whatsoever, seemingly functioning with a presupposition that any change is disobedient or un-helpful (change as such = bad). Thus, some Traditionalists wouldn’t really care about the original words of the creed in Greek and Latin, let alone what those words actually mean, since the creed we say at Mass is in English.

On the other hand, progressive Catholics are just as susceptible to ignoring important things, like what ancient texts actually say, in order to advance change.

Fidelity must go deeper than any translation of the text, as inevitably, much is always lost in translation.

Mary,

Did the priest say that priests should be allow to marry or that married men should be allowed to become priests?

While current practices don't regularly permit either, I am of the understanding that the issue of allowing married men to become priests is a legitimate area of debate for Catholics (such as capital punishment and the American presence in Iraq).

I am also of the understanding that clergy who get laicized remain priests and may get married but they may not otherwise function as priests except in cases of emergency.

Nevertheless, I remain doubtful that accepting more married men into the seminaries will provide any tangible benefit to the Church. The wife of Admiral Poindexter, when being interviewed about her conversion to the Roman Catholic faith, said there was much evidence in the Protestant communities that married clergy does not solve the vocations crisis.

We have the Diaconate for married men. I thought it sounded like a good idea until my second child. Now with a third on the way it seems even less likely. My family already takes up all my free time. How could I be a deacon not to mention a priest!?

Back on topic:

I would consider myself a conservative Catholic. I'm all for change as long as it comes from the Magisterium. The new more accurate English translation of the Missal is out. This "change" has not been received well by progressive/liberal Catholics. I have a feeling these proper translations will continue to be frowned on by those who like blazing their own trail.

Burnt,

To be honest, I'm not sure of the exact wording. It could have been stated either way. Either way, I'm picturing priest, wife, children... much like the Protestant preachers. I agree that this may be a subject of discussion to some, and a there's a possibility that there could be a change in the future since priest celebacy is not apostolic tradition. My disbelief is that it was mentioned during Mass.

I think if a priest wants to give his opinion that priests should be allowed to marry, he should do that on his own time, not Mass. In much the same way, if a priest thinks "men" should be omitted from the Nicene Creed, he should wait until the Magisterium changes the Creed. Until then, he can talk about it and discuss it OUTSIDE of Mass all he wants.

Whatever the Magisterium decides regarding priests marrying, or "men" being omitted from the Creed, I have faith that it will be the right decision. I fully trust the Magisterium's decisions regarding the Church. The Catholic Church will be fine either way. The Holy Spirit will always guide the Church in the right direction. As Catholics, we should all be obedient to the Magisterium's decisions regarding doctrine, even if we don't always understand or even agree. I'm a very strong willed person, this isn't always easy for me :)

Jack, while I laud all efforts to move our liturgical translations closer towards the original Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, shouldn't these changes come at a Diocesan or higher level rather than at the discretion of the priest?

Nate, Traditionalists also frown upon liturgical changes from the Magisterium. The change from "Holy Ghost" to "Holy Spirit" was deeply resented from the Latin-is-best crowd despite "spirit" being a Latin word.

Speaking of changes to the liturgy, where did the practice of applauding after Mass come from? It makes me cringe every time.

Mary, I'm pretty sure you're absolutely right in saying that debatable positions should be advanced outside of Mass.

Burnt,

That's funny you mentioned clapping after Mass. This same congregation that clapped after the priest's "marrying comment" also clapped after the closing hymn. I wanted to know why, so I asked the lady that was sitting next to me, "Why did everyone just clap?" I thought I had missed something. She looked at me like what do you think and said, "For the choir." Just like the Protestant churches I thought.

I'm surprised because my husband and two older children are part of the choir at our parish Church. They work super hard with practices etc..., and it is beautiful, but there is NO clapping. I've never heard of such a thing. I asked my children how they would feel about the congregation clapping and they said "they would be embarrassed and it would be weird".

As proud as I am of my husband and children for participating in the choir, their performances are not a "show". Clapping is for shows. They are only there to compliment the Mass. I hate to pick on this other Church, but I also noticed the choir was so close to the alter. I think people were looking more at them... it was like a show. The choir should be away from the alter, as to not distract.

In defense of the congregation, I think they are just trying to be polite and show their gratitude by applauding. The priest should see and solve the problem.

Burnt,

Yep! Such changes should come "anōthen," that is, "from above" (couldn't resist). Like you, I think that priests should be praying what is officially sanctioned by the Bishop, USCCB, or Vatican. I was just suggesting that, as far as the original tongue goes, "us" or "humankind" or something like that more precisely reflects the Greek and Latin.

I think that most priests who make such changes are probably quite unaware of the Greek or Latin originals, and are just trying not to hurt anyone's feelings.

USCCB.... How I wish that fun little group never formed.