Author Topic: Question for the catholics on the forum...  (Read 7421 times)

uvakat

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« on: December 11, 2005, 03:18:14 PM »
So today was the first day I went to mass in about a year (lost my faith somewhere in college) and realized that the Nicene creed (you know the We believe in one God, etc) was changed from the way it was when I was growing up. Now this might be because I grew up in a very conservative diocese (still does not allow alter girls). During the prayer instead of saying "for us men and for our salvation" they said "for us people and for our salvation" Also they skipped the word catholic in the "We believe in one, Holy Catholic apostolic church". Is this the norm today? or is this church just very PC? I do not see how Catholic can offend anybody since Catholic is actually a synonym for universal. Apostolic is actually the limiting term.
Nothing like a couple hundred rounds down range to make a girl feel better.  

onions!

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2005, 03:28:24 PM »
Now,I don't even pretend to be religous but crap like this is part & parcel of the problem.
http://armedpolitesociety.com/viewtopic.php?id=2021

God forbid that somebody gets offended.Wink

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,453
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2005, 03:32:31 PM »
Regarding the word men.  Why can't folks understand that man is a generic term for humans.  God made man and He made them male and female.  To substitute another word exhibits overwhelming ignorance and displays the innanity of PC.

Sorry Uvakat for the grouchy comment.  

 Probably you were at a PC church.  I don't know for sure though, since I quit being Catholic years ago, when I became a catholic Christian.
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Bob F.

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,249
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2005, 03:38:54 PM »
As a former Catholic, fallen away Catholic, sinner, or what the hell ever I am, PCness is really beginnig to burn my a...after-parts! Actually, I was raised CAtholic but went through a divorce: "Sent $500 and we'll look at annulment". Now attend/belong to Lutheran church. Biggest complaint is that they really try not to offend anyone. They haven't made the changes of which you speak, though.

Stay safe.
Bob
"I always have my primary weapon, it's right between my ears."

lee n. field

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,585
  • tinpot megalomaniac, Paulbot, hardware goon
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2005, 04:09:14 PM »
Quote
Why can't folks understand that man is a generic term for humans.
Trouble is the touchy PC crowd is trying to change that usage.

Greek has two words translated as man.   Aner (someday I'll have to figure out how to do Greek script in a web board context) is man, in contrast to woman or boy.  Anthropos is man (meaning human).  Without having the original handy, and my Greek skills being many years rusty, my guess is that the original was anthropos, and this is a modern PC but accurate translastion of the Nicene Creed.

The gender-neutral thing can get weird sometimes.  Back ten-ish years ago we were scouting out churches in this town.   At one Presbyterian church (PCUSA, naturally) the Lord's Prayer started out "Our Father and Mother in Heaven".  Sorry.  Beyond the pale!  We didn't go back.
In thy presence is fulness of joy.
At thy right hand pleasures for evermore.

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2005, 04:55:18 PM »
uvakat,

I posted here the other day, and decided to reply to your question as I was browsing tonight. (I'm Catholic, btw) The official Nicene Creed of the Catholic Church has not been changed. The creed still says "for us men and for our salvation," not "for us people and for our salvation." Also, the Nicene creed still says "We believe in one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church." The word Catholic is still part of the creed. The individual parish that you attended Mass at changed the creed themselves to make it more PC. I'm sorry to say that there are many liberal parishes and priests in the Catholic Church of the United States that do not always follow the official rubrics of the Roman Catholic Church.

//quote
I do not see how Catholic can offend anybody since Catholic is actually a synonym for universal. Apostolic is actually the limiting term. //quote

So true!

Hope this clears up any confusion you may have experienced!

Tan

Kharn

  • friend
  • New Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 71
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2005, 03:53:54 PM »
My church still uses "Holy, catholic and apostolic church" and "for us men and our salvation".

I have heard of churches that are in such (minor) states of schism, too bad the bishops arent as rigid as they should be on such matters.

MaterDei

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2005, 05:22:01 PM »
The Nicene Creed hasn't changed since the council of Nicea established it in the year 381.  If you're going to a so-called catholic church that is butchering it you need to do three things.

1.  Let the pastor know in no uncertain terms that if he wants to be something other than Catholic then he needs to go somewhere else because he is doing nothing in his current position but endangering peoples' souls, especially his own.

2.  Report this blatant abuse to your bishop.

3.  Go find a church like the one you grew up in and shake the dust off your sandals of that sorry excuse for a parish you are currently attending.

Have hope though!  Our Church is improving, one vocation at a time.  The liberal priests of the 60s and 70s are thankfully dying away and being replaced by younger more orthodox priests.  I know MANY young priests and seminarians who would absolutely blow their tops if they had seen this post.

MaterDei

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2005, 05:24:16 PM »
btw, welcome home!

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2005, 11:59:23 PM »
I believe that the "modern" wording is an acceptable variation of the "original" translation. The modern version is actually a more accurate translation of the text which runs afoul of some excentricities of the English language. The use of the word "catholic" in the older translation is a bit confusing to the modern reader as it actually refers to "all churches as a whole" rather than specifically to the "Catholic Church". Few people understand this use of the term, and with the English language the sentiment is actually more clear with the omission.

I dont really understand a lot of the arguments here. people are stating that the "modern" version is wrong but, then they cite that the meaning between the two is exactly the same. I understand that the usage of the word "men" is all-inclusive, but then again so is the word "people". When translating from Greek neither usage is incorrect, and the word "people" is more clearly understood to people who speak English, which makes it the better choice.

We are talking about a translated work. The only "original" version is one that is written in Greek. Any translation of that original is going to have differences.

MaterDei

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #10 on: December 15, 2005, 01:08:28 AM »
Quote from: c_yeager
I believe that the "modern" wording is an acceptable variation of the "original" translation. The modern version is actually a more accurate translation of the text which runs afoul of some excentricities of the English language. The use of the word "catholic" in the older translation is a bit confusing to the modern reader as it actually refers to "all churches as a whole" rather than specifically to the "Catholic Church". Few people understand this use of the term, and with the English language the sentiment is actually more clear with the omission.

I dont really understand a lot of the arguments here. people are stating that the "modern" version is wrong but, then they cite that the meaning between the two is exactly the same. I understand that the usage of the word "men" is all-inclusive, but then again so is the word "people". When translating from Greek neither usage is incorrect, and the word "people" is more clearly understood to people who speak English, which makes it the better choice.

We are talking about a translated work. The only "original" version is one that is written in Greek. Any translation of that original is going to have differences.
c_yeager, much of what you say is true but it misses the point.  Within the Catholic Church there is a teaching authority known as the Magistarium which is made up of the bishops of the Church in union with the Pope, or the Bishop of Rome.  This teaching authority has the duty and authority to dictate how the truths of the faith are to be taught and like it or not what they say goes.  The International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) has been given the responsibility of translating all liturgical text into English.  Generally speaking they do a horrible job in this task but that is beside the point because what they say goes.  The english translation of the Nicene Creed that they have published (which is actually quite good) is the one required for use in the liturgy.  No priest or bishop, to include the Pope, can change this fact and use a version that they FEEL is better.

Furthermore, every priest in the world has taken a vow of obedience.  Although changing the word 'men' to 'people' seems like a small thing (though it is not and that is why these liberal priests alter it, but that is a discussion for another day), they are required, like it or not, to use the one given to them.  If these priests are willing to break their vows for this, what else are they willing to do and which other vows are they willing to break as they see fit?

This abuse is unacceptable and must be reported and stopped.

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #11 on: December 15, 2005, 02:41:54 AM »
I wasnt arguing that the modern interpretation of the creed is "legal" under the archaic and obscure laws of the Roman Catholic Churcn, simply that the modern version is truer to the original Greek than the traditional translation. The notion that accuracy has no relevance to the Vatican is not at all suprising.

The question that was asked was if it was "normal" not if it were stamped and approved by the Italians. The fact is that the version of the Nicene Creed that was said in her church is a common translation, despite the fact that it isnt an approved Roman Catholic translation.

Yes, one could certainly complain to their Bishop that their priest had failed to be in proper lock-step. Which would almost certainly result in a return to the official version. Lord knows that it would just be easier to do away with priests alltogether and just have an approved audio tape send straight from the Vatican every month with the word-for-word approved mass prepared for the faithfull. This mindless adherence to every single petty rule as handed down from on high on pain of excommuniction and banishment to the fires of hell is a big part of my decission to no longer attend a Catholic church. I dont need my religion to have to go through a comitee lest I be placed in a position of having to think for myself.

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #12 on: December 15, 2005, 07:16:04 AM »
c_yeager,

I would like to respectfully differ with you on some of your points. You mention, "The notion that accuracy has no relevance to the Vatican is not at all surprising." Not true. When an organization claims to be for the benefit of the spiritual good of man, it will attempt to be as accurate as possible in its actions.

You also mention, "The fact is that the version of the Nicene Creed that was said in her church is a common translation, despite the fact it isnt an approved Roman Catholic translation." That may be so. However, when one is a member of an organization, one normally agrees to abide by the regulations of the organization set forth by the authority of that organization. In the case of the Catholic Church, members, which include both priests and laypeople, need to abide by the rubrics of the Church, including using the translation of the Creed that the Vatican declared is to be used.

Finally, you said, "This mindless adherence to every single petty rule as handed down from on high on pain of excommunication and banishment to the fires of hell..." Firstly, within any large organization adherence to the rules, even seemingly unimportant ones, is crucial to the unity and survivial of that organization. In the the case of the Catholic Church, that is very true, and must work well, for the Church has survived as one united entity for almost 2,000 years. Also, pain of excommunication and banishment to the fires of hell are punishments that are not meted out by the Church, but brought upon oneself when one strays from the rubrics or teachings of the Church in a grave matter. Petty rules would not be considered grave matters, and would not bring excommunication or hell if one strayed from following them. However, one needs to follow them for the unity of the Church.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #13 on: December 15, 2005, 05:53:58 PM »
I was raised in the Lutheran church & learned the Nicene Creed, among much other doctrinal and Biblical data.

Our version of the NC was as you remember it from your old school (big-C) Catholic days...though we were always clear that the "C" was lower case, as in "universal," not Roman.  Some of the older parishoners would always manage to miss the word, however, when we all recited it during services.  

Anyway, I am of the mind that an organization has the right to make its own rules for obedience, membership, discipline, etc.  Roman Catholocism has a certain doctrine and rules.  It seems reasonable to me that the RC insist that those who claim membership adhere to the rules.  Otherwise, they aren't really (big-C) Catholics, now are they?

FWIW, I have more respect for denominations that stick to their doctrine/traditions/rules than those who don't really beleive in...much at all.  Even if I have serious problems with hteir doctrine, etc.  A person/organization that beleives in nothing will believe in just about anything.

uvakat, your faith is your business.  I would just counsel you that if you want to be an honest-to-goodness (big-C) Catholic, to find and honest-to-goodness Catholic church, not some wishy-washy Catholic church.  Accept no substitutes.  If you don't want to be a Catholic, there are plenty of denominations out there that believe what they teach & teach what they believe.

Man can not live on bread alone...and milquetoast is positively poisonous to faith.  Life is too short and eternity too long to build your faith on a limp simulacrum of the real deal.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #14 on: December 15, 2005, 07:02:08 PM »
Quote from: jfruser
I was raised in the Lutheran church & learned the Nicene Creed, among much other doctrinal and Biblical data.

Our version of the NC was as you remember it from your old school (big-C) Catholic days...though we were always clear that the "C" was lower case, as in "universal," not Roman.  Some of the older parishoners would always manage to miss the word, however, when we all recited it during services.  

Anyway, I am of the mind that an organization has the right to make its own rules for obedience, membership, discipline, etc.  Roman Catholocism has a certain doctrine and rules.  It seems reasonable to me that the RC insist that those who claim membership adhere to the rules.  Otherwise, they aren't really (big-C) Catholics, now are they?

FWIW, I have more respect for denominations that stick to their doctrine/traditions/rules than those who don't really beleive in...much at all.  Even if I have serious problems with hteir doctrine, etc.  A person/organization that beleives in nothing will believe in just about anything.

uvakat, your faith is your business.  I would just counsel you that if you want to be an honest-to-goodness (big-C) Catholic, to find and honest-to-goodness Catholic church, not some wishy-washy Catholic church.  Accept no substitutes.  If you don't want to be a Catholic, there are plenty of denominations out there that believe what they teach & teach what they believe.

Man can not live on bread alone...and milquetoast is positively poisonous to faith.  Life is too short and eternity too long to build your faith on a limp simulacrum of the real deal.
Great post, jfruser!

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,637
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #15 on: December 16, 2005, 06:25:09 AM »
Quote
Let the pastor know in no uncertain terms that if he wants to be something other than Catholic then he needs to go somewhere else because he is doing nothing in his current position but endangering peoples' souls, especially his own.
I can understand being upset that a few words are being changed from "ye olde and official" creed, but I'm curious as to how the preacher is endangering people's souls.  You've made a good argument that because of the preacher's vow of unquestioning obedience to the earthly government of the Roman Catholic church and its particular translations - fallible as you admit those translations may be - this change would be a violation, however tiny and well-meaning, of that vow and would speak poorly for him.

But my question is: Whose soul is endangered by saying "people" instead of "men"?

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #16 on: December 16, 2005, 06:43:49 AM »
//quote=cordex// But my question is: Whose soul is endangered by saying "people" instead of "men"? //quote//

The pastor is not endangering anyone's soul, if you read what I wrote above I mentioned that this is a minor matter. However, he should use the version of the Creed the Church wishes him to use because it fosters unity within the Church, (people aren't confused if they go to Mass at a different parish and here the Creed recited with the word "men" instead of "people") and sets a stellar example of his vows, his dedication to them, and the obedience required of him inherent in those vows.

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #17 on: December 16, 2005, 07:23:34 AM »
Quote from: Blackburn
I wanna buy me an indulgence!
Ahh, a trolling comment. Sorry Blackburn, you won't get a response from me about that. Only interested in serious discussion. (Now, if you have a legitimite question or gripe about indulgences, start a new thread and I'll do my best to respond.)

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,637
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #18 on: December 16, 2005, 07:35:19 AM »
Quote
The pastor is not endangering anyone's soul, if you read what I wrote above I mentioned that this is a minor matter.
MaterDei appeared to have a different view.  That was what I was curious about.

As to your remarks about unity, is unity of words more imporant than unity of understanding?

Please understand that I'm not trying to be obtuse or arguementative.  I've long been comfortable with questioning religious leaders within and outside my own faith and even refusing to accept what I consider a faulty understanding.  This issue appears to me to be, as you say, a very minor one, but others seem to have had a much greater reaction to it - going so far as to imply that because this change was made, worship at that church was in some way watered down.

MaterDei

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #19 on: December 16, 2005, 07:36:07 AM »
Quote from: cordex
Quote
Let the pastor know in no uncertain terms that if he wants to be something other than Catholic then he needs to go somewhere else because he is doing nothing in his current position but endangering peoples' souls, especially his own.
I can understand being upset that a few words are being changed from "ye olde and official" creed, but I'm curious as to how the preacher is endangering people's souls.  You've made a good argument that because of the preacher's vow of unquestioning obedience to the earthly government of the Roman Catholic church and its particular translations - fallible as you admit those translations may be - this change would be a violation, however tiny and well-meaning, of that vow and would speak poorly for him.

But my question is: Whose soul is endangered by saying "people" instead of "men"?
Tangent, Cordex was questioning my quote, I believe.

How is it endangering his parishioners' souls?  Directly, it's not.  However, just the existence of this thread is an indication that what this priest has done has caused confusion.  Confusion about what one believes and how they practice their faith drives people away from attending Church which in turn endangers their souls.  Besides, you can bet that if his vows mean so little to him that he would be willing to break them for what we all agree is a minor issue then there are probably a lot of other abuses going on in his parish.

c_yeager, there is nothing to see here.  Put your anti-Catholic rhetoric down and slowly step away.

MaterDei

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #20 on: December 16, 2005, 07:44:42 AM »
Quote from: cordex
Quote
The pastor is not endangering anyone's soul, if you read what I wrote above I mentioned that this is a minor matter.
MaterDei appeared to have a different view.  That was what I was curious about.

As to your remarks about unity, is unity of words more imporant than unity of understanding?

Please understand that I'm not trying to be obtuse or arguementative.  I've long been comfortable with questioning religious leaders within and outside my own faith and even refusing to accept what I consider a faulty understanding.  This issue appears to me to be, as you say, a very minor one, but others seem to have had a much greater reaction to it - going so far as to imply that because this change was made, worship at that church was in some way watered down.
Worship in many Catholic churches HAS been watered down.  When Christ established the Church He did so intending for it to be 'one'.  That is why He established the papacy, to assure oneness within His church.  Unless rules are established and then followed oneness goes away very quickly.  Inclusive language doesn't sound bad on the surface but it resides right at the precipice of a very slippery slope.  With inclusiveness, Father, Son and Holy Spirit quickly become Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier and other such very damaging nonsense ensues.

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #21 on: December 16, 2005, 07:59:56 AM »
Quote from: cordex
As to your remarks about unity, is unity of words more imporant than unity of understanding?
I fully believe that unity of words ensures unity of understanding.


Quote from: cordex
Please understand that I'm not trying to be obtuse or arguementative.  I've long been comfortable with questioning religious leaders within and outside my own faith and even refusing to accept what I consider a faulty understanding.  This issue appears to me to be, as you say, a very minor one, but others seem to have had a much greater reaction to it - going so far as to imply that because this change was made, worship at that church was in some way watered down.
You didn't seem to obtuse or argumentative. I don't mind. I like this discussion, you seem sincerely interested, and I try to respond the best I can.

However, comments like Blackburn's are argumentative, flame-fest-forming trolling.

Guest

  • Guest
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #22 on: December 16, 2005, 08:02:19 AM »
Quote from: MaterDei
Tangent, Cordex was questioning my quote, I believe.
Oh, I see. Sorry.

Quote from: MaterDei
How is it endangering his parishioners' souls?  Directly, it's not.  However, just the existence of this thread is an indication that what this priest has done has caused confusion.  Confusion about what one believes and how they practice their faith drives people away from attending Church which in turn endangers their souls.  Besides, you can bet that if his vows mean so little to him that he would be willing to break them for what we all agree is a minor issue then there are probably a lot of other abuses going on in his parish.
The experience of the Catholic Church in the U.S. has shown that that is mostly unfortunately true.

cosine

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,734
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #23 on: December 16, 2005, 08:22:59 AM »
This is Tangent. I decided to register with the name I go by on other forums.

Quote from: Blackburn
I'm not trying to form an argument. I'm thinking if I can get a bulk discount on some one-size-fits-all indulgences, that'll be the perfect christmas card stuffer.
It would be great and convenient if the Catholic Church did that, but sorry, it is not possible.
Andy

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,637
Question for the catholics on the forum...
« Reply #24 on: December 16, 2005, 09:48:17 AM »
Quote from: Cosine/Tangant
I fully believe that unity of words ensures unity of understanding.
Would that it were so!
Quote from: MaterDei
How is it endangering his parishioners' souls?  Directly, it's not.  However, just the existence of this thread is an indication that what this priest has done has caused confusion.  Confusion about what one believes and how they practice their faith drives people away from attending Church which in turn endangers their souls.  Besides, you can bet that if his vows mean so little to him that he would be willing to break them for what we all agree is a minor issue then there are probably a lot of other abuses going on in his parish.
Some good points.
One thing:
Quote from: MaterDei
Confusion about what one believes and how they practice their faith drives people away from attending Church which in turn endangers their souls.
Might it not be confusing to one who subscribes to the Catholic faith that they must use the translation as defined by ICEL - who in your opinion generally tend to muck things up - simply because "what they say goes"?

Personally, one thing that always turned me off of Catholicism was the idea that one was expected to obey - not the perfect teachings of a perfect diety - but an imperfect governing body of humans who you have to depend on to tell you what those teachings mean, how to go about following them and so forth.  Of course, this is present in other churches to different extents.
Quote from: MaterDei
Worship in many Catholic churches HAS been watered down.  When Christ established the Church He did so intending for it to be 'one'.  That is why He established the papacy, to assure oneness within His church.  Unless rules are established and then followed oneness goes away very quickly.
I was under the impression that the papacy was established by Emperor Phocas in the early 600s AD when the term "pope" was first used, or at the earliest when the title Vicar of Peter was changed to Vicar of Christ by the Roman Synod in 490-something AD.  As to the primacy of Peter ... well ... I'm undecided on that.  While I've studied the history of the early Christian church, I see a huge gap between the New Testament and the office of the Pope today.
Quote from: MaterDei
Inclusive language doesn't sound bad on the surface but it resides right at the precipice of a very slippery slope.
How is changing "men" to "people" as using "inclusive" language?  Isn't it simply an entirely accurate, alternate translation?