I can imagine some gnashing of teeth on inclusive language issues: “communion” replaces “fellowship,” “his people on Earth” becomes “people of good will.” Only “men” are being saved in the Creed, though.
All the world’s English-language musicians can get cracking on writing the Mass setting of the 21st century and leapfrogging to the top of the publishing industry’s in-box. Remember that some composers have already said they probably won’t revise old settings.
Catholic Sensibility 
So far, the only significant gnashing appears to be concerning copyright issues – so far, the text changes appear to be received very well at St Blog’s – and NLM has already sent a communication to the powers to be about that, so as to facilitate what you suggest here….
Only “men” are being saved in the Creed, though.
There’s a poetic parallel retained the translation of homines and homo as “men” and “man”. Can we get past the faux sexism of the Creed?
All the world’s English-language musicians can get cracking on writing the Mass setting of the 21st century and leapfrogging to the top of the publishing industry’s in-box.
Some modern liturgical composers publish their compositions freely, on their own.
Remember that some composers have already said they probably won’t revise old settings.
How magnanimous and humble of them!
Jeff:
Yes, not only is it poetic, it is also an important theological point.
Ah well, theology, schmeology!
Perhaps …
But if “vir” is definitively translated as “man” as opposed to “femina,” the translation of “homo” as “man” is just not accurate. Or as accurate as it once might have been.
Is this a reading of “poetry” into the new texts as an excuse for sexism in some instances, but similar poetry avoided when it can be composed from the vernacular? I detect more than a faint whiff of hypocrisy in this whole thing coming from Rome–most unseemly.
Because “man” has not lost its general usage in the English language yet. I still hear it used generally, not just on the street but even on mass media – NPR no less. It’s not longer exclusively so, but still fairly common. To expect the translation to anticipate prescriptively what is yet to be accomplished fact as a descriptive matter is I think not something to get in a lather about.
When “men/man” stops being a regularly employed word for the whole of humanity and is stuck in obsolescence, I don’t see why it should be in a translation of the Mass. But for now, it’s still commonly used. Additionally, in French the plural for a group of people of mixed gender is always male – should we ban translations in that “sexist” language as well?
Give the rest of the world a break and stop trying to legislate your view of language on the rest of us anglophones. I’m not giving in, and most everyone else doesn’t see the political value of the elimination of “men”.
Fr Martin Fox – not only is it poetic, it is also an important theological point.
Well, yes, that goes without saying! ;)
Todd – That’s why we have context. I pity and will pray for any misguided woman (or man) who misinterprets the current or future translation of the Creed as reserving salvation to males.
Todd:
If the Credo had been translated, “for us human beings and for our salvation, he came down from heaven…and became a human being, although clunky, it would express the same theological point.
My guess is the vast majority of ordinary people would (a) not prefer this and (b) would, if asked if “men…man” raises a question about the salvation of women, would answer correctly, if not with a weird glance as if to say, what a dumb question.
“Men” is not an “inaccurate” expression of hominem, because while men has become better associated with the male sex, it is still grasped by ordinary people as denoting men and women, in context.
In any case, “human beings…human being” was not presented to Rome, rather: “for us and for our salvation….” And that was a theologically weaker expression–Rome made it stronger. One wonders why the bishops didn’t send “human beings…human being”…?
Didn’t I say “only ‘men'” were being saved? While I caught you all on the context, I said the same thing, didn’t I?
While I realize that some English-speakers frequently use “men” in the sense of all human beings, a few things:
1. Not all.
2. A sense of humor seems to be a frisky thing when Mark Shea, for example, skewers contemporary songs and claims to have a good laugh over it. It seems another thing for me to poke fun outside of my circle and then get called on things like context and accuracy.
Just saying.
Except that a infinite regression gotcha is devoid of wit. I didn’t think you were that devoid of wit.
The context of “only men” makes me think “men to the exclusion of who?” The logical conclusion (for me, at least) is that you are thinking “men to the exclusion of women”.
Here’s an example. In your analysis of Apostolicam Actuositatem 2, you quote the document like so: “The Church was founded for the purpose of spreading the kingdom of Christ throughout the earth for the glory of God the Father, to enable all … to share in His saving redemption, and that through them the whole world might enter into a relationship with Christ.”
I looked up the document to see what you elided: the single word “men”. For what reason? Was it not clear from the context of the article — or the whole document — that Vatican II meant to include ALL people (not just adult males) in its use of the word homines (“men”)?