On the Feminized Novus Ordo: Local Controversy

Jay's Analysis ^ | 09/26/2010 | Jay008

[0beron]

Local Novus Ordo Priest has Communist Prayers and Genderless Creed

By: Jay

It is a bad thing to be a red-blooded male and attend a Novus Ordo liturgy locally. Before the mass began, it was asked of the crowd if anyone would like to do the readings that has been trained. I am familiar with how to conduct a traditional Latin Mass as well as how to operate in the Novus Ordo as a server and reader. I offered, but was turned down, because a college girl had offered her skills. I protested that the Catholic theological norm was that the altar role of serving and reading was ideally for men. This met with a fury of protest as I would later discover, but the priest assured me that the bishop here had set the norms that it was okay to allow women to run every aspect of the service. So not only was my overall point rejected (that it is more consistent and traditionally correct to choose male lectors, should they offer), I was told to go away and ask the bishop. So rather than make a sensible response to my point about tradition in general as regards male authority, Fr. Jason McClure (his email is here if you would like to send him some of your own thoughts). He made it clear that this is of no immediate concern to him, since the local bishop has given permission to do many things in the liturgy.

Not only was the mass basically ugly, it included several offensive to any who have a love of the reverent and holy. After our beautiful evangelical serenade..., the all-girl guitar band rested and I decided I was not going to let Fr. McClure scare me away ......

[Verginius Rufus]

The "for us men" in the Creed is propter nos homines in the Latin--that is, "men" in the sense of "human beings," not "men" in the sense of "male persons."

[Talisker]

The "for us men" in the Creed is propter nos homines in the Latin--that is, "men" in the sense of "human beings," not "men" in the sense of "male persons."

If that is so, there should be no objection to the dropping of the word "men," as it would supposedly not change the meaning at all.

[Unam Sanctam]

Yes, there would, because “us men” refers to the whole human race, while “us” could be just the people in the room or any indeterminate group. There is a definite loss of meaning when “men” is dropped.

[NTHockey]

This article could have been written at any time since the 1960’s. That is how long the LIBs have been making a mockery of Catholicism.

The Novus Ordo is as odious as DeathCare, invasive as cap and trade and more onerous than income taxes. It is the Law of Unintended Consequenses run amok.

Oh, and don’t bother complaining to the “bishop”. He will give you the bum’s rush for challenging his authority and demean you more than the “priest”. Been there; done that.

[Kolokotronis]

Another example of why the Orthodox laity, clergy and monastics are so very, very leery of any formal union of Rome with the Orthodox churches.

[JayDanza]

The original creed is Greek from Nicene/Constantinople I, and I guarantee you this priest wasn’t interested in being more faithful to the Latin. lol

[JayDanza]

That’s not the point. It is removed because it is purportedly offensive to women. No one questions whether Christ died for only men. You should know that.

[JayDanza]

[Note: some commenters absurdly thought that I was arguing that “men” must mean that Christ only died for males. Of course not, and no one ever thought that before these goofballs decided to drop it from the English wording of the Creed. That misses the whole point, which was to please feminists, who want it tossed out because it’s a masculine term. Why do you think feminsts reject the term “mankind”? Furthermore, the original Creed is Greek, not Latin, showing even more how silly nitpicking my point on this is. Grow up.]

[Verginius Rufus]

In the Greek the word used is anthropous which also means "human beings" (rather than males only).

The English language has merged two words that are separate in some other languages--German has Mensch and Mann for the two meanings of "man." When Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal," he meant "All human beings."

The feminist movement, for polemical reasons, has objected to the use of "man" or "mankind" to refer to the whole human race. The term "human beings" is a bit formal compared to Latin homines or Greek anthropoi, and "humans" has overtones of science fiction.

Leaving out the noun entirely in the English translation may not do trememdous harm, but it does make the translation a weaker reflection of the original. I'd suggest "folks" but Bill O'Reilly has hijacked that word.

[0beron]

Nice.