[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.

[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.

[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.