I have already read your article about the welcome changes to the English in the forthcoming Missal (February AD2000). One thing that I have read elsewhere is that the first draft of the new English version of the Creed translates "qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem" as "who for us and for our salvation".
My own parish has been displaying this mistranslation for more than a year on its overhead during Masses. Indeed, many churches around the world promote this restriction of Divine purpose.
In the context of saying the Creed, "us" on its own means those who are actually saying the prayer. This is normal English usage of what "us" means. But the Word did not become flesh just for one congregation. Meanwhile, the feminists amongst us have caused the word "men" to be deleted from this part of the Creed because they say it excludes women and children.
They, in fact, are the divisive ones, for while they claim it excludes them, common English for centuries has understood that the word "men" can be both gender specific and generic. But the feminists now tell us this is unacceptable. It is they who have changed the Creed - no doubt an infallible change to an infallible Creed.
How does the Vox Clara Committee respond to this situation?
I would accept the translation to read "for all mankind and for its salvation". Homines is translated as "mankind", but since the possessive pronoun "its" is neuter this makes clear "mankind" is generic and not gender specific. Secondly, use of the adjective "all" emphasises the universality and totality of the Divine salvific mission.
I humbly suggest this is what the Creed should actually be saying because it is what the Council of Nicea was defining as the truth.