Pseudo-Athanasius,

I have no doubt the Assyrians and Chaldeans mean it that way. It does not however, change the fact that the use of "creatures" is at least as, if not more, confusing than omitting men.

From Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal:

"B. In the Creed, which has unfortunately also maintained the first-person plural "We believe" instead of the first-person singular of the Latin and of the Roman liturgical tradition, the above-mentioned tendency to omit the term "men" has effects that are theologically grave. This text ­"For us and for our salvation"-no longer clearly refers to the salvation of all, but apparently only that of those who are present. The "us" thereby becomes potentially exclusive rather than inclusive."
http://www.adoremus.org/CDW-ICELtrans.html

Note that the Cardinal does not state it is heresy to omit men only that it is potentially eclusive and that is fair enough, although I doubt anyone is going to think that "for us" refers only to those standing in the church at that Liturgy.

Again if Rome is going to let the Chaldeans use a Creed with a phrase that some could misinterpret as crypto-Nestorian (and I guarentee the Copts will view this phrase as such as they are always accusing Chalcedonians of being crypto-Nestorians anyway, never mind their disdain for the Assyrians, whom they condemn as Nestorians outright) I don't think they are going to do anything about omitting men, even though they don't like it.

It seems all our complaining about Latin meddling finally gained an ear in Rome. Now we will have to learn how to live with autonomy, even when we don't like it.

Fr. Deacon Lance