Biggest Change in New Liturgy

[brgregmack]

But in this case it is still the individual who is making a profession of faith.

… which also brings in another aspect. In saying, “I believe,” we make a personal statement of ownership. It evokes a sense of personal responsibility to reflect the Credo in our lives.

 

[ProVobis]

In this context, “may” implies capacity for something to occur, not the likelihood of the event.

Yes. The Latin is effundetur in remissionem peccatorum, effundetur being in the subjunctive and not necessarily in the future.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

sounds like it will take a bit of practice.

Yes, it will. Even those who remember the first English translation and the translations in the handmissals will have to use a pew card or something. The new translation is very, very similar to the translation that many people remember, but it isn’t exactly the same.

Our priests went through a series of explanations of the major changes in the congregation’s responses (same as discussed on this thread), and we’ve already started singing the new translations, to get used to the new settings, but it will still take a bit of getting used to!

 

[paperwight66]

In this context, “may” implies capacity for something to occur, not the likelihood of the event. Ponder the difference between “you may do that” and “I may let you”…this is an example of the former. QUOTE

This raises an interesting point, that is, how a correct formal translation can in fact, hinder understanding. Indeed, yes, the 'may. in this context refers back to the offering and expresses the purpose for which the offering is being made. Another example is ‘I came that they may have life’.

It has never occurred to me to understand it differently, as expressing uncertainty rather the (correctly) purpose, but I can see now it can be ambiguous, because we are not used to using English so formally.

Another example which always grates on me is the translation used when Our Lord is talking about in His Father’s house there are many rooms. His words are translated as, ‘If there were not, I should have told you’, which to modern ears usually equates to ‘I OUGHT TO have told you’. But in fact, there, 'should ’ is the correct first person singular and plural of the conditional, with the other persons taking ‘would’. In modern usage, most people would say ‘I would have’, not ‘I should have’ in that context.
"

 

[ProVobis]

In this context, “may” implies capacity for something to occur, not the likelihood of the event. Ponder the difference between “you may do that” and “I may let you”…this is an example of the former.

But the consecration goes:

Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et æterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis* effundetur **in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. *

Now to be translated as:

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new and eternal covenant; which **will be poured out **for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me.”

There is no subjunctive in the Latin, no more “may” in the English.

Current is

“Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”

 

[Digitonomy]

I still think “I believe” is a better expression of Church unity. We are ONE body, and not a confederation of individuals who can have their own opinions on doctrine.

I don’t understand your explanation at all.

If we are rating the level of unity shown by the two expressions, I would think “We believe” shows unity of belief, while “I believe” is more what you describe - a confederation of individuals who have their own opinions. These opinions happen to agree, since all are reciting the same thing together, but one can imagine individuals continuing on afterward with divergent follow-ups, “I also believe that…”

Or, more simply, I don’t think using “I” instead of “We” is a better demonstration of unity for the same reason that you chose to say “We are ONE body,” instead of “I am ONE body.”

 

[TheMc]

It’s easy to forget how things differ and that I used “The Word of the Lord” after readings in the US. I read the words in the Lectionary. Here the words are “This is the Word of the Lord,” at least until Advent.

Are you sure you are reading from an actual lectionary, or is it something else (like a binder) being used in place of one?

 

[TheMc]

I don’t understand your explanation at all.

If we are rating the level of unity shown by the two expressions, I would think “We believe” shows unity of belief, while “I believe” is more what you describe - a confederation of individuals who have their own opinions. These opinions happen to agree, since all are reciting the same thing together, but one can imagine individuals continuing on afterward with divergent follow-ups, “I also believe that…”

Or, more simply, I don’t think using “I” instead of “We” is a better demonstration of unity for the same reason that you chose to say “We are ONE body,” instead of “I am ONE body.”

But the point is, the creed doesn’t say credemus. It says credo. “we believe” shouldn’t have even started, so it’s kinda pointless arguing about weather it’s better or not. Credo, I believe, is better for one big reason: that’s what the text says.

 

[Digitonomy]

But the point is, the creed doesn’t say credemus. It says credo. “we believe” shouldn’t have even started, so it’s kinda pointless arguing about weather it’s better or not. Credo, I believe, is better for one big reason: that’s what the text says.

Your view on this is fine, but that’s not actually brgregmack’s point, which I was addressing. His point was that “I believe” is a better expression of unity.

 

[brgregmack]

Your view on this is fine, but that’s not actually brgregmack’s point, which I was addressing. His point was that “I believe” is a better expression of unity.

The point is, when we gather together for Mass, we come together as ONE body, to praise God with ONE voice. “I believe,” (in my understanding) expresses that mystical unity of the Church. Consider that the primary place where the Credo is recited is in the Mass.

At the same time, “I believe” personalizes it, and brings with it a cementing that we must live out the Credo in our daily lives.

 

[MarkThompson]

The Latin phrase reads “pro multis.” “Pro” certainly does mean “for,” but “multis” certainly does not mean “all.” “Multis” means, as ProVobis posted, something more along the lines of “multitudes,” and ICEL chose to translate it as “many.”

Not really. Actually, the Latin is very ambiguous, which can lead to some pretty shaky theology. Since Latin does not have articles, it is impossible to tell whether what was meant was “many,” “the many (in the sense of “all the masses”)”, or even, perhaps, "a many (in the sense of “a crowd”).

Fortunately English, like the Greek which is the base of this text, is capable of greater precision, which helps to clear up the theology. Koine Greek has a definite article, ὁ (ho, “the”). So you actually can say “the many” in Greek, in the sense of multitudes, crowds, the general population – you even know the phrase: “hoi polloi,” where “hoi” (οἱ) is the plural definite article “the” (which is why it is a sign of poor education to talk about “the hoi polloi”).

Now let’s look at the Greek of the Bible. The two passages that contain this portion of the Institution narrative are Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24. Matthew says περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον (peri pollon ekchunnomenon), “concerning - many - which is shed.” Mark says ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (ekchunnomenon uper pollon), “which is shed - in behalf of - many.” You’ll please notice the complete absence of the definite article in both cases. The Evangelists could have said “the many,” but instead they chose to say “many.” (Greek also has various other words referring to crowds and multitudes, which, again, the Evangelists chose not to use.)

I have had it up to here with this myth about “multitudes.” The Latin is so vague that it could be interpreted to mean multitudes – shaky theology comes out of ambiguous translations, you know – but the vagueness can be resolved by reference to the original Greek, and in Greek the common expression meaning “the many” or “the multitudes” was expressly not used. The new English translation, I am happy to say, matches both the sense and the theology of Christ’s words as they are put down in the Gospels.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Not really. Actually, the Latin is very ambiguous, which can lead to some pretty shaky theology. Since Latin does not have articles, it is impossible to tell whether what was meant was “many,” “the many (in the sense of “all the masses”)”, or even, perhaps, "a many (in the sense of “a crowd”).

Fortunately English, like the Greek which is the base of this text, is capable of greater precision, which helps to clear up the theology. Koine Greek has a definite article, ὁ (ho, “the”). So you actually can say “the many” in Greek, in the sense of multitudes, crowds, the general population – you even know the phrase: “hoi polloi,” where “hoi” (οἱ) is the plural definite article “the” (which is why it is a sign of poor education to talk about “the hoi polloi”).

Now let’s look at the Greek of the Bible. The two passages that contain this portion of the Institution narrative are Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24. Matthew says περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον (peri pollon ekchunnomenon), “concerning - many - which is shed.” Mark says ἐκχυννόμενον ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (ekchunnomenon uper pollon), “which is shed - in behalf of - many.” You’ll please notice the complete absence of the definite article in both cases. The Evangelists could have said “the many,” but instead they chose to say “many.” (Greek also has various other words referring to crowds and multitudes, which, again, the Evangelists chose not to use.)

I have had it up to here with this myth about “multitudes.” The Latin is so vague that it could be interpreted to mean multitudes – shaky theology comes out of ambiguous translations, you know – but the vagueness can be resolved by reference to the original Greek, and in Greek the common expression meaning “the many” or “the multitudes” was expressly not used. The new English translation, I am happy to say, matches both the sense and the theology of Christ’s words as they are put down in the Gospels.

My point is that “pro multis” definitely doesn’t come anywhere near the totality of “for all.” Does not mean “all,” at all.

 

[DebChris]

Are you sure you are reading from an actual lectionary, or is it something else (like a binder) being used in place of one?

I have always used a lectionary or missal, never a binder for reading.
The missal would be used in situations where the lectionary is not available. In my hometown, a Mass is held once a week in the local bookstore. That would be an instance when a lectionary is not available and all readings are taken from the missal. Within the parish, readings come from the lectionary.
In my current overseas parish, every lector is required to purchase his or her own missal. As stated earlier, the translation is RSV rather than NAB. These are the texts approved for use in England, Scotland, Ireland, and South Africa. The readings end with “This is the Word of the Lord.”
Although new missals are not yet available, the changes will be implemented at the beginning of Advent. How will the congregation follow along? All prayers and readings are displayed via overhead projector.

 

[MarkThompson]

My point is that “pro multis” definitely doesn’t come anywhere near the totality of “for all.” Does not mean “all,” at all.

Oh, I don’t know; “the multitudes” actually is pretty close in meaning to “all,” just with the additional connotation that there are a lot of them. That’s what (certain) people like so much about it, I think.

 

[TheMc]

Although new missals are not yet available, the changes will be implemented at the beginning of Advent. How will the congregation follow along? All prayers and readings are displayed via overhead projector.

1. Projectors are not allowed in church
2. People can always follow along simply by listening, especially when the alternative is something like a projector.

 

[ProVobis]

Your view on this is fine, but that’s not actually brgregmack’s point, which I was addressing. His point was that “I believe” is a better expression of unity.

Yes and no. “We” could also be the “royal we” such as when the Pope says “we decree.” Sermons usually contain a lot of "royal we"s as well. “I” does sound too boisterous at times.

Note though that although credo is first person singular there is no pronoun “ego” in the Latin. There isn’t one in the Polish either. But the English has to supply the pronoun as the first person isn’t part of the verb as it is in some other languages. And it can sound, well, er, a little egotistic. Sed est quod est.

 

[brgregmack]

Yes and no. “We” could also be the “royal we” such as when the Pope says “we decree.” Sermons usually contain a lot of "royal we"s as well. “I” does sound too boisterous at times.

Note though that although credo is first person singular there is no pronoun “ego” in the Latin. There isn’t one in the Polish either. But the English has to supply the pronoun as the first person isn’t part of the verb as it is in some other languages. And it can sound, well, er, a little egotistic. Sed est quod est.

Again, my point is regarding unity in the the context of the Mass. Outside of the Mass, the “royal we” is more applicable (if I’m not mistaken), specifically regarding magisterial teaching.

Regarding sermons, the priest or deacon is exhortation on the spiritual and moral implications of the readings. In that specific context, it is almost required to use we, for it applies to ALL of us.

 

[TheMc]

Again, my point is regarding unity in the the context of the Mass. Outside of the Mass, the “royal we” is more applicable (if I’m not mistaken), especially regarding magisterial teaching.

And we need to say the wrong text (we believe) to achieve this so called unity?

 

[brgregmack]

No. Not at all. By all means, we should use the new English translation of the Nicene Creed in all situations (Rosary, etc.). I’m saying that the “royal we” applies more when the Magisterium puts forth doctrine.

 

[ProVobis]

“for all” - as if it was a guarantee - is inaccurate. But “for many” implies that it is not even AVAILABLE to all, which is equally inaccurate.

The reason I don’t particularly like “many” is that “many” can also come out as the translation for “pluribus” (such as e pluribus unum - “one out of many”*). “Many” can have degrees as the Latin has multus as the positive, plus as the comparative, and plurimus as the superlative. And they can all be translated as “many,” not exactly giving one any sense of the population involved when using it in the English.

• Note that it wouldn’t be wrong to translate it as “one out of all” but that wouldn’t be saying much as “all” could be a very small number as well.