You are right. Sorry, I was thinking of the renewal of baptismal promises. But now I checked that, too. It seems it is credo there, too. But still, isn’t there something in the Church history and practice that supports the we believe? At my parish we practice the We believe and We renounce formulas for renewal of baptismal promises, ie at Easter Vigil.Actually, that’s not true. The new revised translation of the Mass from Latin into English correctly translates “credo” as “I believe” and that is why you are seeing that.
You will also notice that we now say “consubstantial with the Father” which is a better translation than the previous “One in being”.
CREDO in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei **unigenitum, ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt.
From We to I? Can you provide a document, if it isn’t too hard, please.2011 Pope Benedict corrected the language.
So when we switched to “We believe” post Vat II, we actually were saying the words of the original Creed. When did the switch in Latin to “Credo” occur and why?The Nicene Creed promulgated at Nicea begins with “We believe.” The modified liturgical version used in the Latin Rite begins with “I believe.”
The Creed was produced by the Council as a statement on behalf of the whole Church. A Council speaks for the Church.So when we switched to “We believe” post Vat II, we actually were saying the words of the original Creed. When did the switch in Latin to “Credo” occur and why?
You just have to find a missal or missalette from early 2011 to see the difference. When the new English translation of the Mass came into effect on the First Sunday of Advent 2011, the Creed changed from ‘We’ to ‘I’.From We to I? Can you provide a document, if it isn’t too hard, please.
One in being is much better. The key to communication is using words and terms people understand. 99 of 100 people don’t have a blessed clue what consubstantial means. Even if it’s a “better translation” what’s the point if nobody knows the meaning of the word. Simpler in writing and simpler in explaining is the key to effective communication.Actually, that’s not true. The new revised translation of the Mass from Latin into English correctly translates “credo” as “I believe” and that is why you are seeing that.
You will also notice that we now say “consubstantial with the Father” which is a better translation than the previous “One in being”.
CREDO in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei **unigenitum, ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt.
However, these languages have different forms for the different persons (1st, 2nd, 3rd) and number (singular, plural).Actually anixx has a valid point.
The English language requires a pronoun, where in Latin and some other languages (Polish, Spanish, for example) it is just understood as a first person singular. There is no “ego” in the Latin but the end result of the English translation comes across, well, as somewhat egoistical. No other way to do it, except not to recite it in English.
I disagree. Better to leave it untranslated than risk an error in translation. What good is a wrong understanding of a truth?The key to communication is using words and terms people understand. 99 of 100 people don’t have a blessed clue what consubstantial means. Even if it’s a “better translation” what’s the point if nobody knows the meaning of the word. Simpler in writing and simpler in explaining is the key to effective communication.
It’s interesting that the few times “ego” is actually used in the Vulgate, or at least I’ve found, is when it is used by Christ Himself. (“Ego sum via et vita et veritas.”) But it’s done for EMPHASIS.We need to understand that our wills come in the singular; it is not egotistical to say, “I commit myself to Christ;” it is personally committing oneself.
I suspect that they don’t truly understand what “one in being” means either. Consubstantial means more than just being. It is a totality of existence that is only hinted at with “one in being”. So we have words we recognize on one hand that does not express the fullness of the reality or having to actually learn what a new word means. Using recognizable words does not mean it communicates the fullness of what is being communicated.One in being is much better. The key to communication is using words and terms people understand. 99 of 100 people don’t have a blessed clue what consubstantial means. Even if it’s a “better translation” what’s the point if nobody knows the meaning of the word. Simpler in writing and simpler in explaining is the key to effective communication.
These sites say the original was “we believe” in the GreekAs far as I know the original Greek uses the singular “I believe”.
The creed itself professes an individual’s belief. It was formulated as a personal statement partially to reject heresies that had crept into teachings (ala Arius). In essence it is almost like a pass phase that is to be checked against orthodoxy teachings. It is not a statement of what the universal church believes so much as a decleration that an individual believes as the Church teaches.
Being: the state or fact of existing or living; fundamental or essential nature; essential completeness (philosophical).I suspect that they don’t truly understand what “one in being” means either. Consubstantial means more than just being. It is a totality of existence that is only hinted at with “one in being”. So we have words we recognize on one hand that does not express the fullness of the reality or having to actually learn what a new word means. Using recognizable words does not mean it communicates the fullness of what is being communicated.