Is it 'I believe' or ' We believe'?

[ProVobis]

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.

I agree but to be fair “consubstantial with the Father” isn’t 100% accurate either. In “consubstantialem Patri” Patri is in the dative case, meaning “to the Father.” Which makes “one in being with the Father” even that less accurate.

 

[anixx]

I agree but to be fair “consubstantial with the Father” isn’t 100% accurate either. In “consubstantialem Patri” Patri is in the dative case, meaning “to the Father.” Which makes “one in being with the Father” even that less accurate.

It means of one essence with the Father, the same essence or substance, meaning he is God like the Father. You and I are consubstantial with one another. We are both humans. It’s not that hard to understand.

 

[ProVobis]

You and I are consubstantial with one another. We are both humans.

Yes, but the Latin (“consubstantialem Patri”) already incorporates the “with.”

Con = “with”
Sub = “under”
stantis = stands, exists

So the “with” afterward is technically redundant.

One very old handmissal actually had “consubstantial TO the Father” as the suggested translation so I’m not saying anything new here.

Multiple prefixes/prepositions aren’t that uncommon. After all we have “Per ipsum et cum ipsum et in ipsum” (currently translated as “Through Him and with Him and in Him” although the ipsum is intensive) also in the Mass.

.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

It’s more than Freud; it’s the design of the English language. The ego works in business, not so much in prayer.

What I am trying to say is the ego in English is in no way a translation of ego in Latin. Ego in Latin is simply I, not some psychological term. This is a situation of a false cognate.

 

[Digitonomy]

The Creed recited a Mass is not the same. A pastor or lay person does not speak for the Church, rather, I is a confirmation that I, personally, hold to the teachings of the Church.

The Armenian Orthodox take a different view, and use the first person plural:

And yet each time we thoughtfully recite the Nicene Creed, the same declaration of faith that has united Christians throughout the world for 1700 years, we can sense our inclusion in the great, universal Church that extends beyond time and space. We begin to realize that our own faith is not strictly a personal affair. It is rooted and nourished by the “one, catholic and apostolic holy Church” [19] with Jesus Christ as its head [Colossians 1:18].

Brendan:

FYI, the Orthodox do the same. The Creed as recited in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom uses the first person as well.

Obviously that depends on which Orthodox we are speaking of. In addition to the Armenians, the Copts also use the first person plural, as do the Ethiopian Orthodox, the Assyrians, and the Malankara Orthodox.

 

[ProVobis]

I am no scholar and I am not arguing anything. I just wanted to know when and why the change from “We” to “I”. Was there a particular reason?

It seems to me there was a bit of a fuss made by many posters over the Latin “Credo” being replaced by “Credum” when that was the original from the Greek. If people fussed about it, there had to be a reason, or maybe they just got used to “I believe” and didn’t like the change.

Personally, I think “We believe makes more sense when reciting it at Mass” and “I believe” makes more sense if an individual is professing the Faith. But however the church wants it, is ok with me. It is really a minor thing.

FWIW, here is a Wiki article that might explain part of this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we

Of particular note concerning the “Royal We”::

…It is commonly employed by a person of high office, such as a monarch, earl, or pope. It is also used in certain formal contexts by bishops and university rectors. William Longchamp is credited with its introduction to England in the late 12th century, following the practice of the papal chancery.[2] Its first recorded use was in 1169[citation needed] when King Henry II, hard pressed by his barons over the Investiture Controversy, assumed the common theory of “divine right of kings”, that the monarch acted conjointly with the deity. Hence, he used “we”, meaning “God and I…”.[3]

In the public situations in which it is used, the monarch or other dignitary is typically speaking not only in his or her personal capacity but also in an official capacity as leader of a nation or institution. The habit of referring to a leader in the plural has further influenced[citation needed] the grammar of several languages, in which plural forms tend to be perceived as deferential and more polite than singular forms. This grammatical feature is common in languages that have the T-V distinction, including those, such as English, which used to have a T-V distinction in the past, but lost it.

**Popes have used the we as part of their formal speech with certain recent exceptions. The English translations of the documents of John Paul II dispensed with this practice, using the singular “I”, even though the Latin original usually continued to use the first person plural “We”. [citation needed]
…
**

Just some food for thought. After all, it was JPII who insisted on the new English translations.