Italian bishop Derio Olivero in cathedral in Piedmont omits the Creed to avoid offending non believers & Protestants at Epiphany mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Do you mean you presume it’s fine to omit the creed in a mass for the reasons asserted (given it appears a bishop did so), or are you unconvinced the events are as asserted by the OP?
Click to expand...
I am flattered to have been cross-examined in this way, now twice!

To answer your question: my position is close to the latter. I assume that the article is presenting some truth, but suspect that it’s not all the truth that we would need to understand what happened.
 
Hodos said:
That is actually in line with many traditions, where epiphany has also been called feast of the nations
Click to expand...
Absolutely, the Messa dei Popoli is celebrated in a number of Italian Catholic dioceses, especially those that have a large immigrant community. It draws attention to the understanding that the three wise men were foreigners who were graciously received by Mary and Joseph to pay homage to Christ.

(Edited my post as it seemed somewhat nonsensical earlier.)
 
Last edited:
InThePew said:
I’m pretty sure that the average Catholic in the pew has far more important things on their mind (like bills to pay or kids to feed perhaps) than what some bishop somewhere in Italy happens to have done or not done at a particular mass.
Click to expand...
Especially when the “Average Catholic” reading this is on another continent here.

If it’s my own bishop that does this, or at least one in my own country, I might care. If it’s the Bishop of Rome doing it, I might care also.

However, I am reading an increasing number of articles on this forum expecting me to get all excited about what the Bishop of Ostrubogula is doing this week, and honestly, I don’t have the time or brain space to be the bishop police, nor can I do anything about it when it’s half a planet away except say a prayer and move on.
 
And can you imagine what would have happened if some of the faithful in the congregation had started praying the creed out loud to pierce that deafening, accusing silence? I can.

I pray I will always have the strength to proclaim the creed, whatever the consequences may be.
 
Beryllos said:
I am flattered to have been cross-examined in this way, now twice!

To answer your question: my position is close to the latter. I assume that the article is presenting some truth, but suspect that it’s not all the truth that we would need to understand what happened.
Click to expand...
Ha! Not so much cross examination, but one sees many discussions here where the point made by one party isn’t understood by another and so the discussion is pointless!

Certainly my earlier remarks presume the facts are as they were presented. But I also think a little skepticism as you demonstrate is entirely reasonable. The article is not readily cross-checked in other media, and the translation seems less than fluent.
 
Asinner said:
And can you imagine what would have happened if some of the faithful in the congregation had started praying the creed out loud
Click to expand...
Dagger eyes or a “shoosh” from the Bishop? Yes that would add to the spectacle!
 
meltzerboy2 said:
I don’t know what the Church rules are regarding the recitation of the Creed. However, it sounds strange to me that a traditional part of the Mass would be omitted
Click to expand...
When did it become the tradition in the Latin rite to have the Creed said in the Mass?
 
According to a check of “Credo” (since you wanted to know the date in the Latin rite). . . Wiki has this, friend. . .

After the formulation of the Nicene Creed, its initial liturgical use was in baptism, which explains why the text uses the singular “I …” instead of “we…” The text was gradually incorporated into the liturgies, first in the east and in Spain, and gradually into the north, from the sixth to the ninth century. In 1014 it was accepted by the Church of Rome as a legitimate part of the Mass. It is recited in the Western Mass directly after the Homily on all Sundays and Solemnities; in modern celebrations of the Tridentine Mass as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite, the Credo is recited on all Sundays, feasts of the I class, II class feasts of the Lord and of the Blessed Virgin, on the days within the octaves of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, and on the “birthday” feasts of the apostles and evangelists (including the feasts of St. Peter’s Chair and of St. Barnabas).[1] It is recited in the Orthodox Liturgy following the Litany of Supplication on all occasions.

IOW, it’s been just over 1000 years as part of the Latin rite Mass.
 
I just find it irritating that Catholic clergy feel the need to water down the mass or the faith in general because it might offend non-catholic believers. I can assure you that other non catholic churches do not water down their beliefs to appease Catholics. It seems the clergy that feel the need to do this feel negatively about their own faith.
 
Last edited:

Matthew 10:32-39 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)​

"32 Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.

33 But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven."

They cannot say they (or we) were not warned!
 
Rau said:
Extraordinary. A mass may not be an appropriate form of multi-faith service. But if having a mass, it should fit the prescription of a mass. The non-believers present are not compelled to say prayers. And why would they be offended, or have any justification to take offense, at hearing Catholics pray at a catholic mass? The Bishop’s judgement is poor.
Click to expand...
And . . . , if they ARE offended, TOUGH TURTLE!
 
InThePew said:
There are over 5000 bishops (of one sort or another) and about 3000 dioceses (or their near equivalents) worldwide. The Diocese of Pinerolo is neither particularly large nor significant. Granted, from time to time some bishop has a “bright” idea which he’d probably be better not to have had. However, while omission of (collective profession of) the creed isn’t great it also isn’t the sign of the apocalypse some seem to want to make it out to be. I’m pretty sure that the average Catholic in the pew has far more important things on their mind (like bills to pay or kids to feed perhaps) than what some bishop somewhere in Italy happens to have done or not done at a particular mass.
Click to expand...
Heresy begins with one person.
 
Minks said:
Heresy begins with one person.
Click to expand...
It is not appropriate to accuse a bishop (or anyone else for that matter) of heresy. It also helps to understand what the word actually means! Heresy is defined in Canon Law as the obstinate denial of some truth which is to be believed by divine and
Catholic faith. Simply omitting the creed is not heresy nor is it a sign of the end times, evidence of the presence of the smoke of satan or a harbinger of the end of civilisation as we know it.
 
InThePew said:
40.png
Minks:
Heresy begins with one person.
Click to expand...
It is not appropriate to accuse a bishop (or anyone else for that matter) of heresy. It also helps to understand what the word actually means! Heresy is defined in Canon Law as the obstinate denial of some truth which is to be believed by divine and
Catholic faith. Simply omitting the creed is not heresy nor is it a sign of the end times, evidence of the presence of the smoke of satan or a harbinger of the end of civilisation as we know it.
Click to expand...
I accused no one of anything.
 
TheLittleLady said:
I don’t have the text at hand, so, correct me if I am wrong but I think the Creed may be omitted when there is a renewal of baptismal promises.
Click to expand...
Correct.

For the Profession of Faith, while the Nicene Creed is the “default” profession spoken, the Apostles Creed or the Renewal of Baptismal Promises can be substituted and said instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top