Language of the Creed

[Andreas_Hofer]

Since I don’t have regular, easy access to an actual Roman Missal, I thought I’d pose this question to the forum:

Is there any documentation anywhere that makes it licit to change the "we"s of the Nicene Creed to "I"s?

I would normally simply assume this is an abuse, since it deviates from the official liturgical translation, but the priest is known for his orthodoxy and obedience, and this would be the only thing I’ve ever seen him fudge on, so I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Knowing that, in varying circumstances, it can be licit to use the Apostle’s Creed or even no creed at all, I was wondering if anyone knows what might justify using a different (albeit, unfortunately, more accurate) translation of the Nicene Creed.

 

[mercygate]

Stay tuned. The US translation of the Mass is reverting to “I believe.” We should all have to suffer such “abuses” as having our priests translating the offlical language of the Mass correctly. The Latin never changed to “Credimus,” but was always, “Credo.”

 

[johnnykins]

Stay tuned. The US translation of the Mass is reverting to “I believe.” We should all have to suffer such “abuses” as having our priests translating the offlical language of the Mass correctly. The Latin never changed to “Credimus,” but was always, “Credo.”

“Credo” correctly translated is certainly “I believe” The translation of “We believe” is not a translation per se. It is, however, the approved English form of the Creed to be said at Mass in the USA. Unfortunately, even though more correct as a translation the priest should stick with “We believe” until a different translation is approved. If it bothers him, he can ALWAYS say the Creed in LATIN.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Since I don’t have regular, easy access to an actual Roman Missal, I thought I’d pose this question to the forum:

Is there any documentation anywhere that makes it licit to change the "we"s of the Nicene Creed to "I"s?

I would normally simply assume this is an abuse, since it deviates from the official liturgical translation, but the priest is known for his orthodoxy and obedience, and this would be the only thing I’ve ever seen him fudge on, so I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Knowing that, in varying circumstances, it can be licit to use the Apostle’s Creed or even no creed at all, I was wondering if anyone knows what might justify using a different (albeit, unfortunately, more accurate) translation of the Nicene Creed.

I believe they were originally “I” not “We”. It was mistranslated by ICEL.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

I believe they were originally “I” not “We”. It was mistranslated by ICEL.

Br. Rich:

“We believe” is from the “Symbol” of the Ecumencal Council of Nicea.

It appears that the “Symbol” of the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, which added the section on the divinity of the Holy Spirit, made the transition to “I Believe”, and that the Western Church’s translation of that “Symbol” into Latin followed what the Council of Constantinople did:

“…The original creed was written in Greek, the language of the eastern Mediterranean where both councils were seated. The most accepted Greek text from 325 is plural, beginning with ???. The most generally accepted Greek text from 381 is in the singular, beginning with ???. Therefore, the revision from “we believe” to “I believe” may have been intentional on the part of the second Ecumenical Council, in order to accentuate the personal nature of the recitation of the Creed.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed#Greek_version

“I believe” is hardly a mistranslation. It’s perfectly consistent with the Latin, and (I’ve just found out) completely consistent with the “Symbol” of the Council of Constantinople itself.

If you do some research, you’ll see that the Modern English Translations of the Creed date from 1549:

*I believe in one God,
the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of his Father before all worlds,
God of God, Light of Light,
very God of very God,
begotten, not made,
being of one substance with the Father;
by whom all things were made;
who for us men and for our salvation
came down from heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost
of the Virgin Mary,
and was made man;
and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried;
and the third day he rose again
according to the Scriptures,
and ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;
and he shall come again, with glory,
to judge both the quick and the dead;
whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
who proceedeth from the Father [and the Son];
who with the Father and the Son together
is worshipped and glorified;
who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church;
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins;
and I look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. AMEN.*

mb-soft.com/believe/txh/nicene.htm

And, that’s directly from the Latin, because that;s all that Bishop Cramner and friends had at their disposal.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I believe (no pun intended) that we the Catholic Church uses the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed at Mass. ICEL mistranslated the Latin into English.

 

[johnnykins]

I believe (no pun intended) that we the Catholic Church uses the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed at Mass. ICEL mistranslated the Latin into English.

Correct. If there is some issue with the change from Nicea to Constantinople - that is another issue altogether. The official version for the Catholic Church is the Latin version of the Nicean-Constantinopolitan version - “Credo” = “I believe” That the ICEL chose “We believe” with the approbation of the Holy See perhaps harkens back in some fashion to the Nicean plural you reference. In any event, the form “We believe” is the form to use in English. It is not a “translation” so much as some sort of interpolation.

In any event it is official and an abuse for an “orthodox” priest to retranslate as he see fit. If he were really concerned, the appropriate response is always to use the Latin version.

 

[John_Lilburne]

… Is there any documentation anywhere that makes it licit to change the "we"s of the Nicene Creed to "I"s? … .

No. There is no approved English translation for the liturgy which begins the Nicene Creed with “I believe”.

So the priest is failing to follow the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.”

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Thanks to all for your responses. I just thought I’d comment on the assertion that our English liturgical Creed is not so much a translation as an interpolation. While that’s certainly true to a large extent, as the horrific hack job the ICEL committed to the Roman Rite would get the death penalty if done to a person, I think it leaves the English-speaking Church in an odd situation. If we admit that what we’re using isn’t a faithful rendition of the Roman Rite but only a version I’ll entitle “What the ICEL thought the Roman Missal should say,” we thus admit that we do not worship according to the Roman Missal. If that’s been okay for 35 years, why shouldn’t we just be allowed to create our own missal out of whole cloth instead of pretending to translate the books?

 

[kleary]

Since I don’t have regular, easy access to an actual Roman Missal, I thought I’d pose this question to the forum:

Is there any documentation anywhere that makes it licit to change the "we"s of the Nicene Creed to "I"s?

I would normally simply assume this is an abuse, since it deviates from the official liturgical translation, but the priest is known for his orthodoxy and obedience, and this would be the only thing I’ve ever seen him fudge on, so I’m trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Knowing that, in varying circumstances, it can be licit to use the Apostle’s Creed or even no creed at all, I was wondering if anyone knows what might justify using a different (albeit, unfortunately, more accurate) translation of the Nicene Creed.

The Credo begins with “Credo en unum deum” which translates into English as “I believe in one God”

The “We Believe” is a Vatican II Novus Ordo innovation that was done to… well the Novus Ordo Litrgical litnics will tell you.

Ken

 

[palmas85]

Thanks to all for your responses. I just thought I’d comment on the assertion that our English liturgical Creed is not so much a translation as an interpolation. While that’s certainly true to a large extent, as the horrific hack job the ICEL committed to the Roman Rite would get the death penalty if done to a person, I think it leaves the English-speaking Church in an odd situation. If we admit that what we’re using isn’t a faithful rendition of the Roman Rite but only a version I’ll entitle “What the ICEL thought the Roman Missal should say,” we thus admit that we do not worship according to the Roman Missal. If that’s been okay for 35 years, why shouldn’t we just be allowed to create our own missal out of whole cloth instead of pretending to translate the books?

Don’t think for a second that there are not many who want to do just that my friend. Many. And they are lurking around, as they have been for years, just waiting for the right opportunities to move. Why do you think that they object so strongly, so strenuously and so vocally to anything traditional at all?

They have their agenda and anything that smacks of traditionalism is something they want nothing to do with.

 

[Corki]

“Credo” correctly translated is certainly “I believe” The translation of “We believe” is not a translation per se. It is, however, the approved English form of the Creed to be said at Mass in the USA. Unfortunately, even though more correct as a translation the priest should stick with “We believe” until a different translation is approved. If it bothers him, he can ALWAYS say the Creed in LATIN.

Since the USCCB voted and approved the translation the includes “I believe …”, couldn’t you say that “I believe” IS approved but not yet promulgated? I don’t even think it needs more Vatican approval since it was part of the Vox Clara requirements.

I agree it is probably illicit but more on a technicality. I am in a multicultural parish and our priest is in the odd position every week of saying in English with “We believe” but the Mass in Spanish and every other languages is the more literal translation of “I believe”.

 

[johnnykins]

Since the USCCB voted and approved the translation the includes “I believe …”, couldn’t you say that “I believe” IS approved but not yet promulgated? I don’t even think it needs more Vatican approval since it was part of the Vox Clara requirements.

I agree it is probably illicit but more on a technicality. I am in a multicultural parish and our priest is in the odd position every week of saying in English with “We believe” but the Mass in Spanish and every other languages is the more literal translation of “I believe”.

There is much ado on this Board about abuses - justifiably I might add.

Technical or not, a priest does NOT have the personal authority to say what he wants during Mass where it is not actauly allowed or permitted. It is an abuse to do so.

If he has a problem with the English translation - he should say it in Latin - or another allowed language. Simple as that. He does not have the right to change it.

Just because someone likes the abuse - does not make it less of an abuse.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Since the USCCB voted and approved the translation the includes “I believe …”, couldn’t you say that “I believe” IS approved but not yet promulgated? I don’t even think it needs more Vatican approval since it was part of the Vox Clara requirements.

I agree it is probably illicit but more on a technicality. I am in a multicultural parish and our priest is in the odd position every week of saying in English with “We believe” but the Mass in Spanish and every other languages is the more literal translation of “I believe”.

So let’s say your town passes a law on Jun. 1 making liquor sales illegal and that law is to take effect Jan. 1. In the middle of September the police raid all the bars in town that haven’t shut down yet and penalize them for not obeying the new liquor ban. Does that sound justified?

It shouldn’t, because there is a difference between approving legislation and actually putting it into effect. There’s nothing technical going on here. The translation in force says “We believe.”