New translation of Mass question

[ProVobis]

I take it, from the Wikipedia quote, that the Latin of the Creed uses a “literal translation of the Greek” (contrary to the rules of classical Latin) when it translates “εἰς ἕνα Θεόν … Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον … Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον” (“in one God … and in one Lord … and in the Holy Spirit”) but opted against a literal translation and in adherence to classical Latin rules when it translates “Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν” (“in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”).

But I am neither a Latinist nor a Grecist (?), so this is a lot of speculation from me!

Interestingly enough it’s translated into the Polish that way:

Wierzę w jednego Boga (I believe in One God)…

*I w jednego Pana Jezusa Chrystusa *(and in one Lord (?) Jesus Christ)…

Wierzę w Ducha Świętego (I believe in the Holy Spirit)…

Wierzę w jeden, święty, powszechny i apostolski Kościół. (I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church)

The question is then are these inconsistencies really significant.

 

[Geremia]

We don’t believe in the Church as an entity

What do you mean? We believe Christ founded the Church; that the Church and Her sacraments are necessary for salvation; that the Church is necessary to pass on holy tradition and Revelation and interpret them correctly; and that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.

 

[Geremia]

But in the Apostles’ Creed (which was not the Creed being discussed until Digitonomy’s comment), we say: Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, Creatorem caeli et terrae,
et in Iesum Christum, Filium Eius unicum, Dominum nostrum,
qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine,
passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad ínferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
ascendit ad caelos, sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,
inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
sanctam Ecclesiam catholicam, sanctorum communionem,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem,
vitam aeternam.

Grammar-wise, and this comes from the Wiktionary:Crēdō often uses dative case with persons believed in, but accusative case with things or concepts believed in. Accusative usage may be accompanied by a preposition: crēdimus in Deum = “we believe in God”.

So, “Jesus, I trust in you” could be translated “Jesu ego credo tibi” (lit. “Jesus, I give my trust to thee.”)
And, yes, everything after in the Creed is in the accusative case.

You quote this from the Trent Catechism:

we not only believe them [Three Persons of the Trinity], but also believe in them.

In Latin this is: Tres …] Trinitatis Personas …] credimus, ut in eis fidem nostram collocamus.
[Literally: "Three […] Holy Persons …] we believe, for in them we place our faith.]
In the phrase “in eis,” "eis" is dative, not accusative, but it is accompanied by the "in," whereas “Personas” is accusative.

This should clear it up, from Lewis & Short:
With dative (the sense of giving something, faith in this case):

**B. ** With the prevailing idea of bestowing confidence, to trust to or confide in a person or *thing, to have confidence in, to trust.
*With accusative (the sense of acknowledging, faith in this case):

**2. ** Esp., with in and acc. of pers., to believe in, trust in (eccl. Lat.)

Based on this, it makes sense the Apostle’s Creed in Latin uses the accusative because we are not giving anything to God but acknowledging our intellectual assent to his existence and everything that follows therefrom.

 

[FAB]

Hmm, good point. Maybe it’s a matter of technicality. We don’t believe in the Church as an entity, the only entity/being we believe in is God. QUOTE]

Since we understand the church continuing the work of the incarnation for all time, we do believe in the Church as that institution that was ordained to do just that.
To say we believe in the Church also means that we believe in all the doctrins and teachings of the Church.

By the way I read the parts of your books on Amazon. Even though they contain great historical information, they lean two much on the practices of the extraordinary form of the mass as well as explanations from that mass in attenpts to explain the Novous Ordum. Vatican II in what I read gets only brief mention and the quotes are given from various popes to particularly drive what seems to be a more traditional view. You talk of particiaption in the mass, but not of the communial nature of it, maybe you cover it else were, but since I’m not planing on buying them I’ll won’t find out. In my opinion there are many other books which cover the mass which do focus on it alone.

 

[MarkThompson]

You quote this from the Trent Catechism:In Latin this is: Tres …] Trinitatis Personas …] credimus, ut in eis fidem nostram collocamus.
[Literally: "Three […] Holy Persons …] we believe, for in them we place our faith.]
In the phrase “in eis,” "eis" is dative, not accusative, but it is accompanied by the "in," whereas “Personas” is accusative.

I’ve never in my life seen in take the dative. Did you mean ablative?

 

[Geremia]

I’ve never in my life seen in take the dative. Did you mean ablative?

Sorry, yes, you are right; thank you

 

[japhy]

By the way I read the parts of your books on Amazon. Even though they contain great historical information, they lean two much on the practices of the extraordinary form of the mass as well as explanations from that mass in attenpts to explain the Novous Ordum. Vatican II in what I read gets only brief mention and the quotes are given from various popes to particularly drive what seems to be a more traditional view. You talk of particiaption in the mass, but not of the communial nature of it, maybe you cover it else were, but since I’m not planing on buying them I’ll won’t find out. In my opinion there are many other books which cover the mass which do focus on it alone.

By all means, make your judgment based on only those parts of the book you could read for free on Amazon.

My books are about the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I draw on material about the Roman Rite, both old and new. Much of the source material is about the older forms of the Mass, because the Ordinary Form has only been around for a few decades. But because the Mass is the Mass, a lot of what was written 50, 100, 200, and 1500 years ago is applicable to our liturgy today.

I do cover the communal nature of the liturgy, especially when talking about the “communion of saints”, the Confiteor (where we ask our brothers and sisters to pray for us, and they ask US to do the same for THEM), and other places throughout the books.

I do talk about what Vatican II said about the liturgy. But Vatican II is very recent in our liturgical history, and there’s a lot more to be said about the liturgy than Vatican II said. But again, I do quote Sacrosanctum Concilium a great deal. And the modern Catechism too.

It’s pointless for me to defend my book against someone who hasn’t read it.

 

[FAB]

By all means, make your judgment based on only those parts of the book you could read for free on Amazon.

My books are about the Ordinary Form of the Mass. I draw on material about the Roman Rite, both old and new. Much of the source material is about the older forms of the Mass, because the Ordinary Form has only been around for a few decades. But because the Mass is the Mass, a lot of what was written 50, 100, 200, and 1500 years ago is applicable to our liturgy today.

I do cover the communal nature of the liturgy, especially when talking about the “communion of saints”, the Confiteor (where we ask our brothers and sisters to pray for us, and they ask US to do the same for THEM), and other places throughout the books.

I do talk about what Vatican II said about the liturgy. But Vatican II is very recent in our liturgical history, and there’s a lot more to be said about the liturgy than Vatican II said. But again, I do quote Sacrosanctum Concilium a great deal. And the modern Catechism too.

It’s pointless for me to defend my book against someone who hasn’t read it.

Amazon has the first chapter of each of you books on line, which is enough to get a flavor of them. You talk about past practices, and speak of them as though they should still be done, instead of using them as a reference and expaining why some practrices are no longer used. In doing so you mislead by implying that those practices were better or more sacred than the Novus Ordum. In doing so you implant seeds of doubt. They are promoting a certain agenda and not particularly a renewal of the understanding of the mass that the Bishops are promoting as part of the institution of the revised missal.

 

[japhy]

Amazon has the first chapter of each of you books on line, which is enough to get a flavor of them.

If you want another free sample, visit my web site and read a chapter from each book (free) on the Liturgy of the Word. Please, let me know what you think of them.

You talk about past practices, and speak of them as though they should still be done, instead of using them as a reference and expaining why some practrices are no longer used.

Please give examples. You’re being far too vague for me to make a sufficient response. Are you perhaps referring to the vesting prayers, which were once required but are no longer? And a longer fast before the Eucharist?

Generally speaking, I employ the “hermeneutic of reform in continuity”, endorsed by Pope Benedict, whereby I believe that former liturgical practices can help inform and form our modern liturgical practices. There is value even in those things that have been, for one reason or another, discarded from the liturgy over time. Two examples which you won’t see from the free samples of the books are the ancient (and discontinued) practices of the fermentum and the sancta (rites which predate and are not present in the Extraordinary Form of the Mass) during the Fraction of the Eucharistic Host.

The introduction of both books begins at the start of papal interest in the modern liturgical reform movement, which was Pius X’s Tra la sollecitudini, then Pius XI’s Divini cultus, then Pius XII’s Mediator Dei. All three of those documents are sources for Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium. For example:
When the faithful assist at the sacred ceremonies they should not be merely detached and silent spectators. (Pius XI, 1928)

The Church earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at Mass, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators. (Vatican II, 1963)

We are filled with a most ardent desire to see the **true **Christian spirit flourish in every respect in all the faithful, who acquire it from its foremost and indispensable font, which is the **active participation in the most holy **mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. (Pius X, 1903)

  Mother Church **earnestly desires** that **all the faithful**should be led to that fully conscious, and **active ****participation in liturgical celebrations** which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy … for it is the **primary and ****indispensable source** from which the faithful are to derive the **true Christian spirit**. (Vatican II, 1963)

Especially in the book on the priest’s prayers, I use (discarded) elements of the Extraordinary Form to provide context for the (remaining) elements of the Ordinary Form.

In doing so you mislead by implying that those practices were better or more sacred than the Novus Ordum. In doing so you implant seeds of doubt.

I do think that certain practices (like the use of the vesting prayers and a longer fast before the Eucharist) are better than our present ones, but I do not force that opinion on anyone. But I will certainly share those opinions, as well as the reasons for them. It’s my book, after all.

I do not think I would call them “more sacred”, however. I don’t think I’m qualified to make such a judgment. And I do not think my books plant seeds of doubt – in any case, that was certainly never my intent at all.

They are promoting a certain agenda and not particularly a renewal of the understanding of the mass that the Bishops are promoting as part of the institution of the revised missal.

What is the “they” here? These older liturgical practices? My books?

Again, if you have not read the books, you have completely no way of knowing whether they promote “a renewal of the understanding of the mass that the Bishops are promoting.”

Tell you what. If you’re sincere about offering a critique of my books, I’ll send you the PDFs of both of them free of charge. It’s the least kindness I can do to a reviewer.