Nicene Creed Missing from Mass

[FrDavid96]

So the priest is forbidden from saying “good morning” during the Introductory Rites of the Mass because, as you say, it’s not in the liturgical directives and not specifically permitted.

Thanks for clarifying. Nice to know it really is that simple.

Is that really what you intend to say? I don’t know how else to read it. If that really is what you intend, I think you’re wrong and you really should get some formal liturgical education.

If that’s not what you intend, please clarify or rephrase your sweeping generalizations.

Yes, that’s precisely what I intend to say.

To continue with your example, here’s what the GIRM has to say about the introductory remarks:

50 …After the greeting of the people, the priest, the deacon, or a lay minister may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.

Note that it does not merely say “briefly” but “very briefly”

Note that it says “introduct the faithful to the Mass of the day”

Note that it does not say "may say ‘Good morning’ or ‘any birthdays today?’ or ‘anyone catch the score of last night’s game?’ " or anything else. “Introduce the Mass of the day” means “introduce the Mass of the day.” There is a time for these social greetings. No doubt about it, but that time is not during the Holy Sacrifice.

People (especially priests) taking liberties with the Mass has led to confusion, disharmony, and a lack of the sense of the sacred in the Mass. That unfortunate pattern which we see so much of today is based in part on the kind of thinking that says that if we can’t find a specific prohibition against it in the GIRM, then we’re free to do whatever we choose. The next step from that is to say that even if it IS prohibited in the GIRM, we’re going to do it anyway.

Any addition to the Mass on one’s own authority is de facto prohibited. Yes, it’s that simple. That’s what Vatican II said, and what the Church has reaffirmed over and over again since.

 

[anon77300002]

Back to the OP:

Last week, I was visiting my wife’s family in a different town for Easter. At the local Catholic church, they did not recite the Nicene Creed on Sunday Mass or the Easter Vigil on Saturday. I don’t think this is normal, right?

The only time we recited the Nicene Creed in our parish was after I told the priest how much I learned from it when I assisted at a Tridentine Mass. (The first four years after my conversion.) We then recited it the next Christmas. Never before and not since.
We only use the Apostles Creed.
Sigh.

 

[japhy]

[in Canada] We only use the Apostles Creed.

From what I’ve heard, that’s an option for Canada in general. And the latest revision to the Ordinary Form Missal (from 2002, the one being translated into English right now) allows this option, regardless of country.

 

[japhy]

So the priest is forbidden from saying “good morning”…

On the subject of “good morning”…
When the priest says “The Lord be with you,” he is not simply saying the religious equivalent of a secular “Good morning” or “How are you?” Our response, then, cannot be misunderstood as a “You too.” This greeting from the ordained minister and our response to him say more than any secular greeting or exchange of pleasantries can; the proper liturgical greeting also grounds the celebration of Mass firmly in the business of Heaven (the presence and power of God) rather than the business of earth (the weather and our personal dispositions). These words connect us to the sacred act we are participating in, drawing us out of our common worldly surroundings.

 

[benedictgal]

From what I’ve heard, that’s an option for Canada in general. And the latest revision to the Ordinary Form Missal (from 2002, the one being translated into English right now) allows this option, regardless of country.

The Roman Missal approved for use for the Mexican Episcopal Conference (CEM) also provides the option of using either the Nicene Creed or the Apostles Creed.

 

[SMHW]

On the subject of “good morning”…When the priest says “The Lord be with you,” he is not simply saying the religious equivalent of a secular “Good morning” or “How are you?” Our response, then, cannot be misunderstood as a “You too.” This greeting from the ordained minister and our response to him say more than any secular greeting or exchange of pleasantries can; the proper liturgical greeting also grounds the celebration of Mass firmly in the business of Heaven (the presence and power of God) rather than the business of earth (the weather and our personal dispositions). These words connect us to the sacred act we are participating in, drawing us out of our common worldly surroundings.

What’s interesting about this is that back when the English wording was changed from “The Lord be with you”/ “And with your spirit,” to “The Lord be with you”/ “And also with you,” we were specifically told that the change was to make sure people understood this was NOT a religious exchange of greetings but rather a simple, “Hello, nice to see you” kind of exchange.

 

[FrDavid96]

What’s interesting about this is that back when the English wording was changed from “The Lord be with you”/ “And with your spirit,” to “The Lord be with you”/ “And also with you,” we were specifically told that the change was to make sure people understood this was NOT a religious exchange of greetings but rather a simple, “Hello, nice to see you” kind of exchange.

That’s how the ICEL translators saw it, and that was part of their motivation for using “and also with you.” The Church sees things differently, and hence the corrections being made now.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, that’s precisely what I intend to say.

To continue with your example, here’s what the GIRM has to say about the introductory remarks:

50 …After the greeting of the people, the priest, the deacon, or a lay minister may very briefly introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day.

Note that it does not merely say “briefly” but “very briefly”

Note that it says “introduct the faithful to the Mass of the day”

Note that it does not say "may say ‘Good morning’ or ‘any birthdays today?’ or ‘anyone catch the score of last night’s game?’ " or anything else. “Introduce the Mass of the day” means “introduce the Mass of the day.” There is a time for these social greetings. No doubt about it, but that time is not during the Holy Sacrifice.

People (especially priests) taking liberties with the Mass has led to confusion, disharmony, and a lack of the sense of the sacred in the Mass. That unfortunate pattern which we see so much of today is based in part on the kind of thinking that says that if we can’t find a specific prohibition against it in the GIRM, then we’re free to do whatever we choose. The next step from that is to say that even if it IS prohibited in the GIRM, we’re going to do it anyway.

Any addition to the Mass on one’s own authority is de facto prohibited. Yes, it’s that simple. That’s what Vatican II said, and what the Church has reaffirmed over and over again since.

Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it. That helps. I do not disagree with the legitimacy of your interpretation of liturgical law from what you’ve clarified in this post. I’m just glad I’ve never experienced it (in all the various dioceses, parishes, and Eucharistic celebrations I’ve been a part of). I hope the parish you are at and the priests there are sympathetic to your concerns.

happy Easter.

 

[diggerdomer]

On the subject of “good morning”…
When the priest says “The Lord be with you,” he is not simply saying the religious equivalent of a secular “Good morning” or “How are you?” Our response, then, cannot be misunderstood as a “You too.” This greeting from the ordained minister and our response to him say more than any secular greeting or exchange of pleasantries can; the proper liturgical greeting also grounds the celebration of Mass firmly in the business of Heaven (the presence and power of God) rather than the business of earth (the weather and our personal dispositions). These words connect us to the sacred act we are participating in, drawing us out of our common worldly surroundings.

Um, yes, but I really don’t see how this adds to the thread though. It certainly seems to have nothing to do with my comment, which you quote. By the way, if this isn’t your own thought, I’m sure it would be helpful to know more context, e.g. whom/what are you quoting?

Thanks anyway.

 

[diggerdomer]

Maybe you ought to re-read The Spirit of the Liturgy by Pope Benedict XVI. It might actually prove enlightening for you. The Holy Father notes that such secular greetings trivialize the liturgy and make the focus on horizontal rather than on the vertical.

I can’t re-read what I have not read in the first place. Thank you anyway. It’s on my list to read, I have read so much from Benedict XVI but have not gotten through everything.

While I am sure I will enjoy it (as I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve read that he’s written), frankly, it’s tangential to the immediate concern here. I was primarily responding to what I saw as things being invoked as a matter of liturgical law. Surely you’re not suggesting that Benedict’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy” is the equivalent of liturgical law?

And even though I haven’t read it, I OF COURSE agree and recognize that secular greetings CAN trivialize the liturgy. Geez, that’s been common knowledge long before BXVI for many of us!

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth further makes the point in address he delivered during the November 2008 Gateway Liturgical Conference where he notes that:

Are you serious? I’m sorry, I’m not as in tune with or, frankly, personally concerned about, the (random very small number)% of Catholics who know this bishop and listen to what he says in his personal statements that are not binding on the universal church. Sorry. Glad you like him, listen to him, and benefit from what he says, but please, let’s keep this topic to something that is relevant to…oh…maybe more than 2-3 on this forum? I’m not dismissing him, I’m just saying that unless we were at the conference you were at it’s really hard to think there’s some objective a priori reason that anything you would share from that would be immediately as relevant as universal Church teaching to those reading this thread. Wonderful for you that you were there. You obviously have opportunities that most of us don’t. I’d say I’m jealous if being jealous weren’t likely sinful! LOL

 

[CWBetts]

For Liturgical Law, no, there isn’t.

Actually, the Church is a Monarchy.

It is a Monarchy only if the King you are referring to is Christ. If the chief executive is the Pope it is actually a Republic with limited voting members of the constituency

 

[diggerdomer]

What’s interesting about this is that back when the English wording was changed from “The Lord be with you”/ “And with your spirit,” to “The Lord be with you”/ “And also with you,” we were specifically told that the change was to make sure people understood this was NOT a religious exchange of greetings but rather a simple, “Hello, nice to see you” kind of exchange.

I gladly confess my ignorance here.

When was the English changed from “with your spirit” to “also with you” ?

I honestly had no idea that this change in the English translation was made. I never heard that before so I am really curious!

Thanks anyone for any help.

 

[SMHW]

I gladly confess my ignorance here.

When was the English changed from “with your spirit” to “also with you” ?

I honestly had no idea that this change in the English translation was made. I never heard that before so I am really curious!

Thanks anyone for any help.

I believe the ICEL published that translation in 1969. I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[japhy]

Um, yes, but I really don’t see how this adds to the thread though. It certainly seems to have nothing to do with my comment, which you quote.

I thought it was. I thought you were taking issue with the priest being “forbidden” from saying “good morning”. My response was about the reason why the Missal doesn’t direct the priest to use secular greetings but rather a religious greeting.

And the quote was my own.

 

[japhy]

When was the English changed from “with your spirit” to “also with you” ?

I don’t know what the liturgical English translation was in the 1960’s (when parts of the Mass began to be permitted in the vernacular) before the complete revision of the Mass was promulgated in 1969, but I do know that personal missals (meant for use by the faithful to help participate in the Mass) from 1962 and earlier translate Et cum spiritu tuo as “And with your/thy spirit.” I’ve never seen a personal missal for the Extraordinary Form translate it as “And also with you.”

Unfortunately, the Consilium was operating under the principle that a liturgical translation had to be drawn up from scratch, and not from “popular” translations such as those found in personal missals, although those “popular” translations were usually more accurate than the translations developed in their stead.

 

[Brendan]

It is a Monarchy only if the King you are referring to is Christ. If the chief executive is the Pope it is actually a Republic with limited voting members of the constituency

Of course, Christ is our King, and the Pope is his Vicar. He has been given the keys to bind and loose in the name of Christ.

 

[CWBetts]

I don’t know what the liturgical English translation was in the 1960’s (when parts of the Mass began to be permitted in the vernacular) before the complete revision of the Mass was promulgated in 1969, but I do know that personal missals (meant for use by the faithful to help participate in the Mass) from 1962 and earlier translate Et cum spiritu tuo as “And with your/thy spirit.” I’ve never seen a personal missal for the Extraordinary Form translate it as “And also with you.”

Unfortunately, the Consilium was operating under the principle that a liturgical translation had to be drawn up from scratch, and not from “popular” translations such as those found in personal missals, although those “popular” translations were usually more accurate than the translations developed in their stead.

This is percisely why a new English translation is being worked on. It was the major issue at rhe previous USCCB conference

 

[japhy]

This is percisely why a new English translation is being worked on. It was the major issue at rhe previous USCCB conference

Yeah.

It’s interesting to compare the translation mentality of the Consilium (such as is found in the 1969 document Comme le prevoit) with that of the contemporary Curia (such as is found in the 2001 document Liturgiam Authenticam).

 

[FrDavid96]

I gladly confess my ignorance here.

When was the English changed from “with your spirit” to “also with you” ?

I honestly had no idea that this change in the English translation was made. I never heard that before so I am really curious!

Thanks anyone for any help.

diggerdomer,

A friend of mine was on that original ICEL commission (by pure coincidence, we haven’t seen each other in many years), and he shared with me at least part of the motivation behind the ICEL decision to use “and also with you” circa 1969 through the early 70s–depending upn the specific text.

The translators wanted to make it clear that “et cum spiritu tuo” was non-liturgical, that it was a purely secular greeting and specifically not any kind of prayer, and especially not a blessing. The reason, in part, is that in the Eastern Churches, the priest says “Peace be with you” or “Peace upon this place” or “Peace to this city/town” (versions and translations vary); when the Eastern priest does this, he makes the sign of the cross over the people (to be specific, over the people, not himself–in the East this is indicated by the direction the priest moves his hand). In other words this is specifically a blessing. They wanted the English translation to make the point (their own point) that “and also with you” would be different.

For some reason the translators decided that “Dominus Vobiscum” should not be a blessing, or should not be interpreted as a blessing, not in even the slightest way. I never did understand the motivation because it had always been seen as a blessing of some kind (stronger in the the East, less so in the West). By making it more secular-sounding, they sought to de-emphasize the blessing aspect and emphasize that the priest was merely saying hello to the congregation–they wanted it to be very specifically a greeting and nothing more. In fairness to them, in Western usage the priest/bishop does not (and as far as I know did not in the past) make the sign of the cross at that point. They were translating what they saw as the “intent” of the words, rather than the actual translation of the words from Latin to English. They knew full well that the words were not accurate, and they intended them to be such. To put it another way “and with your spirit” sounded too liturgical, while “and also with you” sounded much more like a secular response to a secular greeting.

Before these ICEL translations (circa 1969) English versions of liturgical books always had “and with your spirit” this was true whether they were simply providing an explanatory translation of what people were saying in Latin (like the Mass) or they were in rituals intended to be spoken aloud in English (like the Roman Ritual which has blessings and other ceremonies intended to be used in the vernacular).

 

[diggerdomer]

I thought it was. I thought you were taking issue with the priest being “forbidden” from saying “good morning”. My response was about the reason why the Missal doesn’t direct the priest to use secular greetings but rather a religious greeting.

And the quote was my own.

Thanks for responding and clarifying, japhy.

I do take issue with people asserting that the Church forbids a priest from saying “good morning” during the Introductory Rites. I don’t think the Church does.

I am well aware, thank you, why the Missal has Introductory Rites, and I absolutely think that priests HAVE to follow them. I never said anything to the contrary.