Nicene Creed

[Padres1969]

Came across an oddity today I wanted to ask about. I’ve been looking at various translations/interpretations of the Nicene Creed across many professing branches of Christianity. Of course they’re all very similar and the base wording is more or less analogous, the RCC being no exception. But I know the RCC in the US changed the translation of the Nicene Creed used in the US as part of the changes to the mass a few years back. However I was looking at the Catholic translation of the Creed that is in the RCC’s Catechism and I noticed it’s different than the USCCB’s translation (and the one used in the English mass in the US). The catechism still appears to have the translation from before the mass changes.

For example the RCC’s Catechism has the second section regarding Christ’s nature as:
*
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation,
he came down from heaven: *

While the USCCB has the US English mass translation of the same section as the newer:

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

What accounts for this difference? Is the US the only region using the new English translation? Has it actually been changed world wide and the catechism not been updated? Is it something as simple as the catechism website missing an update that the actual catechism has already had to it?

 

[peter26]

The new version (second one listed) is certainly used in England. The Catechism was written before the change and presumably has not been updated.

 

[TimothyH]

Yeah, looks like the Vatican hasn’t updated the English Catechism to reflect the new creed, or they haven’t updated the web page.

It was only 2011, not too long ago but the wording seems so old. http://www.bikeforums.net/images/smilies/old.gif

-Tim-.

 

[Padres1969]

Yeah, looks like the Vatican hasn’t updated the English Catechism to reflect the new creed, or they haven’t updated the web page.

It was only 2011, not too long ago but the wording seems so old. http://www.bikeforums.net/images/smilies/old.gif

-Tim-.

It’s funny I had the opposite reaction being as I’m coming from outside the RCC which is why the Creed in the RCC catechism stuck out so much to me (enough to post about it on CA at any rate). The pre-2011 RCC English translation is probably the closest translation I’ve seen to the Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer version which is the one I’m most familiar with these days.

Still, it’s probably only a matter of time before the catechism or the catechism website (depending on where the reason it hasn’t been changed lies), is updated with the newer RCC version of the creed if in fact it has been changed worldwide (as seems likely based peter26 said about usage in England).

 

[Usige]

It’s funny I had the opposite reaction being as I’m coming from outside the RCC which is why the Creed in the RCC catechism stuck out so much to me (enough to post about it on CA at any rate). The pre-2011 RCC English translation is probably the closest translation I’ve seen to the Episcopal Church’s 1979 Book of Common Prayer version which is the one I’m most familiar with these days.

Still, it’s probably only a matter of time before the catechism or the catechism website (depending on where the reason it hasn’t been changed lies), is updated with the newer RCC version of the creed if in fact it has been changed worldwide (as seems likely based peter26 said about usage in England).

That makes sense. Both the English speaking Catholic conferences and the Episcopalian church used the 1975 translation from the International Consultation on English Texts. I beleive the Episcopalians drop men from the phrase “For us [men] and our salvation.”

The Catholic Church recognized the translation as deviating too far from the original text and the liturgical prayers were required to be retranslated to match the Latin text. This means that the English translation now is much more aligned with not only the Latin, but also other vernacular languages in use. It’s not just the catechism that hasn’t been updated. Many of us are still waiting g to see when the LOTH will get new translations as per Liturgiam Authenticam.

 

[dmar198]

Still, it’s probably only a matter of time before the catechism or the catechism website (depending on where the reason it hasn’t been changed lies), is updated with the newer RCC version of the creed…

I doubt it. I don’t think the Vatican will update the English Catechism simply because the Creed has a different translation. The “one in being” translation is still an acceptable translation, it’s not really Wrong in the Vatican’s eyes from what I can tell, just less literal. I think it would be a bit much to revise the Catechism to be a bit more literal on one page, and then expect people to replace their older Catechisms with the new one just for the sake of that one little change.

 

[porthos11]

This is because the liturgical changes are not the same as the Catechism changes. The Catechism is also an official translation on its own, and even though it pulled from the English liturgical translation then in force, the new Mass translation does not automatically pour into the Catechism, as they are two distinct projects under the care of two distinct Roman Congregations. The Creed now in the Catechism is still the official English translation of the Creed in the Catechism.

It probably will not be necessary to update the Catechism with new liturgical translations.

 

[Padres1969]

That makes sense. Both the English speaking Catholic conferences and the Episcopalian church used the 1975 translation from the International Consultation on English Texts. I beleive the Episcopalians drop men from the phrase “For us [men] and our salvation.”

Indeed there were a few differences. Dropping “men” from “For us and our salvation” was one and was unique to the BCP version as even the ICET had “men” included there. The other big difference that stands out to me is

*“he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.” *

in the 1975 ICET and Episcopal BCP version instead of the pre-2011 Catholic version which simplified it down to:

he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

The former was of course closer to what the RCC and some other Christian denominations use today. However I think the thing that caught my eye first was the use of “We” instead of “I”. Of the versions I’ve been looking at, “We” is in the minority in terms of usage even if for me it has always been the norm (both when I was Catholic and now). “I” seems much more commonly used in the translation among the various Christian groups.

The Catholic Church recognized the translation as deviating too far from the original text and the liturgical prayers were required to be retranslated to match the Latin text. This means that the English translation now is much more aligned with not only the Latin, but also other vernacular languages in use. It’s not just the catechism that hasn’t been updated. Many of us are still waiting g to see when the LOTH will get new translations as per Liturgiam Authenticam.

Wonder why updating everything is taking so long seeing as it’s a comparatively minor update. I mean as I understood it, the updates in 2011 came from the Vatican directly didn’t they? You’d think they’d have updated things on their end in concert with pushing the changes out to the wider world as there was also a bit of lead time between the decision to change and the change itself too as I recall.

 

[Micosil]

I had no clue the wording had changed slightly recently. Thanks for this, I just learned something new today.

 

[Padres1969]

This is because the liturgical changes are not the same as the Catechism changes. The Catechism is also an official translation on its own, and even though it pulled from the English liturgical translation then in force, the new Mass translation does not automatically pour into the Catechism, as they are two distinct projects under the care of two distinct Roman Congregations. The Creed now in the Catechism is still the official English translation of the Creed in the Catechism.

It probably will not be necessary to update the Catechism with new liturgical translations.

Interesting, so what you’re saying is both translations would continued to be considered up to date and valid Catholic translations of the Creed?

Mind you personally I don’t see anything wrong with that. The Creed is modified slightly all over Christendom even if the basic message remains more or less identical. With a few notable exceptions like the LCMS version.

 

[Chatter163]

in the 1975 ICET and Episcopal BCP version instead of the pre-2011 Catholic version which simplified it down to:

he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

You’re mentioning only the rite II version I in the 1979 BCP. Take a look at rite I, which is the same as the American BCP version in 1928, 1892, etc., and the 1662 and 1549 English BCP.

 

[ProVobis]

Wonder why updating everything is taking so long seeing as it’s a comparatively minor update. I mean as I understood it, the updates in 2011 came from the Vatican directly didn’t they? You’d think they’d have updated things on their end in concert with pushing the changes out to the wider world as there was also a bit of lead time between the decision to change and the change itself too as I recall.

Is it the Vatican’s responsibility to ensure hundreds of vernacular creeds (or any other prayers) are “up to date”? Translations on its website are merely for convenience.

As far as I know, any of the English creeds can be used for private prayer. In the Mass, however, only the bishop-approved language or the Latin is to be used.

 

[porthos11]

Padres1969:
Interesting, so what you’re saying is both translations would continued to be considered up to date and valid Catholic translations of the Creed?

Mind you personally I don’t see anything wrong with that. The Creed is modified slightly all over Christendom even if the basic message remains more or less identical. With a few notable exceptions like the LCMS version.

Yes. The Catechism is in its current, official English translation, and is under the care of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as compared with the Mass translation which is under the care of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Catechism’s English translators did pull the Creed and other liturgical texts from the English that was in force at the time, but that action made them official Catechism texts (and uses the RSV and NRSV for its Biblical texts; not whatever texts the Lectionaries are from). That part hasn’t changed and there’s no reason to change them. Liturgiam authenticam, the document mandating the liturgical changes, has no force over the Catechism, which is under a different Roman authority.

If the Catechism is retranslated, then perhaps its editors will pull from the current English liturgical translation, but as it stands, the Catechism is an excellent translation and will probably not be revised for a very long time.

 

[Padres1969]

You’re mentioning only the rite II version I in the 1979 BCP. Take a look at rite I, which is the same as the American BCP version in 1928, 1892, etc., and the 1662 and 1549 English BCP.

Indeed I was referring to the 1979 BCP version that is typically used with Rite II. If I’m not mistaken too the Anglican Ordinariate uses the 1928 BCP version like most Rite I services do, yes?

 

[Padres1969]

Yes. The Catechism is in its current, official English translation, and is under the care of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as compared with the Mass translation which is under the care of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. The Catechism’s English translators did pull the Creed and other liturgical texts from the English that was in force at the time, but that action made them official Catechism texts (and uses the RSV and NRSV for its Biblical texts; not whatever texts the Lectionaries are from). That part hasn’t changed and there’s no reason to change them. Liturgiam authenticam, the document mandating the liturgical changes, has no force over the Catechism, which is under a different Roman authority.

If the Catechism is retranslated, then perhaps its editors will pull from the current English liturgical translation, but as it stands, the Catechism is an excellent translation and will probably not be revised for a very long time.

Makes sense. I mean it’s not unusual anyway if I think about it. I mean the Catholic Church already has several different versions of the Nicene Creed that are considered valid anyway between the Anglican Ordinariates, Eastern Churches, and the Latin Rite anyway. All different and yet all at the core the same. That the catechism should maintain the now “older” version of the Latin rite creed isn’t that strange since it still says more or less the same thing as the updated version used in the liturgy (and those other versions in use by the Catholic Church).

 

[runningdude]

Came across an oddity today I wanted to ask about. I’ve been looking at various translations/interpretations of the Nicene Creed across many professing branches of Christianity. Of course they’re all very similar and the base wording is more or less analogous, the RCC being no exception. But I know the RCC in the US changed the translation of the Nicene Creed used in the US as part of the changes to the mass a few years back. However I was looking at the Catholic translation of the Creed that is in the RCC’s Catechism and I noticed it’s different than the USCCB’s translation (and the one used in the English mass in the US). The catechism still appears to have the translation from before the mass changes.

The Vatican website matches the Second Edition of the printed Catechism. It wouldn’t be updated independently of the rest of the text, which may have extensive quotations throughout that would also need to be updated for consistency.

Of minor note, the full Catechism is directed specifically towards bishops, priests, RCIA directors, etc, as a resource to prepare faith formation materials appropriate for their parishioner’s needs. These audiences are expected to be independently aware of the change in translation, and prepare their materials accordingly.

The Catechism is of course available for anyone who is interested, but it is a fairly dense text that extensively quotes theological works and philosophical writings, and not necessarily appropriate as be an introductory text alone.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Came across an oddity today I wanted to ask about. I’ve been looking at various translations/interpretations of the Nicene Creed across many professing branches of Christianity. Of course they’re all very similar and the base wording is more or less analogous, the RCC being no exception. But I know the RCC in the US changed the translation of the Nicene Creed used in the US as part of the changes to the mass a few years back. However I was looking at the Catholic translation of the Creed that is in the RCC’s Catechism and I noticed it’s different than the USCCB’s translation (and the one used in the English mass in the US). The catechism still appears to have the translation from before the mass changes.

The Catholic Church recognized the translation as deviating too far from the original text and the liturgical prayers were required to be retranslated to match the Latin text. This means that the English translation now is much more aligned with not only the Latin, but also other vernacular languages in use.

Is anyone familiar with translations of the creed into other languages? I have long been puzzled by one deviation of the English from the Latin (and from the original Greek), namely:

The original language(s) does not attest to our Lord’s death! They do not deny it, but they neither explicitly express it as in English.

English (liturgical):
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered

{death}

and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
Greek:
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. (nothing of death)
Latin:
*Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. *(nothing of death)

(If you know not the language, feel free to run them through Google translate (that;s how I know what the Greek [doesn’t] say))


tee

 

[ProVobis]

Is anyone familiar with translations of the creed into other languages? I have long been puzzled by one deviation of the English from the Latin (and from the original Greek), namely:

The original language(s) does not attest to our Lord’s death! They do not deny it, but they neither explicitly express it as in English.

English (liturgical):
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered

{death}

and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
Greek:
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. (nothing of death)
Latin:
*Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. *(nothing of death)

(If you know not the language, feel free to run them through Google translate (that;s how I know what the Greek [doesn’t] say))


tee

No dying in the Polish either

….pod Poncjuszem Piłatem został umęczony i pogrzebany.

 

[Usige]

Is anyone familiar with translations of the creed into other languages? I have long been puzzled by one deviation of the English from the Latin (and from the original Greek), namely:

The original language(s) does not attest to our Lord’s death! They do not deny it, but they neither explicitly express it as in English.

English (liturgical):
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered

{death}

and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
Greek:
Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. (nothing of death)
Latin:
*Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas. *(nothing of death)

(If you know not the language, feel free to run them through Google translate (that;s how I know what the Greek [doesn’t] say))


tee

In German the relavant part would be:

Er wurde für uns gekreuzigt unter Pontius Pilatus, hat gelitten und ist begraben worden ist am dritten Tage auferstanden nach der Schrift

I don’t see the verbs for die, sterben (or gestorben), so the literal translation of the underlined phrase above would be “he suffered and has been buried”. Then again I’m not a native German speaker, so my limited German might be missing something.

I know that there were some compromises made with the translations for traditional reasons. For instance, the Lord’s Prayer retained “forgive us our trespasses” instead of “forgive us our debts”. According to this article, the Latin word passus implies suffering that leads to death. Perhaps this is a case where the English word was not precise enough to encompass the fullness of the suffering? Unfortunately I don’t know the nuances of foreign languages to know if that argument hold water.

 

[ProVobis]

According to this article, the Latin word passus implies suffering that leads to death. Perhaps this is a case where the English word was not precise enough to encompass the fullness of the suffering? Unfortunately I don’t know the nuances of foreign languages to know if that argument hold water.

Could be but compare that to the Apostles Creed, where mortuus is distinct.

passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifíxus, mórtuus, et sepúltus