Text Change for I Believe?

[THurifer2]

I listened to a Lecture by a deacon who is way overboard on the “community” aspect of the Litrugy. He says that the texts of the mass are going to be changed and the creed will be changed beginning with “I BELIEVE” instead of “we Believe” He says that aquinas says that the “I” really means US and We. He says that this is what the church officially teaches.Can anyone out there give me some official writing that explains this is true?

To be honest with you this “communal” mentality really makes me think that someone is out to destroy the individual created child of god that we are.

 

[mercygate]

I listened to a Lecture by a deacon who is way overboard on the “community” aspect of the Litrugy. He says that the texts of the mass are going to be changed and the creed will be changed beginning with “I BELIEVE” instead of “we Believe” He says that aquinas says that the “I” really means US and We. He says that this is what the church officially teaches.Can anyone out there give me some official writing that explains this is true?

To be honest with you this “communal” mentality really makes me think that someone is out to destroy the individual created child of god that we are.

Check the Catechism. It says somehthing like that. I believe what *WE *believe.

The thing I object to in WE BELIEVE was best exemplified by something a friend told me. He attended a liturgy at which Jack Spong (the notoriously anti-orthodox Episcopal bisihop) was present. Spong blithely recited the Creed as if he believed every word of it. Later my friend asked him HOW on earth he could do such a thing since he was well known for denying every single article of the Creed. Spong replied that he had no problem reciting the Creed because it says “WE BELIEVE” meaning, “this is what the Church teaches.” So if “I BELIEVE” something different, sayng the Creed poses no contradiction because the “WE” is the Church, as opposed to “I”, the individual.

 

[sheila0405]

The liturgy will be updated, although I’m not sure when. Go to this link for more information: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0603008.htm

I don’t think the decision is so much about community as it is about making a more faithful English translation of the Latin in the 1962 Missal.

Hope this helps.

 

[Joannm]

I don’t think the decision is so much about community as it is about making a more faithful English translation of the Latin in the 1962 Missal.

Hope this helps.

It has nothing to do with the 1962 missal. The Missal was revised in 2000 in Latin and that is the translation that they are saying must be followed. The fact that it might be the same translation as in the '62 missal is beside the point. The creed has always began with Credo which translates as I beleive**

 

[Windmill]

As stated above, “I” have no idea what the gentleman next to me believes. The statement is not about telling God what our Church teaches, it is about renewing your baptismal vows about what you believe. Beyond that, if the official Latin version says “I believe,” then this is clearly what the Church wants us to pray. Don’t let the deacon try to make this look like a universal movement of theological opinion. The theological ambiguity that results from this type of mis-translation is precisely what BXVI is trying to prevent.

 

[mdgspencer]

These things are both true, I believe and we believe. However, the English mass is supposed to be a translation of the Latin language version of the mass, which is the standard in this case. The Latin version has I believe. This change is simply a correction, though of course changing it to I believe involves a change in emphasis, which however, is already the case in the Latin language version. I don’t see that this change is grounds for theological contention, since in fact we believe and I believe are both true.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

As stated above, “I” have no idea what the gentleman next to me believes. . . .

And even more importantly are those situations when I have a fair idea of what the gentleman next to me believes.

 

[bpbasilphx]

While the Creed was originally promulgated by the Councils in first person plural, with the exceptions of the Ethiopian and Armenian Churches (as far as I know), the liturgical use has always been to recite it in first person singular.

Orthodoxy makes one execption: In the special Synodikon and Office of Orthodoxy celebrated on the first Sunday in Lent, the Creed is directed to be said in the plural form (which makes sense in this context). Nevertheless, most parishes continue to recite it in the singular. (Odd, isn’t it?)

 

[Brendan]

The Latin text for Mass has “I believe” ( Credo)

This is for a very simple reason. We can only attest to our own, personal beliefs, not to those who happen to be next to me in the pew.

 

[Brendan]

While the Creed was originally promulgated by the Councils in first person plural,

The first person plural was used because it was being promulgated by a Council of Bishops. Since there was more than one bishop issuing the Creed, and those (plural) bishops were the ones issuing the decree, the first person plural was used.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The first person plural was used because it was being promulgated by a Council of Bishops. Since there was more than one bishop issuing the Creed, and those (plural) bishops were the ones issuing the decree, the first person plural was used.

Very good point, Brendan. I also thought I’d chime in that I was under the impression that the Latin version of the conciliar creed had always been in the singular, anyway. In other words, the Greek was issued in the plural, but the Latin in the singular.

More generally, though, one can’t help but be amused that a deacon might be insinuating that accurately translating the official text of the Mass is somehow a change in the Mass or that the Credo the Latin church has recited liturgically for a millenium is the oddball compared to the English version. I can’t know if he was trying to imply these things, but it would be hilarious if he was.

 

[Brendan]

Very good point, Brendan. I also thought I’d chime in that I was under the impression that the Latin version of the conciliar creed had always been in the singular, anyway. In other words, the Greek was issued in the plural, but the Latin in the singular.

No, I have a copy of the Concillular documents at home. The Latin used by both Nicea and Constantinople use ‘credemus’, but they use it in the sense that they are speaking with the Authority of the Church and on behalf of all Christians.

We, not even the priest, have that authority. We can only speak about our own, personally held, beliefs…Thus “I believe” is the more correct phrasing.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

No, I have a copy of the Concillular documents at home. The Latin used by both Nicea and Constantinople use ‘credemus’, but they use it in the sense that they are speaking with the Authority of the Church and on behalf of all Christians.

We, not even the priest, have that authority. We can only speak about our own, personally held, beliefs…Thus “I believe” is the more correct phrasing.

I stand corrected. Did credo first come into use with the Spanish liturgical use of the Creed, or did it wait until Roman adoption of the practice?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I listened to a Lecture by a deacon who is way overboard on the “community” aspect of the Litrugy. He says that the texts of the mass are going to be changed and the creed will be changed beginning with “I BELIEVE” instead of “we Believe” He says that aquinas says that the “I” really means US and We. He says that this is what the church officially teaches.Can anyone out there give me some official writing that explains this is true?

To be honest with you this “communal” mentality really makes me think that someone is out to destroy the individual created child of god that we are.

The Church is changing the Creed wording FROM “We” TO “I” Not the other way around. The Creed is a personal profession of faith in preparation for Holy Communion.

 

[Asperges_Me]

I have been following the new English translation issue for several years now. I’ve been hoping and praying for its swift approval and implementation. But the Sep 07 Vox Clara meeting report just seems like a lot more bureaucratic foot dragging. It says the end of 2009 is the target date for the completion of the entire Missal. First, major project deadlines more than a few months rarely make their completion dates. Even if the end of 2009 is met, years worth of delays can be rationalized for writing music, printing missals, training, etc. If the project drags on and on there is the possibility that the whole thing gets overcome by events. By then who knows, maybe a whole new Roman Missal project might be started or God forbid, our current Holy Father passes away and a new Pope shelves the project.

Why can’t the ordinary of the Mass be implemented without the propers? Why can’t the new rendering of “Pro Multis” as “For Many” be implemented immediately? That doesn’t involve the people. The priest only has to change one word. I don’t think it took so long to go from “For All Men” to “For All”.

I can’t see what has taken so long in the first place. Since this new English translation is in large part going back to what was in the 1965 and 1967 transitional Missals, a lot of the work should already have been done and available. I realize some parts of the new Mass have to have been done from scratch, but that should be a relatively small part.

Since the Church is about the salvation of souls, as the years tick by, how many souls will not live to hear a faithful translation of the Roman Missal (at least in the ordinary form). I’m only 46 and I’m hoping I live to hear it. Even if it does eventually make it, what discipline will be used to ensure priests use the new translation faithfully? A lot paraphrase the Mass now to where the words from the Missal are unrecognizable.

 

[Brendan]

I
Why can’t the ordinary of the Mass be implemented without the propers? Why can’t the new rendering of “Pro Multis” as “For Many” be implemented immediately? That doesn’t involve the people. The priest only has to change one word. I don’t think it took so long to go from “For All Men” to “For All”…

The approved texts CAN be implemented immediatly. But the Vatican has been holding off on final approval because it wants a common English language text, one that can be used in the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia and all other English speaking areas.

That means reconciling different texts and additions that have been submitted by each of those different countries.

If we were looking at a US only edition (like we currently have), then one probably could have been approved by now, but that is not what the Vatican is looking for, and we should respect that.