"We Believe" or "I Believe"

[LUKBAN]

My apology, but it seem that the “we” did not come from thin air. There must be a precedent why “we” was started to be used. Even our Parish Priest is using the plural. If we will follow the original Nicene Creed we have to omit the filoque. I am a Roman Catholic, but I’m getting confused of the several practices we are doing. Example:

1. We were told in our parish that holding hands while praying the Our Father is not the proper way of doing it, but rather raising our hands up in a surrender position. Why wait for almost 30 years to tell us about it? Why use the swine flu epidemic as an excuse?
2. I noticed our Parish Priest when celebrating the mass, during the preparation for the consecration of the wine, he add water only to his chalice and not to the wine for the public. Other Priest add water to all the cups. One of our priest said that Vatican is doing the latter.
3. Our Parish Priest told us that during communion we should be all standing instead of kneelig till the last person has received communion. It created confusion because other parishes were not doing it. Our parishioners were confused of what is right because occasionally we attend mass in other parishes. Our priest decided to return to kneeling position or to any position - standing, kneeling or seating whichever is comfortable. I can’t believe it.
4. Universality - means same all over. I watched a Philippine Mass in English celebrated by a SVD Priest every Sunday in the TV in Manila. They are using the Apostles Creed instead of the Nicene Creed. I thought the Roman Catholic Church should be doing the same all over the world. Why the difference? If only occasionally it could be for a specific purpose like children’s mass, but it’s every Sunday and not for the children. I’m curious.

Are the practices and rituals of the local churches under the discretion of the local Diocese?

 

[RobbyS]

From what I’ve learned, I understand the “I believe” predates. The person who commented on the ICEL bringing the “we” into things is right. However, the “I” is not (was not, originally) a statement of any kind of personal, individualistic belief, but rather the profession of the Church, the Body of Christ. And so, the statement “I” (since the Church and the Body of Christ are/is ONE). It was a misunderstanding of this great mystery and profound statement that ended up w/the ICEL going with “we”. They thought we were all speaking for ourselves when we said “I”, rather than the reality that we were speaking as ONE BODY.

I find the same problem (re ICEL) with other parts of their translation of the creed…to me (and the original Latin), there’s a very distinct difference between “seen and unseen” (ICEL) and “visible and invisible” (original). Not all things that are unseen are invisible! Also, one (unseen) implies an action of the person (focus on ‘us’ again - yawn) while the other (invisible) implies the nature of the thing - and the nature of things is given to them by God. (focus on God’s creation). Changing the focus from God’s creation to OUR perception (seen or unseen) of His creation is par for the ICEL/modernist course.

Anyway, re the “I believe” - it’s what I say and how I pray it. It’s the original, it’s the correct translation of the Latin and it’s NOT individual – it’s the one Church, the one Body of Christ speaking.

The modernist agenda is largely a matter of seizing control of the language we use. Ironically, the modernist renderings are so banal that they are impossible, almost, to memorize.

 

[japhy]

(Part 1)

My apology, but it seem that the “we” did not come from thin air. There must be a precedent why “we” was started to be used. Even our Parish Priest is using the plural.

The English translation of the Creed approved for the Mass since 1970 uses the plural. Why? I don’t know. It’s a poor translation of the Latin, which uses the singular.

If we will follow the original Nicene Creed we have to omit the filoque.

You mean if we follow the original Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed from 381. The Nicene Creed from 325 was even simpler. But yes, our Creed includes the filioque. That’s the Roman tradition.

1. We were told in our parish that holding hands while praying the Our Father is not the proper way of doing it, but rather raising our hands up in a surrender position.

There is no prescribed posture for the faithful during the Our Father, so technically you can do anything appropriate. Many people (myself included) keep their hands folded in prayer. Some, more recently, join their hands to those near them. Others, also more recently, mimic the priest’s posture of the orans position, arms extended. That last one is not appropriate for at least one reason: copying the priest’s postures/gestures during the liturgy is inappropriate.

1. I noticed our Parish Priest when celebrating the mass, during the preparation for the consecration of the wine, he add water only to his chalice and not to the wine for the public. Other Priest add water to all the cups. One of our priest said that Vatican is doing the latter.

The rubrics do not require that water be added to each chalice of wine. It is permissible to add water to only one chalice.

1. Our Parish Priest told us that during communion we should be all standing instead of kneelig till the last person has received communion. It created confusion because other parishes were not doing it. Our parishioners were confused of what is right because occasionally we attend mass in other parishes. Our priest decided to return to kneeling position or to any position - standing, kneeling or seating whichever is comfortable. I can’t believe it.

The posture of the faithful after they have received Communion is up to each person; the bishops and priests are not permitted to regulate this. If a person wants to kneel in prayer, they may. If they prefer to sit, they may. If they’d rather remain standing until everyone has received, they can do that too… although I find that one a bit weird.

 

[japhy]

(Part 2)

1. Universality - means same all over. I watched a Philippine Mass in English celebrated by a SVD Priest every Sunday in the TV in Manila. They are using the Apostles Creed instead of the Nicene Creed. I thought the Roman Catholic Church should be doing the same all over the world. Why the difference?

Perhaps in the Philippines, they always have the choice to use the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. That permission exists for Canada. It will exist for every Roman Catholic parish in a couple years, because the new Missal allows for it.

There was very little room for choosing different texts/prayers in the 1962 Missal. After Vatican II (even though the Council didn’t call for this), the liturgy was reformed in such a way as to provide a lot of options for the priest and the people in terms of what to say. Here is how the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship described it:

1. The reform of the sacred liturgy, and especially the reorganization of the Roman Missal recently completed in accordance with the requirements of Vatican Council II, are intended above all to facilitate intelligent, devout, active participation by the faithful in the Eucharist.

**A notable feature** of this new Roman Missal, published by authority of Pope Paul VI, **is undoubtedly the wealth of texts from which a choice may often be made**, whether in the case of readings from Holy Writ or in that of the chants, prayers and acclamations of the whole community, or again in regard to the "presidential" prayers, not excluding the Eucharistic Prayer itself, for in addition to the venerable traditional Roman Canon, three new texts have been brought into use.

2. **The reason for providing this ample variety of texts** and the purpose intended by the revision of the prayer forms to be used are of a pastoral nature, namely, in order **to bring about unity and diversity of liturgical prayer**. By using these texts as set forth in the Roman Missal, **various groups of the faithful who gather to celebrate the Eucharist are able to sense that they form part of the one Church**, praying with one faith and one prayer. At the same time they possess an appropriate means, especially when the vernacular is used, to proclaim in many ways the one mystery of Christ; and it becomes easier for individual faithful to raise their hearts to the Lord in prayer and thanksgiving, and to share in the celebration with greater spiritual results. (*Eucharistiae Participationem* 1-2, from April 27, 1973)

I don’t necessarily agree… I don’t think the multiplicity of texts (along with the vernacular) has served to really “unite the Church in diversity”, especially since individual groups can get used to saying Mass with their own preferred choices of texts. The whole Catholic Church has unity despite having a diversity of liturgical Rites (Roman, Byzantine, Ruthenian, etc.), but the massive amount of diversity created after Vatican II in the Roman Rite might not be as wonderful as the people who introduced it thought it would be.

Are the practices and rituals of the local churches under the discretion of the local Diocese?

Some things are up to the individual Catholic (like posture after Communion), some things are under the control of the priest (like which Eucharistic Prayer he’s going to use), some are under the control of the bishop (like posture after the “Lamb of God”), and others are regulated by Rome (which is most of it).

 

[Eric_Olsen]

During the Nicene Creed, we have a few individuals in our parish who insist on saying “I believe…” instead of “We believe…” A couple of them say it rather quietly and one would only notice if they happen to be standing next to one of these persons. But one shouts it out. I do not know the reason for this change in wording, but it can be very distracting and disrupting especially with the shouting.

I just wonder why this change of wording is going on. Is there some notice of change that we are supposed to be observing?

It really should be “I believe”. The original latin is “Credo in unum deum” which is I believe in one God. ICEL changed it to “we” in the 70’s because of all the “touchy feely community” ****.

 

[LUKBAN]

Seem to be clearer now. I guess the root of these confusion is lack of information and understanding of our catholic faith and practices. To some who are not observant or doesn’t really care on what’s going on, everything goes. In one of the retreat I attended in our parish the priest giving the retreat said most of the time catholic think simple, “obey, obey and pay”. No question ask. Very few have the desire to learn about their faith. Especially when their faith was only inherited from their parents. Any practice I think though acceptable should be understood first by the parishioners before it is adopted especially if not all parishes are required to do it. There are parish priests who are so quick in implementing changes especially if it’s within their own discretion. Sometime disagreement between the the priests in the parish occur because too fast of a change create confusion especially when majority of our parishioners are elderly. You can hear them complain, “what’s next?”. I rest my case.

 

[diggerdomer]

It really should be “I believe”. The original latin is “Credo in unum deum” which is I believe in one God. ICEL changed it to “we” in the 70’s because of all the “touchy feely community” ****.

The Church changed the way the Creed is prayed at liturgy, not ICEL. And, I’m sure the Church did not change it for the reason you suggest, unless you can show us otherwise?

There are good reasons for “We” in liturgical prayer just as there are good reasons for “I.” The Church can decide which to use in liturgical prayer.

 

[latingirl]

For someone who memorized the entire Creed in Latin, I am very tempted to just say “I beleive” during Mass and leave it at that. I also get confused around the time we say “Lord, I am not worthy to recieve you” and I want to end it “My sould shall be healed” instead of “I shall be healed” becuause of the whole “sanabitur anima mea”

*Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem…*I love rolling the r’s!

 

[FrDavid96]

The Church changed the way the Creed is prayed at liturgy, not ICEL. And, I’m sure the Church did not change it for the reason you suggest, unless you can show us otherwise?

There are good reasons for “We” in liturgical prayer just as there are good reasons for “I.” The Church can decide which to use in liturgical prayer.

Actually, it really was ICEL and not the Church which made the change. That’s why it is the Church which is now telling the English speaking world that mistakes were made the first time around in translations and those mistakes need to be corrected.

The “proof” is in the text itself. “Credo in unum Deum” means “I believe” This is what the Latin text says, and has said for more than 1000 years. Even though the sentence is in the singular, ICEL translated that as “we” instead. It’s quite obvious.

 

[diggerdomer]

Actually, it really was ICEL and not the Church which made the change. That’s why it is the Church which is now telling the English speaking world that mistakes were made the first time around in translations and those mistakes need to be corrected.

The “proof” is in the text itself. “Credo in unum Deum” means “I believe” This is what the Latin text says, and has said for more than 1000 years. Even though the sentence is in the singular, ICEL translated that as “we” instead. It’s quite obvious.

Oh…so ICEL was solely responsible for the Sacramentary indicating the Creed should be prayed “We” instead of “I”? Wow. Thanks. I had no idea ICEL had such power and authority…I thought it was the Church (you know, Vatican, CDWDS, etc.) that published and approved the Sacramentary and of course all other liturgical Rites.

(and p.s. yes I know credo means “I believe”…again thanks…though of course this begs the question of what the ORIGINAL creed said and what the Latin before 1000 years ago that you reference may have said…but that’s likely another thread)

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh…so ICEL was solely responsible for the Sacramentary indicating the Creed should be prayed “We” instead of “I”? Wow. Thanks. I had no idea ICEL had such power and authority…I thought it was the Church (you know, Vatican, CDWDS, etc.) that published and approved the Sacramentary and of course all other liturgical Rites.

(and p.s. yes I know credo means “I believe”…again thanks…though of course this begs the question of what the ORIGINAL creed said and what the Latin before 1000 years ago that you reference may have said…but that’s likely another thread)

What you do not realize is that what you are saying with such sarcasm is the historic truth. Yes, ICEL was responsible for changing the Creed in English, in the late 60s/early 70s. Yes, they did overstep their bounds. And yes, they did manage to get the texts approved–but only for a time. Type carefully. Your sarcasm is merely indicating that you do not in fact know the history of what happened.

Back to the Creed itself: We don’t need to ask the question of what the Creed said 1000 or 1650 years ago. We already know that it’s been said in the singular in liturgical contexts-- no one is disputing that.

 

[diggerdomer]

What you do not realize is that what you are saying with such sarcasm is the historic truth. Yes, ICEL was responsible for changing the Creed in English, in the late 60s/early 70s. Yes, they did overstep their bounds. And yes, they did manage to get the texts approved–but only for a time. Type carefully. Your sarcasm is merely indicating that you do not in fact know the history of what happened.

Back to the Creed itself: We don’t need to ask the question of what the Creed said 1000 or 1650 years ago. We already know that it’s been said in the singular in liturgical contexts-- no one is disputing that.

I apologize for any sarcasm.

I take it from your clarification that you would agree that it’s not accurate to simply say ICEL was responsible for what we pray at Mass. My understanding of the context of the original post was the Creed prayed at liturgy, and I still think that the Church had to approve liturgical texts, not ICEL apart from the Magisterium.

 

[FrDavid96]

I apologize for any sarcasm.

I take it from your clarification that you would agree that it’s not accurate to simply say ICEL was responsible for what we pray at Mass. My understanding of the context of the original post was the Creed prayed at liturgy, and I still think that the Church had to approve liturgical texts, not ICEL apart from the Magisterium.

I am saying what I’m saying. If you want to know if I agree about a particular point, ask me and I’ll answer. I believe (firmly) what I said in my earlier post, that ICEL overstepped its authority and wrongly offered an “interpretation” of the texts, when its responsibility was to provide a translation of those texts.

It was ICEL’s responsibility to translate the texts from Latin into English. Given the fact that the new liturgical texts were being translated from Latin into I-don’t-know-how-many-scores of languages, all at the same time, a certain amount of trust was, of necessity, vested in these translators.

ICEL was indeed acting “apart from the Magisterium” because the mission was to translate, not to interpret, not to invent new texts*. The various legitimate authorities in the Church did approve these texts (bishops’ conferences, and ultimately the Holy See) but they did so based in large part on the fact that they were trusting ICEL to perform their stated mission.

If ICEL had pefrormed its mission of translating the texts we would not be in the position in which we now find ourselves.

• the exception to this being the soon-to-be-defunct “alternate” opening prayers, which were in-fact new prayers, and intended to be just that.

 

[latingirl]

Credimus in unum Deum?

 

[japhy]

ICEL was indeed acting “apart from the Magisterium” because the mission was to translate, not to interpret, not to invent new texts*.

• the exception to this being the soon-to-be-defunct “alternate” opening prayers, which were in-fact new prayers, and intended to be just that.

The creation of new prayers (even though they are usually based around the same theme as the original Latin prayers) seems to be yet another means of separating the English-speaking Church from the rest of the Church, as if saying, “No longer do the Collects of the Roman Missal suffice for English-speaking Catholics! We need our own prayers!” Luckily the new translation is putting an end to a trend that could have led to a falsely “enculturated” American Catholic liturgy.

 

[diggerdomer]

I am saying what I’m saying. If you want to know if I agree about a particular point, ask me and I’ll answer. I believe (firmly) what I said in my earlier post, that ICEL overstepped its authority and wrongly offered an “interpretation” of the texts, when its responsibility was to provide a translation of those texts.

It was ICEL’s responsibility to translate the texts from Latin into English. Given the fact that the new liturgical texts were being translated from Latin into I-don’t-know-how-many-scores of languages, all at the same time, a certain amount of trust was, of necessity, vested in these translators.

ICEL was indeed acting “apart from the Magisterium” because the mission was to translate, not to interpret, not to invent new texts*. The various legitimate authorities in the Church did approve these texts (bishops’ conferences, and ultimately the Holy See) but they did so based in large part on the fact that they were trusting ICEL to perform their stated mission.

If ICEL had pefrormed its mission of translating the texts we would not be in the position in which we now find ourselves.

• the exception to this being the soon-to-be-defunct “alternate” opening prayers, which were in-fact new prayers, and intended to be just that.

Ok, here’s my question:

Catholics pray “We believe…” when praying the Creed at Mass (and have been for the past 40 years or so).

Who’s responsible/in charge for what Catholics pray at Mass?

1. The Church.
2. ICEL
3. Some other group.

Thanks.

 

[Brendan]

Ok, here’s my question:

Catholics pray “We believe…” when praying the Creed at Mass (and have been for the past 40 years or so)…

First, you would need to be more specific. The correct way of phrasing it would be

"SOME Catholics pray “We believe”, the large majority of the Church uses the first person singular.

So the question then becomes, “Who is responsible for this sub set of the Church being different that the rest”

The answer becomes

The ICEL produced a translation that was not faithful to what the rest of the Church was doing. The Vatican, for reasons unknown, gave it a recognito and allow it to be promulgated.

Pope John Paul II, with later study, recognized that the translation used did not correspond to the liturgical needs of the Church and issued instructions on how translations from the universal Latin Missal are to be accomplished (Liturgicam Authenticam).

Such a translation was done and approved by the US Bishops along with the Bishop Conferences of other English speaking nations. We are now awaiting the recognition and promulgation of that text.

 

[benedictgal]

First, you would need to be more specific. The correct way of phrasing it would be

"SOME Catholics pray “We believe”, the large majority of the Church uses the first person singular.

So the question then becomes, “Who is responsible for this sub set of the Church being different that the rest”

The answer becomes

The ICEL produced a translation that was not faithful to what the rest of the Church was doing. The Vatican, for reasons unknown, gave it a recognito and allow it to be promulgated.

Pope John Paul II, with later study, recognized that the translation used did not correspond to the liturgical needs of the Church and issued instructions on how translations from the universal Latin Missal are to be accomplished (Liturgicam Authenticam).

Such a translation was done and approved by the US Bishops along with the Bishop Conferences of other English speaking nations. We are now awaiting the recognition and promulgation of that text.

Actually the one who found the glaring error in the ICEL translation was Cardinal Medina when he was prefect of the CDWDS. At that time, ICEL had just finished a newer rite of ordination. When the group presented it to the CDWDS, Cardinal Medina noted that the dots did not connect. In conjunction with Pope John Paul II, they released Liturgiam Authenticam, which got the whole ball rolling to correct a huge wrong.

You are right about what the rest of the world is saying. I only have to look at the CEM (Mexican Episcopal Conference) Roman Missal (approved for use here in the United States) to note that the word is “Creo” (singular) as opposed to “Creemos” (plural).

 

[Brendan]

Actually the one who found the glaring error in the ICEL translation was Cardinal Medina when he was prefect of the CDWDS. At that time, ICEL had just finished a newer rite of ordination. When the group presented it to the CDWDS, Cardinal Medina noted that the dots did not connect. In conjunction with Pope John Paul II, they released Liturgiam Authenticam, which got the whole ball rolling to correct a huge wrong.

You are right about what the rest of the world is saying. I only have to look at the CEM (Mexican Episcopal Conference) Roman Missal (approved for use here in the United States) to note that the word is “Creo” (singular) as opposed to “Creemos” (plural).

The translation we are using now was never meant to last this long anyway. There was a new, fuller translation being working on in the late 80’s, but that work was put on hold while the 2000 Missal was being created. And then Pope John Paul II issued the guidelines on how to do a correct translation.

This new translation will bring us up to what the rest of the Church is doing and saying,

 

[diggerdomer]

First, you would need to be more specific. The correct way of phrasing it would be

"SOME Catholics pray “We believe”, the large majority of the Church uses the first person singular.

So the question then becomes, “Who is responsible for this sub set of the Church being different that the rest”

The answer becomes

The ICEL produced a translation that was not faithful to what the rest of the Church was doing. The Vatican, for reasons unknown, gave it a recognito and allow it to be promulgated.

Pope John Paul II, with later study, recognized that the translation used did not correspond to the liturgical needs of the Church and issued instructions on how translations from the universal Latin Missal are to be accomplished (Liturgicam Authenticam).

Such a translation was done and approved by the US Bishops along with the Bishop Conferences of other English speaking nations. We are now awaiting the recognition and promulgation of that text.

Yes of course, sorry, I was only thinking of English-speaking in America. Apologies.

Regarding “reasons unknown” I’d offer that I think the Church gives good reasons for using “We” in the Catechism para 167.

If the Church prefers We or I for us to pray at liturgy either one is fine with me.