Which Creed at Mass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cor_ad_Cor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cor_ad_Cor

Guest
I know a similar post was done a couple of years ago, but my question pertains to the upcoming revised 3rd edition of the Roman Missal. Which Creed - Apostles or Nicene - should be said during Mass - or does it matter?

Currently, the Sacramentary reads as follows:
In celebrations of Masses with children, the Apostles’ Creed may be said after the homily.
Click to expand...
However, the copy posted on the USCCB website for the new edition of the Roman Missal says:
Instead of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, especially during Lent and Easter
Time, the baptismal Symbol of the Roman Church, known as the Apostles’ Creed, may be
used.
Click to expand...
Does this mean, then, that either Creed may be used at any time? The current GIRM does not specify which Profession of Faith is to be said.
 
Living in Canada, the Apostles Creed seems to be the norm on Sundays. Very rarely is the Nicene Creed ever used, so I can’t be of much help.
 
Our deacon told us that it is likely that the Apostles Creed will probably be used more often at first in our parish (aren’t the changes to begin in Advent anyway?) because of the changes in wording to the Nicene Creed. He meant that we would have a chance to get used to the other changes first and then the Nicene Creed would be re-introduced. It does seem that either may be used but the more ancient creed is particularly appropriate at certain times. Too bad, because I like the Nicene Creed.
 
I vote for Nicene Creed sans Filioque 👍

I did have an RC pastor who used the Nicene Creed exclusively, with kneeling at the incarnation during Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter seasons.
 
Claire_from_DE said:
Our deacon told us that it is likely that the Apostles Creed will probably be used more often at first in our parish (aren’t the changes to begin in Advent anyway?) because of the changes in wording to the Nicene Creed. He meant that we would have a chance to get used to the other changes first and then the Nicene Creed would be re-introduced. It does seem that either may be used but the more ancient creed is particularly appropriate at certain times. Too bad, because I like the Nicene Creed.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the changing of the wording is really that big of a deal that the congregation isn’t capable of handling it. It seems the word change that making people miffed is “consubstantial”.
 
It’s my understanding that either Creed may be used with the Third Edition, although the Missal suggests times when the Apostles Creed may be more appropriate.

For years Canada has been using the Apostles Creed by indult. Our ORDO says that the Nicene should be used at Christmas and Annunciation but not all priests follow that. This year, the visiting priest we had at Christmas used it and recently our Pastor used it at Pentecost. Beyond that I don’t think I’d heard it in this parish in a decade or more.
 
Love_Divine said:
I don’t think the changing of the wording is really that big of a deal that the congregation isn’t capable of handling it. It seems the word change that making people miffed is “consubstantial”.
Click to expand...
The bishops saw no other way to translate it properly except to use the cognate of the Latin. That’s one of the changes I actually agree with. Also “visible” and “invisible” that are more Latin-based.
 
I vote for Nicene Creed sans Filioque 👍
Click to expand...
I know I will get some trouble from the Easterners on this one but the Filioque is Scripturally-based and I have to defend its use. (note that the “ego” emphasizes the first person in the Latin.)
26 ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ:
Click to expand...
26 Cum autem venerit Paraclitus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre, Spiritum veritatis, qui a Patre procedit, ille testimonium perhibebit de me;
Click to expand...
26 But when the Paraclete comes, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.
Click to expand...
 
ProVobis said:
I know I will get some trouble from the Easterners on this one but the Filioque is Scripturally-based and I have to defend its use. (note that the “ego” emphasizes the first person in the Latin.)
Click to expand...
The Filioque isn’t from who sends who, but the source of the being of the Holy Spirit.
 
Our parish will be using the Apostle’s Creed, I think to make it easier for those whom are attending Mass and for the Children. However, growing up until I knew my prayers well enough, I followed along in a missal. They are provided so I say learn how to use one. :o Sorry if this is offensive to anyone.
 
Cor_ad_Cor said:
…Does this mean, then, that either Creed may be used at any time? The current GIRM does not specify which Profession of Faith is to be said.
Click to expand...
True, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) does not specify which Creed to use. But another part of the Roman Missal does: the Order of Mass. The USA translation of this is at usccb.org/romanmissal/order-of-mass.pdf . It has:

“19. Instead of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, especially during Lent and Easter Time, the baptismal Symbol of the Roman Church, known as the Apostles’ Creed, may be used.”

My interpretation of this is that either Creed can be used at any time.
 
ProVobis said:
The bishops saw no other way to translate it properly except to use the cognate of the Latin. That’s one of the changes I actually agree with. Also “visible” and “invisible” that are more Latin-based.
Click to expand...
I have no issues with the word. There are stpries of bishops condemning the new translation because words like “consubstantial” are too hard for the laity to understand because it’s not an every day word.
 
Love_Divine said:
I have no issues with the word. There are stpries of bishops condemning the new translation because words like “consubstantial” are too hard for the laity to understand because it’s not an every day word.
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely correct. I don’t doubt that. Many wouldn’t understand it if you spent two to three days explaining it to them. But the very questionable “one in being with the Father” and “one in substance” just don’t reflect the (“con”) sharing of the no-beginning nature of the two Persons and yet make standing/existing (“stantis”) distinction (“sub”) between the Two Persons. IMO, the Preface of the Holy Trinity tries to explain this mystery somewhat better.

youtube.com/watch?v=9eJAMZ2WSV8
 
ProVobis said:
The bishops saw no other way to translate it properly except to use the cognate of the Latin. That’s one of the changes I actually agree with. Also “visible” and “invisible” that are more Latin-based.
Click to expand...
Note that Latin is also just a translation of the Creed. It was originally in Greek. Well, 99% of it anyway.
 
Note that Latin is also just a translation of the Creed. It was originally in Greek. Well, 99% of it anyway.
Click to expand...
Since the Latin language lacks a present active participle for the verb “to be,” Tertullian and other Latin authors rendered the Greek noun “ousia”(being) as “substantia,” and the Greek adjective “homoousios” (of the same being) as “consubstantialis.” Unlike the Greek words, which are etymologically related to the Greek verb “to be” and connote one’s own personal inherent character, “substantia,” connotes matter as much as it connotes being.
Click to expand...
The term is also used to describe the common humanity which is shared by all human persons. Thus, Jesus Christ is said to be consubstantial with the Father in his divinity and consubstantial with “us” in his humanity. This term was canonized by the Catholic Church in 325 at the council of Nicaea.
Click to expand...
It has also been noted that this Greek term “homoousian” or “consubstantial”, which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, and was ratified in the Nicene Council and Creed, was actually a term reported to also be used and favored by the Sabellians in their Christology. And it was a term that many followers of Athanasius were actually uneasy about. And the “Semi-Arians”, in particular, objected to the word “homoousian”. Their objection to this term was that it was considered to be un-Scriptural, suspicious, and “of a Sabellian tendency.”[1] This was because Sabellius also considered the Father and the Son to be “one substance.” Meaning that, to Sabellius, the Father and Son were “one essential Person.” This notion, however, was also rejected at the Council of Nicaea, in favor of the Athanasian formulation and creed, of the Father and Son being distinct yet also co-equal, co-eternal, and con-substantial Persons.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top