Why did the Nicene Creed re-translate "born of" when the Apostles' Creed did not?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mkamoski1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mkamoski1

Guest
Dear Friends in Christ –

Please help.

I was wondering…

Why did the Nicene Creed re-translate “born of” when the Apostles’ Creed did not?

That is, according to this link at the USCCB…usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/background/articles-documents-and-reflections/changes-in-the-peoples-parts.cfm

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/background/articles-documents-and-reflections/changes-in-the-peoples-parts.cfm

…in the Nicene Creed, this…

born of the Virgin Mary

…was changed to this…

incarnate of the Virgin Mary

…but in the Apostles’ Creed, this…

born of the Virgin Mary

…was not changed and is still this…

born of the Virgin Mary

…so, I am wondering, why was one instance changed and the other not?

(Of course, I admit that maybe I am missing something; so, maybe my reading of the matter is incorrect? Is it? If so, then how so?)

Please advise.

Thanks.

Slave to Jesus through Mary, I am yours…

– Mark Kamoski
 
“Incarnate of the Virgin Mary” is a more faithful translation of the original Greek of the Creed than is “born of the Virgin Mary.”
 
The Apostle’s Creed is supposed to be aimed at those less mature in their faith. So it is used in Children’s masses and at baptisms where you would expect children to be present. So big words are left out.
 
Evan said:
The Apostle’s Creed is supposed to be aimed at those less mature in their faith. So it is used in Children’s masses and at baptisms where you would expect children to be present. So big words are left out.
Click to expand...
Citation please?
 
It differs in the original Latin

The Nicean Creed itself states “Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine”

The Apostle’s Creed states " natus ex Maria virgine", Born of the Virgin Mary

The translation is correct in both cases now. The previous translation of the Nicean Creed incorrectly associated the birth of Christ with the Incarnation.

The Incarnation occurred 9 months previously at the Annunciation.
 
I don’t know an official answer, nor am I familiar with the Latin, but here is something to consider.

The line in the Apostle’s Creed is preceded by the line “conceived by the Holy Spirit.”

In the Nicene Creed, those two clauses are merged together in “by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary.”

So really, the more apt comparison would be between “incarnate” in the Nicene Creed and “conceived” in the Apostle’s Creed as both are refering to the action of the Holy Spirit.
 
PacoG said:
Citation please?
Click to expand...
Just read it. Look at the phrasing, the elements included. At least you can view the English translation, if not the Latin.

It’s also not the result of a Council, where theologians struggled to impart nuance to the words used.

Citation: Directory for masses with children
49. If the profession of faith occurs at the end of the liturgy of the word, the Apostles’ Creed may be used with children, especially because it is part of their catechetical formation.

and, as they become more mature:
39. Some rites and texts should never be adapted for children lest the difference between Masses with children and the Masses with adults becomes too pronounced. these are “the acclamations and the responses to the priest’s greeting,” the Lord’s Prayer, and the Trinitarian formulary at the end of the blessing with which the priest concludes the Mass. It is urged, moreover, that children should become accustomed to the Nicene Creed little by little, the right to use the Apostles’ Creed indicated in no. 49 remaining intact.
 
mkamoski1 said:
Dear Friends in Christ –

Please help.

I was wondering…

Why did the Nicene Creed re-translate “born of” when the Apostles’ Creed did not?
Click to expand...
Brendan has the right answer: it is because the Latin text of the Nicene Creed says incarnatus, “incarnate, made flesh,” while the Latin text of the Apostles’ Creed says natus, “born.”
 
ConstantineTG said:
FYI, the original of the Nicene Creed was Greek, not Latin 😉
Click to expand...
The Council promulgated it’s degrees in both Latin and Greek. The formal acceptance of the Canon (including the Creed) involved the documents in both languages being presented to the bishops for their assent, as well has for the assent by the Bishop of Rome.

So it would be hard to claim that ‘the original’ was in Greek
 
Quite aprt from anything else It helps to reinforce the fact that life begins at conception - the taking on of flesh - rather than at birth. It is the fact that the logos took on flesh (one might even say 'took on created matter) that is of greatest significance.
 
ConstantineTG said:
FYI, the original of the Nicene Creed was Greek, not Latin 😉

Apostle’s Creed, not sure if it was in Greek or Aramaic
Click to expand...
But the Editio Typica of the Roman Missal is Latin, and that’s what we’re translating from. The posters are correct. In the Editio Typica, there are two words with different meanings, hence the different translations.
 
brendan said:
it differs in the original latin

the nicean creed itself states “et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto ex maria virgine”

the apostle’s creed states " natus ex maria virgine", born of the virgin mary

the translation is correct in both cases now. The previous translation of the nicean creed incorrectly associated the birth of christ with the incarnation.

The incarnation occurred 9 months previously at the annunciation.
Click to expand...
this is the answer.
 
porthos11 said:
But the Editio Typica of the Roman Missal is Latin, and that’s what we’re translating from. The posters are correct. In the Editio Typica, there are two words with different meanings, hence the different translations.
Click to expand...
But in any contention about translations, its best to compare with the original than translating from a translation
 
Brendan said:
The Council promulgated it’s degrees in both Latin and Greek. The formal acceptance of the Canon (including the Creed) involved the documents in both languages being presented to the bishops for their assent, as well has for the assent by the Bishop of Rome.

So it would be hard to claim that ‘the original’ was in Greek
Click to expand...
Greek was the universal language of the Empire back then. It doesn’t have to be in Latin for the Pope of Rome to accept it. Can you point me to your source so I can read further?
 
Brendan said:
The Council promulgated it’s degrees in both Latin and Greek. The formal acceptance of the Canon (including the Creed) involved the documents in both languages being presented to the bishops for their assent, as well has for the assent by the Bishop of Rome.

So it would be hard to claim that ‘the original’ was in Greek
Click to expand...
The Creed was originally composed in Greek. This is well known.
 
“Original” better stated as “typical edition.” I can see how that could be (albeit somewhat inexactly) rendered “original” and I understood what was meant… in the translation of the Liturgy, the Latin is the typical edition, not the Greek.
 
ConstantineTG said:
But in any contention about translations, its best to compare with the original than translating from a translation
Click to expand...
The translation of the Roman Missal is determined by the current norms laid down in Liturgiam authenticam. It may not be as crucial for someone of your Rite which I’m sure governs translation norms according to your own laws, but for the Roman Rite, the Latin typical edition is the “original” so to speak and there is no obligation to refer back to the Greek of the Creed although I’m sure the translators may have opted to do so as a reference. But is is always the Latin typical edition that is to be translated.

The only place Liturgiam authenticam requires recourse to the original languages outside of the Latin is for the Lectionary texts.
 
drforjc said:
“Original” better stated as “typical edition.” I can see how that could be (albeit somewhat inexactly) rendered “original” and I understood what was meant… in the translation of the Liturgy, the Latin is the typical edition, not the Greek.
Click to expand...
Huh?

The creed came from an ecumenical council in Greek. The Latin creed is a translation of the creed, not an “equal” or “parallel” text.

Remember, Rome was late among the churches in using the vernacular, and did not even switch to Latin for the liturgy unti the furth century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top