Some Latin quibbles over the new missal

I think this article is unhelpful in two important ways.
First, the changes from 2008 to 2010 are pretty small from the standpoint of how the average person will receive them - "first of all," "firstly," who cares? But the significance of these seemingly small changes is huge - and not just for people like me Who Quibble Over Latin Translations. The author misses the larger issue, which is, If these small changes in the direction of English comprehension are justified, even though they're not what the Latin says exactly, just what then is the Vatican's argument against the 1988 proposed sacramentary? And what is reason why a couple thousand passages in the new missal have to be in stilted, unnatural English to follow the Latin literally, now that we know that you don't have to follow the Latin literally in these seeemingly small cases? There is a major issue here of whether the Vatican has in coherent position in throwing 1998 in the wastebasket and then approving an incoherent mess like 2010.
Second, all the pre-history of the Creed is interesting, but irrelevant to the translation issue, since the only question ever on the table was, How do we translate the Latin of the 2002 Missale Romanum into good English for the use of English-speakers?

Fr. Anthony, osb

If "we" are at Mass and "we" are celebrating and "we" are pronouncing the Creed, then "WE" believe!! A community is not "I", but "we"!

I don't understand the objections to the length of the first sentence of the Nicene Creed. Yes, it is a very long sentence -- comprised of a number of short clauses. I don't see that it is any more difficult to understand or express than the equivalent with each clause expressed as an individual sentence.

Presumably all of the Nicene Council fathers shared the same faith, so credemus would have been appropriate for them to use. Given the prevalence of so-called "cafeteria Catholicism" today, I have little reason to believe that the majority of those in attendance at a typical Sunday Mass, much less all of them, completely believe every element of the Creed; thus, I cannot in good faith say "We believe". "We should believe" or "some of us believe", perhaps -- but not "we believe". So I stick with what I can profess with certainty, "I believe".

Mr. Filteau raises an interesting point regarding the difference between the Catechism's explanation of "We believe" in the Nicene Creed and the Latin version of the Creed. Is the same explanation present in the Latin version of the Catechism (if there is one) or in versions in languages that use a singular form of the Creed? One possibility is that the English translation of the Catechism was modified to agree with the English form of the Creed used in the Mass.

The Mozarabic Liturgy,now being slowly revived,uses "We" in the Creed. It also worth noting the textual content of the Creed in Mozarabic, Chaldean/Assyrian,and Armenian Liturgies is somewhat more expanded,though,not in conflict with the Roman text.

You are just creating controversy where there should be no controversy. In the words of Saint Augustine: "Rome has spoken, the matter is closed." Just let it go. The people will embrace the changes once they understand them.

The author quotes only the first part of CCC #167 leaving out the second part which answers his question: "'I believe' is also THE CHURCH, OUR MOTHER, RESPONDING TO GOD BY FAITH as she teaches us to say both 'I believe' and 'We believe'."

THE QUESTION: If the "I believe" is also the ENTIRE CHURCH's response, would it be, as the author contends, a merely "personal" act of faith as opposed to a "communal" one?

Deck chairs. Titanic - again.

My question may seem simplistic, juvenile, and uneducated BUT ... Does God care what CC #167 says or how Creed in Mozarabic, Chaldean/Assyrian,and Armenian Liturgies is written and/or spoken?

Looking in from the outside, I am quite amazed as I read about all the ink spilled over the “approved” translation of a missal to be used while celebrating the community Eucharist in the U.S. of North America. I have been living in Nicaragua during the past 55 years as an expatriate “UnitedStates’er of N.America”, 25 years as a functioning Catholic Padre and now 30 years as a functioning husband and father.

I was raised strictly Catholic, (early Mass on Sunday mornings, no hamburgers after the Friday evening football game, confession twice monthly with or without sins, no “Holy Communion” after a glass of water after midnight), was ordained to the priesthood in Latin, “shared in the Mass” in Latin first as an “altar boy” and then as an “official celebrant” ordained more than 10 years before the Second Vatican Council.

Today I share in the celebration as part of our small community on Sunday evenings. During the first ten minutes we greet friends and exchange a few words about life as we select a place around three sides of our table-altar. The Padre who comes to our community-center to preside our celebration uses no missal or fixed text. Everybody receives a copy of the “official scriptural texts” proclaimed by members of the community together with the songs to be sung and the “community prayer of the day” recited by all and which always begins with: “O Mother-Father God, ...”. The Padre proclaims the Gospel, shares his prepared application to building the Kingdom of God in our lives and then opens it up to the community for their views and petitions. The “Eucharistic Prayer” done by the Padre, including the few “liturgically essential parts”, is beautifully woven through with references to our reality as Community, City Nation and World. We have a very fine youth choir with very appropriate music in the line of liberating theology and working for “that other possible world”, texts written and put to our music by Nicaraguan Americans, Salvadoran Americans , Mexican Americans, and even some music of Spanish vintage.

So the up shot of this bla bla, is to underline the fact that the greatest numerical part of the Catholic Church today is not all that hung up on trifles of translation or insignificant details of liturgy which might even distract from the real purpose of the Eucharistic Celebration which is to strengthen our faith in that risen Jesus of Nazareth and his Spirit with his message of love, acceptance and inclusion, and his being present in “the least of the little ones, the poor, the ill, the rejected, the old abandoned people, those deprived their human rights, and even their essential right to a human life with dignity. We celebrate the Eucharist in order to maintain our determination to work to build the Kingdom of Abbá Father “thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”, the reason for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, that “other possible society”. that “other possible world” where we will no longer accept that one of our sisters or brothers dies of hunger every four seconds while we nonchalantly continue destroying our very own Mother Earth with our greed.

Justiniano de Managua

english, the tongue of saxon war and French domination, twists when applied to prayer

come to the Spanish Mass

Well I guess the Cathecism that explains the use of "We" in We believe will simply have to be changed. Should be no problem for all the progressive advocates of change since Vat II Council. Of course, using Latin will eliminate all the translation issues. One of the most moving parts of Mass celebrated anywhere is singing the Credo in Latin, together with the entire Congregation. Everyone knows it, everyone sings it no matter what their backround. Did anyone ever notice it is usually sung the best, the loudest and the most coherent? People like Latin !

If they really want to follow the ancient texts, than filioque (and the Son) should be removed from the creed. Filioque is a Latin Rite construct that caused the breakup of the Catholic church. Vaticanites, put your money where your mouth is.

All this sounds like an argument the Pharisees would have.