The Creed - latest revisions proposed by ICEL

For purposes of comparison, from New Advent

* * * * *

THE OLD ROMAN CREED
AS QUOTED BY TERTULLIAN (c. 200)

De Virg. Vel., 1	Adv. Prax., 2	De Praecept., 13 and 26
(1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world,	(1) We believe one only God,	(1) I believe in one God, maker of the world,
(2) and His Son, Jesus Christ,	(2) and the son of God Jesus Christ,	(2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ,
(3) born of the Virgin Mary,	(3) born of the Virgin,	(3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her
(4) crucified under Pontius Pilate,	(4) Him suffered died, and buried,	(4) fastened to a cross.
(5) on the third day brought to life from the dead,	(5) brought back to life,	(5) He rose the third day,
(6) received in heaven,	(6) taken again into heaven,	(6) was caught up into heaven,
(7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father,	(7) sits at the right hand of the Father,	(7) set at the right hand of the Father,
(8) will come to judge the living and the dead	(8) will come to judge the living and the dead	(8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire,
	(9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost.	(9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit,
		(10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8)
(12) through resurrection of the flesh.		(12) restoration of the flesh.

Extensive history of The Nicene Creed at this link:

Apostles' Creed

c. 200? That's about 125 years BEFORE the Nicene Creed was written.

I have some grammatical issues. Whether the words exist in the Latin or not, there are some grammatically necessary additions. For instance, "And in the Holy Spirit... who proceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets"

should read,

"And in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, AND WHO with the Father and Son is adored and glorified, AND WHO has spoken through the prophets."

I'm trying to understand why the changes were needed?!??!?!?!

18 months since I 1st started attending Mass in my life and I have yet to get the Creed memorized--now they go and change it?

OK... I've re-evaluated it. Maybe not absolutely grammatically necessary, but much easier to read.

Next thing you know, they'll be making you memorize extra rosary decades. ;^)

I'm trying to understand why the changes were needed?!??!?!?!

Since these "new changes" make the creed almost exactly the same as the English translation in my 1962 missal, I'm trying to understand why they ever instituted to the form you memorized.

The changes from the 1962 Missal were simply to put the ICEL stamp on the Creed and get the use of "we" in there (yes, I know the difference between the Nicene and other Creeds, but the fact remains that it was CREDO in Latin). The ultimate objective of the ICEL was probably that of making significant changes to the text; I recall reading its next objective was going to be a "gender neutral" version, although I don't know how true this was.

ICEL "translations" of anything were noted for being agenda-heavy paraphrases. They were much more "creative" than any other of the European language translations, for example. And the ICEL only got reined in very recently.

Minority report for the old English version:

I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come.

Amen.

Calm down ... they are trying to restore it. The Creed is a personal statement - "I believe", not "We believe", right. This is good news.

I'm trying to understand why the changes were needed?!??!?!?!

The whole Mass is in the process of being retranslated, because the current English translation (which, with minor alterations, dates back to 1970, meaning that I've been using it for 34 years) is, well, awful.

If you want to get an idea of how awful, subscribe to The Wanderer and read the column "What Does the Prayer Really Say" by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, where he analyzes and rigorously translates the actual Latin text -- and then compares it to the icky official translation.

18 months since I 1st started attending Mass in my life and I have yet to get the Creed memorized--now they go and change it?

The Nicene Creed (really the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed) was originally written in Greek. I don't know the Greek, but I do know the Latin, and I can tell you that this English translation is a much more careful rendering of what the Latin text actually says than is the current official English version.

That is the version the LCMS uses, and I always say it that way.

My wife and my Catholic mother in law always look at me funny when I do.

18 months since I 1st started attending Mass in my life and I have yet to get the Creed memorized--now they go and change it?

You know that cross you're supposed to carry every day? No one mentioned the irritating splinters, did they?

Personally, I like this phrase from the Catechism: 170 We do not believe in formulas, but in those realities they express...

For us men and for our salvation

I'm so glad they kept "for us men" and did not kowtow to the feminist inclusive language crowd. The Latin original is clearly gender-neutral anyway, in a way that can't be perfectly rendered into non-ugly English. Dropping "men" means "homines" is left untranslated, while translating it "humans" or "human beings" sounds ugly and clinical ("Who for us hominids?" :-0)

If you want to get an idea of how awful, subscribe to The Wanderer and read the column "What Does the Prayer Really Say" by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, where he analyzes and rigorously translates the actual Latin text -- and then compares it to the icky official translation.

Excellent column!!!

Or you can visit his web forum, What Does The Prayer Really Say

This is very similar to the translation I heard when travelling in England earlier this year. (Yes, I was assisting at Mass in a Roman Catholic Church.) The only real difference is the use of "visible and invisible" in this translation vs. "seen and unseen" in current use in England.

The 3 columns you've added are irrelevant. They are the predecessors of the Apostles' Creed (the Old Roman Symbol) and have nothing to do with the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed that the ICEL translation renders into English. These three columns only confuse matters.

YOu are right that the relative pronoun "who" should be there in the second and third clauses. But you don't need the "and" in those two cases. It's certainly not present in the Latin but the "who" is present in the Latin and makes for better syntax in English.

Bump for later.