Is This What You Believe?
I came across a copy of the latest revisions proposed by ICEL -- here's where the Creed is at....
-30-
I believe in one God,Amen Amen and Amen?
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only-begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
(At the following words, up to and including and became man, all bow.)
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate
of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
Crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
And one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 09:12
8 Comments:
Will "all bow" be clarified as well? From what I can tell most U.S. Catholics take this to mean a 3mm movement of their chin down and up again.
A tough piece, not because it is closer to the Latin original, but what it means for people who aren't used to consulting a book for something they've memorized.
As a practical matter, words added or lost like "and" will be more tongue trippers than "consubstantial."
If the Church were serious about a "new" Creed, it would commission musicians to write about five musical settings and encourage parishes to sing it (which they now only rarely do). That would get the new text firmly in people's minds, at least at the sung Masses.
Other than that, I predict broad stubbornness, even more than when I introduce plainsong hymns in my parish.
Ben, sometimes it does mean male. At any rate, if the word were "vir," it would've been translated in the same way.
An inscription on a seminary building included the word "men," and a feminist once remarked, "Oh, does that mean men and women?"
I don't have an agenda, but I think "men" could be avoided for clarity's sake. English has words that will cover the base, and if that is less offensive to some, why should there be a problem? (Unless, to begin with, the agenda is to alienate certain Catholics.)
for some reason we take such great offense to it in this country.
Which country would that be?
America? Canada? Great Britain? Ireland? Australia? New Zealand? South Africa?
I suspect that people in all English-speaking nations take offense at inaccurate translations.
MAN is inaccurate today. It was NOT inaccurate before. The meanings of words DO change over time in spoken languages.
Yes, the Latin does not change, but the English MUST! That is why it is great to have the original prayers preserved in a DEAD language that does not evolve. English, however, is a LIVING tongue and it HAS evolved. It will continue to evolve.
Does it make more sense to change one word, or to try to teach billions of people (present and future) to understand an archaism?
Most English speakers may have heard of Shakespeare, but not too many of them know that "Wherefore art thou Romeo" means "WHY are you Romeo". Will our statement of faith be reduced to poetic words whose meaning noone really recalls?
Jeff..
um...
1. I didn't say what you quote me as saying.
2. When you say "Tough. A lot of other people are offended if we do. And like it or not that's how English works." do you mean that you believe English works by changing when people are (or are not) offended? Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I follow.
"Men" includes both sexes. Females get their own word in the English language: "women". Males do not get their own word. If anyone should be "outraged" it should be men! :) What world should men claim as their own to distinguish them from the generic "men"?
I am one of those women Jeff mentioned who are infuriated by politically correct substitutions of "people" for "men"-or for twisting normal English usage and syntax, and even misquoting the Bible, in order not to say "he" or "him."
If some women are upset by this use of the word "men" it is because they have been taught to be upset by feminist academics.
These academics have almost completely won on this issue, I admit. Even I can't read my old college papers (from the early 70's) which say "men say" and "men think" with quite the innocence of any idea that these were statements about males rather than about our common human nature, that I had when I wrote them. And when my daughter went to that college in the 90's and wrote such papers, I felt I had to warn her, if she went to graduate school or any other college, she had better not write that way. Alas.
I still sing "And I will raise him up on the last day" while the rest of the congregation sings "And I will raise you up."
This past Sunday there was a "hymn" which had been altered from God will..something,Iforget what exactly...His people" to the redundant and awkward "God will blah blah blah God's people," obviously to keep from referring to God as "Him". I wouldn't do that either.
Surely this aberration which happened in only one generation does not have to be perpetuated. The writer is wrong who thinks only buffs of traditional English understand this. Everyone over about 40 knows it, although many of them are disingenuous about it because of ideology.
Susan F. Peterson
I agree with Susan and Jordan...there is nothing that leaves a bad taste in ones mouth as much having to sing or say words that have definitely been altered with an agenda in mind. Especially a narcissistic agenda such as Politically Correctness. This is at odds with the way the Catholic church dictates our lives are to be oriented. Every time you go along with the emasculation of God or mouth supposedly "inclusive" language you support the "person as victim" or "me, me, me" mind set. Not to mention that these attempts at "inclusion" also make a mess of most existing prose or songs (eg. "Good Christian Friends rejoice?").
Mass is not the place for these kind of political word games and I think the call for moderinization is really based more on agenda then actual litergical necessity.
That said...who is translating this stuff? Are they even native english writers? These translations so far don't exactly roll off the tongue, and some of them are completely unsingable. Latin would DEFINITELY be prefered to these translations. At least the current ones are readable and singable.
Post a Comment
<< Home