I'm not sure I like the changes "pope" Benedict made to the Nicene Creed (I think it is)

discombobulated1 · May 6, 2024

I put quotes on the word Pope because I say that there hasn't been a valid one of those since 1958. I guess I am a Sedevacantist and yet I say that the Real Presence, a tangible Presence, is still there in at least SOME novus ordo Churches... so that makes me wonder about... well, I'm not sure how to word what all I wonder about but in any case, back to the... I think that prayer we say in the Mass is the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth... (There's the Apostolic Creed.. I think it is called.. which is shorter)

So anyway, that Creed used to begin: "We believe..."

Ratzinger changed it to "I believe..."

I don't like that. I love the way Catholics are united by the fact that the Mass readings are all the same throughout the world. Therefore, it seems way better to say We believe... and I still do. I use this prayer when praying (beginning) the rosary, although most probably use the other one

So, maybe you could tell us what YOU like and dislike about changes to the Mass in modern times.

I absolutely HATE the priest not facing the altar (God) and instead facing the people throughout the Mass..

I don't like greeting ea other during Mass.. hate that

prodromos · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
Ratzinger changed it to "I believe..."

He actually restored it to what it originally said. Too bad he didn't also remove the "filioque".

chevyontheriver · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I put quotes on the word Pope because I say that there hasn't been a valid one of those since 1958. I guess I am a Sedevacantist and yet I say that the Real Presence, a tangible Presence, is still there in at least SOME novus ordo Churches... so that makes me wonder about... well, I'm not sure how to word what all I wonder about but in any case, back to the... I think that prayer we say in the Mass is the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth... (There's the Apostolic Creed.. I think it is called.. which is shorter)

So anyway, that Creed used to begin: "We believe..."

Ratzinger changed it to "I believe..."

I don't like that. I love the way Catholics are united by the fact that the Mass readings are all the same throughout the world. Therefore, it seems way better to say We believe... and I still do. I use this prayer when praying (beginning) the rosary, although most probably use the other one

A small Latin lesson is in order. The Nicene Creed in Latin starts out 'Credo'. Which is a first person singular verb that quite literally and precisely means 'I believe'. So it was not 'pope' Benedict that changed you beloved version but some Bugnini era bureaucrats that made us say 'we believe' and pope Benedict saw to it that it was properly restored to correspond with 'credo'.

The other Creed you are trying to name is the 'Apostle's Creed'.

The Nicene Creed always started out with 'Credo'. Not 'Credimus'. That would be 'we believe'. Just Credo. I believe.

There is a value in you saying 'I believe'. It puts it on you to to say to yourself "Yes, I do believe all of this." Or "No, I don't believe it yet." It personalizes it and helps you choose and then to affirm that you personally believe it.

chevyontheriver · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I absolutely HATE the priest not facing the altar (God) and instead facing the people throughout the Mass..

You do know that a priest saying the mass 'ad orientem' nonetheless faces the congregation for a considerable portion of the mass anyways. Next time at an 'ad orientem' mass, watch and see that he does some of each. There is a proper time to face the altar and a proper time to face the people. As Fr. Z says, "Say the Black. Do the Red."

The Liturgist · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I put quotes on the word Pope because I say that there hasn't been a valid one of those since 1958. I guess I am a Sedevacantist and yet I say that the Real Presence, a tangible Presence, is still there in at least SOME novus ordo Churches... so that makes me wonder about... well, I'm not sure how to word what all I wonder about but in any case, back to the... I think that prayer we say in the Mass is the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth... (There's the Apostolic Creed.. I think it is called.. which is shorter)

So anyway, that Creed used to begin: "We believe..."

Ratzinger changed it to "I believe..."

I don't like that. I love the way Catholics are united by the fact that the Mass readings are all the same throughout the world. Therefore, it seems way better to say We believe... and I still do. I use this prayer when praying (beginning) the rosary, although most probably use the other one

So, maybe you could tell us what YOU like and dislike about changes to the Mass in modern times.

I absolutely HATE the priest not facing the altar (God) and instead facing the people throughout the Mass..

I don't like greeting ea other during Mass.. hate that

I am sympathetic to your post, but you’ve made a few mistakes.

Firstly, for the most part, you are correct that celebration versus populum is a terrible innovation. There are limited exceptions to this - specifically, certain ancient churches in Rome, even as rebuilt during the Renaissance and Baroque periods, are built atop the graves of martyrs, and feature a dip in front of the altar, accessible via a few steps down, so that pilgrims and laity can get as close as possible to the tombs of martyrs. This is the case at the High Altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, for example, where Papal masses were historically celebrated. Thus, within the context of these specific churches, there is a legitimate use for celebration versus populum. In all other cases, however, it is entirely inappropriate, and that is why you will not see it at an Orthodox church, other than at those occasions mentioned by my dear friend @chevyontheriver in the liturgy when the priest will briefly face the people. For example, at the end of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, the priest, while keeping one hand on the Holy Table, will turn towards the laity and make the sign of the cross, blessing them, and asking for their prayers.

Now, regarding the translation of the liturgy, my pious and learned friend @prodromos is entirely correct that the translation instituted during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI is more correct. The old English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae is notoriously imprecise, and had the effect of making a bad liturgy worse. And there are worse errors than starting the Nicene Creed with “We believe;” one particularly egregious error was translating the response to the blessing by the Priest “Dominus Vobiscum” which does mean “Peace be with you” as “and also with you,” which is incorrect. The Latin, and the Greek liturgical text from which it is translated, “et cum spiritu tuo”, translates obviously as “and with Thy spirit,” which is the form one will find this in in literally every traditional liturgy, ranging from Protestant to Orthodox.

However after the Novus Ordo Missae came out in English, this error spread to several other churches which decided to copy the “modern” style of its translation, so as a result one finds "and also with you" in the 1979 Episcopal BCP, its contemporary, the Lutheran Book of Worship, and even in recent publications which ought to have known better, such as the 2006 Lutheran Service Book (actually my only real complaint about the otherwise excellent Lutheran Service Book is its use of this flawed translation paradigm; I think had it been published just four years later the LCMS would have copied the revised wording that Pope Benedict used, which is much more accurate).

I do appreciate your traditional preferences, and I understand your deep seated frustration. I urge you to use the knowledge of my friends @prodromos and @chevyontheriver as well as my other pious and excellent friends such as @HTacianas , @FenderTL5 @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch @dzheremi and @jas3 , who are all traditional Christians with expert knowledge concerning traditional theology and traditional liturgy. It is important that you understand what actually is traditional, and what was innovative or in error, in order to be able to articulate your position consistently, because in this thread, your sentiments are admirable, but you did make a bit of a technical mistake concerning the translation of Pope Benedict, which is indeed more correct by far than the old one.

discombobulated1 · May 6, 2024

prodromos said:
He actually restored it to what it originally said. Too bad he didn't also remove the "filioque".

I have never heard that it was originally that way. But still, I prefer We, just saying

What do you mean by Ratzinger removing the "filioque" It sounds vaguely familiar

discombobulated1 · May 6, 2024

The Liturgist said:
Firstly, for the most part, you are correct that celebration versus populum is a terrible innovation. There are limited exceptions to this - specifically, certain ancient churches in Rome, even as rebuilt during the Renaissance and Baroque periods, are built atop the graves of martyrs, and feature a dip in front of the altar, accessible via a few steps down, so that pilgrims and laity can get as close as possible to the tombs of martyrs.

what?

I got this far and I'm like

What does this have to do with anything I said?

I could read further, but it's always nice to get something you're reading before 1000 words have gone by

discombobulated1 · May 6, 2024

chevyontheriver said:
You do know that a priest saying the mass 'ad orientem' nonetheless faces the congregation for a considerable portion of the mass anyways. Next time at an 'ad orientem' mass, watch and see that he does some of each. There is a proper time to face the altar and a proper time to face the people. As Fr. Z says, "Say the Black. Do the Red."

I've been to Sede Masses and SSPX and most of the time, the priest is not facing the people.

Today in the no churches, priests get too much attention which as we all know, those who know human nature anyway, heaping attention and respect on people

what happens

ego... pride... selfishness

And have I ever seen the latter in the no churches I have been to... priests apparently so full of themseves, they can't be bothered w/ the problems of the parishioners

discombobulated1 · May 6, 2024

The Liturgist said:
@MarkRohfrietsch @dzheremi and @jas3 , who are all traditional Christians with expert knowledge concerning traditional theology and traditional liturgy. It is important that you understand what actually is traditional, and what was innovative or in error, in order to be able to articulate your position consistently, because in this thread, your sentiments are admirable, but you did make a bit of a technical mistake concerning the translation of Pope Benedict, which is indeed more correct by far than the old one.

ok, i understand this. I am not a professional theologian, so there's that.

Anyway, I do, now that I think about it, remember that yes, it was originally "I" and not We

But, you know... There have been so many BAD changes due to V2, why did Ratzinger choose THAT rather insignificant thing to change and not some of the other things I mentioned?

things are wacky these days, in the Church and in the US govt

The Liturgist · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
what?

I got this far and I'm like

What does this have to do with anything I said?

I could read further, but it's always nice to get something you're reading before 1000 words have gone by

You expressed opposition to celebration of the mass facing the people. I agree with you, in general, but there is a specific exception imposed by the architecture of historic churches in Rome, going back to antiquity, which is relevant and which I described in my post.

The Liturgist · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I've been to Sede Masses and SSPX and most of the time, the priest is not facing the people.

Today in the no churches, priests get too much attention which as we all know, those who know human nature anyway, heaping attention and respect on people

what happens

ego... pride... selfishness

And have I ever seen the latter in the no churches I have been to... priests apparently so full of themseves, they can't be bothered w/ the problems of the parishioners

We all agree with you on this point. There are only a few churches in Rome where celebration facing the people is normal and acceptable, because of the architectural limitation I described in my post which you apparently did not read due to its length, which I find a bit frustrating, as I wrote it for your benefit.

chevyontheriver · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I've been to Sede Masses and SSPX and most of the time, the priest is not facing the people.

Go again and watch. There are times the priest faces the altar. There are other times the priest faces the people. There is a time for each.

discombobulated1 said:
Today in the no churches, priests get too much attention which as we all know, those who know human nature anyway, heaping attention and respect on people

what happens

ego... pride... selfishness

And have I ever seen the latter in the no churches I have been to... priests apparently so full of themseves, they can't be bothered w/ the problems of the parishioners

There are novus ordo priests that are full of themselves. Some of them. No guarantee based on which way a priest faces in how full of themselves they might be though.

The Liturgist · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
ok, i understand this. I am not a professional theologian, so there's that.

I don’t know if any of my friends who I just enumerated could be considered professional theologians by trade; actually in the Eastern Orthodox church we reserve the title of theologian in a formal way for three saints: St. John the Beloved Disciple, St. Gregory Nazianzus, and St. Symeon the New Theologian. Although we also say that a theologian is one who prays, and one who prays is a theologian, and that even an infant or a mentally disabled person is capable of theology, speaking literally, since theology means “knowledge of God.”

Thus I tend to use the phrase “scholar of theology”, particularly when referring to academics who are paid to do works of theological scholarship, or do so as a vocation, for example, Pope Benedict XVI when he was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith.

chevyontheriver · May 6, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
But, you know... There have been so many BAD changes due to V2, why did Ratzinger choose THAT rather insignificant thing to change and not some of the other things I mentioned?

There were other changes. 'Et cum spiritu tuo' got changed back from 'and also with you' to 'and with your spirit'. And a dozen other small changes. These were 'reforms of the reform' that Ratzinger and Sarah and the ICEL and Anglocone bishops worked on for years as part of the same package. My understanding was that there would be more such changes every decade or so to renormalize the liturgy. But then Francis happened and I'm not sure where correcting the novus ordo is at right now. Cardinal Sarah, as head of the Liturgy Office, asked us all to say mass 'ad orientem'. Then pope Francis removed him from his job. The 'reform of the reform is stalled for a while.

The changes after Vatican II were rapidly imposed on us with little preparation. They were a shock. A disaster of a crisis of faith for many people. Reverting that quickly would be equally shocking. Things need to be carefully explained and not just imposed violently like they were.

dzheremi · May 6, 2024

Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't been to an RC mass since 2009, so I'm very rusty), but isn't the tradition of greeting one another during the Mass some kind of reflection of the traditional "Kiss of Peace" as found in other churches? If so, I could see an argument to be made about not liking the way it is done (informal handshakes and hellos, which I would agree are not appropriate to the serious celebration of the mass/liturgy), but it seems like the fact that it is done is not in itself any kind of innovation, as it is something that is shared between traditional churches of both east and west.

MarkRohfrietsch · May 7, 2024

The Liturgist said:
I am sympathetic to your post, but you’ve made a few mistakes.

Firstly, for the most part, you are correct that celebration versus populum is a terrible innovation. There are limited exceptions to this - specifically, certain ancient churches in Rome, even as rebuilt during the Renaissance and Baroque periods, are built atop the graves of martyrs, and feature a dip in front of the altar, accessible via a few steps down, so that pilgrims and laity can get as close as possible to the tombs of martyrs. This is the case at the High Altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, for example, where Papal masses were historically celebrated. Thus, within the context of these specific churches, there is a legitimate use for celebration versus populum. In all other cases, however, it is entirely inappropriate, and that is why you will not see it at an Orthodox church, other than at those occasions mentioned by my dear friend @chevyontheriver in the liturgy when the priest will briefly face the people. For example, at the end of the Syriac Orthodox liturgy, the priest, while keeping one hand on the Holy Table, will turn towards the laity and make the sign of the cross, blessing them, and asking for their prayers.

Now, regarding the translation of the liturgy, my pious and learned friend @prodromos is entirely correct that the translation instituted during the reign of Pope Benedict XVI is more correct. The old English translation of the Novus Ordo Missae is notoriously imprecise, and had the effect of making a bad liturgy worse. And there are worse errors than starting the Nicene Creed with “We believe;” one particularly egregious error was translating the response to the blessing by the Priest “Dominus Vobiscum” which does mean “Peace be with you” as “and also with you,” which is incorrect. The Latin, and the Greek liturgical text from which it is translated, “et cum spiritu tuo”, translates obviously as “and with Thy spirit,” which is the form one will find this in in literally every traditional liturgy, ranging from Protestant to Orthodox.

However after the Novus Ordo Missae came out in English, this error spread to several other churches which decided to copy the “modern” style of its translation, so as a result one finds "and also with you" in the 1979 Episcopal BCP, its contemporary, the Lutheran Book of Worship, and even in recent publications which ought to have known better, such as the 2006 Lutheran Service Book (actually my only real complaint about the otherwise excellent Lutheran Service Book is its use of this flawed translation paradigm; I think had it been published just four years later the LCMS would have copied the revised wording that Pope Benedict used, which is much more accurate).

I do appreciate your traditional preferences, and I understand your deep seated frustration. I urge you to use the knowledge of my friends @prodromos and @chevyontheriver as well as my other pious and excellent friends such as @HTacianas , @FenderTL5 @ViaCrucis @MarkRohfrietsch @dzheremi and @jas3 , who are all traditional Christians with expert knowledge concerning traditional theology and traditional liturgy. It is important that you understand what actually is traditional, and what was innovative or in error, in order to be able to articulate your position consistently, because in this thread, your sentiments are admirable, but you did make a bit of a technical mistake concerning the translation of Pope Benedict, which is indeed more correct by far than the old one.

Well we beat Pope Bennedict regarding the liturgy; if one looks at DIvine Service 3, you will not many such "restorations" such as "And with thy spirit".

The Filioque Stays. LOL

The Liturgist · May 7, 2024

MarkRohfrietsch said:
Well we beat Pope Bennedict regarding the liturgy; if one looks at DIvine Service 3, you will not many such "restorations" such as "And with thy spirit".

The Filioque Stays. LOL

Oh yes, do forgive me Mark, I keep forgetting about Divine Service no. 3, which is my favorite in the LSB. And I do really like the LSB.

Actually for that matter I liked the LBW and the 1979 BCP. The Novus Ordo Missae suffers from being much more complex and despite a similar style, has less accurate recensions of certain included liturgies.

Thus, while Eucharistic Prayer B in the 1979 BCP is not greatly different from St. Hippolytus, Eucharistic Prayer no. 2 in the 1969 Missal and its English translations was rearranged so that it now contradicts every other variant of itself. And they did the same thing with Eucharistic Prayer no. 4, so that Eucharistic Prayer D is a more viable ttanslation.

The Liturgist · May 7, 2024

dzheremi said:
Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't been to an RC mass since 2009, so I'm very rusty), but isn't the tradition of greeting one another during the Mass some kind of reflection of the traditional "Kiss of Peace" as found in other churches?

It was an attempt specifically to restore the Kiss of Peace, which had been lost within Roman Catholicism (and for some reason, had become limited to clergy in the Byzantine RIte). Most Protestant churches do that also. By the way, the Oriental Orthodox churches are the only ones where the Kiss of Peace has been preserved among the laity; in the Byzantine Rite a change occurred wherein for many years the Kiss of Peace was only exchanged between the concelebrating priests, but fortunately they have revived the practice of exchanging it among the liturgy.

In the US, naturally one is going to find among Protestants the use of handshakes, but this was not intended as an anti-kissing thing; the intention is the same, and thus the greeting practice in Catholicism simply revives it in whatever manner is locally culturally acceptable.

I particularly like the way the Kiss of Peace is exchanged in the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is very similiar to how it is done in the Coptic Orthodox Church, except in terms of organization. So whereas in the Coptic Orthodox church, you clasp the hands of those around you in the pew and then kiss your hands, in the Syriac Orthodox Church, an altar server will clasp the hands of the person on the central aisle, who then passes the kiss of peace to those to their left or right, away from the central aisle, so the result is a very organized process and also one in which there is a direct chain that is assured that links the celebrating clergy, whether a bishop or presbyter, to every person in the church, which is quite nice. But the Coptic Orthodox approach is also very good. In either case, one feels no shortage of love from the congregations of either church; indeed if someone really wants to feel surrounded by other loving Christians, and is not bothered by a potential language barrier, the Coptic Orthodox church is probably the place to go, if one can find one in their area, because of the extremely gracious, loving and hospitable nature of the Coptic Christian people. And the Coptic church is picking up converts; it is the only Oriental Orthodox church which is really attracting converts in a highly organized way, although the Syriac Orthodox church has received into communion large groups of converts, and the Ethiopians have received large numbers of converts that otherwise were at risk of, or in some cases actually practicing, Rastafarianism, in the Carribean. And of course we have to thank St. Haile Selassie, the martyred emperor, not only for starting that initiative, but also for bringing all the Oriental Orthodox churches together at the Addis Ababa Conference in 1963, which resulted in the adoption of the term Oriental Orthodox, which is much nicer than the various perjorative terms people used to use to refer to the Oriental Orthodox communion. And it is the case the emperor was strangled by the Derg communists for, among other things, refusing to renounce the Christian faith.

ViaCrucis · May 7, 2024

discombobulated1 said:
I have never heard that it was originally that way. But still, I prefer We, just saying

What do you mean by Ratzinger removing the "filioque" It sounds vaguely familiar

Attacking Benedict/Ratzinger for restoring the traditional language of the Creed on the basis of some kind of Traditionalism, ultimately on the basis of personal preference on your part, just seems wild to me.

Ultimately, as a Lutheran, I don't have a dog in this fight; but it comes across as very odd to on the one hand seem to be expressing an attitude of ultra-traditionalism and on the other hand being largely unaware of some really basic information about tradition.

The Filioque is the Latin phrase that translates to "and the Son" in the Latin translation of the Niceno-Constantinoplian Creed which was added to the text of the Creed, first among the Carolingians in what would become the Holy Roman Empire and later Germany, and then made "official" in the 11th century; an act which was instrumental in causing the Great Schism of 1054.

In the Eastern Churches the Filioque (or equivelent language) has never been part of the Creed. It was a Western amendment to the text and it happened without the consensus of the whole Church--which the East understood and understands to require a General Council of the Church; but occurred by the unilateral act of the Roman Patriarch.

Permit me a small parenthetical here: As a Lutheran I am an inheritor of the Western liturgical and theological tradition, and we say the Creed with the Filioque; the Filioque was not controversial for the Evangelical fathers of the 16th century nor has it ever been a source of controversy within the Evangelical* tradition since. There are two distinct components of the Filioque Controversy: Firstly, is the language orthodox, is it theologically correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son; and secondly the way in which the Filioque was added into the text unilaterally by the Roman Bishop apart from the agreement of the Church catholic via General Council. It remains in a realm of possibility that the Filioque is theologically true, but its inclusion into the text of the Creed was done in an illicit manner; though from the Orthodox perspective it is both heterodox and illicit.

*Evangelical meaning "Lutheran" in this context.

The question of saying "I believe" vs "We believe" would be almost inconsequential in comparison to the controversy over whether the Creed should read "and the Son" or not.

-CryptoLutheran

The Liturgist · May 7, 2024

ViaCrucis said:
though from the Orthodox perspective it is both heterodox and illicit.

Some Orthodox, as noted by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, are less concerned by it, but on the whole Orthodox concern over the filioque has actually increased in recent decades, but among the Orthodox who are more inclined to tolerate it, it becomes much more acceptable if one clarifies it to mean that the Holy Spirit was sent by the Son, which is of course undoubtably the case from the Bible, as opposed to eternally originating in the Son, which we regard as problematic. The Orthodox belief is that the Son is eternally begotten from the unoriginate Father, and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the unoriginate Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit are fully God, and are uncreated, but the Father is the unoriginate source of the Godhood. What we really want to avoid is a situation in which the Holy Spirit is regarded as a shared attribute of the Father and the Son, in a depersonalized way.

Since it is clear that orthodox Lutherans do regard the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person and not as an impersonal shared attribute of the Father and the Son, this is much less of a problem as I see it.

I'm not sure I like the changes "pope" Benedict made to the Nicene Creed (I think it is)

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Unapologetic Apologist

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Confessional Lutheran

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Similar threads