Have you felt the awkwardness of the
Creed at Mass?
Not only does it not seem to have any
connection with the rest of the service, it does not have a
liturgical format.
That is partly because it is not part
of the development or evolution of the liturgy, but something
inserted in the era when the priest “said” the Mass and laity
were required to merely “attend”. In such an era, it made sense
that a desire to assure the orthodoxy of the clergy would insert a
requirement that the clergy regularly recited a statement of orthodox
belief. Because it was meant as a discipline for the cleric, the
original Greek beginning of “We believe” was changed to “I
believe” in Latin, “Credo”.
As others have pointed out, the Nicene
Creed is based on an antiquated cosmology, archaic philosophical
system, and third century theology. In addition, despite it having
been composed in Greek, the Roman Curia has insisted on an English
version be translated from the Latin translation rather than from the
original language. This is the sort of thing which makes language
scholars groan.
- At the very minimum, liturgical use of the Creed requires a liturgical consideration of its placement in the Mass. Perhaps it belongs among the introductory or sending rites rather than being dropped into the middle of things.
In addition, it need formatting to make its insertion more liturgical in style, something similar to how the presider no longer just begins the Lord's Prayer and everybody is expected to know to join in. Now we have introductory words which invite the assembly to say the entire prayer. [Even though there are too many still practicing old habits and not beginning until, “who art in heaven”.]
I suggest that it would be better to ask the assembly to recite the segments of the Creed by having the presider ask, “What do we believe?” To which the natural response would begin,” We believe in … “
. - The more difficult problem is to bring the ancient and carefully argued theological points into our contemporary English language. Words like “con-substantial” are carefully defined in theology courses, but remain almost meaningless to the average American.
Here is a draft version of an American English Nicene Creed for liturgical use. Please critique it in terms of its compatibility with the Nicene Creed and offer suggestions on what needs work. Even better, offer alternative phrasings.
Presider:
What do we believe about God?
All: We
believe that:
God
alone has always existed.
God
is impossible for humans to understand.
God
has self-revealed that God exists as Three Persons.
God
created everything which is not God.
God
created all to be good.
God
called Israel into covenant.
Presider:
What do we believe about Jesus?
All: We
believe that:
God
became human as Jesus.
Jesus
taught that all humans are God's people.
Jesus
taught that all humans are saved despite the evil in the world.
Jesus
taught us how to live in love.
Jesus
demonstrated love for us and our salvation by suffering, dying, and
rising into new life.
Jesus
taught us about the Trinity through associating himself with the
Father as Son and sending the Advocate.
Presider:
What do we believe about the Advocate?
All: We
believe that:
The
Advocate has always been active in all the world.
The
Advocate provides guidance, comfort, and strength for following the
teachings of Jesus.
Presider:
What do we believe about the followers of Jesus?
All: We
believe that:
God
sustains the followers of Jesus
through
a single, universal community.
The
faith of that community is protected by the Advocate.
The
faith of that community is based on
the
teachings of those sent out by Jesus.
Because
of our faith we say,
Glory
be to God,
Three-in
-One.
Thanks
be to God
for our community of faith.
for our community of faith.
Please offer a comment
below.
I do not like saying the Creed at Mass because to me it sounds too political. I stopped chiming in with it a long time ago. The current liturgy was in effect when I began school years ago (I am 76 yrs. old) and I was so happy when Vatican Council II came and gave us permission to use our own vernacular, and now we've gone backwards yet they call it the "New Roman Missal"! Who is deceiving who?
ReplyDelete