“I believe in One God” in Apostles Creed in Missale Romanum 2002?

I read just today this in Translating tradition: a chant historian reads Liturgiam authenticam by Peter Jeffery:

“…the CDW has already authorized a change in another anicent creed.

This change was made in the wording of the so-called Apostles’ Creed. Since it emerged in the context of the Roman baptismal rite and has no exact Eastern counterpart, the Apostles’ Creed is unarguably a core text of the Roman liturgical tradition. For centuries it has begun Credo in Deum, “I believe in God,” a reading preserved even after Vatican II in the Missal of Paul VI, the Rite of Christain initiation, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Yet in the new Missale Romanum of 2002 we find it beginning Credo in unum Deum, “I believe in one God” – a variant with far less historical precedent in the Apostles’ Creed than “Credimus” has in the Nicene Creed. Unless the CDW identifies this as an error and issues a correctin, then, translators will find themselves in an absurd position: We may not use the plural “We believe” opening, despite all its conciliar and liturgical precedent in East and West, becaue LA [Liturgiam Authenticam] asserts that doing so would violate the Latin liturgical tradition. But we must tranlsate the Apostles’ Creed with “I believe in one God” because…well, because the authorites have seen fit to alter the ancient text, in opposition to Roman tradition.”

Jeffery’s book suffers from the fact that it was published before the new translations became available – most of his criticisms of Liturgiam Authenticam are in fact shown to be baseless in the final product. And this is surely one of them. The new translation of the the Apostles’ Creed in the Missal (which is indeed an innovation in the Missale Romanum of 2002 by its very inclusion in the Mass) does NOT have “I believe in one God” but “I believe in God”, just like the Catechism and the Rite of Christian Initiation and Paul VI’s Missal and all the rest.

So, can someone tell me: Does the Missale Romanum of 2002 have “Credo in UNUM Deum” as the first line of the Apostles’ Creed? Or was this an error that was indeed corrected in the most recent reprinting of this Missal?

Update: There is an online copy of Missale Romanum 2002 on the Clerus website of the Congregation of the Clergy at http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/st.htm. The Order of Mass begins at page 503. Also, you can download a full copy in Word format from this link on Rapidshare. Both online versions definitely have “Credo in unum Deum” for the Apostles’ Creed.

Update again: It appears that “Credo in unum Deum” for the Apostles’ Creed was definitely a misprint, not included in the 2008 reprint of the Editio Typica Tertia. See here: http://www.geocities.com/ajv13s/changes2008-9.doc. HT to Joshua for the links.

Do you Skype?

I have just gotten myself a Skype account – a search under “David Schutz” in Melbourne Australia will get you the right address if you want to give me a call or see my exact account name in the sidebar. Do any of you Skype? What has been your experience of it? Thus far, I have found that I often can’t get the video to work properly. And sometimes the sound comes through a bit garbled too. Anyway, just experimenting with this new technology at the moment.

Update: My God, Skype is cool. I’ve just been able to speak to Pastor Weedon in the States!

After a long delay, Updates on “Year of Grace”

For those of you who have, in the past, followed the story of my conversion in 2000-01 to the Catholic faith, I have added a couple of additional posts to my “Year of Grace” blog. I am almost at the end of the story.

PS. Update: It is, in fact, now completely complete. There is nothing to add. By going to the first entry, made back in 2006 (see the side bar) you can read through the whole story as it happened.

68 US Evangelicals Endorse Pope’s Encyclical “Caritas in Veritate”

Recent global events awaken us to the importance of sustained Christian reflection on the nature and goal of economic life, both within our own societies and in other parts of the world. Accordingly, as evangelical Protestants we applaud the release of Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) by Pope Benedict XVI. We call on Christians everywhere, but especially our fellow evangelicals in the global North, to read, wrestle with, and respond to Caritas in Veritate and its identification of the twin call of love and truth upon our lives as citizens, entrepreneurs, workers and, most fundamentally, as followers of Christ.

For the whole statement and signatories, see here.

“The Concept of Liberal Catholicism was always Flawed”

The concept of liberal Catholicism, it seems, is crumbling before our eyes. Of course, it was always flawed. Liberal Catholics want a Church that: moves with the times and is “progressive”; allows for the use of contraception and abortion in some instances; is more lenient towards homosexuality; allows for the laicisation of the Catholic world and freedom to experiment with liturgy. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, hasn’t budged. It is unchanging in its stance towards the sanctity of human life and remains quite clear where it stands on homosexuality. It wants the laity to remain active, but in their rightful place. In other words, if liberal Catholics want a Church that moves with the times, they’re in the wrong place. (Will Heaven, Telegraph.co.uk)

Well, we always knew that, didn’t we? No, we didn’t, writes Will Heaven in his op-ed piece about recent well-deserved criticism of the “The Tablet” by both an auxiliary bishop of Westminster and the US Archbishop of Denver (see here and here – NB. Bishop Hopes’ criticism came in the form of a Letter to the Editor which The Tablet “had to print” according to this report in CNA, but which you can only read online if you are a subscriber to the Tablet) – it’s something we are just beginning to realise.

So what has changed in the Catholic Church to finally wake us up to the fact that the “liberal Catholic agenda” is doomed? The new pope (well, he’s not that new anymore)? No. Heaven points to an entirely different phenomenon in order to explain the failure of the Liberal Catholic push: The Internet.

The internet – and how Catholics are using it to communicate with each other – has played a huge part as well. Ten years ago, you would not often have a US archbishop criticising a wayward editorial in a British Catholic magazine. Nor would the laity have access to Vatican documents which they can print out to show to their local parish priest. The internet has changed all of this. Sure, the Catholic Church has always been about universals. But now Catholics have formed an online community they’re becoming a more coherent force, and they won’t be sidelined or misrepresented.

In this, he is certainly correct. The Internet has connected the Catholic world to the See of Rome in ways that the 19th Century Ultramontanes could hardly have imagined. The early 20th Century publisher W.G. Ward may have delcared a desire for ‘a new Papal Bull every morning with my Times at breakfast”, but only the 21st Century has been able to make this a real possibility (thanks to sites like Zenit.org). Thanks to the Internet, the Holy Father is truly able to act as a Universal Teacher – anyone anywhere with a computer and modem can hook right into the heart of the Catholic Church’s magisterium. And of course, what goes for the Pope goes for the Curia.

Much has been written about the important role that technology (in particular, the invention of the printing press) had to play in the success of the Reformation five hundred years ago. With the coming of the Internet, it is now Ultramontane Dream which has finally been achieved. In fact, perhaps it was not so much that the Liberal Catholic agenda was “always going to lose”, but that Ultramontanism was always, eventually, going to win. It just took 150 years or so for the right technology to be developed.

Nothing (Completely) New Under the Sun

In the Modern Academy, to earn a PhD (or, indeed, any kind of post-graduate degree in any field whatsoever) one needs to produce an original, fresh scholarly thesis in a relevant field of study. One of the things about this set up is that it encourages a particular kind of scholarship which views “new discoveries” and “originality” as the highest virtue. Which is quite appropriate in scientific fields, and explains especially the exponential increase in “break through” discoveries and inventions.

But when it comes to theology and scriptural scholarship, there is a problem – especially for the Catholic Theologian/Scripture Scholar – a problem which is infinitely less acute in the Protestant world.

That problem is this: The Catholic Church isn’t really into theological “originality” and “new discoveries” in scriptural exegesis. It is more about preserving the Deposit of Faith and faithfully passing on the Sacred Tradition.

Protestant theologians and scripture scholars, on the other hand, are not only unfettered by a living magisterium of any kind, but are literally encouarged by their dynamic and personal understanding of the “Word of God” to embrace the “ever new” approach. Of course, there are Catholic Theologians who want a bit of the freedom of their Protestant brethren and sistern also, and whom you will (occasionally) hear speaking about the “magisterium of theologians” as an adjunct to the “magisterium of bishops”. Whenever the Bishops make some assertion along the lines of “We are the teachers of the faith, not you”, the replying complaint is usually that the theologians right to “freedom of theological enquiry” is in some way being denied.

Still, the “new” or “original” discovery is still the best way to sell books. I might again mention one of my favourite (Protestant) theologians, Bishop N.T. Wright, as a classic case of this. He follows in a long line of new discoveries – or, in fact, “new perspectives” – on St Paul: first that of Ed Sanders, then that of James Dunn, and now that of Tom Wright. When a priest friend of mine asked “What is Wright on about?”, he expressed utter disbelief at my reply: “He thinks he has a new and correct understanding of what St Paul meant by the word “justification”.”

In his book, “Eschatology”, Joseph Ratzinger deals with one protestant theologian after another who, in the 20th Century, believed they had discovered the “original meaning” of Christian eschatology: Von Harnack, Barth, Bultmann, Cullman, Dodd, and right on in to Moltmann and Metz. At the end of this overview, he writes:

So what conclusions may we draw from all of this? In the first place, the importance of courage in evaluating the latest theories of one’s age with greater equanimilty, noting in a historically informed way their role in that criticism which historical reason carries out in its own regard, and understanding their place in the movement of history as a whole. The obverse of this courage should be the modesty of not claiming to have just discovered what Christainity is really all about by dint of one’s own ingenuity. Out of such modesty something even more valuable could emerge: the kind of humility that submits to reality, not inventing Christain truth as a newly discovered “find”, but truly finding it in the sacramental community of the faith of all periods.” (Eschatology, p60).

I think, whether your name is Martin Luther, N.T. Wright, David Schütz, or [insert name here], there is something in that for all of us.

Quick Report on Fr Paul Turner’s Lecture on the Changes to the Translation of the Liturgy

The Archbishop’s Office for Evangelisation is to be commended for taking the opportunity to get Fr Paul Turner, who was in Sydney for the Societas Liturgica national conference, down to Melbourne to give us a presentation on the changes we can expect in the new English translation of the Roman Missal.

While Fr Turner estimated that it might yet be two years or more (Advent 2011 was his suggestion) before the new translation is put into practice, it was good tonight in a “congregation” of about 80 people to have a “dry run” with the spoken texts.

I must say that Fr Turner impressed me on three levels: he is meticulous (and knows his stuff – question time showed that he has a wealth of knowledge and experience ready for instant recall), he is pastoral (that is, he sensitively judged where his audience was “at” and aimed his comments in that direction), and above all he is clear.

For instance, one mystery was solved for me tonight. I have been having difficult working out the somewhat erratic (as it appeared to me) use of the vocative “O” in the new texts. Sometimes it was there, sometimes not. For instance, in the Gloria:

“Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ,
only Son of the Father,
Lord God, Lamb of God…etc.”

The “O” before God in the second line above stands out like a sore thumb. Why put it in, when all the other vocatives lack it? (What makes these lines especially confusing for me is that I grew up singing the Book of Common Prayer version – which went “O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty. O Lord, the only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father…” – in other words, the new translation puts an “O” precisely where the old English version didn’t have one and leaves all the others out!). In any case, Fr Turner revealed the rationale behind the mystery of the vocative “O”. Apparently it was put in wherever it was required to separate two stressed syllables, which would otherwise have been difficult to speak or sing. Fair enough. Just so I know.

He also made a very fair point in answer to a question about the fact that the new translations would result in us using different texts from our non-Catholic brothers and sisters. Currently this means that we are able to (for eg.) sing the Gloria together, and, indeed, to share musical settings across the board. However, Fr Turner pointed out that, on the one hand, the Protestant Churches are making their own changes and adaptions to the original ICEL texts, and on the other hand, the new translations do bring us into greater unity with the texts of the other CATHOLIC vernacular liturgical families. In other words, there is a kind of “internal” ecumenism going on in the process of bringing the English liturgy into greater conformity with the German, French, Italian, Spanish etc. liturgy.

In summary, I must congratulate Fr Turner for being able to maintain a generally upbeat and positive approach – one of anticipation almost – for the new translations. This was, is and will be difficult for those charged with introducing and implimenting the new translations, especially as even tonight most of the questions that were asked expressed at least a degree of disatisfaction or suspicion of the new translations.

At the moment, the situation may be compared to having just heard Father’s announcement that he is leaving the parish and that a new priest will soon be appointed. Many are disappointed that Father is leaving after so long; others are quitely rejoicing but respectfully keeping their joy to themselves in this time of general communal grieving. And then there is a general apprehension about what the “new priest” will be like. Yet, over time, and the “new priest” will become as loved and admired (and still, perhaps, resented by a small number who respectfully keep their resentment to themselves) as the “old priest” was. It will be the same with the new translations.

A good news story on the charitable work of a Catholic order

And in The Age, no less.

Check it out: http://www.theage.com.au/world/a-touch-of-mercy-for-twisted-limbs-in-dili-20090825-ey1z.html

Please note:

Donations for the nuns can be sent to the Jesuit Mission, PO Box 193 (31 West Street) North Sydney, NSW 2059.

Actually, does any one have any more info on this “order inspired by Mother Teresa”? They are obviously – even by their habit – a different group from the regular Missionary Sisters of Charity.

No liturgical changes in store? Hmmm…

From this article in Cathnews:

“At the moment, there are no institutional proposals for a modification of the liturgical books currently in use,” said the Assistant Director of the Holy See Press Office, Father Ciro Benedettini, according to Catholic News Service.

It is read, by Cathnews, as a denial that there is any “Reform of the Reform” in mind in the Vatican.

Ah, but!

There really doesn’t have to be any “modification of the liturgical books currently in use” for a whole raft of changes to be made to the way in which we are currently celebrating the liturgy. There is nothing, for eg., in the rubrics or canos saying that “ad orientem” celebrations of the liturgy should not be the norm. There is nothing forbidding the use of an altar rail and kneeling at communion and reception of the host on the tongue. There is nothing saying that the entire liturgy (or a good deal of it) could not be said in Latin, or sung with accompanying Gregorian chants.

None of this would require any “modification of the liturgical books currently in use” (note, that this means, as far as the Vatican is concerned, the official Roman books – not the local adaptions and modifications currently in use throughout the world). And yet all of this would be interpeted by some people as a “return to Pre-Vatican II”, as a “roll back” of the Reform.

And example, after all, is everything. Just note the way that the altar crosses are making their way back onto our altars – even on “versus populum” altars. All he did was set an example.

The Ad Orientem Revolution has Begun!

Even before his election as the successor to St. Peter, Pope Benedict has been urging us to draw upon the ancient liturgical practice of the Church to recover a more authentic Catholic worship. For that reason, I have restored the venerable ad orientem position when I celebrate Mass at the Cathedral. (Bishop Edward J. Slattery, East Oklahoma)

Okay, it’s only in one diocese – and then only in the Cathedral when Bishop himself celebrates mass, nevertheless, it shows what can be done when a bishop decides to use his own proper authority for regulating the liturgy in his own diocese. No need to wait for Vatican III on this, guys!

You can read his full article here.(He looks a “let’s do it” kinda guy, doesn’t he?)