“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.

Advertisements

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

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

  1. It is unfortunately true that modern Latin service books are brimming over with mistakes – see the huge list of errata provided by Rubrics and Ritual; that erudite Anglican, Fr Hunwicke, has often mentioned on his blog (do a search if interested) how he, as a classicist and former teacher, is in the same position as many a convert to Christianity in late antiquity: having to deal with gramatical howlers at every turn (many of them obviously due to Italians making mistakes with Latin) when using the modern Latin Missal or Office. As he points out, the pre-Conciliar liturgical books were rigorously checked for errors, by contrast.

    I suspect, therefore, that Credo in unum Deum is a particularly embarrassing misprint. I cannot see that one is required to follow a misprint – the rational thing to do is to get a pencil and cross it out, just as in my own copies of the Divine Office (in Latin and English) I have corrected the obvious misprints, such as “the the” and asterisks in the wrong place. It would be unutterly stupid to pray aloud “the the” after all!

  2. I beg pardon of Fr Hunwicke, whose very relevant post on this very topic I herebelow reproduce in extenso:

    “I have just been reading, courtesy of a reader, the list put out by the Congregation for Divine Worship of the Errata and Corrigenda for the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal. It is very long and is a telling indictment of the workmanship that went into the 2002 Missal.

    “I have posted on this, more than once, before, and am conscious that returning to this subject yet again may simply confirm some readers in their conviction that I am a repetitive bore. But I must say that I doubt whether the list is exhaustive – it fails to correct some errors that I had noticed and which are real errors and not just typos. And I would be very surprised if a Corrigenda of the Corrigenda did not become necessary.

    “But before you give up on this tetchy post, ask yourself: is it not something deeply preposterous when the people who are supposed to be custodians of the Latin Liturgy of most of the West – and are paid to be the mechanics responsible for its decent implementation and its development as a text which can both be used at the Altar and translated into vernaculars – combine a profound ignorance of the Latin language with a real incompetence in publishing Typical Editions?

    “Somebody decided that in the interest of promoting nobility of materials and workmanship in all the physical objects which accompany the Sacrifice of the Altar, the 2002 Missal should be a vast heavy and expensive volume bound in fancy red leather. You open it, and there are a very few words on each page surrounded by acres of good quality empty paper (I have noticed that those saying the Novus Ordo Latin Masses at Brompton almost always actually use the earlier, smaller, lighter editions: a celebrating priest is always more impressed by a Missal which is easily handled and obliges him to turn pages as rarely as possible). But – the schoolmaster in me will out – true quality and true nobility do not repose in mannered and ostentatious presentation.

    “More. That there are, in all the Latin Church, not enough people competent in Latin even to produce an Altar Book demonstrates the deepness of the cultural rupture of the last 40 years, and the enormous uphill struggle that faces those heroic individuals who desire to reconnect the fractured traditio of Roman Catholic Christendom. I do understand how unwisely irritating the SSPX seems when it arrogantly implies that the rest of the Church – and the Vatican – need humbly to allow themselves to be wagged by so small and eccentric a tail. But the fiasco which is called the Editio Typica Tertia Missalis Romani is a small yet dramatic symptom of just how disastrously bad things have become in the mainstream of the Roman Communion.”

  3. I have noticed similar problems with the Martyrology – the revised edition of the new edition! – and I don’t have very good Latin at all…

  4. “Credo in Deum”

    I’m not sure this is the case at all. Unless I’m mistaken “credo in unum deum” is how I’ve always sung it in choirs, whether it be Baroque masses or Gregorian chant.

    I’m no expert in these matters, but I’m almost certain “credo in unum deum” is how it’s always been sung.

    If it’s an error, it must go way back.

  5. Oh okay, I forgot we were singing the Nicene creed! Ignore that, David!