From "The Word Among Us," More Regarding Upcoming Mass Changes

Are you familiar w/ the daily meditation guide called The Word Among Us? I was first introduced to it at our former parish, where they used to have extra copies on their pamphlet racks. Casinodad & I now subscribe to the publication. I love using this each morning for the daily readings, prayers, & meditations. Many great conversations have come up between Casiondad & me after a day's reflection. I HIGHLY recommend this guide for daily readings & meditations!

Each month also has various articles of based on a particular theme...for example, a few months ago the articles were about the Sacrament of Confirmation. This month, he articles are centered around the upcoming changes to the Mass through the Revised Roman Missal.

I was reading the second article this morning & got quite a little chuckle! "Words Matter: How Our Prayer Shapes Our Faith" talks about some of the reasons for the wording changes. It starts out by telling readers about a legend regarding scientists in the 60s who were trying to make a machine that translates English to Russian & back to English. When it was time to test it out, they tried a few popular phrases. When taking the Biblical passage, "The Spirit is willing but the flesh is weak," its translation back to English from Russian became, "The vodka is good, but the meat is rancid." WOW! What a difference!

I really liked this one though..."Out of sight, out of mind" became "Invisible idiot."

This just proves how difficult translations between languages can be. It's more than just translating each word. The whole context of the passage needs to be considered. Here is yet another reason for the upcoming Mass changes & how, after much study, we are going to more accurate translations of the original Latin text. I'm looking forward to the changes...how about you?

(NOTE: Parts of this post have been paraphrased from pages 11 & 12 of The Word Among Us, November 2011 edition.)

9. Revised Roman Missal: The Communion Rite to the End of Mass

And now for the final post on HandyGramps' explanation of the Revised Roman Missal. We'd love to hear your thoughts or questions.

9. The Communion Rite to the End of Mass

The Lord’s Prayer
We are now at that moment we have all been waiting for. The bread and wine have been changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, and it is time for us to receive Christ in the Eucharist. The Communion Rite begins with a prayer that bears no change: the Lord’s Prayer – the Our Father. As Fr. Turner writes, “Some people think that the prayer should at least be updated to change the word thy to your. This is the only text of Mass that retains the Old English pronoun. But the Lord’s Prayer we know has achieved a level of holiness that cannot be replaced.” The priest’s prayer that introduces the Our Father and the prayer that follows have changed a bit. One notable change in the prayer following that begins “Deliver us, Lord…” replaces “protect us from all anxiety” to “safe from all distress.” The subtle difference is that we will now pray to be free from that which causes the anxiety, not merely relieved of the anxiety itself.

One particular phrase that Fr. Turner uses – “achieved a level of holiness” – in a way underscores the impetus for the revisions we have discussed. It’s almost to say that the words we pray are being raised to a level that already existed in that singular prayer, the Our Father, to that language of “Sanctity” that we spoke of early on.

The Sign of Peace
The invitation to give one another the Sign of Peace has not changed; but the priest’s words leading to it have. He will now say, “…look not on our sins, but the faith of your Church, and graciously grant her [emphasis mine] peace and unity…” The use of the feminine pronoun is an acknowledgement of our belief in the Church as the Bride of Christ. To the actual invitation, “The peace of the Lord be with you always” we will respond as we do to “The Lord be with you” – “And with your spirit.”

The Lamb of God
The “Lamb of God” remains as is, including any valid musical settings used when it is sung.

Communion
Having addressed the Lamb of God, we are ready to receive Christ, the Lamb, in Holy Communion. We are called to share in the meal by the priest, who presents the Lamb to us, using the revised words that follow.

[The revised words are shown in bold type.]
Former Translation
Priest: This is the Lamb of God
who takes away the sins of the world.
Happy are those who are called
to His supper.

Revised Translation
Priest: Behold the Lamb of God,
behold Him who takes away the sins of the world.
Blessed are those called
to the supper of the Lamb.

Former Translation
People: Lord, I am not worthy
to receive you,
but only say the word and I shall be healed.

Revised Translation
All: Lord, I am not worthy
that you should enter under my roof,
but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

The shift from “This is” to “Behold” echoes the words of John the Baptist spoken when Our Lord went to him to be baptized in the Jordan River (John 1:29). It is a more elegant and majestic announcement of the Lord’s presence among us, a fitting tribute to the Lamb who shed His blood that all might be saved.

To be “Happy” signifies a state of being free of any kind of complication in life, a state that does not always fit those coming forward to receive Communion. In fact, most of us probably have issues in our lives that at least inhibit our happiness to a greater or lesser degree. To be “Blessed” is a state to which all of us can be called, regardless of what’s going on in our lives. Further, and very appropriately, it reflects what John wrote in Rev. 19:9a, “Then the angel said to me, ‘Write this: Blessed are those who have been called to the wedding feast of the Lamb.’” This makes a direct connection to the fact that receiving Communion is a foretaste of what we can expect in heaven, when we are invited to the Messianic Banquet.

The admission that we are not worthy is a direct acknowledgement of our sinfulness, which can be healed only by the Word of the Lord. The revision states almost verbatim the words of the centurion who comes to Jesus and asks Him to cure his ailing servant. When Jesus offers to go and cure him, the centurion responds: “Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed” (Matt. 8:8; see also, Lk. 7:6). Although he is a Gentile – and a Roman soldier, at that! – Jesus admires the man’s faith and cures his servant immediately. The message for us is that, if Jesus is so willing to acknowledge this man’s humility despite his sinfulness, He is just as willing to do the same for us.

The last change to this short prayer is from “I shall be healed” to “my soul shall be healed.” There is a subtle ambiguity in using “I” in that it could be misconstrued to be asking for the healing of some physical or psychological condition. The intent here is to focus on our being healed spiritually, a request for healing better expressed by asking that “my soul” be healed.

You may have also noted that the response by the “People” has been changed to a prayer said by “All”, indicating that the priest, like the people, is in need of that same healing.

The Concluding Rites
In a final greeting, the priest will say, “The Lord be with you”, to which we again respond, “And with your spirit.” He will follow this greeting with the blessing – sometimes a simple blessing, sometimes a more formal, solemn blessing. If he uses one of the solemn blessings, you will note that the words have changed. They will, however, conclude in much the same way as before, prompting us to respond with our resounding “Amen!”

The deacon (or priest in the absence of a deacon) will then offer a dismissal. Some new options are:

“Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord.”
“Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.”
“Go in peace.”

All of the dismissals call us to leave and go into the world with a mission, called to spread the Good News of Salvation by the way we live. We acknowledge that call by thanking God for the opportunity to serve Him in the world we live in: “Thanks be to God.”

Rest of Part 8. Revised Roman Missal: The Liturgy of the Eucharist

HandyGramps Explains (the rest of part 8)...

Now let us take a look at a few of the changes that are for the priest. Although those revisions will not be for us, seeing them will help us better understand what is happening in this central, most important part of the Mass: the Consecration. And, of course, we will also look at those revisions that do affect what we say. It is important to understand that, even though it is the priest actually saying those words, for the most part what he says is our prayer as well. There is, however, a moment when he gently slips away from our prayer and enters into the timeless moment that memorializes the words and actions of Christ at the Last Supper in…

The Institution Narrative is that moment in the Mass when the priest (only) speaks the words of Consecration that Our Lord spoke at table with His disciples. The translation does not match exactly what you read in the Gospels, simply because it cannot. The words of institution appear only in the Gospels of Matthew (26:26-30), Mark (14:22-26), and Luke (22:14-23), and in 1 Corinthians (11:23-25), and the words in Greek are different enough each time that they cannot be translated word-for-word. Because we cannot know precisely what words Jesus said, we have tried to capture their essence in such a way as to allow a deeper understanding of what happens during the Consecration.

[The revised words are shown in bold type.]

Former Translation
Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is my Body which will be given
up for you

Revised Translation
Take this, all of you, and eat of it,
for this is my Body,
which will be given up for you.

It’s amazing how the addition of two simple words – “of” and “for” – can so profoundly alter the meaning of the words. To say “eat it” could easily imply that one is to consume the bread in its entirety, whereas “eat of it” suggests that one is to consume only a part of it. Think about that in terms of what you know about the Eucharist: we share in consuming the Body of Christ. This will become even more evident when you come forward to receive Communion (more on that later). The word “for” adds another dimension to the words, in that it tells us WHY we are consuming the Body of Christ (see the more detailed, Scriptural explanation in John 6:48-58).

Former Translation
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and everlasting covenant
It will be shed for you and for all
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.

Revised Translation
Take this, all of you, and drink from it,
for this is the chalice of my Blood,
the Blood of the new and eternal covenant,
which will be poured out for you and for many
for the forgiveness of sins.
Do this in memory of me.

Once again, “for” gives us the WHY of it. The change from “cup” to “chalice” echoes what we learned earlier about an increased, ceremonial elegance in the language of the Mass, reflecting as well our regular use of that term for the vessel itself. Modern usage of the word “everlasting” likely encouraged the change to “eternal” in that today, we often use “everlasting” to define, say, the life of a battery – and we all know that in reality batteries have a finite life span. We understand time to be finite – that is, time will end at some point in the future. Not so the covenant, which extends beyond and outside of time.

The change from “shed” to “poured out” presents to us another of those deep meanings designed to encourage us to think beyond the obvious. By His wounds, Christ was naturally bound to bleed, a normal consequence of the tortures He endured. To say, however, that He “poured out” His Blood defines an act of the will – His will. Jesus CHOSE to shed His Blood for us. It didn’t merely happen as a result of the wounds. Any one of us can shed our blood. Only Christ can pour out His Blood and have a unique and unfathomable consequence: the salvation of humankind!

One of the more curious changes is from “all” to “many”. This is one of those instances in which a direct translation from the Latin is employed. But, what prompted The Vatican to choose multis (many) over omnes (all) in the first place? Isn’t salvation offered to all? In the accounts of the Last Supper in both Matthew and Mark, Jesus, Himself, uses “many”. Also, “many” is used in Matthew 20:28, reflecting the fourth Servant Song in Isaiah 52:13-53:12. In a way, it identifies the role of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament by making a direct connection with the terminology used in the Old Testament. Beyond this, the explanation gets a bit heavy; so suffice it to say that God is not omitting anyone from salvation. It is simply a matter of language used in those days that does not equate to language we use today (exemplifying the difficulty of translating from one tongue into another).

The Acclamation of Faith (formerly the “Memorial Acclamation”)

Immediately following the Consecration, with the words “The Mystery of Faith”, the priest invites the people to shout with joy! Yes, you read correctly. We are called to make an “acclamation” regarding what just happened. The previous translation, “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith”, called for a proclamation, not an acclamation. So, what is the difference? The Random House Dictionary makes it very clear. It tells us, proclaim: “to announce or declare in an official or formal manner.” That hardly fits what we just experienced. But, acclaim: “to salute with shouts or sounds of joy” far better expresses the attitude of a people who realize that they have just been offered salvation – eternal life. Note that our four responses have been reduced to three. “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again” has been removed.

[Again, the revised words are in bold type.]

Former Translation
Dying you destroyed our death,
rising you restored our life.
Lord Jesus, come in glory.

Revised Translation
We proclaim your death, O Lord,
and profess your Resurrection
until you come again.

Former Translation
When we eat this bread and drink this cup,
we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus,
until you come in glory.

Revised Translation
When we eat this bread and drink this cup,
we proclaim your death, O Lord,
until you come again.

Former Translation
Lord, by your cross and resurrection
you have set us free.
You are the Savior of the world.

Revised Translation
Save us, Savior of the world,
for by your Cross and Resurrection,
you have set us free.

(Hmm… You probably noticed it, too – “proclaim your death” in the first two acclamations. What seems like a contradiction is really not when you look at it closely. What we do is, indeed, an acclamation, a shout of joy addressed to Christ for what He has done. It is WHAT we shout, the words we use, that is the proclamation. The shout, itself, is a true acclamation.)

So, why did we lose the most familiar one, “Christ has died…”? Simple. We have just experienced the ongoing moment of salvation: the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. That moment touches our lives in such a profound way that we cry out to Christ with every ounce of joy we can muster. We shout our joy directly to Christ. In “Christ has died…” we simply stated some facts about Jesus. Joy is the order of the day, so we let Our Lord know how we feel.

The Doxology, said only by the priest, will change from “Through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever” to “Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, for ever and ever.” The rearrangement of words, plus the additional words in bold type, more closely matches the Latin.

The Great Amen, our response to the Doxology, is so-called because it is our enthusiastic response to the most profound, most wonder-filled prayer we say: the Eucharistic Prayer. In his booklet, Understanding the Revised Mass Texts, Fr. Paul Turner tells about a child who was asked to define “Amen”. After a bit of thinking, the child said, “It’s like hitting ‘Send’” on e-mail. “Indeed,” Fr. Turner says. “We send our entire message all at once through the angelic Web server to the in-box of the One who rules over all.” (Don’t you just love how the electronic age has affected our ways of thinking, even at the level of a child?)

8. Revised Roman Missal: The Liturgy of the Eucharist

(NOTE: I am splitting part 8 due to its length. So here is the first part of Part 8!)

HandyGramps Explains...

8. The Liturgy of the Eucharist

“A celebrant who is prayerful, reflective, in harmony with the true design of liturgy, who diligently prepares the homily, and who is humble enough to stand before the altar of God, knowing this is where the membrane between heaven and earth is thinnest [emphasis mine, SAV], brings to the assembly a sense of reverence and awe that empowers the liturgy to truly be the “summit and source” of faith and life (Sacrosanctum Concilium 10).

- Rev. Ronald E, Bassard “The Blessings of the New Roman Missal” (Today’s Liturgy, Easter 2011)

The “membrane between heaven and earth” – what a marvelous description! “Filter” comes to mind. The membrane filters out that part of God’s graciousness that is so infinitely powerful that we could never endure its totality in this life, yet giving us a tantalizing taste, leaving us yearning for more. At the same time, it filters out our worldliness, allowing our prayers to rise to Heaven, cleansed by the sacrifice of Christ. With this in mind, perhaps we can better understand and appreciate all that happens in that part of the Mass we call the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

The priest occupies the central role in this part of the Mass. After an opening dialog with us, he prays the words as we pray along silently. At certain points, we respond vocally, but the majority of the prayers are spoken by the priest. That certainly does not mean that we are relegated to the status of spectator. Far from it! Even as the priest prays the words, we engage ourselves in the prayers.

The Preparation of the Gifts begins the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Very little will change in this part. Once everything is in place on the altar – the table is set as usual – the priest offers praise to God. His words will change slightly, but our response – “Blessed be God forever” – will remain the same. Only after he washes his hands will we see the first change. He invites us to pray, saying, “Pray, brothers and sisters, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.” Note here a significant change in his words. Instead of “our sacrifice” he says “my sacrifice and yours”. Yes, there is more than one sacrifice being offered. Because each of us is called to a priestly role in Baptism, each of us is offering our personal sacrifice. But, in so offering ours, we are united with one another in the one, perfect sacrifice of Christ.

In our response to the priest’s invitation, we will see only one change, but an important one. We will say:

“May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good and the good of all His holy Church.”

By adding the word “holy” we not only reflect the words of the Creed: “one, holy…Church”, but we acknowledge that it is through the holiness of the Church that Christ hears and accepts the sacrifice being offered. The priest ends this part of the Mass with the Prayer Over the Offerings, to which we respond as we do now, “Amen.”

The Eucharistic Prayer then follows, the very heart of the Mass. The word “Eucharist” comes from the Greek word for “thanksgiving”, or “to give thanks”; and that is precisely what we do. Perhaps it would be well here to briefly look at the individual parts of the Eucharistic Prayer. Each has a specific purpose, and each leads to the next. It is a carefully structured prayer that draws us into that great mystery – the consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ – and prepares us to receive Christ in Communion.

1. The Opening Dialogue is a brief conversation between the priest and the people in which the priest calls us to prepare ourselves for what is about to happen. It begins with the priest saying, “The Lord be with you.” Once again, our response will be “And with your spirit.” Then, all is the same as today until the last dialogue. When the priest says, “Let us give thanks to the Lord our God,” instead of “It is right to give Him thanks and praise,” our words become simpler: “It is right and just.”

2. The Preface is usually a thematic proclamation of praise and thanksgiving to God, keyed to liturgical time – the Sundays of the year, a particular feast, or even a special occasion for which a Mass might be offered …” (Note: In the Revised Roman Missal, the term “liturgical season” has been changed to “liturgical time”). The last words we say, “It is right and just” provide a sort of “jumping off point” for the priest, who begins the Preface with “It is truly right and just.

3. The Holy, Holy, Holy is a song of praise, proclaiming God’s holiness and glory as we prepare to enter into the most profound mystery of our faith, the transformation of simple bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The opening line, the only change in the song, is a slight modification of the song of the angels in Isaiah 6:3: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts!” The source for this proclamation of holiness comes from a Hebrew word, Sabaoth, which the Latin used without translation because it is such a beautiful, descriptive word. We will sing:

[The revised words are shown in bold type.]

Former Translation
Holy, holy, holy Lord,
God of power and might.

Revised Translation
Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.

Note, too, that in the revision the word “Holy” is capitalized all three times. This places a distinct emphasis on our God, most Holy, to whom we are singing this song (not to mention a subtle Trinitarian implication). The remainder of the song, which is an adaptation of what the people cried out when Jesus entered Jerusalem, is praising God for all He has done. The “hosts” referred to are the “heavenly hosts”, the countless angels in Heaven over whom God has command. The next line, which remains unchanged – “Heaven and earth are full of your glory” – signifies God’s power over the heavens (i.e., the universe) and earth. As a result, as we sing the Holy, Holy, Holy we are proclaiming God’s power over everything He has created (recall the change in the Creed, “…of all things visible and invisible”).

7. Revised Roman Missal: Prayers of the Faithful

HandyGramps Explains...

7. Prayers of the Faithful

In the Prayers of the Faithful (also known as the General Intercessions), we find what is the most flexible part of our liturgy. As before, we follow a few basic guidelines (as defined in the GIRM) to compose prayers for the needs of the Church (sometimes including specific prayers for the Pope and Bishops, and others in authority in the Church), for world leaders or public officials and the salvation of the whole world, the needs of the community, and for those burdened by illness or other things. This is also the most appropriate place to pray for specific Mass intentions requested by parishioners. Keeping brevity and good taste in the forefront, we are free to compose the introduction and conclusion, the petitions themselves, and the people’s response.

6. Revised Roman Missal: The Creed

HandyGramps Explains...

6. The Creed

Also known as our “Profession of Faith”, the Creed is the encapsulated statement affirming all that we believe. Over the centuries, there have been a number of creeds written, the two most prominent being the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. All of them fundamentally express the same thing: We believe in a triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – and in the most significant aspects that attend each of the three Persons in the Trinity. It is the Nicene Creed that we normally profess at Mass. Although it may be used at Mass, the Apostles’ Creed is more closely associated with the Rosary.

A bit of background may help us to better understand why the Creed is being revised – or, perhaps better stated, restored. The Nicene Creed was written at the Council of Nicea in AD 325 as a response to Arianism, a heresy that denied the divinity of Christ and, subsequently, of the Holy Spirit. For the Arians, the Father alone was God; Jesus and the Holy Spirit were subordinate to the Father. The Church, on the other hand, believes (as it believed then) that all three Persons of the Holy Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – are not only equal (a reasonably adequate word to describe an unfathomable Mystery) but Divine. The Nicene Creed is, according to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (©1967, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC), “a Baptismal creed…into which have been interpolated anti-Arian clauses” – “Baptismal” being an essential point in understanding the restoration of the original words. Indeed, in order to be validly baptized, the Rite of Baptism must adhere to what is called the “Trinitarian formula” – we are baptized “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as the water is either poured over the head three times or we are immersed three times.

The Creed is structured in four sections defining our belief in (1) God the Father, (2) God the Son, (3) God the Holy Spirit, and (4) the expression and goal of that belief.

(a) God the Father
In this first section only two revisions have been made. The first is that “We believe” is changed back to “I believe” – “back” because like so many of the revisions, it is a direct translation from the Latin, Credo. The Creed is essentially a statement of the beliefs that each of us professes at our baptism (through our parents and godparents for those of us baptized as children). Some have decried the loss of the sense of unity that they see in “We believe”. However, the unity that we express at Mass has not been lost, but is in reality defined by the act of saying the Creed together as a community of baptized people. (I suppose you could say here that actions do speak louder than words.)

The second revision of this section is the change from “of all that is seen and unseen” to “of all things visible and invisible”. This is a fundamentally profound revision. The Latin is visibilium omnium, et invisibilium. The translation is patently obvious – visibilium, visible; but not so the reasoning behind it. Think of things unseen. That term can easily be restricted to things of this world. Obviously, anything out of direct line of sight is unseen – the dishes behind the closed cupboard door, for example. Or, Aunt Esmeralda in Spokane is clear across the country, and is thus unseen. Our belief expressed through the Creed is intended to profess our belief in things truly invisible, that is, not seen in a sense far higher and spiritually deeper than anything our mortal world can offer: angels, saints, Heaven, etc. A significant distinction is that what is unseen can be seen (e.g., by simply opening the cupboard door, or by having Aunt Esmeralda come visit). What is invisible is incapable of being seen. It is simply beyond our ability to see the invisible until we actually join that which is invisible through our death (God-granted visions notwithstanding). Therefore this revision is not just more meaningful but necessary for us to really solidify what it is we believe about God the Father, namely, that God is the Creator not only of the things of this world but of the world beyond. When you think about it, returning to the literal translation really makes more sense, and truly deepens the faith we profess in the Creed.

(b) God the Son

[Phrases in brackets are in the current translation, and are shown for reference.]

Former Translation
[…one Lord, Jesus Christ,]
“the only” [Son of God,] “eternally
begotten of the Father…”

Revised Translation
[…one Lord, Jesus Christ,]
“the Only Begotten” [Son of God,]
“born of the Father before all ages…”

At first glance, both translations seem to be saying the same thing; but there is a subtle difference. Aside from making the translation more faithful to the Latin (unigenitum, only begotten), connecting the words “Only” and “Begotten” forms a phrase that makes a uniquely powerful statement. First, we need to understand that we are not talking here about the birth of the Child born in Bethlehem. As wonderful and miraculous as that event is, we are dealing with something much more profound: the very nature of the Son of God. We are made – created – in the image and likeness of God. Thus we are a reflection of who God is. But we do not share His nature, that is, we are not and never can be divine. The term “begotten” carries a deeper meaning, one that defines the “begotten” as sharing the very nature of the creator. Jesus and His Father have one nature – their divine nature – in unity with the Holy Spirit. Thus, it is more than fitting to use “the Only Begotten Son of God” in professing our belief in Jesus Christ: the divine, co-eternal Son of God, the Son who has always existed and always will.

Former Translation
“one in Being” [with the Father,]

Revised Translation
“consubstantial” [with the Father,]

Again, we draw directly from the Latin, consubstantialis. Literally, it expresses our belief that Jesus and the Father “have the same substance”. What that means is that we are going to the very core of their reality: like the Father, Jesus is divine. The word “substance” (meaning that which lies beneath) is a truly remarkable word in that it enables us to define the relationship between the visible reality of something (Jesus’ human nature) and the much deeper, invisible reality (Jesus’ divine nature). We cannot see His divine nature simply because in this life we cannot see God. The term effectively continues what was begun earlier in the phrase, “Only Begotten Son”. Again turning to Fr. Turner’s Understanding the Revised Mass Texts: “‘Consubstantial’ is a very unusual word. We don’t use it for anything else. But it is describing a very unusual thing – the nature of Jesus Christ. He is not like anything or anyone else”.

Former Translation
“…by the power of the Holy Spirit
He was born of the Virgin Mary,”
[and became man.]

Revised Translation
“…and by the Holy Spirit
was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,”
[and became man.]

There is a significant difference between “born” and “incarnate” – a difference that can actually change the meaning of this creedal statement. Jesus was incarnate – that is, “made or given flesh” – at the moment of His conception in Mary’s womb. To say He was “born…and became man” could be misunderstood to mean that His humanity did not occur until that starry night, in the stable at Bethlehem. The revised translation also makes more clear our belief that He was “conceived” by the Holy Spirit, not merely born nine months later by the power of the Spirit.

Former Translation
“…He suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day He rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures…”

Revised Translation
“…He suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.”

That Jesus died is not explicit in the Latin, which in literal translation is closer to “suffered and was buried”; but we accept the word “suffered” as implying His death. Because it is implicit rather than explicit that Jesus died on the cross, the phrase chosen in the revision is considered more appropriate. Without the implication of death, the statement “rose again” would have no real meaning. The point of this passage is to proclaim the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead as a key facet of what we believe.

Jesus rose from the dead “in fulfillment of the Scriptures”. But fulfilling the Scriptures does not carry the weight of the Scriptures that actually speak to the Resurrection. Fulfilling the prophecies could be construed as simply stating that Jesus fulfills the promise of the Messiah. To state “in accordance with the Scriptures” offers a deeper insight into what the Old Testament really says: The Messiah would have to suffer, die, and rise (Isaiah has much to say on this in his “Suffering Servant” passages).

(c) God the Holy Spirit

Former Translation
[With the Father and the Son] “He” [is]
“worshipped” [and glorified.]
“He” [has spoken through the prophets.]

Revised Translation
“who” [with the Father and the Son is]
“adored” [and glorified,]
“who” [has spoken through the prophets.]

This one is simply a more direct translation from the Latin. The change from “He” to “who” is only a matter of making the phraseology in the revision more consistent.

(d) Where it all takes us

Former Translation
“We acknowledge” [one baptism for
the forgiveness of sins.]

Revised Translation
“I confess” [one baptism for the
forgiveness of sins.]

To “acknowledge” something is to pretty much say, “Yeah, okay, it’s there. That’s cool.” To “confess’ something, on the other hand, more forcefully proclaims not only that it’s there, but that “I believe” in it. It is a profession of what lies in our hearts regarding the power of baptism.

Former Translation
(7) “We look for” [the resurrection of the dead…]

Revised Translation
“…and I look forward to” [the resurrection of the dead…]

More than just a better translation from the Latin (which it is), this imposes a sense of anticipation – and maybe even a bit of urgency – that something wonderful will one day happen. We could liken it to the difference between “looking for a lost child” (what the volunteers helping in the search might say) and “looking forward to finding our cherished little one” (what WE would say because it’s OUR child). It is the resurrection that each of us hopes to participate in at the end of time, the resurrection that will find us in the fullness of glory that Jesus has promised. It effectively completes our faith in God.