The Nicene Creed – Changes #6 he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures
This Week’s Focus on the Change by Fr. James Chelich
“he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures.”
The former translation read:
“He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures.”
The punctuation of the former translation implies that Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was in fulfillment of the Scriptures but not his suffering and death. It is important to the Faith to express the truth that the whole of his suffering, death and resurrection was a fulfillment of what had been foretold in the Scriptures. Here, from the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, is the most famous passage:
See my servant shall prosper, he shall be raised high and greatly exalted… (Isaiah 52:13)
He suffered death in fulfillment of the Scriptures:
He was…a man of suffering… Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured, While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers…he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people. (Isaiah 53:3-4, 7-8)
He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures:
If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him. Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days. (Isaiah 53:10-11)
Even more important to the Faith is to express the truth that Jesus’ suffering, death and resurrection were redemptive. They fulfilled the redemptive design that God set in motion long ago when man and woman first darkened their souls and embarked upon the blood-stained path that is human history. The Scriptures reveal God’s redemptive design unfolding over time, leading to and culminating in the atoning Sacrifice of Jesus:
He was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins, Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed…
Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear
…And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses. (Isaiah 53:5, 11, 12)
The New Roman Missal
The Nicene Creed
Part 1 – The Creed and “I believe…”
Part 2 – …consubstantial with the Father
Part 3 – Was incarnate of the Virgin Mary
Part 4 – of all things visible and invisible
Part 5 – the only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages
Part 6 – he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day, in accordance with the Scriptures.
Part 7 – who has spoken through the Prophets.
Part 8 – I confess; I look forward to
I am trully disappointed that in this time of turmoil in the Catholic Church due to horrific acts of priests and the hierarchy who chose to sweep those acts under the rug, changing the language of the Nicene Creed is deemed a worthwhile and necessary act. I am 58 years old. I have spent most of those 58 years believing that I come to mass on weekends to worship and profess my faith as a part of a whole community. WE are the community. Changing the word “we” to “I” serves to separate us as islands unto ourselves. And really…consubstantial? Is this language really meant to unify us, make us contemplate the words more fully or simply alienate us from you who establish church policy and author the voacbulary of our worhsip service? There are many antiquated aspects of the Roman Catholic Church: women cannot be priests, girls should not be acolytes, priests cannot marry, divorce is sanctioned if you pay enough to call it anullment. But the new language you are telling us we must use is not a step forward. It will not serve to make anyone better appreciate an all-knowing and all- powerful God, the supreme sacrifice of Christ, or the limitless wisdom of the Holy Spirit. There are many importan issues to which you need to dierect your attention. Changing the text of the Nicene Creed is NOT one of them. Perhaps you should try to get in touch with the Church you are supposed to guide and lead. The changes you have made are not a step in the right dirrection.
Dear Cynthia,
It sounds like you feel personally hurt by the changes to the Mass, and I’m going to do my best to explain things to you in my own words. If you go through each of the stories about the changes on this website, you’ll have a greater understanding of the language used, including the word “consubstantial.”
Let’s start with the “time of turmoil in the Catholic Church.” This is something that’s been ongoing for ten years at the very least, and it is something that is constantly brought up so much by folks and comedians and in movies. So much so, that it feels like it’ll never end. In fact, the Church has gone a long way toward dealing with the situation. Quite frankly, for some, nothing the Church does will ever be enough, unless we can turn back time. This has nothing to do with the Mass changes. At all. It’s a mere distraction from what you’re actually upset about. Do you also think Penn State should close all of their sports programs and cancel all of their classes until this “time of turmoil” at the university is over?
The change from “We” to “I” for the Nicene Creed is explained very well in the article here. It’s supposed to be a personal faith. We still say it together.
The words have changed to reflect what they should have been all along. It is a more accurate translation of the Latin texts. As one thing you mentioned over and over about being a community, we are part of a world-wide community. Other languages had better translations than we did, and now ours is closer to theirs. It is now more correct.
As for the “antiquated aspects” of the RCC: Women cannot, and will never, be able to be priests. This is something that we cannot change. It’s not up to us. Jesus made the rules, and seeing as He is God, we listen. Mary said yes to God, and she wasn’t made a priest of any kind. Girl acolytes is something I cannot speak to, as I’ve never researched that. Priests cannot marry, and if you ask any of them, they’ll likely tell you that they wouldn’t if given the choice. Anullments are an unfortunate necessity.
Whether you like it or not, it truly is a step forward for the Church and is many years in the making. They are a step in the right direction. I don’t know what you are trying to achieve by commenting like this, but clearly your priest has failed at properly explaining the changes to you. I hope that you find the answers you’re looking for, but this is not something that is going to be reverted, no matter how much one might complain.