GIRM Orthopraxis: Why sing the Creed in Latin?
David asks:
How does singing the creed in latin ‘make a difference’? Please do not interpret this as cynicism, but isn’t it important that the overwhelming majority of the faithful, who don’t know latin, actually KNOW what they are professing? The chant is beautiful, yes, but this is the post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church.
No cynicism interpreted. Here’s my attempt at a response—nothing is said in anger or exasperation below.
I’m not sure about the demographics of most parishes, but here on Long Island we have a steady influx of Latino, Asian and South Asian immigrants. (Not all of them are Catholic, but stay with me.) I grant that many of them do not know Latin either, but they do know the words to the profession of faith in their own language.
How would teaching all of them the sung Ordinary of the Mass, especially the Creed, in Latin, make a difference?
- It would be an audible sign of unity at the Sacrament of Unity;
- It may help people transcend voluntary segregation within parishes (I see this all the time);
- It may help people develop the (correct) attitude that the Faith itself is beautiful, joyful (and true, even,) and to be savored, cherished, lived and defended; instead of something to pay lip service to on a Sunday afternoon (as may be discerned, rightly or wrongly, from the mumbling that passes for the recitation of the Creed at most parishes, regardless of the language).
As an aside, Sacrosanctum Concilium 54 states:
In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and “the common prayer,” but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to the norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.
Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
What most people have overlooked for the past 40-odd years is that innocuous “Nevertheless” in the second paragraph. Whether people will persist in overlooking that word in the future is not up to me. But I think that trotting out the “Post Vatican II Church” phrase is a tired, ignorant, erroneous, and in many respects, lazy habit that inhibits comprehensive, authentic liturgical reform; it ought to be shelved.
You may still disagree with how important it is to sing the Creed in Latin, which is fine. The question can be asked: Would you disagree with singing the Creed in the vernacular?
However, lost in the language and singing issues is the most important question: do most people truly know what they profess when they say the words of the Creed? Some have their doubts about that; it is an issue that transcends language usage and, within the context of the Sacred Liturgy, ultimately must be addressed from the pulpit and by Christ Himself in the Real Presence.
30 Responses to “GIRM Orthopraxis: Why sing the Creed in Latin?”
Comments (Leave a Comment)
Leave a Comment
Follow CantemusDomino
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
![[Listed on blogs4God]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/blogs4god.png){kind=small}
![[Valid XHTML 1.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/xhtml10.png){kind=small}
![[Valid CSS 2.0]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/css.png){kind=small}
I am at a parish this summer that has a huge Hispanic population, and the unity of the Anglo and Hispanic parishioners is always a big question here. If only they would give more consideration to using Latin! There was a parish in Fort Worth where the priest did this with great success (uniting the parish by having a Latin Mass) – though that priest has now been “stopped” and exiled someplace – but it has been done before, and it can be done with great results.
Still, considerations of Latin aside, I would be happy if the Creed at least were sung, period. In all my travels I’ve never heard the Creed sung in English. Can anyone point me to a resource that has English settings of the Creed?
A friend of mine who was ordained recently to the priesthood had the Creed sung recto-tonally at his first Mass. I wasn’t there, but I’ve seen the program, and they made use of the beautiful practice of the choir interjecting for the “Et incarnatus est…” (though they sang it in English) while the congregation listened reverently and bowed (as the books say to do, and hardly anyone does). Thus while the Creed was only simply chanted by the congregation, the choir gave due reverence to the highest point in it with some sort of choral setting.
Even things like that – a simply chanted creed in English, perhaps with the choir interjecting for the “By the power of the Holy Spirit….” line, could do much to bring back an attitude of reverence and recollection in the parish’s profession of faith. Aristotle mentioned how many folks mumble their way through it on the average Sunday. Moreover, it would give the choir director an excellent opportunity for creativity in coming up with new settings for that single line that the choir sings each Sunday in the Creed.
Then, perhaps, on feast days at least – as a start – the Latin could be used, with greater frequency as time goes on. Credo III is not hard to sing at all; it may look quite overwhelming to the average layman, but someone just needs to help them to realize that it’s really just a few musical phrases that are repeated over and over, then having the melody part out of the way they can then focus on the words, and that only takes a little practice (e.g. with pronunciation and familiarity).
If the priest has the trust of his people and is fully behind an initiative like this, then I believe that it could be done, even if the transition is slow at first. In many respects we have settled for banality and mediocrity in the liturgy in this country; we must get beyond that.
<dismounting soapbox>
And, to mount my particular soapbox, may I suggest, as an intermediate step for those parishes that have an aversion to anything Gregorian or Latin, there are plenty of Russian Orthodox settings of the Creed which can be adapted to the ICEL translation. You can find some of them in the “creed” section of http://www.podoben.com, or at http://www.podoben.com/liturgymixed.htm.
Of course, if you wish to avoid the pedestrian translation of the ICEL, you could perhaps even use the OCA translation. Just a thought.
Apparently some have interpreted “Nevertheless steps should be taken . . . ” as “Never should any steps be taken . . .”.
Although I wouldn’t recommend it for a weekly Sunday celebration of the Mass, choral/orchestral settings of the Credo can be particularly moving on special occasions. I’m thinking specifically of Gounod’s St. Cecilia Mass and Beethoven’s Mass in C. The ability of a great composer to provide word painting on the themes of the Credo can be overwhelmingly beautiful. Even the altar boys were on the edge of their seats in rapt attention.
I have no problem with the idea of singing the creed in the vernacular. (Whether people believe what they profess, as you propose, is immaterial for our purposes here and a topic for another day.) I do not believe the creed needs to be ‘moving’, as well it might be for some in settings by Gounod and Beethoven. It’s simply a statement of our beliefs, not a song in praise to God.
David, to whom are you referring with your comment, “Whether the people believe what they profess, as you propose…”? I think what Aristotle and I were both saying is that folks tend not to be very recollected when they say the creed – at least that would be the appearance – they recite it mechanistically. At least, by having it sung, they might have to pay greater attention to what they are doing, thereby bring about a fuller “active and conscious” participation. Whether they believe what they are saying/singing is an entirely different issue which, so far as I can tell, has not been introduced here.
Bryan,
Aristotle mentioned the idea of the people’s believing what they say/sing in his last paragraph that started this discussion. In any case, do the people really need to be immersed in the creed? I don’t think they do. It’s a statement of our beliefs that unites us as Roman Catholics, not unlike the pledge of allegiance which unites us as Americans. People say it by rote, and that’s okay since they’ve come to understand it’s significance long ago and don’t need to ‘meditate’ on it at each saying. What is significant to me is that we are all saying it together. Singing it (again, I’m not opposed to it) will not guarantee greater participation. Some people may choose not to sing at all. We chant the Lord’s Prayer in our parish, and the same danger applies to it that applies to anything sung or recited weekly; namely, a mechanical approach to the action.
For the Creed in English, I believe the Collegeville hymnal has two English chant settings of the Creed, and of course…if you can find it, Ted Marier’s Hymns, Psalms and Spiritual Canticles has two settings, one based on mode 5 similar to the De Angelis, and one that is sung completely on one tone, albeit with complex chord changes, and optional choral elaboration. For those with more contemporary tastes, in the FIRST EDITION of Choral Praise Comp. There is a version of both creeds in the Celtic Mass, I think this is also printed in this years, music issue, but I could be wrong. Anyone else?
David, good points, only one thing I’d say though RE: rote recitation; I’ve been at a parish where the folks, in the process of reciting the Gloria, somehow ended up shifting to the Creed and then couldn’t get back on track. I mean, I think there needs to be some awareness of what is happening – not that you have to meditate on it – but the music does help heighten the awareness somewhat and keep folks on the correct track. At any rate, I think we are in substantial agreement.
“I do not believe the creed needs to be ‘moving’”
The creed is quite profound in its theological implications. It’s more than a mere song. Indeed, it is a ringing validation of the Catholic faith.
With all due respect, David, you are simply wrong.
I can’t believe that anyone thinks, barring the occasional moment of absent-mindedness, it is a good thing that we perform any part of our sacred rituals “by rote.”
It is NOT all right that the Credo be recited by rote with no reflection on what we are ostensibly professing, any more than it is all right to say “Amen” as a kind of Pavlovian response to the spoken words “Body of Christ,” without giving any thought to whether one actually gives assent to that most important Truth.
I can not know what is in anyone elses heart, but having seen people casually stick out one hand to receive the host while waving to someone else with the other, or remove chewing gum from their mouths momentarily to receive I cannot help but have strong suspicions that their “Amens” do NOT reflect an already arrived at understanding.
Likewise from conversations with life long and practicing (at least by “rote,”) Catholics in which they have denied Mary’s virginity, or the apostolic roots of the Church’s authority, or Christ’s physical resurrection, it is clear that at least some people out there are saying words without having considered what the words mean — that or they willingly proclaim that which they do not really believe.
Neither is “okay.”
Bennet,
I think you took my comments out of context. Going back to Aristotle’s submission of a setting of the creed as a piece of music that ‘makes a difference’, my point was, and is, that the creed is not a major moment in the liturgy. The faithful are going to recite/sing the profession of faith with an understanding that exceeds the enthusiasm with which they profess it. Ritual is formative by its nature. It is not always necessarily inspiring and transcendent. Your cause is not furthered by using the examples of people who approach liturgy flippantly-those people will always be present. The ones you mention who have problems with Catholic doctrine will have those problems whether the creed is sung in latin or english. Again, I was only addressing the creed as a piece of music. Please read back on this board if you haven’t already.
David asked, “isn’t it important that the overwhelming majority of the faithful, who don’t know latin, actually KNOW what they are professing?”
That requires proper catechesis of the faithful and is not going to be settled by presenting arguments whether to sing the creed or to recite the creed, in latin or in the vernacular.
I believe its sorely needed. I had a fellow Catholic tell me, “as long as I am guided by the Holy Spirit, not even the Pope can do anything about it”. And that’s someone who recites the creed in English every sunday at Mass.
Funny thing, that comment regarding the creed text as something recited by rote…something akin to the pledge of allegiance. Were the text so banal, mundane, pedestrian, I would think it odd that the Catechism of the Catholic Church devotes and entire part to the discussion of the profession of faith. It is true, from time to time, our human weakness allows our minds to wander (at any time, really, not just at Mass), however, the creed is not simply an elongated text shoved into the midpoint of the Mass. It’s there for a purpose (as Aristotle points out). Interesting also, the Church assigns particular gestures for the creed (at the Incarnatus est). The creed reminds us of our roots. It gives us the foundation. If there is any doubt “why we’re here at Mass”, the Credo should dispell them all. What happens after the credo, we must recall, is the telescoping into real time of the Sacrifice at Calvary — no childsplay. Whatever this concept is of “reciting by rote” or of the false belief that the credo is simply a pretty text that happens in a vacuum and is mindlessly repeated, it is something that originates from the Mass-goer himself: it’s personal baggage, which seeks to tailor the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries to his own desires — something resembling the process by which one might select a particular CD for the morning communte. Most important is not whether we like to recite the creed, whether we prefer to recite it in English or Latin, or some other language. Important is that we do it with conviction, paying special attention to what it states. If we do not do this to the best of our ability, we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord unworthily, for by responding “Amen” to the words “Corpus Christi” when communing, we acknowledge our belief.
Jason,
We ALWAYS receive the Body and Blood Of Our Lord unworthily. I’m trying to stress the point that ritual is formative. Participating in it every week (or every day) has a cumulative effect on us that doesn’t require introspection.
If this does not require introspection, why then, are we mandated to go to confession beforehand? Were introspection not necessary, would then also this Sacrament of Penance also be unnecessary? Why then, should it not be possible just to drop by the parish office and pick up a couple hosts for one’s self and his family? A “Jesus take-out” or sorts.
JP
Jason,
With regard to introspection, I was addressing the recitation/singing of the creed. I’m sorry if I was misunderstood.
Is it possible to give people a religious culture they did not receive with mother’s milk? I don’t know. What I do know is that when I am singing “et unam Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam” you could take me right out into the vestibule of the church and shoot me for the sake of the Faith those words represent to me. Thomas Cranmer died for the English version.
I think it is indeed possible that a religious culture can be obtained later — I was raised a very strict Lutheran (A German parish). Luther’s Catechism was mixed in with the Goldenbooks in my play pen. The words “This is most certainly true” were among my first English words. However, now, I am a practicing Roman Catholic. Remember, in the Lutheran wording of the creed, the word “Catholic” was substituted with the word “Christian” — “one holy Christian and Apostolic Church”.
JP
“when I am singing “et unam Sanctam Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam” you could take me right out into the vestibule of the church and shoot me for the sake of the Faith those words represent to me”
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!!!!!!!!!
They stir me , as well.
Faaaaaaaar too little is made of the Credo, IMNSHO, and I think discouraging the singing of it is criminal.
Please do not think me cynical. (I prefer to sing everything, all the time. And it is nice to hear when someone is stirred by the singing of any part of the mass.) However, with regards, solely, to the importance of singing the creed, and in response to the use of the word ‘criminal’ as describing the recited creed, I submit to you the following paragraph from Music In Catholic Worship:
Profession of Faith
69. This is a communal profession of faith in which “…the people who have heard the Word of God in the lesson and in the homily may assent and respond to it, and may renew in themselves the rule of faith as they begin to celebrate the Eucharist.” (General Instruction, 43) It is usually preferable that the Creed be spoken in declamatory fashion rather than sung. If it is sung, it might more effectively take the form of a simple musical declamation rather than that of an extensive and involved musical structure.
These are not my words. This is your Roman Catholic Church speaking. Obviously, the creed can be sung. But if my parish chooses the PREFERABLE option of reciting the creed, do you still consider it criminal?
Well, to tell you the truth, one of the most stirring settings of the Credo (in my opinion), is one by C.V. Stanford…in English. It’s the old Anglican text…not that spurious “we believe” business (I’ve never quite grasped how they got “we believe” from the verb “credo”…I’ve never read the text where “credimus” appears..when this Latinist was a schoolboy, such a translation would earn him a tweek to the head, i.e. the Latin master would pop the crown of the student’s head with the stone of his class ring…good old Catholic boys school days..do it again, and the student gets his sideburns pulled). Even if the choir were singing that, and I were sitting in the congregation listening, I would feel myself united in its message.
JP
“use of the word ‘criminal’ as describing the recited creed,”
My apologies if you took offence.
I did not say “reciting” the creed was criminal, I said that “discouraging the singing of ” the creed was criminal. I indulged in a bit of hyperbole.
“Criminal” was not necessarily the right word — maybe, “reprehensible.”
“These are not my words. This is your Roman Catholic Church speaking.”
No, it is not.
They are the words of a small number of bishops. Not the Universal Church speaking magisterially, not even the American bishops as a whole, not any bishop in whose diocese I reside.
Just a handful of bishops expressing their personal opinions.
And I think for them to have expressed their own opinions and to have allowed them to masquerade as some genuine intepretation of Church teaching was if not criminal at least on a par with their reckless and negligent handling of a host of other problems, catechetical, liturgical, social and administrative for at least the forty years that I have been alive.
Bennet,
As per your final paragraph, it is apparent that you have serious personal differences with the bishops that I will not be able to overcome in discourse in this setting. I’m not sure where you live, but as a citizen of the United States of America, I submit as the Holy Spirit works through the bishops of my country. If you really feel that the bishops of this country are ‘masquerading’ as shepherds of their flock, there is no need for me to trouble myself further in trying to make a point.
Please read Mark 9:38-41. Peace be with you.
“If you really feel that the bishops of this country are ‘masquerading’ as shepherds of their flock, there is no need for me to trouble myself further in trying to make a point.”
You misunderstand me.
While I may or may not feel that the US Bishops as a whole, and some as individuals, may have botched a great deal in recent decades, I submit myself to their authority, whether I agree with their decisions or not (I don’t think it makes me disloyal, disobedient or unusual to believe that the US bishops’ handling of at least some matters in recent times has been negligent or reckless — I seriously doubt their is an adult Catholic in this country who does not believe this.)
I don’t know canon law, but I don’t think their mistakes diminish theri authority.
But Music in Catholic Worship has no such authority, it is not a statemet by the bishops as a whole. It is _not_ “your [or my] Roman Catholic Church speaking,” it is the personal opinion of a small committee who had, in my opinion, wrongly published and promulgated the thing and allowed it to be mistaken for an authoritative statement of the NCCB or USCCB as a whole.
Bennet, you are correct: MCW has NO authority whatsoever. In fact, if the quotation from “#69″ above is from MCW, it directly contradicts the wishes of Paul VI in his introduction to Jubilate Deo (…that the Faithful be able to sing their parts [including the Credo]) and VatII.
MCW and the BCL’s “architectural” document were no more authoritative than an editorial from the NY Times on the matter of Church policy or practice.
Yes, the statement of MCW in this regard has no authority whatsoever, and because it is contradicted expressly by papal liturgical legislation to the contrary, even one’s local bishop could not raise the practice commended by MCW into binding local liturgical law.
Which is why MCW and LMT have to be approached with great caution: they have no force of law, and where they contradict superior legislation, they cannot to that extent be made into law as a local matter by the ordinary.
Getting back to the original post, I think introducing Latin as a way to unify diverse cultural groups in worship is a wonderful idea. Things are still pretty homogenous where I live, and virtually no one sings or speaks if asked to do so in anything other than English (they don’t even seem to understand that they are being asked to; they just assume that if it is in Latin or Spanish, they are exempt from even trying. ) It doesn’t take too much imagination to see the difficulty in a parish with 2, 3 or 4 different language groups–and a shortage of priests.
Regarding singing of anything, I’ve come to the conclusion that any parish that has more than one Mass per Sunday should make one of them a “quiet” Mass. That way all the people who refuse to sing for whatever reason can atttend the quiet Mass and cease being a drag on the other Mass(es). I certainly don’t agree with them, but I do feel rather sorry those who don’t “believe in” singing at Mass, but don’t have any choice.