"Et Incarnatus est" and "Consubstantialem" -- Heresy in the NOM Creed
Vincentius:
I had thought of including this topic in that other forum, "To 'Compromise' or not," not because of irrelevancy -- it is relevant to what is being discussed there (see quote below) -- but so as not to detract from the good thoughts expressed and lessons learned in that forum.
I bring up a couple of examples of not only of ambiguity -- clearly they are -- but also one that borders on heresy (and one that wipes out and does away with the crime of abortion). These are not my thoughts but those of the Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, Hamish Fraser, P. Fongemie, Pope Pius XII, iand even more importantly, St. Luke. Thus, not contented with mere ambiguity, the modernists of Vatican II went all out with heresy.
Quote from: McMaster
Examples? Aside from "subsistit in" [Unitatis redintegratio, 4], which has now been mentioned, when do I get to see some leading claimed examples of ambiguity in the documents of Vatican II, accompanied by concise analyses of the different plausible meanings of the passages in question, which are inconsistent with one another to the extent that the actual meaning cannot be understood?
Since Sacrosanctum Concilium is one of the documents of the Council, and because it is about the Mass, which is most central to the Catholic faith, I will essay to argue ambiguity there.
The English Nicene Creed which is recited in the new Mass appears to be "orthodox" enough to most Catholics and is a faithful translation of the original Latin which was adopted at the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD). But is it?
"ET INCARNATUS EST DE SPIRITU SANCTO EX MARIA VIRGINE ET HOMO FACTUS EST."
In the Latin Missal (English side), it says:
"AND BECAME INCARNATE BY THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY: AND WAS MADE MAN"
The letters are capitalized and all are admonished to genuflect upon it's recitation.
The Latin in the N.O.M. is as the TLM. So far so good.
Now, the ICEL English translation is: "By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man."
What's wrong with that? Subtly, not rousing too much attention, the implication is that He became man not at His incarnation but at His birth. That is basically the analysis of the different meanings and why it is considered ambiguous by those of keener minds.
And what is the implication on "abortion." "And He became incarnate," that is, He was made Flesh at the moment of conception and NOT that he took flesh from His human Mother AT birth, as the NOM Creed implies, "He became man only from the moment He was born." Simply, it has entered in the minds of neo-Catholics, such as pols who advocate abortion, as well as "influential" savants who call themselves "Catholic, such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, to imply that it is all right to get rid of the fetus since it is not yet "incarnate" until actual birth. Of course this mindset is indirectly influenced by the teh ICEL translation, involuntarily as it were.
In the next matter, "Consubstantialem Patri" means of the "same substance with the Father." What the English Nicene Creed says, "of one being with," does not connote "same substance." There have been accusations of semi-Arianism in this phrase, which is a very weak translation of "the same substance." Ambiguous? Yes. Why not plainly state, "consubstantial with the Father"? No bigee and nit-picking? Well, Jacques Maritain expressed shock when he came upon the French Nicene Creed, which he immediately denounced as heretical. The French Catholics were reciting heresy right there in Mass, perhaps no blame can be imputed on them except culpable ignorance, being in heresy only materially. Nevertheless, Maritain demanded a correction of the text, and he got it
I am sure this will stir a hornet's nest, but perhaps not. Those of us who go to the NOM can always recite the Nicene Creed of the TLM.
Better yet, go to the TLM.
McMaster:
Quote from: Vincentius
I bring up a couple of examples of not only of ambiguity -- clearly they are -- but also one that borders on heresy (and one that wipes out and does away with the crime of abortion). [...] the ICEL English translation [of "et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine et homo factus est"] is: "By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man."
What's wrong with that? Subtly, not rousing too much attention, the implication is that He became man not at His incarnation but at His birth. That is basically the analysis of the different meanings and why it is considered ambiguous by those of keener minds. [...]
This is one of many good arguments for getting rid of ICEL's mistranslations, which supposedly is in the process of slowly being done.
Quote
I am sure this will stir a hornet's nest, but perhaps not. Those of us who go to the NOM can always recite the Nicene Creed of the TLM.
Or even just mentally acknowledge what should be the obvious point that Our Lord was conceived (as we say in the Apostles' Creed) by the same power by which He was born--both of which, and more, are included in the affirmation "et incarnatus est."
Quote
Better yet, go to the TLM.
Yes, indeed.
Blessings,
Don McMaster
Brede:
Quote from: Vincentius
The Latin in the N.O.M. is as the TLM. So far so good.
Now, the ICEL English translation is: "By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man."
What's wrong with that? Subtly, not rousing too much attention, the implication is that He became man not at His incarnation but at His birth. That is basically the analysis of the different meanings and why it is considered ambiguous by those of keener minds.
And what is the implication on "abortion." "And He became incarnate," that is, He was made Flesh at the moment of conception and NOT that he took flesh from His human Mother AT birth, as the NOM Creed implies, "He became man only from the moment He was born." Simply, it has entered in the minds of neo-Catholics, such as pols who advocate abortion, as well as "influential" savants who call themselves "Catholic, such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, to imply that it is all right to get rid of the fetus since it is not yet "incarnate" until actual birth. Of course this mindset is indirectly influenced by the teh ICEL translation, involuntarily as it were.
I confess to not perhaps being one of those "keener minds", but I have never under the part of the Creed as you have described it.
To me, "born of the Virgin Mary and became Man" simply means that he was born of the Virgin and grew into a Man, e.g. he started life as a newborn infant and grew into manhood.
As for trying to pin abortion on the NO mass translation, well that's a new one. What's next, global warming? What about those of us who primarily attend a NO mass and accept the Church's teaching that abortion is a sin? I mean, we listen to the same "flawed" ICEL translation as the celebrities you mentioned.
cunctas_haereses:
The meanning of 'Man' here is to the race of man, the species if you will, Homo sapiens, not 'adult male'. Hope that helps.
spasiisochrani:
Quote from: Vincentius
In the next matter, "Consubstantialem Patri" means of the "same substance with the Father." What the English Nicene Creed says, "of one being with," does not connote "same substance." There have been accusations of semi-Arianism in this phrase, which is a very weak translation of "the same substance." Ambiguous? Yes. Why not plainly state, "consubstantial with the Father"?
I don't see the problem in this one. Although I like "consubstantial" or "one in substance" or "one in essence" better than "one in being", I don't see what's semi-Arian about the present translation. What Michael Davies called semi-Arian was an inept explanation, in some semi-official publication, that "one in being" means "having the same kind of being". But that's not what the translation says. The current ICEL translation seems to say that the Father and the Son are the same being, and that certainly is Catholic doctrine.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page