Why? That is all I ask.

Hello Ats. Locololo here to ask all the religious people why about this. You may not know me, but on Saturday evenings I go to mass of the Catholic Religion. While I have no problem with putting my hand on a stack on bibles and will proudly admit that I hate the Church and what they add to the beliefs their followers should believe in, and how not a day goes by that I don't curse the church and it's members. My confusion is over the 2012 Catholic Missal and how suddenly the Catholic Church in it's "greatness" and "great wisdom" decided it would make sense to change the prayers. I understnad they are doing this as some kind of business or whatever, but in faith belief does it matter if you say "May the Lord bless this food..." or if you say "God, bless this crap I'm bout to eat." Here is the Nicene Creed from before the Church made there change

"We believe in one God,
The Father, the Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
The only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light form Light,
true God form true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holt Spirit
he was brn of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
on the thid day he rose again
in fullfullment of the Scriptures;
he asceneded into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to jduge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Hoyl Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who preceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Chruch.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrestion of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

And here is the new "improved" one,
"I believe in one God
The Father almighty,
make of Heaven and Earth
of all things Visible and invisible
I believe in one lord Jesus Christ
The only begotten son of God
born of the Father before all ages.
God fomr God, Light form Light,
True god from true god,
Begotten, not made, consubstantial with the father
through him all things were made
for us men and out salvation.
He came down from heaven
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary.
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day.
In accordance with the scriptures
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
Who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified.
Who has spoke through the prophets.
I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Though I understand in meaning they make sense, and how this may be closer to the orriginal language, but does that make it any better? Please anser these questions, and don't throw in a useless statement about some guy said do it so you do it. Also please do not throw in my lack of devout faith as a reason that I'm not understanding of this situation.

reply to post by locololo

Most of my life, now, is spent saying "I don't understand." Now I get to say it to you.

You curse the Church and its members, yet you go to Mass. Why? Is someone making you go? If no one is making you go, what do you get out of going? Pick a different religion, or none at all, and you can stop cursing.

As far as a direct answer to your question, I'm still confused. You answered it yourself.

Though I understand in meaning they make sense, and how this may be closer to the orriginal language,

Isn't that enough of a reason?

Why bother getting worried about it? It's not as though they're introducing goat worship.

As I say, I just don't understand.

reply to post by charles1952


I choose not to reply to your first question.

As for the second question, I was raised to believe that the meaning matters, not the wording. so just because it's close to some dead language why is it the required words.

as for the cursing thing, I curse the church, but the fundamental belief I acknowledge as a good idea.

"Hi guys, I'm firstly going to introduce myself as a hypocrite, then insult you. Now can you please answer my question which I answer myself anyway in the last paragraph....."

reply to post by locololo

Here is the Nicene Creed from before the Church made there change

The answer is that it does not matter since it was fiction in the first place.
There was no Nicene Creed, which is what I mean when I say it is a fiction. There is a canon which is the document produced at the conclusion of an ecumenical council, and there was in fact a council of Nicaea, but there was subsequent to that council, a lot of mythology created as to what it was about, and what were its results, one of those being that there was an agreed upon creed formulated during that council. That is just a plain and flat out lie, there not being a single document to back up that assertion.(other than one which was very obviously a poor attempt at forging a document)

We would be in very bad shape without hypocrits.www.abovetopsecret.com...
I respect the op for not bashing on the people that force him to attend church.
Instead he is taking a more intellectual path from his experience.
Go with your gut and know that no man is born without sin and only one one man rose above sin.
The point imo is trial by fire and these struggles and hardships temper the soul.www.technologystudent.com...
As above so below

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Hi, I'm going to try and seem like i am actually nothing so i'm going to insult in a feeble attempt to justify my own pathetic existance. I said that was the answer the church says, what is the real answer though?

reply to post by locololo

Dear locololo,

Thanks for staying with this, I'm going to need more of your help in clearing up the confusion I have.

If the Creed is made and changed by the Church, Then there's no other place to look for a reason for the change, is there? I suppose you're asking if they're giving the true reason. Are you concerned about the date, 2012? If that's the case, I'm confused because the Church is starting to use the new Creed in 2011.

What kind of other reason are you thinking of?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


I talked about this with a few people I know, and they suggested different ideas. I am just wondering if the church is giving the true reason. I am very lacking in trust, and I also know that the Church is a business as well as a society. My question is then what if they haven't given one, is the true answer.

And thank you for being polite and business like, and not attacking me.

Originally posted by locololo
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Hi, I'm going to try and seem like i am actually nothing so i'm going to insult in a feeble attempt to justify my own pathetic existance. I said that was the answer the church says, what is the real answer though?

Yeah spot on man. I've always wanted to seem like 'nothing'.....? And of all the ways I would choose to justify my existence, posting in your thread seemed like the best way to go about it.

And no you said nothing about it being the answer the church gave you

What I said was not an insult, it was merely exactly how the thread read to me, and probably most everyone else here. I'm surprised anyone gave you any answer at all, and I can guarantee you would have gotten a whole lot more if you'd treated people initially with some semblance of respect. You thank Charles1952 'for being polite and business like, and not attacking me'. Why would you have to thank someone for that unless you actually realised you were being a total douche to begin with.

As for the questions at hand, let me give them a crack eh.

Originally posted by charles1952

You curse the Church and its members, yet you go to Mass. Why? Is someone making you go?

 

Originally posted by locololo

I choose not to reply to your first question.

Cos I'm obviously only about 16 as shown by the maturity level I showed in my OP, and my mom makes me go otherwise I won't get any pocket money.

Originally posted by locololo

Though I understand in meaning they make sense, and how this may be closer to the original language, but does that make it any better?.

In a written message you get the meaning from the wording, so the wording is all important. This could be why everyone misunderstood your original OP and assumed you were just being insulting for the sake of it.

You're right, it changes the actual message contained within by pretty much next to nothing. But as the church is a stickler for tradition, and likes to remain static as the world around it changes, they have in all their wisdom decided to go back and change it to be as close to the original as possible. In their minds the closer it is to the holy event of the Nicene Council, the better. At the very least they're trying to do away with some of the errors that inevitably creep in when old scriptures are translated multiple times through history. It is as simple as that, no big conspiracy.

reply to post by locololo

Dear locololo,

You've got an interesting problem here. I suppose the only people with definite information about the reason for the change would be the Church, and if you don't trust the Church (not saying that you should), I don't know where you can go for info.

You bring up that the Church is a business. You're right, depending on what you mean by "business." They have all the priceless art, but they also have to maintain it. Over the last five years, the Church has lost money in three, if I remember correctly. But here's the trust problem again, how do you trust their figures?

I would think that changing the Creed would cost them a few bucks. They had to have all the specialists and various meetings, then when they decided on the change, they had to print it up in elebenty different languages. I don't see how they make money off the deal.

It would be interesting to know what your friends ideas were, because I can't think of any. Wait a minute!! Just had a thought! Do you think this is part of an ecumenical movement, making it easier for the Church to merge with other denominations? Ok, it's not much of a thought, but it's all I've got now.

And I must thank you as well. Real conversations between adults aren't the norm here and it's a pleasure to talk with you.

With respaect,
Charles1952

reply to post by 1littlewolf


I get what you're saying now for making the creed closer to the original. It just made me wonder because of how they changed a creed from latin to english years ago, and then change it again, so I suspectd something didn't seem right.


To Charles, Mainly my friend's idea were that if they do it, they can sell these new books that have the new creed in it.

Originally posted by locololo
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

I get what you're saying now for making the creed closer to the original. It just made me wonder because of how they changed a creed from latin to english years ago, and then change it again, so I suspectd something didn't seem right.


To Charles, Mainly my friend's idea were that if they do it, they can sell these new books that have the new creed in it.

You're actually probably on to something there. And if they changed it only a few years ago then who was the idiot that comissioned the first translation? See this is what you should have stuck in you OP. Way more interesting and would have hooked a lot of people.

The RC Church is a massive buisness empire, and they gotta recoup their losses after they elected old Ratzinger to the office. He just doesn't stir the masses like good old John Paul 2 did......

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Well, by few years ago i mean more lke it happened in the 60s, but still it seemed off. I know that the Church is a big business, but I won't say that's all it is because a majority of people like and support it. I'll do a little research and find out who commissioned the orriginal change and work from there.

Dear locololo,

The move from Latin to English came out of Vatican II, in the 60s. (Actually, it was Latin to whatever the local language was.) It's been awhile, but it does seem like pretty quick turnaround time for a revision of the Mass.

As far as selling more books goes, locololo, I don't happen to have a Missal (a mass book) at my house, and I don't think many other people do either. The cost of getting the new stuff will be on each individual church and it will have to be paid for out of the donations the churches receive.

I'm not really sold on the idea that it's a net money maker, but I still don't know why (other than the Church's reasons).

With respect,
Charles1952

Those two version of the Nicene Creed seem equally easy to understand and similar in substance. I can't see why they would change that. Everybody will be stumbling over their words as half the congregation says it the old way and half the new way. Maybe it's just some group's way of asserting their authority.

reply to post by charles1952


I do believe that you would have a point there. I am guessing his reasoning was along the lines of asking more donations or something of that matter. Thanks for explaining your belief.