An unscientific poll RE; Credence of Creeds(AKA a vanity)

Thanks for your participation.

bump for any takers

Hey, if they work for the Magisterium (and I have it on good authority that they do) then they work for me. -)

Excuse me, but the Nicean Creed, properly called the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed since the paragraphs beginning with that concering the Holy Spirit were added to the Creed of Nicea by the Second Ecumenical Council which convened at Constantinople in 381, reads ". . .and in the Holy Spirit, the give of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. . ."

What you have posted in the version of the creed promulgated by the local council of Toledo (whose date escapes me) which inserted 'and the Son' in contradiction to the plain words of Our Lord, which interpolated creed spread among the Franks despite opposition from their patriarch, the Pope of Rome, and whose adoption by the Popes of Rome resulted in their removal from the Diptychs of the Great Church of Constantinople in 1009 or 1014 (it is unclear whether the adoption of the heretical creed by Rome became known as a result of the no-longer extant election encyclical of Pope Sergius IV, or the coronation rite of the German Emperor Henry II). This unauthorized addition (in violation of the solemn decree of the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus) is theologically unsound as St. Photius the Great ably showed in his Mystagogia. Even allowing, as Tomus of 1285 issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory of Cyprus, does, the fact of an eternal manifestation of the Spirit through the Son, the procession of the Spirit is from the Father alone.

I can answer for all the Orthodox on the board: we all believe the original Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed (if we didn't we wouldn't be Orthodox).

Woooo doggy! I didn't have a clue as to what you fellers were talking about.

Below is a little background which I had to find. I personally believe in the creeds as stated above. But, as stated below, this has been an area of contention between the Eastern and Western (Catholic) churches because of it's purity.

___________________________

The Nicene Creed
Ancient Greeks believed in a wide variety of gods and goddesses -- beings who fought one another, were immoral, dishonest and only partly powerful. But eventually Greek philosophers began to teach that there was a supreme God, a being who had all power, wisdom and perfection. Since there could be only one being who had all power, there was only one supreme God. Since perfection does not change, this God did not change. This God was above all other gods, not swayed by humanlike emotions, not affected by physical things that change.

This philosophy eventually affected Christianity. At first, it was a convenient tool for the gospel. Christians who were criticized for having an invisible God could point out that even sophisticated Greek philosophers believed in an invisible, omnipotent God. The Christians then claimed to teach more information about this God whom the Greeks knew only imperfectly.

But sometimes it worked the other way around. Some Christians began to assume that the Christian God was like the philosophers' God -- he was one, perfect, unchangeable, totally unlike physical beings. Such a perfect God would have nothing to do with flawed human beings. Nor would an unchangeable spirit being have anything to do with the changing world of matter.

So some Christians began to speculate that the supreme God created angels, and that these angels were the ones who created the physical world and interacted with the physical world. They were intermediaries between physical humans and God. In this way of thinking, Jesus simply became an intermediary, more like an angel than like God.

The Arian heresy
One of the people who was affected by this philosophy was Arius, an elder in the Egyptian city of Alexandria. He taught that there was one Creator, who created the Logos, the Word or Wisdom of God, who in turn created everything else. This Logos became Jesus Christ.

According to Arius, Jesus was the Son of God because God had created him. Moreover, because he is the closest thing to God that we can relate to, he could also be called God even though strictly speaking, he was not God. He was a unique created being, created even before time itself was created. He was an intermediary between the perfect spiritual world and the ever-changing physical world.

But Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, said that the Word was eternal, not created. "If asked to draw a line between God and creation, Arius would draw that line so as to include the Word in creation, while Alexander would draw it so as to separate all of creation on one side from the Father and the eternal Word on the other" (Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 161).

Alexander tried to remove Arius from his position. However, Arius was a popular church leader. The people of Alexandria, as well as several other church leaders, greatly respected Arius for his strict morality, his self-discipline and his teaching abilities. The people took to the streets in public demonstrations, chanting slogans of Arius.

Christians had been debating theology and the nature of Christ for centuries. But now there was a new element in the debate: the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine had just finished a war to unite a divided empire. He did not want religious debates to divide the people again, so he ordered all the Christian bishops to meet together to decide the issue.

The emperor was not then a Christian, but he was favorably disposed toward Christianity, and he wanted this rapidly growing religion to support peace within the empire. Constantine thought that an official council could settle the matter once and for all. So he called a meeting in the year 325 at the city of Nicea, in Asia Minor near Constantinople.

About 300 bishops came, almost all from the Eastern Empire. The bishop of Rome could not come because of his age, but he sent some elders to represent Italy. "Most of the bishops from the Latin-speaking West had only a secondary interest in the debate, which appeared to them as a controversy among eastern followers of Origen" (p. 164). Even many of the Eastern bishops were not too concerned about the controversy.

The Nicene Council
The bishops met to discuss the nature of God and Jesus Christ. They reviewed previous controversies and the new arguments of Arius and his supporters. Most of the bishops simply could not accept the idea that Jesus was a created being. When they worshiped Jesus, they did not worship a creature -- they worshiped God. They were saved not by a created being, but by God. They were convinced that Scripture taught that Jesus Christ was God.

So the bishops wrote a statement of faith concerning what they believed about the Son of God. They wanted to make it clear that they believed Jesus Christ to be fully divine, not created. So they said he was "God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father." The last portion was particularly significant in the debate: "of one substance" is a translation of the Greek homoousios, which means of the same substance, same essence, or one being. What God is in his essence, the Son of God is also.

Two bishops at the council could not agree with this statement, and the council deposed them. So the controversy was seemingly resolved, Constantine was happy and everyone went home.

But one of the chief supporters of Arius happened to live near the emperor, and it was not long before he was able to convince Constantine to support the Arian idea. (Constantine wasn't a Christian and had no training in theology. He was more interested in political stability than in any particular doctrine.) Constantine then influenced the appointment of bishops who supported Arius.

Several smaller councils approved Arian statements of faith. Nicene supporters were deposed, banished or killed. For several decades, theological and political intrigues swirled, opinions went back and forth, bishops were reinstated, deposed and reinstated again. The tides of opinion changed quickly as nine emperors fought for power over the next 50 years.

In time, more of the issues were given a fair hearing. Nicene supporters made it clear that they believed the Father and the Son to be distinct, even though of one substance. They supported their views from Scripture.

The Holy Spirit also came under discussion. The Nicene council had merely said that "we believe in the Holy Spirit," without saying anything about who or what the Spirit is. Arius had taught that the Holy Spirit was a created spirit being; bishops such as Athanasius of Alexandria made it clear that the Holy Spirit is divine in the same way that the Son is.

Council of Constantinople
Eventually, Theodosius became emperor, and the council of Constantinople was called in 381. Theodosius expelled the Arian supporters, and Nicene bishops were appointed. The council agreed that Jesus is fully divine, eternal, not created. They accepted the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They taught that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God--one God in three Persona.* They did not explain how this is so -- they just said that it is so. They felt compelled by Scripture to come to this conclusion.

The result is a creed, called the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, more commonly known by the shorter and more pronounceable name Nicene Creed. It is based on the creed of Nicea, reportedly edited at the council of Constantinople, but first seen in its final form 70 years later. Notice in it some phrases from Nicea, quoted above, and some phrases similar to the Apostles' Creed:

"We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and 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 from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one 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 Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again 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.

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son). With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.

"We believe in one, holy, catholic** and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

(Translation by the International Consultation on English Texts, 1975, published in appendix A of Gerald Bray, Creeds, Councils and Christ, InterVarsity Press, 1984.)

The Nicene Creed is accepted by almost all Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, and it offers a basis for unity. Unfortunately, however, it has also been at the center of a controversy between Western and Eastern churches. The words "and the Son" were not in the Greek text of the creed, but they were added later in the Latin. The Eastern churches objected to this addition because it had not been approved by the council.

The church has its flaws. Doctrinal controversies are not always resolved in a Christlike way. The Nicene Creed is testimony to that. And yet truth wins in the end. Scripture supports the teaching of the Nicene Creed.

* Persona is a Latin word that originally referred to masks worn by actors on a stage. Theologians adopted the term to indicate three ways of being, not to imply three separate beings.

** catholic (with a small c) means "universal" or "worldwide." In the creed, it is not a reference to the Roman church, which later claimed to be universal.

Nicene Myths
The Roman Catholic Church called the Nicene Council to enforce trinitarian teaching.

Constantine forced the council to accept a pagan doctrine.

Constantine forced all Christians to accept the Nicene Creed.

Truth
Rome did not call the council and was poorly represented.

The council did not have a complete doctrine of the Trinity, and gave scant mention of the Holy Spirit.

Arius' idea of God was shaped by the ideas of pagan philosophers.

Constantine cared more about uniformity than doctrine, and he soon supported the Arians and tried to enforce Arianism.

Copyright 1999 Worldwide Church of God

Ref: http://www.wcg.org/lit/church/history/nicene.htm

Good info. Thanks.

My question now is, who stuck in "and the Son," and why?

All of both.

From the Apostles' Creed: who was conceived by the Holy Ghost

That is not close enough to the Scriptures.

KJV Matthew 1:20 ... for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

In English we use "conceived by" to indicate paternity, but the Holy Ghost (while evidently having some role in the conception of Christ in Mary's womb) is not the father of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that God the Father is His Father, and our Father.

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

Colossians 1:3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,

Or in other words, "... Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost ..." needs to be reworded, as it indicates a dual paternity. "Conceived of the Holy Ghost" would be closer to Scripture.

From the Nicene Creed: eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father.

Best to stick with the Scriptures. Let them tell you what "begotten" means, and don't go any further than the Scriptures go.

"Of one Being (homoousios) with the Father" is not Scriptural, as many protested at the time the creed was adopted by the council.

When Jesus said, "I and my Father are One" (John 10:30), Jesus was here in mortality and God the Father was in heaven. In John 17:20-21, Jesus explains how They are One. He prays that all believers may be one as They are, so "one" does not mean the number one, but perfect unity in all respects -- heart, mind, purpose, thought, action, etc.

In other places Jesus prays to God the Father, says "the Father is greater than I", and "neither came I of myself, but he sent me", all inconsistent with the notion of one Being or substance.

>> We believe in the Holy Spirit ... who proceeds from the Father (and the Son).

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

I (a Latter-Day Saint) will have to agree with the Eastern Orthodox that "proceedeth from the Father" comes right out of the above verse, with no "and the Son". "Proceedeth from", in my opinion, is another way of saying "is sent by" or "was sent by", and in the above we see that Jesus sends the Spirit (from the Father), so the Roman Catholics have a point also.

Best just to stick to the Scriptures, in my opinion, and not worry about creeds.

The word translated "proceedeth" in John 15:26 is:

ekporeuomai (Strong's 1607) {ek-por-yoo'-om-ahee}
1) to go forth, go out, depart

... so I should say "proceed" is what you do when you are "sent" from the presence of God the Father to minister to those on earth.

I agree with all precepts and doctrines contained in the two creeds. On the subject of the filioque I have no problem with the Theology (that's essentially a heck of a fuss made by some Orthodox polemicists), but I would argue that as it was written by an Oecumenical Council only an Oecumenical Council can amend it. Anybody who does not agree with all of the doctrines stated in the Creeds is a heretic. I would also add in the Athanasian Creed or Quicunque vult:

Whosoever would be saved: needeth before all things to hold fast the Catholic Faith.
Which Faith except a man keep whole and undefiled: without doubt he will perish eternally.

Now the Catholic Faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity;
Neither confusing the Persons: nor dividing the Substance.
For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: another of the Holy Ghost;
But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost;
The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated; the Holy Ghost uncreated;
The Father infinite, the Son infinite: the Holy Ghost infinite;
The Father eternal, the Son eternal: the Holy Ghost eternal;
And yet there are not three eternals: but one eternal;
As also there are not three uncreated, nor three infinites: but one infinite, and one uncreated.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty: the Holy Ghost almighty;
And yet there are not three almighties: but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son God: the Holy Ghost God;
And yet there are not three Gods: but one God.
So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord; the Holy Ghost Lord;
And yet there are not three Lords: but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity: to confess each Person by himself to be both God and Lord;
So we are forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to speak of three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none: nor created, nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone: not made, nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son: not made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
There is therefore one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons: one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
And in this Trinity there is no before or after: no greater or less;
But all three Persons are co-eternal together: and co-equal.
So that in all ways, as is aforesaid: both the Trinity is to be worshipped in Unity, and the Unity in Trinity.
He therefore that would be saved: let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore it is necessary to eternal salvation: that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now the right Faith is that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is both God and Man.
He is God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and he is Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world;
Perfect God: perfect Man, of reasoning soul and human flesh subsisting;
Equal to the Father as touching his Godhead: less than the Father as touching his Manhood.
Who although he be God and Man: yet he is not two, but is one Christ;
One, however, not by conversion of Godhead into flesh: but by taking Manhood into God;
One altogether: not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person.
For as reasoning soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation: descended into hell, rose again from the dead;
Ascended into heaven, sat down at the right hand of the Father: from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men must rise again with their bodies: and shall give account for their own deeds.
And they that have done evil will go into eternal fire: and they that have done good into life eternal.

This is the Catholic Faith: which except a man do faithfully and stedfastly believe, he cannot be saved.

My question now is, who stuck in "and the Son," and why?

It was used in a letter of Pope Leo I, and was added to the Creed by the Council of Toledo (447); this was re-iterated when the 3rd Synod of Toledo (589) resulted in the submission of the Visigoths. The Visigoths had been Arians, and the addition of the clause was used to strengthen the position of Our Lord as being the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

The Theology was accepted by Leo III (9th century), though he kept the text of the Creed without it. This is the position of the Eastern Catholics (groups of Orthodox who have returned to the Catholic Church, but kept their rites and traditions). It was formally accepted as part of the Nicene Creed by the Council of Lyons (1274) by which time the Orthodox had separated.

Thanks.

Let me think. (Sound of wooden gears grinding.)

If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one God in Three Persons, then anything that proceeds from the Father is also proceeding from the Son, no?

Hey, I don't understand the Trinity anyway. This is one battle I couldn't figure out which side to fight on.

“My question now is, who stuck in "and the Son," and why?”

At first I was going to say some poor old, tired monk on a cold, drafty night made a slip. But no not really.

The difference is mostly discussed on the Eastern Catholic Churches websites (as best as I can determine) so, of course, the perspective is not as objective as it should be. However, this is what one site said:

"The Creed as formulated at Nicea in 325 ended with the words “And we believe in the Holy Spirit. “ When the Council of Constantinople met in 381, it officially adopted an expanded version, the Creed (without the FILIOQUE) as we have it today. This expanded version is in fact older than 381. It was the Baptismal Creed of the Church of Salamis, on the island of Cyprus, and is quoted by St. Epiphanius of Salamis in 374 in his ANKROTOS (see below). It was apparently a reworking of the Baptismal Creed of the Church of Jerusalem, which in turn was a reworking of the Nicene Creed.”

Ref: http://www.thefathershouse.org/creed/filioque.html

The Eastern Catholic Churches don’t like the expanded version (“and the Son”) because 1) they believe the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and not the Father and Son; 2) the expanded version was never agreed to by the whole church; and 3) they believe this insertion is untrue since everything comes from the Father.

Western Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants Christians don’t have a problem with the Creed since we look at the Trinity as being co-equal and co-existing (verses God the Father is head of the Trinity and everything proceeds from Him).

One has to keep in mind that no one has been able to clearly explain the Trinity or how it works so to me all this fussing about the working of the Trinity IMHO is pointless. But, be that as it may, the Nicene Creed and the insertion of the phrase “and the Son” is apparently is a hot button between the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches who have distinctive views on this creed and their theology of the Trinity.

You've got that backwards. Eastern Orthodox don’t like the expanded version (“and the Son”)..., not the Eastern Catholics.

I believe I am a Christian but I do not agree with all of either.
God Bless
Nate

"One has to keep in mind that no one has been able to clearly explain the Trinity or how it works so to me all this fussing about the working of the Trinity IMHO is pointless."

Yeah, I can't get too exercised over it.

Looks like universal agreement escapes us....

Looks like universal agreement escapes us ...

Half of the thread has concerned the reasons why the Orthodox opt out on the Nicene Creed.

For the Orthodox, I have made no claim.

There has not been one self-identified Protestant who has done so.