Apostles Creed and the Orthodox Church

[MichaelHelp]

Where does the Apostles Creed fit into the Orthodox Church?

 

[RobNJ]

Where does the Apostles Creed fit into the Orthodox Church?

It doesn't .. we have the Nicene Creed, nothing else is needed

ETA: See this thread
http://www.christianforums.com/t7467442/

 

[MichaelHelp]

So is it viewed as heretical? Or just unnecessary? I'm just curious since I come from a Lutheran background where both creeds were said in church.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

So is it viewed as heretical? Or just unnecessary? I'm just curious since I come from a Lutheran background where both creeds were said in church.

Mostly unnecessary. The Nicene creed covers all the essentials. If it aint broke, don't fix it!

 

[RobNJ]

So is it viewed as heretical? Or just unnecessary? I'm just curious since I come from a Lutheran background where both creeds were said in church.

More along the lines of unnecessary. Not heretical, just not approved by an ecumenical council.

 

[MKJ]

I'm starting a study group at church this week on the Apostles Creed, based on a DVD. One of the commentators is Kallistos Ware. I'll be interested to see what he has to say about it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So is it viewed as heretical? Or just unnecessary?

yeah more unecessary, because we have the Nicene Creed. but there is nothing theologically wrong with the Apostle's Creed.

 

[katherine2001]

We do have a problem with some versions of the Apostles Creed, where the filioque has been added in. The filioque has the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son, rather than just from the Father, as Christ Himself said, and as the Nicene Creed says.

 

[LinuxLurker01]

I'd say it lacks specifics. We hold to the specifics of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed for a reason. There's nothing wrong with the Apostles Creed per se, but it is non-specific enough to allow for a number of heresies that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed addresses. You don't hear Orthodox Christians talk about it much, let alone recite it, simply because we have no need for it.

 

[MKJ]

I'd say it lacks specifics. We hold to the specifics of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed for a reason. There's nothing wrong with the Apostles Creed per se, but it is non-specific enough to allow for a number of heresies that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed addresses. You don't hear Orthodox Christians talk about it much, let alone recite it, simply because we have no need for it.

The Apostle's Creed is not supposed to replace the Nicene Creed though - it has a different function. Up until recently, it was especially connected with baptism.

 

[Macarius]

The Apostle's Creed is not supposed to replace the Nicene Creed though - it has a different function. Up until recently, it was especially connected with baptism.

That does seem to be the original function of proto-creeds - something that the Christian confessed when being recieved into the Church.

St. Irenaeus has a proto-creed in book III of Against the Heresies (chapter 10, I think) that very nearly mirrors the Nicene Creed, without a bit of the precision of language (i.e. homoousia).

 

[MKJ]

That does seem to be the original function of proto-creeds - something that the Christian confessed when being recieved into the Church.

St. Irenaeus has a proto-creed in book III of Against the Heresies (chapter 10, I think) that very nearly mirrors the Nicene Creed, without a bit of the precision of language (i.e. homoousia).

Someone told me - and I have no better sourse than that - that this was in part related to the state of the newly baptised person's level of knowledge. That it was only after baptism that the person would receive some of the deeper teachings. Do you know if that is true?

 

[Antony in Tx]

Someone told me - and I have no better sourse than that - that this was in part related to the state of the newly baptised person's level of knowledge. That it was only after baptism that the person would receive some of the deeper teachings. Do you know if that is true?

Ummm....not at liberty to tell you that!

 

[Lukaris]

Personally I like the apostles' creed and would recommend anyone inquiring of Orthodoxy to read it and then the Nicene Creed (minus the filioque of course) to see the faith properly given in brief in the apostles creed and then in its full expression in the Nicene creed.

 

[gzt]

It was written in Latin and used in the West, I think in large part prior to or at around the same time as the ecumenical councils. The East used the conciliar formula for almost everything, while the West kept the Apostle's Creed "on the books". We don't think it's wrong (except for the Filioque), we just didn't use it and didn't have a reason to ever start using it. The conciliar formula (the Nicene Creed) is superior in every way, as it is more precise and has the official stamp of approval from the entire Church, East and West, as a rule of faith.

Not to denigrate the Apostles' Creed. It's wholly adequate, and look at how the West was at the time around the Councils and afterwards: you have this ancient creed that's wholly adequate, you've been using it for centuries, there's a tradition of using it, why not keep using it for certain purposes in addition to the conciliar formula?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Someone told me - and I have no better sourse than that - that this was in part related to the state of the newly baptised person's level of knowledge. That it was only after baptism that the person would receive some of the deeper teachings. Do you know if that is true?

I've heard this as well.

 

[JohntheTheologian]

It's the ancient baptismal creed of the first-millenium orthodox Church of Rome. What's not to like?

 

[Lukaris]

It's the ancient baptismal creed of the first-millenium orthodox Church of Rome. What's not to like?

We probably all agree.

 

[gzt]

I've heard this as well.

It is indeed true that a good part of the catechesis would occur after baptism, especially the catechesis about the "mysteries". I'm not, however, sure how much of the creed was/wasn't taught.

 

[MKJ]

I started on my study group on the Apostle's Creed today. It was interesting, the DVD series is well done I think. Anyway, from what was said, the creed probably developed from series of questions that were asked of the baptismal candidate: "Do you believe in one God..." Eventually, it was put in the form of a statement. Although apparently the old Book of Common Prayer - te Anglican prayer book - from 1662 actually uses the formulation in the form of questions during the baptismal service.


I'm curious though - was anything used in the East before the Nicean Creed?

I also came to the conclusion based on the DVD that Bishop Ware looks suspiciously like someone familiar: