Nicene Creed in the Liturgy

[Philip_B]

• Please not this is not about the filioque or the version of the Nicene Creed
• It is also not about the position of the Creed in the Liturgy

Since the third council of the Toledo in 579 there has been widespread use of the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Western Church. I don't have enough history of Eastern Liturgy, however I suspect it has been part of most Eastern Liturgies since a good deal earlier than that.

I went to a different parish Church on Sunday, and one of the things that I found unusual was the use of the Apostle Creed. This followed immediately on the heals of a sermon which had concluded with some statements about the importance of Christology.

I am aware that a number of contemporary RCC liturgies allow the use of the Apostles Creed in the Eucharist as an option, and RCC friends of mine suggest that it is regularly used as it is shorter.

The Apostles Creed has never been used (as far as I understand it) in the East, and I imagine that would see the use of anything other than the Creed of the 1st Council of Constantinople as being sub-standard.

I have had a long held view that the Nicene Creed is the Creed of the Eucharist, and the Apostles Creed is the Creed of the Office and also the Western Baptismal Symbol. As such I think not using the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy is going soft on the agreed Christology of the whole Church.

I am interested in what other people think.

 

[RC1970]

• Please not this is not about the filioque or the version of the Nicene Creed
• It is also not about the position of the Creed in the Liturgy

Since the third council of the Toledo in 579 there has been widespread use of the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Western Church. I don't have enough history of Eastern Liturgy, however I suspect it has been part of most Eastern Liturgies since a good deal earlier than that.

I went to a different parish Church on Sunday, and one of the things that I found unusual was the use of the Apostle Creed. This followed immediately on the heals of a sermon which had concluded with some statements about the importance of Christology.

I am aware that a number of contemporary RCC liturgies allow the use of the Apostles Creed in the Eucharist as an option, and RCC friends of mine suggest that it is regularly used as it is shorter.

The Apostles Creed has never been used (as far as I understand it) in the East, and I imagine that would see the use of anything other than the Creed of the 1st Council of Constantinople as being sub-standard.

I have had a long held view that the Nicene Creed is the Creed of the Eucharist, and the Apostles Creed is the Creed of the Office and also the Western Baptismal Symbol. As such I think not using the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy is going soft on the agreed Christology of the whole Church.

I am interested in what other people think.

I would agree that the Nicene Creed or the Athanasian Creed have a higher Christology and should be used with a Eucharistic Liturgy.

I was raised RCC and converted to Lutheran and finally to Presbyterian. All of these use the higher Creeds.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

however I suspect it has been part of most Eastern Liturgies since a good deal earlier than that.

All Eastern liturgies, including the Divine Office.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

This followed immediately on the heals of a sermon which had concluded with some statements about the importance of Christology.

What statements?

 

[Philip_B]

What statements?

Sorry, the sermon which followed the Gospel, addressed a range of issues. Perhaps the last three minutes of which reminded the congregation that out faith in Jesus, who was both man and God, had brought us to this point, where we come together for worship and then go forward rejoicing in the power of the Risen Lord to proclaim to all the world that Jesus Christ is Lord. I don't have a copy of the sermon so I can not provide specifics but only what I recall of it. I thought it was not to bad a lead in to the Nicene Creed, and was surprised to discover it led to the Apostles Creed, in keeping with the western tradition since the Synod of Friuli in 796 in a position before the Sursumcorda and after the Gospel.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Sorry, the sermon which followed the Gospel, addressed a range of issues. Perhaps the last three minutes of which reminded the congregation that out faith in Jesus, who was both man and God, had brought us to this point, where we come together for worship and then go forward rejoicing in the power of the Risen Lord to proclaim to all the world that Jesus Christ is Lord. I don't have a copy of the sermon so I can not provide specifics but only what I recall of it. I thought it was not to bad a lead in to the Nicene Creed, and was surprised to discover it led to the Apostles Creed, in keeping with the western tradition since the Synod of Friuli in 796 in a position before the Sursumcorda and after the Gospel.

Oh well that was a liturgical fail then.

 

[Philip_B]

Oh well that was a liturgical fail then.

Correct.

 

[Cappadocious]

Well, Emergent Protestants prefer the apostles creed because they think it has more obscure, vintage cred and can be interpreted more widely.

Branding purposes, in other words.

 

[Philip_B]

Well, Emergent Protestants prefer the apostles creed because they think it has more obscure, vintage cred and can be interpreted more widely. Branding purposes, in other words.

It concerns me that it is the only Creed which can be read with an Arian interpretation.

 

[Cappadocious]

It concerns me that it is the only Creed which can be read with an Arian interpretation.

Ehhh... you can spin Constantinople if you really want to.

 

[Philip_B]

Ehhh... you can spin Constantinople if you really want to.

It would be a lot lot lot harder

 

[Cappadocious]

Thing with emergents, the wide tent is driven entirely by branding. But they have lost their niche edginess in recent years.

So I'm sure if the Arians are fair trade they are good to go

 

[~Anastasia~]

People spin the Nicene Creed all SORTS of ways. Of course, they have to reinterpret words or deny parts, usually, but it certainly happens.

I try to be understanding though. I for one was brought up with (several) variant interpretation(s) of the doctrines in the Nicene Creed (but not given the Creed itself), and just like Scripture, if you are taught a thing, you tend to see what agrees with what you were taught. Someone else taught differently will of course read the SAME passage, have a completely different interpretation, and BOTH of them will insist they are saying what the Scripture "plainly says". i know, because I used to do the same thing. Thankfully I got frustrated enough with those "inconvenient" passages that didn't agree with what I believed ... if I was completely honest with myself.

 

[Shane R]

I have seen many a 'confessional' Lutheran church (a buzz-word for those churches which eschew contemporary worship and practice some form of restricted communion, as well as taking the Lutheran confessions seriously) reciting the Apostle's Creed at eucharistic liturgies. I note that in the American BCP, at least the 1928, there is no such provision. The Nicene Creed may be said in the daily office, but the Apostle's Creed never goes into Holy Communion. And the Athanasian Creed is prescribed several times a year (in the offices), but few parishes ever hear it anymore - because the offices are uncommon as a corporate form of worship.

 

[Tangible]

As a Confessional Lutheran, I can say that the Nicene Creed is the creed that should be used during the Divine Service (including the Service of the Sacrament). Semi-weekly or bi-monthly services that incorporate the sacrament one week but not the next are still fairly common, at least in the LCMS, unfortunately. My church only has Communion on the 2nd and 4th Sundays, and has a "blended" service the other weeks with no Communion offered except at the small evening service. The Apostle's Creed is used in the liturgy of these services. Other LCMS churches use the service of Matins on the "off Sundays".

The trend, however, is to move toward weekly Communion, as the younger, more Confessional pastors gradually replace the previous generation. The Nicene Creed is used in every official liturgy of the Divine Service.

Looking at this from and Anglican point of view, Lutherans do tend to vary their liturgies more than Anglicans would. I've heard it said that Lutherans are bound together primarily by doctrinal uniformity, while Anglicans are bound together primarily by liturgical uniformity.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

• Please not this is not about the filioque or the version of the Nicene Creed
• It is also not about the position of the Creed in the Liturgy

Since the third council of the Toledo in 579 there has been widespread use of the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy of the Western Church. I don't have enough history of Eastern Liturgy, however I suspect it has been part of most Eastern Liturgies since a good deal earlier than that.

I went to a different parish Church on Sunday, and one of the things that I found unusual was the use of the Apostle Creed. This followed immediately on the heals of a sermon which had concluded with some statements about the importance of Christology.

I am aware that a number of contemporary RCC liturgies allow the use of the Apostles Creed in the Eucharist as an option, and RCC friends of mine suggest that it is regularly used as it is shorter.

The Apostles Creed has never been used (as far as I understand it) in the East, and I imagine that would see the use of anything other than the Creed of the 1st Council of Constantinople as being sub-standard.

I have had a long held view that the Nicene Creed is the Creed of the Eucharist, and the Apostles Creed is the Creed of the Office and also the Western Baptismal Symbol. As such I think not using the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic Liturgy is going soft on the agreed Christology of the whole Church.

I am interested in what other people think.

Hi Philip,

Not sure if this remains to be the case, but Catholicism in Canada, the Apostles was the norm, and was endorsed as the "Canadian Usage".

I still ask myself "why?".

 

[Philip_B]

I find myself increasingly becoming a 1 Creed Christian.

 

[Paidiske]

Honestly, I think the fight we're losing is not about which Creed but about use of a Creed at all. I've heard many clergy argue against it as boring or repetitive of other elements of the liturgy, wanting to use other statements of faith or none at all to keep things "fresh." Thee are plenty of parishes where it isn't used, or isn't always used when it should be (in Australian Anglican churches it's mandated for Sunday Eucharist but not for weekday Eucharists).

I think we have our work cut out for us teaching about why it is important, not just conceptually but liturgically.

 

[All4Christ]

Honestly, I think the fight we're losing is not about which Creed but about use of a Creed at all. I've heard many clergy argue against it as boring or repetitive of other elements of the liturgy, wanting to use other statements of faith or none at all to keep things "fresh." Thee are plenty of parishes where it isn't used, or isn't always used when it should be (in Australian Anglican churches it's mandated for Sunday Eucharist but not for weekday Eucharists).

I think we have our work cut out for us teaching about why it is important, not just conceptually but liturgically.

That's sad to hear. One of the things I appreciate most about the liturgical churches is the use of common creeds proclaimed by the entire church each service.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Honestly, I think the fight we're losing is not about which Creed but about use of a Creed at all. I've heard many clergy argue against it as boring or repetitive of other elements of the liturgy, wanting to use other statements of faith or none at all to keep things "fresh." Thee are plenty of parishes where it isn't used, or isn't always used when it should be (in Australian Anglican churches it's mandated for Sunday Eucharist but not for weekday Eucharists).

I think we have our work cut out for us teaching about why it is important, not just conceptually but liturgically.

There is a deceased ECUSA priest from Southern California, a Fr. Bucher, who advocated deleting the Creeds from the liturgy and quoted the Gnostic "Gospel of Mary" in support of his position.

This I found to be amusing in a sort of tragicomic way, in that it struck me as being the best possible argument for keeping the creeds.