The Nicene Creed in Overview

[dzheremi]

@~Anastasia~: Thank you for that explanation.

@Philip_B: The Creed is actually recited more than once in the Basilian liturgy of the Coptic Orthodox Church (the most common liturgy). It occurs first during the offertory, as that is when we pray the Agpeya (where it occurs), and again during the liturgy of the catechumens, before the anaphora, as you've pointed to as the Eastern usage. So I am not sure what we can say about its placement influencing the form. It seems that if Anastasia's readings are correct, probably some traditions kept it in the singular with a nod to its original useage as a pre-baptismal statement of faith on the part of the individual (which is then renewed in the liturgy, even when it is prayed corporately), while others kept it in the plural, with the idea that it was being prayed corporately in the liturgy -- i.e., it's still an individual commitment on the part of the one saying it, but it's prayed by the whole body together. (Though I guess for some people that might trip them up a bit mentally if they are at home and praying it privately, but even then I keep it in the plural because that is how it has been received in the Church...it's not a prayer that I came up with myself, so I pray it as the Church does, according to the tradition that I am a part of.)

I don't think it ultimately matters; it's just interesting.

 

[Philip_B]

I think that the creed of the Council expressed in a singular voice

 

[Halbhh]

Hi, I am not suggesting altering the creed, but asking the question. The ... is the detail, and I was looking at the framework. My concern is that the contemporary translation we use has opted for shorter sentences, and I worry that we lose the integrity of the Theology of the Holy Trinity, in some sense seeming to become three belief statements, not one cohesive statement.

I am not for one moment suggesting that we loose the doctrinal importance of matters like Creator of all Things, Incarnation, Crucifixion, Ascension, however my concern is what we understand to be the the very of the Holy Trinity.

In relation to the Father the ELLC text reads

the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.​

I have a real concern I'm asking you to help me understand the answer to.

As it happens, in our own church we are reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed about once a month.

Even though you or I could feel simply eager after reciting a longer creed every service to hear more, like the gospel reading, is that also true for most all the congregation?

Even after the longer creed, the Athanasian Creed, I'm still eager to hear the gospel reading.

But I'm thinking (is this a wrong idea??) that's not good for me to think that all people in the congregation are just like me.

Some will feel they do not need to listen to the gospel, because they already recited the creed and it took a few minutes, like a gospel reading would.

That's why I'm concerned about reciting any longer creed, even the full version of the Nicene Creed, in every service.

A short version though would not have that problem.

Is this concern irrelevant? Is it that we are having the attitude that it doesn't matter if some in the congregation are already saturated before the gospel reading?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I have a real concern I'm asking you to help me understand the answer to.

As it happens, in our own church we are reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed about once a month.

Even though you or I could feel simply eager after reciting a longer creed every service to hear more, like the gospel reading, is that also true for most all the congregation?

Even after the longer creed, the Athanasian Creed, I'm still eager to hear the gospel reading.

But I'm thinking (is this a wrong idea??) that's not good for me to think that all people in the congregation are just like me.

Some will feel they do not need to listen to the gospel, because they already recited the creed and it took a few minutes, like a gospel reading would.

That's why I'm concerned about reciting any longer creed, even the full version of the Nicene Creed, in every service.

A short version though would not have that problem.

Is this concern irrelevant? Is it that we are having the attitude that it doesn't matter if some in the congregation are already saturated before the gospel reading?

From an Orthodox point of view, such a suggestion would be met with outrage, on a number of points.

I'm not saying that to be offensive - not at all. Just stating the seriousness of what you suggest to our particular Tradition.

We place the Creed in the second part of the Liturgy, by the way. Our Liturgy is divided into two parts. The first part is called "The Liturgy of the Word" and includes the Gospel and Epistle readings, the homily (in our case), and many hymns that are very instructional, and basic prayers. Historically, everyone attended this part of the Liturgy, and those who were preparing to be received into the faith were then dismissed. What follows is "The Liturgy of the Faithful" which includes the recitation of the Nicene Creed and is the part where the Eucharist is consecrated and received.

So no one is "full" from the Creed and thinking they don't need the Gospel.

The Creed is absolutely unchangeable without a meeting of and agreement by the entire Church, which is one of the reasons we could never agree to any change or shortening. Also, the Creed was formulated to define the Christian faith, to defend it against heresies, not to actually encompass everything. (There is no mention of prayer, but essentially one cannot be Christian without prayer, for example.)

The other reason for outrage would be that our current form of the Liturgy has been in common use for some 16 centuries (and we have older and very similar ones, the first being attributed to St. James). We aren't big on changing things.

But perhaps that can answer your concern. We've been doing it this way for a long time, reciting the Creed in full every single Divine Liturgy, and there is no complaint that we "have enough" and don't need the Gospel.

I do understand that in other formats, for other Christians, especially those who might be used to brief services, this could be a problem.

The last time I visited a typical Protestant service (a few songs, followed by nearly an hour-long sermon) I was ready to leave and VERY done with the sermon. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy a 90 minute teaching session if it's good, but this pastor ... well, perhaps he had an off day or didn't prepare well. But our Church service typically lasts twice as long, and it feels like no time at all. My point is, that I realize how one experiences what they encounter can vary. I worry perhaps that people who visit us completely unprepared and without knowing how to use the books could be equally as disinterested at some points, especially since we have a lot of Greeks in our parish so some of it is in Greek. A long, very unfamiliar service, partly incomprehensible, could have our visitors feeling the same way. This is why we try to offer help to all visitors.

 

[Halbhh]

From an Orthodox point of view, such a suggestion would be met with outrage, on a number of points.

I'm not saying that to be offensive - not at all. Just stating the seriousness of what you suggest to our particular Tradition.

We place the Creed in the second part of the Liturgy, by the way. Our Liturgy is divided into two parts. The first part is called "The Liturgy of the Word" and includes the Gospel and Epistle readings, the homily (in our case), and many hymns that are very instructional, and basic prayers. Historically, everyone attended this part of the Liturgy, and those who were preparing to be received into the faith were then dismissed. What follows is "The Liturgy of the Faithful" which includes the recitation of the Nicene Creed and is the part where the Eucharist is consecrated and received.

So no one is "full" from the Creed and thinking they don't need the Gospel.

The Creed is absolutely unchangeable without a meeting of and agreement by the entire Church, which is one of the reasons we could never agree to any change or shortening. Also, the Creed was formulated to define the Christian faith, to defend it against heresies, not to actually encompass everything. (There is no mention of prayer, but essentially one cannot be Christian without prayer, for example.)

The other reason for outrage would be that our current form of the Liturgy has been in common use for some 16 centuries (and we have older and very similar ones, the first being attributed to St. James). We aren't big on changing things.

But perhaps that can answer your concern. We've been doing it this way for a long time, reciting the Creed in full every single Divine Liturgy, and there is no complaint that we "have enough" and don't need the Gospel.

I do understand that in other formats, for other Christians, especially those who might be used to brief services, this could be a problem.

The last time I visited a typical Protestant service (a few songs, followed by nearly an hour-long sermon) I was ready to leave and VERY done with the sermon. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy a 90 minute teaching session if it's good, but this pastor ... well, perhaps he had an off day or didn't prepare well. But our Church service typically lasts twice as long, and it feels like no time at all. My point is, that I realize how one experiences what they encounter can vary. I worry perhaps that people who visit us completely unprepared and without knowing how to use the books could be equally as disinterested at some points, especially since we have a lot of Greeks in our parish so some of it is in Greek. A long, very unfamiliar service, partly incomprehensible, could have our visitors feeling the same way. This is why we try to offer help to all visitors.

Update -- while writing I got it finally, and that was very helpful. But in the interest of helping people in different churches understand each other better, I will leave what I wrote up to that point:


Surprising that first sentence. But I often don't get what people are concerned about at times, like when someone complains that we use to recite the creed each service -- but instead we now recite the creeds less often (like once in a month) and now instead we more often have 3 readings: such as a psalm, an epistle, and a gospel reading. And sincerely I don't understand, can't get that empathatically, that feeling, of missing reciting the creed each time. This is part of why I asked, to try to understand better.

In this Lutheran church, at least I can testify to you the reality that as you said in your church -- "The Liturgy of the Word" and includes the Gospel and Epistle readings, the homily (in our case), and many hymns that are very instructional, and basic prayers" -- is identical to our own service in those. In all the description, the only part different is just whether the Apostles' or Nicene Creeds are being recited each service, or instead once a month.

I totally expect you would never hear a complaint as you said it like this --

"We've been doing it this way for a long time, reciting the Creed in full every single Divine Liturgy, and there is no complaint that we "have enough" and don't need the Gospel."

Of course not.

But what about the problem I'm concerned about, that entirely different problem, of some people already full and not able to fully participate inside?

Yes, this problem is in every and all churches, yes, and no matter the service, yes, but it does seem like there are real believers that....ah! I get it now.

Here's finally the answer to my question I think -- I'm thinking because it's the tradition to recite a creed in each service, it's not even filling in a sense -- not something slightly unusual, so that some would think on and process and learn mentally -- and therefore does not fill up those some in the congregation in a way that would then make them not carefully attend to the precise wording and message in the gospel reading. (Yes, I noticed you read the gospel first also! )
Now I get it!

Thanks for your answer!

 

[Halbhh]

From an Orthodox point of view, such a suggestion would be met with outrage, on a number of points.

I'm not saying that to be offensive - not at all. Just stating the seriousness of what you suggest to our particular Tradition.

We place the Creed in the second part of the Liturgy, by the way. Our Liturgy is divided into two parts. The first part is called "The Liturgy of the Word" and includes the Gospel and Epistle readings, the homily (in our case), and many hymns that are very instructional, and basic prayers. Historically, everyone attended this part of the Liturgy, and those who were preparing to be received into the faith were then dismissed. What follows is "The Liturgy of the Faithful" which includes the recitation of the Nicene Creed and is the part where the Eucharist is consecrated and received.

So no one is "full" from the Creed and thinking they don't need the Gospel.

The Creed is absolutely unchangeable without a meeting of and agreement by the entire Church, which is one of the reasons we could never agree to any change or shortening. Also, the Creed was formulated to define the Christian faith, to defend it against heresies, not to actually encompass everything. (There is no mention of prayer, but essentially one cannot be Christian without prayer, for example.)

The other reason for outrage would be that our current form of the Liturgy has been in common use for some 16 centuries (and we have older and very similar ones, the first being attributed to St. James). We aren't big on changing things.

But perhaps that can answer your concern. We've been doing it this way for a long time, reciting the Creed in full every single Divine Liturgy, and there is no complaint that we "have enough" and don't need the Gospel.

I do understand that in other formats, for other Christians, especially those who might be used to brief services, this could be a problem.

The last time I visited a typical Protestant service (a few songs, followed by nearly an hour-long sermon) I was ready to leave and VERY done with the sermon. Don't get me wrong, I can enjoy a 90 minute teaching session if it's good, but this pastor ... well, perhaps he had an off day or didn't prepare well. But our Church service typically lasts twice as long, and it feels like no time at all. My point is, that I realize how one experiences what they encounter can vary. I worry perhaps that people who visit us completely unprepared and without knowing how to use the books could be equally as disinterested at some points, especially since we have a lot of Greeks in our parish so some of it is in Greek. A long, very unfamiliar service, partly incomprehensible, could have our visitors feeling the same way. This is why we try to offer help to all visitors.

Let me add to the above response where I really got it for the first time something else I'd like to say --

I think from that description I'd enjoy an Orthodox service very much -- it would feel right to me.

(Also, I'm aware that we are not always called to leave a church were we are at (like mine) merely because it has whatever shortcomings. Instead, we may be called to remain at a church with shortcoming precisely because of the particular shortcomings, that we may be an aid, a help.)

 

[~Anastasia~]

Let me add to the above response where I really got it for the first time something else I'd like to say --

I think from that description I'd enjoy an Orthodox service very much -- it would feel right to me.

(Also, I'm aware that we are not always called to leave a church were we are at (like mine) merely because it has whatever shortcomings. Instead, we may be called to remain at a church with shortcoming precisely because of the particular shortcomings, that we may be an aid, a help.)

You would be welcome to attend an Orthodox service. I will say that parishes vary because some are made up largely of immigrants, from different countries, and some are mostly Americans, so the experience can feel very different from one parish to another, even though the service structure itself and beliefs are identical.

I had attempted to explore Lutheranism before I found Orthodoxy, and the parish I visited was different in many ways from the way I found Orthodox services to be. But it was a liturgical service, chanted.

There is actually a very large Lutheran parish here that has 4 services every Sunday, at least they did when I was looking around. One was Traditional, one was contemporary, one was piano, and one was guitar, iirc. That really surprised me.

 

[“Paisios”]

Kind of an aside and only partially on topic, but does anyone know of a good book or website that gives a clear and concise comparison and contrast of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant understanding of the Nicene Creed?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Kind of an aside and only partially on topic, but does anyone know of a good book or website that gives a clear and concise comparison and contrast of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Protestant understanding of the Nicene Creed?

I doubt such really exists, because everyone tends to write from their own point of view. Even if they try to be fair and unbiased.

I have seen websites that attempted to contrast some of these in general, and they really needed tweaking that could only be provided by people well-taught in each of the groups mentioned.

And "Protestant" is really too wide a label to be useful. Essentially it really only means "not Catholic or Orthodox" although there are going to be things they have in common with either or both of those - which things depending on which Protestants.

It's something worth exploring though. It would be the best idea, IMO, to start a new thread here in Traditional Theology. We might be able to find some points.

I suspect the Creed itself would find mostly agreement between us all. Offhand there are differences in the procession of the Holy Spirit of course. And some Protestants (depending on what kind) may vary on their understanding of the Church and baptism particularly. The phrase "His Kingdom shall have no end" also seems to be at odds with Millenialism, so they may understand that differently as well. These are just my guesses.

 

[“Paisios”]

I doubt such really exists, because everyone tends to write from their own point of view. Even if they try to be fair and unbiased.

I have seen websites that attempted to contrast some of these in general, and they really needed tweaking that could only be provided by people well-taught in each of the groups mentioned.

And "Protestant" is really too wide a label to be useful. Essentially it really only means "not Catholic or Orthodox" although there are going to be things they have in common with either or both of those - which things depending on which Protestants.

It's something worth exploring though. It would be the best idea, IMO, to start a new thread here in Traditional Theology. We might be able to find some points.

I suspect the Creed itself would find mostly agreement between us all. Offhand there are differences in the procession of the Holy Spirit of course. And some Protestants (depending on what kind) may vary on their understanding of the Church and baptism particularly. The phrase "His Kingdom shall have no end" also seems to be at odds with Millenialism, so they may understand that differently as well. These are just my guesses.

Thanks for responding. Yes, I agree that Protestant is too wide, but in this short post it seemed to be at least minimally descriptive. I agree that we should be mostly in agreement, but it could be interesting to see nuances in perception between the various traditions, and it would seem to be a good starting point for understanding our similarities as well as our differences. Perhaps I will start a new thread.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for responding. Yes, I agree that Protestant is too wide, but in this short post it seemed to be at least minimally descriptive. I agree that we should be mostly in agreement, but it could be interesting to see nuances in perception between the various traditions, and it would seem to be a good starting point for understanding our similarities as well as our differences. Perhaps I will start a new thread.

If you do, I'll watch for it.

I once did a thread of the Nicene Creed line by line in the Orthodox forum (I think that's where it was) and I got GREAT responses.

Rather than just asking "what are the differences" ... we might not know each other's beliefs well enough to answer. But if you get details bit by bit of what we all believe, that might be a starting place.

I think it's a great question you ask, btw.

 

[“Paisios”]

If you do, I'll watch for it.

I once did a thread of the Nicene Creed line by line in the Orthodox forum (I think that's where it was) and I got GREAT responses.

Rather than just asking "what are the differences" ... we might not know each other's beliefs well enough to answer. But if you get details bit by bit of what we all believe, that might be a starting place.

I think it's a great question you ask, btw.

Thanks. That is what I hope to do. I started to make a post, but my iPad froze. I'm going out for a few, but will start the new thread when I get back. I would much prefer to see what people believe their own tradition teaches about it, rather than what they believe other traditions teach. Hopefully, it will stay civil.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks. That is what I hope to do. I started to make a post, but my iPad froze. I'm going out for a few, but will start the new thread when I get back. I would much prefer to see what people believe their own tradition teaches about it, rather than what they believe other traditions teach. Hopefully, it will stay civil.

If you post in TT, we have the means to make sure it does (though sometimes there's a balance between shutting down discussion and making people behave who don't want to lol.)

But I think you're exactly right - it's better to hear what someone's own teaching includes, rather than what they think someone else's teaches.

I think CF is a bit glitchy today. I've wondered if the traffic is way up or something.

I look forward to your thread.

 

[Kyrilllos el Antony]

By making God, Church, Baptism and Resurrection into separate sections, the creed no longer has a trinitarian structure. Only the first of 4 sections has that structure. And the last 3 sections are one phrase each.

Historically, the whole section after "and in the Holy Ghost" was added at the same time, in the 381 version. I think it's pretty clear it's all one section, about the Spirit's presence with us.

I am not sure I agree, because the Church is the Body of Christ, and the resurrection of the dead is an event that will happen according to the will of God, which cannot easily be attributed to a specific prosopon (so I would just attribute it to the Father, which seems a safe default where ambiguities arise in the Trinity).

 

[Philip_B]

As I see it, the basic structure is specifically Trinitarian, and emphasizes that. That which follows as a result of that belief, is the unity of the Church and its mission, The universality of our acknowledgement of Baptism, and our common Hope in the resurrection. .

 

[Kyrilllos el Antony]

I do understand and appreciate where Hedrick is coming from in terms of a Trinitarian aesthetic to the creed. I really appreciate it, in fact.

However, I think the final sentences, after the description of the Holy Spirit, refer to aspects of ecclesiology and eschatology which simply do not correspond with a specific divine person.

Hedrick, are you familiar with the hymn known as The Trisagion?

 

[hedrick]

I do understand and appreciate where Hedrick is coming from in terms of a Trinitarian aesthetic to the creed. I really appreciate it, in fact.

However, I think the final sentences, after the description of the Holy Spirit, refer to aspects of ecclesiology and eschatology which simply do not correspond with a specific divine person.

Hedrick, are you familiar with the hymn known as The Trisagion?

Yes, I've heard about the Trisagion. I doubt, however, that I understand all the implications for EO.

 

[gordonhooker]

The outline in the OP somewhat deemphasizes the overall trinitarian structure of the creed.

How so brother? One God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit pretty much nails the trinitarian structure for me.

 

[gordonhooker]

By making God, Church, Baptism and Resurrection into separate sections, the creed no longer has a trinitarian structure. Only the first of 4 sections has that structure. And the last 3 sections are one phrase each.

Historically, the whole section after "and in the Holy Ghost" was added at the same time, in the 381 version. I think it's pretty clear it's all one section, about the Spirit's presence with us.

The Nicene Creed was a little more than the trinitarian structure it was also an early confession of the faith as agreed to by the council.