Adding words to the Creed of Nicaea

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zekariya

Active member
I write this to put forward the notion that the Council of Ephesus did not anathematize those who added words to the Creed but, rather, those that change the faith presented in the Creed. Whether or not the Filioque is a change to the faith of the Fathers of Nicaea is a topic for another thread.

When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
  • Council of Ephesus, Canon VII
Let your holiness be persuaded and let no one else cherish any doubt, that we everywhere follow the opinions of the holy fathers especially those of our blessed and glorious father Athanasius, with whose opinions we differ not in the slightest. I would have added many of their testimonies, proving my opinions from theirs, had I not feared that the length of the letter would be made tedious thereby. We do not permit anyone in any way to upset the defined faith or the creed drawn up by the holy fathers who assembled at Nicaea as the times demanded. We give neither ourselves nor them the licence to alter any expression there or to change a single syllable, remembering the words: “Remove not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set”.
  • Council of Ephesus, Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch
The Creed of the Holy Fathers assembled at Nicaea:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate and was made man; and suffered; And the third day He rose again, And ascended into heaven, And He shall come to judge the quick and the dead, And I believe in the Holy Spirit.

And those who say “there once was when he was not”, and “before he was begotten he was not”, and that he came to be from things that were not, or from another hypostasis or essence/substance, affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

The above Creed without the additions of the Second Ecumenical Council is quoted by St Cyril of Alexandria as the Creed of the Holy Fathers assembled at Nicaea in Letter 55. This letter was written long after the Third Ecumenical Council and the reunion of St Cyril and John of Antioch.

Some have suggested that Nicene Creed mentioned in the Council of Ephesus included the extra parts added in the Second Council but this is clearly incorrect as we see that afterwards St Cyril sill defined the Nicene Creed as being that which was presented in the First Council without any additions.

If a strict literal interpretation of Canon VII is implemented (which is general interpretation put forward by the EOs), no one may add to the Nicene part of the Creed. Adding the extra parts of the Second Council has never been viewed as a violation. Since, “who proceeds from the Father,” is an addition to the Nicene Creed, the Latins do not violate Canon VII by adding the Filioque to what is already an addition.

The Coptic Orthodox Church uses the Creed with a couple words added to it. The Armenian Apostolic Church uses the Creed with many words added to it. It seems that this strictly literal interpretation of Canon VII is mainly an Eastern Orthodox view promoted to fight Church of Rome adding a word to the Creed like those other local Churches have done. No council was held to permit the Armenian Apostolic Church to add a lot of words to the Creed. Rome certainly did not need a council to do likewise.

Whether or not the Filioque is a change to the faith of the Fathers of Nicaea is a topic for another thread. I am only presenting evidence that adding words to the Creed is not what Canon VII forbade.
 
The Armenian Apostolic Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.

God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.

Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.

He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.

He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.

We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.
 
I really wish people would stop making this comparison. The Romans had already accepted the Creed in common with the East at Constantinople in 381, centuries before adding the Filioque, while the Armenian version predates Constantinople by a few years (c.374) and is ultimately traced to St. Epiphanius of Salamis. It reads like something between Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381 because that’s exactly what it is.

Why the Armenians never adopted the Creed of Constantinople, I don’t know, but that does not give Rome any leeway either way, as the Armenians never changed the Creed in the first place – they simply adopted an earlier Creed and never switched over to the more common Constantinoplitan one. If you think about it for five seconds, this actually supports your contention that the canon ought not be read literally, but rather as placing the common faith expressed through the Creed as paramount, but to the detriment of your support of the Romans. After all, what does it say that the Armenians could have such a different Creed and still remain in communion with the rest of the Church for another 100+ years or so (and when they left communion with the Romans, it wasn’t over this), while the Latin addition somehow violated the Byzantine East’s understanding to the degree that it caused a major schism? It seems pretty obvious to me that, at least in the minds of the bishops at these different points in history, one variant (the Armenian) was acceptable while another (the Latin) was not. But of course since there are centuries of separation between 381 and 589, this is not a very good comparison to make anyway, so…yeah, stop it. It doesn’t help your case.
 
This is the first that I have heard this concerning the Armenian Creed. I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing this out. 👍

My contention is with the (perhaps more recent) idea that Council of Ephesus was referring to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed when, in fact, it is referring to the Nicene Creed alone. 🙂
 
Oh. Okay. That was not clear to me from reading your posts. I have no opinion on that, so I’m sorry for cluttering up your thread.
 
Most people who cite that canon do believe that it is the creed of a different faith than that of the fathers, that is that proclaiming the dual procession changed the faith.

It should also be remembered that Rome brought the controversy to a head. Yes there were a number of prominent individuals in the East who objected to the clause, but there were also prominent individuals who defended it. It had been used as a rhetorical tool, but until 1054 it had never been the cause of an actual schism.between churches in the east, and the west.

In other words the East was content to ignore the letter of the law (as it usually does) until the filioque was forced on it.
 
dzheremi said:
I really wish people would stop making this comparison. The Romans had already accepted the Creed in common with the East at Constantinople in 381, centuries before adding the Filioque, while the Armenian version predates Constantinople by a few years (c.374) and is ultimately traced to St. Epiphanius of Salamis. It reads like something between Nicea 325 and Constantinople 381 because that’s exactly what it is.
Click to expand...
The idea that a common Creed was accepted in 381 is not true. The Creed of 381 was affirmed, together the Creed of 325, two councils later. The filioque had by that time already been in use in the West. The idea that not a word could be changed in the symbol came much later, at a council not even seen as Ecumenical.

The Armenian Creed provides an opportunity to reflect on the fact that is not imperative that identical words are used in the Creed. It also give an example of how it is possible to allow for alternative wording rather than jumping to assumptions about meanings that provide a case for heresy.
 
I’m an Armenian Catholic! We are the ancient Armenian Church because we are in union with Peter! We pray for the return of the Armenian Churches.
 
And as an admirer of proper liturgies I pray for the return of the Armenian liturgy to the Catholic Armenian churches.

Anyway, I think it’s kind of silly to antagonize over different words that say the same thing - to say there is one correct creed is to say that there is a human language complete enough to capture the perfection of the mystery of God and His Church in just the right way. Mystery is an important and forgotten element to the West - I feel the same who would advocate for having one formulaic creed would also agree with the dogmatizing of theologeumon.
 
MorEphrem said:
And as an admirer of proper liturgies I pray for the return of the Armenian liturgy to the Catholic Armenian churches.
Click to expand...
The Armenian Catholics don’t use the same liturgy as their Orthodox mother church? :confused: Hmm. I never knew that. But then I guess I’ve never seen an Armenian Catholic badarak in the first place, only Orthodox. What do they use, then?
 
MorEphrem said:
And as an admirer of proper liturgies I pray for the return of the Armenian liturgy to the Catholic Armenian churches.
Click to expand...
Right, it was stolen from us and they should give it back. What right do non-Catholics have to use our liturgy?

(Not really. ;))
 
Zekariya said:
The Armenian Apostolic Creed:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.

God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.

Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.

He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.

He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.

We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life.
Click to expand...
I have to say that the Creed you posted is almost the same that we Catholic’s of the Latin Rite say at Mass every Sunday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top