Could the Nicene Creed be updated?

[EphelDuath]

It’s a beautiful and ancient prayer, but I’m curious if traditionalist Catholics would object if clauses about beliefs in life beginning at conception and the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist were added to it, as those seem to be the most scandalous and widespread heretical beliefs held by Catholics in the 21st century.

Or if that were not possible, should the anti-modernist oath by Pope St. Pius X be updated and mandated to be sworn by priests and deacons?

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Nicene Creed is NOT just the possession of the Roman Catholic Church, but of ALL the pre-reformation Churches–as well as confessing and creedal Protestants. Not only traditional Catholics, but Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, and Assyrians would object to such a major change, as well.

Because then it would no longer be the Nicene Creed.

You see what unpleasantness the Western Church caused by adding one word to the Nicene Creed, don’t you?

Furthermore, the Second Council forbade composing and requiring ANY other Creed.

 

[palmas85]

The Nicene Creed is NOT just the possession of the Roman Catholic Church, but of ALL the pre-reformation Churches–as well as confessing and creedal Protestants. Not only traditional Catholics, but Orthodox, Non-Chalcedonians, and Assyrians would object to such a major change, as well.

Because then it would no longer be the Nicene Creed.

You see what unpleasantness the Western Church caused by adding one word to the Nicene Creed, don’t you?

Furthermore, the Second Council forbade composing and requiring ANY other Creed.

It is only unpleasant to the Orthodox because they do not believe it as it is written. But I do agree there is no reason to rewrite it or update it. It clearly states the truth as it is.

 

[Bluegoat]

The Creed is not a prayer, it is a confession of faith.

It is not something that can be “updated”.

To say that the OC just objected because they don’t believe in the previous “update” is not very accurate, since the CC position is that it was not an update at all, which is why it was allowed. There is no question that it is not meant to be tampered with.

As well, the subjects mentioned are not in line with the subject of the Creed.

If, God forbid, such an attempt was made, I would expect it would cause a major rift within Catholicism, even if everyone actually agreed with the statements being made. And it would certainly cause a much larger rift than what already exists between Catholics and other Creedal Christians.

As for the anti-modernist oath - it is not always agreed that the definition of modernism understood there is really very accurate. Certainly many real, live modernists would disagree, and what modernism is has changed, like many such movements. It seems to me it would be like requiring an oath against liberalism, which is a large beast and a word that means different things in different places and times.

But it isn’t clear to me what you are trying to accomplish by these things.

 

[ibkc]

Bans against abortion and contraception appear in the Didache which is enough to show that respect for the unborn has been central to Christian belief from earliest times.

 

[peary1]

It’s a beautiful and ancient prayer, but I’m curious if traditionalist Catholics would object if clauses about beliefs in life beginning at conception and the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist were added to it, as those seem to be the most scandalous and widespread heretical beliefs held by Catholics in the 21st century.

Or if that were not possible, should the anti-modernist oath by Pope St. Pius X be updated and mandated to be sworn by priests and deacons?

There is no reason to ‘update’ or even change the Creed. It stands as is. The Creed is an ancient formula of Faith and covers the basics. The Church is so much more than that. Besides, there are many different creeds that exist in the Church.

I don’t know how successful the Vatican would be in requiring priests and deacons to take the anti-modernist ‘oath’. There would be quite a bit of whining.

 

[bpbasilphx]

It is only unpleasant to the Orthodox because they do not believe it as it is written. But I do agree there is no reason to rewrite it or update it. It clearly states the truth as it is.

As a matter of fact, the Orthodox Church, along with Pope John VIII, DO believe the Nicene Creed as it was written–which means WITHOUT Filioque.

 

[MIKE46]

As a matter of fact, the Orthodox Church, along with Pope John VIII, DO believe the Nicene Creed as it was written–which means WITHOUT Filioque.

Alas Basil, the Roman Church does not believe as do the Orthodox do in this matter.

John VIII? Ging back a ways aren’t you Basil? Correct me if I am wrong Basil, but the Filoque wasn’t permanently placed until well after his time, correct? Sometime around the year 1017 was it not? I think you could have found a better example if any exist.

Of course, since your tag says that you support the Zohgby initiative that alone clearly states your true opinion of the Roman Church, does it not? I mean I would suspect that since you do not accept the primacy of the Pope and his infallibility in the areas of faith and morals likewise you would dismiss out of hand other areas of Catholicism with which you do not agree.

Especially Traditional Catholicism which from what I have read in your posts is somewhat unpleasant to you to begin with.

 

[bpbasilphx]

\John VIII? Ging back a ways aren’t you Basil? Correct me if I am wrong Basil, but the Filoque wasn’t permanently placed until well after his time, correct?\

**Not really. Pope Nicholas went into schism over the Filioque, condemning the East for NOT using it when he excommunitcated Patriarch St. Photius.

His successor, Pope St. John VIII in a letter to Patriarch St. Ignatius called the Filioque a soul-destroying heresy and said that those who believed it were falsifiers of the faith, having their portion with Judas. But he also said there were otherwise devout people who simply didn’t know any better, and it would be prudent to not make an issue of the matter, but to wean them from it little by little. He concluded, “Please, Your Holiness so wise in God, do not separate yourself from the healthy part of our Church.”

Did you know that?**

\Of course, since your tag says that you support the Zohgby initiative that alone clearly states your true opinion of the Roman Church, does it not?\

**Kyr Elias was in regular communion with the Roman Church, as am I. That should say what my true opinion is of the Roman Church.

BTW, do you even know what the Zoghby Initiative is?**

\I mean I would suspect that since you do not accept the primacy of the Pope and his infallibility in the areas of faith and morals likewise you would dismiss out of hand other areas of Catholicism with which you do not agree.\

Suspecting is like assuming, and you know what to ASSUME does to U. (Nobody can do that to ME without my explicit permission, which is rarely given.) You really have no idea about what I do or don’t believe. If you’re honest, you’ll have to admit it.

\Especially Traditional Catholicism which from what I have read in your posts is somewhat unpleasant to you to begin with.\

**Be specific. What have I ever said that was “unpleasant” to me about Traditional Catholicism?

I HAVE insisted that Traditional Catholicism is bigger than the Latin Church–and especially is it bigger than what most people remember from pre-1950’s American Latin Church life.**

 

[Bbigam]

The Creed is not a prayer, it is a confession of faith.

It is not something that can be “updated”.

I would argue that it is both a prayer and a confession of faith. We recite it as a prayer, ending in Amen.

But I agree that it is not something to be updated.

 

[marlo]

To answer the question, Yes, the Nicene Creed can be updated.

The Church is higher than the Creed, and the creed was created by the Church and not the other way around. As a matter of Dogma to correct a heresy, then it can be updated. It was updated before by the local council of Constantinople and upgraded it to ecumenical creed by the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon together with the council of constantinople as ecumencial. It happened before, it can happen again as the Church is higher than any church father.

It’s a beautiful and ancient prayer, but I’m curious if traditionalist Catholics would object if clauses about beliefs in life beginning at conception and the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist were added to it, as those seem to be the most scandalous and widespread heretical beliefs held by Catholics in the 21st century.

Or if that were not possible, should the anti-modernist oath by Pope St. Pius X be updated and mandated to be sworn by priests and deacons?

 

[marlo]

I think this was discussed before that this information is just a fabrication and no written proof can be provided. In Fact this information is a FORGERY and wrongly used by the Eastern Orthodox

\John VIII? Ging back a ways aren’t you Basil? Correct me if I am wrong Basil, but the Filoque wasn’t permanently placed until well after his time, correct?\

**Not really. Pope Nicholas went into schism over the Filioque, condemning the East for NOT using it when he excommunitcated Patriarch St. Photius.

His successor, Pope St. John VIII in a letter to Patriarch St. Ignatius called the Filioque a soul-destroying heresy and said that those who believed it were falsifiers of the faith, having their portion with Judas. But he also said there were otherwise devout people who simply didn’t know any better, and it would be prudent to not make an issue of the matter, but to wean them from it little by little. He concluded, “Please, Your Holiness so wise in God, do not separate yourself from the healthy part of our Church.”

Did you know that?**

 

[bpbasilphx]

\The Church is higher than the Creed, and the creed was created by the Church and not the other way around. As a matter of Dogma to correct a heresy, then it can be updated. It was updated before by the local council of Constantinople and upgraded it to ecumenical creed by the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon together with the council of constantinople as ecumencial. It happened before, it can happen again as the Church is higher than any church father.\

**The Council of Chalcedon did nothing to the Nicene Creed.

And there’s nothing in the Nicene Creed that is heresy.

If it is to be changed, nothing less than an Ecumenical Council can do so.

But any change made to the Nicene Creed means it would no longer be the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

I think this was discussed before that this information is just a fabrication and no written proof can be provided. In Fact this information is a FORGERY and wrongly used by the Eastern Orthodox

Such things are usually said by people when confronted with facts they don’t want to hear.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

\The Church is higher than the Creed, and the creed was created by the Church and not the other way around. As a matter of Dogma to correct a heresy, then it can be updated. It was updated before by the local council of Constantinople and upgraded it to ecumenical creed by the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon together with the council of constantinople as ecumencial. It happened before, it can happen again as the Church is higher than any church father.\

**The Council of Chalcedon did nothing to the Nicene Creed.

And there’s nothing in the Nicene Creed that is heresy.

If it is to be changed, nothing less than an Ecumenical Council can do so.

But any change made to the Nicene Creed means it would no longer be the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.**

WARNING TO ALL READERS: Don’t let anyone on a message board lead you away from the what the Church has defined. While there are always some individuals and groups who will reject what the Church teaches, and try to persuade you to follow them into error, never listen to them. Such people are trying to lead you away from the Church and into heresy.

The following is what the *Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church * “defined” at the Council of Forence with respect to adding the word filioque to the Creed:

Council of Florence: In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father.

And since the Father gave to his only-begotten Son in begetting him everything the Father has, except to be the Father, so the Son has [received] eternally from the Father, by whom he was eternally begotten, this also, namely that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

**“We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” [filioque] was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.” - 6th Session, Council of Florence **

For a Catholic that settles the issue. Argument ceases when the Church speaks definitively. A Catholic who knowingly disagrees with that “defintiion” becomes a heretic. Therefore, let us turn a deaf ear to anyone who tries to get us to believe otherwise that what the Church has “defined”.

 

[bpbasilphx]

If the Council of Florence is recokened as an Ecumenical Council, then, as I said, nothing less than a council could change it, so you have merely proven my point. (Whether Florence is ecumenical can be argued but I’m not doing that here. Suffice it to say that Pius IX did not feel bound by it.)

But whatever Florence did or did not do has NOTHING to do with my statement that Chalcedon did NOT change the text of the Nicene Creed, as someone I was answering alleged.

To get back to the original issue:

The Original Poster wanted to see the Nicene Creed “updated” with non-Trinitarian doctrines, such as life starting at cocepetion and the Real Presence.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is a statement of TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY.

To add non Trinitarian issues to it would result in something else OTHER than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, frequently called the Symbol of Faith.

It is a summary of Trinitarian theology for BELIEVERS that has stood the test of time as it is. It is not supposed to be anything else.

If required by competent authority, I will gladly sign in my blood that I believe that life begins at conception (otherwise I wouldn’t have been named in a $39 million lawsuit for merely praying across the streets from the chop shops) and that the Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ.

But don’t tamper with the Symbol of Faith!

 

[Bluegoat]

To get back to the original issue:

The Original Poster wanted to see the Nicene Creed “updated” with non-Trinitarian doctrines, such as life starting at cocepetion and the Real Presence.

The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is a statement of TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY.

To add non Trinitarian issues to it would result in something else OTHER than the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, frequently called the Symbol of Faith.

It is a summary of Trinitarian theology for BELIEVERS that has stood the test of time as it is. It is not supposed to be anything else.

Yes, this.

I think there is 0 chance the CC would do this, or think about doing it, or even want to do it in some small corner of its mind.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I think there is 0 chance the CC would do this, or think about doing it, or even want to do it in some small corner of its mind.

Deo gratias!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

If the Council of Florence is recokened as an Ecumenical Council, then, as I said, nothing less than a council could change it, so you have merely proven my point. (Whether Florence is ecumenical can be argued but I’m not doing that here. Suffice it to say that Pius IX did not feel bound by it.)

But the Council of Florence did not make the addition to the Creed, it merely said the change that had been made was done so licitly and reasonably. The Council is referring to something that had already taken place, and is merely confirming, contrary to what the Orthodox claimed, that what was done [in the past[ was both licit (legal) legal and reasonable.

Keep in mind the context. At the Council of Florence the Orthodox return to the Roman Catholic Church. In order for this to take place, they were required to renounce all of their errors, not only their rejection of the filioque, but also their claim that the addition of the filioque was illicit.

Council of Florence: “We define also that the explanation of those words “and from the Son” [filioque] was licitly and reasonably added to the creed for the sake of declaring the truth and from imminent need.” - 6th Session, Council of Florence

Do you agree that the filioque *“was *licitly and reasonably added to the creed *for the sake of declaring the truth”? *

 

[MIKE46]

\John VIII? Ging back a ways aren’t you Basil? Correct me if I am wrong Basil, but the Filoque wasn’t permanently placed until well after his time, correct?\

**Not really. Pope Nicholas went into schism over the Filioque, condemning the East for NOT using it when he excommunitcated Patriarch St. Photius.

His successor, Pope St. John VIII in a letter to Patriarch St. Ignatius called the Filioque a soul-destroying heresy and said that those who believed it were falsifiers of the faith, having their portion with Judas. But he also said there were otherwise devout people who simply didn’t know any better, and it would be prudent to not make an issue of the matter, but to wean them from it little by little. He concluded, “Please, Your Holiness so wise in God, do not separate yourself from the healthy part of our Church.”

Did you know that?**

\Of course, since your tag says that you support the Zohgby initiative that alone clearly states your true opinion of the Roman Church, does it not?\

**Kyr Elias was in regular communion with the Roman Church, as am I. That should say what my true opinion is of the Roman Church.

BTW, do you even know what the Zoghby Initiative is?**

\I mean I would suspect that since you do not accept the primacy of the Pope and his infallibility in the areas of faith and morals likewise you would dismiss out of hand other areas of Catholicism with which you do not agree.\

Suspecting is like assuming, and you know what to ASSUME does to U. (Nobody can do that to ME without my explicit permission, which is rarely given.) You really have no idea about what I do or don’t believe. If you’re honest, you’ll have to admit it.

\Especially Traditional Catholicism which from what I have read in your posts is somewhat unpleasant to you to begin with.\

**Be specific. What have I ever said that was “unpleasant” to me about Traditional Catholicism?

I HAVE insisted that Traditional Catholicism is bigger than the Latin Church–and especially is it bigger than what most people remember from pre-1950’s American Latin Church life.**

Yes I do know what the Zoghby Initiative is Basil. Do you?

Zoghby declared that the Councils held by the West alone are not ecumenical in nature , and said that the union which took place between some Eastern Churches and Rome was an error. Zoghby also stated that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is one of honor and charity only. Later, he said that papal infallibility depends soley and completely on ecumenism

His statements of:
1.I believe everything which Eastern Orthodoxy teaches and.
2.I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome as the first among the bishops, according to the limits recognized by the Holy Fathers of the East during the first millennium, before the separation
pretty much shows that he and apparently you, since you claim to support his initiative, do not accept the position of the Holy Father as Catholics of the Roman Rite and especially traditional minded Catholics view him.

Zoghby also wanted divorce allowed in certain circumstances, which also puts him outside of what the Catholic Church teaches and apparently puts him outside of what a great many Orthodox believe as well. In fact the Orthodox put firth the statement that his views were his views alone and did not reflect the views of the Orthodox at large.

I find it interesting that the Melkite Churches themselves felt his attempts at ecumenism were impractical as did the Catholic Church. While I think his general desire of ecumenism is a noble one, the lowering of the stature of the Holy Father to that of a mere Bishop among other Bishops, albeit first among equals, is totally imcompatible with Catholicism of the Roman Rite. And to be perfectly honest Basil, if you adhere to that belief then I would submit that you are in communion with the Roman Church in name only. If of course you do not accept his position on the Holy father I apologize and would reccomend that you change your tag to something that more accurately reflects what you truly believe.

As to the statement you presented concerning the filioque, I have never seen it and do not know what the source is for it. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to where to find it.