Creed: "God from God" added to or removed from? and when?

[ComeHome2Rome]

“God from God. Light from Light. True God from True God.” Or was it originally “Light from Light. True God from True God.”

Was “God from God” added at some point after the Council by our one holy Catholic Church? Or was it removed at some point later by the Eastern churches? And when did this change take place.

This difference in the Creed was pointed out to me by an Orthodox Christian who says it was added by the Catholic Church just like the Filioque clause, but I think it may have been removed by Eastern churches. Tried to research, but haven’t found anything. Please help.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Your friend is correct.

The Creed we recite is usually called the “Nicene Creed,” but is properly called the “The Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed.” Like the original Nicene Creed, it was originally written in Greek. This Greek text is called the Forma Recepta Ecclesiæ Orientalis (form of the Eastern Church). A straight Latin translation of the Greek would be Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero (Light fom Light, Tue God from True God).

The Latin translation of the Creed (the Forma Recepta Ecclesiae Occidentalis - form of the Western Church) prepends the phrase “Deum de Deo” (God from God).

What I do not know is WHEN this phrase was included - was it done in the original Latin translation, or at a later date? I seem to recall that it was included later (by Trent), but I cannot find any reference to it.

It seems kinda redundant - a subset of “True God from True God” (omit the word “true” and it is “God from God”). It has always puzzled me.

As far as I know, this has never been a point of contention between East and West. It does not affect the theology of the Creed in any way.

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

Thank you!

Do you happen to know why Orthodox have a long history of objection to the “Filioque” addition, but not the “Deum de Deo” addition? In what I’ve read, the object to the “Filioque” was because of an anathama re: adding or removing anything from the Creed.

 

[patrick457]

“God from God. Light from Light. True God from True God.” Or was it originally “Light from Light. True God from True God.”

Was “God from God” added at some point after the Council by our one holy Catholic Church? Or was it removed at some point later by the Eastern churches? And when did this change take place.

This difference in the Creed was pointed out to me by an Orthodox Christian who says it was added by the Catholic Church just like the Filioque clause, but I think it may have been removed by Eastern churches. Tried to research, but haven’t found anything. Please help.

Quoting myself:

Well, we don’t really know exactly WHEN Deum de Deo got into the Latin form of the Constantinopolitan Creed. The Creed of Nicea did seem to have the words, but authors seem to have just ascribed it as an interpolation, made perhaps accidentally by a scribe who jumbled up the two formulas together.

What we do know is, the Constantinopolitan Creed as quoted in the Councils of Toledo, which would later be the basis of the text of the Creed in the Mozarabic Rite (Credimus in unum Deum), already contain this ‘God of God’ clause, in the form of Deum ex Deo. The first time it is quoted is in the Third Council of Toledo (589):

Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem, et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum ex deo, lumen ex lumine, deum verum, ex deo vero. Natum non factum homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae. Per quem omnia facta sunt, quae in caelis et quae in terris sunt. Qui propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine. Homo factus, passus est sup Pontio Pilato, sepultus, tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in caelos, sedet ad dexteram patris. Iterum venturus in gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos. Cuius regni, non erit finis, et spiritum sanctum dominum et vivificantem. Ex patre procedentem, cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum. Qui locutus est per prophetas. Unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam. Confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, vitam futuri saeculi. Amen.

It is again quoted in the Eighth, Twelfth, and Thirteenth councils (each with some variances in wording), albeit, they all now have in the part concerning the Holy Spirit: ex Patre et Filio procedentem.

We must need to mention that the Church of Rome was one of the latest to introduce the custom of reciting the Creed at Mass. The Spanish were the first in the West to introduce it (in the East the custom already existed), and from Spain the usage spread into Gaul. In Rome, the Creed was given a place at the third scrutiny before solemn baptism (during Lent), when it was taught to catechumens in both Greek and Latin. The text of the Creed as found in the Gelasian Sacramentary is notable in that it differs from the text we are all familiar with, being on the face of it a more literal translation of the Greek text - it doesn’t have the Latin-specific Deum de Deo or the Filioque (albeit some versions apparently alter the text to conform to the later form; cf. pp. 55-57)!

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum; de Patre natum ante omnia saecula; lumen de lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero; natum, non factum; consubstantialem Patris; per quem omnia facta sunt; qui propter nos homines, et propter nostram salutem descendentem de caelis; et incarnatum de Spiritu sancto et Maria virgine, et humanatum; crucifixum etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, et passum et sepultum; et resurgentem tertia die secundum Scripturas; et ascendentem in caelos, et sedentem ad dexteram Patris; et iterum venturum cum gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spiritum sanctum Dominum et vivificatorem; ex Patre procedentem; qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratum et conglorificatum: qui locutus est per prophetas.
In unam, sanctam, catholicam, et apostolicam ecclesiam. Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Spero resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam futuri saeculi. Amen.

 

[patrick457]

By comparison, the Celtic Stowe Missal also uses a translation which omits the clause:

Credo in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem caeli et terrae uissiuilium omnium et uisiuilium (sic) et in unum dominum nostrum iesum christum filium dei unigenitum natum ex patre ante omnia saecula lumen de lumine deum uerum de deo uero natum non factum consubstancialem patri per quem omnia facta sunt qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem discendit de caelo et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et maria uirgine et homo natus est crugifixus autem pro nobis sub pontio pilato passus et sepultus et resurrexit tertia die secundum scripturas et ascendit in caelos et sedit a[d] dexteram dei patris et iterum uenturus cum gloria iudicare uiuos et mortuos cuius regni non erit finis et spiritum sanctum dominum et uiuificatorem ex patre procedentem cum patre et filio coadorandum et conglorificandum [correction: *qui ex patre filioque procedit qui cum patre et filio coadoratur et conglorificatur

] qui locutus est per profetas et unam sanctam aeclesiam catholicam et apostolicam Confeteor unum babtismum in remisionem peccatorum spero resurrextionem mortuorum et uitam futuri saeculi· amen:

It was only during the pontificate of Benedict VIII (1012-1024) that things changed. According to a contemporary account, the Holy Roman Emperor Henry II (1004-1024) was astonished to learn that Roman custom excluded the chanting of the Creed in the Mass. It was explained to him that since the Roman Church had not been infected by any taint of heresy there was no reason to recite it. The emperor did not desist however until he had obtained the consent of the pope to have the Creed (with Filioque) sung at public Mass. Benedict VIII was an able warrior (for instance, he allied himself with the Normans who settled in Italy and orchestrated the defeat of the invading Saracens in Sardinia), but he was not much interested in ecclesiastical affairs. He was in debt to Henry, who helped restore Benedict to his see when the latter was opposed by an antipope, Gregory VI (1012), and thus paid lip service to reform to gain imperial favor. Even so, the account continues, “but whether they still keep up this custom we cannot affirm, because we are not sure.” (!)