The "Nicene" Creed versus, let's say, "Our Creed" or "The Creed"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sir2v4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sir2v4

Guest
Many are familiar with the “filioque” controversy and this thread is not about that, directly. (A good article will come up on a search for the filioque controversy in Wikipedia.) The Western Church inserted the “filioque” clause INTO the “Nicene” creed. Really, it shouldn’t be listed in our hymnals or Mass books as “The Nicene Creed” because it isn’t !!

I don’t know why our church labels it incorrectly. It’s rather a deception to call it such, it certainly is inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
In the Ruthenian Eastern Catholic church, the creed is said without the filioque.
 
I guess neither western or eastern Christians have the Nicene Creed since what we have now both east and west is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The original Nicene Creed with no additions goes like this:
We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead;

And we believe in the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Trust me, the “additions” were added for good reason. Catholics and Orthodox agree on all of the “additions” added with the exception of the filioque.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I understand and agree with the history of why the creed was changed. The creed is overturning Arianism and Nestorianism every Sunday. But, again, dear forum user, it is inaccurate to call it the ‘Nicene’ creed, with the inclusion of the filioque.

This is like calling the (US) pledge of allegiance but using the words “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Cuba and to the republic for which it stands, one nation,under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

A couple words make a BIG difference and change the ‘whole ball game.’
 
And as said, by your logic it’s wrong to call anything anyone uses now in either Church the Nicene Creed because there are additions in them all. Look, just stick to what the Church teaches instead of going your own way because, as seen already, you will fall into a lot of errors when not following the Church.
 
It’s called the Nicene creed because thats easier than saying the “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”.

Are you familiar with the practice of Roman Catholic prayers being named after the incipit? For example, the Lords Prayer sometimes called the Our Father, or the Ave Maria?

Catholics have a practice of calling certain prayers by the first word or two with which they begin. That’s why the Nicene Creed is sometimes called the “Credo”.

Calling it the Nicene Creed is a simple identifier, not a detailed description of said creed. The reason we call it that is because there are many Creeds used in the Church. The Nicene Creed, the Apostles Creed, the Old Roman Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc.
 
That’s a tremendously flawed analogy, and in no way is it similar to the Nicene Creed “issue” you raised.
 
There was a Mass liturgy at the Vatican celebrated by Benedict XVI with the Orthodox present, when some 1st class relics were turned over to them. The non-filioque version of the Creed was used. It makes a difference, really.
 
Officially the Roman Latin Church practices her ancient Apostles Creed which predates the Nicene Creed was ever introduced to the Church and long before Church councils in the East changed and modified it. Later the Latin Western Church included the filioque for the same reasons the Eastern Church modified and changed the Nicene Creed to defeat heresy.

The Roman Latin Church remains Orthodox in her Apostles Creed and continues to baptize and confirm with the Apostles Creed, not the Nicene Creed.

The Roman Catholic Church did not change the Nicene Creed. She included the filioque, to professe that Jesus is God when heretics were using the Nicene Creed to deny Jesus was God.

The Western Church could do away with the Nicene Creed when she has her ancient Apostles Creed, If? we took your view as the Nicene Creed incorrectly mislabeled.

The Nicene Creed is not changed because the filioque is professed within it. The filioque, when professed within the Nicene Creed, solidifies and professes Jesus is God.

The Nicene Creed without the filioque does not have the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Son, which is the reason why heretics in West were denying Jesus divinity. The filioque professed within the Nicene Creed defeats all heretics and heresies who deny Jesus divinity once and for all time.
 
Sir2v4 said:
I don’t know why our church labels it incorrectly. It’s rather a deception to call it such, it certainly is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
deception by whom? the catechism of the catholic church 447 clear states: “The affirmation of the filioque does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.”
you seem to have made up your mind on what to believe, but i do not think anyone had the intention of deceiving another; i think some simply did not know or did not understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top