THe Nicene Creed

[Gregory_I]

Hey guys, I have some questions about modern lesser interpolations in the creed, not the filioque, I accept it for the ROman Church.

But where did “God from God” come from? It’s not in any of the creeds of the Eastern Church. FOr example, the Copts say this:

Truly we believe in One God, God the Father, the Almighty, creator of Heaven
and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, born of the
Father before all ages. Light of Light; True God of True God; begotten, not
made; consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us
and for our salvation descended from Heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy
Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man. He was crucified for us during
the reign of Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried. He arose from the dead
on the third day, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to the heavens, and
sits at the right hand of His Father. He will come back in His glory to judge
the living and the dead; and His Kingdom shall have no end.

Truly we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Life-Giving Lord, who proceeds from
the Father; we worship and glorify Him together with the Father and the Son,
Who speaks through the prophets. We believe in one Holy, Universal and
Apostolic Church, and we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. We
await the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

Notice, there is no"God from God" as it is really an unnecessary redundancy and makes no sense to say initially, just to follow it up with true God from true God…

So when did the Latin Version of the creed include this other interpolation?

It’s not in the Original greek:

Καί είς ενα Κύριον, Ίησούν Χριστόν, τόν Υιόν του Θεού τόν μονογενή, τόν εκ του Πατρός γεννηθέντα πρό πάντων τών αιώνων. Φώς εκ φωτός, Θεόν αληθινόν εκ Θεού αληθινού γεννηθέντα, ού ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τώ Πατρί, δι’ ού τά πάντα εγένετο. Τόν δι’ ημάς τούς ανθρώπους καί διά τήν ημετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα εκ τών ουρανών καί σαρκωθέντα εκ Πνεύματος ‘Αγίου καί Μαρίας τής Παρθένου καί ενανθρωπήσαντα. Σταυρωθέντα τε υπέρ ημών επί Ποντίου Πιλάτου καί παθόντα καί ταφέντα.

That’s Phos ek Photos, “light from the light.” It is not precede by Theo ek Theos.

But the Latin:

Credo in unum Deum, Patrem omnipotentem, factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium.

Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum, Filium Dei unigenitum, et ex Patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum de Deo, Lumen de Lumine, Deum verum de Deo vero, genitum non factum, consubstantialem Patri; per quem omnia facta sunt. Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis. Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est. Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est, et resurrexit tertia die, secundum Scripturas, et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Et iterum venturus est cum gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos, cuius regni non erit finis.

WHere in the world did Deum de Deo come from?

 

[laszlo]

In the Latin Denzinger (1956) the ‘Theon ex Theou’ ‘Deum de Deo’ is found in

• Symbolum Epiphanii Formula Longior (DS 44)
• pseudo Athanasiana (DS 46)
• Armenicae (DS 48)
• Niceanum (DS 125)

Interestingly it is missing (along other sources) from the Greek of Symbolum Constantinopolitanum (DS 150) but it is found in the Latin version

Some people like the repetition with enhancement, especially in controversial cases like this was against the Arians.

 

[ProVobis]

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

When the Apostles’ Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Gnosticism, which denied that Jesus was truly Man; and the emphases of the Apostles’ Creed reflect a concern with repudiating this error.
When the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Arianism, which denied that Jesus was fully God. Arius was a presbyter (elder) in Alexandria in Egypt, in the early 300’s. He taught that the Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the Son, and that the Son, in conjunction with the Father, then proceeded to create the world. The result of this was to make the Son a created being, and hence not God in any meaningful sense. It was also suspiciously like the theories of those Gnostics and pagans who held that God was too perfect to create something like a material world, and so introduced one or more intermediate beings between God and the world. God created A, who created B, who created C, . . . who created Z, who created the world. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, sent for Arius and questioned him. Arius stuck to his position, and was finally excommunicated by a council of Egyptian bishops. He went to Nicomedia in Asia, where he wrote letters defending his position to various bishops. Finally, the Emperor Constantine summoned a council of Bishops in Nicea (across the straits from modern Istanbul), and there in 325 the Bishops of the Church, by a decided majority, repudiated Arius and produced the first draft of what is now called the Nicene Creed. A chief spokesman for the full deity of Christ was Athanasius, deacon of Alexandria, assistant (and later successor) to the aging Alexander. The Arian position has been revived in our own day by the Watchtower Society (the JW’s), who explicitly hail Arius as a great witness to the truth.
…

• true God from true God,
• begotten, not made,

This line was inserted by way of repudiating Arius’ teaching that the Son was the first thing that the Father created, and that to say that the Father begets the Son is simply another way of saying that the Father has created the Son.
…

 

[Gregory_I]

Provobis, that’s not what I am talking about, I mean the first part “God, from God, Light from Light, true God from true God.”

THis part of this line is not part of the Original Nicene creed. When was it inserted?

 

[laszlo]

faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/documents/GreekCreeds.pdf

The original Nicene Creed had the Deum de Deo in Greek, it was omitted only later in the Constantinople Creed… Your proper question should be: why was it omitted?

The moral is that either the Scriptures and the tradition needs the Magisterium as interpreter.

 

[centurionguard]

spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm

When the Apostles’ Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Gnosticism, which denied that Jesus was truly Man; and the emphases of the Apostles’ Creed reflect a concern with repudiating this error.
When the Nicene Creed was drawn up, the chief enemy was Arianism, which denied that Jesus was fully God. Arius was a presbyter (elder) in Alexandria in Egypt, in the early 300’s. He taught that the Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the Son, and that the Son, in conjunction with the Father, then proceeded to create the world. The result of this was to make the Son a created being, and hence not God in any meaningful sense. It was also suspiciously like the theories of those Gnostics and pagans who held that God was too perfect to create something like a material world, and so introduced one or more intermediate beings between God and the world. God created A, who created B, who created C, . . . who created Z, who created the world. Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, sent for Arius and questioned him. Arius stuck to his position, and was finally excommunicated by a council of Egyptian bishops. He went to Nicomedia in Asia, where he wrote letters defending his position to various bishops. Finally, the Emperor Constantine summoned a council of Bishops in Nicea (across the straits from modern Istanbul), and there in 325 the Bishops of the Church, by a decided majority, repudiated Arius and produced the first draft of what is now called the Nicene Creed. A chief spokesman for the full deity of Christ was Athanasius, deacon of Alexandria, assistant (and later successor) to the aging Alexander. The Arian position has been revived in our own day by the Watchtower Society (the JEWs), who explicitly hail Arius as a great witness to the truth.
…

• true God from true God,
• begotten, not made,

This line was inserted by way of repudiating Arius’ teaching that the Son was the first thing that the Father created, and that to say that the Father begets the Son is simply another way of saying that the Father has created the Son.

This line was inserted by way of repudiating Arius’ teaching that the Son was the first thing that the Father created, and that to say that the Father begets the Son is simply another way of saying that the Father has created the Son.

The Supernatural Mystery of the Holy Trinity can “only” be called a Mystery.

How can the Father create the Son anymore than the Holy Spirit could possibly create the Father when All Three Supernatural entities within God Almighty are omnipresent as ONE?

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always existed in Eternity as ONE.
The Holy Mystery of the Holy Trinity is a Mystery of Faith that no human will ever fully comprehend. Not even the Angels have full comprehension of the Holy Trinity.

Peace
Chris

 

[patrick457]

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.” (!)