Talk:Nicene Creed/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Judging the quick and the dead?

The section "Traditional (from Book of Common Prayer)" contains this phrase, I'm pretty sure it should be the living and the dead, some just typing too fast?

-phil

Cranmer's Book of Common Prayer has "quick", which was a synonym for "living". Jhobson1 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean?

I really think somebody should tell us what the Nicene Creed actually means in the introduction. That is what introductions do.

Yeah, for real. I mean, wtf? 99.8.225.97 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

"What does it mean?" or "What does it mean to you?" ...just a Lutheran plug on inputs...  :-)

Language Choices

Anybody have any ideas, if there is an appropriate spot in this article, to include accepted translations of this Creed into other languages besides English?

--Terence Lung 192.31.106.35 19:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Gender Usage

Omitting 'men' - I've never heard that one in practice, but I'm sure it's done. All of that liturgical-gender-avoidance is post-1990 in parochial usage, though it's been going on in female religious orders since the mid-60s, I've read. The only one I occasionally hear with my own ears is the resolute use of 'God / God's / God' instead of 'He / His / Him' in certain prayers, especially in the response of the people to the "Orate fratres" just before the eucharistic prayer proper:

Priest: Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

People: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his ('God's') name, for our good, and the good of all his ('God's') Church.

--MichaelTinkler

---

re: gender, aaaaagghh. why not sistren or just change it all to it?.... with all due respect, most intelligent people don't really mind He, as they are more interested in the meaning of the statement itself than the importance of being politically correct! Dizzynomes 09:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a "standard" use of inclusive language, like many of the changes in the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Is this a top-down change supported by some bishops, or a grass-roots thing that people are just kind of doing at the lay level? I know the American bishops don't always see eye-to-eye with the Pope on everything. --Wesley

dunno. I think it's a movement that is concerted and propagated by lay and clerical groups without episcopal approval but often with the approval of diocesan-level officials - for instance, at diocesan conferences for liturgical planning, etc. Not that there aren't some bishops who are part of it, but it's never come to a vote the way the lectionaries did. The Roman Catholic Church is and has always been a lot less successful at policing practice than either its organizational charts or its critics make out. --MichaelTinkler

I find it hard to believe that the orginal teaching of the first century church has been attacked in such a way through the misleadings of the Nicene creed 325 constantinople 381 by adding the word son of God adopts idolitary attacking the church, for sonship is ordained for the beliver to take on the name Jesus Christ we are now the sons of God. Deu. 6: 4 Hear ye O isreal know that the lord your God is one Lord.....Matthew 28:19 baptise every one of them in the name of (titles) are given no singular name is given therefore no remission of sin is given nor the forgiveness of sin is offered. Luke 24:46 repentance and removal of sin must be preached in my name starting at..... Elder Joseph Mckenzie/www.christianworldtodaytelevision.net

Thank you for sharing, Elder Joseph. --Wetman 09:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, I took a stab at Wikifying the statement about gender-neutral language recently. I had never heard of this modification to the Nicene Creed before; as a side question, why does the history of the Nicene Creed page stop abruptly in Nov. 2001? I was surprised we cannot determine what party first created/inserted this statement in the page.
Anyway, searching the web, the only references I have found thus far to such language are protestant, not Catholic. For example:

• http://www.reclaimingwalther.org/articles/500/jmc595.htm (LCMS = Lutheran Church Missouri Synod)
• http://www.concordtx.org/opinions/ncreed2.htm

Harris7 13:34 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed this note regarding the change from first person singular to plural, in going from the original Greek to the modern English version that are quoted:

Thus, it is originally a statement of personal belief and pluralization is an innovation.

It's not nearly as much an innovation as that statement seems to suggest. Saying the creed was done jointly at every Divine Liturgy at least as early as John Chrysostom, though probably in singular form; I think (though I'd have to check) that many of the early Councils may have included the Creed in its plural form up front as a statement of what the gathered bishops believed jointly. This was not a matter of "personal belief" in the sense of individual belief, where individuals were free to change or omit parts of it to suit them and still call themselves Christians. If it were, there wouldn't have been nearly as much arguing over the details of how things were worded.

As for the history stopping abruptly, I think you'll find that no wikipedia article goes back much before then. Early on, there were a couple times when wikipedia lost its edit history and we just had to go forward from that point on, for software-related reasons. Wesley 12:06, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question: Is it worth starting a page on the etymological flow of gender neutrality? The given discourse on the evolution of the Greek, Latin and English word 'man' seems worthy of a document to itself. --Penumbra 2k 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Filioque

The Filioque is parenthesized in the Latin and English, but not in the Greek; should it be so there ? (I can't recall, but I'd guess that the Greek Catholic mass says the Greek version without it ?)

The dates don't make sense, how could it be used first in Toledo, Spain in 587 and yet be already acknowledged in Rome by 447? Besides, the Filioque clause articles gives 447 as the year of a Synod in Toledo that first added the clause to the creed. eiaccb 09:21, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The filioque was never part of any Ecumenically-authorized version of the Creed. The Greek text is that Ecumenically-authorized version. As for the AD447 mention, it makes no sense to me, either. I'm deleting it. If someone can come up with a source for the claim (a source OTHER than one of the many copies of Wikipedia out there), it can come back. Dogface 18:12, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I propose after mentioning the Council of Lyons adding that the Eastern Orthodox church considers the Council of Lyons not to be ecumenical. One reason, I believe is that the other non-Greek Patriarchs like Russia rejected the Council at the time (unlike the first 8 councils). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.201.23 (talk) 08:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added the idea, in what I think is a neater form. Lima (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Singular/plural

The Greek version of the creed needs to be corrected, since in Greek it was originally written in the plural, and it is recited in the plural. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm http://www.creeds.net/ancient/niceneg.htm http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8062.asp http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8065.asp

The Greek of the Nicene version was plural. The Greek of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan version (which is the complete version of the Creed) may be singular, depending upon the source. I checked this. It depends upon the text that one consults. The modern Greek text, as used by the Orthodox Church of Greece, is singular, not plural. (http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/greek/chrysostom_liturgy7.htm) Dogface 18:24, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes - its recited at nearly all Catholic Masses, aside from weekday Masses. Sometimes, at the discretion of the presider, it is omitted at Masses where it would just "take too long." In the Tridentine Rites, it is recited at both High Mass and Low Mass, and is sung at a Missa Cantata or Sung High Mass.

The Creed, like everything else in the Mass, has prescribed times for when it's said: Sundays and Solemnities in the new rite; traditionally, Sundays, Doubles of the I and II Class, and Feasts of Doctors. At other Masses it's omitted. In the new rite, it's permitted in some places to substitute the Apostles' Creed, but omitting it when it's supposed to be said because it would "take too long" is an abuse. As for the singular/plural issue, it's singular in Latin, and the English "we believe" is an inaccurate translation, regardless of whatever merits it may have. It's Credo, not Credimus. PaulGS 03:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Usage

The article says that it is often recited as part of Christian services. What about saying that it is recited at nearly all Catholic masses and Orthodox liturgies (if this be true) ? That would be a much stronger statement, I think.

It is recited in the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil, the most commonly used Orthodox and Eastern Catholic liturgies, as well as part of some other Orthodox prayers. I suspect it's part of the standard Catholic Mass and some other Catholic prayers, but a Catholic should confirm that. Wesley 18:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm Lutheran, ELCA, and we use the Nicene Creed often, for most special days -- about as much as we use the Apostle's Creed.Hollielol (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

History

Such a big text dump, so little history. Nothing about the wrangling. What about filioque, if you don't already know why this was so touchy? Who calls it the "Niceno-constaninpolitan creed"? okay, then say so. I give this a C so far. Wetman 01:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Details about the filioque clause and that controversy should be in the filioque clause article, not here. I think that article does say more if I recall, and it's linked from here. I'll add something about the Nicene-constantinopolitan creed, but basically that just identifies specifically the version that was adopted in Constantinople in 381, as opposed to the 325 version from Nicea or much later versions that have the filioque clause added. Wesley 18:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Because there are so many irrelevant links in Wikipedia articles (not specifically here) it seems (to me) important to explicitly state the fact when links have further information. But the basic motivation for filioque belongs here too, because how does one comprehend the politics? The effects of the controversy, though not all its details, on the separate developments of the creed are part of why one reads this article. It's fine to have a filioque clause entry, with plenty of detail, but this Nicene Creed entry needs to be complete itself, as well. We can't say, "Oh they didn't understand it because they didn't follow up all the links." I'm sure we all agree in principle. Wetman 18:32, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

"one Being with the Father", seems like a really bad translation of ομοουσιον . It seems to me that it should be "the same substance as the Father". Any comments?

"One in Being" is not the correct translation of Homoousios!!!! It's "Of One Being". plus the english meaning of the latin "substantia" has lost its authenticity in the word "substance" and only maintains some of its validity in substantial and substantiated therefore the word Being must be used. Your suggestion of " the same substance" is open to heretical misinterpretation as it is not contrary to sabellian/arian etc heresies unlike the most precise "Of One Being" Onthesideoftheangels 12:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Better go with historic translations and explain the ambiguities and misunderstandings. "Our"rticulat translations are irrelevent.

I wonder that people are surprised to see the filioque clause in parentheses and conjecture what that might mean! Wetman 15:56, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure what you mean by "historic translation". This English translation doesn't look historic to me. The historic translations would have "only-begotten" for example. Either go for an historic translation, or go for a good modern translation. Which one?

fixed a typo

---

I agree with Wetman, there is little history in this article. E.g. there should be discussion of Emperor Constantine's role in the process of the creation of the Nicene Crede. Wikimsd (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Full Greek Text

I'm confused. I read the article, and thought it would be a lot easier to read if the full creed was written out earlier. Then I saw in the history that the full Greek text was present in earlier versions, but was removed on 9/28/05. Does anyone know why? Does anyone mind me putting it back in? -Chris (not registered, as you can see) 207.172.150.65 01:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Omission in current Greek Text

Concerning the full greek text, the current greek text is missing five words in the section of the anathemas. They are "οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ," which mean "he was made out of nothing or He is of." It should be inserted after "Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὁτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ."

Compare the current end of the greek text from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/niceneg.htm a page made by a random pastor:

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, ὁτι ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, [ἢ κτιστόν,] τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, [τούτους] ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ [καὶ ἀποστολικὴ] ἐκκλησία.

with the text on the Italian site on the same subject http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbolo_niceno-costantinopolitano , which comes from Denzinger (a much more reliable and scholastically credible source):

[Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο, ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν, ἢ τρεπτὸν ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἀναθεματίζει ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία.]

Though the current text does include text criticisms left out by the Denzinger text, it is clearly missing those critical words mentioned above which are even seen in the English translation of the anathema "He was made out of nothing or He is of." Plus, as these words were a direct response to Arius, it is not likely that their lacking be a viable text criticism (though I might be wrong), rather I think that the pastor writting out the greek text on the site mentioned above simply lost his place. The Catholic-Encyclopedia site on the Council of Nicaea, http://www.creeds.net/ancient/niceneg.htm , specifically mentions the greek of the words I found lacking in this article's version of the greek. I've also seen other sites mentioning that the Council condemned those who said "He was made out of nothing."

I purpose that the two texts of the anathemas be mixed, or better that simply the missing words in the current version be reinserted. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Usage in Protestant Churches

There has been a bit of churn in the first paragraph about who "accepts" the Nicene Creed. I put "most" back in front of Protestant because my understanding is that some protestant churches (e.g., the Church of Christ) do not formally accept creeds (their reasoning is, I believe, that they consider them devisive and the Bible is a sufficient statement of the belief of the church). If people prefer different text, can we discuss it here? Johnh 18:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I had taken it off is that those churches that reject the creed typically do not consider themselves "Protestant" either. Actually, I do not like the word either, preferring "Evangelical", because the word Protestant seems stuck in time and does not reflect the point that has at least historically united the non-Roman western churches. -- Chris 18:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, "protestant" is the word used in English-speaking countries. If you don't like it, you can go back to Germany...just kidding, but "evangelical" has a quite distinct meaning in North America, at least, which is not the same as "Protestant" at all. A point, though: the Church of Christ, whether or not it calls itself Protestant, is a church out of the Protestant tradition, and, as I understand it, its doctrinal beliefs are similar to protestantism. At any rate, do Baptists accept the Creed? My understanding is that Baptists don't like the idea of creeds in general, and that while the doctrines of most Baptist groups do accept the substance of the creed, they do not accept it as a creed. Baptists are most certainly protestants - only a weirdly narrow definition of what a protestant is could reject that. At any rate, am I correct in assuming that the Creed is explicitly accepted in churches in the Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, and Reformed modes? Do Pentecostals accepts the creed? Adventists? Disciples of Christ? john k 19:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that, while both of you are basically right, it will be very difficult to get a statement that is both short and unambigious. In particular, efforts to clearly define Protestant are probably not best the subject of this page. Hence, my suggestion to just qualify it as "most Protestant" and move on. (Since that's both short, relatively clearly, and factually accurate.) Johnh 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The inclusion of Church of Christ in the list of groups who "reject the Nicene Creed as an error or a misinterpretation," apparently leading many other Christians to "regard these denominations as not being Christian at all," is probably unfair and maybe even inaccurate. Members of the Church of Christ generally take an entirely orthodox view of the deity of Christ and the trinity. They would, however, share with "evangelical" groups an in-principle rejection of human creeds, preferring instead to use the Bible as their sole textual authority. A few members might take issue with the wording of the Nicean Creed here and there, but as the article makes plain, this is not unusual. Further, the Church of Christ does not have a central organizing body, so it is tricky portraying the Church of Christ as having an official, single voice on almost anything. Tm19 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Absent any further comments on this section, I propose removing "Church of Christ" from the list of religious groups rejecting the Creed as "an error or misinterpretation." Tm19 08:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the sections dealing with the standing of the Creed in various denominations need to be combined and reworked. Any well written article for the individual denominations should have details on their particular attitude towards the Creed, and those attitudes don't need to be detailed here, especially since it's likely that the minutiae of disagreements will make for a horror of clutter here. This article needs to have a brief, cited paragraph on the role the Creed has played in Christian church history, and another on the Creeds present day standing, with cites, and no mention of particular denominations is necessary. I don't believe any more than that is needed here. Hmoulding (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Article Restructuring

Looking at this article as a whole, it seems like it could use some restructing. A suggested structure:

• introduction, what is the creed
• text, in several versions (current sections: greek, latin, english)
• wording differences (current sections: ammendments, filioque, gender neutral)
• history (current sections: History; Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion of Rome)

I'm willing to try restructing it along these lines. Any strong objections? Or does anyone else want to do this with some other structure? Johnh 22:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it, John. I think it needs pretty serious restructuring. Yes, put in an intro, then put in the full text in several languages, maybe with variants shown somehow, then all the discussion, as you suggest. As you will probably do that, I'm not going to bother to put the full Greek text back in as I mentioned above. 207.172.150.65 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC) Chris (not registered).

/* Nicene Christianity becomes the state religion of Rome */

I moved the whole section, as is, to Arianism as it deals with the Arian controversy and not with the creed as such and it contains only the end of the story and mainly from the political view, so it gives, here, a biased impression (there is also a theological side to it) - in the Arianism article, on the other hand, exactly this part of the history has been so far neglected, so it helps there to make the article better balanced. --Irmgard 23:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading statement

There have been many further creeds, in reaction to further perceived heresy, but this one, as revised in 381 was the very last time both western and eastern branches of Christianity could bring themselves to agree upon a Credo.

This is not correct regarding Western and Eastern branches - the Chalcedonian formula is of 451 (less known as not used liturgically) is also Eastern and Western. Also the use of creeds was not only to counter heresy but also to sum up the Christian faith e.g. in liturgy or at baptism. --Irmgard 21:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no Traditional Catholic Version

There is no Traditional Catholic version so I will add it.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by StThomasMore (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The US Catholic Vernacular Creed

I am of the strong opinion that the present US Catholic version in the vernacular is potentially material heresy - One in Being does not mean homoousios or consubstantialem, and is not conducive to authentic catholicism. I also find other grammatical errors plus an insertion!! So I felt obliged to add Notes on Variants to the Modern Usage form. The US conference of Bishops is presently reforming the vernacular liturgy and repeating the same errors when a highly orthodox and dogmatically precise version of the Creed is already in use in the British Isles.Onthesideoftheangels 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The section discussing the creed as it appears in the Roman missal in the United States should be edited and then removed. It contains assertions that are unsupported by any citations to authority. For example, the section suggests the supposed reasons for changes from the 1973 version to the 1975 version but does not cite the drafters of the 1975 version (or some other recognized scholar) explaining the reasons for the differences from the 1973 version. The section also violates the requirement of NOPV. For example, the section states that the use of the phrase "he was born of the Virgin Mary" in teh 1973 version rather than "incarnate from the Virgin Mary" somehow "favour[s] abortion." That is a highly non-obvious reading of the language and appears to be based solely on the author's negative opinion of the version of the creed currently used in the Catholic Church in the United States. Such an opinion is the author's business and should not be included in a wikipedia entry. Once edited and properly supported, the section really belongs in a separate entry discussing controversies within the Catholic Church over English translation of the Roman missal. 68.175.106.173 05:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Died

In the comparison of the 325 and 381 versions, "died" is marked as an innovation of 381. However, the Greek version of the Creed of 381 contains no corresponding word:

Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα.

Neither does the Latin translation:

Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato, passus et sepultus est,

Nor does either traditional English version:

He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was buried. (RC - in passing, note the dislocated Pontius Pilate, caused by moving the comma in the Latin from after "Pilato" to after "nobis")

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried: (CofE)

I therefore see no evidence for "died" being interposed as early as 381 (indeed, I see no pre-1960 evidence for it), and I am therefore going to remove it from the 325/381 comparison. A435(m) 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Wesley 17:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The vernacular in use amongst catholics in the British Isles do not insert died [besides which it is grammatically incorrect in english] they translate passus as "suffered death" which is intrinsically more appropriate.Onthesideoftheangels 13:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes

This appears to be attributed in the article to Nicea 325. Actually it is found in Cyril's letter to Nestorius (Council of Epheseus 431) and possibly the Council of Chalcedon 451. Whatever one's view of Nicea, if they did not include anathemas in the text, then this has to be cleaned up. As a newbie on the topic, I will wait for others, you can simply put the anathama phrase into Google and find the references. Shalom, Praxeus 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the text as is should be ok. Turns out the sources intermingle some, and the text that has the cross-out appears to be from the Athanasius account of the Eusebius letter to his church, which is strong enough. We discussed it on a thread at .. http://www.factnet.org/discus/messages/3/14141.html?1143608659 And you can find various versions of the Nicene Creed with the anathama clause. While many versions leave it out (a point that could be noted). Praxeus 09:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholic

I don't believe the word Catholic should be capialized on the line "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church". It is not capitalized in Catholic missles, and I was taught in Theology at my Jesuit high school that the word refers to the secular word catholic, meaning universal, not Catholic, as in Church. The above text comes from my missle - apostolic is secular as well.

You are right. Normally with the upper case "C" we understand it to be the Roman Catholic Church as a denomination among other Christian denominations. I wonder if the sources from which these texts have been taken have the uppercase "C" in them. In that case the texts are simply reproduced as they are. I commend the Roman Catholic Church for lower casing the "c"! Drboisclair 19:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is the original Christian Church and was practiced by all Christians for over 1500 years before any other "denominations" were formed. It is why the original Church was referred to as the "catholic" Church because it was the universal Christian Church. The word catholic comes from two Greek words Kath Halou which I believe is "On the whole". --38.96.192.115 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid the above comment is dissappointingly based in emotion rather than fact. Although not a Christian scholar, I'm quite certain the Ethiopion Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Christians and others can quite convincingly argue their origins apart from the Catholic Church and well before the Nicene Creed, let alone predating your 1500 years of math. I appreciate your enthusiasm but your statement would be much more appropriate if you lost the first, highly opinionated sentence as this is not the place for it. Thanks Bristus (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Bristus forgive me. But no. They say they where the correct part of the church and broke away to keep it pure (as is most common to this position for anyone and everyone). When people speak of "politics" playing into the schisms of the church what probably should be said is "old pre-christian conflicts". Now the schism between East and West is over the pagan substance theory and if the Pope has the authority to force it on the other patriarchs. Reconcillation is not a matter of agreeing to disagree, it is a matter of if God is "personal and selfless" or if God is a tyrant. Or if the Pope will have the final say (authority) in things for all the catholic East and West. A final say that forces the Popes position (Rome) over the other equals to him (patriarchs or the rest of the world). Which is a power the role of Pope never had which is unfortunate given that Augustine and Aquinas are not compatible with eastern theology and allot of wrong is going to have to be forced to be accepted as correct at the expense of Orthodoxy. So as Orthodox there is no real benefit (I mean if I want to be Roman Catholic I can just go be Roman Catholic). Unity is not truth and truth should not be given up, for the sake anything, including unity. All of this at the expense of Christianity while the old pagan elements re-establish themselves. And of course Protestantism is being overtaken with paganism, so much so that even the Slavophils back over 100 years ago predicated that most Protestants would fall into paganism. After it was shown that the bible was written by the Christian community and not the specific Apostles per se (some bible or text will be discovered that supposely shows this but after the damage is done will be refuted or something like that as the story goes). Soloviev went to far as to say that Christianity would lose its world position because power became more important than theosis, philosophical (pagan) reason more important then trust and faith in God.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I could have wonderful conversations regarding all of this but my simple response was in regards to the fact that numerous 'denominations' existed well before even the Nicene Creed came to pass. One could argue the various groups the Apostles wrote to in their letters were denominations due to the different practices the apostles tried to correct. If the Roman Catholic Church was the one to continue use of the title "catholic", this does not take away from those denomonations already in existence nor their perpetuation throughout the ages. I make no statement here in Wikipedia as to who I feel is correct. I myself belong to none mentioned here.Bristus (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes on variants

While I think this is useful and interesting, it could be improved by eliminating passive voice sentences like 'It has been argued' or 'it could be argued.' If it has been argued, state who has made the argument. If a proposition hasn't been argued by anyone, but could be, it needs to be stricken from the article until it actually is argued somewhere that can be verified. Otherwise it would be original research. Wesley 16:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

"Greek Orthodox English version"

A source is required for this insertion. The Greek Orthodox Church recites the Creed in Greek, the original language of the Creed, not a translation - even into modern Greek. Do Greek Orthodox in, I suppose, the United States - I do mean Greek Orthodox, not other Eastern Orthodox - celebrate the liturgy in English? I doubt it. If they do, give a reference to the published service book of the liturgy. The English translation that has been posted here may be just an unofficial translation found in some booklets meant to assist Greek-less worshippers in following the liturgy. Even if such a translation were made by a priest and approved by a bishop, that would not make it an official text like the official texts of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches. I think it would then deserve no more than a footnote to the original Greek text. If it cannot be sourced, it does not deserve even that. Lima 04:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In most Greek Orthodox Churches in the US, the service is in both English and Greek. At my church we alternate English and Greek with the Creed and Lord's Prayer. Once week Creed in Greek, Lord's Prayer in English, next week the opposite. Grk1011 (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Crossed out and underlined

The line:

Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from the heaven and became incarnate

had "from the heaven" crossed out and underlined. What does this mean? Mistake? Morwen - Talk 16:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the differences between the earlier and later forms of this Creed are more clearly presented in the tabular form which I am now inserting in the article, and that the existing text, with its underlining and strikeouts, should be deleted. I leave it to someone else, if they agree with this idea, to do the deleting. Another problem with the existing text is that it uses a translation not found on the Internet, and vandals have been deforming it, confident that others will find it difficult to check the correct text. The table I am inserting uses an Internet text that anyone can easily check. Lima 18:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you put the Greek in the table as well without making it too big? I do prefer a word-for-word diff though, as opposed to corresponding paragraphs. Morwen - Talk 20:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no book that gives the Council texts in Greek, and I have not found those Greek texts on the Internet. I only have the Greek text as used in the Church's liturgy. Lima 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Morwen, now that I have divided the tabular text up into smaller portions, do you still prefer the "word-for-word diff", i.e. the underline/strikeout presentation? Lima 13:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now found the two Council texts in Greek on [this site] and have, I think, responded to Morwen's request, not by putting the Greek in the same table as the English, which would indeed make it too big, but by making a separate table for it. The text on the site has many spelling errors and has very few accents. I have tried to remedy these defects. On the other hand, I have not wished to impose uniformity in capitalization: the text on the site varies in its use of upper-case letters for God, for the Father, the Holy Spirit ... I have just left these words as I found them. Lima 15:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree we can do without the now redundant -strike- text. Lostcaesar 10:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The need for English translations of what Eastern Orthodoxy uses

Noting the disclaimer given in reference #3 I have added this text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitanum that comes directly from an Orthodox church's translation of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in liturgical use in that church, which is a congregation of the Orthodox Church in America, which celebrates the Divine Liturgy in English. We should also have the present English text from the Roman Catholic mass liturgy in use. The Orthodox and the Roman Catholic tradition predate the Anglican tradition. I will also add the present liturgical text from my own Lutheran tradition.--Drboisclair 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In most countries, as the article states, Roman Catholics use the 1975 ecumenical version. In the United States, as the article also states, they use instead the 1973 draft for this ecumenical version. A new Catholic (not produced by an ecumenical body) English version has been approved by at least some episcopal conferences and has been confirmed by the Holy See, but has not yet been put into use. When it is officially published, we can put that version here and, most likely, remove entirely the two versions Catholics use at present, since I doubt if any other Church now uses the 1975 text, and nobody but the impatient United States Catholic bishops conference adopted the 1973 draft, except perhaps in a merely experimental way.

With regard to English translations of the Creed, I suppose that the oldest tradition is indeed the Anglican. Lima 13:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

ICET and filioque

Dear Lima, when I removed that text, I was under the impression that the "and the Son" was in brackets in the text as well. I was wrong on that. However, I do think that this is the way to present it here, to bracket that phrase and to restrict the explanations to a minimum. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is that, to limit the number of English translations in this page, only those in official liturgical use are included. I strongly doubt that any Church other than the Catholic continues to use the 1975 ICET version (and the Catholic Church will cease to do so in about two years' time). The others, as far as I know, use some variant of the 1988 ELLC ecumenical version, or perhaps some version of their own, like the Lutheran and the Orthodox Church in America ones. So it seems that the only form of the 1975 ICET text still in use is the one with "and the Son".

When it is published, the new Catholic (ICEL) translation will presumably replace both Catholic-used versions now included in the article, and the 1975 ICET version, with or without "and the Son", will only be a matter of history. Lima 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Clutter

Reading this article for the first time in a while, I was struck by how cluttered it seemed, with what felt like a laundry list of almost-identical translations. Fixing this is not a trivial change, since there is a point to be made by most of the versions present (I'm not arguing they're superfluous), but I wonder if the flow of the page might not be improved by somehow shifting most the actual translations off to a separate, linked page, and here just summarising why they're relevant. /blahedo (t) 21:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I was bold and did a ton of restructuring. I'm still not satisfied with everything (especially the side articles), but at least I think the articles are well-structured and each of consistent granularity of information. Thoughts? /blahedo (t) 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My immediate reaction was to think that, before making so radical an alteration, Blahedo should have proposed the matter for discussion, but I intended to open the matter for discussion myself while trying, in the meantime, to remedy some of the most evident faults in the Blahedo version. For instance, Blahedo opened the article with a particular English translation of the Nicene Creed presenting it as the text of the Creed. We don't say that any particular English translation is "the text" of, for instance, St John's Gospel. Contrary to what Blahedo says, this particular English translation is is liturgical use: the English-speaking Roman Catholic Church uses it, except in the United States, where a version that is only slightly different is used.

That, I thought, could be remedied, but on then seeing how many other matters also needed adjusting in the Blahedo version of the article, which I sincerely find more confusing that the preceding version, I have reluctantly decided to revert to the earlier version. I will, of course, abide by whatever the Wikipedia community thinks it best to do about the article. Lima 07:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My negative reaction was not against Blahedo's removal to a separate article of the currently used English translations. I think there will be no objection to accepting that change by Blahedo, and I have made the necessary adjustment to the previous version. Lima 08:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did propose the matter for discussion, and I got no response despite the fact that a bunch of editing was going on, so don't be accusing me of anything. I made a number of structural changes, which you simply reverted without addressing. I did head the article with a section called "Text", since someone unfamiliar with the creed would probably want something to refer to, but in the body I was clear to note that it was a translation, and I gave specific reasons for my choice of which version (which I knew would be contentious). This is the English-language Wikipedia, and there simply is not an "original" version of the Creed in English, so a translation is just the best we're going to do. Including the Greek and Latin versions somewhere in Wikipedia are good, but for someone who doesn't read them, putting them in this article, a general one about the Creed, is just posting so much junk for them to scroll past. That's what I meant about "consistent granularity". The discussion about the ancient-language versions of the Creed, with individual words and their transliterations, will be much more accessible to the interested English-speaking reader. Even for the English translations of the two Greek versions, presenting this in a poorly-annotated tabular form is much too fine a level of detail for someone who is just reading to see generally what changes were made (though it does belong somewhere on WP—in its own article). The English translation of the Armenian version doesn't belong here, although a (properly cited) analysis of it might, and the actual Armenian version would belong on the source-language page.

Basically, your objection appears to be that I did the edits too fast and/or without your approval. What are your actual objections to, say, starting off the article on the Nicene Creed with the English (translation of the) text of the Creed? Or to putting three and a half screenfuls of Greek text on a different page? /blahedo (t) 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize to Blahedo for my ill-chosen expression. Yes, Blahedo did propose for discussion moving the English liturgical translations into an article apart, something with which I am in agreement. I did not intend to accuse Blahedo of anything: he chose "to be bold", and opinions may vary on whether his boldness was justified by the result. I do not question his right to be bold; I just doubt that the result was felicitous. With the English translations now removed, I think - others may well disagree, and I look forward to reading their views - that the article on the Nicene Creed can and should all the more concentrate on and give details about the origin of this Creed, a highly important element of which is what exactly are the differences between the 325 and the 381 texts, what the Second Ecumenical Council added to, omitted from or otherwise altered in the text of the First Ecumenical Council. This matter is so essential, I think - but again I would like to hear what others think - should not be hived off to another article. I think that, without a concrete side-by-side confrontation between the two texts, it would be very difficult to understand properly what changes were made in 381. (The comparison between the two texts in the original language is put immediately after the confrontation between an English translation of both texts. I think Greek-less readers will automatically skip the second table; but if the Wikipedian community thinks that readers would instead get bogged down in trying to understand it, it can be put as a footnote to the first table.) This important confrontation between the 325 and the 381 texts is the sort of thing that I felt required the previous text of the article (except for the section on English translations) to be brought back, not the minor question of beginning with a particular English translation. As I said above, this minor question could easily be solved by making a few adjustment to the words by which that English translation was introduced.

I think the 325-381 confrontation should certainly be kept in the article on the Nicene Creed. (It was the point that I found most interesting when I first read the article.) Blahedo thinks it should not. What do others think?

Another matter that I thought unacceptable in the Blahedo version of the article was the arrangement by which it had a section that it called "Textual analysis" of the Creed in Greek and Latin, but gave no Greek or Latin text to go with it.

As for the Armenian text, this is not just a translation of the 381 text of the Creed. If it were merely a translation, it would, in spite of its antiquity, be no more significant that a modern translation into Swahili or Esperanto. It is an adaptation (for instance, "he became man" was elaborated into "By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance" and "who spoke by the prophets" was developed into "Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints"), showing how that ancient Christian Church thought it useful to elaborate further the teaching of the Creed, as the Western Church also did with its "Deum verum de Deo vero" and its "Filioque".

I think that the earlier text was more suitable than the Blahedo text. Blahedo thinks the opposite. What do others think? Lima 19:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Nicene

Would someone be able to add the proper American English pronunciation of Nicene? Onionmon (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Some notes

First, some of this appears to be copyvio from http://www.thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm . The repetition of the sentence "No doubt debate will continue as to the author's intentions both in the New Testament, as well as the separate issue of the intended meaning in the creeds." is particularly suspicious.

Second, no Greek version I can find has the "God from God" part of "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God". Does anyone know where this came from? It seems fairly common, but not universal, in English translations.

mkehrt (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"God from God" comes from the Western (Latin) version. (Note, too, in the original Nicaean form: "θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ".) Lima (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, simultaneously editing the same page doesn't work well. As I said in an alternate version of this page that was destroyed by the ravages of editing, thanks! I put the text you removed below for future reintegration. mkehrt (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Text removed by Lima

The following text was removed by Lima due to my concern that it was copyvio from http://www.thenazareneway.com/nicene_niceno_constantinopolitan_creed.htm. However, I think the information contained here is both interesting and relevant, if somewhat confusingly written. I may at some point attempt to reintegrate it into the article; others are welcome to do so as well. mkehrt (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Most modern scholarly opinion believes that μονογενή means "only" or "unique" coming from μονο — "mono" meaning "only" and γενή coming from γενος "genus" meaning kind - "only one of its kind", thus the translation "only Son" in the above modern translation of the creed. One possible mistake at this point is to translate "genus" according to its Latin meaning. In Greek, however, "genos" (γένος) may mean offspring, a limited or extended family, a clan, a tribe, a people, a biological entity (e.g. all the birds), or indeed any group of beings sharing a common ancestry. Therefore its meaning can vary from the very narrow to the very broad. A telling example of Greek usage of the word "genos" would be "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, to genos Bouvier" (i.e. née Bouvier).

Older English translations as well as the Latin contain "only-begotten", "unigenitum" on the belief that γενή comes from the word for γενναω "born". On the other hand Old Latin manuscripts of the New Testament translate μονογενή as "unicus", "unique". No doubt debate will continue as to the author's intentions both in the New Testament, as well as the separate issue of the intended meaning in the creeds. It may be noteworthy that "only-begotten" is currently deemed an acceptable translation into English within Orthodox Christian jurisdictions that routinely use liturgical Greek.

A considerable part of this confusion is due to the similarity of the key Greek verbs "gennao" and "gignomai".

"Γεννάω" (gennao) means "to give birth" and refers to the male parent. The female equivalent is "τίκτω" (tikto), from which derive the obstetric terms "tokos', labor, and "toketos", delivery, and words such as "Theo-tokos", Mother of God, and the proparoxytone "prototokos", firstborn, as opposed to the paroxytone "prototokos", primipara (one giving birth for the first time).

Γίγνομαι (gignomai) means "to come into existence".

The etymological roots of the two verbs are, respectively, "genn-" and "gen-", and therefore the derivatives of these two verbs exhibit significant auditory and semantic overlap.

Auditorily speaking, while the ancient Greeks pronounced double consonants differently from single ones (example: the double N was pronounced as in the English word "unknown"), by Roman times this had become the same as pronunciation of single consonants (example: the double N was then pronounced as in the English word "penny").

Semantically speaking, the Greek word for "parent" can derive both from "gennao" (γεννήτωρ, gennetor, strictly applicable only to the male parent) and from "gignomai" (γονεύς, goneus, which applies to both parents). In ancient and modern Greek usage however, the word "monogenes" invariably refers to a son without other brothers, or a daughter without other sisters, or a child without other siblings. In this context, both "only-begotten" and "only one of its kind" are equally valid translations.

Furthermore, the word "monogennetos" (a father's only son) and "monotokos" (a mother's only child) do not exist, while "monotokos" means a female who can only have one offspring at a time. Of course any -tokos derivative would be out of the question in this case, as the Nicene Creed seeks to clarify the parentage of God the Son in relation to God the Father.

The Greek word ὁμοούσιον indicates that the Father and the Son are "consubstantial", i.e. of the same substance, essence or being, because the Son is begotten of the Father’s own being (ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkehrt (talk • contribs) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Creed and History

There is no easy to read accessible copy of the Creed in this article. It should be here. It is public domain and is the core of the article. It seems silly to have several broken up versions in several languages and not the actual creed, available to be read without going to another page. I have added it under content, near the top of the article. I also added a short sentence or two to explain the Arian controversy that provoked the Creed. Another essential addition to the article. Xandar (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

More exact

I think Trinity refers nowadays to the well-defined concept of three persons, each being God, and yet they are one God. The Apostles' Creed says nothing explicit about the divinity of neither Jesus nor the Holy Spirit. The sonship of Jesus, although related, is another subject: David is also a begotten son according to Psalm 2:7 in the Jewish interpretation, Jesus has called others sons of God as per Matt 5:9, etc. As for the Holy Spirit, did the church fathers forget that he's God in the Nicene Creed of 325? If you carefully read and compare all creeds I think you may agree that Trinity as understood today is only explicit in the Athanasian Creed. As such I disagree with this edit. --Observer99 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm not indulging in OR. There are sources (example [1]) that confirm the above, and sources that don't. Not sure how best to deal with such issues? --Observer99 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The most that can be said about the Athanasian Creed's delineation of the Trinity is that it is fuller than that in the other two creeds mentioned. I don't think you can say that any particular exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity is a (the?) full delineation of it. Are we to say that the expositions by later theologians such as Aquinas are less full than that in the Athanasian Creed, on which these later theologians built?

To say that, according to the 381 creed, the Holy Spirit is merely "worshipped and glorified" unjustifiably leaves out the highly important phrase about the way the Holy Spirit is worshipped and glorified: "with the Father and the Son". The First Council of Constantinople, which inserted these words into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, seems certainly to have thought it was thereby asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the "Macedonians". Abraham too was "worshipped" and glorified while still alive, but not with the Father and the Son.

Though here you use the word "explicitly", in the article you changed "The Nicene Creed explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus" to "The Nicene Creed affirms the divinity of Jesus", and then, with your "In contradistinction to the Apostles' Creed", thereby suggested that the divinity of Jesus is not affirmed even implicitly in the Apostles' Creed. You know, of course, that the Apostles' Creed, as we know it - I don't mean the Old Roman Symbol - is much later than the Nicene Creed: we should not give readers the impression that those who drew up the Apostles' Creed did not believe in the divinity of Jesus! In my text I did not state that the Apostles' Creed does affirm the divinity of Jesus: all I said was that the most that can be said (i.e. claimed) about it is that the idea of the divinity of Jesus is implicit in it. Lima (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you define trinity in one/two lines? --Observer99 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you define the General Theory of Relativity in one/two lines? How much detail do you want? A one-line definition of the Trinity, taken from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, is already in line 4 of the body of the article on the Trinity. Lima (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell why the 325 creed says nothing about the divinty of the Holy Ghost? Can you say which creed says "one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"? I see three Gods in Nicene! --Observer99 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If I say nothing about someone's humanity, it doesn't mean I believe him not to be human. I think the Nicene Creed begins with an affirmation of belief in one God. Lima (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mistaken Multimedia

Hi! The multimedia file "Pronunciation of the Credo in Latin" is actually of the Apostles', not Nicene Creed. Thanks! -J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.45.250 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC) hj —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.132.51 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Church Slavonic

The previous version of the Church Slavonic was completely wrong and it was in some other Slavic language or dialect, but definitively not Church Slavonic. I added an image from the Russian Wikipedia as the full OCS Cyrillic alphabet is not supported in Unicode. Please note that there are many variations of Church Slavonic (this one is New Church Slavonic, as used in Russia). Thanks, Vladimir Boskovic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.243.79 (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicene Creed English translation

The link to the Armenian Church library is dead, at least tonight. Was trying to confirm the capitalization of One, Holy..., etc. Could not find any examples of English translations of the Creed at Armenian Church Web sites that capitalize any of the words. Found examples of both "catholic" and "universal" on the same Web site. The one I've listed is from the standard liturgy. The one with lower-c catholic is in the Armenian Church standard wedding ceremony liturgy. I'm just assuming that the standard liturgy's English translation may be the more correct one. Afaprof01 (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that my correction was un-corrected. Let me explain why my change was right and the current translation is wrong. The English translation of the 381 Creed references (via footnote 18) the Greek text further down on the page. The Greek says "ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου". For those who don't read Greek, that says "of/by/from the Holy Spirit AND Mary the Virgin." The Greek has always said AND. At first it was correctly translated into Latin as 'et', but in the calligraphy of the day it was hard to tell 'et' from 'ex', and other Latin liturgical texts said 'ex Maria Virgine', so the erroneous Latin version became standard in the West. (The East has never made a big deal of this error since it was never used to support a heresy.) Until the last 30 years or so, all English liturgical translations of the Creed were based on the Latin (and most still are), so they read 'of'. But if, as the article seems to indicate, you are trying to give an English translation of the original Greek text of 381, it should read 'and', not 'of'. BALawrence (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

On your main point, I agree. However, the article's comparison between the two versions of the Creed is a quotation, and we cannot attribute to that source what it did not say. Why not add to the article a note about the required correction of what the source says? Wikipedia does not allow you to present such a note as your own research, but it should surely be possible to find and then quote a source that makes the point you want to make. I would prefer this to be done by you, but if for some reason you do not feel up to doing it, just ask me and I am confident that I could find such a source and insert what it says into the article, with a citation of the source. Esoglou (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)