Discussion in 'Announcements' started by Admin, Mar 25, 2013.
Could this be a dubious judgment disguised as a question?
Take it which way you wish friend! Just how dubious the question is remains to be seen!
All of which is true, the point you have made is known and accepted. Never the less, it is generally agreed that the result is accepted as the Nicene Creed by the Church and that the idea of every particular church working out its own, or additions to the Nice is frowned upon. The point still stands that a major portion, in importance if not volume of the Roman Catechism is the position of the papacy! Which Anglicans of that time classed as a ,'robber', Council.
I would agree with you that Papal supremacy is an unwarranted addition to the deposit of faith. With regards to the Nicene creed though, it seems that all the Western churches, the Anglicans included, have accepted the filioque which was added without the warrant of any ecumenical council.
"and the Communion of Saints" was injected into the Creed at some point (after the 4th century), but I don't see a big ruckus being raised about that.
That's in the Apostles Creed, not the Nicene creed.
Right, and my point still stands. Since we adhere to the 3 creeds it's should be equally problematic to add to any of them.
Neither the Apostles creed nor the Athanasian creed were sanctioned by ecumenical councils. Only the Nicene creed can really lay claim to universal authority in the church, since the other two were pretty much unknown in the east.
I don't know what you mean.. the Apostles Creed is the central creed in the anglican liturgy and was ways received universally. Likewise for the Athanasian one. Hence why they're called the 3 Ecumenical Creeds that unite creedal Christianity.
My point is, the Apostles creed and that Athanasian creed did not enjoy "massive popularity" except in the West. Unfortunately the East did not have much knowledge of Latin patristics- for instance, very few in the East had any familiarity with St. Augustine's writings. Likewise the West was not very well versed in the Greek fathers. Also, the filioque may be scripturally sound in some interpretations of it, but the whole start of this discussion was about additions to the creed not authorized by ecumenical councils, and the filioque was definitely such an addition, which is why, for instance, Pope Leo III fought really hard to keep it out and had the Nicene creed inscribed on silver shields, in both Latin and Greek, without the filioque.
As a student of Church history I am familiar with the Apostle's Creed and the Athanasian, but growing up a Baptist I had no idea any creeds existed. When I converted to Orthodoxy I learned the Nicene Creed, which is the only one we ever use—sans the filioque .
The Apostles Creed is dated from the earliest times as a Baptismal Creed and it is sanctioned by antiquity and constant use. It is of course western but there have been no serious complaints . Moss claims that the Athanasian Creed is not a proper creed at all, beginning as it does "Who so ever wishes to be saved." Whereas, I believe, ' Credo,' commences the other two. The Athanasian Creed had its beginning according to Moss about 400 A.D.
Niceae is of course the universal creed as we have already been told.
Good discussion. At home in my cell, I exclusively use the Apostles Creed in my personal liturgy.