This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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
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... :-)
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)
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:
--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
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
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Looking at this article as a whole, it seems like it could use some restructing. A suggested structure:
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)
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)
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 so I will add it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by StThomasMore ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 12:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
The line:
had "from the heaven" crossed out and underlined. What does this mean? Mistake? Morwen - Talk 16:41, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Would someone be able to add the proper American English pronunciation of Nicene? Onionmon ( talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The correct English translation for the Greek word which is pronounced "Pnevma" is "spirit" NOT ghost. I am fluent in modern Greek, Ancient Greek and i am Greek. This is the correct translation.
Also i am in agreemt with the "Is this a joke" author. The Nicene Creed was indeed formulated by the WHOLE Christian church body as it was prior to the Schism of 1054. However, if anything, it is more Eastern Orthodox than Catholic or protestant since it was created in Nicaea, a Greek city in Asia Minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygkaravas ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: if you get an account, stop editing as an IP. It is confusing, and accusations of sock puppetry are just around the corner. Drmies ( talk) 04:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
πνεῦμα πνέω I. a blowing, πνεύματα ἀνέμων Hdt., Aesch.: alone, a wind, blast, Trag., etc. 2. metaph., θαλερωτέρῳ πν. with more genial breeze or influence, Aesch.; λύσσης πν. μάργῳ id=Aesch.; πν. ταὐτὸν οὔποτ᾽ ἐν ἀνδράσιν φίλοις βέβηκεν the wind is constantly changing even among friends, Soph. II. like Lat. spiritus or anima, breathed air, breath, Aesch.; πν. βίου the breath of life, id=Aesch.; πν. ἀθροίζειν to collect breath, Eur.; πν. ἀφιέναι, ἀνιέναι, μεθιέναι to give up the ghost, id=Eur.; πνεύματος διαρροαί the wind-pipe, id=Eur. 2. that is breathed forth, odour, scent, id=Eur. III. spirit, Lat. afflatus, Anth.: inspiration, NTest. IV. the spirit of man, id=NTest. V. a spirit; in NTest. of the Holy Spirit, τὸ Πνεῦμα, Πν. ἅγιον:— also of angels, id=NTest.:—of evil spirits, id=NTest.
Please consider changing THE creed, not just MY creed to the TRUE creed. Thank you. Ygkaravas ( talk) 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Latin and Greek as being integral languages in Christianity, as well as Hebrew and Aramaic, but I have no idea why the Armenian text is given such a prominent position. Can someone explain this? Bigpeteb ( talk) 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Problems here. Says that square brackets indicate what the 381 version omits or moves, and the italics indicate what it adds. But going thru these indicators, one cannot reproduce either text unambiguously. Why not just give the two texts side by side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.143.28 ( talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Also translates "credo" and "pisteuo" as "we believe," when it is in fact first person singular, "I believe." 2600:1008:B104:A01D:9C8C:BF2E:AFB1:134A ( talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
"Profession of Faith" right now redirects to the general "Creed" but should come here instead. 72.54.254.49 ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the actual document on which the text of the creed is based. Do we have actual manuscript of the creed? Or just quotations of later councils?
Theodore of Mopsuestia, few years before Council of Ephesus, in his commentary of Nicene Creed says: "Our Fathers at wonderful council of Nicaea didn't overlook the human nature of our Lord, and because of this added a phrase: 'firstborn of all creation'."
Today's version of the creed omits this verse, and I think I know why it was removed - it was thought to be Nestorian at Council of Ephesus and that's why bishops removed it.
In any case, this article should at least claim the fact that there are alternate versions of the creed. -- Otherguylb ( talk) 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
There has been a recent edit controversy over using "by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary" vs "by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" If we are going to stick with citing it from Schaff as it is, we must stick with the wording he uses. However, the last editor was correct in saying that the Greek word "kai" translates as "and". Considering that "the virgin Mary" appears in the genitive, the proper translation would be "and of the Virgin Mary" incorporating both words... Should we stick with Schaff's translation, or should I try to find a translation that preserves both word usages more faithfully to the original Greek? ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much the same material as found at Nicene Creed#Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381 is at Comparison of Nicene Creeds of 325 and 381. It should be merged here, and the Greek removed. -- JFHutson ( talk) 21:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the value of any foreign language text of the creed in an English language encyclopedia. In the edit summary that reverted my deletion of several foreign language creeds, I was told that they should be retained because "this is where I come when I want to see the Greek or Latin." Perhaps this person should try el:Σύμβολο της Νικαίας and la:Symbolum Nicaenum, which are in the Greek and Latin Wikipedias respectively, or better yet, wikisource:el:Σύμβολο της Πίστεως and wikisource:la:Symbolum Nicænum Costantinopolitanum, since Wikisource is a more appropriate place for the hosting of texts. The English Wikipedia is supposed to be in English. Furthermore, an encyclopedia focuses on facts rather than texts. I think it is appropriate to present one English language text for the same reason we include illustrations. Any issues related to differences between texts and how the text has been translated should be presented in original, sourced prose with short quotations where necessary. -- JFH ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The original Greek word translated "one substance" is "homoousios" which etymologically means "of the same substance". However, etymology only tells us what the word meant when it started life not what it means in any later user. ("Nice" is etymologically derived from the Latin "nescius" which means "ignorant".) The exact understanding of the word "homoousios" by the bishops at Nicea is a debatable question. It may well have been understood as doing no more than affirming the full divinity of Jesus Christ. However, later reflection led to the opinion that when applied to the the Godhead it implied identity of substance as the Cappadocian fathers realized. Of the two possible translations: "of the same substance" and "of one substance/being" the second represents more clearly the developed understanding of the Churches and is found in the four BCP's I have consulted: (ECUSA 1977/Australia Revised PB/ASB & the old 1662 BCP) Jpacobb ( talk) 15:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I have clarified the statement on this, with a citation pointing at a relevant article in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, that the Eastern church does not use the Apostle's Creed liturgically. Most Eastern theologians I've read do not disagree with the content of the Apostle's Creed, rather, it, like the Book of Revelations, simply is not a part of their liturgy. I had clarified this statement initially; which lacked a reference of any sort, but another user reverted it. I have reposted it with a reference and hopefully it will remain unmolested; the prior statement was overbroad. Wgw2024 ( talk) 04:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Jpacobb ( talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In response to Jpacobb, I would point out that most of the information in the Catholic Encyclopedia accurately describes the history of the Catholic Church and other Christian communities up until that point. A huge swathe of that is still accurate today, given how slowly things change in parts of Christendom, particularly in the realm of the Eastern churches (both Eastern Catholic and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches use the same liturgy now that they used in 1800, albeit with very minor changes in things like the diptychs, the change in the litany regarding the language used in praying for civil authorities, and so on). From the standpoint of liturgical history, 1900 is practically yesterday; most of the Roman Catholic liturgical rites have not changed since then; only the Latin and Ambrosian Rite liturgy has changed substantially since Vatican II. The other rites have either continued unchanged, or with minor changes in music to remove Latinizations, or have been mostly discontinued (for example, the rites of the religious orders, which have become exceedingly rare in the past 40 years, or the Rite of Braga, which has apparently vanished). Many Wikipedia articles are the result of copy-pasta from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a contemporaneous Jewish Encyclopedia of the same era. I myself have had to go through and clean many of these up, to remove the offensive terms "Monophysite" and "Nestorian", replacing them with "Miaphysite" and "Assyrian Church of the East" (as the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians now maintain they do not adhere to the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies associated with some of their founders, such as Pope Dioscorus and Nestorius, and since this represents a heartfelt attempt at full Orthodoxy we certainly don't want to interfere by referring to them in language they find offensive). Wgw2024 ( talk) 06:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. The Armenian Version given here is a Modern Eastern Armenian translation. It is a partial translation because the final section of the text, the so-called anathema, has been omitted from this translation. In the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Nicene Creed is most often chanted in its Classical Armenian form, the form into which it was translated from Greek and/or from Syriac around AD 400 at the latest. For a complete text of the Classical Armenian Nicene Creed as it is used in the Armenian Apostolic Church, there are numerous websites one can consult. In writing this, I do not wish to make or imply any judgment as to the quality or character of this Modern Armenian translation, or as to its use in any Armenian Christian liturgical setting.
Robert Phenix, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.133.23 ( talk) 09:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
On reading this section again, it struck me as odd that there is mention of the filioque here. First, it is not really ancient (which is the subject of the section), but more Middle Ages. Second, it did not stem from language that originated at any of the ancient ecumenical councils. "Filioque" has always been controversial, and continues to be so. Indeed, this is pointed up again by the small edits made in late July regarding current (and changing?) liturgical application in Roman Catholic churches of eastern orientation, which in itself is an outgrowth of that controversy (how "eastern" to be, sans filioque, as opposed to "western", having it present, and what does that mean to those churches).
Contrast the difference in nature of these matters to that of the question of translations that produce "I believe" or "We believe", which is material that belongs solidly to this section.
As an eastern orthodox, I hesistate to touch "filioque" myself, lest I change something in the text that others find meaningful, however benign it might seem to me. But it does strike me as appropriate that the content be moved, perhaps to the "Filioque Controversy" section. Does that seem controversial to anyone? Evenssteven ( talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please explain the connection between the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the filoque? EoinRiedy ( talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been an editing war over this matter. I just now reverted to the pre-war status and am putting it here for discussion. Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that you (Evensteven?) have not checked any of the external links at
Credo (card game), and I'm confident that you have not played it. It was, and arguably still remains, a relevant tool to teach what happened at Council of Nicaea and/or the first ecumenical council, and how today's Nicene Creed came to be. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's a reasonable distillation of the history of the event(s) leading up to today's Nicene Creed.
LP-mn ( talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This game belongs on the history pages in the same way that Risk (game) belongs on the World War I article... ReformedArsenal ( talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The article referred to John 15:16 – which by all appearances has little to nothing to do with the article topic, and was a typo or mistake – which I have changed to John 15:26 which clearly does refer to the article topic. The Greek texts of both:
—SOURCES: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1012026 AND http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1012016 Misty MH ( talk) 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Minor formatting Misty MH ( talk) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) KJV & SOURCES: Misty MH ( talk) 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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
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... :-)
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)
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:
--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
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
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:
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:
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Looking at this article as a whole, it seems like it could use some restructing. A suggested structure:
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)
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)
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 so I will add it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by StThomasMore ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
LoveMonkey ( talk) 12:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
The line:
had "from the heaven" crossed out and underlined. What does this mean? Mistake? Morwen - Talk 16:41, 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)
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)
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)
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)
Would someone be able to add the proper American English pronunciation of Nicene? Onionmon ( talk) 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The correct English translation for the Greek word which is pronounced "Pnevma" is "spirit" NOT ghost. I am fluent in modern Greek, Ancient Greek and i am Greek. This is the correct translation.
Also i am in agreemt with the "Is this a joke" author. The Nicene Creed was indeed formulated by the WHOLE Christian church body as it was prior to the Schism of 1054. However, if anything, it is more Eastern Orthodox than Catholic or protestant since it was created in Nicaea, a Greek city in Asia Minor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ygkaravas ( talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: if you get an account, stop editing as an IP. It is confusing, and accusations of sock puppetry are just around the corner. Drmies ( talk) 04:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
πνεῦμα πνέω I. a blowing, πνεύματα ἀνέμων Hdt., Aesch.: alone, a wind, blast, Trag., etc. 2. metaph., θαλερωτέρῳ πν. with more genial breeze or influence, Aesch.; λύσσης πν. μάργῳ id=Aesch.; πν. ταὐτὸν οὔποτ᾽ ἐν ἀνδράσιν φίλοις βέβηκεν the wind is constantly changing even among friends, Soph. II. like Lat. spiritus or anima, breathed air, breath, Aesch.; πν. βίου the breath of life, id=Aesch.; πν. ἀθροίζειν to collect breath, Eur.; πν. ἀφιέναι, ἀνιέναι, μεθιέναι to give up the ghost, id=Eur.; πνεύματος διαρροαί the wind-pipe, id=Eur. 2. that is breathed forth, odour, scent, id=Eur. III. spirit, Lat. afflatus, Anth.: inspiration, NTest. IV. the spirit of man, id=NTest. V. a spirit; in NTest. of the Holy Spirit, τὸ Πνεῦμα, Πν. ἅγιον:— also of angels, id=NTest.:—of evil spirits, id=NTest.
Please consider changing THE creed, not just MY creed to the TRUE creed. Thank you. Ygkaravas ( talk) 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm familiar with Latin and Greek as being integral languages in Christianity, as well as Hebrew and Aramaic, but I have no idea why the Armenian text is given such a prominent position. Can someone explain this? Bigpeteb ( talk) 05:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Problems here. Says that square brackets indicate what the 381 version omits or moves, and the italics indicate what it adds. But going thru these indicators, one cannot reproduce either text unambiguously. Why not just give the two texts side by side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.143.28 ( talk) 21:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Also translates "credo" and "pisteuo" as "we believe," when it is in fact first person singular, "I believe." 2600:1008:B104:A01D:9C8C:BF2E:AFB1:134A ( talk) 01:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
"Profession of Faith" right now redirects to the general "Creed" but should come here instead. 72.54.254.49 ( talk) 16:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the actual document on which the text of the creed is based. Do we have actual manuscript of the creed? Or just quotations of later councils?
Theodore of Mopsuestia, few years before Council of Ephesus, in his commentary of Nicene Creed says: "Our Fathers at wonderful council of Nicaea didn't overlook the human nature of our Lord, and because of this added a phrase: 'firstborn of all creation'."
Today's version of the creed omits this verse, and I think I know why it was removed - it was thought to be Nestorian at Council of Ephesus and that's why bishops removed it.
In any case, this article should at least claim the fact that there are alternate versions of the creed. -- Otherguylb ( talk) 21:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
There has been a recent edit controversy over using "by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary" vs "by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary" If we are going to stick with citing it from Schaff as it is, we must stick with the wording he uses. However, the last editor was correct in saying that the Greek word "kai" translates as "and". Considering that "the virgin Mary" appears in the genitive, the proper translation would be "and of the Virgin Mary" incorporating both words... Should we stick with Schaff's translation, or should I try to find a translation that preserves both word usages more faithfully to the original Greek? ReformedArsenal: ὁ δὲ θεὸς 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Pretty much the same material as found at Nicene Creed#Comparison between Creed of 325 and Creed of 381 is at Comparison of Nicene Creeds of 325 and 381. It should be merged here, and the Greek removed. -- JFHutson ( talk) 21:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see the value of any foreign language text of the creed in an English language encyclopedia. In the edit summary that reverted my deletion of several foreign language creeds, I was told that they should be retained because "this is where I come when I want to see the Greek or Latin." Perhaps this person should try el:Σύμβολο της Νικαίας and la:Symbolum Nicaenum, which are in the Greek and Latin Wikipedias respectively, or better yet, wikisource:el:Σύμβολο της Πίστεως and wikisource:la:Symbolum Nicænum Costantinopolitanum, since Wikisource is a more appropriate place for the hosting of texts. The English Wikipedia is supposed to be in English. Furthermore, an encyclopedia focuses on facts rather than texts. I think it is appropriate to present one English language text for the same reason we include illustrations. Any issues related to differences between texts and how the text has been translated should be presented in original, sourced prose with short quotations where necessary. -- JFH ( talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The original Greek word translated "one substance" is "homoousios" which etymologically means "of the same substance". However, etymology only tells us what the word meant when it started life not what it means in any later user. ("Nice" is etymologically derived from the Latin "nescius" which means "ignorant".) The exact understanding of the word "homoousios" by the bishops at Nicea is a debatable question. It may well have been understood as doing no more than affirming the full divinity of Jesus Christ. However, later reflection led to the opinion that when applied to the the Godhead it implied identity of substance as the Cappadocian fathers realized. Of the two possible translations: "of the same substance" and "of one substance/being" the second represents more clearly the developed understanding of the Churches and is found in the four BCP's I have consulted: (ECUSA 1977/Australia Revised PB/ASB & the old 1662 BCP) Jpacobb ( talk) 15:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I have clarified the statement on this, with a citation pointing at a relevant article in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, that the Eastern church does not use the Apostle's Creed liturgically. Most Eastern theologians I've read do not disagree with the content of the Apostle's Creed, rather, it, like the Book of Revelations, simply is not a part of their liturgy. I had clarified this statement initially; which lacked a reference of any sort, but another user reverted it. I have reposted it with a reference and hopefully it will remain unmolested; the prior statement was overbroad. Wgw2024 ( talk) 04:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Jpacobb ( talk) 13:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In response to Jpacobb, I would point out that most of the information in the Catholic Encyclopedia accurately describes the history of the Catholic Church and other Christian communities up until that point. A huge swathe of that is still accurate today, given how slowly things change in parts of Christendom, particularly in the realm of the Eastern churches (both Eastern Catholic and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches use the same liturgy now that they used in 1800, albeit with very minor changes in things like the diptychs, the change in the litany regarding the language used in praying for civil authorities, and so on). From the standpoint of liturgical history, 1900 is practically yesterday; most of the Roman Catholic liturgical rites have not changed since then; only the Latin and Ambrosian Rite liturgy has changed substantially since Vatican II. The other rites have either continued unchanged, or with minor changes in music to remove Latinizations, or have been mostly discontinued (for example, the rites of the religious orders, which have become exceedingly rare in the past 40 years, or the Rite of Braga, which has apparently vanished). Many Wikipedia articles are the result of copy-pasta from the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a contemporaneous Jewish Encyclopedia of the same era. I myself have had to go through and clean many of these up, to remove the offensive terms "Monophysite" and "Nestorian", replacing them with "Miaphysite" and "Assyrian Church of the East" (as the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians now maintain they do not adhere to the Monophysite and Nestorian heresies associated with some of their founders, such as Pope Dioscorus and Nestorius, and since this represents a heartfelt attempt at full Orthodoxy we certainly don't want to interfere by referring to them in language they find offensive). Wgw2024 ( talk) 06:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Greetings. The Armenian Version given here is a Modern Eastern Armenian translation. It is a partial translation because the final section of the text, the so-called anathema, has been omitted from this translation. In the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Nicene Creed is most often chanted in its Classical Armenian form, the form into which it was translated from Greek and/or from Syriac around AD 400 at the latest. For a complete text of the Classical Armenian Nicene Creed as it is used in the Armenian Apostolic Church, there are numerous websites one can consult. In writing this, I do not wish to make or imply any judgment as to the quality or character of this Modern Armenian translation, or as to its use in any Armenian Christian liturgical setting.
Robert Phenix, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.199.133.23 ( talk) 09:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
On reading this section again, it struck me as odd that there is mention of the filioque here. First, it is not really ancient (which is the subject of the section), but more Middle Ages. Second, it did not stem from language that originated at any of the ancient ecumenical councils. "Filioque" has always been controversial, and continues to be so. Indeed, this is pointed up again by the small edits made in late July regarding current (and changing?) liturgical application in Roman Catholic churches of eastern orientation, which in itself is an outgrowth of that controversy (how "eastern" to be, sans filioque, as opposed to "western", having it present, and what does that mean to those churches).
Contrast the difference in nature of these matters to that of the question of translations that produce "I believe" or "We believe", which is material that belongs solidly to this section.
As an eastern orthodox, I hesistate to touch "filioque" myself, lest I change something in the text that others find meaningful, however benign it might seem to me. But it does strike me as appropriate that the content be moved, perhaps to the "Filioque Controversy" section. Does that seem controversial to anyone? Evenssteven ( talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please explain the connection between the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and the filoque? EoinRiedy ( talk) 03:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There has been an editing war over this matter. I just now reverted to the pre-war status and am putting it here for discussion. Vincent J. Lipsio ( talk) 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that you (Evensteven?) have not checked any of the external links at
Credo (card game), and I'm confident that you have not played it. It was, and arguably still remains, a relevant tool to teach what happened at Council of Nicaea and/or the first ecumenical council, and how today's Nicene Creed came to be. Is it perfect? Of course not. But it's a reasonable distillation of the history of the event(s) leading up to today's Nicene Creed.
LP-mn ( talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This game belongs on the history pages in the same way that Risk (game) belongs on the World War I article... ReformedArsenal ( talk) 21:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The article referred to John 15:16 – which by all appearances has little to nothing to do with the article topic, and was a typo or mistake – which I have changed to John 15:26 which clearly does refer to the article topic. The Greek texts of both:
—SOURCES: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1012026 AND http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jhn&c=15&t=KJV#s=t_conc_1012016 Misty MH ( talk) 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Minor formatting Misty MH ( talk) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC) KJV & SOURCES: Misty MH ( talk) 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)