[Kolokotronis]

I always found the so called "Athanasian Creed" a bit odd and even of putting. Its pretty clearly Western and not the product of even a local council let alone an ecumenical one. The quoted line, ""One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; ..."" is particularly odd. I am not sure that its heretical in any sense, but it certainly does not teach the same theology as the Nicene Creed does here:

" Καὶ εἰς ἕνα Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ, τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων·

φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο.

Τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ σαρκωθέντα ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς Παρθένου καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα."

Please excuse the Greek, but the actual words are important. Kατελθόντα means came down or descended; σαρκωθέντα is a wonderfully graphic term meaning "was enfleshed" and of course ἐνανθρωπήσαντα means "made man". And it all refers to the Second "Person" of the Trinity "as the Logos", not as the enfleshed Christ. MD, that's not what the Athanasian Creed says at all. The former is dogma, the latter is, well I'm not quite sure what it is or what it is supposed to accomplish.

[Mad Dawg]

Great. A project. I will think about this and maybe do a little looking around on where this "Athanasian" creed came from. I agree that if it came from Athanasius I'm a monkey's uncle. Obviously I am not (yet) troubled by the difference in language. But that's not to say there isn't a difference in language.

The bad news is that my academic time is booked until a talk I'm spozed to give on 3/25. But I can sort of use this question as procrastination from researching and writing "Catholic Social Teaching in Forty Minutes".