Skip to comments.What’s the Point of Creeds?
Posted on 05/01/2009 10:31:49 PM PDT by Salvation
My heart was moved, but my head did not yet understand. What do these Catholics see in their creeds anyway? How can a set of words be worth dying for? Why have wars been fought over a word? What's the point of creeds?
Then I read Dorothy Sayers' little masterpiece Creed or Chaos?, and I was answered.
The question can be answered by remembering another question, the one Pilate asked Christ in another life-or-death situation: What is truth?
And that is the point of the creeds: truth. In fact, Primal Truth, the truth about God. That is why the words of the Creed are sacred words. Just as God's material houses are sacred, so are his verbal houses. Of course God is no more confined to words, even the sacred words of creeds, than he is confined to the sacred buildings of tent or temple, church or cathedral. But both are holy, set apart, sacred. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Faith has two dimensions: the objective and the subjective. Creeds express these two dimensions: I believe in God. There is an I, a believing subject, and there is God, the object of belief. There is the psychology of believing, which is something in us, and there is the theology of belief, which is the Truth believed. There is the eye, and there is the light. And woe to him who mistakes the one for the other.
When the Church formulated her creeds, humanity was more interested in the light than in the eye. God providentially arranged for the great creeds of the Church to be formulated in ages that cared passionately about objective truth. By modern standards, they ignored the subjective, psychological dimension of faith.
But we moderns fall into the opposite and far worse extreme: we are so interested in the subject that we often forget or even scorn the object. Psychology has become our new religion, as Paul Vitz and Kirk Kilpatrick have both so brilliantly shown.
Yet it's the object, not the subjective act, of faith that makes the creeds sacred. They are sacred because Truth is sacred, not because believing is sacred. Creeds do not say merely what we believe, but what is. Creeds wake us from our dreams and prejudices into objective reality. Creeds do not confine us in little cages, as the modern world thinks; creeds free us into the outdoors, into the real world where the winds of heaven whip around our heads.
What is the object, the Truth? Saint Thomas says that the primary object of faith is not words and statements but God himself. We believe in God. Further, as Christians we know God most fully in Christ, God incarnate, and as Catholics we know Christ through Holy Mother Church and her creeds.
When human reason raved, in the Arian heresy, that Christ could not possibly be both fully human and fully divine, Athanasius stood against the world; today we know Christ as he really is because of Athanasius and his creed.
When contemporary forms of the same heresy water down the strong meat of Christ, the Church again braves the media, the mouth of the world, and calmly thunders the full truth about Christ. True, it is Christ rather than words that is the primary object of the Christian's faith, but what Christ? Here words are crucial.
Two extremes must be avoided: intellectualism and anti-intellectualism, worshipping the words and scorning the words. If the ancient mind tended to the former extreme, the modern mind certainly tends to the latter. Both errors are deadly.
Intellectualism misses the core of faith, both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, the core of faith is God, who is a Person, not a concept. Subjectively, the core of faith is the will, not the intellect. Though informed by the intellect, it is the will that freely chooses to believe.
Faith is not the relation between an intellect and an idea, but the relation between an I and a Thou. That is why faith makes the difference between heaven and hell. God does not send you to hell for flunking his theology exam but for willingly divorcing from him.
Anti-intellectualism also misses the core of faith, both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, because its faith has no object. It calls faith an experience (the faith experience) a term never used by our Lord, Scripture, the creeds, or the popes. Modern people are constantly saying, Have faith! But faith in what or whom? They often mean have faith in faith. But faith in faith in what?
Anti-intellectualism is a modern reaction against the modern narrowing of reason to scientific reason. When the ancients and medievals called man a rational animal, they did not mean a computerized camera mounted in an ape. They meant by reason understanding, wisdom, insight, and conscience as well as logical calculation.
Modern thinkers often forget this dimension of man and think only of reasoning (as in calculating) and feeling. And because they see that faith is not a matter of reasoning, they conclude that it must be a matter of feeling. Thus I believe comes to mean I feel and creeds simply have no place. Faith becomes a leap in the dark instead of a leap in the light.
Many of the Church's greatest saints have been doctors of the Church, theologians, philosophers, intellectuals: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure. Anti-intellectuals like Tatian and Tertullian and Luther (who called reason the devil's whore) often die excommunicated, as heretics.
The Church repeating what Saint Paul said in Romans 1: 19-20 even teaches as a matter of faith that God's existence can be known by reason, independent of faith!
The Catholic ideal is the complete person, with a cool head and a warm heart, a hard head and a soft heart. The mere intellectual has a cool heart; the anti-intellectual has a hot head. The intellectual has a hard heart, the anti-intellectual has a soft head. The Church puts the severed parts in the right order because the Church has the blueprint: Christ (Eph 4:13). The Church has always had a conservative head and a liberal heart, and the world has never understood her, just as it never understood Christ.
Creeds are to the head what good works are to the heart: creeds express truth, the head's food, as good works express love, the heart's food. Both are sacred.
If there is any doubt about the need for creeds, it can be settled by fact: the fact that the Church established by Christ, the Church Christ promised to guide into all truth, has in fact formulated and taught creeds.
The first bishops, the apostles, formulated the Church's first, shortest, and most important creed, the Apostles' Creed. Whether the apostles literally wrote it, as tradition says, or whether it was written by their disciples to preserve the apostles' teaching, in either case it is the teaching of the apostles. When we recite this creed we speak in unison with them.
There is a strange notion abroad that creeds oppress, repress, or suppress people. That is like saying that light or food is repressive. The practical purpose of the creeds is truth, and truth is light and food for the soul.
Each of the Church's creeds was written in response to a heresy, to combat it not by force but by truth, as light combats darkness. Creeds are truth in labeling. Those who disbelieve in truth or scorn it, or who disbelieve in our ability to know it, see creeds as power plays.
The media's hysterical rhetoric about the pope's labeling Hans Kung's theology as non-Catholic theology is a good example of the world's utter confusion here. The media conjured up visions of the return of the Inquisition simply because the pope said, in effect, that Kung's teachings about Christ should not be confused with the Church's teachings about Christ. But this reaction should be expected if we remember the words of Christ himself (read Jn 3:17-21 prayerfully).
The most important creeds were those formulated by the Church's ecumenical (universal) councils in response to the most important heresies, the heresies about Christ; and of these the two most important were Chalcedon and Nicaea. (The Nicene Creed is the one we recite each Sunday at Mass.) The Church's most recent council, Vatican II, formulated no new creeds and no new doctrines but applied the old ones to new needs and situations.
The pope called an extraordinary synod of bishops in 1985 in part to clarify Catholic confusion concerning Vatican II. Anyone who would take the trouble to read the actual documents (which are much, much longer than creeds) would see how traditional they are. The spirit of Vatican II conjured by the media and some theologians is a phantom, a ghostlike half-person, with the fatal split between head and heart, creed and deed, theology and social action, love of God and love of man, eternal principles and updated applications.
But the pope is a bridge builder, a pontifex; he will patch what the world has torn. And the blueprint he will follow in doing this will be the historic, never-abandoned creeds of the Church of Christ.
Kreeft, Peter. What's the Point of Creeds? Chapter 17 in Fundamentals of the Faith. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), 107-111.
Reprinted by permission of Ignatius Press. All rights reserved. Fundamentals of the Faith - ISBN 0-89870-202-X.
Creed 7: Ascended Into Heaven
Beginning Catholic: Creeds: Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Basic Tenets of Catholicism [Ecumenical]
The Catholic Nicene Creed
We Believe in One God...: The Nicene Creed at Mass [Catholic/Orthodox Caucus]
I Believe [Apostle's Creed]
Why the Creed Doesn't Mention the Eucharist
The Apostles' Creed in Public and Private Worship
More Than Our Father [The Creed]
The Nicene Creed in Greek and Latin
The Creed - latest revisions proposed by ICEL
Creeds are unifying statements of faith. They were developed by the Early Church as a test of Orthodoxy and as a response to heresies.
I find the creeds to be powerful statements. I wish more Protestant groups would use them or use them more often.
Stating your faith in common with other believers is a very powerful experience.
We say the Nicene Creed every Sunday. What church to you attend? Do you say a creed each Sunday?
We also start the Rosary with the Apostles’ Creed.
I attend a non-denominational (VERY CONSERVATIVE) Christian Church. We do say the Apostles creed regularly but not every Sunday. I have been to several Mainline protestant churches that do not say any creed at all.
In this day where false teachings abound, I firmly believe that Christians need to be held more strongly to the contents of the Creeds.
The Episcopal church says the same creeds every week, yet the church is corrupt root and branch. I admire the beauty of the liturgy, but we are done for if we rest in it thinking that rote recitation will maintain true teaching.
The Episcopal church says the same creeds every week, yet the church is corrupt root and branch. I admire the beauty of the liturgy, but we are done for if we rest in it thinking that rote recitation will maintain true teaching.
- - - — - - -
I agree rote recitation is not an answer. The Episcopal church (and many other churches) have erred in not holding its adherents to the beliefs found the CONTENT of the creeds. That is what needs to change. My church holds true to the content of the creeds regardless of how often they say them.
I also know several churches that never say any creeds yet hold true to their contents.
Liberal churches who recite the creeds, yet teach opposite doctrine are like the Pharisees whom Christ speaks about in Matthew 15:18:
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.”
Former Pepsicolian here.
In terms of Salvation’s choice (a few posts above) of worshipping the words or scorning them, SOME Pepsicolians manage to do both! I heard the rector of a nearby parish call the creed a “poem”! My ample behind it’s a poem! But one could see that what he was doing was giving himself permission to say it without meaning it.
But, saying it beats not saying it (or them) for the reason that out there is some young kid who doesn’t yet realize that the man in a dress is lying. That kid is wrestling with the creeds, trying to understand them and why we say them and what they’re about. So the insincere liturgical blather of the priest is being used by God to touch the heart and mind of one of His elect.
I know whereof I speak here ...
The Catholic creed!...
The Catholic creed is why “ The Catholics “ were not allowed to write our constitution...
It’s all about “ We The Catholics, “ not “We The People. “
Not a bad article through about here:
“What is the object, the Truth? Saint Thomas says that the primary object of faith is not words and statements but God himself. We believe in God. Further, as Christians we know God most fully in Christ, God incarnate, and as Catholics we know Christ through Holy Mother Church and her creeds.”
This is pure, patristic Christian theology.
But he falls right off the cliff, displaying his Protestant roots after this:
“Objectively, the core of faith is God, who is a Person, not a concept.”
God is not a “Person” or a “Persona”. God is ineffable, the “Being which creates beingness” We believe in God but God does not “exist” in any sense we comprehend. Any other concept leads to anthropomorphism, as for example this:
“God does not send you to hell for flunking his theology exam but for willingly divorcing from him.”
Nonsense. God doesn’t send anyone to hell. God’s mercy and love fall on the good and the evil alike, like rain on the earth. To say that God’s grace doesn’t fall on the evil is like saying the sun doesn’t shine on the blind! We can grow to hate God so much that His love becomes a fire which torments us just as it burnishes and refines those who love Him.
I am always pleased when a Protestant returns to The Church; it is cause for rejoicing. But The Church has an obligation to properly catechise people before they begin to “preach”.
What you posted is an adulterated Nicene Creed. The Nicene-Constantinopolean Creed never had "and the Son."
I am not sure why the Latin Church has so many Creeds. The Church agreed to one Creed, acclaimed at an Ecumenical Council, believed infallible and guided by the Holy Spirit. Is that not enough for some individuals in your Church? Or is making an imprint of one's own ego so important as to try to embellish something considered infallible?
Intellectialism is hardly a problem. Faux intellectuals are. The Obama regime is filled with faux intellectuals. Otherwise they are all rather thuggish and dull witted.
When I was a child we said the Apostles Creed and/or the Nicene Creed every Sunday...
I had to learn them by heart and recite them to be confirmed into the Anglican church at 14...
In a search for some church in Toronto that contained people who would welcome me, I attended a United Church in my neighbourhood (that turned out to be the wealthiest church in the city). They required that you only believe 85% of the Creed in order to be a member. (They were actively hostile to new members, and anti-American sermons were preached routinely by their South African pastor). I think a Creed is either or — you do not get to pick which bits you will believe and which you will not.
I have always thought that in addition to a statement of facts, the Creed is food for meditation.
This is an excellent point. As Catholics, we profess our faith each Sunday by reciting the Nicene Creed, yet I wonder how many do so out of rote rather than truly reflecting on the truths expressed therein. To ensure we have a firm uderstanding of our faith (i.e. what we state each Sunday), the Church has given us the catechism. It breaks the Nicene Creed down into its elements and then links each statement to Scripture. For example:
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"
26 We begin our profession of faith by saying: "I believe" or "We believe". Before expounding the Church's faith, as confessed in the Creed, celebrated in the liturgy and lived in observance of God's commandments and in prayer, we must first ask what "to believe" means. Faith is man's response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life. Thus we shall consider first that search (Chapter One), then the divine Revelation by which God comes to meet man (Chapter Two), and finally the response of faith (Chapter Three).
MAN'S CAPACITY FOR GOD
27 The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. Only in God will he find the truth and happiness he never stops searching for:
- The dignity of man rests above all on the fact that he is called to communion with God. This invitation to converse with God is addressed to man as soon as he comes into being. For if man exists it is because God has created him through love, and through love continues to hold him in existence. He cannot live fully according to truth unless he freely acknowledges that love and entrusts himself to his creator.1
28 In many ways, throughout history down to the present day, men have given expression to their quest for God in their religious beliefs and behavior: in their prayers, sacrifices, rituals, meditations, and so forth. These forms of religious expression, despite the ambiguities they often bring with them, are so universal that one may well call man a religious being:
- From one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him - though indeed he is not far from each one of us. For "in him we live and move and have our being."2
1 Vatican Council II, GS 19 § 1.
2 Acts 17:26-28.
You can see more of how this comes together at the following link.
K ... you are being too scrupulous with the text. Catholics believe the same thing, even Protestant converts. Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant, words limit our ability to express the ineffable.
40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.
41 All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, "for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator".15
42 God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God - "the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable" - with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.
43 Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that "between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude";17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18
15 Wis 13:5.
16 Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, Anaphora.
17 Lateran Council IV:DS 806.
18 St. Thomas Aquinas, SCG I,30.
Having previously been an altar server in the Roman Catholic Church, you already know this.
Live each day with courage.
Take pride in your work.
Always finish what you start.
Do what has to be done.
Be tough, but fair.
When you make a promise, keep it.
Ride for the brand.
Talk less and say more.
Remember that some things aren't for sale.
Know where to draw the line.
Life is hard, it is harder if you are stupid.
Nemo me impune lacessit.
"Courage is when you are scared to death, saddle up and ride out anyway.
Perhaps dear Kolokotronis was making the (IMO correct) point that God isn’t a person, but God the Father is (like God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are too). IOW, to correctly convey the Triune concept of God, it’s best to not refer to “God” as a person, but only refer to a person of the Trinity when speaking of such. In the context of the text in dispute, it seems the author was speaking of God the Son, so in that sense he (the author) was right, but in a technical sense it can be said that the author should have been more clear. (i.e. saying “Objectively, the core of faith is God the Son, who is a Person, not a concept.”)
We ALL know that God is not a person. Hence, the clarification posted from the CCC.
They say that language is the worst form of communication because it fails to properly express what is in our hearts. This discussion is a good example.
I think the passage above sums up the whole issue very nicely. Thanks for posting.
**In this day where false teachings abound, I firmly believe that Christians need to be held more strongly to the contents of the Creeds.**
The Nicene Creed is a poem? Outlandish!
the creed is stated daily in every Catholic church.
So, how to you explain the Trinity without saying “Three persons in one God?”
Three ‘beings’ in one God?
Does someone have a Latin.Vulgate of the Creeds?
**(They were actively hostile to new members, and anti-American sermons were preached routinely by their South African pastor).**
Wow! Sounds like you ran into another Rev. Wright! Was Obama there? LOL! <sarc off
cute, but I do not worship ANY movies stars....only God.
To your point, the various creeds and confessions of the historic church have been a useful means of codifying and focusing key Biblical doctrines, and by extension are very useful in matters of church membership (covenants) or forming definitions of heresy for Protestants. An interesting problem arises, as many "Protestant" churches, especially evangelical and non-denominational ones, reject the creeds as binding on themselves re matters of discipline or doctrine. How does St Simeon the Patient Reformed Church know that First Fundamental Independent Baptist Church of Christ Unified down the street is trinitarian and orthodox, if FFIBCoCU refuses to publish (or even write down on paper) their "what we believe" document, and also refuses to deny or affirm SStPRC's own "what we believe" document?
There is no simple way of determining whether some churches are "in the fold" of authentic Christianity or are apostate/heretical. We (the pro-creedal Christians) have to "take it on faith" that they (the anti-creedal Christians) are really our brothers in Christ. Now to some extent I'm exaggerating here in order to prove a point, but I think the question is a valid one.
I would never suggest that a creed is a substitute for Scripture itself, nor would I suffer accusations that creeds are fabrications of doctrine. I would say that creeds are excellent summaries of where Scripture speaks to certain subjects, and exist as historic documents as to who took what side in ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes. IMO creeds were wisely formed to "redeem the time" (Eph. 5:16) when testing or investigating the confessions of a professing believer, and continue to be smart tools for the churches' use today.
Only those believers that individually and institutionally submit themselves to the historic creeds of the church can be said to be "in agreement" doctrinally. By their very nature, creeds define what two or more groups' shared beliefs are, and they provide a useful way for both insiders and outsiders to test themselves on whether they really are doctrinally and congregationally unified.
There was no prohibition, real or implied, on Catholic representatives at the Constitutional convention of 1787. Daniel Carroll's presence there alone squashes the notion. I believe that there was one other Catholic there as well, though I don't recall his name. The only reason there were so few Catholic signers is that, at the time, there were proportionately few Catholics here. That's the only reason. Stop sounding like a Know Nothing Party member.
And there is another implication in your statement. Do you aver that it is more important to follow your country or to follow God first? God or country. You choose. Your statement seems to imply that sincere believers (in this case, Catholics) must bow to amorphous concepts of egalitarian politics ("the people") every time. I submit to you that that is a strange notion from the Christian POV. Indeed, it's that very mindset that has led to the collapse of our Christian heritage, insofar as people cave to the notion that we must subsume our convictions in the face of raw poll numbers on a host of moral issues these days. No. God comes first, then our fellow men! If you are any kind of Christian at all, how can you really take issue with this?
Are you saying John Wayne is not god?
Keep up the good work is my only comment. It’s just like the two extremes C.S. Lewis once pointed out with regard to Satan when he said the two biggest mistakes we make are to (1) give him all the credit (i.e. blame) and attribute all of our sins to him(ala Flip Wilson - “The Devil made me do it”) and (2) the deny he exists or think that he does not have a hand in many things. I was taught there are three things we struggle against, “the world, the flesh, and the devil” and I would say that intellectualism is certainly the flesh as our pride and our own sense of ego is often at the heart of our trying to assert our intellect over scripture. Meanwhile, we are to worship God with our “mind” so to be a silly-minded person that does not consider the scripture carefully in its context is, likewise, foolish.
Hey - you are doing a good job on here!
You do have some interesting points here.
“Catholics believe the same thing, even Protestant converts.”
I know, NYer, I know. I am not saying the Latin Church doesn’t have an orthodox belief in this regard. I am saying that the formerly Protestant preacher is either just plain wrong, or reverting to a Protestant mindset and vocabulary, neither of which are appropriate if one purports to be speaking the Truth as The Church knows it.
“So, how to you explain the Trinity without saying Three persons in one God?
Three beings in one God?
Easy, learn to understand the Creed in Greek, or Syriac/Arabic, or Church Slavonic, or Latin (without the filioque as is normative for catechesis). The whole “person” idea comes from the Latin “persona” which means more a “mask” than “person”. The word to use is “hypostasis”, which is used even in English, thus three hypostasia in one ousia. Theologically, these words are used when discussing the Trinity in most languages because they avoid the problem of anthropomorphism.
St. Patrick’s shamrock is pretty good, too!
You got me there. Need to look up this word!
Orthodox don't. Last time I checked, it's "Trinity one in essence and undivided." Very carefully chosen words.
If each "person" of the Holy Trinity is mentioned, the term used is hypostasis, which does not mean "persona" (as in Vulgate tranlastion, a "mask"), nor does it mean a human person. Hypostasis is substantial reality, an essence, not a person.
Faith and reason, the good blend.
You know what’s sad? You hang around Pepsicolians long enough and you’re no longer surprised. Just depressed.
Well thanks for asking...
10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome,
1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
As you can see, we are warned against following Peter, or any of his supposed apostolic heirs...
And of course everyone knows Peter would never let a man bow down to him, to pay him reverence...
That should throw up very large 'danger' signs to you guys that follow and are obedient to a pope...Especially one who claims to be a descendant of one of the apostles...
3. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one;
Sorry...Jesus became the ONE sacrifice FOR US so we don't need sacraments...We can do nothing...Jesus did it all...
5. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead;
God never asked you for a sacrifice...In fact, a sacrifice by Catholics or anyone would be an abomination to God...The only sacrifice God wants is a sacrifice of thanksgiving...Be thankful for what He has done...
God already provided the 'Sacrifice', His only Son...What can you do to top that??? You going to offer His Son again??? Or continually offer His Son???
You can't offer the Son of God to God for a sacrifice...God already offered His Son for a sacrifice for YOU...
And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.
Apparently that depends on what the definition of what evil is, eh, or what is, is...
You can claim you can sin every day, all day long but your sins aren't bad sins...
That IS a sin...It's the sin of willful delusion...
This true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved,
And there's the biggest delusion of all...More than half of your church voted in a pro child killer as president...This is God's church??? Not the one I read about in the scripture...
- Credo in unum Deum,
- Patrem omnipoténtem,
- Factórem cæli et terræ,
- Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
- Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
- Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
- Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
- Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
- Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
- Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
- Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
- Descéndit de cælis.
- Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
- Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
- Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
- Passus, et sepúltus est,
- Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
- Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
- Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
- Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
- Cuius regni non erit finis.
- Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
- Qui ex Patre Filióque procédit.
- Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
- Qui locútus est per prophétas.
- Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
- Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
- Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
- Et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.
The Latin text adds "Deum de Deo" and "Filioque" to the Greek.
I guess I shouldn't read any of his epistles any more..
" Πιστεύω εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα, Παντοκράτορα, ποιητὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς, ὁρατῶν τε πάντων καὶ ἀοράτων.
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. Σταυρωθέντα τε ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα. Καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς. Καὶ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ καθεζόμενον ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Πατρός. Καὶ πάλιν ἐρχόμενον μετὰ δόξης κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, οὗ τῆς βασιλείας οὐκ ἔσται τέλος.
Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν.
Εἰς μίαν, Ἁγίαν, Καθολικὴν καὶ Ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν.
Ὁμολογῶ ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν. Προσδοκῶ ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν. Καὶ ζωὴν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος.
Its worth noting that even we don't recite it precisely as the Councils dogmatized it. In the proceedings of the Councils, it opens with "Πιστεύομεν", We believe, instead of "Πιστεύω", I believe. The dogmatic Trinitarian definition starts at the first word, "Πιστεύω", and extends through "τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν", Who spoke by the prophets. Every time I look at these words, I am struck that these are precisely the words used by the Council Fathers almost 700 years ago, written in the very language they used.
You mean 1700 years.
The new English translation will restore “I believe...”; presently, in Novus Ordo we use the plural form.