Credo in Unum Deum ...
In many liturgical denominations, the congregation recites the Nicene Creed. I wonder, though, how many are aware of what "Nicene" means? Or, for those who know that it refers to the Council of Nicea, how many know what the purpose of this First Ecumenical Council was, and what was the historical context?
It all started with a man named Arius (250-336 AD).
In 306, he got into some trouble with the Bishop of Alexandria when he started following after the schismatic Meletius. The Catholic Encyclopedia records, however, that "a reconciliation followed, and Peter ordained Arius deacon."
His ecclesiastical career already off to a rocky start, he was later excommunicated by the Bishop - only to once again be restored, this time by the new Bishop, Achillas. It was this Achillas who, in 313 AD, made Arius a priest.
In - or around - the year 318, he began to push and promote his views about Jesus Christ. He meant well, no doubt. As an Eastern Christian, he almost assuredly had the Eastern mindset, which is reluctant to bring too much definition to the Holy Mysteries. Those things which God has revealed to us, but which transcend human understanding, ought to be simply believed and reverenced without allowing the mind to become too curious about the particulars.
For example, it was in the Western (Latin) Church that the moment of Eucharistic Consecration was defined. The elements become the Body and Blood of Christ when the words "this is my body," and "this is my blood" are spoken. In the East, however, it is less a question of which particular words of the prayer effect the change - the Anaphora is seen as a whole. When it starts, there is bread and wine; when it is finished (after many prayers which make up the Anaphora), there is the Body and Blood of Christ. To ask which specific words in the Anaphora cause the change is to ask useless questions.
Arius taught that Jesus Christ was - as St. Paul had written - the firstborn of Creation. That is to say, He was the first created being, a view which necessarily excludes the idea that Jesus Christ is one with God the Father. In holding such a view, Arius was only drawing upon a modified version of the Gnostic heresies that had preceded him.
He was condemned by his local synod of Alexandria, but that was far from the end of the story. By the time of his condemnation at Alexandria, he had already won many prelates to his views. History records that he promulgated not only writings in defense of his ideas, but he also wrote songs that encapsulated his teachings - which no doubt helped spread his opinions across the land.
The Church was facing the very serious prospect of a major schism, and Emperor Constantine got worried - not that he was a serious theologian (at one point, Arius convinced the Emperor of his views), but as a serious secular ruler, he saw the danger of ruling a religiously-divided empire.
Thus, an Ecumenical (read: universal) council was suggested, so that all the bishops of the world could come together and reach a universal agreement about this issue. Nicea was chosen as the location, presumably because that location allowed the greatest number of bishops to attend. St. Athanasius records that 318 bishops attended the council.
With the Arian question before them, the Ecumenical Council proceeded to draw up this symbolorum, or "creed":
This Creed, then, is a very precise dogmatic formulation meant to define with crystal clarity the Christian faith regarding the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father. The Creed tells us what Jesus is ("begotten") and what He is not ("made").
It's amazing what importance the Church attached to these words. They insisted that Jesus and God were homo-ousion, "of the same substance"; the Arians insisted Jesus and God were homo-i-ousion, "of similar substance." The difference between orthodoxy and heresy in this case was whether or not you added one letter (the Greek iota) to the word.
The Council insisted that these issues were non-negotiable. No room for "disagreement in fraternal understanding," or "unity in diversity" here.
This Council reveals something important about the nature, authority, and force of Tradition in relation to Scripture. One Protestant historian writes, "The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were capable of being explained away. Athanasius describes with much wit and penetration how he saw them nodding and winking to each other when the orthodox [bishops] proposed expressions which they had thought of a way of escaping from the force of."
This really goes a long way towards demonstrating not only the early Church's regard for Scripture's authority, but also of the absolute necessity of an orthodox Tradition which serves as an interpretive grid, through which the Scriptures must be read.
The Bishops were ready to use sola scriptura at the Council, but they ran into a very practical problem (which we still face today): Scripture can be used by heretics to support their novel teachings. Thus, the Church had to employ a word never used by Scripture: homoousion. Were they wrong to insist that this word be used? Were they "adding to Scripture" their "man-made traditions" by doing so?
Not at all. They were demonstrating the greatest reverence for Scripture, by setting boundaries around the Holy Book which would prevent it from being violated and defiled by heretical teachings.
And yet, has not homoousion become just as indispensable to Christians as the very Scriptures themselves? Who can separate the two? True, many do not know the word - but 1,700 years of usage has firmly fixed this word as the silent guardian of Scripture. You read Our Lord say "the Father is greater than I," and you are not for a moment troubled or tempted to believe that God the Father is a different being - why? Because homoousion has, in concept if not in actual word, been passed down to you as part of the Church's Tradition - you received Scripture in one hand, and Tradition in the other (or, depending on your demonination, parts of that Tradition).
I always think of this whenever someone says something like, "Where is the word transubstantiation found in Scripture? Or the word indulgences? Or Purgatory?" Brother, if you want to go down that road, then we're going to have to go all the way back to Nicea and start from scratch - with no guarantee that we'll walk away with the right understanding of the Trinity.
So keep this in mind the next time you recite the Nicene Creed - you are, consciously or otherwise, both receiving and preserving an ancient Tradition of the Faith. You recite those words because holy men who went before you took the time to think through these issues and hammer out these definitions.
(This also may prove to be an effective apologetic the next time the JW's come to your door; you can sit and argue with them for hours over the meaning of Scripture, or you can simply recite the Nicene Creed to them, tell them this has been the faith of the Church for 1,700 years, and ask them why you should abandon the ancient Faith for their novel ideas)
************************
It was in 381, at the First Council of Constantinople, that the Creed was modified somewhat, bringing it closer to the form we recite today:
Several centuries later, the phrase "And in the Holy Ghost ... who proceedeth from the Father" was modified by the addition of the word Filioque, "and the Son." This is the form of the Creed which is recited today.
It all started with a man named Arius (250-336 AD).
In 306, he got into some trouble with the Bishop of Alexandria when he started following after the schismatic Meletius. The Catholic Encyclopedia records, however, that "a reconciliation followed, and Peter ordained Arius deacon."
His ecclesiastical career already off to a rocky start, he was later excommunicated by the Bishop - only to once again be restored, this time by the new Bishop, Achillas. It was this Achillas who, in 313 AD, made Arius a priest.
In - or around - the year 318, he began to push and promote his views about Jesus Christ. He meant well, no doubt. As an Eastern Christian, he almost assuredly had the Eastern mindset, which is reluctant to bring too much definition to the Holy Mysteries. Those things which God has revealed to us, but which transcend human understanding, ought to be simply believed and reverenced without allowing the mind to become too curious about the particulars.
For example, it was in the Western (Latin) Church that the moment of Eucharistic Consecration was defined. The elements become the Body and Blood of Christ when the words "this is my body," and "this is my blood" are spoken. In the East, however, it is less a question of which particular words of the prayer effect the change - the Anaphora is seen as a whole. When it starts, there is bread and wine; when it is finished (after many prayers which make up the Anaphora), there is the Body and Blood of Christ. To ask which specific words in the Anaphora cause the change is to ask useless questions.
Arius taught that Jesus Christ was - as St. Paul had written - the firstborn of Creation. That is to say, He was the first created being, a view which necessarily excludes the idea that Jesus Christ is one with God the Father. In holding such a view, Arius was only drawing upon a modified version of the Gnostic heresies that had preceded him.
He was condemned by his local synod of Alexandria, but that was far from the end of the story. By the time of his condemnation at Alexandria, he had already won many prelates to his views. History records that he promulgated not only writings in defense of his ideas, but he also wrote songs that encapsulated his teachings - which no doubt helped spread his opinions across the land.
The Church was facing the very serious prospect of a major schism, and Emperor Constantine got worried - not that he was a serious theologian (at one point, Arius convinced the Emperor of his views), but as a serious secular ruler, he saw the danger of ruling a religiously-divided empire.
Thus, an Ecumenical (read: universal) council was suggested, so that all the bishops of the world could come together and reach a universal agreement about this issue. Nicea was chosen as the location, presumably because that location allowed the greatest number of bishops to attend. St. Athanasius records that 318 bishops attended the council.
With the Arian question before them, the Ecumenical Council proceeded to draw up this symbolorum, or "creed":
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (gennethenta), not made, being of one substance (homoousion, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven.
And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead.
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost.
This Creed, then, is a very precise dogmatic formulation meant to define with crystal clarity the Christian faith regarding the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father. The Creed tells us what Jesus is ("begotten") and what He is not ("made").
It's amazing what importance the Church attached to these words. They insisted that Jesus and God were homo-ousion, "of the same substance"; the Arians insisted Jesus and God were homo-i-ousion, "of similar substance." The difference between orthodoxy and heresy in this case was whether or not you added one letter (the Greek iota) to the word.
The Council insisted that these issues were non-negotiable. No room for "disagreement in fraternal understanding," or "unity in diversity" here.
And whosoever shall say:
1) that there was a time when the Son of God was not
2) that before he was begotten he was not
3) that he was made of things that were not
4) that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father]
5) that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion
- all who so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
This Council reveals something important about the nature, authority, and force of Tradition in relation to Scripture. One Protestant historian writes, "The Fathers of the Council at Nice were at one time ready to accede to the request of some of the bishops and use only scriptural expressions in their definitions. But, after several attempts, they found that all these were capable of being explained away. Athanasius describes with much wit and penetration how he saw them nodding and winking to each other when the orthodox [bishops] proposed expressions which they had thought of a way of escaping from the force of."
This really goes a long way towards demonstrating not only the early Church's regard for Scripture's authority, but also of the absolute necessity of an orthodox Tradition which serves as an interpretive grid, through which the Scriptures must be read.
The Bishops were ready to use sola scriptura at the Council, but they ran into a very practical problem (which we still face today): Scripture can be used by heretics to support their novel teachings. Thus, the Church had to employ a word never used by Scripture: homoousion. Were they wrong to insist that this word be used? Were they "adding to Scripture" their "man-made traditions" by doing so?
Not at all. They were demonstrating the greatest reverence for Scripture, by setting boundaries around the Holy Book which would prevent it from being violated and defiled by heretical teachings.
And yet, has not homoousion become just as indispensable to Christians as the very Scriptures themselves? Who can separate the two? True, many do not know the word - but 1,700 years of usage has firmly fixed this word as the silent guardian of Scripture. You read Our Lord say "the Father is greater than I," and you are not for a moment troubled or tempted to believe that God the Father is a different being - why? Because homoousion has, in concept if not in actual word, been passed down to you as part of the Church's Tradition - you received Scripture in one hand, and Tradition in the other (or, depending on your demonination, parts of that Tradition).
I always think of this whenever someone says something like, "Where is the word transubstantiation found in Scripture? Or the word indulgences? Or Purgatory?" Brother, if you want to go down that road, then we're going to have to go all the way back to Nicea and start from scratch - with no guarantee that we'll walk away with the right understanding of the Trinity.
So keep this in mind the next time you recite the Nicene Creed - you are, consciously or otherwise, both receiving and preserving an ancient Tradition of the Faith. You recite those words because holy men who went before you took the time to think through these issues and hammer out these definitions.
(This also may prove to be an effective apologetic the next time the JW's come to your door; you can sit and argue with them for hours over the meaning of Scripture, or you can simply recite the Nicene Creed to them, tell them this has been the faith of the Church for 1,700 years, and ask them why you should abandon the ancient Faith for their novel ideas)
************************
It was in 381, at the First Council of Constantinople, that the Creed was modified somewhat, bringing it closer to the form we recite today:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, that is of the substance of the Father, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom all things were made, both in heaven and earth.
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary, and was made man, was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and on the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and from thence he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father; who, with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.
Several centuries later, the phrase "And in the Holy Ghost ... who proceedeth from the Father" was modified by the addition of the word Filioque, "and the Son." This is the form of the Creed which is recited today.
<< Home