Nicene Creed from Catholic Perspectives
Introduction
Through the centuries, in the
Church, many professions or symbols of faith known also Creeds, have been
articulated in response to the needs of the different eras; the creeds of the
different apostolic and ancient Churches, eg. the Athanasian Creed; the
professions of faith of certain Councils, such as Toledo, Lateran, Lyons, Trent;
or symbols of certain Popes eg. The credo of the people of God of Paul VI. It
can be noted that none of those creeds from the different stages in the life of
the Church can be considered superseded or irrelevant. In fact, they help us
today to attain and deepen the faith of all times by means of the different
summaries made of it.
Among all the creeds, two occupy a special place in the Church’s life;
One is known as “The Apostles’
Creed” which is considered to be a faithful summary of the apostle’s faith. It
is the ancient baptismal symbol of the Church of Rome. The Apostles’ Creed has
become one of daily prayers recited by every Catholic in his/her day to day
life.
Another is “The Nicene Creed”
which draws it authority from the fact that it stems from the first two
ecumenical councils; the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 and the
first ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381. This Nicene
Constantinopolitan Creed gradually spread through East and West from the late 5th
century, but it was not adopted in Rome until 1014. Today it remains common to
all the great Churches of both East and West. The Nicene Creed is recited or
sung in Catholic Liturgical services especially on Sunday Masses and on Feasts
and Solemnities throughout the Catholic world.
The first general council of Nicaea, symbol of Nicaea (325)
According to tradition, the
Council of Nicaea was the first in the series of ecumenical councils, held in
325. It was called by the Emperor Constantine I soon after his conquest of the
Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire (324). Not long after he had become the
Western Emperor in 312, he convoked the Western Council of Arles in 314, to try
to settle the Donatist question. Thus when he became ruler of the Eastern
provinces and found the Arian controversy threatening the unity of the Eastern
Church, he immediately thought of a large council as the hoped for solution. It
was not surprising to see that since the issue of Arianism promised to divide
the church, the emperor who hoped Christianity would bring peace and unity to
the empire, convened the First Ecumenical (meaning worldwide) Council at Nicea
in 325 .
In this way, the Council was convened
by Emperor to affirm the faith against the Arian crisis. To the Council were
present 318 Fathers coming both from the East and the West. It was held at Nicaea from June 16
to August 25,325. It was noted that a representative was also sent from Rome by
Pope Sylvester to attend the Council.
In that early the 4th
century, a priest by the name of Arius lived in Alexandria. He believed that
the Word (Jesus Christ), though perfect in every way, was a creature of God. As
he believed that the Son was a creature, he did not know the Father perfectly
or accurately. In this way, Arius denied the equality of the Son with the
Father; the Son was understood to have been created in time by the Father and
to have been used by Him as His instrument for the creation of the world. In
such a way he denied any real deity to the Son and the Spirit. In fairness to
Arius, it must be said that Subordinationism (inferiority of the Son to the
Father), was quite general in the first two centuries. Arius’s views were
directly opposed by his bishop named Alexander, who suspended him from office.
Although not yet a bishop,
Athanasius of Alexandria, a student of Bishop Alexander, represented the
opposing view, that the Son was equal to the Father and should be named God.
The assembled bishops (i.e.mostly parish pastors) very early decided against
Arius, but they spent most of the summer debating among themselves on the
composition of an orthodox creed.
It was one thing to deny heresy,
but quite another to reach a consensus the appropriate teaching of the church.
In the end of the key word which excluded the Arius was that the Son “was of
one substance” with the Father, in Greek known as homoousios. This the Arians
could not accept. Further the Council said he was “begotten, not made” which
opposed their notion of the Son as a creature. To add emphasis to Christ’s
deity, they affirmed that he “was God from God, Light from Light, true God from
true God”. As the third person of the Trinity, the Fathers at Nicea simply
ended their creed with the words, “And (we believe) in the Holy Spirit.
The Nicene Creed
“ We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things,
visible and invisible. And the one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only
begotten generated from the Father, that is, from the being (ousia) of the
Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not
made, one in being (homoousios)with the Father, through whom all things were
made, those in heaven and those on earth. For us men and for our salvation He
came down, and became flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the
third day. He ascended to heavens and shall come again to judge the living and
the dead. And in the Holy Spirit.
Added with words of condemnation:
As for those who say: “There was
a time when He was not” and “ Before being begotten He was not” , and who
declare that He was made from nothing , or that the Son of God is from a
different substance or being, that is, created or subject to change and
alteration, such person, the Catholic Church condemns.
After discussions, the teaching
of the Alexandrian priest, Arius, that the logos was ontologically subordinate
to the Father and that, therefore, the Logos was divine only in an attenuated
sense, was rejected. The famous and controversial term “homoousios” was
adopted. Thus the basic teaching of the council was the modest, albeit
essential, one that the Logos and the Father were ontologically equal. Since it
specified no more than this, controversies on the Trinitarian question
continued at least until the Second Ecumenical Council in 381.
Niceno-Contantinopolitan Creed in connection with Nicene Creed
The second ecumenical council,
held at Constantinople in 381, kept this expression in its formulation of the
Nicene Creed and confessed “the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of
the Father, light from light , true God from true God, begotten not made,
consubstantial with the Father” (Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed; cf.DS 150)
“ We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and
earth, of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only begotten Son of God, generated from the Father before all ages, Light from
Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being (homoousios)
with the Father, through whom all things were made. For us men and for our
salvation He came down from the heavens, and became flesh from the Holy Spirit
and the Virgin Mary and was made man. For our sake too He was crucified under
Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. On the third day He rose again
according to the Scriptures, He ascended to the heavens and is seated at the
right hand of the Father. He shall come again in glory to judge the living and
the dead; to His Kingdom there will be no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord
and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father
and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
And in one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for
the forgiveness of sins. We expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of
the world to come. Amen.
The primary arguments in Nicene Creed
The primary arguments in Nicene
Creed was focused mainly on the deity of the Son. They are three:
1. Equality
of the Son with the Father:
Unless it could
be said that the Son was the same as God, the Church would be introducing a
plurarity which was no more than a polytheism.
2. Concern
for worship and prayers in the early Church:
From the early
times, baptism had been in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit, and such a
significant sacrament could not be into the same of a creature. Furthermore,
prayers had been addressed to Christ as God already in NT times.
3. Question
about redemption:
Unless our Savior
was himself God, and not a creature like us, our redemption would still be in
doubt. Athanasius wrote after the Council: “ Humanity would not have been
deified (saved), if the Word who became flesh had not been by nature derived
from the Father and his true and proper Word.” The God who creates must also be
the God who redeems, and not another.
It was delightful to see that in
its Creed the Council solemnly proclaimed the oneness in being
(consubstantiality) of the Son with the Father. To the Symbol is appended a
clear condemnation of the Arian errors. Though not directly intended as a
baptismal Creed, the Symbol of Nicaea exercised a deep influence on the
baptismal Creeds of the fourth century.
Conclusion:
It is noted that the Nicene Creed
was in a category different from all other previous creeds. All former creeds
were in some way associated with Baptism. However, at Nicea, the Fathers of the
Council met to compose an important
document which was primarily intended to exclude the Arian heresy and state
positively the Church’s belief in the divinity of Christ. In this sense, it is
acknowledged that the Nicene Creed was really an extension of the rules of
faith for the universal Church.
Moreover the Arian controversy
was more than an intellectual debate. At stake was the very practical matter of
our salvation in Christ. If the Son is not God, wholly situated within the
divine reality on an equal footing with the Father, then he is not our Savior
and we are not saved. For if the Son is a creature like us, he has no special
standing before the Creator against whom we creatures have sinned. His act of
reparation on our behalf has no ultimate effect.
The Council of Nicea, therefore,
did not simply describe (the way
things look to us),the nature of the begetting of the Son; it defined (the ways things are in
themselves) it. The Son is from the Father in a singular, unshared way,
begotten as Son, not made as a creature. This is what “one in being” or “
consubstantial” ( homoousios), means. That is what the Son is. “ A passage has made “ John Courtney Murray,
S.J, wrote , “ from a conception of what the Son is –to-us to a conception of
what the Son, Christ, is –in- himself. The transition is from a mode of
understanding that is descriptive, relational ,interpersonal, historical-
existential, to a mode of understanding that is definite, explanatory,
absolute, ontological. The alteration in the mode of understanding does not
change the sense of the affirmation, but it does make the Nicene affirmation
new in its form “ ( The Problem of God , P.46)
Fr.Henry Eikhlein ( Diocese of
Pathein)
November 29, 2010
………..
References:
1. Catholicism,
completely revised and updated, Third Edition, by Richard P.McBrien, 1994
2. The
Christian Faith ( In the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church) Edited by
J.Neuner, S.J and J.Dupuis, S.J; theological publications in India, 1992.
3. Faith
of the Early Fathers, volume one, by Willam A.Jurgens; theological publications
in India, 1992.
4. Catechism
of Catholic Church, Vatican Publication, 1992.
5. Faith
and Practice in the Early Church, Foundations for contemporary Theology, by
Carl.A.Volz. Augsburg Publishing House. Mineapolis 1983.
