This excerpt is taken from an undergraduate, in-class debate between Holy Cross students studying the History of Early Christianity, arguing the orthodox position of Alexander and those of the Arians.
When problems or questions concerning the nature of the God arise, we must rely on the inspired Word of God and the tradition of those apostles we have succeeded. We know from sacred scripture that Jesus Christ, is the revealed Word of God who was begotten and not a product of God’s Creation. Jesus Christ the Son is one in being with God the Father as Christ articulates in John 10:30. Although Christ is not unbegotten with the Father, one cannot completely deny his humanity and claim he is merely human. The position of Arius is laughable. How can God the Father, unbegotten and eternal be Father before time if the Son is created at a later epoch in time?
Arius agrees that Jesus Christ is begotten of the Father (CLA, 164). Arius, however, uses the term “begotten” in a different way than that of Alexander and the Alexandrians. Arius uses the term to differentiate Jesus from the eternal and unbegotten Father, while Alexander uses the term to differentiate Jesus from Creation. Jesus, however, was with God in the beginning at Creation (John 1:1). All of Creation came through Him, therefore Christ could not be a part of Creation. Christ has the divinity of God, but is not God the Father (John 14:28). As Alexander points out (CLA 164), his hypostasis is the same as God (homoousios) but his nature as a begotten human being is different. Christ is the ineffable substance of God as Christ said to Philip: “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9). In Matthew, Jesus describes the mystery of this substance: “For no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one has known the Father except for the Son” (Matthew 11:27). Whoever wishes to see the Father, must go through the Son. In terms of soteriology, Christ is the salvation that leads to His Father. Admittedly, Christ admits he is not his Father, which affirms the separation between the unbegotten and the begotten: “my Father…is greater than all” (John 10:29). To those heretics who question Jesus’ divinity as God, John writes: “The only-begotten Son, who was in the bosom of his Father” (John 1:18). Christ is made of the same substance of his Father.
A great number of those calling themselves believers in the same religion here in Alexandria claim Jesus was a part of Creation or made at a later time than we affirm in John 1. They call on portions of the Old Testament to support an idea of divine askesis, that Christ was a special human being who achieved a special status from good deeds. Yet the Old Testament subjugates our belief in Jesus as Son of God and Messiah who was before Creation: “I begot you from my womb before the morning-star” (Psalm 109:3). If God the Father is eternal as Arius also claims, then how could the Song be created at a later time? In order for God to be the Father, there must be the Son. The Begotten cannot be greater than the Unbegotten just as the created cannot be greater than the Creator, but the Begotten can be equal to the Unbegotten in divinity. We, the Creation made by God through the Son, are adopted children of God who cry out “Abba, Abba” as in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. We were created through Christ in God’s image (CLA 161). Christ was the “first born” (Colossians 1:15) and not part of the rest of Creation. All life came through Him (John 1:4).
To summarize, we believe in God the Father, unbegotten and Creator. We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, begotten and not made, and consubstantial with the Father.
Works Cited:
Ehrman, Bart D. Christianity in Late Antiquity. London: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The Nicene Creed: What did we Originally Profess?
The new Roman Missal (Latin: Missale Romanum), with updated translations of the Latin, will be implemented in less than a year on the First Sunday of Advent for the Roman Catholic Church.In anticipation, this is the first of two articles on the new translation of the Missal and offers a brief synopsis of one noticeable change. The translation has been in the works for over fifteen years, and although the Order of the Mass will remain the same, it contains numerous substantive changes to the text. One of the major changes involves the text of the Nicene Creed. The Creed, which was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., further defined at the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E., and concretely finalized in the 6th century, establishes the principle, foundational beliefs of Christianity.
The Roman Missal was originally published following Vatican II according to the precepts of Sacrosanctum Concilium (hence forward, SC) to encourage greater participation in the liturgy by the congregation of believers. By and large, the first three editions of the Roman Missal were produced by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) according to the principles of dynamic equivalency. According to anthropologist and Catholic scholar, Michael Angrosino, this form of translation: “involves the replacement of an element of the Roman [Latin] form with something in the local culture that has equal meaning or value.” The principle of dynamic equivalence, which is rooted in SC and Paul VI’s “Evangelization in the Modern World,” takes a Latin text that if translated literally into English would not make sense to English speakers or would not flow with the eloquence and richness of the original Latin prose. Formal equivalence is the literal translation of the original Latin into the vernacular.
The Nicene Creed, while formally composed at Nicaea, was a product of building heresies and the proto-orthodox reaction to them. As early as the third century (some 100 years prior to the Council at Nicaea), the Christian author Tertullian defended the orthodox notion of a Triune God against an individual named Praxeas: “Now what Divine Person was born in [the flesh]? The Word, and the Spirit which became incarnate with the Word by the will of the Father. The Word, therefore, is incarnate….” In the early fourth century, Arius, a priest from Alexandria, proselytized a theology, which denied the divinity of Christ: “It is not that he was unbegotten (for the Father alone is unbegotten) but that the subsistence of the ineffable, only begotten God is beyond the ability of the evangelists [John].” God, who is Creator, is unique and unbegotten. Christ, the only begotten Son of God, cannot share the uniqueness of God, so the Son cannot be God. It is quite possible that Arius was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back,” as within several years of his writing the Council of Nicaea convened to tackle the issue. In the Nicene Creed, “one in Being with the Father” is now changed to “consubstantial with the Father.” In the original Greek, the word homoousios was used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. Many English speakers are familiar with the root “homo,” loosely meaning “the same” or “with.” As far as I can tell, few if any English speakers are familiar with the term “consubstantial.” The root “con” may be familiar to some as meaning “with,” but the word “consubstantial” is likely to confuse many as to its true meaning. Any multi-syllable word, such as consubstantial, that is difficult for the average English speaker to pronounce and which flows (in English) like molasses in the winter time (or moves like Fred Flintstones’ car) seems to be both confusing and unnatural.
One change to the Nicene Creed that may seem minute is the change from “We” to “I” as the first word. In the original Greek of Nicaea, the first word is “Πιστεύομεν,” the plural form of the verb “to believe.” This word, pistevo, is more accurately translated as “to have faith” or to place trust in. The verb derives from the noun pistis, which is a persuasion or assurance of belief. Hence, the Nicene Creed was originally formulated as a statement of faith by a collection of believers. I, however, is the first word in the Apostles’ Creed and those familiar with the Tridentine Rite will remember the first word of the Nicene Creed, credo, is I. The switch, however, changes the entire perspective from which the Creed is delivered. The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, and edited and reaffirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. The Nicene Creed is a form of dogma, defined solemnly by the bishops at an ecumenical council, which with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is infallible. Hence, the Nicene Creed was originally formulated as a statement of faith by a collection of believers. The Creed was altered when translated into Latin as the Credo. The Creed now became singular like the interrogatory form of the baptismal promises. To people of the Tridentine Mass, the Creed was now a personal profession of faith confessed by everyone. Not a representation of the collective faith of the Church. The Greek word for symbol (the Creed is commonly referred to as a symbol of faith) is symbolon. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the word can be defined as half of a broke object. Just as the broken parts of a seal were placed together (on a letter) and presented as a token of recognition and the “bearer’s identity,” the symbol of faith is a sign of recognition and communion between believers.
Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologiae, writes that “a new edition of the symbol [act of faith, creed] becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise.” There were a number of heresies, scandals, and errors of faith in the history of the Church. To Aquinas, the Creeds might need to be updated in order to correct any of these errors. In response to the three objections, Aquinas writes that since the pope has the authority to convene an ecumenical council and the symbols of faith were drawn up at such councils, the pope has the authority to update the symbols of faith. These recent changes to the Nicene Creed may seem minor enough that the territorial authority convened by the pope and allowed under SC can do so and still be in accord with the spirit of SC in that they are changing a word only to clarify its meaning to the faithful. In the case of the Nicene Creed, a symbol of faith formulated over a century in the context of that century and altered at least once when translated into Latin in the form of the Credo, one must ask as which stage of meaning of formulation can be taken as authentic. Even Thomas Aquinas references the need for growth and correction of errors with regard to symbols of the faith. Do the teachings of Vatican II and SC affirm the context of the original Greek or do they and the current circumstances affirm that of the Credo? Another question arises then, as to whether or not the changes to the Nicene Creed overstep the authority of a territorial authority and would require an ecumenical council to revise. If one believes the changes to the Creed are merely superficial and are only going to illuminate the true meaning of the Creed (in accord with SC) then no ecumenical council seems necessary. But, if the change to the Creed changes the meaning and the perspective from which one proclaims the Creed, it seems as though an ecumenical council is necessary.
The change, however, is more than just the replacement of one word for another. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes the differences between the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed starting from the perspective of the person professing the: “ ‘I believe’ (Apostles’ Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer.” The profession acts as literally a personal commitment to a relationship with God. Furthermore, “’we believe’ is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled…[and] by the liturgical assembly of believers.” In 1 Corinthians, Paul affirms the body of Christ to be made of not a single part, but many, “there are many parts, yet one body.” The change from “We” to “I” completely ignores the joined prayer of the community of believers gathered in the Eucharistic celebration. The Nicene Creed is a prayer professed, not confessed, in public by the faithful. To use Paul’s symbolism, if they were all one Body, but composed of only one part, then it follows that “I” should be used. According to Lumen Gentium (LG), everyone bears witness to this unity Paul discusses in the Body of Christ. The very gifts, varied and splendid, that the faithful bring to the Church, bring everyone into God because “all these things are the work of the same spirit.” The liturgy brings the faithful into “communion” with other believers all around the globe who are gathered at the “Eucharistic assembly.” The Catechism continues: “Faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others.” SC reiterates that “liturgical services are not private functions.” The Mass is the public celebration of the Church, the “sacrament of unity” between believers. If the Nicene Creed and the other prayers of the Mass were meant to be said in first person, the Mass could and should be said in private. How can one prayer arise if everyone is praying individually? The meaning of the Nicene Creed will be skewed to that of a personal prayer (such as the Confiteor) and the communion with other believers will be lost.
Works Cited
1. 1 Corinthians 12:14, 20 New American Bible, USCCB, www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.html
2. Agnoli, Deacon Frank. “In the New Missal, Nicene Creed would go from plural to singular.” The Catholic Messenger. Wednesday January 20, 2010, http://www.catholicmessenger.org/articles/2010/01/26/diocesan_news/doc4b57275dc3525594872994.txt
3. Angrosino, Michael V. “The Culture Concept and the Mission of the Roman Catholic Church.” American Anthropologist, 96 (1994).
4. Aquinas, St. Thomas. “The Object of Faith.” Summa Theologiae. From New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10
5. Arius. “Thalia.” in Christianity in Late Antiquity, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Andrew S. Jacobs. New York, New York: Oxford Press, 2004.
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Archives. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm.
7. Complete Greek-English Dictionary, ed. Arnold Mandeson, 1960.
8. Gaillardetz, Richard. By What Authority? Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.
9. Lumen Gentium, Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
10. "Nicene Creed," Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. (Encyclopædia Britannica: 2011), Web. 08 Feb. 2011..
11. “Nicene Creed,” Liturgical Texts, (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: 2011), Web 09 Feb. 2011
12. Sacrosanctum Concilium Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
13. Tertullian. “Tertullian: Against Praxeas.” in After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity. ed. Bart D. Ehrman. New York, New York: Oxford Press, 1999.
14. Turner, Rev. Paul. Understanding the Revised Mass Texts, 2nd Ed. Chicago, IL: Archdiocese of Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2009.
The Roman Missal was originally published following Vatican II according to the precepts of Sacrosanctum Concilium (hence forward, SC) to encourage greater participation in the liturgy by the congregation of believers. By and large, the first three editions of the Roman Missal were produced by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL) according to the principles of dynamic equivalency. According to anthropologist and Catholic scholar, Michael Angrosino, this form of translation: “involves the replacement of an element of the Roman [Latin] form with something in the local culture that has equal meaning or value.” The principle of dynamic equivalence, which is rooted in SC and Paul VI’s “Evangelization in the Modern World,” takes a Latin text that if translated literally into English would not make sense to English speakers or would not flow with the eloquence and richness of the original Latin prose. Formal equivalence is the literal translation of the original Latin into the vernacular.
The Nicene Creed, while formally composed at Nicaea, was a product of building heresies and the proto-orthodox reaction to them. As early as the third century (some 100 years prior to the Council at Nicaea), the Christian author Tertullian defended the orthodox notion of a Triune God against an individual named Praxeas: “Now what Divine Person was born in [the flesh]? The Word, and the Spirit which became incarnate with the Word by the will of the Father. The Word, therefore, is incarnate….” In the early fourth century, Arius, a priest from Alexandria, proselytized a theology, which denied the divinity of Christ: “It is not that he was unbegotten (for the Father alone is unbegotten) but that the subsistence of the ineffable, only begotten God is beyond the ability of the evangelists [John].” God, who is Creator, is unique and unbegotten. Christ, the only begotten Son of God, cannot share the uniqueness of God, so the Son cannot be God. It is quite possible that Arius was the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back,” as within several years of his writing the Council of Nicaea convened to tackle the issue. In the Nicene Creed, “one in Being with the Father” is now changed to “consubstantial with the Father.” In the original Greek, the word homoousios was used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. Many English speakers are familiar with the root “homo,” loosely meaning “the same” or “with.” As far as I can tell, few if any English speakers are familiar with the term “consubstantial.” The root “con” may be familiar to some as meaning “with,” but the word “consubstantial” is likely to confuse many as to its true meaning. Any multi-syllable word, such as consubstantial, that is difficult for the average English speaker to pronounce and which flows (in English) like molasses in the winter time (or moves like Fred Flintstones’ car) seems to be both confusing and unnatural.
One change to the Nicene Creed that may seem minute is the change from “We” to “I” as the first word. In the original Greek of Nicaea, the first word is “Πιστεύομεν,” the plural form of the verb “to believe.” This word, pistevo, is more accurately translated as “to have faith” or to place trust in. The verb derives from the noun pistis, which is a persuasion or assurance of belief. Hence, the Nicene Creed was originally formulated as a statement of faith by a collection of believers. I, however, is the first word in the Apostles’ Creed and those familiar with the Tridentine Rite will remember the first word of the Nicene Creed, credo, is I. The switch, however, changes the entire perspective from which the Creed is delivered. The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325, and edited and reaffirmed at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. The Nicene Creed is a form of dogma, defined solemnly by the bishops at an ecumenical council, which with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and is infallible. Hence, the Nicene Creed was originally formulated as a statement of faith by a collection of believers. The Creed was altered when translated into Latin as the Credo. The Creed now became singular like the interrogatory form of the baptismal promises. To people of the Tridentine Mass, the Creed was now a personal profession of faith confessed by everyone. Not a representation of the collective faith of the Church. The Greek word for symbol (the Creed is commonly referred to as a symbol of faith) is symbolon. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the word can be defined as half of a broke object. Just as the broken parts of a seal were placed together (on a letter) and presented as a token of recognition and the “bearer’s identity,” the symbol of faith is a sign of recognition and communion between believers.
Thomas Aquinas, in Summa Theologiae, writes that “a new edition of the symbol [act of faith, creed] becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise.” There were a number of heresies, scandals, and errors of faith in the history of the Church. To Aquinas, the Creeds might need to be updated in order to correct any of these errors. In response to the three objections, Aquinas writes that since the pope has the authority to convene an ecumenical council and the symbols of faith were drawn up at such councils, the pope has the authority to update the symbols of faith. These recent changes to the Nicene Creed may seem minor enough that the territorial authority convened by the pope and allowed under SC can do so and still be in accord with the spirit of SC in that they are changing a word only to clarify its meaning to the faithful. In the case of the Nicene Creed, a symbol of faith formulated over a century in the context of that century and altered at least once when translated into Latin in the form of the Credo, one must ask as which stage of meaning of formulation can be taken as authentic. Even Thomas Aquinas references the need for growth and correction of errors with regard to symbols of the faith. Do the teachings of Vatican II and SC affirm the context of the original Greek or do they and the current circumstances affirm that of the Credo? Another question arises then, as to whether or not the changes to the Nicene Creed overstep the authority of a territorial authority and would require an ecumenical council to revise. If one believes the changes to the Creed are merely superficial and are only going to illuminate the true meaning of the Creed (in accord with SC) then no ecumenical council seems necessary. But, if the change to the Creed changes the meaning and the perspective from which one proclaims the Creed, it seems as though an ecumenical council is necessary.
The change, however, is more than just the replacement of one word for another. The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes the differences between the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed starting from the perspective of the person professing the: “ ‘I believe’ (Apostles’ Creed) is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer.” The profession acts as literally a personal commitment to a relationship with God. Furthermore, “’we believe’ is the faith of the Church confessed by the bishops assembled…[and] by the liturgical assembly of believers.” In 1 Corinthians, Paul affirms the body of Christ to be made of not a single part, but many, “there are many parts, yet one body.” The change from “We” to “I” completely ignores the joined prayer of the community of believers gathered in the Eucharistic celebration. The Nicene Creed is a prayer professed, not confessed, in public by the faithful. To use Paul’s symbolism, if they were all one Body, but composed of only one part, then it follows that “I” should be used. According to Lumen Gentium (LG), everyone bears witness to this unity Paul discusses in the Body of Christ. The very gifts, varied and splendid, that the faithful bring to the Church, bring everyone into God because “all these things are the work of the same spirit.” The liturgy brings the faithful into “communion” with other believers all around the globe who are gathered at the “Eucharistic assembly.” The Catechism continues: “Faith is not an isolated act. No one can believe alone, just as no one can live alone. The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others.” SC reiterates that “liturgical services are not private functions.” The Mass is the public celebration of the Church, the “sacrament of unity” between believers. If the Nicene Creed and the other prayers of the Mass were meant to be said in first person, the Mass could and should be said in private. How can one prayer arise if everyone is praying individually? The meaning of the Nicene Creed will be skewed to that of a personal prayer (such as the Confiteor) and the communion with other believers will be lost.
Works Cited
1. 1 Corinthians 12:14, 20 New American Bible, USCCB, www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.html
2. Agnoli, Deacon Frank. “In the New Missal, Nicene Creed would go from plural to singular.” The Catholic Messenger. Wednesday January 20, 2010, http://www.catholicmessenger.org/articles/2010/01/26/diocesan_news/doc4b57275dc3525594872994.txt
3. Angrosino, Michael V. “The Culture Concept and the Mission of the Roman Catholic Church.” American Anthropologist, 96 (1994).
4. Aquinas, St. Thomas. “The Object of Faith.” Summa Theologiae. From New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article10
5. Arius. “Thalia.” in Christianity in Late Antiquity, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Andrew S. Jacobs. New York, New York: Oxford Press, 2004.
6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Vatican Archives. http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a2.htm.
7. Complete Greek-English Dictionary, ed. Arnold Mandeson, 1960.
8. Gaillardetz, Richard. By What Authority? Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003.
9. Lumen Gentium, Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
10. "Nicene Creed," Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. (Encyclopædia Britannica: 2011), Web. 08 Feb. 2011.
11. “Nicene Creed,” Liturgical Texts, (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: 2011), Web 09 Feb. 2011
12. Sacrosanctum Concilium Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html
13. Tertullian. “Tertullian: Against Praxeas.” in After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity. ed. Bart D. Ehrman. New York, New York: Oxford Press, 1999.
14. Turner, Rev. Paul. Understanding the Revised Mass Texts, 2nd Ed. Chicago, IL: Archdiocese of Chicago, Liturgy Training Publications, 2009.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Part 3
The early Church is the Church on its feet, the medieval Church is the Church on its knees and the modern Church is the Church on its ass.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)