We believe in God, the Father almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
Eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God,
Light from Light,
True God from true God,
Begotten, not made,
One in being with the Father.
Through Him all things were made.
For us, and for our salvation
He came down from Heaven.
By the power of the Holy Spirit
He was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
He suffered, dies, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
In fulfillment of the Scriptures.
He ascended into Heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in Glory to judge the living and the dead
And his kingdom will have no end.
Up to this point the Nicene Creed is an almost universal statement of faith. Mainline Protestant denominations would subscribe to it. We Roman Catholics recite it each week at Mass. But Eastern Orthodox do not subscribe to it. The reason is in the next passage, and the difference is over one word:
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Lord, the giver of life
Who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The difference is in the phrase "And the Son." It's one word in Latin: Filioque. The Scriptural evidence seems to indicate that the statement as presented in the Creed is correct. Quite a number of times in the Gospels we see Jesus saying that He would send the Comforter. The Eastern Orthodox ask, "Does not this phrase, as written, imply a subordination within the Trinity?" The conclusion I came to: Maybe it does. But if your concern is that "from the Son" implies subordination of the Spirit to the Son, can we even say that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Is that not also subordination within the Trinity? I think the answer may be that, maybe it is subordination, but it's subordination based on love. My further answer would be that people should not impose their conceptions of relationships and subordination on relations within the Trinity. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts. . ." To put it another way (I'm borrowing this): "A comprehended God is no god at all."
With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified.
(Doesn't sound like we place the Spirit in a subordinate position at all.)
He has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead
And the life of the world to come. Amen.
And that's the Creed.
I am Roman Catholic. Unashamedly, joyfully Roman Catholic. I was not born to the faith. I have been affiliated with two other denominations. I left one of them; I was having some issues in my life at the time, but I never went back. The theological differences between what I think of as the Scriptural position and the positions they took became compelling to me. In this series, if you really want a starting point for those theological differences, see the discussion of homoousios v. homoiousios. If I am one, and you are the other, then it's hard to maintain that the God we worship is the same God.
The next denomination I joined was one of the mainline Protestant denominations. I got my undergrad degree while thus associated, and got about 2/3 of the way throuigh one of their seminaries, on the way to becoming an ordained minister. I'd gotten good grades in my coursework there, and I still have some Hebrew phrases and passages memorized. I did a lot of pulpit supply work (i.e., delivering sermons). I am now very comfortable speaking to groups, and I understand theological reasoning fairly well (I think I do, anyway.) The reason I became a Roman Catholic is a subject for another posting. So are the issues that I think face our Church. I'm not blind, and I don't think I'm stupid.
Thanks for hanging out for a few. Love your thoughts and responses!
No comments:
Post a Comment