Dominant Theological Issue at Stake in the Resolution of the Nicene Creed - Essay Example

A Critical Question: What was the Dominant Theological Issue at Stake in the Resolution of the Nicene Creed Basically, the Nicene Creed is the mostwidespread or ecumenical Christian statement of faith, and since its actual original foundation, it still continues to be used in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant churches; as well, and basically there are two different 'versions' of the Nicene Creed: the original Nicene Creed of 325, which was first adopted in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which was actually the first Ecumenical Council; and the Nicene Creed of 381, which added on to the text that was formed by the previous Creed, and basically the main differences between the two creeds lies in the text that they formed. In order to truly be able to understand the Nicene Creed, as well as the matters that are significant in relation to it, such as the fact of what was the dominant theological issue at stake and who was represented in regards to the Nicene Creed, then you need to first understand the history of the Nicene Creed itself, where it came from, why it was brought about, and the importance that it plays in the world today. This is what will be dissertated in the following. Basically the Nicene Creed goes as follows: "And in one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remissions of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen." (Creeds, 1997). The Nicene Creed was written by the early Church and adopted in a slightly different version by the Church Council at Nicaea in AD 325 and appears in its present form by the Council at Chalcedon in AD 451. It is has remained in use since that time, and it is truly an essential part of the doctrine and liturgy of the Lutheran Church. As well, the Lutheran Church gives the option of the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed, suggesting the Nicene Creed as the more festive or solemn of the two. It is incredibly important to recognize the fact that the New Testament and the Nicene Creed are deeply entangled with each other, and the wording and the actual concepts in the Nicene Creed, for example, actually come from the New Testament, and in fact, one of the most important debates at the Council of Nicea concerned the matter of whether or not it is proper to include a word in the Nicene Creed that does not occur in the New Testament. "On the other hand, at the time that the Church issued the official canon of the New Testament, it customarily compared writings to the Nicene Creed to determine if they were orthodox. So you are correct if you say that the Nicene Creed proceeds from the New Testament, and you are correct if you say that the New Testament is certified by the Nicene Creed." (Collins, 2006). The interrelation between the Nicene Creed and the Trinity is one of great importance, and it is a matter of which discussion is essential in order to be able to get a better grasp on the matter of the Nicene Creed in general; basically, the Nicene Council truly did not invent the Trinity in the early fourth century, although many people do believe this. Rather, a full century before the Nicene Council, Tertullian actually wrote a voluminous explanation and sort of defense in regards to the Trinity and he was then viewed by his third-century contemporaries as wrongfully defending the orthodox Christian faith to nonbelievers. Furthermore, "A couple of decades before Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus, bishops at opposite ends of the Mediterranean basin, both taught the Trinity. A half century or more before Irenaeus and Clement, we find Trinitarian teachings in the authentic works of Justin martyr, who died in 157." (Collins, 2006). In regards to the filoque Clause, there truly may not have been any particular motive for this change, because it looks like something a scribe would do to mend the text. As well, and to be more specific at that, it is also highly possible and assumed that the change was intended to strengthen the defense of the Trinity. The filioque clause spread through the western part of the church. In 796, what happened was that Paulinus of Aquileia defended the filioque clause at the Synod of Friuli, which truly and seriously indicates that it was opposed, and after about 800 it crept into the liturgy in the Frankish Empire; furthermore, some Frankish monks used the filioque clause in their monastery in Jerusalem in 807, but eastern monks disputed it as improper. Basically, because of the fact that the Frankish monks were from the west, the matter was escalated to the bishop of Rome (Pope Leo III). He approved of the sentiment, but he opposed the change in the wording, and Leo arranged for the creed in its original form to be engraved on silver tablets and he had them placed at St. Peter's tomb. Then after the split between Rome and Constantinople, the filioque clause truly and sincerely became as a part of the Nicene Creed in the Roman Catholic Church. This happened at the Council of Lyons, in France, in 1274. Then, following this, in 1439, at the Roman Catholic Council of Florence, the Roman Catholic Church happened to invite the Eastern Orthodox Churches and attempted a reunion; there were many issues that were involved here and made serious not of, some of which seem trivial today, but the most important ones of all were those regarding the papacy and the filioque clause in the Creed. It should also be known that the Orthodox delegates to the council agreed to basically everything that the Catholics wanted and were fighting for, but they were under pressure at the same time, as at the time that this very situation was taking place, Islam was spreading by warfare, and Orthodox lands were under attack. All of the most major attempts to make peace had failed, and the Orthodox wanted military aid from the west, and the pope agreed to help them, but only if they signed the agreement. So they all did, except for Markos Eugenikos, the titular bishop of Ephesus. However, he did not sign the agreement because he thought it was a sell-out. The pope announced that without Markos' signature the deal was off, however once the Orthodox delegation returned home, only Markos was hailed as a hero, because he was known as being the only one who did not compromise his integrity-the others were known instead for regretting their actions; this is why in the west, Markos is viewed as the man who prevented the unity of the church. In the east, he is St. Mark of Ephesus, 'the conscience of Orthodoxy.' The Orthodox did not accept the filioque clause for scriptural, theological, and procedural reasons, and each of these reasons had their own separate causes and reactions. In regards to the actual importance of the Nicene Creed today - which highly relates to the matter of the dominant theological issue that was at stake and which truly resolved over this whole period of time; the Church truly formulated the Nicene Creed even before it selected certain apostolic writings, and this is what they called the New Testament. "The Nicene Creed is therefore a reliable test of our interpretation of the New Testament. If we are at variance with the Nicene Creed, we are in error. So whoever denies the Trinity must also deny the New Testament, and whoever upholds the New Testament as Holy Scripture must also affirm the Trinity." (Collins, 2006). It is an incredibly important factor to realize that in the beginning of it all, the Church truly did not have a formal creed, and as well it did not have a formal list of books in the New Testament. Then, once the Church was actually bound by the Nicene Creed, it ended up making a true formal list of the books in the New Testament, and "Therefore, whoever attempts to reconstruct the ancient Church with an official list of New Testament books but without the Nicene Creed is reconstructing an imaginary church that never existed. This doesn't mean their church is invalid, it just means that it isn't a historic reconstruction, because in any part of Church history in which there was an official list of New Testament books, the Nicene Creed was the official expression of faith and the final test of orthodoxy." (Collins, 2006). The Nicene Creed is the most ecumenical of creeds, and the Presbyterian Church joins with the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and most Protestant churches affirming it. However, in specific contrast to that of Eastern Orthodox churches, the western churches state that the Holy Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but from the Father and the Son. The Nicene Creed is a creed which has been recognized as the authoritative expression of the fundamental beliefs of the Orthodox church and this Creed is often referred to as the 'Symbol of Faith', as this description indicates that the Creed is not so much of an analytical statement, but rather it is something that points to a reality greater than itself and to which it bears witness. Therefore overall, we can quite easily see how the filioque clause was one of the most dominant theological issues in regards to the Nicene Creed, and as well how it was dealt with - by people showing that if you are against anything in the Nicene Creed or the New Testament then you are against the other because they are truly interrelated; this is how the filioque clause came from being a heavily disputed part of the Nicene Creed, one that forms a divisive difference in particular between that of the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox traditions, into a less disputed and more understood fact of life overall. Some historians have actually suggested that the Franks in the ninth century were the ones who tried to in fact pressure the Pope to adopt the filioque in order to truly drive a purposeful wedge in between the Roman Church and the other patriarchates. As well, it is in fact true that the filioque had come into really wide use in the west and that it was - at the time anyway - widely thought to be an integral part of the Creed altogether. In order to realize how this came about however - and as has been discussed here - one must acknowledge the fact that the filioque was first introduced in the west, first of all in Spain, and then in Gaul, not Rome, and this was by the way only by the Pope's own initiative, and the phrase itself later became something to argue about. So although in conclusion we can see that this matter is one which has been remotely resolved in regards to the Nicene Creed overall, there still are however failing efforts that have been made to reunite the East and the West, and for a while though - although incredibly briefly this was - officially and publicly the Catholic and Orthodox churches were in communion, and so basically, to speak more specifically, the Council of Florence had actually helped overall by establishing a fundamental principle, which was that the Church must be one in its faith, and that its essential beliefs, although diverse in some ways, should always interrelate in others. "However, the reconciliation achieved at Florence was soon destroyed. Many Orthodox faithful and bishops, including the Patriarch of Constantinople, rejected the union, and would not ratify it. The emperor indeed had wished to secure the support of the West in the face of the Ottoman danger, and had pressured some Eastern bishops to sign. To many of the East, the agreement of Florence seemed to be an imposition of Scholastic theology and a desperate plea for help." (Wikipedia, 2006). Now, to this day, the Orthodox Church is known to use the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 without the filioque, however many times now the Eastern Churches have absolutely rejected the phrase as an 'unauthorized interpolation', and what is even more, is that they even objected to the teachings that it expressed, as conflicting with that of biblical and accepted doctrine. Works Cited Collins, Ken. (2006). The Nicene Creed. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.kencollins.com/why-07.htm Creeds. (1997). The Nicene Creed. 5 Dec. 2006. < http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm> Maked Disciples. (n.d.). The Nicene Creed. 5 Dec. 2006. http://www.makedisciples.com/nicene-c.html Wikipedia. (2006). The Nicene Creed. 5 Dec. 2006. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed Read More