We recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday in the Orthodox Church. You all know it. In the original version it reads:
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 Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man. And He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
The form that is used in worship is the “I” form rather than the “we” form. But, the creed, as originally written, was written in the “we” form. We are a community and it is our belief, not simply the belief of an individual.
Take a close look at that creed. Here is a question for you. Why do some parts of the creed rate a lot of detail while other parts of the creed do not? Let me give you an example. Look at the first phrase. Why is all that is said about the Father’s creation is that He made it? But, when we look at the definition for the Lord, there is significant theological and historical definition. So, read the creed again. Why is so little detail present in some parts and so much in others? Was it that they had no theological arguments about the less-defined parts? Or, was there some other reason? And, what does that say to us in this modern world?
===MORE TO COME===
Since becoming Orthodox I’ve accepted something that I cannot historically verify (it might not be verifiable in any meaningful sense) about the life of the Church.
That the councils dealt with controversy and like most of St Paul’s writings (with the exception of perhaps Romans) are responses to circumstances at their time and place. They are authoritative in what they say because the Church accepted them as such and that matters of insufficient controversy need no such Canonization process. (aka you don’t need to defend what hasn’t been attacked)
It’s like putting all your belongings in the back of a pick-up truck and stopping every few miles to see what’s wiggling loose and tying that down, but ignoring things that appear secure.
In this sense I think we can spend too much time on the councils. (listen to the silly convert blabbing on and on) But since they dealt with disturbances to the Church it seems that looking too often is an invitation to create a disturbance in ourselves.
It would seem most of the controversy surrounded the humanity/divinity of Christ, and the nature of Christ’s relationship to the Father in the Trinity. There were few heresies associated with the Father (with the exception of the Manicheans and Marcionites), or the Holy Spirit (I don’t even remember the name of this one), though plenty of discussion, and dissent, about the nature of Christ.
Which is applicable to the modern world, since many people today seem to have a Sabellian or Adoptionist understanding of the Trinity or the nature of Christ. Or so it seems to me.
I was modalist myself (persona means mask doesn’t it?) before my conversion. It’s still a trap I have to consciously correct.
Father, what source do you have for “originally written in the ‘we’ form”? Here’s why I ask…
ECUSA switched from I to We with the 1979 BCP. I was *taught* that the purpose was b/c “We” believe even when “I” can’t. Each “I” is striving to embody the faith of the “We”. But when I mentioned as much to a very conservative ECUSA sort, his reply “When we were voting on that in 1979, we were told that most *not* the case, that was the only way we’d vote for it b/c it absolved too much from the individual.”
Then, when I became Orthodox, and every translation I saw used the “I” form, the same excuse was offered: because this must be the faith of each individual.
Certainly, go here http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=10 to read an article written by the Orthodox theologian Fr. Thomas Hopko. As you can see, it says that the Council originally wrote the Creed in the “we” form. But, then he comments that it was put into the “I” form for use in worship and commitment. I, myself, tend to prefer to emphasize the community, but I have no problem saying that it must also be the commitment of the individual.
That makes historical sense. Liturgically, I like “we” as well, for the reason noted above, each “I†striving to embody the faith of the “We†or as the prayer of the hours says, “Bring us to the unity of the Faith.” Thanks for the link. I *love* that series of books.