The Eastern Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople led the recitation of the Nicene Creed with Pope Leo and leaders of other Communions. They said it in English and exactly as the screen shots below indicate.
In some ways, it resembles more the horrible translation into English from the Latin that English speaking countries used at Mass prior to the revision of our English text to be more faithful to the Latin Test.
Please note the “We” is used, rather than the correct “I” which Credo is when translated to English.
Please note the novelty in some Christian circles, concerning using terms that don’t offend women. For example, instead of “for us men” they professed “for us all” and most shockingly, and I think heretical, “He was made human (not Man)” as though Christ’s masculinity isn’t apart of the incarnation! Shocking to say the least!
Of course the “Filoque Clause” is omitted as it is in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church.
And again, and most shockingly, the term “consubtantial with the Father” is not used, but rather “One in being!” That was what we said prior to our English revision of the credo that returned us to “consubstantial”.
Also used was the term “what is seen and unseen” rather than the more precise, “what is visible and invisible”! What is unseen could be hidden behind a rock, what is invisible is, well, invisible! What’s up with this old, tired and imprecise translation! Good Grief!
What I find most shocking is that the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch led the recitation of the Nicene Creed with this poor English translation!
I’d like to hear from Marc about this!
I found this from an Eastern Orthodox website as to how the Orthodox say the Nicene Creed and below it they also had a video on how they chant it in glorious Eastern Chant but in the vernacular:
As the “Symbol of Faith” for Orthodox Christians, the Nicene-Constantinople Creed is recited by the faithful at every Divine Liturgy. This is the historical definition of Christian belief. In other words, if you don’t believe this, you are not a member of the Christian faith.
The Nicene Creed
I believe in One God, (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29, 12:32; Ephesians 4:6; 1 Corinthians 8:6)
The Father Almighty (Genesis 17:1-8; Exodus 6:3; Matthew 6:9; Ephesians 4:6; 2 Corinthians 6:18)
Maker of heaven and earth (Genesis 1:1; Job 38:1-30)
And of all things visible and invisible (Colossians 1:15-16; John 1:3; Hebrews 11:3; Revelation 4:11)
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ (John 20:28; Acts 11:17, 16:31; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:5)
The Son of God, the Only-Begotten (Matthew 3:17, 14:33, 16:16; John 1:14, 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages (Psalm 2:7; John 1:1-2)
Light of Light (John 1:4, 1:9, 8:12; Psalm 27:1; Matthew 17:2, 5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 1:3; 1 John 1:5)
True God of True God (John 1:1-2, 17:1-5; 1 John 5:20)
Begotten, not made (John 1:1-2, 16:28, 1:18)
Of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
By Whom all things were made (Hebrews 1:1-2, 10; John 1:3, 1:10; Colossians 1:16; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36)
Who for us men and for our salvation (I Timothy 2:4-5; Matthew 1:21; 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Colossians 1:13-14)
Came down from heaven (John 3:13, 3:31, 6:33-35, 38)
And was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1:34-35)
And became man (John 1:14; Hebrews 2:14)
And He was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; I Corinthians 15:3; 1 Peter 2:24)
under Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:15)
And suffered (Mark 8: 31; Matthew 27:50)
And was buried (Luke 23:53; 1 Corinthians 15:4; Matthew 27:59-60)
And He rose again on the third day (Mark 9:31, 16:9; Acts 10:40; 1 Corinthians 15:4)
According to the Scriptures (Luke 24:1, 45-46; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4)
And ascended into heaven (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9-10; Mark 16:19)
And sits at the right hand of the Father (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55; Luke 22:69)
And He will come again with glory (Matthew 24:27; Mark 13:26; John 14:3; 1 Thessalonians 4:17)
To judge the living and the dead (Acts 10:42; 2 Timothy 4:1; Matthew 16:27; 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Peter 4:5)
His kingdom shall have no end (2 Peter 1:11; Hebrews 1:8)
And I believe in the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; Acts 1:8)
The Lord and Giver of life (Acts 5: 3-4; Genesis 1:2; John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:6)
Who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26)
Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets (I Samuel 19:20; Ezekiel 11:5; 1 Peter 1:10-11; Ephesians 3:5)
And I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church (Matthew 16:18, 28:19; 1 Peter 2:5,9; Ephesians 1:4, 2:19-22, 4:4, 5:27; Acts 1:8, 2:42; Mark 16:15; Romans 12:4-5; 1 Corinthians 10:17)
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins (Ephesians 4:5; Galatians 3:27; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 2:12-13; Acts 22:16)
I look for the resurrection of the dead (John 11:24; 1 Corinthians 15:12-49; Romans 6:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 4:16)
And the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30; 2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1)Amen.
And here is what it sounds like on Sunday morning, when we sing it:
13 comments:
A couple things to note: in English, there’s not one approved translation of the Creed. Actually, our community says the Creed slightly differently at Liturgy than we do during the prayers for making Catechumens. And we say it slightly differently than the other community in our town that has the same bishop! It’s just one of those things — not really a big deal.
As to the substance of the version of the Creed said at this event, it’s not a very good translation in my opinion. I don’t think it crosses the line into heresy or heterodoxy, though.
It’s a little interesting to me that this meeting doesn’t seem to be perceived as a very big deal in the Orthodox world. It’s definitely not one in my corner of Orthodoxy since I’m not under the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I’m a little curious if anyone from my Church is at this meeting, but it’s hard to get info on who all is there!
I don't recognize the top translation. In a way, it reminds me of the pre-2011 RC version I think it was.
I very much recognize the second translation.
What some may not realize is that the the versions of the Glory to God, the Apostles and Nicene Creeds and other prayers included in the Missal and Breviary when they were first published in English in the early 1970s were actually from a set of prayers developed by an ecumenical group ICET (International Consultation on English Texts). Those prayers were adopted by several Protestant denominations along with Catholics who decided to use them at that time "for ecumenical reasons".
Thanks for shaking my memory as I now recall that. I think too that the response to “The Lord be with you”, and also with you was a part of that ecumenical group ICET.
I doubt the Ecumenical Patriarch was using a translation from the Latin; he presumably was using a translation from the Greek. The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople would have worked in Greek. I'm not sure of the wording of the original, but Greek forms in both the plural and singular are available online: https://kitgrahame.com/works/pisteuo https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/nicene_creed.htm.
It's been a while since I have visited an Eastern Catholic church, but on those occasions when I have, it seems that they make the decision on a parish-by-parish basis whether or not to include the Filioque! I can see arguments for both sides, but, regardless of the decision, it should be consistent!
Maybe this is an Eastern thing, though. My best friend is OCA, and they seem to use any of several translations into English.
The meeting between Patriarch Bartholemew and Leo concluded, as usual, with the issuance of a vapid joint declaration. Notably, Patriarch Bartholemew had Leo commemorated during the closing moleben as if Leo were an Orthodox pope as they stood before the Royal Doors, which is a place reserved for Orthodox clergy.
One expects these sorts of things from Patriarch Bartholemew, of course, The noteworthy aspect of this -- from an Orthodox perspective -- is that this meeting seems mostly geared toward Constantinople's push to present itself as an Orthodox pope, seemingly grasping for the authority to dictate to the whole of the Orthodox world in accordance with its whims. Of course, that is not the reality, as more ancient patriarchates -- those that, unlike Constantinople, actually existed at the time of the Council of Nicaea being commemorated by this event -- declined the numerous invitations to participate.
One wonders why so much effort is put on these meetings -- perhaps there is some result from the Roman Catholic perspective that I'm missing because from an Orthodox perspective, nothing is accomplished save further confirmation of Constantinople's lack of standing in the Orthodox world.
Your reflection is on point.
Stirred up the RC for something that won't happen.
Stirred up the Orthodox world with cries of heresy.
Empty document as could easily have been predicted.
Another commentator rightly noted that several Pope's, inclusive of the current, will omit the filioque as circumstance warrants. Either it's right, or it's wrong. It's not situationally correct.
It seems to me that Marc’s reflection indicates the smoke of Satan within Orthodoxy. There is no way for their nationalistic Churches to ever agree with each other and no one wants to give an inch on their own Church’s fierce individualism.. I thought that was an American thing in our culture on steroids in the past 10 years or so, but the Orthodox Churches have us beat, even on a cultural level.UGH! At least the Successor of Saint Peter, the Bishop of Rome and Universal Pastor, Supreme Pontiff, is willing to lead the Church in Full Communion with His Holiness in a counter-cultural way, meaning fighting this fierce individualism that erodes communities and Churches in their unity. And the Catholic Church in union with the Successor of Peter does a pretty good job of allowing unity in diversity with the Latin Rite’s own diversity in terms of liturgical rites as well as its various Eastern Rites that mirror more closely the true orthodoxy of Eastern Orthodoxy in so many ways, to include the omission of the Filoque Clause. That’s pretty important.
No, it indicates the great strength of Orthodoxy -- the maintenance of the faith does not rely on one bishop.
There is quite a bit of diversity in Orthodoxy, but not on doctrinal issues. It is not a mark in your favor to allow for multiple Creeds, in my opinion. I had begun typing the below in response to ByzRus, but it serves as a response to your point as well.
ByzRus has a good point regarding the Filioque. Presumably, if it is a correct (and, according to Roman Catholics, necessary) component of the Creed, it is odd to omit it. That seems especially true since the pop apologetic in support of the Filioque is that it is a corrective against Arianism, the heresy that was defined at the Council being commemorated by this event!
Returning to Fr. McDonald's statement regarding individualism... I think you have it backward. It is not individualism that leads the Church to point out the errors of one bishop or patriarchate -- that is the way the Church has always acted, even when Rome was part of the Church. Rather, to suggest that one bishop can lead the Church in a new direction is the height of individualism. And we have seen this many times before, unfortunately.
Fr AJM,
With all due respect, the RCC looks a bit foolish after this visit. It signed an empty document and picks and chooses when to follow Nicea.
As for Orthodoxy, there is no Supreme Pontiff concept, just a first among equals. As for an inch, why is one needed by any jurisdiction as they are united by Christ, the Church Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Other squabbling is not on a doctrinal level.
This spectacle made me cringe as the East/West reactions were predictably swift.
The RC, that batters its adherents of tradition, allows Fr. Martin spectacles needs to order its own house quickly before presenting itself to Churches with which it desires unity - unity that cannot be semantics and a free-for-all but orthodox, lower case "o".
AI tells the truth about inter-orthodoxy issues, individualism and doctrinal diversity:
AI Overview
Current disagreements within the Eastern Orthodox Church primarily stem from jurisdictional and political conflicts, most notably the schism between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople over the autocephaly (independence) of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Other issues include differing approaches to ecumenical dialogue, the use of different calendars, and sometimes, social or liturgical practices, which can lead to temporary breaks in communion between churches, though they often maintain the same fundamental beliefs.
Major ongoing disagreements
Jurisdictional disputes: A major point of contention is the authority and jurisdiction over specific territories.
Ukrainian autocephaly: The schism between the Russian and Constantinople Patriarchates began in 2019 when the Ecumenical Patriarch granted independence to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The Moscow Patriarchate viewed this as an invasion of its canonical territory and responded by breaking communion with Constantinople, severing ties with the Patriarch of Moscow and his followers.
Jurisdictional conflicts: This conflict has led to territorial and jurisdictional disputes between other Orthodox churches, particularly between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Romanian Orthodox Church.
Political influence: Political issues, such as the Russian Orthodox Church's support for the war in Ukraine, have fueled divisions. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow's support for the war has deepened the schism with Constantinople, with some Orthodox churches breaking communion with the Russian Church.
Ecumenical and social issues: Other issues include differing views on participating in ecumenical dialogue and membership in organizations like the World Council of Churches, with some churches being more conservative on social issues than others.
Other disagreements
Theological disagreements: While the major split occurred in 1054 between the East and West, some theological issues continue to be points of discussion and, in some cases, disagreement. For example, the East and Oriental Orthodox churches have different theological views on the nature of Christ's divinity.
Calendar disagreements: Some Orthodox churches use different liturgical calendars, leading to different dates for holidays like Easter. Some churches also use the Old Calendar, leading to schisms, such as the case of the Old Believers.
Context and outlook
Historical divisions: The Eastern Orthodox Church has a history of schisms and conflicts, but these have often been resolved, with churches breaking and re-establishing communion with each other as a form of protest.
Current situation: While there is tension between some of the largest Orthodox churches, there are also ongoing efforts to resolve the conflicts through dialogue and cooperation.
You are aware, of course, that there have been similar jurisdictional disputes since the earliest centuries of the Church, even when Rome was part of the Church...? Churches breaking and re-establishing communion has been an unfortunate part of Church history from the beginning -- again, even when Rome was part of the Church.
So-called Oriental Orthodox are not part of the Church. They are heretics -- so, yes, we have a theological disagreement with them. Within the Church, there are no theological disagreements.
As for the calendar issue, most of the Orthodox world, including my Church, follows the Julian calendar. But it is not an issue that other churches follow the Revised Julian calendar. This is one of those diversity things that just is. Not a big deal, really.
Post a Comment