VIII. Of the Creeds

The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

[The original Article given Royal assent in 1571 and reaffirmed in 1662, was entitled "Of the Three Creeds; and began as follows "The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius's Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed..."]

Since much of the discussion of the previous Articles has touched on the content of these Creeds, it would be overly repetitive, boring, and potentially fruitless for me to explain to prove the Creeds by Holy Scripture or explain why the General Convention of 1801 omitted the Athanasian Creed. Instead, I thought I would take this opportunity to examine the ontology of the Creeds and how I have observed them used or not used in Anglican churches. Please recognize that my experience is fairly limited. Doubtless, praxis varies more widely within the Communion than I have seen. Passing over these issues, the Article does make the interesting observation that the Apostles' Creed "is commonly called" such, implying that the Articulators did not believe the legend that the Creed originated with the Twelve Apostles on the Day of Pentecost. Each Apostle according to this legend contributed one clause. The Lord bless them for their skepticism concerning the origins of "the Symbol of Faith" and their faith in it nonetheless.

Additional note: Schaff, in his magisterial work on the ecumenical councils, argues that the purpose of a Council was not to interpret the Scriptures but to affirm the teaching of the church ultimately handed down by the Apostles. Thus, in Schaff's view, it was not necessary for the Nicene Creed to be proven by the Fathers from the Holy Scriptures. If Schaff is right, at least insofar as the Fathers problematized their role as reaffirming the doctrine of the Apostolic Church, we must be fairly sure from the varying Christologies inferred from the Holy Scriptures that the Fathers only could sense the odor of apostolicity through the Spirit. Thus we must be careful admitting Schaff's thesis, since it assumes that the Fathers believed unreservedly in the customary theory of law, in which law is merely the statement or elaboration of custom that is of great antiquity and potentially of divine ordinance. The usual reservation in customary theory is that what is customary always cannot confront the novel in itself but instead one must seek some essence of the customary that can legislate for the novel.

In support of this, Athanasius apparently quoted the Nicene Creed in an epistle to his diocese and argued for the verity of the Persons on the basis of the Great Commission commanding baptism in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and and of the Holy Spirit. And yet the Acts of the Apostles say that Peter baptized in the name of Jesus. Hippolytus, to whom we will return, reports "apostolic tradition" at Rome, one hundred and fifty years after Peter, in which baptism is by the Trinitarian formula. If we think charitably of the Fathers, some of them must have noticed these discrepancies and must have felt perfectly honest not simply affirming "Apostolic tradition" (and thus affirming teachings of more recent vintage as apostolic or contradictory ones) but affirming what they sensed was the essence of apostolic teaching. Schaff even quotes Petavius' commentary on the Fifth anathema of Nestorius against Cyril and vice versa that suggest how the Fathers circumvented problematic usage in their authorities.

In support of Schaff, the Nicene Creed evidently was the standard of faith (or Apostolic teaching) by which later Councils were supposed to evaluate controversies. By the Council of Chalcedon, the Fathers were claiming that they weren't setting forth anything new but affirming the previous versions of the Creed and the writings of certain authorities before them (in accordance with the Canons of the Council of Ephesus). But they also were being told that "the most pious lord [the Emperor]" believed the catholic faith was contained in these things. Anglicans at least should recognize the temptation of those under Erastian government to put on a fine show for the civil authorities.

I have no idea what the Articulators thought they were doing proving the Creeds by the Scriptures. But if we think charitably of them, they must have thought they could do it and were right to do so. To read Tradition, you seem to need a lot of charity.

The Present Use and Lack of Use of the Creeds

Generally, the modern Anglican is confronted by the Creeds as something proclaimed, perhaps prayed, but ostensibly professed in the course of public worship. Anglican liturgy (at least in the US) claims that this profession is not of the Creed itself but of "[our] Christian faith in the words" of the Creed.

There has developed a mythos of traditional usage of the Creeds, which might not be mythos at all. In this tradition, the Apostles' Creed is recited in the Daily Office and in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism at the Examination of the Candidates, the Nicene Creed is recited in the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist, and the Athanasian Creed is recited in place of the Nicene Creed at the Eucharist of Trinity Sunday (or in the Eucharist or Offices on Feasts of the Incarnation or the principal Apostles.) The last practice likely was introduced into this country among Anglicans by Anglo-Catholics and those who sought Home Reunion with the Eastern Orthodox churches (I actually first did it in college). If this tradition mandates anything about the placement of the Creeds in the liturgy, it is to be doubted. The 1549 BCP placed the recitation of the Nicene Creed before the Sermon, which considering some of the sermons I have heard in my short life, might be more appropriate than its present place after the Sermon.

Generally, I have worshipped in communities that have followed the traditional usage (with the exception of the Athanasian Creed at Trinity). But looking outward and to the exceptions among my nearest brethren, I have noticed other practices.

1. Yesterday, I was listening to BBC's Sunday Worship program, which was a program of either Morning or Evening Prayer presumably according to the liturgy of the Church of Ireland (it was at the Cathedral of Armagh officiated by the Dean). At the time of the Creed, the Dean asked the congregation whether they placed their faith and trust in God the Father, the congregants answered in the affirmative. Then he asked them the same with regards to His Son Jesus Christ and they responded similarly. Then he asked them the same of the Holy Spirit. After they gave assent to this, the Dean proclaimed this to be 'The Faith of the Church." I associate that particular usage with the Roman Catholic Church of this era, since the RCC Baptismal Customary certainly contains it. Generally, the similar Anglican usage is "The Faith of the Church down through the ages." I note that such a proclamation of faith is not merely the faith of the Church, but the faith of many who have had deep doctrinal disagreements with it.

2. In college, my chaplain on occasion replaced the Creed with Te Deum Laudamus or Pascha Nostra as other potential professions in words of the Christian faith. I have nothing snarky to say of this...

3. In some churches, the Creed has been replaced with a Mission Statement (sometimes drawn from the Scriptures). In some churches, the Mission Statement may be the corporate Mission Statement of the particular congregation.

4. Some churches will omit the Creed during festal Eucharists to save time.

This great variety of practices in the use of the Creeds during public worship suggests the existence of differing views about the nature of the Two (or Three Creeds) and more general creedal statements. The question arises whether the traditional use of the Creeds and these new innovations are good practices or not. I suggest that the answer to this question should be based on what meaning these practices have. Ultimately, that question is ontological. Or at least I hope so. It's not always very clear cut. What can the nature of a monkey tell us about the meaning of a monkey's use? Don't answer that.

The Ontology of the Creeds: A Somewhat Historical Peregrination

Jesus certainly didn't ordain the Creeds. Nowhere do you read, "Verily, I say unto you that if after that time I am taken from you, you do not come together and define my nature, the nature of the Father, and the Paraclete in some comprehensive statement you recite at worship, you will disappoint me greatly." But I think He is amenable to them. The Gospel readings from the last two Sundays (Matthew 16:13-27) suggest Jesus had some interest in doctrine. He asks his Disciples about the theories swimming around about his identity and once answered asks once more, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter, as we know, gives an acceptable answer. Yet despite knowing what mortals could not have taught him but only God the Father , Peter seems to assume that Jesus is the triumphal conqueror the Messiah is supposed to be. Thus, he is distressed to hear that Jesus must be handed over to the authorities and killed. "Lord, this must never happen to you." What he meant to say is this, "Master, I thought you were the Messiah. You're not supposed to get yourself killed." Jesus is not happy with this answer. Jesus knows who He is harmonizes with what He does (or will do). Peter's answer suggests discord in accordance with earthly assumptions. With heavenly assumptions, this all works. Jesus in the Gospels generally spends a lot of time instructing the Disciples in who He is and what He must do in a framework that is not of this world.

And this, expanded to the Triune God (Jesus is certainly concerned with explaining the relations between the Persons), is the essential nature of a creedal statement: it professes within the framework of the invisible things of God the harmony of who God is with what God does. We also see Jesus laying these kind of creedal foundations after his Resurrection. On the way to Emmaus we are told, Jesus explains to the two disciples why He needed to do what He did at the Passover by giving "certain warrants" of Himself from the Scriptures.

But no creedal statement does it perfectly. We are finite. Our words are finite. Our knowledge of God is finite. The Creeds thus do speak of who God is and what God does, but the harmony and purpose of it is less present. Though in the Nicene Creed, it should be pointed out that the purposes of God the Son are mentioned, "For us and for our salvation...according to the Scriptures..."

Nor do I think our occasional obsession with creedal statements would impress the Lord. He tended to say things like, "If you love me, keep my commandments." The persecution of heretical sects in the 12th and 13th centuries for suggesting (or not suggesting) a few quirky things about Him but also suggesting many correct things about his teachings would not impress Him. Right belief certainly was important to Him, but I suspect He thought it was of no use without following his example to some extent. Now it's possible I'm reading my own concerns into the Master, since I do talk about the synergy (gasp!) between right belief and right action a great deal. But I think of the example of Abbess Hilda of Whitby (one of the mothers of the Ecclesia Anglicana ), who instructed her theology students to spend equal amounts of time in study and works of mercy. When I first read of this I thought, "I wonder if she thought that was Jesus' pedagogy with the disciples." I'm still trying to find that balance between study and service.

But after Jesus, how did the Creeds come to be? Well, the first part of that story is about how creedal statements came to be. No doubt, the first creedal statements were the explanations of Jesus made by the Apostles to potential converts and the civil authorities. But another set of creedal statements arose in the context of worship. Before anyone formulated the principle that we pray in the light of our belief, often called lex orandi, lex credendi , Christians made hymns that tried to harmonize the divine nature and the divine acts. This early trend in hymnology was a happy one in that it has given a holy heritage to many later hymns. But in a time when hymns of praise seem to have become empty flattery or just vague, it is worth remembering the meat sung by our earliest fathers and mothers. Though potentially earlier in origin, Nunc dimittis and Magnificat in the Gospels have some creedal flair, especially the latter.

But the earliest Christian hymn is often argued to be Philippians 2:5-11, which Paul apparently quotes or paraphrases in exhortation. Is it poetic? Yes, it's very beautiful. Is it a meaty profession of faith or creedal statement in the way we have proposed? I think so.

Pascha Nostra and Dignus Es likewise have creedal elements. But as the present Creeds were being formulated, we can see interesting influences on the Church's beliefs in her hymnology. Ambrose of Milan wrote these words in the late 4th century, "O God, creation's secret force, yourself unmoved, all motion's source" (1982 Hymnal translation by John Mason Neale). God the unmoving mover, now where did that come from? Perhaps, the creedal element of hymnology was strongly backed by the cultural context. Greek pagan hymnology often was filled with esoteric doctrine. Think of Paul on the Areopagus, "In Him, we live and move and have our being, as you yourselves have said."

But all this does not tell us why there are Creeds. We cannot proceed by etymology for the usual reasons and indeed for the stronger reason that the use of symbolum to describe the Apostles' Creed is a problematization of Cyprian, who lived after our first glimmers of the Apostles' Creed in Tertullian and Hippolytus. But by combining information about these first uses with some Scriptural insight, we actually might get somewhere. In the case of Tertullian, he states elements of the Apostles' Creed with some variation throughout his work, suggesting he was recalling them from memory, not of one hearing but of many hearings of a text maintained by oral tradition more than writing. From Hippolytus, we cannot say much about how the Creed was preserved, except that Hippolytus believed there to be a standard liturgical version. But Hippolytus shows us clearly that it was used as a baptismal creed. In the Acts of the Apostles, baptism usually is preceded by the proclamation of faith by an Apostle (and sometimes the coming of the Spirit). In the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, the Creed is expressed in a series of question to the baptized person in which the action of baptism in the name of a Person is linked to that Person. But this is really neither here nor there.

More relevant is the purpose of the Apostolic Tradition , which seems as if it is meant to be an instruction in orthopraxis, specifically the practice of the Church of Rome in Hippolytus' youth (apostolic through their supposed origins with Peter and Paul), to certain Churches subject to its moral authority. After the "baptismal customary" section, Hippolytus writes, "We have delivered these things to you only briefly concerning baptism and the oblation because you have already been instructed concerning the resurrection of the flesh and the rest according to what is written." The only thing the resurrection of the body has to do with the baptismal instructions is as part of the baptismal creed. Thus, Hippolytus suggests that the material of the Creed is controversial to churches other than Rome but founded on the apostolic tradition which that Church preserves. Through Tertullian we know there was a Creed at Rome, but in Hippolytus, its purpose evolved into the Clementine symbolum , commonly held doctrine whereby one Christian would know another or eventually whereby the world would know the Christian.

The Creed thus became a way to preserve a common faith among the churches that was above the personal opinion of a bishop, as the Apostolic Tradition says

"For if all who hear the apostolic tradition follow and keep it, no heretic will be able to introduce error, nor will any other person at all. It is in this manner that the many heresies have grown, for those who were leaders did not wish to inform themselves of the opinion of the apostles, but did what they wanted according to their own pleasure, and not what was appropriate."

To be fair, we should be careful giving this text the authority for which it asks, since it contradicts the Gospel at a few points. But it does convey well the idea of the Creed as common deposit of faith. And thus when a Creed is professed in church, it is meant not only as a reminder of faith to the local congregation but as a proclamation to any stranger of what the congregration believes. And since it is the symbol of the Christian faith, its proclamation more than anything else should make the stranger Christian feel at home. The Creed professed at public worship says to such a one as this that he or she is of the same Body as those with whom he or she worships. We alter its profession at our peril. It's a sad thing to hear the Creeds called exclusive, since they at least should be more inclusive of other Christians more than anything else in the liturgy with the exception of Scripture. But such is the wretchedness of the world.

However, I will admit that the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds are rather exclusive by their origins and natures. But we should remember that the Nicene Creed at least is not just a profession founded on anathemas but also the common sum of the voices of 318 Fathers, many of whom had suffered greatly for the faith they professed together. And we do omit the anathemas after all...

On How the Creeds are Professed

The most stereotypical pastoral problem of the Anglican priest is the parishioner who objects to professing the Creeds. The most stereotypical pastoral problem of the Anglican bishop is the rector who is complained of for not believing in the Creeds. The most vibrant argument of the reasserting crowd are the members of the episcopate who apparently do not believe the Creeds as written. It is therefore no surprise that I have been advised in various contexts of Christian formation that the Creeds are a prayer to believe what they contain (I also have heard it called a prayer to understand what they contain.) I detect some odor of error in this. The proof usually put forth in support of the prayer argument is that it ends Amen.

Yet here is the conciliar practice: At the Council of Chalcedon, the Creed was read to the bishops in the face of the Senate and the Emperor and the magistrates. After the reading of the Nicene ecthesis: the bishops are said to have proclaimed:

"This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe: into this we were baptized; into this we baptize: Blessed Cyril so taught: this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith: into this we were baptized: into this we baptize: we all so believe: so believes Leo, the Pope: Cyril thus believed: Pope Leo so interpreted it."

From this, we must assume, the Nicene Creed is concordant with the Apostles' Creed. Yet more importantly, the Fathers seem very certain of their beliefs. Thus, for the bishops of the Church, it seems ridiculous for them to pray the Creed. At the least, they should make the Creed as their solemn affirmation of the Faith, for the Acts of Chalcedon say," Let each one of the most reverend bishops of the present synod, hasten to set forth how he believes, writing without any fear, but placing the fear of God before his eyes;"

So much for the bishops. To what end is the profession of the laity, then? At the time of Chalcedon, we can see that the Creed probably was chiefly a baptismal text, as I have said, 'into this we were baptized; into this we baptize." This is a rather literal reading but the idea of baptism occurs so early in the formula of affirmation for me to say they were alluding to the Scriptural idea of baptism in the faith rather than alluding to the most obvious use of the Creed in their churches.


However, in some churches, the Nicene Creed already was part of the Eucharist, inserted somewhere between the Peace and the Anaphora. As very learned students of the liturgy read this blog, I will not go on too much. A few examples will suffice. See the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in which the Creed is introduced in the Prayer of the Prosthesis in this manner, "Let us love one another, that with one accord we may confess: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the Trinity, one in essence and undivided." Likewise we hear the same words in the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great. Apparently, the Peace is exchanged in their midst, the people saying both the latter half of the quoted words and the Creed itself. The Tridentine Ordo, however, makes the Credo a recitation by the Priest and a chant by the Choir, putting it at a great distance from the Peace. The Sarum Rite is like unto it. Nor do the early Books of Common Prayer say otherwise. Nor is there any contextual information for the recitation of the Creed, except that it follows the Epistle and the Gospel. Either the Creed was regarded as some sort of epitome of the Scriptures or the purpose of reciting the Creed had been forgotten in the West. Thus, it should be no surprise that the Creed is considered a prayer among Episcopalians, since there is nothing in our own liturgies or the most notable Western liturgies to make it anything more.

But there is one difference between the Nicene Creed of the 1979 BCP and all liturgical version I know. In all other cases, the profession is individual. In the 1979 case, the contemporary translation most commonly used says, "We believe," making it corporate. In effect, if we say the Creed in this way, we say it in the same way as the Fathers of the Councils. Should it have the same import? Should it be done in the same way or in the same mind? The most common sense answer would be in the negative. The Nicene Creed never was an affirmation of confident corporate unity in the Western liturgy as it appears to be in the Councils and the Eastern liturgies. Furthermore, the Nicene Creed now has been theologized as a prayer of corporate doubt by the same sort that put it into the 1979 BCP in that form.

But as for me, I cannot say I can put away from my soul the practice of Councils nor the individual cum corporate confidence seen in the liturgies of the Two Amicable Hierarchs. Surely, I can say, "This is the orthodox faith; this I believe: into this I was baptized; into this I have seen folk baptized: this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith: into this I was baptized: into this I would see folk baptized." Thus I do not pray to believe, for I believe. I pray somewhat to understand, but then who can understand? I pray mostly to live the Creeds, for what profiteth a man to have faith without works?

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that just as the apostolic women went to the tomb with spices and found the sweet savor of it empty and of the Risen Christ, you may go and confess the Creeds with both discernment and reverence, finding the sweet savor of both the faith of the Apostles and the Triune God therein professed and thus share in their mutual communion.

For the repose of the souls of the dead, for the welfare of the survivors, and for the protective witness of Joan of Arc, Father Benito Vines S.J., Father Lorenzo Gangoite S.J., and the triumphant Fathers of the College of the Immaculate Conception in New Orleans, the Holy Brothers pray, bless, and thank the Lord.