Nicene Creed

Footnotes

^[4014] It was the old Creed of Jerusalem slightly amended, and made the liturgic symbol of Christendom, and the exponent of Catholic orthodoxy. Compare the Creed of Cæsarea, Burbidge, p. 334. But see this whole subject admirably illustrated for popular study by Burbidge, Liturgies and Offices of the Church, p. 330, etc., London, Bells, 1885.

^[4015] Here the κ.τ.λͅ. is to be understood, as in the liturgies where a known form is begun and left imperfect. The clauses (see Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechet., lect. xviii.) are found in the Creed of Jerusalem, thus: “In one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church; and in the resurrection of the flesh; and in eternal life.”

^[4016] The addition of the Filioque, in the West, is theologically true, but of no authority here. See Pearson, On the Creed.

^[4017] Canon vii.

^[4018] No one. This re-affirms the action of Nicæa itself, and forbids the imposition of anything novel as a creed by any authority whatever. Nothing, therefore, which has not been set forth by Nicene authority (or by the supplementing and co-equal councils of the whole Church, from the same primitive sources) can be a creed, strictly speaking. It may be an orthodox confession, like the Quicunque Vult, but cannot be imposed in terms of communion, any more than the Te Deum

^[4019] Any other faith. The composition and setting north of another faith, as terms of communion, by Pius IV., bishop of Rome, a.d. 1564, and its acceptance, with additional dogmas, at the opening of the Vatican Council (so-called), a.d. 1869, brought the whole Papal communion under this anathema of Ephesus.

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0001 times.

Contents