An icon of the Council of Nicaea, with the Emperor Constantine and the bishops holding a scroll with the words of the Nicene Creed
The ecumenical creeds as we understand them within the Anglican tradition are three in number: the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed.
These three Creeds have long been accepted as an integral part of Anglicanism. Article 8 of the 39 Articles states: “The Three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius’ 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 Book of Common Prayer 2004, p. 780).
The common focus in Anglican theology is based on an appeal to scripture, tradition, and reason. But this was expanded in the dictum of the early Caroline divine, Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626):
“One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries and the series of Fathers in that period … determine the boundary of our faith.”
The tomb of Lancelot Andrewes in Southwark Cathedral (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
In other words, Lancelot Andrewes is saying the tradition of the Church in Anglicanism finds its foundations in the three creeds – the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed – the decisions of the first four General Councils of the Church (Nicaea, 325; Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; and Chalcedon, 451); the first five centuries of the history of the Church, and the corpus of Patristic writings.
In providing this succinct summary of the foundations of tradition, Andrewes was influential for all of Anglicanism. So, for example, after the Caroline restoration in the 17th century, John Bramhall (1594-1663), Archbishop of Armagh, declared that he would admit all to Communion, especially the Lutherans, but also Greeks, Armenians, Abyssinians, Russians, and all who confess the apostolic creed and accept the first four general councils, even Roman Catholics “if they did not make their errors to be a condition of their communion.”
In 1888, the third Lambeth Conference passed a resolution that led to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, which states that Christian reunion could be based on a number of principles, including the acceptance of “The Apostles’ Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.”
Apart from these three creeds, however, as part of the liturgical revisions of recent years, a corpus of common texts has arisen, giving us a collection of interlocutory creedal formulas used at baptism (see The Book of Common Prayer 2004, p. 365, for an interlocutory adaptation of the Apostles’ Creed), in Services of the Word (The Book of Common Prayer, p. 165), in services for the Renewal of Baptismal Vows (The Book of Common Prayer, pp 399-400), in other settings (see New Patterns of Worship, pp 163-166), and often with ecumenical application.
In recent years, other creedal statements have made ecumenical contributions and had ecumenical impact. These include, for example, the Barmen Declaration, drawn up by Confessing Christians in Germany in opposition to the claims of the Nazis in the early 1930s, and the Kairos Declaration, published in South Africa at the height of resistance to apartheid.
As we look at the Ecumenical Creeds, we can ask ourselves:
● How relevant are these Creeds for today?
● What we would put in or keep out if we were asked to join the first committees set the tasks of writing the Creeds?
● What are the reasons for some people objecting to the creeds?
● What about some modern expressions of our faith in parallel creeds?
The three ‘ecumenical’ Creeds
1, The Apostles’ Creed:
The Apostles’ Creed is used by Anglicans traditionally in Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, and for most Anglicans this is the Creed first memorised, as part of the preparation for Confirmation. Although we call it one of the “ecumenical” creeds, it is only used in the Western Church and it is not found in the Eastern or Orthodox Churches.
The Twelve Apostles ... but did they write the Apostles’ Creed?
This creed is first referred to as the Apostles’ Creed in a letter written by Saint Ambrose ca 390. By that time, there was a legend that it was written by the 12 Apostles, each writing a separate clause or phrase. It was first used as a baptismal creed in the West, and was introduced into the daily offices some time between the eighth and ninth century.
2, The Nicene Creed:
Although we know the creed used at the Holy Communion or the Eucharist as the Nicene Creed, this is not what it actually is.
The Church of Aghia Sophia in Nicaea
The Creed, which was approved at the Council of Nicaea in 325, was drawn up to defend the orthodox faith against Arianism, and includes the term homoousion (consubstantial, of one substance with) to express the relationship of the Father and the Son in the Godhead. Four anti-Arian anathemas were appended to the original Nicene Creed and came to be regarded as an integral part of the text.
But what we know and use as the Nicene Creed is a longer formula, used in the Eucharist in both the East and West. This is more accurately known as the “Niceno-Contstantinopolitan Creed.” It is said to have been adapted at the Council of Constantinople in the year 381, although it may have been endorsed rather than drafted at that council, using the baptismal creed then in use in the Byzantine capital.
From the time of the Council of Chalcedon in the year 451, this Creed has been the defining creed of the church.
3, The Athanasian Creed:
The third of the so-called ecumenical creeds – the so-called Athanasian Creed or Quicunque Vult – is still included in The Book of Common Prayer of the Church of Ireland (see pp 771-773) but has been omitted, for example, from Common Worship and New Patterns for Worship.
This creedal statement was traditionally ascribed to Saint Athanasius (ca 296-373), who succeeded Alexander as Patriarch of Alexandria. But it is a Western document, probably written around the year 428, and is used only in Western Christianity.
It sets out the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, adding a list of the most important events in Christ’s life. It also includes anathemas against those who do not subscribe to its creedal statements and definitions.
Saint Athanasius … but did he write the Athanasian Creed?
How do we know it was not written by Saint Athanasius?
It contains a number of doctrinal expressions that arose as a consequence of debates long after the time Saint Athansius, who died in Alexandria in 373. And its statements on the procession of the Holy Spirit from both the Father and the Son could not be accepted in any Orthodox tradition.
The Book of Common Prayer includes the Athanasian Creed (see pp 771-773), after the Catechism of 1878 and before the Preamble and the 39 Articles. But there are no rubrics about when and how it should be used. Can you imagine situations or occasions on which you would use it? Can you ever remember it being used?
And so, although we call three creeds “ecumenical,” in reality there is only one ecumenical creed, the Nicene Creed.
Some foundational assumptions
First of all, let us look at some of the presumptions we can bring to this evening’s discussion:
1, The Creeds are formative:
The Creeds help us to approach the essential importance of what we believe, as Christians, and why. They have served this purpose for most of us throughout our experience of worship, perhaps since early childhood. They are an expression of the faith of the Church, not of the individual Christian.
2, The Creeds are for use in worship:
The Vatican wants to return to using the words “I believe …” at the opening of the Creeds. The Nicene Creed as used in Morning Prayer I and Evening Prayer I and in Holy Communion I in The Book of Common Prayer 2004 opens: “I believe …” (The Book of Common Prayer, pp 95 and 182). The Apostles’ Creed in Morning Prayer II and Evening Prayer II is also expressed as an individual statement of faith: “I believe …” (p. 112). But in the modern versions, the Nicene Creeds opens with the words: “We believe …” (p. 205).
The English language version is based on the Latin which opens in the singular, Credo in unum Deum … But the original Greek version opens with that statement in the first person plural, Πιστεύοµεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν …
In New Patterns of Worship you can find four ways in which the Creeds can be used disastrously, creatively, in a matter-of-fact mundane sort of way in worship, or to give life and meaning to worship and the liturgy in parish settings (New Patterns of Worship, pp 158-159).
The Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed are best spoken in communion with other Christians, and are only best understood within the context of an act of worship. At first glance they do not appear to be prayers. Who are they addressed to?
If we think of them as canticles, like the Gloria or Magnificat, we can find ourselves using them in worship in new and surprising ways.
3, We can meditate on the Creeds:
Despite their primary place in worship, the Creeds are a mystical statement of our faith, and of course we can meditate on them, in the same way as we can meditate on a piece of spiritual writing, prayers from our favourite prayer books, psalms, canticles or readings from Scripture.
By meditating on them, phrase-by-phrase, we can bridge the historical and the contemporary, the popular and the ecclesial, the objective and the subjective.
In an exercise like that, we can bring together our catholic heritage (objective creed) with an evangelical response (its personal and communal meaning).
How relevant are the creeds today?
We all know how church reports are produced. If you were asked to join a committee drafting the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed, what phrases or sayings would you keep in? What would you say is importance to a relevant and contemporary expression of the Christian faith today that has been omitted from the two Creeds most used in the Church of Ireland today?
This exercise is best done in small groups where we can look at the two Creeds, and compare and contrast them.
In small groups, draw up:
● three things you would delete;
● three things you would want to expand on;
● three things you would want to include that are not there now.
Difficulties with the Creeds
Can you imagine the different kinds of experience many have with the creeds:
● Some are suspicious of authority, and want to come to truth-claims in individualistic ways.
● Others are not yet prepared to make professions of faith, and have intellectual questions about issues arising from the creeds.
● Some individuals and congregations find the creeds to be irrelevant to daily life, and see little need for them in worship. I’m sure some of us are aware of a handful of parishes that can go Sunday-after-Sunday without using the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostles’ Creed, and the Nicene Creed.
How do we help people discover the connections between a profession of faith during Sunday worship in the parish, their intellectual struggle with issues that are in the Creeds or not in the Creeds, and their daily lives, the decisions, dilemmas and action they face each day?
Difficulties and possibilities in working through the phraseology:
Some of the difficulties people can have with the Creeds and phrases in them would never have arisen at the time they were drafted:
God as “Father” prompts questions about sexism.
God as “maker of heaven and earth” leads to reflections on faith and science. How does this relate to the Dawkins debate?
That Jesus “suffered” surely relates to the sufferings of his followers too. How do we understand the suffering of Christ and the problems surrounding suffering in the world today? Why does God allow suffering? This is the problem we know in theology as theodicy.
His descent into hell forces questions about the impossibility of a godless world. There is a debate at the moment between Roman Catholic theologians about the descent into hell.
● Are there reaches in the depths of hell that Christ cannot descend to?
● If so, are there parts of me, or some people, that are beyond redemption?
● If so, then how can Christ be God incarnate if all things are not possible for him?
● If not, then what do we mean about salvation and redemption?
● Are there dangers of slipping into universalism?
● And why do we see them as dangers?
To believe in the Holy Spirit is to acknowledge the necessity of change in the individual and new creation in the community. Where does the Holy Spirit dwell today?
That the creed is completed with an affirmation of hope — “the life everlasting” —is surely a cause for gratitude and praise.
Our ancestors in the faith stood to say these words, they reflected on them, and they put them into practice. To claim this life, summarised in the Creeds, is to say yes to the riches of a glorious heritage from the past and also to the present life that is given to us, as well as to the future. Have you thought of life everlasting from that perspective?
Some other objections to the Creeds
Some of the other objections to the creeds that we might discuss include:
1, The filioque: this phrase was introduced into the Nicene Creed in the early Middle Ages in a series of unilateral decisions in the Western Church.
The words “and from the Son,” are a Western addition to the Creed as it was originally agreed on by a Council representing the whole Church, East and West.
They correspond to the Latin word filioque (fili = Son, -o = from, -que = and), and the controversy about them is accordingly known as the Filioque controversy.
If we are looking for a statement that can be taken as common ground by all Christians, East and West alike, it clearly cannot include the filioque. On the other hand, Western Christians will be unwilling to have it supposed that they are repudiating the statement that the Spirit proceeds jointly from Father and Son. Some would suggest that we print the Creed with the filioque either in brackets or omitted altogether, but with the understanding that, while assenting to the resulting statement does not commit anyone to belief in the Dual Procession of the Spirit, neither does it commit anyone to disbelief in the Dual Procession.
2, Sola Scriptura: those who hold to this principle, argue that the Bible is the only rule of faith, and nothing else should be imposed on believers. But in response, it could also be said that Arians and Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, would also agree with this principle. How do we protect and ring-fence what we regard as essential doctrines or beliefs found in Scripture?
3, Freedom of conscience: Some fear that any required confession of faith might usurp “a tyrannical power over the conscience.” But once again, what are the limits to the Christian faith beyond which a group or church loses its place within the mainstream Church? Are Non-Subscribing Presbyterians part of the Christian Church? What about Quakers? What about claims by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons to be Christians? Who decides, and what tools or aids help us to decide within an ecumenical context?
4, Creedalism: There are those who argue that “Creedalism” leads to nominal Christianity. They would say that a mental assent to the doctrines of the Creed has often served as a substitute for true conversion and has led to dead orthodoxy. But to even use a term like “dead orthodoxy” demands some definition of orthodoxy.
5, Limiting the bounds of knowledge: Some argue that the use of confessions or creeds could give a false confidence that the truth in Scripture is exhausted by that confession or creed and thus true growth in the knowledge of the Scriptures becomes difficult. They say there is a danger that someone could feel that knowledge of the confession is enough and will consequently isolate himself from the dynamic of the living Word of God.
6, Restricting inquiry: Still others might say a creed can be used to repress genuine searching, to give artificial answers to questions, and to threaten those who are in a stage of inquiry and so tyrannise the tender consciences of believers.
7, What they leave out: If, as the Reformers said, the Church is where the Word of God is preached and the Sacraments are duly ministered (see Article 19, for example), where are these referred to in the Creeds? Apart from one passing reference to one baptism in the Nicene Creed, there is no other reference in the creeds to Baptism, the Eucharist, preaching or the mission of the Church; and there are no references to the implications of faith for discipleship, daily life and ethics ... there are no references to morality, sexuality, family life, slavery, sexism, business ethics, personal behaviour, because they are about Orthodoxy and not about Orthopraxis.
8, What they leave in: Does the Athanasian Creed say we believe in salvation (and damnation) by works? It says:
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting:
and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.
Some modern Creeds:
1, The Barmen Declaration
The Barmen Declaration (1934) is a statement of the Confessing Church opposing the Nazi-supported “German-Christian” movement. The “German Christians” were hostile to the Confessing Church and combined extreme nationalism with anti-Semitism.
The Barmen Declaration specifically rejects the subordination of the Church to the State. Rather, the Declaration states that the church “is solely Christ’s property, and that it lives and wants to live solely from his comfort and from his direction in the expectation of his appearance.”
The Declaration was mostly written by the Reformed theologian Karl Barth (1886-1968), but was also crafted in part by other Confessing Church leaders, including Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945).
2, The Kairos Document
The Kairos Document was a provocative theological statement issued by a group of black South African theologians mostly based in the black townships of Soweto, in 1985.
It challenged the churches’ response to what the authors saw as the vicious policies of the apartheid state under the State of Emergency declared that year. The Kairos Document evoked strong reactions and furious debates not only in South Africa, but world-wide.
The Kairos Document is a prime example of contextual theology and liberation theology in South Africa and went on to become an example for attempts to develop similarly critical writing at decisive moments in several other countries and contexts (Latin America, Europe, Zimbabwe, India, etc.).
It is widely thought though that Frank Chikane, a black Pentecostalist pastor and theologian, and Albert Nolan, a white Dominican theologian, were the key figures in drafting the Kairos Document.
When this fairly short document of about 11,000 words was first published in September 1985, it already contained over 150 signatures; it was subsequently signed by many more Church leaders and theologians in South Africa, although the amended list was never published. A substantially revised, second edition appeared in 1986.
The Kairos Document is structured in five short chapters (the second edition comes to less than 40 pages):
1, The Moment of Truth;
2, Critique of “State Theology”;
3, Critique of “Church Theology”;
4, Towards a Prophetic Theology;
5, Challenge to Action.
These are followed by a short conclusion.
Within the churches in South Africa, and worldwide, the Kairos Document led to intense and often heated debates.
The influence and effect of the Kairos Document was such that attempts were made in a number of contexts to create similarly documents to challenge the churches’ attitude to particular issues. None of these was remotely as successful as the KD. Several years later, some theologians in Europe tried to address global economics as “the new Kairos.”
Perhaps the most successful attempt to follow in the footsteps of the Kairos Document was the “Latin American Kairos Document,” called The Road to Damascus, written by Central American theologians and published in 1988.
● If you were to draw up a Barmen Declaration or Kairos Document for Ireland or Europe today, what would you include?
● Who would you want to involve in drafting and signing it?
● Who would you want to read it?
● Who would you want to be changed or transformed by?
The Book of Common Prayer, the Church of Ireland, 2004.
Alison, CF, The Cruelty of Heresy (London: SPCK, 1994).
Ayers, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy (Oxford: OUP, 2004).
Bettenson, H., and Maunder, C. (eds), Documents of the Christian Church (Oxford, OUP, 3rd ed, 1999).
Challenge to the Church: The Kairos Document (London: Catholic Institute for International Affairs and British Council of Churches, 1985/1989).
Geitz, ER, Gender and the Nicene Creed (New York: Church Publishing, 1995).
Gregorios, Paulos, Lazareth, WH, and Nissiotis, NA (eds), Does Chalcedon divide or unite? (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1981).
Micks, MH, Loving the Questions: an exploration of the Nicene Creed (New York: Seabury, 2005).
New Patterns for Worship (London: Church House Publishing, 2002).
The Road to Damascus: Kairos and Conversion (London: Catholic Institute for International Affairs and British Council of Churches, 1989).
Stevenson, J., and Frend, WHC, Creeds, Council and Controversies (London: SPCK, revised ed, 1989).
Young, Frances, The Making of the Creeds (London: SCM Press, 1991/2002).
Appendix: The Nicene Creed and the Four Ecumenical Councils:
Like most doctrinal statements, however, the Nicene Creed was not written in one sitting, nor was it written in a vacuum. This creed was developed, worded, phrased and edited at the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), and the version we have in The Book of Common Prayer (2004) is not the only and only, definitive, ecumenical version.
The First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea (325):
An icon of the Council of Nicaea
At the first draft of the Nicene Creed in 325, the principal was the heresy of the presbyter Arius of Alexandria, who taught, among other peculiar beliefs, that Jesus Christ, “The Son,” was a creation of the “The Father.”
A popular way of expressing this belief for those who agreed with Arius was: “There was a time when he [The Son] was not.” Arius taught that the Father, in the beginning, created (or begot) the Son, who then, with the Father, created the world. For Arius, then, Christ was a created being; his “god-ness” was removed.
Alexander, the Patriarch of Alexandria, summoned Arius for questioning, and Arius was subsequently excommunicated by a council of Egyptian bishops. In exile in Nicomedia, Arius wrote in defence of his beliefs. His following and influence grew to the point that the Emperor Constantine called a council of bishops in Nicaea (Νίκαια, present day İznik), where the first draft of what we now call the Nicene Creed was promulgated by a decided majority as a creedal statement of faith – and a firm rejection of Arius’ teaching that Christ was the “begotten” son of an “unbegotten” Father.
The principal argument for the full deity of Christ was made by Athanasius, a deacon in Alexandria who later succeeded Alexander as Patriarch. The Creed the bishops assented to in 325 is, for the most part, contained in the Nicene Creed as it appears in the Book of Common Prayer 2004, beginning with “We believe in one God . . .” and ending immediately after “in the Holy Spirit” (The Book of Common Prayer, p. 205).
The purpose was clear: to refute the teachings of Arius and to affirm the orthodox doctrine of One God in Three Persons with specific attention to the Christology of the Son.
The Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople (381):
However, the Council of Nicaea did not end the Arian controversy. By 327, the Emperor Constantine had begun to regret the decisions of 325. He granted an amnesty to the Arian leaders and sent into exile Athanasius, by now Patriarch of Alexandria, who continued to defend Nicene Christianity.
An additional heretical teaching by Macedonius – who was twice Bishop of Constantinople (342-346, 351-360) – denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The followers of Macedonius were referred to as pneumatomachians or “fighters of the spirit.” These pneumatomachians also believed that God the Son was a similar essence of substance as the Father, but not the same substance.
Macedonianism taught that the Holy Spirit was not a person – or hypostasis – but merely a power of God. The Spirit, then, was inferior to the Father and the Son.
Yet another group, led by Bishop Apollinarius who opposed the teaching of Arius, argued that Jesus did not have a human soul and was not fully human.
In 381, the Emperor Flavius Theodosius convoked the First Council of Constantinople, the second meeting of bishops (also known as the Second Ecumenical Council). Among the influential theologians at the time were Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Patriarch of Constantinople, who presided at the Second Ecumenical Council, and Saint Gregory of Nyssa, two of the Cappadocian Fathers – the third being Saint Basil the Great.
The Cappadocian Fathers
At that council, the bishops reaffirmed and expanded the Nicene Creed of 325 to address further questions about Christ’s divinity and humanity. They added five articles to the Creed concerning the Holy Spirit: the Lord, the giver of life; who proceeds from the Father (see John 15: 26): who is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son; and who has spoken through the prophets.
This expanded and modified Creed became the definitive document on the doctrine of the Trinity: one God in three persons or hypostases. Although more Councils and heresies followed, the Creed was essentially codified in 381 and received in 431 when the Council convened to discuss the Nestorian controversy.
However, a heavily disputed clause was added in 589 by the Third Council of Toledo primarily to counter Arianism among the Germanic peoples. Where the original Creed reads “We believe in the Holy Spirit . . . who proceeds from the Father,” the amended creed reads “. . . from the Father and the Son.”
Pope Leo III forbade the addition of the filioque clause (the words “and the Son”) and ordered the original Nicene Creed to be engraved on silver plates so that his conclusion would not be overturned in the future.
The filioque clause was one of the causes that eventually contributed to the Great Schism between East and West in 1054. The phrase “and the Son” still appears in the 2004 Book of Common Prayer, although a resolution of the 1988 Lambeth Conference called for its removal.
The Third Ecumenical Council, Ephesus (431):
Saint Mary’s Basilica … the Double Church where the Council of Ephesus met in 431 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
The Emperor Theodosius II called the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 to address the Nestorian controversy. Saint Cyril of Alexandria was a central figure in the Third Ecumenical Council as its spokesperson and president.
Nestorius, who was Patriarch of Constantinople, objected to the popular practice of calling the Virgin Mary the “Mother of God” or Theotokos. Nestorius taught that the Virgin Mary gave birth to a man, Jesus Christ, not God the Logos.
Nestorianism taught the Logos only dwelt in Christ, whose physical body provided a kind of temple for the Logos. Nestorius promoted the term Christotokos for Mary: the Mother of Christ.
Having summoned Nestorius three times to no avail, the Council condemned his teaching as erroneous and stripped him of his bishopric. The council declared Christ to be both a complete man and a complete God, and upheld the Virgin Mary as Theotokos because she gave birth not just to a man. The Council declared the text of the Creed, in its present form of 325 and 381, as complete and forbade any changes.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon (451):
The Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon in 451
Flavius Marcianus, Emperor of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire (450-457), called the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon (Χαλκηδών, present-day Kadıköy), across the Bosporus from Constantinople and now a suburb on the Anatolian side of Istanbul.
Once again, this council was concerned with the nature of Jesus Christ. Monophysitism, from the Greek mono (one or alone) and physis (nature) argued the Christological position that Christ had only one nature, which was Divine. While Christ was human, they believed, his less-perfect human nature was dissolved into his more perfect divine nature.
The council condemned Monophysitism and reaffirmed that Christ has two and complete natures as defined by previous councils. These two natures, the Council argued, operate harmoniously and without confusion. They are not divided or separate, as the Nestorians argued; nor did they undergo any change, as the Monophysites contended.
The Council gave a clear and full statement of orthodox Christology in a document defining the union of the divine and human natures of Christ. This document, which concentrates specifically on the nature of Christ, reflects a very clear, final statement on the orthodox theology that Christ is at once man and God.
The statement declares that is the unanimous teaching of the Church that Christ is perfect in humanity and in divinity; truly God (an Alexandrian notion) and truly man (an Antiochian notion); consubstantial with God and with humanity. It established the absolute limits of theological speculation using words like “unconfusedly,” “unchangeably,” “indivisibly” and “inseparably.”
The 1888 Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral does not list the Chalcedonian Creed among the fundament doctrines for Communion based on scriptures, creeds, sacraments and the historic episcopate.
The Chalcedonian Creed does not appear to contain any doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit, nor does it use the word Trinity. This is a single paragraph lifted from a larger document that speaks about the decisions reached at Nicea in 325 by the “318 Fathers” in attendance and at Constantinople in 381 by the “150 Fathers” in attendance.
Canon Patrick Comerford is Director of Spiritual Formation, the Church of Ireland Theological Institute. This essay is based on notes prepared for a lecture and workshop with Year II students on the Non-Stipendiary Ministry Course on 16 October 2009.