[Page 189]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever declares the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews (13:8).  This is the glorious truth of Christianity.  In God’s economy, Jesus Christ is always the same: he does not change!  Yesterday, while on earth as the Incarnate Son, Jesus "in the days of his flesh offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears unto him [the Father] who was able to save him from death" (5:7).  Today he represents his people in the presence of the Father as the high priest who is able to sympathize with them in their weakness, because "in every respect he has been tempted as we are, yet without sin" (4:15).  Forever he lives "to make intercession for them" (7:25) to the Father in heaven.

It is the truth concerning this Jesus Christ, now exalted in heaven as the great high priest, which is declared by the Ecumenical Councils.  For Jesus to be the same yesterday, today and forever in the dynamic meaning of the Letter to the Hebrews, he also had to be (as Heb. 1-2 makes clear) the eternal, unchanging Son of the Father.  Before all ages and through all ages and unto all ages he is the only-begotten Son of the Father.  As the Word and the Son of the Father he will not change!  Yet, without ceasing to be who he was and is, he did take to himself human nature in the womb of Mary, the Theotokos.

[Page 190]

Thus, in both an economic sense (Heb. 13:8) and an ontological sense (orthodox dogma) he is truly the same yesterday, today and forever.  The truth set forth in Scripture and the truth set forth in the doctrinal decrees of the Councils is one truth, expressed in two complementary forms. And the Church needs both forms!

This one Truth is the common possession of all Christians for all space and time until Jesus by his Parousia and Second Coming truly declares to the whole cosmos that he is the Lord and also that he is the same yesterday, today and forever.

For the traditional Orthodox or Roman Catholic the decrees of the Seven Councils are received as holy Tradition, which cannot be changed, only further expanded.  There may be some debate as to the precise meaning of the dogma, but its authority as Church teaching is not in doubt.  This being so, it is the constant prayer of many that the world will witness a continued, expanding, informed and joyous commitment to the doctrinal decrees of these Councils and to their implications for worship and evangelism, by Bishops, theologians, clergy and people, of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches.  This enlarging embrace and celebration of orthodoxy will, of course, necessarily mean the recognition and rejection of heresies, errors and false religion, which are as much a problem today as they were yesterday.  (See Appendix I for details of error entering the Roman Catholic Church through inaccurate translations.)  Further, we may suggest that such a dynamic and wholehearted recovery of holy dogma would have repercussions through the ecumenical movement upon Protestantism worldwide.

For traditional Protestants the authority of the dogma of the Councils is not so straightforward as it is for Catholics of the East and West.  They are ready and enthusiastic to say that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever;" but they say that the teaching of the Councils is to be received only if and where it is in agreement with the content and intention of the

[Page 191]

Holy Scriptures.  So there has been a general readiness in the conservative Reformed and Lutheran traditions to accept the patristic doctrines of the Holy Trinity and of Christology because they are seen as either within or required by the Holy Scriptures, as they interpret them.  However, there has been a general hesitancy in these traditions to call Mary the Theotokos and a definite refusal to follow the teaching of Nicea II on the veneration of icons.

Anglicanism, which learned to see itself as expressing an English form of Reformed Catholicism, began its modern existence in the sixteenth century during the reign of Henry VIII and his successors in England.  It has always had a special respect for the teaching of the first four Ecumenical Councils (comparing and linking Four Councils to Four Gospels) and has also quietly accepted that of the Fifth and Sixth.  But its attitude towards the decrees of the Seventh Council, Nicea II, has not been consistent, primarily because the teaching on the veneration of icons was originally interpreted through the excessive, western veneration (sometimes idolatry) of images (which Protestants of the sixteenth century strongly opposed).  This attitude, with its sustained appeal to Scriptural texts, is most clearly seen in the iconoclast rhetoric and teaching of the lengthy homily, "Against Peril of Idolatry," in The Second Book of Homilies (1563), authorized by Queen Elizabeth for clergy to read in church instead of preaching a sermon.

To appreciate this position of the Church of England in the late sixteenth century, we must notice two authoritative statements from the Church on the General or Ecumenical Councils.  First, the twenty-first Article of the doctrinal statement known as the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1571) declares:

[Page 192]

bly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and the Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.  Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

To set this statement in context, we must bear in mind that the Council of Trent was then in session and that this Roman Catholic Council, which was anti-Protestant, had been called into session not by Kings (Princes) but by the Pope alone!  Further, Protestants knew about such councils as the "Robber Council" of 449.

In chapter XIV of the Reformatio Legum Ecciesiasticarum (1553), which replaced the books of medieval canon law in the Church of England, the mind of this Church is expressed in these terms:

[Page 193]

If Article XXI is read in the light of this explanation, then it is reasonably clear that the first four Councils, at least, are not included in the list of those which erred.  Other sources (e.g., the homily "Against Peril of Idolatry") speak of a total of Six Ecumenical Councils being received as teaching the truth of the Faith.  However, as we noted above, there has been ambivalence or confusion concerning the Seventh Council.  Little was known of it in the West in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and where it was known, it was known in a misleading translation – e.g., proskunesis was rendered by adoratio, which meant that the fine distinction of meaning in the Greek text between genuine worship (latreia = adoration) of God as God and veneration (proskunesis) of icons of Jesus, the Angels and the Saints was lost in the Latin text!

There is no official Statement of the Church of England or of the Anglican Communion of Churches, which explicitly states that the doctrinal decrees of Nicea II are to be accepted.  Yet, since many Anglicans have used and do use icons (especially since the rise of the Anglo-Catholic movement in the mid-nineteenth century) in the spirit of the teaching of Nicea II, it is probably right to say that the Anglican Communion of Churches does not reject, and for all practical purposes accepts, the doctrinal teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Of course, if Protestants in general and Anglicans in particular, were to receive the whole Faith which is presupposed, declared and explained in the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, this commitment would require adjustments or even major changes in their practical expression of Christianity today.  Their Liturgies and forms of worship, their Spirituality, their Dogmatics (Systematic Theology), their evaluation of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, their doctrine and practice of the ordained ministry, their church discipline, and their reading and interpreting of the Bible would all be candidates for renewal.

[Page 194]

A final thought – anyone who studies the Seven Councils and their decrees cannot avoid such questions as: Is there a way to the truth, concerning Who is God?, Who is Jesus?, and What is the Gospel?, as stated in a propositional and rational form, without long and bitter controversies?  Is it possible to have Church dogma without first having painful and demanding debate?  Now, if it be the case that the Church did actually arrive at Truth in her dogma of the Holy Trinity and the Person of Jesus Christ made known in two natures, then one must concede that Truth as addressed to the thinking mind (in contrast to Truth as presented in the common sense approach of the Gospels) requires debate for its clarification and final statement.  Hopefully, that debate need not always be such as to make hearts bitter.

Further, in order for the Church to maintain in different centuries, places and languages the same dogma, there will need to be not only explanatory teaching to state what the received dogma is, but also debate to find the appropriate forms of its expression at any one time and place.  And, since it seems that there are always people in the Church who revive discarded heresies – Arianism, Sabellianism, Unitarianism, Adoptionism, Nestorianism and Monophysitism – there will always also be need for controversy in order to defend the received dogma and to set aside alternative, erroneous forms of teaching.  In other words, the Church will always need her servants who do for their generations what Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers and Leo the Great did for their own.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.  Amen

[Page 195: Appendices and Bibliobraphy]

[Page 196 = blank]

[Page 197]

APPENDIX I

I Believe/We Believe

Prior to the year 325, all creeds were local in character.  They were particularly associated with the preparation for baptism and the rite of baptism itself.  From 325, a new custom developed of Bishops in synods producing creeds as tests of orthodoxy.  Creeds for catechumens began with the words "I believe," while those produced by synods began with the words "We believe."

The most important examples of creeds as tests of orthodoxy are the Nicene Creed of 325, known as "the Creed of the 318 Fathers," and the Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, known as "the Creed of the 150 Fathers."  Since the Middle Ages the latter has been called "the Nicene Creed," which is a little confusing since the Creed of 381 is not identical with that of 325.

After the Council of Constantinople produced its Creed, it was then used in the local churches of the East as a baptismal Creed.  Thus it was used in the form, "I believe."  In the latter part of the fifth century, this same Creed, still in the first person singular, was introduced into the Eucharist, first by the Monophysites (to emphasize their commitment to orthodoxy) and then by the Chalcedonians (or Catholics).  Thus, it became a standard feature of the Divine Liturgy of the East.

[Page 198]

Much later it was introduced into the Latin Liturgy of the West, where the usual Creed for Catechumens and Baptism was known as the Apostles’ Creed.  The Nicene Creed in the Liturgy began, as in the East, with the first person singular, "I believe (Credo), and was in every way an honest translation, except that this Latin Creed had an extra phrase, filioque (= "and the Son"), which came after the words "who proceeds from the Father."  Therefore, the Latin Nicene Creed contained the doctrine of the double procession of the Holy Spirit, "from the Father and the Son," in contrast to the single procession of the original Creed of Constantinople (381).

In English, the translation of the Latin Nicene Creed which has been most widely known since the sixteenth century is that found in the Book of Common Prayer (1549) of the Church of England.

[Page 199]

lic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the life of the world to come.  Amen.

Somehow the "holy" as a description of the Church got left out of this translation by Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury.  Otherwise, it is a fairly literal translation of the Latin text used in the Latin Mass of the later Middle Ages.  The Latin equivalent of the Greek, homoousion to patri, was consubstantialem Patri, and is rendered "of one substance with the Father."  Another way of translating the phrase would have been "consubstantial with the Father" – as became common in later Roman Catholic translations.

Since the Second Vatican Council and the arrival on the ecclesiastical scene of new liturgies, there have come various attempts to introduce new translations of the "Nicene Creed" into the liturgies for the Eucharist.  The one which is found in the modern Roman Catholic Mass, as well as in the new Prayer Books of Anglican Churches, was produced by the International Committee on English Texts in the 1970s.  It is as follows:

[Page 200]

of the Father.  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.  With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.  He has spoken through the Prophets.  We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.  We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

Obviously, this is a very different translation to that of the older Anglican Prayer Book and, importantly, the difference is not related to only changes in the use and meaning of the English language since the sixteenth century.

It appears that this modern translation was intended to introduce the possibility (or the reality) of revised dogma into the Church.  The following are specific examples of this revisionism.

(i)  As the Creed of the baptized faithful who meet to offer Thanksgiving in the Eucharist, the Creed should begin with the words, "I believe. . ."  All the baptized together should say, "I believe...," for this Faith is the personal faith of each one!  The use of "We believe. . ." is obviously contrary to the best Tradition, for it confuses a synodical Creed with a baptismal Creed.

Apparently, what lies behind the "we" is an attempt by modern liturgists to forge a "community" (a word which carries heavy secular overtones in American English) out of alienated individuals (i.e., modern people without roots).  Thus, the Church is described as "the community of faithful individuals"; a sociological aim causes a change in the wording of the Creed of the holy Eucharist.  The truth is that Christians come at God’s call to the Eucharist as baptized believers; in the Creed they speak as particular persons, united in the Body of Christ in and by the Holy Spirit, as they each take full responsibility

[Page 201]

for their baptismal relation to the Father through the Son and in the Spirit.

The traditional use of "I" actually contains a meaning which we find hard to embrace living within the reality of modern individualism.  The Church is one; she is a person, for she is the Bride of Christ.  She is also our mother and teacher.  Thus, to say "I believe..." is to accept that the Church corporately is the primary believer, and that each baptized believer is making the faith of the Church his own when reciting the Creed.

(ii)  In the first paragraph, which confesses faith in the Father as Creator, there is one major problem.  The better translation is "visible and invisible."  "Seen and unseen" is misguided, even mischievous.  The word "invisible" suggests that it is impossible for the human eye to see the object in question (e.g., the seraphim).  In contrast, the word "unseen" allows for that which is not now seen to be seen later under different conditions.  It is interesting to note that modern biblical translations render ta orata kai to aorata (Colossians 1:15 and the exact words of the Creed) as "visible and invisible," not as "seen and unseen."  Why did the translators of the Creed render the Greek words as "seen and unseen"?  The probability is that the influence of the German Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner, caused the Committee to choose "seen and unseen."  Behind these words lie his views on transcendentals, which are a not to be identified with the invisible world of angels and archangels.  The intended meaning appears to be that what is now unseen will be seen as our mental and spiritual horizons enlarge!

(iii)  In the second paragraph there are two major problems.  First, instead of homoousios being translated, "one substance"

[Page 202]

or "consubstantial" [with the Father], the text has "of one Being" (where "Being" is capitalized).  Again it appears that Rahner’s influence was at work here.  (It has been well said that Rahner and the other transcendental Thomists are "Aquikantists", attempting to square the circle by synthesizing St. Thomas with Immanuel Kant.)  The doctrine of the Creed is that the Son possesses and shares the same, the identical, the numerically one Godhead or Deity with, the Father.  Regrettably, the phrase, "of one Being," does not convey this foundational dogma with sufficient clarity for it allows for a generic unity (in contrast to a numerical unity) in the Godhead.  Further, it may be read in the sense that the Father and the Son are one Being – that is, One God who has Two Names or Two Modes of Being.  It is interesting to note that the English translations used in the various jurisdictions of the Orthodox Church usually have "one in essence" or "coessential" as the translation of homoousios.

Also, in the second paragraph there are the added words "by the power of," with reference to the virginal conception of Jesus by Mary.  In neither the Greek nor the Latin text of the original Creed are any words to be found which could be translated "by the power of."  They are an unlawful and deliberately misleading addition by the modern translators (who also made the same addition to the Apostles’ Creed.)  Incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Vìrgine et homofactus est translates as "incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary and was made man."  Likewise, kai sarkothenta ek Pneumatos Agiou kai Marias tes parthenou kai enanthropesanta translates as "and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man."

Why did the Committee do it? Because, as their published Notes explain, some of their number wanted to make the conception of Jesus appear like the conception of Isaac and John the Baptist.  The point of the Creed is, however, that the Word became the Word Incarnate by the Holy Spirit’s unique presence and action in and upon the Virgin.  All animals and all

[Page 203]

human beings are conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, for he is present in Creation as the Creator; but only Jesus was uniquely conceived by the Holy Spirit, for he had no human father and was sent by the Father to be the New and Second Adam.  The expression "the power of the Highest" in Luke 1:35 is a name of Yahweh, the LORD, and cannot be used (as is often done) to justify this addition to the text of the original Creed.  In fact, to use this modern translation and know what is being stated is to embrace heresy – that the conception of Jesus was not unique, only remarkable!  It is to suggest that he actually had a human father.

More recently, the tendency in modern liturgical circles has been to translate the Creed within the rubrics required by inclusive language.  This also is the policy followed by the Jesuit scholars in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (ed. N. J. Tanner), where we have the phrases "for us humans" and "he became human and was crucified."  However, when it comes to the homoousios the translation is "consubstantial with the Father" and, in reference to the conception of Jesus by Mary, "incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary" (there is no "by the power of" the Holy Spirit!).

In summary, those who wish to be faithful to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to the Church their Mother and Teacher, and to the Orthodox Faith set forth in the ancient councils and by the Church in her authentic Liturgy (lex orandi: lex credendi) must recite the authentic Creed in an honest translation.  That of Dr. J. N. D. Kelly, which we have used in this book, is such a translation of the original Creed. Regrettably the so-called Nicene Creed in the modern Roman and Anglican Liturgies is not truly the Creed of Constantinople (381).  It is the Creed of post-Vatican II theological liberalism.

[Page 204 = blank]

[Page 205]

APPENDIX II

New Formula: Novel Doctrine

The formula "God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is being increasingly used by Christians of varying persuasions – liberal and conservative, traditional and modern, Protestant and Catholic.  It occurs in a variety of written sources from liturgies, from catechisms to theological studies. For example, there are traces of it in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) where in paragraph 257 we read, "God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (cf. also paragraph 261).

As far as I know, there is no evidence for the use of this formula in official English statements of the Christian Faith before the 1960s; likewise, there is, as far as I can tell, little or no evidence for its use by theologians before the post-World War II period.

Therefore, the question arises as to whether or not it is an acceptable statement of Christian orthodoxy.  Of course, it may be an acceptable statement of heterodoxy, but our concern is to ascertain if it conveys the truth of the dogma of the Blessed Holy and Undivided Trinity of the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils.

[Page 206]

Throughout its long history the Church has used certain formulas in her naming of the Holy Trinity.  These include:

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.  Amen.

The Blessing of God Almighty, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit be upon you and remain with you forever.

In the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the shortest and clearest statement of the dogma and doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the first anathema of the Fifth Council, that of Constantinople II (553).

If anyone does not confess one nature or substance, one power and authority, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, consubstantial Trinity, one Deity worshipped in three hypostases or persons, let him be anathema.  For there is one God and Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit, in whom are all things.

Here the first sentence is what the Fathers called "theology" proper – the dogma of the Holy Trinity, One ousia and three hypostaseis.  The second sentence is the Trinity known in the economy – God-as-God-is-towards-us/the world.  In the doctrine of the economic Trinity, God is always "the Father," the Father who has an Only-begotten Son and a Holy Spirit – the Father who is facing the world as Creator and Redeemer.

[Page 207]

In the historic liturgies of the Church (e.g. those of St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, the Roman Rite from the late patristic era and Archbishop Cranmer [1549]), we find both the dogma of the Holy Trinity and the expression of the economy of the Trinity.  The Eucharistic Prayer is addressed to the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit; the sacrifice of praise is offered by the assembly to the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit.  Yet, alongside and inside the celebration of the economy of God, there are expressions of the dogma of the Trinity (e.g. in the Nicene Creed and the Prefaces of the Eucharistic Prayer, where the Son is said to be consubstantial with the Father).

In modern times, the Episcopal Church in the USA has pioneered the new formula – "God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit" – in Liturgy and Catechism.  Other Churches such as the Anglican Church of Canada followed its lead.  Therefore, we shall study its appearance within authorized Episcopal sources.

The Episcopal Church liturgists, who in the 1960s and 1970s produced what became the authorized Prayer Book (1979), decided to create a new way of speaking of and/or addressing "God" as "Trinity" to accompany the traditional, received ones which we noted above.  Students of liturgy and doctrine are first aware of this novel formula in the misleading translation of the ancient Greek evening hymn, Phos Hilaron, in the Rite I service of Evening Prayer (p. 64).  Here we have the line, "We sing thy praises, O God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit."  If we take the colon seriously, this suggests that the one God who is addressed merely has three names and/or three attributes, rather than three subsisting Persons.  Further, since the praise is addressed to "thee" (singular), the impression given (perhaps through a faulty employment of Elizabethan English) is that a modalistic one God with three names or attributes is the object of the singing ("thy praise").  Anyone who reads the original

[Page 208]

Greek could never come to such an impression and conclusion!

It is, however, in the Holy Eucharist that the new formula is most obviously encountered.  In the Acclamation at the beginning of the Holy Eucharist are these sentences:

Celebrant: Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

People: And blessed be his kingdom, now and for ever.  Amen.

The Acclamation is in both Rite I and II, as well as in the three Ordination services for Deacon, Priest and Bishop.  Thus it is deeply ingrained in the public services.  Further, the novel formula is also used in the Catechism of the 1979 Book.

In the Catechism, in answer to the question "What [not Who] is the Trinity?" we are told that "The Trinity is one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit" (p. 852).  The word "what" points to the way in which the "one God" is known – in three names, as modes, expressions or attributes.  The use of the word "who," by contrast, would have pointed to Persons, and therefore would have required the omission of the colon and the addition of definite articles.

What is wrong with this Acclamation?  To answer this question we need to note the important Blessing on which it is based.  It was an intentional rewriting of the Blessing from the beginning of the Liturgy of the Catechumens in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church.  In the latter, the priest blesses the people as he holds the Book of the Gospels saying: "Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages."  This blessing recognizes that there is one divine kingdom, but that there are three divine Persons in the one Godhead.  Thus, this kingdom is the kingdom of all Three.  It is "their" kingdom.

The Episcopalian revision of the Orthodox Blessing first of all addresses a "God" who is neither specifically "the Father" (as in the New Testament) nor "the Godhead" (as in the tradi-

[Page 209]

tional Western theology of Augustine and Aquinas).  Instead, "God" is the Divine Being, the one Person, who has three names or attributes – "Father, Son and Holy Spirit."  That is, God is One, but is a triad in the sense that he has three special names or three modes of expression.  (It is worthy of note that since 1979 it has become common in parts of the ECUSA to change the three names/attributes to "Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier," to avoid all male images.)  Apparently this "God" is like a triangle or a three-leaf clover in that, while he is really One, he is both manifested and experienced as threefold.  The force of the colon between "God" and "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" is to suggest the equivalency of what is at each side of the colon.

Since the response of the people in the Acclamation is, "And blessed be his kingdom. . . ," where the pronoun, his, is obviously in the singular, then the meaning suggested/intended is that there is one "God" – the "God" who has the three names, attributes or expressions.  If "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" are intended not merely to be names, but truly the Names of Three distinct Persons (Gk. hypostases and prosopa) as the Church has taught concerning the Trinity, then the pronoun should be "their."  For the kingdom is the kingdom of the Three Persons – the Father, the Son of the Father, and the Holy Spirit of the Father.  They are Three Persons who share the one, identical divine nature and Godhead.

We conclude that this Formula is not a genuinely Christian Trinitarian statement, whether it occurs in official liturgies or in theological books.  The formula seems to be closely related to the tendency in western theology from early times through to modern theology to think of God as a Person with three names.  Historically, the formula belongs to the form of statement associated with the heresy of Sabellianism, a heresy which was often anathematized by the Seven Ecumenical Coun-

[Page 210]

cils.  Further, the Western Creed known as the Quicunque Vult (The Athanasian Creed) was produced in the fifth century to keep the Latin Church free of Sabellianism – i.e., free from the teaching that God is One as a simple rather than complex unity, who is experienced in three expressions, as fatherly, as in Jesus and as Spirit.

Further, in the 1960s and the 1970s, it was common in Anglican theological circles to speak of the one, personal God in terms of three Manifestations or Modes of Being.  These were Primordial Being ( the Father), Expressive Being (= the Son) and Unitive Being (= the Holy Spirit).  Thus Holy Being, it was said, had let itself be known in this threefold symbolism.  It is very probable that such theological concepts influenced the creators of the new liturgies.

The late Dr. Mascall, in a piece entitled "Quicunque Vult?  Anglican Unitarians," had this to say about the Blessed, Holy and Undivided Trinity:

The Trinity is not primarily a doctrine, any more than the incarnation is primarily a doctrine.  There is a doctrine about the Trinity, as there are doctrines about many other facts of existence, but, if Christianity is true, the Trinity is not a doctrine; the Trinity is God.  And the fact that God is Trinity – that in a profound and mysterious way there are three divine Persons eternally united in one life of complete perfection and beatitude – is not a piece of gratuitous mystification, thrust by dictatorial clergymen down the throats of an unwilling and helpless laity, and therefore to be accepted, if at all, with reluctance and discontent.  It is the secret of God’s most intimate life and being, into which, in his infinite love and generosity, he has admitted us; and is therefore to be accepted with amazed and exultant gratitude.  (Whatever Happened to the Human Mind?, pp. 117–18.)

The God whom the true Christian Church proclaims is the fundamentally triune God of the Father and the Son and the Holy

[Page 211]

Spirit.  It is not a unitarian God to whom the trinitarian character is attached as a kind of secondary, symbolic appendage.

[For more concerning the revised doctrines of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer see Peter Toon, Proclaiming the Gospel in the Liturgy, $11.95, published by the Prayer Book (1928) Society of the Episcopal Church, P. O. Box 35220, Philadelphia, PA 19128. 1-800-PBS-1928.]

[Page 212 = blank]

[Page 213]

APPENDIX III

The Council of Trent on Images

[Session 25. Translation from Percival, Seven Councils, p. 551.  There is a modern translation in Tanner, Decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, vol. II, pp. 774 ff.]

The holy synod enjoins on all bishops, and others sustaining the office and charge of teaching that, according to the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and according to the consent of the holy Fathers, and to the decrees of sacred councils, they especially instruct the faithful diligently touching the intercession and invocation of saints; the honor paid to relics; and the lawful use of images – teaching them, that the saints, who reign together with Christ, offer up their own prayers to God for men; that it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke them, and to resort to their prayers, aid and help, for obtaining benefits from God, through his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our Redeemer and Saviour; but that they think impiously, who deny that the saints, who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven, are to be invoked; or who assert either that they do not pray for men; or, that the invocation of them to pray for each of us, even in particular, is idolatry; or, that it is repugnant to the word of God, and is opposed to the honor of the one Mediator

[Page 214]

between God and men, Christ Jesus, or, that it is foolish to supplicate, orally or inwardly, those who reign in heaven.

Also, that the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ, which were the living members of Christ, and the temples of the Holy Ghost, and which are by him to be raised unto eternal life, and to be glorified, are to be venerated by the faithful, through which [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men; so that they who affirm that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of saints; or, that these, and other sacred monuments, are uselessly honored by the faithful; and that the places dedicated to the memories of the Saints are vainly visited for the purpose of obtaining their aid; are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and doth now also condemn them.

Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God and of the other Saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honor and veneration are to be awarded them; not that any divinity or virtue is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or that confidence is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by Gentiles, who placed their hope in idols; but because the honor which is shown unto them is referred to the prototypes which they represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ, and venerate the Saints, whose similitude they bear.  And this, by the decrees of councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicea, has been ordained against the opponents of images.

And the bishops shall carefully teach this; that, by means of the histories of the mysteries of our Redemption, depicted by paintings or other representations, the people are instructed, and strengthened in remembering, and continually reflecting on the articles of faith; as also that great profit is derived from all sacred images, not only because the people are thereby admonished of the benefits and gifts which have been bestowed

[Page 215]

upon them by Christ, but also because the miracles of God through the means of the Saints, and their salutary examples, are set before the eyes of the faithful; that so, for those things they may give God thanks; may order their own life and manners in imitation of the Saints; and may be excited to adore and love God, and to cultivate piety.  But, if any one shall teach or think contrary to these decrees, let him be anathema.

And if any abuses have crept in amongst these holy and salutary observances, the holy synod earnestly desires that they be utterly abolished; in such wise that no images conducive to false doctrine, and furnishing occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated, be set up.  And if at times, when it shall be expedient for the unlearned people, it happen that the histories and narratives of Holy Scripture are portrayed and represented; the people shall be taught, that not thereby is the Divinity represented, as though it could be perceived by the eyes of the body, or be depicted by colors or figures.  Moreover, in the invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed, all filthy lucre be abolished, finally, all lasciviousness be avoided; in such wise that figures shall not be painted or adorned with a wantonness of beauty: nor shall men also pervert the celebration of the saints, and the visitation of relics, into revelings and drunkenness; as if festivals are celebrated to the honor of the saints by luxury and wantonness.  Finally, let so great care and diligence be used by bishops touching these matters, as that there appear nothing disorderly, or unbecomingly or confusedly arranged, nothing profane, nothing indecorous; since holiness becometh the house of God.

And that these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy synod ordains, that it be lawful for no one to place, or cause to be placed, any unusual image in any place, or church, howsoever exempted, except it shall have been approved of by the bishop: also, that no new miracles are to be admitted, or new relics received, unless the said bishop has taken cogni-

[Page 216]

zance and approved thereof; who, as soon as he has obtained some certain information in regard of these matters shall, after having taken advice with theologians, and other pious men, act therein as he shall judge to be agreeable to truth and piety.  But if any doubtful, or difficult abuse is to be extirpated, or, in fine, if any more serious question shall arise touching these matters, the bishop, before he decides the controversy, shall await the sentence of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the same province, in a provincial council; yet so, that nothing new, or that has not previously been usual in the Church, shall be decreed, without the most holy Roman Pontiff having been first consulted.

[Page 217]

Select Bibliography

Atyia, A. S. History of Eastern Christianity. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press, 1968.

Attwater, Donald. The Christian Churches of the East. 2 vols. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1947–48.

Bindley, T. H. The Oecumenical Documents of the Faith. London: Methuen & Co., 1950.

Bright, William. Select Sermons of St. Leo the Great . . . with his Twenty-Eighth Epistle, called the Tome. 2nd ed. London: J. Masters, 1886.

Chestnut, Robert C. Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug and Jacob of Sarug. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Cochrane, C. N. Christianity and Classical Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1944.

Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 2d rev. ed. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Davis, L. D. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787). Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier Inc., 1987.

Evdokimov, Paul. The Art of the Icon. Redondo Beach CA: Oakwood Publications, 1990.

Frend, W. H. C. The Rise of Christianity. London and Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984.

------- The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

[Page 218]

Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1975.

Hanson, R. P. C. The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988.

Hardy, E. R. Christology of the Later Fathers. London and Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954.

Hughes, Philip E. The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ. Grand Rapids and Leicester: Eerdmanns, 1989.

John of Damascus. On the Divine Images. Trans. David Anderson. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1980.

Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Creeds. London and New York: Longman, 1991.

--------. Early Christian Doctrines. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1978.

L’Huillier, Peter. The Church of the Ancient Councils. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995.

Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. London: James Clarke, 1957.

Margerie, Bertrand de. The Christian Trinity in History. Still River MA: St. Bede’s Publications, 1982.

Meyendorff, John. Christ in Eastern Thought. Crestwood, NY: St.Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975.

Moore, Peter C. Man, Women and Priesthood. London: SPCK, 1978.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Vol. 2, The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972, 1974.

Percival, H. R. The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. Vol. 14 of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994. [Originally published in 1900.]

[Page 219]

Prestige, G. L. Fathers and Heretics. London: SPCK, 1948.

-------. God in Patristic Thought. London: William Heineman, 1936.

Relton, Herbert. M. A Study in Christology. London: SPCK, 1917.

Schaff, Philip, ed. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 14 vols., Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890–1900; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1994.

Sellers, R. V. The Council of Chaicedon. London: SPCK, 1953.

--------. Two Ancient Christologies: A Study in the Christological Thought of the Schools of Alexandria and Antioch. London: SPCK, 1954.

Stead, G. C. Divine Substance. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

Stevenson, J. A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337. London: SPCK, 1957.

-------. Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of the History of the Church, A.D. 337–461. London: SPCK, 1966.

Tanner, N. F. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols. London and Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990.

Toon, Peter. Our Triune God: A Biblical Portrayal of the Trinity. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1996.

Wainwright, A. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London: SPCK, 1965.

[Page 220 = blank]

[Page 221]

INDEX

Agatho, Pope, 42

Alberigo, G., 14

Alexander, Patriarch, 19, 72

Anathema(s), 21, 41ff., 48, 77, 80ff., 128, 135ff., 146-48, 172-174

Anglicanism, 191ff., 198ff.

Anomoeans, 78-80

Anomoios, 78-81

Anthropotokos, 30

Apollinarius/Apollinarians, 41, 82, 116ff., 122, 131

Arius/Arians, 19ff., 27, 41, 71ff., 86ff., 96, 115, 194

Athanasius, 12, 23, 74, 91-3, 97, 116, 121, 126, 131ff., 149, 194

Babai (Nestorian), 123

Basil of Ancyra, 173-74

Basil the Great, 12, 81, 93, 93-95, 97, 207

Bindley, T. H., 14

Bright, W., 137

Brown, R., 113

Byzantium, 26

Canons, 21-22, 26, 35-36, 50ff., 178-79

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 201, 205

Cathars, 21

Celestine I, 30, 119

Chadwick, H., 28

Chalcedon (see Councils)

Chestnut, R. C., 130

Christotokos, 30

Chrysostom, 207

Cochrane, C. N., 28, 37

Communicatio Idiomatum, 140, 171

Constans II, 23, 129

Constantine the Great, 18-19, 23

Constantine V, 169

Constantine VI, 45-46

Constantinople I, II, III (see Councils)

Constantius, 23, 78

Councils (in general), 10-12, 15, 39, 45, 89, 145, 149, 152, 189-92;

[Page 222]

Chalcedon, 32ff., 115, 126-27, 146, 151;

Constantinople II, 40ff., 95, 115, 122, 128, 148, 206;

Constantinople III, 42ff., 115, 129, 148, 171;

Nicea II, 45ff., 177ff., 193

Cranmer, Archbishop, 207

Creeds (I/we believe), 20-21, 25, 197ff.

Cullman, O., 113

Cyril of Alexandria, 12, 29-30, 33, 44, 119, 121, 124-26, 131ff., 134-35, 140, 142, 145

Davis, L., 14, 28, 37, 51, 176, 187

Dawson, C., 37

Dei Genitrix, 32

Deipara, 32

Diodore of Tarsus, 121

Docetism, 181

Dodd, C. H., 113

Dythelitism, 129

Easter, date of, 19

Ecumenical Movement, 17

Ekthesis, 128

Enhypostasia, 146, 152, 186-87

Ephesus (see Councils)

Eudoxius/Eudoxians, 81

Eunomius/Eunomians, 27, 81, 96

Eustathius of Antioch, 23, 121

Eutyches/Eutychianism, 32ff., 123ff., 141, 145

Eutychius, 40-41

Evagrius, 41

Evdokimov, P. ,51, 174-75, 186-87

Farrer, A., 111-12

Filioque, 25, 96, 198

Flavian of Constantinople, 33, 124, 141

Formula of Union, 31, 124-25, 136

Frend, W. H. C., 14, 37, 130

George, Patriarch, 42

Germanus, Patriarch, 179

Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian), 44, 81, 93-94, 97, 118, 150

Gregory of Nyssa, 81, 93-94, 97

Gregory VII, 18

Grillmeier, A., 130

Hadrian I, 45

Hagia Sophia, 40

Hanson, R. P. C., 83

Hardy, E. R., 97, 152

Hengel, M., 114

Heteroousios, 77

Hieria, Council of, 45, 169ff., 174

Hilary, St., 78

Homoios, 23, 78, 79, 81

Homoiousios, 23, 77-78, 8 1-82, 85ff.

[Page 223]

Homoousios, 19, 23, 25, 34-43, 73, 77, 80-83, 85ff., 88ff., 92, 115-16, 142, 202

Hughes, P. E., 76, 83

Hypostasis/Hypostaseis, 20, 23, 27, 34, 77-78, 87, 96, 121, 123, 127-28, 143-44, 151, 169

Ibas of Edessa, 40-41

ICET, 199

Iconoclasm, 45ff., 167ff., 177

Iconodulism, 177ff.

Icons,45ff., 164-65, 177ff., 180

Idols, 162-64, 168, 171, 184

Images 162ff., 211ff.

Incarnation, 29ff., 43ff., 101ff., 115ff., 129, 131ff., 180-81

Irenaeus, 12, 71

Irene, Empress, 45

Iznik (= Nicea), 18

Jacob of Sarug, 130

Jeremias, J., 113

Jerome, St., 78

John of Antioch, 30-31, 33, 119, 124-25, 136, 141

John of Damascus, 12, 151, 179ff., 187

Julian of Halicarnassus, 125

Justinian II, 40, 42, 122

Kasper, W., 161

Kelly, J. N. D., 20, 25, 28, 72, 83, 90, 130, 132, 144, 152, 203

Latreia (Latria), 47, 184-85, 193

Latrocinium, 125, 137, 192

Leo, Pope, 12, 33, 44, 137ff., 142, 151, 194

Leo III, 169, 179

L’Hullier, P., 28, 37, 51

Lossky, V., 97

Leontius of Byzantium, 145, 152

Lucian of Antioch, 71-73

Man, doctrine of, 103ff.

Manichaeus, 73

Marcellus/Marcellians, 23, 82

Margarie, B. de, 69

Marshall, H., 113

Mary, Virgin, 112ff.

Mascall, E., 107-08, 113

Melitian Schism, 19

Meyendorff, J., 51, 130, 152, 176, 179, 187

Monophysitism, 32ff., 123ff., 146-47

Monothelitism, 42ff., 128ff.

Moule, C. F. D., 113

Nestorius/Nestorianism, 29ff., 33, 41, 118ff., 134, 141, 146, 194

Nicea I & II (see Councils)

Ordination, 21, 26, 35-36, 50

Origen, 12, 41

Orthodoxy, feast of, 50

Ousia, 22, 23, 28, 73, 77, 80, 87, 88ff., 127

[Page 224]

Paganism, 168

Papacy, 17, 26

Paul of Antioch, 26

Paul of Emesa, 136

Pelikan, J., 51, 130, 176

Percival, H. R., 12, 14, 28, 32, 42, 51, 170, 184-85, 214

Persecution, 21-22

Philoxenus, 130

Phos Hilaron, 207

Physis, 133-34

Pneumatochoi, 27, 81, 96

Prestige, G. L., 97, 121, 130, 132-33

Proskunesis, 47, 178, 183-85, 193

Prosopon, 34, 43, 120, 143-44, 169

Pulcheria, Empress, 33

Quicunque Vult (Athanasian Creed), 90, 99, 111, 210

Quinisext Council, 42, 177-79

Rahner, Karl, 201

Reformatio Legum (1553), 15, 192

Robber Council, 124, 137, 192

Sabbas, St., 179

Sabellius/Sabellians, 73, 82, 90, 194, 210

Sellers, R. V., 37, 127

Serapion of Thmuis, 132

Sergius of Constantinople, 129

Severus of Antioch, 126, 130

Sirmium, Synod of, 78

Stead, G. C., 97

Stevenson, J., 83, 97

Tanner, N. F., 14, 28, 37, 51, 203

Tarasius, Patriarch, 46-47

Tertullian, 12

Theodore of Mopsuestia, 40-41, 121-22

Theodoret of Cyprus, 40-41

Theodosius I, 23, 24

Theodosius II, 30, 32

Theotokos, 29, 30-32, 47, 118ff., 142, 149, 155, 171, 172, 172-74, 181-82, 191

Three Chapters, 40, 122

Timothy, Patriarch, 126-27

Tome of 381, 26, 96

Toon, P., 69, 165

Trent, Council of, 211ff.

Trinity, the Holy, 9, 24, 27, 41, 55ff, 77, 88ff., 93, 146-47, 156ff., 206ff.

Typos, 128

Valentinian III, 30

Vigilius, Pope, 40

Worship, 66ff.

Yahweh, 10, 55ff, 86, 160ff., 168, 203