Crezul niceo-constantinopolitan. Câteva consideraţii asupra originii şi structurii lui
The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Some considerations on its origin and structure

Summary/Abstract: The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Some considerations on its origin and structure. This paper reveals several premisses concerning the two confessions of faith, the two creeds – the Nicene and constantinopolitan ones. Thus, Nicene fathers confined themselves to explaining only the report between the Son and Father, highlighting the godhead of Son. Similarly, teachings about the Holy Ghost, as they were defined by the First Ecumenical Synod – were, in fact, only a reference to it – proved to be insufficient, they needing to be developed and completed by the Second Ecumenical Synod. If in Nicaea attention was focused on proving consubstantiality of Son and Father and on mentioning existence of the Holy Ghost, without making any other reference to Him, Constantinople has the merit of emphasizing the hypostatical identity of the three and the reports to each other. In fact, the Constantinopolitan Creed cannot be characterized as a modified or extended version of the Nicene Ekthesis, but, due to taking over of expressions and statements from the Roman Symbol of Faith, the Constantinopolitan Creed is rather an extended version of the Roman Symbol. As such, what we call the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is in fact the Nicene-Roman-Constantinopolitan Symbol of Faith – an Ecumenical Symbol of west and Christian east’s unity in the first Christian millennium.

• Details
• Contents