lit candle

Old Nicene Creed

Below is the text of the Nicene Creed prior to the liturgical changes in Advent 2011.

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand 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.

38 thoughts on “Old Nicene Creed”

  1. Here it is 2020 and I haven’t uttered a word of the post-2011 creed. The words of the creed and the eucharistic prayers fall harshly on my ear. So, rather than say what I don’t really mean, I stand there in silence.

  2. Why this creed is so important is that every non-negotiable doctrine of Christianity is clearly stated with no ambiguity. Deity, pre-existence, personhood, virgin birth, passion, bodily resurrection of Christ is there. Even a protestant could recite it.
    I agree with rebelcath, and others here. I am actually thankful that you all remember this creed, and i request your prayers, because i wish it were restored. I can’t recite the present version because it makes God look ridiculous. Is God omnipotent or Latin-language mistakes? Latin needs God-to fix it.

    There are youtube videos of catholic mass from 2008 when this creed was in use.
    This creed took centuries to happen. It was needed so that innocent Catholics would have a summary of the full gospel, and not be forced to recite heresy unawares.
    It’s not just a set of words.

      1. The wording of the prayers are changed to distance people, just one more step, from their faith! The temperature of the water changes so slowly, that the frog never jumps out of the pot; instead he just stays and boils. Communists change environments of others slowly; then the take over occurs. WAKE UP!!!

  3. PS. There’s no such thing as purgatory. Sorry but Catholics should stop wandering through life like blind sheep. The very last paragraph in the Bible, in Revelation ,. God clearly closes with a warning that if anyone adds to, or takes away from ANYTHING in the Bible, then they will be subjected to punishments mentioned in this book. Most Catholics have good hearts, but please do yourself a favor and study the word and quit letting other humans dictate false doctrine to you. Find the truth, and the truth will set you free !

    1. The early christians already practiced it, the purgatory word wasn’t in the scripture, similar to the exact words of trinity isn’t in the bible, but that belief was held among early christians all the same and didn’t arose from heresy, as a matter of fact, early christians were very reluctant to accepting any form of heresy, as was seen by the rise of gnosticism in the early age of christianity. Sorry protestants, but to truly understand christian history and the churches as we know it, you have to stop being a protestant and drop the silly notion that God allowed the “church of satan” rule over the entire christendom for a thousand years. The true christian heretics are you guys, the holy spirit has protected the true faith for millenias.

    2. But you disregard the actual history of the OT & NT. At the time of Jesus, there were 2 OT cannons in use: Palestinian and Alexandrian (Septugint) both received by the Jews. In 90 AD, the Jews settled on the Palestinian cannon & rejected the NT at the Council of Jamnia. Early Christians looked to their own church for guidance. So the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD) set the cannons of the NT and confirmed the Septugint, known to be used by the Apostles, as the OT. (Note the vast majority of the 350 OT references in the NT are from the Septugint.) This stood until Martin Luther (1483 – 1547) rejected Purgatory but also championed the idea of Sola Scriptura which created a problem w/current OT. So ML & early reformers adopted the Palestinian cannon for the Protestant Bible. Interesting to note that (1) the Palestinian cannon was adopted by Jews who rejected the NT & (2) ML also wanted to rid the NT of 7 books for the Potestant Bible, including Revelation (which you quote), but ML was unable to do so.

    3. The bible says you will be cleansed with fire before you enter heaven, that process was named purgatory, feel free not to call it purgatory, but if your soul needs cleansing after you die, you’re going to get it. And you don’t have to call it gravity, but when an apple falls from a tree it’s going to be pulled toward the ground.

  4. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. There is absolutely no reason for anyone in the church to mess with the1970’s Nicene Creed. It expressed my beliefs growing up. I will continue to receive it the way I learned it,(out loud), and so should every other WORSHIPER !

  5. Dear Catholic Crusader,

    Let’s get right to the point. The Bible says, “The first to put forth his case seems right, until someone else steps forward and cross-examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). We have heard the Catholic case, and will now cross-examine it. The Roman Catholic Church thinks that Jesus Christ wants us to actually eat his flesh and drink his blood and demands that Transubstantiation is true. Protestants insist he was speaking metaphorically, demanding Transubstantiation is false. Who is right? The answer shines forth when we examine Transubstantiation under the shadow of Rome’s claim to be infallible.
    Ready, get set, go.
    Roman Catholicism claims Jesus gave it the gift of infallibility. Got it.
    To be infallible, Rome must not err while claiming to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
    Got it.
    If Rome makes even one mistake, they cannot be infallible and Transubstantiation is a lie.
    Got it.
    We are now prepared to “expose this unfruitful work of darkness” according to Ephesians 5:11, so listen carefully. In the same way it took David to bring down Goliath with one stone, all it takes to bring down Catholicism is one word. That one, single, solitary word is, “truly”.
    The word “truly” contained in this thirty minute essay has the power to overthrow Catholicism and judge it as counterfeit Christianity. If it can be shown that the word “truly” has been used in a manner that is factually and indisputably incorrect, then the monstrous claim of infallibility must fall to the ground, and like a stack of dominoes, all of their doctrines in general, and Transubstantiation in particular, fall right along with it.
    Here is what we mean…

    The First Offense

    Catholicism teaches that the Council of Trent was infallible. The catechism quotes this council in #1376…

    “Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body He was offering under the species of bread”.

    No, he did not say any such thing.
    Let’s unpack this statement. We notice that there are three distinct errors in this one sentence alone! Jesus did not “say” that he was “offering” anything, let alone that the bread was “truly” his body.
    Trent’s first error was the brazen lie of telling us Jesus said something, when he didn’t.

    The Second Offense

    …declares that Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice right there in the dining chamber of the upper room before he went to the cross. We are told that even though he was sitting at the table, he began to co-exist in the bread and wine by some eerie, metaphysical process heretofore unknown. Trent teaches, “At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed [He] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine…”
    NO! Jesus offered his body one time and only one time (1 Peter 2:24) …i.e., at the cross, and certainly not at the Last Supper, and definitely not at any Mass going on today.

    OBJECTION: Jesus is described as the “lamb slain before the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8), so it’s quite possible for him to offer his sacrifice before he went to the cross because, “all that Christ did, participates in the divine eternity and so transcends all times” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, 11).
    ANSWER: That God sees everything from the perspective of a “divine eternity which transcends all times” is a concept that transcends our own minds, so it cannot be the rack we hang our theological hat on to prove our doctrine. Just because he knows the end from the beginning, does not mean that beginning at the Last Supper, the end of his crucifixion was now at the table hiding in the Eucharist. God deals with us in real space and time, and so we ought to judge matters according to the same measure. That said, the unbiblical notion that Jesus offered himself in sacrifice at the Last Supper before he went to the cross, breaks the real space and time barrier and is just as unsubstantiated as Transubstantiation itself. As to Revelation 13, the verse is speaking paradoxically. God anticipated the fall of man before the world was created and predetermined a plan where the Savior would step into history on a rescue mission. Paradoxically, he then may be called, “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world”, just as the elect were chosen “before the foundation of the world” as well (Eph 1:4). These were concepts that conveyed something was sure to be fulfilled at the appointed time, not that they had actually occurred as yet. But according to Catholicism, the “exact same sacrifice” that occurred on Calvary had already taken place at the Last Supper! (CCC 1367). However, this way of thinking does not correspond to the paradox of Revelation 13, and so the objection fails.

    The Third Offense

    …was to shamefully put the word “truly” into the mouth of Christ at the Last Supper, where he did not “truly” affirm anything at all. No Bible on Earth records Jesus saying the bread was “truly” his body. In response to this, we recall, “whoever attempts to keep the whole law but stumbles at just one point, is guilty of breaking all of it” (James 2:10). Likewise, by adding just one word into the mouth of Christ where it does not belong, Catholicism is guilty of breaking all the laws of infallibility.
    The Bible says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here in evaluating the claim of infallibility.

    OBJECTION: The Council of Trent was not wrong to teach Jesus said the bread was truly his body because that is what he meant!
    ANSWER: Trent is perfectly free to think Transubstantiation is what Jesus meant by, “This is my body”, as we are free to think that he meant no such literal thing. However, based on the premise that, “God is not a man that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19), Trent is not free to teach that he said the bread was truly his body to convey that Transubstantiation is a literal fact, any more than we are free to teach that he said the bread was not his literal body, to convey that Transubstantiation is false. Each of our respective cases must be based primarily on the biblical data without the need to put words in the mouth of our Savior (2 Tim 3:15-17). The biblical axiom is, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37). Trent did not do this and so they are, by definition, “evil” when it comes to infallibility.

    OBJECTION: The word “truly” is there to paraphrase that Christ was not speaking symbolically, but is part of the Church’s interpretation that he meant what he said, literally.
    ANSWER: Anyone who knowingly paraphrases is obligated to reveal their intention at the get-go to prepare their audience for what follows. Otherwise, we are to, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37). What Trent has done is to invite an argument, and we happily accept their invitation. They gave no indication whatsoever that they were trying to capture the literal meaning of “This is my body” with a paraphrase! They simply assert that Christ “truly” said the bread was actually his body, and leave it at that. But by doing so, they are guilty of adding to the Text. “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar” (Proverbs 30:6, Deut 4:2, Rev 22:18).

    OBJECTION: Let’s say you tell me that you disagree with the Pope’s stand on the death penalty. The next day I tell someone you… “said” … that you “completely” disagree with the Pope on the death penalty. Would you consider that a dishonest paraphrase of what you meant?
    ANSWER: No. It would be fair to report that although I didn’t actually say “completely”, that you paraphrased my thoughts accurately. No harm done. On the other hand, while professing to be under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Council of Trent made God out to be a liar. Repeat: the record shows that, “God is not a man that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19). It follows then that he would desire all disputation be based squarely on fact so the better argument is made manifest to all (1 Kings 18:24; Proverbs 18:17; 1 Cor 11:19). Trent overstates their case by demanding Jesus “said” the bread was “truly” his body, when in fact, he did not “truly” say that at all. This is dishonest.
    In John 21:22, we read of a rumor that was going around based on something Jesus supposedly said. But in the next breath, the Text reports that he did not actually say that at all. It is conclusive therefore, that this essay is in perfect harmony with the Spirit of Truth who is in favor of what Jesus actually said, rather than what he supposedly said. Hence, the controlling factor behind the Council of Trent was certainly not the Holy Spirit, but rather, only their raw emotions.

    More Sweeping Assertions

    As if the previous sweeping assertions were not enough, they compound their error with this: “For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth, that to be his own body which he presented [to them]”.
    The student of the Bible will notice at once that Jesus most certainly did not “affirm with truth” that the elements were actually his body and blood. He simply said, “This is my body”. An affirmation of truth conveys something to the effect of, “Listen up, this is important!”. But our Host at the Last Supper did not do this, and therefore, Trent was over-reacting and subsequently misrepresented Jesus a second time.
    If the grandiose claim of Transubstantiation is on course, it should stand out like a ship in the night with the floodlights of Scripture to guide it without misquoting Christ. Those of us in life rafts looking for salvation would then be more than happy to anchor our soul in the ocean of its truth. As it stands, the stormy ship in which Roman Catholics are sailing is taking in so much water, there doesn’t seem to be enough hands below deck with buckets to bail them out. Typically, all hands on deck refuse to even interact with the voluminous evidence against them, and throws it overboard. However, the roaring waves of Scripture confirm that the only “Transubstantiation” we are accountable to is he, “having made Himself of no reputation, taking upon Himself the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:6-8). Through the incarnation, the Creator of Heaven and Earth takes on the form of a servant, not the form of bread and wine.
    Trent’s decree simply dismisses the opposition as, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. But is it “godless” to compare Scripture with Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 Cor 2:13) and learn that, “This is my body” falls into the same metaphorical category as, “The Lord is my shepherd” (Psalm 23), or , “You are the salt of the earth” (Matt 5:13) or, “All flesh is as grass”? (1 Peter 1:24). Since all the world agrees that the object in each verse symbolizes or represents the subject, we are not out of order, let alone godless, to insist that the bread represents Christ’s body. The catechism even admits that in the Old Testament they lived, not by actual bread, but, metaphorically, by the “bread of the word of God” (CCC 1334). This is precisely what the biblical evidence proves happens in the New Testament! Yet, in Catholicism, they abandon the metaphor of the old, and replace it with literal bread in the new, meaning that since the Eucharist is the “medicine of immortality and the antidote of death” (CCC 1405), we must now actually eat Jesus, “the bread of heaven” (CCC 1355). Making matters worse for the Catholic position is the indisputable fact that God is represented as being a treasure, a rock, a shield, a horn, a shadow, a light, a branch, a root, a vine, a tower, a temple, a fortress and on and on! Never was he any of these things in actual fact, and thus the bread and wine never were or ever shall be, his actual body and blood!
    The Council of Trent insults the Christian faith by not “rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). To rightly divide the word of truth would be to allow the bread and wine to take their place alongside all the other places where God is represented by an inanimate object and thus, do away with Transubstantiation. But this they do not do. They proceed to compound their error by misquoting Christ. Therefore, because we know the sanctity of God’s word is endorsed down to the last “jot and tittle” (Matt 5:18), the Holy Spirit would never inspire Trent to misquote Jesus, even just a “tittle”. That said, the gift of infallibility was no more given to the church of Rome than there is a man in the moon, and that being so, the entire Roman Catholic faith is to be rejected per Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40. It is promised in those passages that all false prophets who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, “The Lord says”, (when the Lord did not say), will be swiftly cast out of his presence (cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21).

    OBJECTION: Only the actual canons that have an anathema attached to them, are infallible (i.e., “If anyone says…” and ends with, “let him be anathema”). The two places you quote from are in the decree “introduction” and “chapter” 4, not the actual “canon” themselves. “Introductions” and “chapters” are not infallible.
    ANSWER: You are forgetting that Trent professed to be guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their decree introduction, and not in a “canon with an attached anathema.” Shall we, according to your logic, conclude that whenever a council claims infallible guidance in a “decree” — and not in an actual “canon”, it may not be necessarily true after all? While that would be fine with us, we doubt the Pope would agree. He actually prefaces the error-filled paragraph 1376, by telling us, “The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith [by saying]…”

    Think of it! The very essence of Roman Catholic orthodoxy is built upon and summarized by the dark shadows contained in one, single and solitary error-filled sentence! Furthermore, neither Trent, nor any of the three popes who presided over the long-run of that council, nor any of the modern Popes, let alone the current catechism, make any distinction whatsoever between the supposedly infallible and non-infallible portions of a council’s decree. Instead, Trent made itself perfectly clear that everything contained in their decree is to be “preserved until the end of time”.

    What is a decree?

    A. By definition, a “decree” is an official order issued by a higher authority that is unbreakable. Trent’s document is entitled, “Decree Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, and the introduction and chapters which follow are naturally a part of that decree which cannot be broken.
    B. Code of Canon Law says, “All Christ’s faithful are obligated to observe the constitutions and decrees…(#754). The catechism confirms these decrees (CCC 9).
    C. “A council’s decrees approved by the Pope are infallible” (on-line, New Advent article, “General Councils”).
    D. “The infallible sacred magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of…ecumenical councils traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons and decrees” (on-line, Wiki article, “Infallibility of the Church”). Pope John XXIII confirms, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent” .
    E. A second Pope, quoting Trent from chapter 4 (and not a “canon” with an anathema attached) says: “This sets forth once more the perennially [permanently!] valid teaching of the Council of Trent [which the] Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called…transubstantiation” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia: 15).

    Thus, Trent was unambiguous, intending the entire decree, to the letter, be preserved till kingdom come. They, “forbid all the faithful of Christ henceforth to believe, teach, or preach anything about the most Holy Eucharist that is different from what is explained and defined in this present decree”.

    The Living Nightmare of “Another Jesus”

    The Council of Trent contradicts the counsel of modern day Rome, where we read, “In him [Christ], he [God] has said everything; there will be no other word than this one” (CCC 65). Yet…Trent did indeed add a word, and it is by that single, erroneous word that exposes the “gift of infallibility” to be a farce. Trent has, “boasted of a false gift [making them] like clouds and wind with no rain” (Proverbs 25:14). This one, single, misapplied word is a crack in the armor of the Vatican when it comes to their claim of infallibility. It results in a living nightmare of, “another jesus and another gospel” per 2 Corinthians 11:4.

  6. Changing the prayers at mass, changing now the Lord’s Prayer…. This is a reflection of the confusion and dissension that Satan has brought to the world.

    Our Lady of La Salette warned us of the confusion that would occur in the church when Satan’s demons would roam the earth beginning in 1864. They are still up on the earth until the Arch Angel Michael comes down at Jesus’ instruction to restore the church and cast Satan’s demons back down into the abyss.

  7. pedro l. cejoco, jr

    in the apostles creed there is phrase ” He descended into hell” while there is no such statement in the Nicene Creed. Who added this phrase? I think Jesus actually went to paradise after he died. I often hear this in the Seven Last Words from the Holy Bible he told one of the criminals ” today you will be with me in paradise”.

  8. I will not recite the new Creed in Mass and this change has become an impediment to my full participation in Mass. I hate it along with all the other unnecessary changes. We had and have much more important issues in the Church that the Pope and Bishops (whoever worked on the changes) should have focused on that this. I can’t believe this has been in effect since 2011, because these changes trip over my tongue and still annoy me when I hear them said to this day. Ruins the celebration of the Mass to me. Same thing with saying, “I am not worthy to have you come under my roof”, at communion vs the old version. Return to the Latin version if your want to fix the Church.

  9. I must aged with the other folks who do not like the changes to the Nicene Creed. I do not care much for the version and saw no reason why it should have been changed. I grew up on the old version which I think is a much more devoted and expressive way of stating what I truly believe in. The new version is a very poorly shortened and simplistic form of the old Nicene creed. I still say the old version in church and after receiving communion I kneel on the kneeler and pray which I see no one doing that anymore. Times are changing but I will not when it comes to what the nuns taught me in the 1970’s and early 1980’s.

    1. We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

      We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand 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.


        I love this version of the prayer as well. I wish they never changed it along with everything else in mass. I never saw anything wrong with the original way of doing mass, why change so much??? It doesn’t feel like mass anymore.

  10. I agree about the change from worshipped to adore. I feel that most of the changes to the creed, as well as the changes in other prayers were unnecessary. If the Pope didn’t like the translations to English made more than 50 years ago then why not just have us recite the prayers in the original Latin. I would’ve minded that less than these new English versions. Actually, in my Church( I don’t know if this is universal) we recite the “Holy, Holy, Holy…” and other prayers in Latin during Lent. I look forward to that because it means I don’t have to hear the annoying new versions for a time. I don’t recite the new versions of any of the prayers (or the creed). I either stay silent, or , under my breath say them the way I was taught. It’s my little rebellion.

  11. I miss this version. This is the one I grew up saying. I feel uncomfortable with the new version and I have been told to get over it!

  12. Matthew Schroder

    This is the only version that should be used. My preist was an old Irishman with a strong, deep voice. He is why i remember it so well. The new PC version i do not like.

    1. Peter Ó Donnghaile

      The irony of what you say…There are a number of things in the 1960’s English translation of the mass which didn’t quite ring with the Irish & Scottish Gaelic translations- It was only when the “new” 2011 English wording came into use that I realised (with some surprise) that since the 1960’s the Gaelic versions had actually been closer to the Latin.

      All of us need to appreciate the value of the vernacular liturgy, realise that languages do slowly change and recognise the magisterium of the church. What we perceive as change is uncomfortable but to be open to the ongoing revelation of God in our own lives also demands that we be (lovingly) open to change in details that the integrity of the whole may stand.

  13. I am currently searching for the old version of The Apostles Creed.
    As I recalled back in the 60s when i was in a Catholic primary school, we learnt a number of prayers, and the Apostles Creed was one that I love. Now a days the words are not the same as I used to remember. I felt odd and uncomfortable every time when i recite the current one, I tried to find the old version for a long time, but failed. Can you please help and provide me with the old version back in the early 60s.
    I can remember the first few sentences.

      1. Because although “adore” came from the Latin word meaning worship, it’s not often so used in modern English. Now it’s often used in a romantic context. Most importantly, what was wrong about “worshipped” that it had to be changed? Unnecessary.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *