Hmm, well James thinks I don't know what a final blessing is. I'm not sure of whether not knowing what it's called is a big issue - I mean, if I understand what it is, then surely it doesn't really matter what I call it.

Also, I'm not really sure of the adequacy of the Nicene Creed, due to the beliefs of the Church fathers of the time. I also quite like having a variety of creed - it means that I actually have to think a lot more about what I'm saying; it cannot just be recited. Now, that is far more about me, than about anything else. It's about how I work, I guess, but I like variety.

OK, so the Nicene Creed:
We believe in one God the Father Almighty
Maker of all things visible and invisible,
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
Begotten of the Father only-begotten
That is of the substance of the Father,
God of God,
Light of Light,
true God of true God,
Begotten not made,
Consubstantial with the Father,
Through whom all things came into being,
Both those in heaven and those on earth;
Who for us humans and for our salvation, came down
And was made flesh, and was made human,
Suffered and rose on the third day,
Ascended into heaven
And is coming to judge the living and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit,
But those who say There was when he was not,
and Before he was begotten he did not exist,
and that He is out of nothing,
or say that the Son of God is of another hypostasis or ousia,
or made or changeable or mutable,
The holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

Right, so this has a fair number of anti-Arian statements, and a huge paragraph of anathemae at the end...I prefer the creed of Constantinople, which has a more developed clause of the Holy Spirit, has no anathemae, denies subordination within the Trinity, and contains only one anti-Marcellian statement.

OK, so, until it refers to John 1:3, where it says the bit about "through whom all things came into being", the two are pretty much the same...but then the Creed of Constantinople goes on to say that:

Who for us humans and our salvation came down from heaven,
And was made flesh by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made human,
And was crucified for our sake under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried,
And rose on the third day according to the scriptures, and ascended into heaven,
And is seated at the right hand of the Father,
And is coming in glory to judge the living and the dead,
Whose kingdom shall have no end;
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Life-giver,
Who proceeds from the Father,
Who with the Father and the Son is jointly worshipped and glorified,
Who spoke by the prophets;
In one holy catholic and apostolic church;
We confess one baptism for the remission of sins,
We expect the resurrection of the dead
And the life of the coming age.

I prefer this to the Creed of Nicaea. By 381 when this was formulated there was a better understanding of the Trinity. Throughout the 4th century, there was much discussion on the Trinity, and the nature of the persons/ousia/hypostases within the Trinity.

Any way, I think that I've done enough theology here today...I have enough theology to revise today...SO, there you go. That's my thought on the whole thing of creeds. If they're theologically sound, I don't see why using a different one is at all problematic. If it properly professes our faith, then why the problem?!