A question for protestants

[nhylan]

It’s not just that we don’t agree that is the issue here. It is that one side has to invent ideas and innovative manipulations of the creed in order to justify their position and the other side doesn’t.

I was on your side of the fence once too, as an ardent protestant. I was confronted with arguments such as these and came to the same conclusion that you have, that I had no choice but to become Catholic. Knowing this, I was tempted to hold onto my former erroneous position on subjects such as the “one catholic church” for example in order to maintain the status quo and stay with my comfortable fellowship. Or else I could live out my profession of truth and in the face of all cultural and family opposition convert to the position of truth.

You have the same choice.

Sadly, few protestants today recite the creed, and those few who do choke at the bit that goes “I believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church”.

Especially the poor folk who only recite it once or twice a year and haven’t been shown how to explain away the creed with the catholic/Catholic argument. These folk almost have seizures when they are called upon to say those words.

Poor misled people.

Thats rediculous, no episcolian chokes down the creed, we say it with zeal. We just have a slightly different understanding of that phrase than you do. Its a shame that you can’t realize that we are all part of the one church and our lives are focused on Christ in the same way yours are. I feel sad for hard-core Roman Catholics like yourself.

 

[excubitor]

Thats rediculous, no episcolian chokes down the creed, we say it with zeal. We just have a slightly different understanding of that phrase than you do. Its a shame that you can’t realize that we are all part of the one church and our lives are focused on Christ in the same way yours are. I feel sad for hard-core Roman Catholics like yourself.

Alright I apologise to Episcopalians and am pleased that you do not choke on the words of the creed. I was not specifically addressing any particular denomination (for there are so many and so varied) I was speaking of my own personal experience of a number of protestant denominations that I have belonged to or visited in my 30 years as a protestant Christian. I commend you if you recite the creed weekly and with gusto. Also I never accused you or any protestant of having lives that were not focused upon Christ. I said no such thing. Please do not put words into my mouth.

I know that there are a great many devout people in protestant fellowships. I know because I was one of them before I felt compelled by my sworn love for truth to convert to the Catholic church.

Also I should caution you. It is not admissible to change the sense of the meaning of the words of the creed. It is not just a matter of confessing the right sequence of words. It is essential to confess the concepts which those words are intended to deliver. This is where sacred tradition is so important, because words may be twisted to mean different things, however the intent and concepts of the words and the interpretations of the words is preserved in sacred tradition. The faithful body of the Saints react against any change made to the intent and meaning of the words just as ardently as if someone was to actually change the words themselves.

So you might think that you are confessing the creed but in fact you are not. Because your forefathers believed that the one holy apostolic catholic church was hopelessly corrupted and became the seat of the antichrist and that’s why your forefathers had to come out of her and come up with a new meaning for “catholic church”.

So in fact you DO NOT believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church at all. Because what you believe in is a concept utterly different to what was originally meant by the bishops who wrote the creed at the Council of Nicea.

So in fact your zealous confessions of the creed are actually become ACTS OF DISBELIEF and defiance AGAINST the true one holy apostolic catholic church.

In proof that my words are true. Imagine if someone came up with a different sense to the words “And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures”. Maybe they came to understand that it was not his body which rose but his spirit which rose again.
And then they went around with zeal boasting “I believe that on the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures” and it was common knowledge that they all believed something completely different in those words than what you believed. How would you feel to see your creed twisted? Would you feel in communion with those people who had effectively denounced an article of your faith (the resurrection of the body) and left your fellowship and formed a new one in opposition?

How then can you justify putting a completely new and different spin on the meaning of “one holy apostolic catholic church” than had formerly been understood for the vast ages? Surely you cannot.

 

[larkin31]

Dear friends in Christ:

Do you believe Christ founded only One Church based on One Faith?

no

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

no

Hey no fair, you’re agnostic, do you even believe in Christ?

 

[excubitor]

no

profound. Typical answer of an agnostic.

Interviewer: Do you believe?
Agnostic: no
Interviewer: Anything you would like to add?
Agnostic: no
Interviewer: Thanks for your time, goodbye.

 

[nhylan]

We didn’t change the meaning of the words. Word for word I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. One meaning united, holy meaning sacred, catholic meaning universal, and apostolic meaning historical unity and authority given by jesus to the apostles.

What you don’t get, or see, is that the Roman Catholic Church is only one part of the whole catholic church. The meaning is the same, the view of the Roman catholic church is different. So we are not committing acts of disbelief against the catholic church, only against the portion of that which is Roman Catholic. So while you may think that I’m not reciting the creed but in fact I am and you and your church are not in any position to tell me otherwise and I resent the fact that you think you can. Do you know whats in my heart? no you don’t.

And as for your example about on the third day he rose again, I think scripture is pretty darn clear, along with tradition that the tomb was empty. Its pretty hard to read anything else into it so your story doesn’t really add up.

Alright I apologise to Episcopalians and am pleased that you do not choke on the words of the creed. I was not specifically addressing any particular denomination (for there are so many and so varied) I was speaking of my own personal experience of a number of protestant denominations that I have belonged to or visited in my 30 years as a protestant Christian. I commend you if you recite the creed weekly and with gusto. Also I never accused you or any protestant of having lives that were not focused upon Christ. I said no such thing. Please do not put words into my mouth.

I know that there are a great many devout people in protestant fellowships. I know because I was one of them before I felt compelled by my sworn love for truth to convert to the Catholic church.

Also I should caution you. It is not admissible to change the sense of the meaning of the words of the creed. It is not just a matter of confessing the right sequence of words. It is essential to confess the concepts which those words are intended to deliver. This is where sacred tradition is so important, because words may be twisted to mean different things, however the intent and concepts of the words and the interpretations of the words is preserved in sacred tradition. The faithful body of the Saints react against any change made to the intent and meaning of the words just as ardently as if someone was to actually change the words themselves.

So you might think that you are confessing the creed but in fact you are not. Because your forefathers believed that the one holy apostolic catholic church was hopelessly corrupted and became the seat of the antichrist and that’s why your forefathers had to come out of her and come up with a new meaning for “catholic church”.

So in fact you DO NOT believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church at all. Because what you believe in is a concept utterly different to what was originally meant by the bishops who wrote the creed at the Council of Nicea.

So in fact your zealous confessions of the creed are actually become ACTS OF DISBELIEF and defiance AGAINST the true one holy apostolic catholic church.

In proof that my words are true. Imagine if someone came up with a different sense to the words “And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures”. Maybe they came to understand that it was not his body which rose but his spirit which rose again.
And then they went around with zeal boasting “I believe that on the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures” and it was common knowledge that they all believed something completely different in those words than what you believed. How would you feel to see your creed twisted? Would you feel in communion with those people who had effectively denounced an article of your faith (the resurrection of the body) and left your fellowship and formed a new one in opposition?

How then can you justify putting a completely new and different spin on the meaning of “one holy apostolic catholic church” than had formerly been understood for the vast ages? Surely you cannot.

 

[Eutychus123]

It’s not just that we don’t agree that is the issue here. It is that one side has to invent ideas and innovative manipulations of the creed in order to justify their position and the other side doesn’t.

I was on your side of the fence once too, as an ardent protestant. I was confronted with arguments such as these and came to the same conclusion that you have, that I had no choice but to become Catholic. Knowing this, I was tempted to hold onto my former erroneous position on subjects such as the “one catholic church” for example in order to maintain the status quo and stay with my comfortable fellowship. Or else I could live out my profession of truth and in the face of all cultural and family opposition convert to the position of truth.

You have the same choice.

Sadly, few protestants today recite the creed, and those few who do choke at the bit that goes “I believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church”.

Especially the poor folk who only recite it once or twice a year and haven’t been shown how to explain away the creed with the catholic/Catholic argument. These folk almost have seizures when they are called upon to say those words.

Poor misled people.

Of some interest is the Missouri Synod Lutheran Church, where “Christian” is substituted for C(c)atholic.

 

[Izdaari]

I was on your side of the fence once too, as an ardent protestant. I was confronted with arguments such as these and came to the same conclusion that you have, that I had no choice but to become Catholic. Knowing this, I was tempted to hold onto my former erroneous position on subjects such as the “one catholic church” for example in order to maintain the status quo and stay with my comfortable fellowship. Or else I could live out my profession of truth and in the face of all cultural and family opposition convert to the position of truth.

You have the same choice.

I can’t fault for following what you believe to be the truth. I do that too.

However, our convictions on what the truth is in this matter remain opposite.

Sadly, few protestants today recite the creed, and those few who do choke at the bit that goes “I believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church”

I recite it mainly when I visit an Episcopal church, which I do fairly often because I enjoy liturgy at least as a change of pace, and because I will always consider myself at least an honorary Anglican due to the importance of C.S. Lewis to my faith (I might not be a Christian today without him). I have no problem at all saying the words and meaning them, because I too consider “catholic” to mean “universal”; the difference is I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the universal church. Calling itself that doesn’t make it true, just as with Lincoln and the dog’s tail.

 

[gcnuss]

Sadly, few protestants today recite the creed, and those few who do choke at the bit that goes “I believe in the one holy apostolic catholic church”.

Especially the poor folk who only recite it once or twice a year and haven’t been shown how to explain away the creed with the catholic/Catholic argument. These folk almost have seizures when they are called upon to say those words.

There was a time when “those words” caused me discomfort. I was raised under the influence of a Lutheran pastor who was virulently anti-Catholic. I am no longer captive to his prejudices and I, along with many of my fellow Lutherans, gladly confess our belief in “the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.” Having said that, I won’t deny that there are Lutherans for whom the word “catholic” raises red flags all over the place.

As far as the catholic/Catholic argument goes, I understand “catholic” to be an adjective while “Catholic” is part of a proper noun (Catholic Church). Thus, “catholic” would seem to be more inclusive than “Catholic.” The former, as I see it, includes all the baptized while the latter comprises the baptized who are subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

I won’t belabor this – I doubt that we will come to agreement. Nonetheless, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss things of this sort with my brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[larkin31]

I can’t fault for following what you believe to be the truth. I do that too.

However, our convictions on what the truth is in this matter remain opposite.

I recite it mainly when I visit an Episcopal church, which I do fairly often because I enjoy liturgy at least as a change of pace, and because I will always consider myself at least an honorary Anglican due to the importance of C.S. Lewis to my faith (I might not be a Christian today without him). I have no problem at all saying the words and meaning them, because I too consider “catholic” to mean “universal”; the difference is I don’t believe the Catholic Church is the universal church. Calling itself that doesn’t make it true, just as with Lincoln and the dog’s tail.

We recited this frequently in my Protestant church (UCC). I had to memorize it for my confirmation. It does not refer to the RCC for them, and they do no “choking” on it. It has a far more “universal” and ecumenical meaning.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

We didn’t change the meaning of the words. Word for word I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. One meaning united, holy meaning sacred, catholic meaning universal, and apostolic meaning historical unity and authority given by jesus to the apostles.

What you don’t get, or see, is that the Roman Catholic Church is only one part of the whole catholic church. The meaning is the same, the view of the Roman catholic church is different. So we are not committing acts of disbelief against the catholic church, only against the portion of that which is Roman Catholic. So while you may think that I’m not reciting the creed but in fact I am and you and your church are not in any position to tell me otherwise and I resent the fact that you think you can. Do you know whats in my heart? no you don’t.

And as for your example about on the third day he rose again, I think scripture is pretty darn clear, along with tradition that the tomb was empty. Its pretty hard to read anything else into it so your story doesn’t really add up.

What you dont get, or see, is that the Roman Catholic Church is understodd, by Catholics, to be only part of the Catholic Church. We have the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, the Syriac, Alexandrian, one rite that is almost coptic, the Maronite, Armenian, Chaldean, etc. The unifying factor is the acceptance of the authority of the Bishop of Rome. When you espouse your belief in One, Holy, Catholic, AND APOSTOLIC Church, then you are implicitly affirming your belief in the Catholic Church which has as its largest rite the Latin Rite. To give the oath of office for the Presidency, or a mayorship, and mean something other than what was intended by those who devised that oath is to make the whole thing a lie.

And for the example on the third day… For Catholics your interpretation of the Creed is as obviously wrong as you feel the “spiritual rising but not physical” of Christ would be. The Creed was devised by Catholics against heretics (all the creeds were devised to espouse the one faith when heresies arose) and to twist it into a heresy is wrong. “How can yesterdays heresy (The Nicene/Apostles Creed does not refer to the Catholic Church) be todays orthodoxy? How can yesterdays orthodoxy (the Catholic Church is the ONE Church built on earth by Christ) be todays heresy?” God is perfect truth and all things we have from him are absolute truth, by definition they cannot change. And since Christ is the head of the Catholic Church, then that Truth cannot change…

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

We recited this frequently in my Protestant church (UCC). I had to memorize it for my confirmation. It does not refer to the RCC for them, and they do no “choking” on it. It has a far more “universal” and ecumenical meaning.

It meant the Catholic Church to the people who wrote it.

If I were to say that I believe Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, God from God, Light From Light, True God from True God, but went on to espouse that God made Jesus into another God because he was such a good man, would I not be making my statement invalid?

I have to make exceptions here for Lutherans since they have, in a sense, apostolic succession (albeit illicit from the standpoint of the See of Peter). They could be considered, in a very loose sense, sedevacantist which would make their ordinations valid, but illicit.

FSC

 

[excubitor]

We didn’t change the meaning of the words. Word for word I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church. One meaning united, holy meaning sacred, catholic meaning universal, and apostolic meaning historical unity and authority given by jesus to the apostles.

You have changed the meaning. It used to mean the visible hierarchical body of the church and all the bishops, priests in their orders loyal to the Pope in their buildings. You go to any town in America and ask for directions to the Catholic church. They WILL NOT send you to the local Episcopalian or Lutheran church. THAT was the sense which was meant and understood by “catholic church” then as now. It is the reformers who changed the meaning of the word in order to justify their schism and still be able to use the creeds.

What you don’t get, or see, is that the Roman Catholic Church is only one part of the whole catholic church.

I get and see what you are saying. I positively deny that it is correct. Its a false teaching. There are elements of grace and truth which remain in your fellowships which are proper to the catholic church. These elements lead us towards unity, however so much has been lost from your fellowships that it is impossible to say that you are churches in the proper sense, because you lack apostolic succession and holy orders. I do not say this to denigrate you. On the contrary, I see you as hapless descendents of heretics who have not yet seen the way clear of the heresy. How can I denigrate you? because I was in your situation only 5 years ago. Who is to say that in 5 years time you too might be moved by the arguments you hear presented on Catholic Answers and yourself be convicted to convert to the Catholic faith. I commend you. I really do. Not many protestants are brave enough to post on Catholic forums and face these kinds of probing arguments. It seems to me that God has begun some work in you. It may not be coincidence that you have found your way here.

The meaning is the same, the view of the Roman catholic church is different.

Hang on. Are you saying that the Roman Catholic church changed the meaning of the creed. Why would it do that? Can you provide any historical evidence that any church father preached any kind of mystical invisible catholic church that was to be found outside the visible structure of the Catholic church. Please provide evidence that the Roman Catholic church changed the sense in which the creed is understood.

So we are not committing acts of disbelief against the catholic church, only against the portion of that which is Roman Catholic. So while you may think that I’m not reciting the creed but in fact I am and you and your church are not in any position to tell me otherwise and I resent the fact that you think you can.

I can, and I have, because I speak in accord with the Sovereign Roman Pontiff who said this to Queen Elizabeth I

He that reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and earth, has committed one holy Catholic and apostolic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, to one alone upon earth, namely to Peter, the first of the apostles, and to Peter’s successor, the Pope of Rome, to be by him governed in fullness of power. Him alone He has made ruler over all peoples and kingdoms, to pull up, destroy, scatter, disperse, plant and build, so that he may preserve His faithful people (knit together with the girdle of charity) in the unity of the Spirit and present them safe and spotless to their Saviour.

No doubt you resent these words and howl and shut your ears to them. Perhaps you will even rush and start gnashing your teeth. It matters not. You are kicking against the pricks. Dashing yourself against an unshakable rock.

And as for your example about on the third day he rose again, I think scripture is pretty darn clear, along with tradition that the tomb was empty. Its pretty hard to read anything else into it so your story doesn’t really add up.

I know that. I was using this to demonstrate a concept. I was not suggesting that there is any merit in the idea that the body of Christ did not rise, any more than I am suggesting that there is any merit in the idea that the term “one catholic church” relates to any organisation outside the visible structure of the Roman Catholic church.

Even the Orthodox have fallen foul of the creed. They at least have apostolic succession, however they can by no means be regarded as being “one”. Each of their patriarchs strives one with another and they have a church for each nation and so are neither “one” or “universal”, whereas the Latin church is truly universal. So when we look at the whole title of the church, “one holy apostolic catholic church” there is only one organisation that fits the bill and that is the Roman Catholic church, and the instrument of visible unity is the Pope who as Pius V pointed out is appointed by God himself to “preserve His faithful people in the unity of the Spirit”.

 

[larkin31]

It meant the Catholic Church to the people who wrote it.

If I were to say that I believe Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, God from God, Light From Light, True God from True God, but went on to espouse that God made Jesus into another God because he was such a good man, would I not be making my statement invalid?

I have to make exceptions here for Lutherans since they have, in a sense, apostolic succession (albeit illicit from the standpoint of the See of Peter). They could be considered, in a very loose sense, sedevacantist which would make their ordinations valid, but illicit.

FSC

I am not answering for Catholics in this reply. I am telling you how my Protestant denomination read it. Which is the question in the original poster’s prompt. I am not even arguing that it is right; I am just explaining what IS.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I am not answering for Catholics in this reply. I am telling you how my Protestant denomination read it. Which is the question in the original poster’s prompt. I am not even arguing that it is right; I am just explaining what IS.

I understand that. I just like the sound of my own voice And I like to show logical errors in things.

FSC

 

[larkin31]

I understand that. I just like the sound of my own voice And I like to show logical errors in things.

FSC

I like logical error discussions too. Which one are you referring to?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I like logical error discussions too. Which one are you referring to?

The lack of logic in using a word with a set, agreed upon, definition to mean something different than its original intention. Take the word Catholic. It has always meant the universal Church, and still does, it is only those outside the universal Church (sort of outside, but I wont go into that) who try to say that it means a “denomination” not universal.

FSC

 

[larkin31]

The lack of logic in using a word with a set, agreed upon, definition to mean something different than its original intention. Take the word Catholic. It has always meant the universal Church, and still does, it is only those outside the universal Church (sort of outside, but I wont go into that) who try to say that it means a “denomination” not universal.

FSC

the word “catholic” you mean? Huh?

Here is the dictionary on “catholic”:

cath·o·lic (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
   a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
   b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
   c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
   d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.
   n. Catholic
   A member of a Catholic church, especially a Roman Catholic.
   [Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole; see sol- in Indo-European roots).]

So, what is your point about “logic” again? “catholic” comes from the Greek meaning “universal”. Should we try to go back farther than that? I don’t know that anyone has, nor do I see the relevance in doing so, but I will if you have further etymological information.

Let me remind you, this thread is “a question for Protestants.”

 

[larkin31]

The lack of logic in using a word with a set, agreed upon, definition to mean something different than its original intention. Take the word Catholic. It has always meant the universal Church, and still does, it is only those outside the universal Church (sort of outside, but I wont go into that) who try to say that it means a “denomination” not universal.
FSC

Why are you suggesting that other denominations are not “universal”? Why are you claiming that some agreed upon definitions (see above, the second half) are more valid than others (see above, first half)? All of the definitions above are “agreed upon”–they are all part of common knowledge today and fully agreed upon.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

the word “catholic” you mean? Huh?

Here is the dictionary on “catholic”:

cath·o·lic (kth-lk, kthlk)
adj.

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal: “what was of catholic rather than national interest” (J.A. Froude).
3. Catholic
   a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
   b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
   c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
   d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.
   n. Catholic
   A member of a Catholic church, especially a Roman Catholic.
   [Middle English catholik, universally accepted, from Old French catholique, from Latin catholicus, universal, from Greek katholikos, from katholou, in general : kat-, kata-, down, along, according to; see cata- + holou (from neuter genitive of holos, whole; see sol- in Indo-European roots).]

So, what is your point about “logic” again? “catholic” comes from the Greek meaning “universal”. Should we try to go back farther than that? I don’t know that anyone has, nor do I see the relevance in doing so, but I will if you have further etymological information.

Let me remind you, this thread is “a question for Protestants.”

Dude, you are kind of proving my point here. There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Heck, we are even in the DICTIONARY regarding the word. Yet, for you it doesnt mean that? I find it interesting.

Hey, if you dont want my opinion, sorry. There is an ignore button on here somewhere…

Why are you suggesting that other denominations are not “universal”? Why are you claiming that some agreed upon definitions (see above, the second half) are more valid than others (see above, first half)? All of the definitions above are “agreed upon”–they are all part of common knowledge today and fully agreed upon.

Ahem, let me requore this for you

1. Catholic
   a. Of or involving the Roman Catholic Church.
   b. Of or relating to the universal Christian church.
   c. Of or relating to the ancient undivided Christian church.
   d. Of or relating to those churches that have claimed to be representatives of the ancient undivided church.
   n. Catholic
   A member of a Catholic church, especially a Roman Catholic.

a, b, c, d… yup, all the One Church.

Adjectives :

1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive
2. Including or concerning all humankind; universal:

Also, the one True Church.

I dont see your point here? The attempt to take one solitary definition and use it in isolation from the others is the problem. Remember, English is a dirty (loose, imprecise) language, and each meaning must be considered and quite often many meanings are intended. Catholic (or catholic), in reference to Christianity, refers to those people who are members of the Catholic Church, or can claim their membership in the Church through baptism. But one cannot remove the Catholic Church from the word, without eliminating the intent of the Creed. THAT is my point. A creed written by Catholics, to espouse the Catholic faith, suddenly doesnt mean Catholic (THE Church) it means catholic (any church)?

And remember, if you dont like my responding or my responses, click ignore, I wont get offended.

FSC