C
Contarini
Guest
If it were sufficient, we wouldn’t have the Nicene Creed.
An Arian could affirm the Apostles’ Creed. Are Arians orthodox in your view?
Edwin
- Status
An Arian could affirm the Apostles’ Creed. Are Arians orthodox in your view?
Edwin
S
submariner2
Guest
Contanni,
My church uses both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. In fact all protestants accept the Nicene Council and the Chalcedon council. Does that suffice?
Regarding the Arians I frankly think there are is much more important than such a narrow viewpoint. I consider them christians. If they are not that would eliminate many ECFs.
Rob
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Thanks, what do you suggest I do or not do in formating.I agree Kathleen but jlhargus, the formating is making my eyes go :hypno:
A
adf417
Guest
I would suggest not as much bolding but more important, the font size changes. Some of any of this is good to emphasize you point but too much is hard to read. But it may be just me.
Peace Bro!
K
KathleenGee
Guest
having the apostles creed, the Nicene creed…it doesn’t make any difference.
You are separate from us. We are not one or else we would worship under one roof…and get to know each other…atleast in the Lord and being present…
Strangers in the Spirit…not brethren…
Actually, when people complain of Catholic parishes not having much community…I think we are truly lacking the gifts of our separated brethren. A baptized Protestant who decides to enter into full communion, affirms Catholic beliefs and church laws…goes through the pastor…and there are those who attend the Mass the very next day as full fledge members.
You are separate from us. We are not one or else we would worship under one roof…and get to know each other…atleast in the Lord and being present…
Strangers in the Spirit…not brethren…
Actually, when people complain of Catholic parishes not having much community…I think we are truly lacking the gifts of our separated brethren. A baptized Protestant who decides to enter into full communion, affirms Catholic beliefs and church laws…goes through the pastor…and there are those who attend the Mass the very next day as full fledge members.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Thanks Adf I will consider your advise especially the bold print.
S
submariner2
Guest
jihargus,
No. Doctine would not stand in the way as I explained. I simply love the church I now attend. I also respect its history and the way it teaches the Gospel Message.
I am not a OSAS guy, so I would say one could fall from faith and hence from grace. However a OSAS guy would say that person did not have faith in the first place. I think that is a pointless argument and I consider it a minor difference.
Mine is the United Methodist Church, the major one. I think the presbyterians across the street are the major one. I am not sure about all the differences but the Salvation Army was an offshoot of the Methodists and I think they felt they had a better way to get the Gospel Message out to others. I can understand that. They do a great job.
I agree there are too many divisions. Actually the Methodists combined with The United Bretheran Church in the 60s and that is why they are now called the United Methodists. So sometimes the action is to unite and not to divide.
Sometimes I think a split may be better to get the job done of preaching the Gospel. For example my own denomination was derived from the Church of England, which was very class concious. They ignored the needs of the poor and lower classes. John Wesly could not stand for that so he organized the Methodists to fill that need. The Church of England could never accept his movement hence the separate church. Yet today they respect John Wesley and consider him as one of their own. So doctrine is not always the cause.
As far as the OSAS issue, I think it is minor.
But I generally agree there have been too many splits among churches. It is far better to not make differences in minor doctrines a big deal as scripture teaches.
However I dont think that applies to the Reformers in the 16th century. Remember that Martin Luther was excommunicated. Thats what started the whole thing.
Rob
C
Contarini
Guest
This needs a little unpacking.
There are two Catholic churches down the road from me. They are about a block from each other. They are separate because the first parish was founded by Germans, and the Irish and other English-speakers didn’t feel comfortable there, so they founded their own parish with the permission of the bishop.
These two groups of Catholics have been worshiping under separate roofs for about 150 years. (That may change when the current priests retire–given the priest shortage I think the diocese may merge the parishes.) Are they or are they not one?
Of course you can say “they are one because they’re both under the same bishop and in union with the Pope,” but you didn’t mention these criteria in your post–you mentioned worshiping under one roof, which these parishes do not do. Similarly, you can say, “they are one because they share the same faith,” but you just dismissed this criterion as irrelevant.
I’m not bringing this up to be captious. I think that for all the Christians to worship in one place at one time on a Sunday, gathered around a Eucharist presided over either by a bishop in apostolic succession or by a presbyter acting under the authority of such a bishop, is an essential mark of unity. But that means that your Communion is not internally one. And I don’t think this is a trivial point.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
You keep changing the ground. And that’s my point. The ground keeps changing, because new controversies arise. Now perhaps this has been the wrong approach, and we should all “roll the clock back” and accept the ancient Creeds as the sufficient ground of unity. I have been going back and forth between this approach and the RC approach for about 15 years now!
But let’s not kid ourselves–the approach you are suggesting is not something that people “used” to accept but now don’t. They accepted it for a blink of an eye, in terms of all of church history, during the period in which the standards you favor were sufficient to address the controversies of the day, before new controversies arose.
No, it wouldn’t, for two reasons:
- Few of the pre-Nicene Fathers actually said that Jesus had a beginning. Tertullian seems to say this in one passage, but of course he’s dubiously orthodox anyway. And
- There’s a big difference between saying things that contradict a doctrine that hasn’t yet been fully developed, and denying it once it is developed and the implications are beginning to become clearer.
Edwin
S
submariner2
Guest
with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. 2 And I went up BY REVELATION, and COMMUNICATED UNTO THEM that GOSPEL which I PREACH among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, LEST BY ANY MEANS I SHOULD run, or HAD RUN, IN VAIN.]
jlh,
The major issue they discussed was circumcision and diet, which was a very divisive issue between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. Acts gives the indication that it was settled but Pauls letters seem to indicate the issue still was a problem.
Thats true. He wanted the major issues I mention above settled to avoid arguements with the Jerusalem church. But it is obvious from his letters he had little regard for the Jerusalem leaders and went his own way on many issues.
His letters indicate he still regarded diet as not an issue at all in spite of their so called agreement in Jerusalem.
. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.]
Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but** IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican**.
Could you give a NT example of variety of beliefs?
I have read all that. Paul was very concerned about a gospel that did not require certain religious busy works as a requirement for salvation. In those days it was circumcision and diet. He had a big blow-up with Peter over that issue he discusses in Galatians and finally he left Antioc altogether.
There were various beliefs about lots of things. I mentioned circumecision and diet and the differences between the Hellenistic Jewish Chrstians and the Jewish Christians and the Gentile Christians. Their differnces are highlighted throughtout the NT.
Here is a statement by a prominent Catholic bible expert, Father Raymond E. Brown on the variations in belief about baptism.
“Our standard Christian theology of baptism is really a conglomerate made up of different
aspects of baptism that are mentioned in the New Testament. And so I would have to answer you that from the evidence baptism meant, at least by way of emphasis, different things for different Christians.”
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions on the Bible, Q 83. Imprimatur.
He discusses this issue of differences in doctrinal beliefs among the early christians in many of his many books on the early church. I have read several of them and respect his opinions very much.
Rob
S
submariner2
Guest
jlh,
Accordiing to Father Brown they did not call each other heretics because they had different beliefs. Most loved each other as christians and did not let minor differences spoil their unity.
Brown is the expert so I learn from him. I generally agree with his view.
Perhaps you might read the book to get the entire context? Have you read any of his books? But of course people disagree sometimes on what a book is saying. I think he is saying that the NT does not approve excommunication among christians for doctrinal purposes. In other words, all othodox christians, protestant and Catholic, should be in communion. I agree with that. My church accepts all sincere christians to the Lords Table as an expression of unity.
Of course there was no magesterium at that time in the NT and not until centuries later unless you want to call the Jerusalem church a magesterium which I do not and I think Father Brownn would not either.
Interesting discussion.
Rob
S
submariner2
Guest
contarini,
Dont you realize those differences were always there before the controversy arose. Any fair reading of the ECFs shows those differences before they were considered heretical.
The controversies arose because some kept restricting what they considered acceptable theology. Hence the creeds became out of date in defining unity.
Those controversies were never envisioned by the apostles. Jesus must have known that controversy would eventually arise since he specifically asked his disciples to stay unified as if He understood how divisive doctrine can be. It always happends that someone insists that they have all the truth and the other is a heretic.
I think it behooves us christians to begin to accept each other as did the early church accepted each other despite differences.
Even if it were for the “blink of an eye” it should be a guide for us. After all, Jesus was with his disciples for a blink of an eye yet He lives on in our heart. Perhaps the new controversies were not just something that arose but rather people that made a deal about things that should not have divided them?
Simple fact is that protestants accept the council of Nicene and the council of Chalcedon. (All of us. Even the Evangelicals) So your point is not relevant.
I disagree. Christians are crucified to the values of the world. You are speaking of liberal vs conservative values which happen in all denominations and even in the Catholic church.
That is no excuse for excomunicating each other. Jesus would not approve I am sure.
Rob
G
guanophore
Guest
If this is true, then why do you have two different names, buildings, and administrations? Why different hymnbooks? Why a different pastor?
No, it is that what you consider minor, we consider major.
Then, why separate?
I wonder…If you closed your doors today, and all went across the street, would anything have to change? I think you are minimizing the differences that do exist.
Well, we read it differently, ,that is clear.
Yes, this is what the Catholic Church teaches also, though not all Catholics are obedient to the Church in this matter.
On the contrary, Paul taught that those who have left the One Faith were not in a worthy state, and would bring condemnation upon themselves if they did present themselves to the Lord’s table.
If more Christians had this, instead of rejecting one another, then it would do much to heal the wounds of separation.
Unity, however, does not come from wandering away from the Truth. Hence, Catholics are not free to deny the faith that was handed down to us from the Apostles just to improve fellowship with others.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, the Catholic Church recognizes this also, but some Protestants have retained the Apostolic doctrine of the real presence as well. The further Protestant denominations wander from the Apostolic faith, the more likely they are to lose this Truth.
I was part of a Methodist community for six years, and at the end of that time, answered the call to ministry. I spent 3 years in a Seminary supported by the Methodist congregations, and it was during that time that I discovered that Methodism had departed from what the Apostles believed and taught. It was very difficult for me to leave, as I loved my Methodist community, and the style of worship. They had taught me the love of God’s word, and how to pray. I will be eternally indebted to my Methodist brethren.
There were communities that had departed from the One Faith, as is clear in the Letters of Revelation. However, in the NT Church there were no “different doctrines”. If there were different practices, it was required that they be based around the same doctrines. This is what distinguishes orthodoxy from heresy. The early Fathers urged Christians who were travelling to always look for the Catholic Church, whereby they would know that they were in the Church founded by the Apostles, rather than those who had departed from the One Faith.
Fr. Brown says nothing about “minor issues” here, Rob, that is your own insertion into what you are reading.
I think you misunderstand the nature of excommunication. When a person departs from the One Faith, they have already excommunicated themselves. This is what happened in the early Church. That is why the Fathers taught that the valid Eucharist is the one celebrated by the Bishop, or his designate.
That’s just the point, though. Who then decides what is 'significant"? Do you find a list in your NT somewhere? Essentials, and non-essentials? I submit that this concept is part of human tradition
I agree with you tho, we all need to respect one another as Christians. From a Catholic point of view, Protestants stand in the tradition of Apollos.
C
Contarini
Guest
I think your reading is anything but fair–it’s highly anachronistic. Origen, for instance, was not an Arian. He had a subordinationist logos Christology which could be later used by Arians. Doctrine isn’t as static as you imply. Newman was clearly right on this, and any attempt to deny that doctrine continually develops is simply flying in the face of the evidence, and makes a “fair reading of the ECFs” completely impossible. You can’t read second-century texts as if they were written in the fourth century.
Well, that’s not what I see happening. Arius did not simply say something that people had always said. He took Logos Christology and drew a conclusion from it to which Athanasius objected based on his understanding of the preceding tradition and the conclusions he drew from it. Every time you restate an idea you are subtly changing/developing it.
Why? Why would the state of affairs between, say, 381 and the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy (let’s say 428) be uniquely perfect?
And you’re undercutting your own position by suggesting that Arianism shouldn’t have been excluded. How then can you say that the Nicene Creed is the standard, when it was developed to exclude Arianism?
If you throw out the Nicene Creed (as a necessary standard of orthodoxy) and fall back on the Apostles’ Creed, then you have to deal with the fact that the basic content of the Apostle’s Creed, the “rule of faith” set forth by second-century “Catholic” theologians, was also developed to exclude folks–namely the “Gnostics.” Now you may argue that they should have been excluded. But at some point, if you have any creed at all, you have to agree that somebody should have been excluded, because that’s what creeds do. If Christianity is about any particular beliefs at all, then there has to be a point at which you say, with all sadness and gentleness (at least that’s how it should be said–I agree entirely that it usually wasn’t done that way at all), “I’m sorry, but what you are saying isn’t in agreement with this basic set of beliefs, and we can’t allow you to teach it within our community.”
I guess I’m a bit confused as to whether you’re saying that this should never be done (which your interpretation of Jesus’ call to unity seems to imply), or that it should only be done with regard to the doctrines of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds (which was your original position).
It’s relevant to the point you made about pre-Nicene Christians.
Which Christians? Which values?
When Christians owned slaves, were they being "crucified to the values of the world,’ or were they not Christians?
When Christians today embrace the prosperity gospel, are they being “crucified to the values of the world,” or are they not Christians?
When Christians embrace same-sex marriage, are they being “crucified to the values of the world,” or are they not Christians?
When Christians condone abortion. . . . . . ?
When Christians embrace a patriarchal, macho view of how Christian men ought to behave. . . . ?
When Christians support war and the death penalty . . . . . ?
And so on, and so forth.
Now I don’t know your views on these issues, which is why I tried to cover a wide spectrum (all the things I’ve listed are, in my view, cases of Christians failing to be “crucified to the values of the world”–but I expect you won’t agree with me on all these points). But the point is that either you have to exclude most Christians from being real Christians at all (which would totally destroy your argument in this thread, it seems to me), or you have to agree that many of us, much of the time, fail to be “crucified” to many of the values of the world. (In fact, I’d say that all of us, all of the time–except maybe a few saints, and I’m not even sure about them, because some great saints have been influenced by their cultures in rather disturbing ways–fail in this regard.)
No, I’m not. This is only a “liberal” vs. “conservative” issue in a formal sense, not a material one. That is to say, my position is “conservative” in principle–I think that the Church needs to be able to draw lines in order to help us remain faithful and not compromise with the world–and yours is “liberal” in principle–you think the Church shouldn’t do that, or at least not beyond the lines drawn by the two ancient Creeds.
But the specific “values” I worry about are, in a contemporary cultural sense, “conservative” as often as “liberal.” I tried to select examples above that would show this. “Conservative” churches compromise with the world in some ways, “liberal” churches in others. The very division into “conservative” and “liberal,” when those terms are defined in a secular, cultural sense, is an example of being assimilated to the values of the world. When Catholics refuse to stand up for the unborn because that’s a “conservative” issue, or refuse to stand up for undocumented immigrants because that’s a “liberal” issue, they are compromising with the world.
I agree entirely that the Catholic Church is far from perfect–it has often compromised with the world. The point I’m making is simply that without the ability to draw dogmatic lines, the compromise would become total. There would be no “defense” against it. Dogma is an antibody. Sometimes it becomes itself a disease, just as antibodies can in certain disordered circumstances. But it’s necessary.
If the second-century Church had not been able to say, “the Gnostics are heretics,” then Christianity would probably have become just another interesting Greco-Roman mystery religion teaching that a savior figure had brought us enlightening knowledge that liberated us from the material world.
If the fourth-century Church had not been able to say, “the Arians are heretics,” then Christianity would probably have become a perfect mirror image of the late Roman Empire, with a monarchical God who rules the world through a semi-divine intermediary.
And so on.
I know that I’m making some speculative, counterfactual claims here. But I think there are good reasons in the cultural context of these controversies to say that these consequences were quite likely.
The Jesus who said that the way was narrow?
The Jesus who seems to have delighted in putting obstacles in the path of nice people who were enthusiastic about following Him?
The Jesus who called a group of people who believed in him “children of the devil”?
That Jesus?
Edwin
G
guanophore
Guest
There were no “different doctrines” among Catholics. Those who expoused different doctrines were considered hereics and could not be admitted to Communion.
I think it is not so much that the creed is insufficient, but that the Reformers assigned new meanings to some of the language, both Scriptural and Creedal. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church does not mean to Protestants now what it meant to the disciples of the Apostles.
G
guanophore
Guest
C
cjforJesus
Guest
THE CHURCH - PEOPLE OF GOD
781 "At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him. He has, however, willed to make men holy and save them, not as individuals without any bond or link between them, but rather to make them into a people who might acknowledge him and serve him in holiness. He therefore chose the Israelite race to be his own people and established a covenant with it. He gradually instructed this people. . . . All these things, however, happened as a preparation for and figure of that new and perfect covenant which was to be ratified in Christ . . . the New Covenant in his blood; he called together a race made up of Jews and Gentiles which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit."201
781 "At all times and in every race, anyone who fears God and does what is right has been acceptable to him. He has, however, willed to make men holy and save them, not as individuals without any bond or link between them, but rather to make them into a people who might acknowledge him and serve him in holiness. He therefore chose the Israelite race to be his own people and established a covenant with it. He gradually instructed this people. . . . All these things, however, happened as a preparation for and figure of that new and perfect covenant which was to be ratified in Christ . . . the New Covenant in his blood; he called together a race made up of Jews and Gentiles which would be one, not according to the flesh, but in the Spirit."201
G
guanophore
Guest
These were issues for the first Christian ecumencal council, but Paul also laid out before them the “whole gospel” that he was teaching, so that the Apostles could verify that it was consistent with what had also been given to them by Christ. Everyone who is appointed to minister in the Church must be subject to the authority instituted by Christ.
I am curious about where you find this “obvious”. To say that he had little regard for the Church formed by Christ is a gross mistatement.
You are mixing apples and potatoes here. The instructions that came from the Jerusalem council were for mixed communities with orthodox Jews included. Paul gave different instructions to Gentile communities.
You seem to have a very prejudiced conception of what happened…
There is a great distinction between matters of doctrine, and pastoral implementation of it. The doctrines cannot change, nor can they be different for different communities.
Fr. Brown is Catholic, and he does not promote anti-Catholic views. You are reading with a anti-Catholic bias so when you read what he writes, you understand it differently than Catholics do. The fact that the writings represent different “aspects” of baptism does not mean that there were different doctrines being taught. Different groups emphasized different aspects. That does NOT equate to different doctrines.
S
submariner2
Guest
guano,
The disciples or apostles never used that phrase but we think it means the same thing to the authors or the creeds. We certainly accept the words of it.
Rob
- Status