Authority of the Catholic Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t follow. How am I being dishonest and how did the Orthodox change the Creed? :confused:

In Christ,
Andrew
You said the RCC broke from orthodoxy because it added the filioque? Right? And it did! But does not mean it violated orthodoxy.

The Nicene Creed was created to fight heresies, and heretics didn’t stop inventing new ones after it was penned. Even if the Nicene Creed was sufficient to meet the theological challenges of its own day, **changing circumstances **might call for the creation of new creeds or even a revision of the Nicene Creed itself—for example, if heretics found an insidious way of misinterpreting some of its clauses.

Indeed, that’s how we got the Nicene Creed. It is a revision done in 381 by one ecumenical council (Constantinople I) of a **previous creed written in 325 by another ecumenical council (Nicaea I). **Heretics were misinterpreting the former creed’s clause concerning the Holy Spirit, so the fathers of Constantinople I revised it to prevent them from doing so.

It thus seemed that the Church’s magisterium has the authority to revise creeds of this nature. The question was whether it did so in the most prudent manner
 
You said the RCC broke from orthodoxy because it added the filioque? Right? And it did! But does not mean it violated orthodoxy.
To the Orthodox, by blatantly violating the canons (of which Rome approved) is a departure from Orthodoxy, which inevitably leads to heterodoxy.
The Nicene Creed was created to fight heresies, and heretics didn’t stop inventing new ones after it was penned. Even if the Nicene Creed was sufficient to meet the theological challenges of its own day, **changing circumstances **might call for the creation of new creeds or even a revision of the Nicene Creed itself—for example, if heretics found an insidious way of misinterpreting some of its clauses.
Ephesus said the Creed could not be altered by ANYONE. I’m unsure why this is so difficult to grasp. 😦
Indeed, that’s how we got the Nicene Creed. It is a revision done in 381 by one ecumenical council (Constantinople I) of a **previous creed written in 325 by another ecumenical council (Nicaea I). **Heretics were misinterpreting the former creed’s clause concerning the Holy Spirit, so the fathers of Constantinople I revised it to prevent them from doing so.
Correct.
It thus seemed that the Church’s magisterium has the authority to revise creeds of this nature. The question was whether it did so in the most prudent manner
This is where the Orthodox disagree. It’s still rather strange that Pope Leo inscribed the Creed in the manner he did. It sure looks like an act of defiance against the filioque which the Franks were adamant about adding into the Creed.

In Christ,
Andrew
 
He intended Christians to each determine what His Church ought to be? A loose-knit church? I seriously doubt it!
That’s exactly how it is in the later NT. It is wrong to assume Christ started the RCC man started the RCC from them interpreting what He said.
 
True,but that is why Christ left Apostles as the defenders of orthodoxy. Plus he did promise the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them the truth. Didn’t matter if there existed 1,000 opinions or views,there is only ONE Truth.
Maybe.

Staunch Catholics and other fundamentalists bank on it.

Others allow the possibility for a variety of paths to the mountaintop.
 
We did not add to the creed, i.e., the filioque is simply another aspect of the Holy Trinity that was emphasized at a time when Arianism was denying the divinity of Christ.
Very well put!
 
Hi TriuneUnity,

Where was I wrong, or where is my timeline off?
You’re not, Jimmy. It’s anachronistic because there are a lot of statements there by the fathers wherein modern Roman Catholic concepts are read in to their words. For example, any time the word tradition is used, it is presupposed that the father meant tradition like you mean tradition.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
**Was filioque defined in a conciliar setting with the entire Church? The Trinity most certainly was. **
Issue here is doctrine,not the filioque. Two seperate issues. Fact is there was NO OFFICIAL doctrine of the Trinity until **300 years LATER **
 
It’s kind of like hearing the Founding Fathers talk about tradition and then assuming they followed the same tradition we have of watching the Superbowl in February. Anachronisms abound…
You’re not, Jimmy. It’s anachronistic because there are a lot of statements there by the fathers wherein modern Roman Catholic concepts are read in to their words. For example, any time the word tradition is used, it is presupposed that the father meant tradition like you mean tradition.
 
To me its always been clear that the Church has authority and this is one of many reasons for why I returned. The Apostles Epistles to the Churches are a sign of the authority! In these writings to Christians they tell them how they should conduct themselves and to turn to the Church when the Apostles are delayed to always know how to act since the Church is the pillar of truth! Nowhere in scripture does scripture give itself authority!

The plain and simple truth is Jimmy is doing exactly what Christ askes of us to do with our fellow brothers and sisters in the faith!

“And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican” Matthew 18:17

Notice Christ doesn’t say consult scripture! Note Christ says Church not Churches! Logically you could not settle doctrinal squables if the church is this invisible body that encompasses all denominations and conflicting doctrines! No there is One Church and One Faith and we are called to that Faith and to submit to it.

True Bible Christians are Catholic 🙂
 
Josie, that’s hogwash, and we both know it. The Church of Rome indeed added to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Canon 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431:

I’m not sure if it gets any clearer. Yet it does. 😉 During the Patriarchate of Pope Leo III in the early 800s, he had the Nicene Creed carved into two silver shields–sans filioque, mind you–and placed above it an inscription in Latin “HIC LEO POSVI AMORE ET CAVTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI.” Now Rome has the filioque in its creed. If that’s not an addition, I really don’t know what is.

In Christ,
Andrew
Josie L. wrote that “the Holy Trinity… was emphasized” and is correct in bringing up the problem of Arianism. This is well documented (250–336 AD), before the Schism (431)… before the break between East and West…
.
So, in “emphasizing”, obviously, words were added, that’s a given. Most observant Catholics know the difference between the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.

So, I don‘t know about all this “hogwash” business…

Finally, as a Christian, what part of the Filioque do you disagree with?
 
You’re not, Jimmy. It’s anachronistic because there are a lot of statements there by the fathers wherein modern Roman Catholic concepts are read in to their words. For example, any time the word tradition is used, it is presupposed that the father meant tradition like you mean tradition.
How can this be a true statement when the early Church Fathers were Catholics? The Catholic Church does not presuppose what the Catholic Church wrote 🙂

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church – The Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 110AD!

A disciple of Saint John the Evangilst clearly says the Catholic Church! Not the Orthodox, or Eastern Orthodox, not the Lutherans, Methodists, and etc etc etc! THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that just so happens to follow every one of the above instructions to the letter today as it did back then!

“[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.” Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

“…to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline…one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul’s name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church…But of Arsinous, called also Valentinus, or of Militiades we receive nothing at all.” The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177).

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

“But for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance…these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325).

“Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church…” Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

“Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, ‘That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth’” Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures,18:25(A.D. 350).

The Church Fathers say the pillar of truth Paul write to timothy about is The CATHOLIC CHURCH! WAKE UP ALL OF YOU!
 
So, to disagree is to be non-Christian?
*Hello larkin31,

No, of course not, all properly baptized persons are Christian and are our brothers and sisters in Christ, just not in full communion. When I wrote “heretic”, that was to describe the historical problems that the early Church had dealing with various heresies. I wrote it in response to your post, where you wrote, “There was, however, disagreement and dispute from the very beginning." So, I assumed that your were referring to the first three centuries of Christianity and the Catholic Church’s responses to those heresies. I hope that this post clears up any misconceptions.

Peace
*
 
This is what is dismaying to many Christians: angry, self-righteous arguing over whose hierarchy back through time is more legitimate. The next step is fighting over it. Then killing over it when it is mixed with racial or nationalistic tensions.
Protestants don’t deny the apostolic line. Protestants don’t deny the importance of Peter and the Eucharist. And all human institutions have been marred by pride, and continue to be today. We must all work against against pride.
Greetings larkin; I have to disagree with you from the disposition you arrived from my post. I am happy to inform you, that my content is not to argue the differences of opinion with regards to apostolic succession. I hope to make it clear that I adhere to the Words of Jesus Christ himself, not man. Truth incited the same emotions as you displayed here self-righteous, and anger against the teachings of Jesus Christ, which came upon Saul (now Paul) who began to persecute the body of Christ because of Truth.

What is the difference between Jesus claiming to be the Son of God which became a contradiction to Saul’s belief’s, and Jesus building his Church upon Peter and his successors which becomes a contradiction to man’s pride who rejects the teachings of Jesus Christ written and practiced these 2000 years?

In this instance man isolates himself and is self enlightened with his freedom to build his own Community of believers apart from the Apostolic Catholic Church Jesus founded. Besides the successors of Peter and the Apostles in the Catholic Church have been given the divine power from Jesus himself to forgive sin, to bind and loose. What man built church possesses such power from God? Only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith in one baptism, in One Lord Jesus Christ has the divine given authority to excercise this powerful ministry for humanity.

The work you prescribe too, begins by believing and following the Words of Jesus Christ when Jesus said " I will build my Church upon you Peter". Anything else apart from scripture and practiced Apostolic Tradition comes from pride of men to the likings of Saul from Tarsus.

In short, repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not man’s gospel.😉
 
Greetings larkin; I have to disagree with you from the disposition you arrived from my post. I am happy to inform you, that my content is not to argue the differences of opinion with regards to apostolic succession. I hope to make it clear that I adhere to the Words of Jesus Christ himself, not man. Truth incited the same emotions as you displayed here self-righteous, and anger against the teachings of Jesus Christ, which came upon Saul (now Paul) who began to persecute the body of Christ because of Truth.

What is the difference between Jesus claiming to be the Son of God which became a contradiction to Saul’s belief’s, and Jesus building his Church upon Peter and his successors which becomes a contradiction to man’s pride who rejects the teachings of Jesus Christ written and practiced these 2000 years?

In this instance man isolates himself and is self enlightened with his freedom to build his own Community of believers apart from the Apostolic Catholic Church Jesus founded. Besides the successors of Peter and the Apostles in the Catholic Church have been given the divine power from Jesus himself to forgive sin, to bind and loose. What man built church possesses such power from God? Only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Faith in one baptism, in One Lord Jesus Christ has the divine given authority to excercise this powerful ministry for humanity.

The work you prescribe too, begins by believing and following the Words of Jesus Christ when Jesus said " I will build my Church upon you Peter". Anything else apart from scripture and practiced Apostolic Tradition comes from pride of men to the likings of Saul from Tarsus.

In short, repent and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not man’s gospel.😉
I repent repeatedly. I do not follow any man’s gospel.
 
Hello larkin31,

No, of course not, all properly baptized persons are Christian and are our brothers and sisters in Christ, just not in full communion. When I wrote “heretic”, that was to describe the historical problems that the early Church had dealing with various heresies. I wrote it in response to your post, where you wrote, “There was, however, disagreement and dispute from the very beginning." So, I assumed that your were referring to the first three centuries of Christianity and the Catholic Church’s responses to those heresies. I hope that this post clears up any misconceptions.

Peace
My point is to recognize that disagreement is a part of every religion, even among the most reverend brethren and sistren.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top