How Do Protestants Feel While Saying The Apostles Creed?

[MDK]

The completely catholic Church, long before the schism, long before Christians were sadly divided. As a Catholic of the Augsburg Confession, it is part of my history, too.

Jon

The division is very sad indeed. It makes me most sad for my friends in Protestant churches who are not getting what they would hope for, or what is advertised. Sadly, the Lutheran church does not have valid Apostolic Succession. This leaves the priesthood invalid and consequently the Sacraments such as Reconciliation and the Eucharist emptied of the full value. It empties the Nicene creed of meaning as well. As for the Apostles Creed applying, it leaves one wondering how it could be part of the Holy Church when it has been watered down so badly. There is also no valid forgiveness of sins as from those God sent out. There is some truth taught, though that could be used as a stepping stone to come to the fullness of truth. The people who really love Christ should take a long look at how the Apostle’s Creed really applies or does not apply well to their church. The Nicene Creed should be reviewed as well for the full four marks of the Church. As one who seeks Christ, you deserve better, more secure means to God, as He built and protects and is really and truly present in.

 

[JonNC]

The division is very sad indeed. It makes me most sad for my friends in Protestant churches who are not getting what they would hope for, or what is advertised. Sadly, the Lutheran church does not have valid Apostolic Succession. This leaves the priesthood invalid and consequently the Sacraments such as Reconciliation and the Eucharist emptied of the full value. It empties the Nicene creed of meaning as well. As for the Apostles Creed applying, it leaves one wondering how it could be part of the Holy Church when it has been watered down so badly. There is also no valid forgiveness of sins as from those God sent out. There is some truth taught, though that could be used as a stepping stone to come to the fullness of truth. The people who really love Christ should take a long look at how the Apostle’s Creed really applies or does not apply well to their church. The Nicene Creed should be reviewed as well for the full four marks of the Church. As one who seeks Christ, you deserve better, more secure means to God, as He built and protects and is really and truly present in.

MDK,
First, thank you for a post that shows a passion for full unity.
What you say about the Lutheran priesthood is exactly what a good Catholic should say. I honor your dedication to your faith, and the way you defend it. I also respect the charity with which you presented your case to me.

Jon

 

[Peter_J]

I love the Apostles’ Creed. I have always known that ‘Catholic’ means ‘universal’ and have always distinguished “the Holy CatholicvChurch” from “the Roman Catholic Church”. “The Holy Catholic Church” to me has always been the universal Church composed of all saved people. Originally, the early version of the Creed read “Holy Christian Church”.

Well, for what it’s worth, I believe that “the Roman Catholic Church” is “the Catholic Church”. They are one and the same. (Note: I do sometimes say “Roman Catholic Communion” rather than “Roman Catholic Church” to make it clear that I mean all those, whether Latin or Eastern, who are in full communion with Rome.)

 

[swariffin]

How do you non-Catholics feel out there when you profess the Apostles Creed while in your church when it comes to saying "“We believe in the Holy Catholic church…”?

In Indonesia as far as I know, when I attended the funeral service of my non-catholic christian friend, their Apostle creed is almost exactly the same as the catholic’s apostle creed. The only difference is the sentence “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”. Their version is “We believe in one true Church”. Everything else is exactly the same.

 

[Peter_J]

The Nicene Creed doesn’t say One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It reads, one holy, catholic and apostolic Church. We know exactly what was meant in Nicea and what we profess every Sunday, so I feel Grrrrreat everytime I profess my faith by saying the Nicene Creed!

If you’re going to get picky, you should know that Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) didn’t say either of those two things. It was the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 A.D.) that said “one holy, catholic and apostolic Church”.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by mark a
The problem I have (I’m a Catholic):

Many creed professing Protestants believe that the Catholic Church is not part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

I guess I don’t really see the problem you two are discussing. We (RCs) don’t subscribe to Branch Theory; so why should it bother us if others don’t subscribe to Branch Theory either?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Here we go again.

Never a truer word…​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

OTCA,

I know. No protestant can honestly answer your question- what they feel…?
Because, for them to say they “believe in the holy catholic Church” as simply meaning they “believe THERE IS a universal Church” is to us RCs not sufficient and nonsensical.

It is like saying, “There is a Constitution in Egypt. Period.” We can profess to believe it exist- nothing more. We don’t care what it is nor we are bound by it because we don’t really belong there- we are not Egyptians. But, hey, we can all claim to be Egyptians, can’t we? Don’t matter if the real Egyptians know we’re but fakes, right?

Therefore, everytime they recite the Apostle’s creed either they are *lying to themselves *or they just want to *deceive others *by proclaiming themselves as catholics. Simple as that.

This is simply untrue. ​

To believe what the creed says is to believe ALL that is in the Catholic Faith. Because she is the pillar of truth, guided by the Holy Spirit, and at all times safeguards those truths. That is why we believe.

They do believe it - but not in the “Romish” sense.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I know it’s hard for you. I find it hard, too, sometimes- to accept reality.

Well, if you can’t really *walk like an Egyptian *why even mimic and call yourself an Egyptian, right?

That sort of reasoning justifies euthanasia - people & other things are not defined by their acts - their acts manifest their essence, which is what defines them.​

By your own reasoning, why call the CC, or any other Church, Christian ? The acts of Christians - especially Catholics - have usually been anything but Christian. It’s the atheists who have behaved as Christians; & still do.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

which Church do you think wrote the Creed?

Not the Papal Church, because the CC was not a Papocracy. It was catholic, but not “Popish”. The CC-as-“Popish”-or-as-Papocracy can take credit only for those elaborations of the creed that set it apart from the rest of the Church.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

OMG, I cannot believe what answers I have seen on this post thus far. People who are saying capital “C”, and lower case “c” is simply utter nonsence and ignorance. There is one, ONE Catholic church, not two with upper and lower cases.
Furthermore I cannot believe the denial of these non-Catholics who inserted the word “Christian” church instead of Catholic like it was originally written.
Third, Jesus said “Universal” which was meant for his Catholic church, because, well, Catholic means Universal so why aren’t you in God’s Universal church?
I can see what Protestant pastors teach these people and what they learn from non-Catholics…pretty sad if you ask me.
"We believe in the Holy Catholic church, THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS", I suppose you’ll tell me that the Communion of Saints means something else…oh boy…God help these people…
**MDK, you are correct in what you say… **

It did mean something else originally - it used to mean “communion of holy things” - koinōnia tōn hagiōn can mean “communion of holy [things]” or “communion of holy [people]” in Greek, & the Latin communio sanctorum is equally ambiguous.​

FWIW, “saints” can mean several things:

• angelic beings
• members of the visible Church on earth generally
• elect humans
• elect angelic beings
• Christians in the visible Church on earth who are Christian in their moral character
• outstanding examples of this last group - saints with a capital S.
  These are not all mutually exclusive usages - some of them overlap. In the OT cult prostitutes (of both sexes) are called qedushoth & qedoshim, “holy ones” because they are consecrated to a deity - “holiness” is always a “sacred” word, but not necessarily a pointer to whether something is morally good. OT holiness became moral, which is how Christian holiness has a moral character, without being exhausted by it - Christian holiness is not moralism, just as it is not immoralism.

As for the universality of the Church, it can be universal without being “Papal”. Rome’s ecclesiology is only the possible one: others are in some ways more faithful to the NT. FWIW, there is not much good in universality, if it is universality in error - so universality proves nothing by itself.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JonNC;4783935:

**OMG, I cannot believe what answers I have seen on this post thus far. **

****Well Mr. arrogance, the Creed, whether you want to accept it or not was written as early as the third century. Some even speculate it was written right after Christ’s Assencion, ****
****## That is the sort of fairy-story that makes the CC look absurd. The disciples are pretty slow on the uptake in the gospels, & that is putting it nicely. A document as theologically sophisticated as the Apostles’ Creed could not possibly have been written just after the Ascension - & there are much simpler creeds which are known to be from the first century or slightly later. They can be found in Denzinger.
**

**
therefore it was written, the Holy Catholic church, The Communion of Saints…it is what it is so stop trying to change it. The denial in non-Catholics is astonishing.## The OP is one of the least arrogant people on these forums.

There have been changes - almost all of themby Rome. However justified they may in fact be, the changes in 1215, 1564 & 1968 are changes, & there are far more of them than the one change of “Christian” for “Catholic”. And it was Rome that finally approved the Filioque. So the boot is most definitely on the other foot.

 

[Peter_J]

That is the sort of fairy-story that makes the CC look absurd.

A “fairy-story” it may be. But based on my experience, I would say that “The Apostles’ Creed dates back to the Apostles” is more of a Protestant idea than a Catholic idea.

But you’re welcome to prove me wrong. How many Catholic authors – that I’m likely to have heard of – can you name who have said “The Apostles’ Creed dates back to the Apostles”?

There have been changes - almost all of themby Rome. However justified they may in fact be, the changes in 1215, 1564 & 1968 are changes, & there are far more of them than the one change of “Christian” for “Catholic”. And it was Rome that finally approved the Filioque. So the boot is most definitely on the other foot.

Interesting that you should mention that: one of the main reasons I could never be Protestant is that Protestants accept the insertion of the filioque in the Creed, and yet reject the very authority that authorize that insertion in the first place, i.e. the papacy.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Pastor Gary.
i am sure you know what it means. but the Church is not divided. the Church still is the same. those who chose to leave are no longer part of the Church. they have chosen to follow their own ways. by those leaving this One Holy Church does not divide the Church. they just no longer part of Her.

she still exists intact and Holy. she is protected by our Lord.

Galatians 1:9, "As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be Anathema."

Yeh, you just cursed yourself into oblivion.

 

[catholic_daddy]

In Indonesia as far as I know, when I attended the funeral service of my non-catholic christian friend, their Apostle creed is almost exactly the same as the catholic’s apostle creed. The only difference is the sentence “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church”. Their version is “We believe in one true Church”. Everything else is exactly the same.

Again, we feel fine about it. I have always made a clear disitinction between the ‘holy catholic church’ and the Roman catholic church’. ‘Catholic’ was simply a nonreligious adjective for ‘universal’. When Ignatius used the word, he was not talking about anything other than the body of Christ made up of all regenerated people worldwide. And the precursor of the current creed–the one from circa 140 AD said ‘holy Christian church’ rather than ‘holy catholic church’. Catholic was not a name. It was an ADJECTIVE that encompassed the entire church worldwide–universal. I love the creed.

 

[O.S.Luke]

How do you non-Catholics feel out there when you profess the Apostles Creed while in your church when it comes to saying "“We believe in the Holy Catholic church…”?

I feel fine about it. Why do you ask?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

A “fairy-story” it may be. But based on my experience, I would say that “The Apostles’ Creed dates back to the Apostles” is more of a Protestant idea than a Catholic idea.

But you’re welcome to prove me wrong. How many Catholic authors – that I’m likely to have heard of – can you name who have said “The Apostles’ Creed dates back to the Apostles”?

None I know. It sounds like the kind of thing that books published by TAN might say. It’s untenable now, even though it turns up in the “Golden Legend” - but that was 700 years ago, well before the CC began to study Church history scientifically. TAN is very traditional indeed, mostly, so it prints a lot of stuff that is good for polemics or for devotion, but not good for history​

Interesting that you should mention that: one of the main reasons I could never be Protestant is that Protestants accept the insertion of the filioque in the Creed, and yet reject the very authority that authorize that insertion in the first place, i.e. the papacy.

A common position is that they accept the contents of the creed not because of Rome, or even the Church generally, but because it is Biblical. Joined with a position that allows for Tradition until (say) the canonisation of the Bible, this seems reasonably coherent - & it works in practice. A counter-criticism from a Protestant POV might be, that Rome attaches too much importance to the means of transmission, & not enough to the Original Giver.​

The Christian “pattern” has many of the same “ingredients” for both, but it it is sewn together in different ways - the connections are often different, for different reasons, & some of what is present in one of the two, is not present in the other. So there’s a lot of room for misunderstanding http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sad/weepy.gif http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/sad/sigh.gif

• thesmilies.com

 

[gcnuss]

Pastor Gary.
i am sure you know what it means. but the Church is not divided. the Church still is the same. those who chose to leave are no longer part of the Church. they have chosen to follow their own ways. by those leaving this One Holy Church does not divide the Church. they just no longer part of Her.

The holy catholic church includes all who have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is the church into which I was baptized and in which I remain. While the church is not divided and will not be divided, we who are members of it are. This is the division to which I refer.

As far as leaving the church is concerned, I have never left it. I was born into a Lutheran family and I have remained a faithful Lutheran throughout my life. As a Lutheran, I subscribe to the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian creeds as statements of what I believe because that is what the church believes.

Just a few thoughts…

 

[Napsack]

If you’re going to get picky, you should know that Nicene Creed (325 A.D.) didn’t say either of those two things. It was the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 A.D.) that said “one holy, catholic and apostolic Church”.

Okay, and the point?

 

[Non_Serviam]

A “fairy-story” it may be. But based on my experience, I would say that “The Apostles’ Creed dates back to the Apostles” is more of a Protestant idea than a Catholic idea.

But you’re welcome to prove me wrong. How many Catholic authors – that I’m likely to have heard of – can you name who have said “The Apostles’ Creed dates back to the Apostles”?

Interesting that you should mention that: one of the main reasons I could never be Protestant is that Protestants accept the insertion of the filioque in the Creed, and yet reject the very authority that authorize that insertion in the first place, i.e. the papacy.

whispers

psst, Peter, there is no filioque in the Apostle’s Creed

stops whispering

That said his is a good point and one of the reasons why I accept the Apostle’s creed (translating katholiken in its normal meaning of “universal” and accepting “the communion of saints” as referring to the unity of all believers in Christ’s Body, the universal church) and not the Nicene Creed as it’s writers were clearly referring to the Catholic™ Church in their use of the term.