How Do Protestants Feel While Saying The Apostles Creed?

[Peter_J]

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.

When the phrase “the one holy catholic and apostolic Church” was included in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 A.D.) I believe they meant to exclude such groups as the Arians and Gnostics. Is your position that the Arians and Gnostics should have included?

 

[Non_Serviam]

When the phrase “the one holy catholic and apostolic Church” was included in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (381 A.D.) I believe they meant to exclude such groups as the Arians and Gnostics. Is your position that the Arians and Gnostics should have included?

Your question is off the topic of the OP, Peter.

But since you asked, what the Catholic™ Church does with those who want to be members isn’t my concern, I know Jesus said he will have no problem sorting out His own at the end of the age. My intent was to point out the distinction between the two creeds.

 

[Peter_J]

Your question is off the topic of the OP, Peter.

But it’s alright for you to get off topic? I was responding to:

… and not the Nicene Creed as it’s writers were clearly referring to the Catholic™ Church in their use of the term.

BTW, since you believe that the Nicene Creed was written by “the Catholic™ Church”, perhaps you could tell me where (in your opinion) “the Catholic™ Church” is today? Specifically, is it the Roman Catholic Church? Or is the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or … what?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

OneTrueCathApos;4783954:

##

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.
**## 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.

**Throughout the Middle Ages it was believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed theCreed. This dates back to the sixth century…

What is up with the disgusting guillotine face? So un Christian… **

 

[Non_Serviam]

But it’s alright for you to get off topic? I was responding to:

BTW, since you believe that the Nicene Creed was written by “the Catholic™ Church”, perhaps you could tell me where (in your opinion) “the Catholic™ Church” is today? Specifically, is it the Roman Catholic Church? Or is the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or … what?

Still off topic for the OP-I included the reference to the Nicene Creed to make it clear that I use the Apostle’s Creed and not the Nicene since some of the posts on the thread seemed to be muddling them together.

 

[JonNC]

Gottle of Geer;4785296:

OneTrueCathApos;4783954:

**Throughout the Middle Ages it was believed that the Apostles, on the day of Pentecost, while still under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, composed theCreed. This dates back to the sixth century…

What is up with the disgusting guillotine face? So un Christian… **

Just for the record, the quote you responded to is not mine.
Jon

 

[JonNC]

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.

Peter,
Perahps that is because we are western, and our direct connection is to Rome, and not the Orthodox. Also, the filioque was inserted by long before our little squabble in the 1500’s, and we understand it in the same way you do.
Not everything popes do is bad.

Jon

 

[Grandad]

WOW…I’m new to Catholic Answers and I’m amazed at what I have read in the different forums…folks do seem to really get upset with non Catholics…As one follower of Christ and a Protestant for 50 years I never knew any of these problems existed. Please do not think me naive. We have just never talked about other religions in church to point out who’s doing what. You must understand that we just never seemed to follow the lineage back to the beginning, but I think if I did somewhere around the 1500’s and Martin Luther we would have been…Catholics ?..and than back to the original 12 ? … So seems to me we are still all connected…I’ll continue to read on and see what other topics that seem to make us different are out there, and pick up a few new things at the same time…Thanks

 

[MDK]

WOW…I’m new to Catholic Answers and I’m amazed at what I have read in the different forums…folks do seem to really get upset with non Catholics…As one follower of Christ and a Protestant for 50 years I never knew any of these problems existed. Please do not think me naive. We have just never talked about other religions in church to point out who’s doing what. You must understand that we just never seemed to follow the lineage back to the beginning, but I think if I did somewhere around the 1500’s and Martin Luther we would have been…Catholics ?..and than back to the original 12 ? … So seems to me we are still all connected…I’ll continue to read on and see what other topics that seem to make us different are out there, and pick up a few new things at the same time…Thanks

Sorry to burst the thought bubble. Really. Martin Luther was excommunicated. He did not take any valid Bishops with him. He started his own religion based on his heretical beliefs. It was not the Church stated by Christ. Therefore, neither his message was without error (rather had a great deal of error), and the priesthood is not valid. This means that 5 of the 7 sacraments are invalid.

It’s really wishful thinking to say that Lutherans are connected. They’re separated from the Church started by Christ. The teachings are invalid as and lack five of seven Sacraments. How you justify that is beyond me… perhaps you can only justify it by faith alone… in Martin Luther.

 

[Peter_J]

WOW…I’m new to Catholic Answers and I’m amazed at what I have read in the different forums…folks do seem to really get upset with non Catholics…

Grandad,

I think what you are noticing is not so much a characteristic of Catholic Answers specifically, but rather a general characteristic of internet discussion forums on religion. Catholics and Protestants tend to get upset with each other when we discuss stuff on the net (and in real life, but even more so on the net).

My :twocents:

 

[adelore]

many years ago when I was away from the Catholic Church and attending Protestant Churchs, I found it very strange the first time I heard Protestants saying the Creeds. It was like “What did they say?”

I then later talked to a few Church members and they were very much against the Catholic Church, yet they really had no idea of what they Truely said in Church (their church) while saying the Creeds.

Most Prodesents will say the creeds and true will say all the things we’ve seen so far in these postings consering the Words Catholic and Apostles.

Yet most of them won’t (and I say this will love to our seperated brothers and sisters) do any reasearch or homework on their own to who wrote the Creeds and better yet, they won’t take the time to “Research” their own Church. Where did it start, who and why started it.

Over the years by being away from the Catholic Church I did take the time to research many Prodesent Churchs and how they came to be.

Sure this takes time and no matter who you are or what religion, (including Catholics) everyone can learn by this. If nothing else it will open your eyes to many things you may not know.

Jesus and His Church are much to an important subject matter to not know the Full Truths. (notice I didn’t say Jesus and His Catholic Church.) Why? If you do the research, (provided you feel it’s important to you) you will find, as you trace your church back in time and it’s roots , that all churchs started or broke off the Catholic Church. Yes the Catholic church of yesterday, yester year, and tomorrow.

True the word Catholic means universial. But don’t let that fool you. Keep in mind the year the Catholic Church started and who started it. The only other place of worship back then was for the Jews, who don’t believe that Jesus was the Savior anyway. Back then there was no need to say, Roman Catholic Church, all Christians belonged to it anyway…and then yes years went by and today you have thousands upon thousands of different churchs who all say they know the Truths of the Bible. Some I will agree, but not all.

Now keep a few things in mind, even Satan beleives in God, and Jesus, and yes the Holy Ghost.

Yet believing in them, knowing them to be true, isn’t always enough…you have to know the Whole story of how and why it all came to be…thus came Jesus, the 12 he choose, the things they taught by word of mouth…ect.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter,
Perahps that is because we are western, and our direct connection is to Rome, and not the Orthodox. Also, the filioque was inserted by long before our little squabble in the 1500’s, and we understand it in the same way you do.

I agree that your understanding of the theology is the same as ours.

But our understanding of the situation is incompatible with yours: from the Catholic p.o.v., any alteration to the Creed needs authorization from an ecumenical council, or from the pope. (On a side note, the change from “one holy catholic and apostolic Church” to “one holy Christian and apostolic Church” has no such authorization.)

To put it in concrete historical terms, the insertion of the filioque was done illegally for about 200 years, until it was authorized by the pope, at which point it became legal. Can you, as a Lutheran, agree with both parts of that statement?

P.S. And, yes, I do realize that I’m not discussing the Apostles’ Creed, and that this thread is “How Do Protestants Feel While Saying The Apostles Creed?”

 

[Reg21]

“As one who seeks Christ, you deserve better, more secure means to God.”

Funny, this is what I tell my Catholic friends about Wittenberg. The RCC teaches that even those who are baptized, repent of their sin, and trust in Christ’s death on the cross for salvation, have no assurance of salvation. The RCC says they must perform good works, or try hard to “cooperate” with God, never knowing whether their “process” of being justified is good enough to qualify for eternal life. Even though Christ promised that those who belive and are baptized will be with him, and even though Christ never promised a single corporate body unified in doctrine or apostolic succession, Catholics look to their membership in a particular corporate body for comfort.

Doesn’t seem to secure when you think about it. I’d suggest looking to Christ’s promises to give his grace in Word and Sacrament, and there you will find forgiveness and assurance of your salvation.

Side note: what is the basis for excluding Christ from the sacrament he instituted on the basis the presider is not in succession? There is none. Further, where do you think Lutheran bishops and pastors came from? They were RCC bishops and priests, who presumably were in succession before they entered fellowship with Luther. RCC can recognize apostolic succession or not in the Lutheran chuch, it is up to them, it is of no importance if the successors do not faithfully teach all that Christ commanded to the Apostles.

 

[catholic_daddy]

Sorry to burst the thought bubble. Really. Martin Luther was excommunicated. He did not take any valid Bishops with him. He started his own religion based on his heretical beliefs. It was not the Church stated by Christ. Therefore, neither his message was without error (rather had a great deal of error), and the priesthood is not valid. This means that 5 of the 7 sacraments are invalid.

It’s really wishful thinking to say that Lutherans are connected. They’re separated from the Church started by Christ. The teachings are invalid as and lack five of seven Sacraments. How you justify that is beyond me… perhaps you can only justify it by faith alone… in Martin Luther.

That was very Christian of you to put it out there for him like that. I’m not Lutheran but I think his greatest contribution (other than being one of many necessary periodic stopgaps against abuses like indulgence-selling) was being an example of how many priests feel…and then of showing them what they are missing: Luther was as devout a follower of Christ as most. He denied himself, made attempts to physically humble himself, fervently prayed, etc, all to get close to God. But he said no matter how hard he tried, he could only see Jesus as a Judge and not a Savior. (Anybody out there identify with that? Might explain why some feel more comfortable going through Mary. Just a thought…). Anyway, (You can read this in Bainton’s classic, “Here I Stand”) God broke through while he was reading Romans and Luther understood finally what Paul meant when he wrote, “We maintain that a man is justified by FAITH apart from any works of the law.” He understood that Christ paid the entire debt and He saw true grace for the first time, and met the Savior. The rest is, well, a combination of mixed motives, results, and a whole lot of RCC villifying, but the grace part, that’s the biggie in my book. You can criticize him all you want, and some is justified, but I believe every human, not just Roman Catholics, needs to discover what Luther did, or they will one day meet a Judge who will say, “Depart from Me, I never knew you”

 

[Reg21]

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.

I don’t get the RCC argument about authority. Christ had authority. He gave the Apostles authority. The Apostles gave bishops and elders/pastors authority. That authority exists only to the extent it is exercised in accordance with Christ’s teachings; it does not exist to make up new teachings or remove teachings. Those who would claim such authority risk much.

With regard to the filioque, Protestants examined the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and determined the filioque was in accordance with such teachings. The do not rely on any council or body. Christ and the Apostles taught the doctrine that justified the “insertion”, and this was recognized in the Lutheran confessions.

 

[catholic_daddy]

“As one who seeks Christ, you deserve better, more secure means to God.”

Funny, this is what I tell my Catholic friends about Wittenberg. The RCC teaches that even those who are baptized, repent of their sin, and trust in Christ’s death on the cross for salvation, have no assurance of salvation. The RCC says they must perform good works, or try hard to “cooperate” with God, never knowing whether their “process” of being justified is good enough to qualify for eternal life. Even though Christ promised that those who belive and are baptized will be with him, and even though Christ never promised a single corporate body unified in doctrine or apostolic succession, Catholics look to their membership in a particular corporate body for comfort.

Doesn’t seem to secure when you think about it. I’d suggest looking to Christ’s promises to give his grace in Word and Sacrament, and there you will find forgiveness and assurance of your salvation.

Side note: what is the basis for excluding Christ from the sacrament he instituted on the basis the presider is not in succession? There is none. Further, where do you think Lutheran bishops and pastors came from? They were RCC bishops and priests, who presumably were in succession before they entered fellowship with Luther. RCC can recognize apostolic succession or not in the Lutheran chuch, it is up to them, it is of no importance if the successors do not faithfully teach all that Christ commanded to the Apostles.

Well put. Assurance only comes to those who understand grace and are saved by grace. Most Roman Catholics simply do not understand grace. They have yet to have that ‘Aha moment’ where the Holy Spirit shows them what Christ meant when he said ‘tetelestai’-‘It is finished’ (literally, ‘paid in full’). They think they have to pay something. That’s not grace and it will never produce assurance of salvation. Many Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyerians are in virtually the same boat.

 

[Reg21]

They have yet to have that ‘Aha moment’ where the Holy Spirit shows them what Christ meant when he said ‘tetelestai’-‘It is finished’ (literally, ‘paid in full’).

And in that moment, or gradual realization, or re-enlightment, as the Holy Spirit gives us faith, the arguments about works as somehow necessary are repulsive, because 1) it muddies Pure Gospel (the beauty of what Christ worked on the cross for ME, despite the repulsiveness God has for MY sin) and 2) because one realizes that no work can be called good that is not motivated by a desire to please Christ who gave so much, which motivation cannot exist until we have at least some appreciation for what he did on the Cross. Faith comes first, justifies us, and our recognition of it -]permits /-] inspires us to do good works.

Equally repulsive are Arminian arguments that we somehow choose to have faith, as if I could will myself to love Christ’s sacrifice, pull myself out of the pit to see light. Faith is a gift.

 

[catholic_daddy]

And in that moment, or gradual realization, or re-enlightment, as the Holy Spirit gives us faith, the arguments about works as somehow necessary are repulsive, because 1) it muddies Pure Gospel (the beauty of what Christ worked on the cross for ME, despite the repulsiveness God has for MY sin) and 2) because one realizes that no work can be called good that is not motivated by a desire to please Christ who gave so much, which motivation cannot exist until we have at least some appreciation for what he did on the Cross. Faith comes first, justifies us, and our recognition of it -]permits /-] inspires us to do good works.

Equally repulsive are Arminian arguments that we somehow choose to have faith, as if I could will myself to love Christ’s sacrifice, pull myself out of the pit to see light. Faith is a gift.

Yes. And people don’t realize that God will ONLY reward us on the basis of GRACE. Romans makes it so clear that where there is ANY trust in merit, God withholds salvation. It is soooo simple, yet the unregenerate mind cannot embrace it until the Holy Spirit reveals it. I want to shake people and say, "Don’t you see? Adding ANYTHING to the finished work of the cross is like multiplying by ZERO–no matter how large the multiplier, the outcome is ALWAYS ZERO!!! “For by GRACE you have been saved, through FAITH, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES. It is the GIFT of God, not as a result of works, so that no one can boast.”

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t get the RCC argument about authority. Christ had authority. He gave the Apostles authority. The Apostles gave bishops and elders/pastors authority. That authority exists only to the extent it is exercised in accordance with Christ’s teachings; it does not exist to make up new teachings or remove teachings. Those who would claim such authority risk much.

With regard to the filioque, Protestants examined the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and determined the filioque was in accordance with such teachings. The do not rely on any council or body. Christ and the Apostles taught the doctrine that justified the “insertion”, and this was recognized in the Lutheran confessions.

Why, then, do you stop at only 2 creedal changes? (I mean the insertion of the “filioque” and changing the word “Catholic” to “Christian”. Not that I’m putting those 2 on a par with each other, mind you: the first was backed by papal authority, whereas the second was backed by no authority.)

If my local Lutheran pastor felt that the Creed should have a statement about justification by faith, would he be allowed to insert such a statement (assuming his congregation supported the idea)?

 

[gcnuss]

If my local Lutheran pastor felt that the Creed should have a statement about justification by faith, would he be allowed to insert such a statement (assuming his congregation supported the idea)?

I can’t imagine doing anything like that. On the other hand, there are some Lutherans who, to me, are way out in left field. I don’t know what they might do.

The use of “holy Christian Church” is giving way to a return to “holy catholic church” among most Lutherans, although there are those to whom the word “catholic” is threatening. They are the ones whose primary identity as Lutherans is that “we are not Catholic.”

For those of us who don’t fear the Catholic bogeyman, “catholic” is a perfectly good description of the church.