P
Peter_J
Guest
What about the Filioque?The only perfection we can do as Church is to profess the Nicene Creed. It is all there.
What about the Filioque?The only perfection we can do as Church is to profess the Nicene Creed. It is all there.
Just because he himself could be an fine bishop, it doesn’t follow that his selection would necessarily be excellent. Obviously, the good bishop failed to properly select the instructor.Our instructor was put in by the bishop to correct errors of lay professionals in parishes, the bishop who eventually took the place of Cardinal Ratzinger…
As another has already pointed out, Nicea was not the be all, end all. As a matter of fact, the Creed we profess is not that of Nicea. The Creed was later expanded almost a century later in Constantinople, giving the creed its proper name, Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (v. bit.ly/1O1aDZ5). Yet, centuries after this council, the Latin Church added the Filioque to this creed, something that the orthodox would promptly point out.The only perfection we can do as Church is to profess the Nicene Creed. It is all there.
Here is the deal: Public revelation indeed did end when the last Apostle, John, died, as has been pointed out. However, it is clear that while the Apostles had full knowledge of divine revelation, given that they were mortal, they didn’t have a full understanding of this divine revelation – their Apostolic Tradition was passed down over the generations over an unbroken line of bishops who, as the years went by, rationalized and thought about the knowledge they had received from their predecessors, driven both by their own curiosity to better understand revelation, as well as to battle heterodox ideas that would eventually begin to surface, to thus gaining a deeper understanding of that one same Apostolic Tradition.Thanks, Augustine.
Of course, the apostles were chosen witnesses of the Lord. I do not intend to imply I don’t see them as not giving us the fullness of faith in Christ.
I have to wait until after Christmas to ask one of priests here, we have 3…8,000 member parish, to help me with any misunderstanding I may have had.
All I can think of was may be he was articulating as such that the Church continued to teach us more of Christ vs non Catholics who see the Bible as the end all with no Church as interpreter…but he didn’t give the context.
Thanks for all your help!