"one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

[PRmerger]

We also accept all Christians to our communion to prove our commitment
to this creed.

JohnR

The Catholic Church, too, accepts all Christians. However, some are imperfectly united to us.

When a Christian professes to believe all that the Catholic holds to be true, then he is in communion with us and invited to become One Flesh with Him.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The funny thing is they left the Athanasian Creed alone.

Whoever
 desires 
to 
be 
saved
must,
 above
 all, 
hold 
the
 catholic
faith.
 Whoever
 does
 not
 keep 
it
 whole
 and 
undefiled
 will
 without
doubt 
perish 
eternally.



That is true of the ELCA, but as far as I know, I don’t think it is of the LCMS, which I understand considers presbyterial ordination equally valid to episcopal ordination. Isn’t that the teaching of the Book of Concord?

All Lutherans consider presbyterial ordination as equally valid to episcopal ordination per the Confessions. Most Lutherans follow episcopacy/ apostolic succession and the re-establishment of such has occurred in north America, for example. My point is that the tradition of episcopacy is more important to Catholics and Anglicans than Lutherans but full communion is equally important to Lutherans so episcopacy is an easy concession.

The LCMS has also considered a return to episcopacy and is in full communion with other Lutherans who are episcopal in governance. Also the system the LCMS follows is essentially supervision by bishops/ district presidents.

 

[benjohnson]

It is true that the LCMS-Lutheran synod has replaced in the creeds the word catholic with Christian. I was told it was because the laity was uncomfortable with it.

www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=954

You were told incorrectly.

The LCMS version Creed is an English translation from the German version - at the time, in Germany, ‘christian’ was better understood than the Greek-rooted and foreign ‘catholic.’

Recall, at the time Germans had issues with ‘foreign’ things.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity is traditionally observed from the Jan. 18-25 between the feasts of St. Peter and St. Paul.
geii.org/week_of_prayer_for_christian_unity/theme_announcement_2014.html

 

[quickstep]

While I respect your point of view, I disagree on the nature of ecumenical councils in the fourth century.

It was not as if a bunch of Protestants and Catholics got together and decided on a creed that could work amongst the relativism of their differing positions.

If that was so Arius would not have been thrown out and his opinions considered equally valid.

Instead the one church settled a matter of faith for the church. Anyone who disagreed was considered outside the church and not Christian such as Arius.

There were many canons settled by many councils over the ages, including the books if the Bible just a few years later at Carthage and again at Trent.

At what point does your church choose to reject these ecumenical councils??

jon,

No full council took up the issue of bible books until Trent. Some individual
churches did that but no full council. For example, the Roman church
was not even consulted for the Carthage council. It was entirely related to
that church alone. So the canon issue was not decided until
Trent. Catholic history experts explain that.

Regarding who was considered outside or inside, the ones who agreed
thought the others outside and the ones who disagreed thought themselves
inside. Before that council they were all considered inside. Just an argument
parsing words already settled in scripture. Commonly it Is just how one
explains what one believes. Not important to the earlier churches who
practiced intercommunion even though their differences were greater
than differences now.

My church as all protestants, including the evangelicals, accept the conclusion
of the ecumenical councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. Naturally we do not
accept councils centuries later that add dogma never imagined by
the apostles. We are apostolic and follow apostolic intent as did
the ECFs.

It was not as if a bunch of Protestants and Catholics got together and decided on a creed that could work amongst the relativism of their differing positions.

That is a pretty good way to put it I think. That was the intent of Constantine who
hated the disagreements and wanted a creed that could work for all.
Unfortunately that was not the ending and actually resulted in one side
persecuting the other with the power of Rome. This insistence on one side of
things is what led to accumulation of religious authority in Rome to the
detriment of all Christianity.

JohnR

 

[steido01]

You were told incorrectly.

The LCMS version Creed is an English translation from the German version - at the time, in Germany, ‘christian’ was better understood than the Greek-rooted and foreign ‘catholic.’

Recall, at the time Germans had issues with ‘foreign’ things.

In any case, the link provided earlier and the LSB make clear that ‘catholic’ is synonymous with ‘Christian’ when it comes to the ancient wording of the creed. Languages and words change - the underlying meaning has not. Bottom line: the LCMS hasn’t “replaced” ‘catholic’ with ‘Christian’ - it carries the same meaning from the translation and tradition brought over from the Old Country.

 

[quickstep]

I’m not sure what your citing but it’s erroneous. There was certainly ordination before the third century. We even see it in the Bible. But also first and second century writers.

All Catholic Historians hold Peter as Bishop in Rome.

Jon,

We certainly do recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday.
“I believe in the holy catholic church.”

There was no ordination before the third century. It is not shown in the bible.
I realize you think laying on of hands was some kind of ordination but
Catholic bible experts say it was not. Neither is it found in the ECFs
before the 3rd century. Here is Fr Raymond Brown, the dean of Catholic
scholars to explain:

Note the Imprimatur.

"There is nothing in the NT literature about a regular process of ordination.
(And a forior there is nothing to support the thesis that, by a chain of laying on
of hands, every local presbyter-bishop could trace a pedigree of ordination back
to the apostles.) Nor do we know if church offices were held for a limited term
or for life. "
Fr. Raymond Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible,P 138
Imprimatur.

Also, he and all other Catholic history experts say that Peter was never
a bishop of Rome. That theory was made up in the 3rd century and never
claimed before that. Even the CC simply says that the Pope is a successor
of Peter but never says Peter was a bishop. Even the term “successor”
is not defined. The pastors and bishops of my own church are
also successors of the apostles since they have taken on their
tasks of a shepherd of the church.

This is just plain history I learned by reading top Catholic bible experts
and church history experts. I cannot understand why you do not
know about them. They are not protestants or anti-Catholic. They just
teach real history. What is the problem with that?

JohnR

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Jon,

We certainly do recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday.
“I believe in the holy catholic church.”

There was no ordination before the third century. It is not shown in the bible.
I realize you think laying on of hands was some kind of ordination but
Catholic bible experts say it was not. Neither is it found in the ECFs
before the 3rd century. Here is Fr Raymond Brown, the dean of Catholic
scholars to explain:

Note the Imprimatur.

"There is nothing in the NT literature about a regular process of ordination.
(And a forior there is nothing to support the thesis that, by a chain of laying on
of hands, every local presbyter-bishop could trace a pedigree of ordination back
to the apostles.) Nor do we know if church offices were held for a limited term
or for life. "
Fr. Raymond Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible,P 138
Imprimatur.

Also, he and all other Catholic history experts say that Peter was never
a bishop of Rome. That theory was made up in the 3rd century and never
claimed before that. Even the CC simply says that the Pope is a successor
of Peter but never says Peter was a bishop. Even the term “successor”
is not defined. The pastors and bishops of my own church are
also successors of the apostles since they have taken on their
tasks of a shepherd of the church.

This is just plain history I learned by reading top Catholic bible experts
and church history experts. I cannot understand why you do not
know about them. They are not protestants or anti-Catholic. They just
teach real history. What is the problem with that?

JohnR

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, JohnR

It sounds that you accept bishops but not the lineage argument, right?

 

[PRmerger]

My church as all protestants, including the evangelicals, accept the conclusion of the ecumenical councils of Nicea and Chalcedon.

This is a bold statement, quickstep.

Do you have any evidence to support your argument that “all protestants” accept the conclusion of the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?

I have evidence to refute your position. To wit, here is a Protestant group that considers the Epistles of St. Paul to be satanic in origin:

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

 

[dronald]

This is a bold statement, quickstep.

Do you have any evidence to support your argument that “all protestants” accept the conclusion of the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon?

I have evidence to refute your position. To wit, here is a Protestant group that considers the Epistles of St. Paul to be satanic in origin:

lasttrumpet.org/paul_false_apostle.htm

“Group”…

Besides, JW’s aren’t Protestants neither are Mormons, this one fella as well.

 

[PRmerger]

“Group”…

Besides, JW’s aren’t Protestants neither are Mormons, this one fella as well.

Who gets to decide whether a “group” is counted in this statement? Do they not warrant recognition as a church in your eyes?

 

[dronald]

Who gets to decide whether a “group” is counted in this statement? Do they not warrant recognition as a church in your eyes?

Yeah, just not a Protestant one.

Scientology has a “Church” too.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Who gets to decide whether a “group” is counted in this statement? Do they not warrant recognition as a church in your eyes?

Protestants who confess the Apostles Creed

 

[PRmerger]

“Group”…

Besides, JW’s aren’t Protestants neither are Mormons, this one fella as well.

And just a FYI:

There are a multitude of “groups” who have followed the Protestant paradigm that they can decide for themselves what to believe, how to worship, and what belongs in the Bible.

jesuswordsonly.com/aboutauthor.html
worldslastchance.com/winds-of-doctrine/paul-false-prophet-or-true-apostle.html
judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm
Youtube video of another guy saying Paul is a false apostle
And another guy saying this

 

[PRmerger]

Protestants who confess the Apostles Creed

You seem to be reserving for yourself the right to do what you object to in the Catholic Church.

When you are the recipient of the, “We sadly say that you have removed yourself from being perfectly united to the Body of Christ”, (when you reject Doctrines A, B and C), you bristle at that and tell the Church, “You don’t have the right to do this!”

And yet you can tell others, “We sadly say that you have removed yourself from being perfectly united to the Body of Christ” (when they reject the Apostles Creed).

That doesn’t seem right to me.

Why do you get to decide who is within and without the perimeters of the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

Yeah, just not a Protestant one.

Scientology has a “Church” too.

What defines a Protestant church?

And where does Scripture say this?

 

[benjohnson]

What defines a Protestant church?

And where does Scripture say this?

If you could tell me I’d be obliged!

It’s Catholics who who gave us the name “Protestant.”

I profess the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. This world requires labels, but those labels don’t define.

 

[PRmerger]

If you could tell me I’d be obliged!

It’s Catholics who who gave us the name “Protestant.”

I profess the one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. This world requires labels, but those labels don’t define.

We don’t get all of what we profess from Scripture, ben. That’s the Protestant paradigm.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

You seem to be reserving for yourself the right to do what you object to in the Catholic Church.

When you are the recipient of the, “We sadly say that you have removed yourself from being perfectly united to the Body of Christ”, (when you reject Doctrines A, B and C), you bristle at that and tell the Church, “You don’t have the right to do this!”

And yet you can tell others, “We sadly say that you have removed yourself from being perfectly united to the Body of Christ” (when they reject the Apostles Creed).

That doesn’t seem right to me.

Why do you get to decide who is within and without the perimeters of the Church?

I see it as a measurement of common belief on the foundation of the Christian Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I see it as a measurement of common belief on the foundation of the Christian Church.

So, again, you reserve for yourself what you object to in the Catholic Church.

That is an injudicious application of a paradigm, EC.