The forgotten Catholic Creed

[Tis_Bearself]

But those traditions were lawfully updated.

Yes, they were, but you can see how the more words you add, the more areas there are for people to get confused.

Like I said, when writing a legal contract provision, you usually just want to put in what’s absolutely necessary. Same here. We want to get people into the Church, not create a bunch more reasons to potentially keep them out. I think the current Profession of Faith is more than sufficient. For that matter, I prefer the Creed as being shorter.

 

[godisgood77]

Would you expect anything else?

I don’t expect anything else. I’m simply glad that this particular Creed has fallen out of use. What is your problem with that?

 

[Spyridon]

I’m simply glad that this particular Creed has fallen out of use. What is your problem with that?

It implies that you take issue with Catholic doctrines, that’s my problem.

What do you find so distasteful in this Creed that you’re glad it’s no longer in wide use?

And let’s put our cards on the table: do you assent to everything in this Creed?

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[godisgood77]

It implies that you take issue with Catholic doctrines, that’s my problem.

Sorry you took it that way… I do not take issue with Catholic doctrines.

As I stated earlier, I do not particularly like that non-essential things are included in the Creed i.e. veneration of images, relics and the bit about indulgences, etc… the wording asserts that one must venerate icons and relics and take advantage of indulgences. This is confusing as the fact is that one can never venerate an icon and take advantage of an indulgence and not suffer any negative consequences - One could still be a very good Catholic and not subscribe to these things… so including them in a Creed in this way is likely misleading to many who do not know better.

The bit about salvation outside of the Church likely needs to be updated too…It not that it is incorrect as written per se, but it is incomplete and could be misleading to those who don’t know better.

Otherwise, I don’t really care for the verbose and aggressive style of this Creed… I do not object and do give assent to all of the doctrines in the Creed, but, again, glad is has fallen out of use.

You mention that some of the things in this Creed have been softened since VII… which are those?

 

[Spyridon]

stated earlier, I do not particularly like that non-essential things are included in the Creed i.e. veneration of images, relics and the bit about indulgences, etc… the wording asserts that one must venerate icons and relics and take advantage of indulgences. This is confusing as the fact is that one can never venerate an icon and take advantage of an indulgence and not suffer any negative consequences - One could still be a very good Catholic and not subscribe to these things… so including them in a Creed in this way is likely misleading to many who do not know better.

While Catholics are not obliged to obtain indulgences or venerate icons, they ARE obliged to accept the orthodoxy of such pious things… Which is what I see this Creed as affirming. I don’t read it as saying Catholics must actively venerate icons or gain indulgences, but that they must receive such things as orthodox Catholicism… Though they ARE encouraged to do so.

And the way the Church has softened post-VII Catholicism was in discouraging negative statements and encouraging positives.

For example: instead of saying “those who do not accept the Real Presence in the Eucharist are heretics,” the Church softened it into a positive formulation of “all the children of the Church accept the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.”

I don’t think this softening is intrinsically wrong, but in light of over a half century of this type of thing, and seeing the failure of this to bring Protestants back into the Church or really bear fruit, I advocate a “ressourcement” - a term borrowed from VII itself which means “back to the sources.” I advocate going back to the pre-VII sources and doing things in that way again. So I prefer to say “any Catholic who doesn’t believe in the Real Presence is a heretic.”

 

[godisgood77]

While Catholics are not obliged to obtain indulgences or venerate icons, they ARE obliged to accept the orthodoxy of such pious things… Which is what I see this Creed as affirming. I don’t read it as saying Catholics must actively venerate icons or gain indulgences, but that they must receive such things as orthodox Catholicism… Though they ARE encouraged to do so.

Yes, including non-doctrinal things in a Creed does not seem like a good idea…

And the way the Church has softened post-VII Catholicism was in discouraging negative statements and encouraging positives.

I definitely don’t have an issue with that… That direction was firmly set by Saint Pope John XXIII…

 

[Spyridon]

Yes, including non-doctrinal things in a Creed does not seem like a good idea…

Veneration of icons and indulgences are NOT non doctrinal.

The use of icons in the Church and the efficacy if indulgences are both Roman Catholic doctrine.

Check your messages @godisgood77

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Given the point in history that creed was written I’d say yes

 

[Aulef]

I wish I was good enough to memorize this Creed.

I memorized the Nicene-Constantinopolitan one and I learned most of what is taught in this Tridentine Creed, however, this formula is much better than the frankenstein I have in my mind.

Someday, maybe…

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Given not only the point in history, but the people who were being expected to recite this creed at the time, I would agree with you for that time.

Do you think it is equally necessary at this point in history?

 

[Spyridon]

Someday, maybe

You will be a Creed-Master when you can recite from memory in either English or Latin the Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian and Tridentine Creeds.

Oh and the Nicene in Greek as well.

 

[Spyridon]

Do you think it is equally necessary at this point in history?

No.

I think it’s more necessary now than it was then.

 

[thistle]

What do you find so distasteful in this Creed that you’re glad it’s no longer in wide use?

It is far too long!

Also, by implying it should be used you are trying to dictate to the Church!!

 

[godisgood77]

Veneration of icons and indulgences are NOT non doctrinal.

Yes, you’re correct the Church teaches that one can venerate icons or relics and one can sell - I mean work for indulgences…thanks for the correction.

I should have said that including non-essential things in a Creed doesn’t seem like a good idea. I simply prefer that things revealed through revelation should be the focus

 

[Spyridon]

should have said that including non-essential things in a Creed doesn’t seem like a good idea. I simply prefer that things revealed through revelation should be the focus

Veneration of icons and indulgences have been revealed by revelation in Sacred Tradition.

They are not non-essential - they are infallible doctrines of the Faith.

It’s impossible to be a good Catholic and also believe venerating icons is wrong. It’s impossible to be a good Catholic and deny indulgences as efficacious and good for pious devotion.

It IS possible to be a good Catholic and not utilize indulgences much or at all (I personally don’t use them much or emphasize them in my devotional life, whereas my friend @Tis_Bearself has an uber devotion to them - either disposition is fine.) It IS possible to be a good Catholic and not much care for or even own any icons.

But there’s a huge difference between simply not incorporating certain things into your spiritual life, and denying the efficacy or the orthodoxy or holiness of those things.

 

[Spyridon]

Also, by implying it should be used you are trying to dictate to the Church!!

Lol, what?

A Creed formulated in an Ecumenical Council and promulgated in a Papal bull shouldn’t be spoken of or encouraged for use because that’s “dictating to the Church?”

Uhhh… How’s this. If you want to go down that route @thistle, then I will argue that YOU are trying to dictate to the Church by trying to suppress and discourage a traditional Creed which was formulated and promulgated by the highest levels of the Catholic Magisterium (a Council and a Papal bull).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

denying the efficacy or the orthodoxy or holiness of those things.

Arguably, when someone comes into a Holy Mass and prays before a Crucifix, which I believe is required to be hung or placed near every Roman Catholic church altar before Mass, he is agreeing that venerating holy images (which I believe is what “icon” is getting at) is okay. It would be really hard to participate in a Mass otherwise, if you were going to have a problem with a crucifix being front and center. So if somebody is there, participating in a Mass right in front of a crucifix and having no problem with that, does he also have to read and agree to a line in the Creed about it?

As for indulgences, there are a lot of infallible teachings of the Church that most people practicing their faith don’t encounter or understand. I am sure there are a dozen more teachings in the Catechism that are just as infallible, but the average Catholic is never going to have to deal with them. If a guy started proclaiming indulgences were wrong or not permitted by Scripture or whatever, I’d be the first to tell him he was wrong, but they’re such a blip on most people’s radar screens, I think the benefit to having them in the Creed is negligible.

 

[Spyridon]

If a guy started proclaiming indulgences were wrong or not permitted by Scripture or whatever, I’d be the first to tell him he was wrong, but they’re such a blip on most people’s radar screens, I think the benefit to having them in the Creed is negligible.

This Creed is not a primary, liturgical Creed, it’s a supplemental, traditional Creed.

A Catholic should first be introduced to and have a firm grasp of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

After he has a solid grasp of those, he can move to the more advanced Trinitarian Athanasian Creed.

Then finally he can digest the theologically heavy Tridentine Creed.

I would NOT advocate bringing the Tridentine Creed into an RCIA class - only the Apostles or Nicene, our public, liturgical Creeds.

I would however advocate that after a couple years post-RCIA, then the neophyte can dive into the Athanasian and Tridentine Creeds.

 

[godisgood77]

Veneration of icons and indulgences have been revealed by revelation in Sacred Tradition.

Revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. Veneration of icons and indulgences came after that…doesn’t make them wrong…

They are non essential things - meaning that one could not engage in those things and not face any negative consequences… same as with apparitions - some are approved and one is welcome to believe them. The Church in her wisdom offers great latitude on these things.