To Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

[MichaelP3]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
What I was getting to in the previous statement is that I wanted to establish the earliest time the Primacy of Peter was believed.

I missed out this post.

At the Pentecost. It might not what it like today but that was when it started. The apostles worked together in groups; there was not much an institution, which was almost impossible then. They were hunted down and besides, there was the small numbers.

I get where the notion is coming from. But my question wasn’t so much as having an actual institution but rather the knowledge of it as it is understood today. For example did Paul know about this? I’m just asking the questions

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
As Rome’s Primacy is based on Peter and Peter’s Primacy is based on Mat 16:18. So let us say for an instance I believe Mat 16:18 that way one would still need to place Peter in Rome for it to be relevant to Catholicism. Otherwise why not Antioch which according to beliefs he also found. Getting to my point, I’m saying it may be possible but it can not be a definite.

I agree with you, it could be Antioch. They first preached there. But then it was not to be. Rome was the center of the earth then, and if the Christians needed to conquer the world, Rome was the obvious choice. So Peter moved on to Rome. We know that from the Church traditions and writings. Of course, and Paul too.

How do we know this from Paul? But my question still stands how do we know Peter moved to Paul. One can easily say traditions. Still when did this tradition start?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
Catholicism claims to have been created by Jesus at Pentecost.

Yes, because that was when the Church officially began, more or less. And ‘Catholicism’ is that Church. She started from there.

As a non-Catholic you would understand I will explain this as “claims” to have started here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
If this is true and the very Primacy of Catholicism is vested in Peter, from that very moment Peter was Supreme Primate?

Yes. Most original churches that still stand today would acknowledge that. The only disagreement is the jurisdiction of that primacy.

I’m not entirely convinced about this part. Supreme Primate would not have boundaries if this was their belief

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
And by believing the first church is the Catholic church today, this belief must have been important?

It is not just a belief. It was and is the same Church. The evidence is in its existence now and can be traced back all the way to Peter. Similarly other churches that were founded by the apostles – they could be traced all the way to their founders. No modern Christian churches can do that.

Your answer actually touches another topic I wanted to start later. Doing my research on the “tracing back from Frances to Peter”. Having gone through literally every single past Pope, election (even the methods of elections that changed), controversy and so on I am inclined to say even If it started like you would say with Peter. That line was broken long ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
No writing confirms this belief in the early church. No writing early on placed any Primacy in Peter or later Rome. If this is the very foundation which without the entire Catholic Church’s idea that Rome or the Pope is important, why is nothing written?

Yes, there were. Check the Early Church Father writings. Considering it was already two thousand years, the reality of illiteracy and the difficulties in preserving those ancient documents, it is amazing we still maintain some of the remnants of them.

But I did check the early fathers. The very point I got into this topic. And as said before, Augustine was the most vocal on Mat 16:18 without stating the primacy. With silence I do refer mainly to the very early stages, even though I mentioned Augustine when we get just 200 years after Christ, numerous things started to pop up. A lot can happen in that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
So back to your question to if I don’t believe it, I can say it is possible as nothing denies it but nothing except Rome saying so confirms it either. Being something so important and only silence on it, I struggle to believe it was that important to any early Church father or even the Apostles.

There is definitely no silence there.

And as an end note. I really appreciate your feedback. And in a way the questions do make me want to study even further.

But the Peter part only touches the surface of the History I intended to discuss in this thread. Maybe I should have look at a good controversy to point out and take further from here

 

[lantheria]

I’m surprised that you, a Protestant, regard that as nonsense.

Just trying to be diplomatic, I guess. Don’t particularly feel like being banned; I do have an ignore list to maintain, after all.

 

[MichaelP3]

Just trying to be diplomatic, I guess. Don’t particularly feel like being banned; I do have an ignore list to maintain, after all.

Agreed! We must watch our language here.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Why don’t more Protestant historians become Catholic?

This was a very interesting thing when I saw the apologist question and answer. It was in fact a very interesting thing. Let me explain quickly.

I grew up Protestant never really thinking about much or even Catholicism. Until I met my fiancee who was a very Polish Catholic. She was doing her bachelors in History and I love history. So obviously we got into it very deep. Long story short, today, 2 years later she is very Protestant and I can after going so deep into history, say, because of History, I can’t see myself becoming Catholic any time soon.

Can some people tell me maybe how history taught them otherwise. And please, we all know the basics, I mean in depth history that makes sense. I am not here to accuse anyone, I would just like to know some understandings.

This particular oft-quoted claim by Cardinal Newman was (hopefully) not meant in the broadest possible sense, but there is a more limited sense in which it could be considered fairly accurate.

In order to make it a bit more precisely true to reality, I would phrase it thusly. “If an American Protestant holds to the mistaken assumption that any given one of the restorationist Protestant movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries is in fact an exact or even approximate representation of how Christianity was truly practiced by the earliest Christians, they would do well to speak with some Oriental Orthodox Christians in particular, or any of the more ancient traditions that retains apostolic succession, and any sort of familiarity with their roots and history will cause one to stop believing this rather silly restorationist rhetoric as it pertains to the most recent history of American Protestantism.”

Of course, the exact thing that he said is generally taken to mean that any Protestant (and not just the Anglican ones, like Newman was up to a certain point) who closely examines their church history will cease to be Protestant and fall in with some church that retains apostolic succession. (Which the Anglican Communion does, but the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize it as valid and this is what Newman eventually concluded as well, and this is most likely the key finding that he would attribute to his personal historical inquiry).

For the typical American Protestant, though, being deep in history demonstrably, in many instances, does not cause one to cease being Protestant. It can and does predictably cause people to develop an aversion to the word “restorationist” in almost any context, and it is likely to cause Protestants to come up with criticisms for any sort of primitivist mindset in general. Which is to say- yes of course things are different now, as they should be. If you try and keep everything exactly the same as it was from day one, that’s hardly doable and definitely not something that’s going to be a very good idea.

There are a couple of truly elite examples of Protestants who stayed Protestant while being as deep in history as anyone has ever been. Peter Lampe, a German and a Lutheran, has taken his intersection of theology, archaeology, and history to Rome and become the foremost authority on Roman history specific to Christianity covering the time period of the mid first century to the late fourth. This is a time span that squarely brackets the foundations of the papacy and guess what? He’s still Lutheran, and last I heard he was working on bringing the historical community several giant steps forward in its understanding of a couple of the earliest heresies, Montanism in particular. Mark Noll is another example, his focus is more on US history with a focus on religion. The Atlantic Monthly called his book America’s God “almost certainly the most significant work of American historical scholarship” in 2002, which is a quote I lifted from Time Magazine’s list of the 25 most influential Evangelicals in America. After spending much of his career at Wheaton College, he is now teaching graduate students history at Notre Dame in South Bend Indiana, where he has undoubtedly had countless opportunities to cease being Protestant but he has not.

So if Cardinal Newman is to be understood in a broad and fairly general sense, explain those men, Cardinal Newman. No, you cannot. I didn’t think so. But there is a certain kind of validity to the general sentiment, provided that you qualify and narrow the sentiment to the point where it says something kind of related but not really the same thing at all. And if you and your fiancee can be anything like the aforementioned gentlemen, you’ll be in great company.

 

[MichaelP3]

This particular oft-quoted claim by Cardinal Newman was (hopefully) not meant in the broadest possible sense, but there is a more limited sense in which it could be considered fairly accurate.

In order to make it a bit more precisely true to reality, I would phrase it thusly. “If an American Protestant holds to the mistaken assumption that any given one of the restorationist Protestant movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries is in fact an exact or even approximate representation of how Christianity was truly practiced by the earliest Christians, they would do well to speak with some Oriental Orthodox Christians in particular, or any of the more ancient traditions that retains apostolic succession, and any sort of familiarity with their roots and history will cause one to stop believing this rather silly restorationist rhetoric as it pertains to the most recent history of American Protestantism.”

Of course, the exact thing that he said is generally taken to mean that any Protestant (and not just the Anglican ones, like Newman was up to a certain point) who closely examines their church history will cease to be Protestant and fall in with some church that retains apostolic succession. (Which the Anglican Communion does, but the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize it as valid and this is what Newman eventually concluded as well, and this is most likely the key finding that he would attribute to his personal historical inquiry).

For the typical American Protestant, though, being deep in history demonstrably, in many instances, does not cause one to cease being Protestant. It can and does predictably cause people to develop an aversion to the word “restorationist” in almost any context, and it is likely to cause Protestants to come up with criticisms for any sort of primitivist mindset in general. Which is to say- yes of course things are different now, as they should be. If you try and keep everything exactly the same as it was from day one, that’s hardly doable and definitely not something that’s going to be a very good idea.

There are a couple of truly elite examples of Protestants who stayed Protestant while being as deep in history as anyone has ever been. Peter Lampe, a German and a Lutheran, has taken his intersection of theology, archaeology, and history to Rome and become the foremost authority on Roman history specific to Christianity covering the time period of the mid first century to the late fourth. This is a time span that squarely brackets the foundations of the papacy and guess what? He’s still Lutheran, and last I heard he was working on bringing the historical community several giant steps forward in its understanding of a couple of the earliest heresies, Montanism in particular. Mark Noll is another example, his focus is more on US history with a focus on religion. The Atlantic Monthly called his book America’s God “almost certainly the most significant work of American historical scholarship” in 2002, which is a quote I lifted from Time Magazine’s list of the 25 most influential Evangelicals in America. After spending much of his career at Wheaton College, he is now teaching graduate students history at Notre Dame in South Bend Indiana, where he has undoubtedly had countless opportunities to cease being Protestant but he has not.

So if Cardinal Newman is to be understood in a broad and fairly general sense, explain those men, Cardinal Newman. No, you cannot. I didn’t think so. But there is a certain kind of validity to the general sentiment, provided that you qualify and narrow the sentiment to the point where it says something kind of related but not really the same thing at all. And if you and your fiancee can be anything like the aforementioned gentlemen, you’ll be in great company.

Thanks for the reply. I enjoyed it. I think some people here went way of topic. Hopefully we can come back to this.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Rome was the center of the earth then, and if the Christians needed to conquer the world, Rome was the obvious choice. So Peter moved on to Rome. We know that from the Church traditions and writings. Of course, and Paul too.

Rome was actually not the center of the world at that time. For that particular period of time, the western portion of the Roman Empire would have been roughly analogous to an embattled/rebuilding Europe in the 20th century alongside an ascendant superpower in the United States, which would have its closest cognate in the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was less embattled, more stable, far more wealthy and influential, and it survived as an empire for many centuries after the western portion of the Empire was no more. And by “many centuries” I actually mean something right around an additional thousand years before the Byzantine Empire was dealt its final death blow, although this may imply that it retained a superior superpower-type status that whole time and this is certainly not true. For at least the first half to three-quarters of the first millennium, however, that would not be a bad assessment at all.

Additionally- and this is very, very telling- the seven Ecumenical Councils were all held within the Byzantine Empire, none of them were held in Rome. (A quick edit here- I’ll mention that Rome did have councils, but despite the fact that all roads lead to Rome, these various Councils of Rome were regional in nature primarily because the key decision makers did not at any point arrange for everyone in all parts of the Empire to meet up there, as they did seven other times, always within the Byzantine Empire). Three of the seven were at Nicea including the all-important first one, and two were at Constantinople, which was actually a late arrival to the party when it came to specifically Christian identity and influence. Although it had been an incredibly powerful and influential place for quite some time- it just took a bit longer for its leaders to become Christians and formally align with the constellation of key cities already in place.

The truth is, Rome was in no shape to survive all on its own, let alone be the center of global Christianity at any point during which the western portion of the Roman Empire continued to survive. There were several key moves that helped set things in motion, the first of which was the decentralization of imperial authority to four different capitols with Rome continuing to operate as a de facto fifth, although it basically acted as a bit of power vacuum which was filled by an emerging Christian institution in a unique way. That would be the Tetrarchy, instituted by Emperor Diocletian in 293. And then the way in which the Roman see asserted itself as a stabilizing force following the fall of the West was crucial as well. But in all reality, Rome wasn’t really set to go on anything like the course you’re describing until much, much further into the second half of the first millennium. It wasn’t as if Peter and Paul came into a city that was the center of the world from day one- it actually wasn’t until much, much closer to the time of the actual Schism that Rome was even remotely prepared to start making a run at it, and even then opportunity presented itself in large part because Islam was knocking a lot of things down in the East while doing a bit less of that in the West.

Apologies for picking out just one little part of a much larger response. I appreciate what you’re doing on the whole, this is one thing I wanted to address though and I hope it comes across as somewhat helpful.

 

[Edmundus1581]

…
So if Cardinal Newman is to be understood in a broad and fairly general sense, explain those men, Cardinal Newman. No, you cannot. I didn’t think so
…

Have you read the whole of the book from which this quote was taken?

I referred to it previously.

(I don’t mind you not reading it, but if you are going to speak for Newman, then you should.)

 

[MichaelP3]

Rome was actually not the center of the world at that time. For that particular period of time, the western portion of the Roman Empire would have been roughly analogous to an embattled/rebuilding Europe in the 20th century alongside an ascendant superpower in the United States, which would have its closest cognate in the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire was less embattled, more stable, far more wealthy and influential, and it survived as an empire for many centuries after the western portion of the Empire was no more. And by “many centuries” I actually mean something right around an additional thousand years before the Byzantine Empire was dealt its final death blow, although this may imply that it retained a superior superpower-type status that whole time and this is certainly not true. For at least the first half to three-quarters of the first millennium, however, that would not be a bad assessment at all.

Additionally- and this is very, very telling- the seven Ecumenical Councils were all held within the Byzantine Empire, none of them were held in Rome. (A quick edit here- I’ll mention that Rome did have councils, but despite the fact that all roads lead to Rome, these various Councils of Rome were regional in nature primarily because the key decision makers did not at any point arrange for everyone in all parts of the Empire to meet up there, as they did seven other times, always within the Byzantine Empire). Three of the seven were at Nicea including the all-important first one, and two were at Constantinople, which was actually a late arrival to the party when it came to specifically Christian identity and influence. Although it had been an incredibly powerful and influential place for quite some time- it just took a bit longer for its leaders to become Christians and formally align with the constellation of key cities already in place.

The truth is, Rome was in no shape to survive all on its own, let alone be the center of global Christianity at any point during which the western portion of the Roman Empire continued to survive. There were several key moves that helped set things in motion, the first of which was the decentralization of imperial authority to four different capitols with Rome continuing to operate as a de facto fifth, although it basically acted as a bit of power vacuum which was filled by an emerging Christian institution in a unique way. That would be the Tetrarchy, instituted by Emperor Diocletian in 293. And then the way in which the Roman see asserted itself as a stabilizing force following the fall of the West was crucial as well. But in all reality, Rome wasn’t really set to go on anything like the course you’re describing until much, much further into the second half of the first millennium. It wasn’t as if Peter and Paul came into a city that was the center of the world from day one- it actually wasn’t until much, much closer to the time of the actual Schism that Rome was even remotely prepared to start making a run at it, and even then opportunity presented itself in large part because Islam was knocking a lot of things down in the East while doing a bit less of that in the West.

Apologies for picking out just one little part of a much larger response. I appreciate what you’re doing on the whole, this is one thing I wanted to address though and I hope it comes across as somewhat helpful.

Great answer. This is the kind of historical discussion I was hoping for. Please if you have time go on further and take on other points raised?

 

[GKC]

Have you read the whole of the book from which this quote was taken?

I referred to it previously.

(I don’t mind you not reading it, but if you are going to speak for Newman, then you should.)

I don’t think it will be found in the Apologia. It’s from the intro to the ESSAY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

Haven’t read Newman since college, but that’s what googlebooks seems to confirm.

 

[Rohzek]

why?

Sorry that I have not replied sooner. The answer can be quite long. And it has only gotten longer as I have increased my studies. Let me add that before I continue, I am not interested in debating in detail some of the things I say here since they all would be worthy of their own thread. I’m just answering a question. Now in no particular order:

1.) With the exception of the First Crusade, almost every other eastern Crusade was detrimental to the welfare of Eastern Christians.

2.) Looking at the development of the early churches in the Christian East, Gaul, and Britain, almost all development was done without any involvement from the pope. And whenever the pope was involved, it was usually because he was asked for advice, not orders. Any time the pope was perceived as overstepping his authority, he was usually condemned by the entirety of the Frankish bishops.

3.) Most justifications for papal authority are usually pulled out of their historical context. The actual situations were much more nuanced and complicated.

 

[Modern_Revert]

So, which Protestant denomination does History point to?

 

[theropod]

So, which Protestant denomination does History point to?

All of them. This is a nonsense question.

 

[ffg]

Perhaps then -

To who’s history do all of the Protestant denominations point?

 

[MichaelP3]

So, which Protestant denomination does History point to?

I wouldn’t say this is a question with one answer, and I presume you asked it rhetorically. I didn’t add my specific denomination as I believe it will change the tread towards “How I am wrong” and not sit with the intention I had with my question.

I sometimes think about this. Why are we even called Protestants and put into one cup. Any denomination created after and during Luther is a Protestant? Or maybe today we like each other more because our differences aren’t that great. I don’t know, I’m still contemplating this term.

But to the point. I would rather say it is because the Early Church didn’t have this large intricate and large combination of so many things that developed. It was to the point and focused on the cores. Which is the Apostles/Nicene Creed. With nothing added to it that is needed for salvation, else it would have been part of the creed. And that is the fundamental teaching of belief for mostly all Major Protestants.

 

[theropod]

Perhaps then -

To who’s history do all of the Protestant denominations point?

They trace their beginnings through the RCC at some point, and the history that the RCC springs from. Only lunatics dispute this, so it’s not a point of contention that proves anything.

 

[ffg]

They trace their beginnings through the RCC at some point, and the history that the RCC springs from. Only lunatics dispute this, so it’s not a point of contention that proves anything.

Thanks for the reply theropod,

I wouldn’t call people who don’t know, lunatics, because their education was poor.

There are many Catholics that have had very poor educations who walk paths that are cleared by way of being incorrectly taught.

I do think this ‘undisputed non-point of contention’ clarifies the title in a specific way. (which might be eye opening to those you classify as ‘lunatics’)

Take care,

Mike

 

[7_Sorrows]

Sorry that I have not replied sooner. The answer can be quite long. And it has only gotten longer as I have increased my studies. Let me add that before I continue, I am not interested in debating in detail some of the things I say here since they all would be worthy of their own thread. I’m just answering a question. Now in no particular order:

1.) With the exception of the First Crusade, almost every other eastern Crusade was detrimental to the welfare of Eastern Christians.

2.) Looking at the development of the early churches in the Christian East, Gaul, and Britain, almost all development was done without any involvement from the pope. And whenever the pope was involved, it was usually because he was asked for advice, not orders. Any time the pope was perceived as overstepping his authority, he was usually condemned by the entirety of the Frankish bishops.

3.) Most justifications for papal authority are usually pulled out of their historical context. The actual situations were much more nuanced and complicated.

I had to go back and find your post I asked “why?” to! I am not a historian, although I love history. I have not studied the early Church or early Church fathers like some have nor have I studied a history of the Catholic Church so I would not be able to debate. I just wanted to know what you discovered that caused you to abandon the Catholic faith.
So thank you for your reply! I am always interested in the spiritual journey of others. I am not judging.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Sorry that I have not replied sooner. The answer can be quite long. And it has only gotten longer as I have increased my studies. Let me add that before I continue, I am not interested in debating in detail some of the things I say here since they all would be worthy of their own thread. I’m just answering a question. Now in no particular order:

1.) With the exception of the First Crusade, almost every other eastern Crusade was detrimental to the welfare of Eastern Christians.

2.) Looking at the development of the early churches in the Christian East, Gaul, and Britain, almost all development was done without any involvement from the pope. And whenever the pope was involved, it was usually because he was asked for advice, not orders. Any time the pope was perceived as overstepping his authority, he was usually condemned by the entirety of the Frankish bishops.

3.) Most justifications for papal authority are usually pulled out of their historical context. The actual situations were much more nuanced and complicated.

I had to go back and find your post I asked “why?” to! I am not a historian, although I love history. I have not studied the early Church or early Church fathers like some have nor have I studied a history of the Catholic Church so I would not be able to debate. I just wanted to know what you discovered that caused you to abandon the Catholic faith.
So thank you for your reply! I am always interested in the spiritual journey of others. I am not judging.

 

[ffg]

I wouldn’t say this is a question with one answer, and I presume you asked it rhetorically. I didn’t add my specific denomination as I believe it will change the tread towards “How I am wrong” and not sit with the intention I had with my question.

I sometimes think about this. Why are we even called Protestants and put into one cup. Any denomination created after and during Luther is a Protestant? Or maybe today we like each other more because our differences aren’t that great. I don’t know, I’m still contemplating this term.

But to the point. I would rather say it is because the Early Church didn’t have this large intricate and large combination of so many things that developed. It was to the point and focused on the cores. Which is the Apostles/Nicene Creed. With nothing added to it that is needed for salvation, else it would have been part of the creed. And that is the fundamental teaching of belief for mostly all Major Protestants.

Hi Michael,

I have so many questions! How about these few -

What are ‘the cores’?

What do you expect to see from a 2000 year old Church today? (assumingly not large)

Do you think ‘current events’ might be discussed by Church leaders to assist members in navigating morality?

If so, is ‘current event management’ married to ‘the cores’ to define ‘developed’?

Many Thanks,

Mike

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi Michael,

I have so many questions! How about these few -

What are ‘the cores’?

What do you expect to see from a 2000 year old Church today? (assumingly not large)

Do you think ‘current events’ might be discussed by Church leaders to assist members in navigating morality?

If so, is ‘current event management’ married to ‘the cores’ to define ‘developed’?

Many Thanks,

Mike

Hi Mike. Thank for the post as I like these kind of discussions. Focusing on understanding and thinking.

I would just like to backtrack first. As I feel these topics go of the grid for the wrong reasons.
I grew up in a very non-Catholic Country. And Catholicism was never even remotely part of anything I remember. And seriously no offence, this was me many years back, I at a young age thought of Catholicism as those Christians who also pray to Mary. This was me many years ago and I cam to know it’s not that simple. I was the guy defending Catholicism as a part of Christianity and being Christians in the circles I grew up in. As I did and still do believe that. When I was in Rome and attended Mass in the St Peters Basilica, the only reason I didn’t stand in line with the rest, was because it was long and I had so much more to see. I didn’t think about much. We are all believers in Christ after all. And it’s not like I was raised with the notion Catholicism is wrong. Frankly in Church and during Sunday School (I dont know what others call it) it never even came up.

So I met my current fiancee who was very Catholic. And I noticed the practices and opinions more. This lead me to the Catechism. And oh boy did I study it. When I think back I could have completed another degree but not the point. I came to notice, Catholics believe mainly what Protestants believe, but Protestants don’t believe all that Catholics believe. I remember someone explaining, Protestants are like just vanilla ice cream. Catholicism would be the ice cream with a dip, and sprinkles and so forth. This while studying the Catechisms that when we get to the things that matter, we are very alike. And that brought me to the one paragraph in the Catechism, stating Protestants are in an imperfect communion with Christ. One could argue it says the Church but we know what is meant. So I got to the understanding eventually, here we have an institution who claims to speak with the authority of God himself. This was a very foreign thought to me that I have never heard before. And referencing Catholic writings and very unclear Bible verses didn’t do it for me. I had to go further. This took me to history. Is there any foundation in history to make this statement? I didn’t get one.

So today I am still maybe the best Catholic defendant in a 100 km radius you will get here. Arguing for their Christianity and and in no way saying you are imperfectly part of Christ. Because the things that matter to Protestants, Catholics also do believe. All the extra rest which has nothing to do with salvation, would be extras. The teachings of the apostles were simple. It is there. There is no need for a Catechism as big as the Bible.

So to the questions.
The cores would be:

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic and apostolic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

And every major sane Protestant denomination accepts this. We even say it every Sunday in Church.
The question is, why wasn’t all the other deemed by Catholics important beliefs in here?

So what I expect from a Church 2000 years from now. Firstly that assuming it is the Catholic Church from the beginning. But let us assume this. I expect an institution to develop considering changes in everyday life. As we all know the world changed. But I would expect it not to change it’s core confessions, or rather, add upon it equal important dogmas and doctrines as was believed and confirmed in Nicaea. This is my problem with the loophole. Catholics would say they never changed anything, just added upon it and developed it. Now if something later on has equal stance with before, why wasn’t it mentioned before if it’s so important. Remember I am talking salvation important here, not just a mere belief.

Current events I agree should be discussed by all. We need (name removed by moderator)ut from everyone. The world would be declining very rapidly otherwise.

On the question of morality, I think we have no problem with each other. But I got to know reading the Catechism that the word morality is defined differently then the Oxford English dictionary. If you can please elaborate on this question.

Regards