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

[ffg]

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

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

Wow, Awesome, thanks Michael.

I only have a couple minutes here. I wanted to let you know I will respond a little later in full, but I think it’s awesome that you put in the Creed as my earlier post was going to be a specific question on the Creed!

(I was actually going to ask you post it as foundation too!)

Take care,

Mike

 

[SyroMalankara]

Considering that historically, the Apostles’ Creed is actually not from Nicaea, but formed from the Roman baptismal formula - it’s interesting that all the major protestants in your local area subscribe to it.

Many protestant sects(here I mean denominations/jurisdictions not in union with each other) here in the USA reject all Creeds.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed adhered to by all Apostolic Churches states a little more than the Apostles Creed, and there are entire courses devoted to the theology and history behind each line of that Creed.

 

[MichaelP3]

Considering that historically, the Apostles’ Creed is actually not from Nicaea, but formed from the Roman baptismal formula - it’s interesting that all the major protestants in your local area subscribe to it.

Many protestant sects(here I mean denominations/jurisdictions not in union with each other) here in the USA reject all Creeds.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed adhered to by all Apostolic Churches states a little more than the Apostles Creed, and there are entire courses devoted to the theology and history behind each line of that Creed.

Your argument holds no grounds when using the word sect (Honestly I am confused with this persistence). Primarily why I find our correspondence fruitless. No matter what you mean. I could handle my answers differently but I am afraid of being banned.

Lastly, I would quote the Nicene Creed as well. Makes no difference to the point. Let me copy and paste it. Before I am accused of ignoring it.

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life

God Bless

 

[7_Sorrows]

Considering that historically, the Apostles’ Creed is actually not from Nicaea, but formed from the Roman baptismal formula - it’s interesting that all the major protestants in your local area subscribe to it.

Many protestant sects(here I mean denominations/jurisdictions not in union with each other) here in the USA reject all Creeds.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed adhered to by all Apostolic Churches states a little more than the Apostles Creed, and there are entire courses devoted to the theology and history behind each line of that Creed.

The Episcopal/Anglican churches profess both creeds. Not sure about the Lutheran churches or other mainline churches - like Methodist or Presbyterian.

 

[MichaelP3]

The Episcopal/Anglican churches profess both creeds. Not sure about the Lutheran churches or other mainline churches - like Methodist or Presbyterian.

My point exactly. I can confirm Presbyterian and Lutheran Profess both. Never really looked into Methodists but won’t be surprised if they do. It’s not like it denies any Protestant stance.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Your argument holds no grounds when using the word sect (Honestly I am confused with this persistence). Primarily why I find our correspondence fruitless. No matter what you mean. I could handle my answers differently but I am afraid of being banned.

What word would you feel at ease with, denomination? Group? Congregation? Ecclesial communities?

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father.
God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.
Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit.
By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance.
He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father.
He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life

Unless you are Armenian Catholic or Armenian Apostolic, I’m certain you haven’t confessed this version of the Creed in church. However, the reason it matters is that by admitting your allegiance to the Roman baptismal formula, you’ve admitted that the Roman church came before your protestant Ecclesial community (?), since they borrowed it from somewhere and didn’t read it in the Bible, didn’t find it in any other place but the Latin Occidental Church from which your community derived.

 

[7_Sorrows]

What word would you feel at ease with, denomination? Group? Congregation? Ecclesial communities?

Unless you are Armenian Catholic or Armenian Apostolic, I’m certain you haven’t confessed this version of the Creed in church. However, the reason it matters is that by admitting your allegiance to the Roman baptismal formula, you’ve admitted that the Roman church came before your protestant Ecclesial community (?), since they borrowed it from somewhere and didn’t read it in the Bible, didn’t find it in any other place but the Latin Occidental Church from which your community derived.

that is how I always believed and why I felt the Catholic church was the true church - not the Episcopal church I was attending as a young girl.

 

[Wannano]

What word would you feel at ease with, denomination? Group? Congregation? Ecclesial communities?

In another post titled POPE FRANCIS ASKS PROTESTANTS TO FORGIVE CATHOLICS there is a link to an article from the Catholic Herald in which Pope Francis makes the statement and I quote: “When all Christians of different churches listen to the word of God and try to put it into practice, they truly take important steps toward unity.” If the Pope calls Protestant churches “churches” why do you insist on terms like sect?

 

[MichaelP3]

What word would you feel at ease with, denomination? Group? Congregation? Ecclesial communities?

Unless you are Armenian Catholic or Armenian Apostolic, I’m certain you haven’t confessed this version of the Creed in church. However, the reason it matters is that by admitting your allegiance to the Roman baptismal formula, you’ve admitted that the Roman church came before your protestant Ecclesial community (?), since they borrowed it from somewhere and didn’t read it in the Bible, didn’t find it in any other place but the Latin Occidental Church from which your community derived.

We believe, I believe, Seriously? You didn’t even know we profess the creed until a day back. But I think this is another attempt to go of the topic so I’ll leave it here.

Okay I am again confused. By calling it explicitly a Roman baptismal formula one would again have to assume the Early Church was the Roman Church. Though I thought we already discussed this topic. My friend, there is nothing only Roman about the Creed. Or expressing allegiance to Rome when professing it.

I think we misunderstand each other here. Stating a Church as a specific institution yes, obviously the Protestant one has a shorter history. The previous discussions was on the fact the major Protestants Churches conform to the doctrines of the First Church. As I stated, simple and to the point of the cores. Any sane Protestant Church would ally themselves with The First Church because we have the same core doctrines. Yes we did take it from The First Church, and so did the Catholics and any other Church that profess it. I don’t see how I can make it anymore clear.

And as an end note, let’s just call both Churches. I make a point to capitalise Catholic and Church when referring to Catholic out of a sign of respect. As I am not here to belittle any belief.

 

[MichaelP3]

What word would you feel at ease with, denomination? Group? Congregation? Ecclesial communities?

Unless you are Armenian Catholic or Armenian Apostolic, I’m certain you haven’t confessed this version of the Creed in church. However, the reason it matters is that by admitting your allegiance to the Roman baptismal formula, you’ve admitted that the Roman church came before your protestant Ecclesial community (?), since they borrowed it from somewhere and didn’t read it in the Bible, didn’t find it in any other place but the Latin Occidental Church from which your community derived.

Actually I should admit I did just go and copy and paste the first one I found In English. In my defense we do recite it in another language so I didn’t see the “difference” at first.
Here is the one in English we profess.

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen

Please accept my correction

 

[ffg]

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

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.
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.
And every major sane Protestant denomination accepts this. We even say it every Sunday in Church.

Hi Michael,
Sorry I couldn’t get back to you yesterday. I think what you wrote in the quote above here has a lot of meat with which to work.

Let’s Review a little –

1. Nicene Creed is the core beliefs of Christianity.
2. ‘Christianity’ was 1 belief organization at one time and assumingly the RCC (thanks to theropod)

Now let’s look at the context of the Nicene Creed – 2 sources for reference:

A compact look at the council of Nicea 325: catholicnewsherald.com/our-faith/200-news/roknewspager-yearfaith/2718-the-nicene-creed-and-its-origins?showall=&start=1

The Creed and the Mass: cuf.org/2005/02/we-believe-in-one-god-the-nicene-creed-at-mass/

Key text here from the first reference:
“On May 20, 325, the council opened. It is likely they had a draft from Bishop Hosius of Cordova to consider, as several creeds were already in use by Christians to identify themselves, and as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles’ Creed was popular.

After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed, written in Greek. All but two of the bishops, who were Arian sympathizers, approved the text. Those two bishops, as well as Arius, were excommunicated and exiled.”

So The Creed’s text? – quite core – Agree 100% with you.

What was the reason for the Creed’s creation since there were other Creeds out there already? A current event which required a meeting. (Arius’ action)

So the leadership of Christianity in 325 saw a problem and ‘developed’ a solution.

The solution not only re-emphasized core beliefs but clarified and detailed them in the Nicene Creed.

You can see a side by side comparison of how these core beliefs were detailed in the Nicene Creed vs. the Apostles creed here - vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/credo.htm

The information is the same, but due to that current event, you get a little more meat with the Nicene.

I think if you review where you have questions about ‘development’ in the CC over time, you will learn what is happening is similar.

I think the last sentence of the above quote is VERY important.

Why in 325 did Arius and those who bought his line of thinking NOT claim their own form of Christianity? A Reformation? (Someone please correct me if he did lead a mini reformation)

The problem with such a reformation, if he did start one, is that the essential core belief of Christianity is that Jesus is God. To reduce Jesus’ divinity is to walk away from Christianity.

Sorry this is so long, but now we have to tie it into your quote –

Something to consider is how today people get very offended over everything. I can see how you might read ‘imperfect’ and take it personally (I’m sure I would), but to understand, we have to look past the offending word and consider the context…

If Christianity was 1, and 1 is ‘whole’, but now Christianity is many, the many cannot be ‘whole’, the math just doesn’t work.

The imperfection is not a stain on you or any Protestant personally. It’s simply a recognition that there is more to Christianity for many people who do not (yet) know they don’t have it in ‘whole’.

That institution that made that claim and speaks with the authority of God, is the same one that gave us the Nicene Creed.

In the same way we saw the development of the Nicene Creed, we have a compendium of similar developments in the Catechism. Detailing the core.

You and I could point directly to what might be dealt with in the next update of the catechism, just have to look at our current events. For instance, People flipping genders will probably be covered at some point. I could see a line about the health impacts spiritually and / or physically (to be fair I just picked a current event, I don’t know if this is in the Catechism right now).

Take care,

Mike

 

[MichaelP3]

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it and I came to realise these forums can take a lot of time.

Key text here from the first reference:
“On May 20, 325, the council opened. It is likely they had a draft from Bishop Hosius of Cordova to consider, as several creeds were already in use by Christians to identify themselves, and as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles’ Creed was popular.

After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed, written in Greek. All but two of the bishops, who were Arian sympathizers, approved the text. Those two bishops, as well as Arius, were excommunicated and exiled.”

So The Creed’s text? – quite core – Agree 100% with you.

What was the reason for the Creed’s creation since there were other Creeds out there already? A current event which required a meeting. (Arius’ action)

So the leadership of Christianity in 325 saw a problem and ‘developed’ a solution.

The solution not only re-emphasized core beliefs but clarified and detailed them in the Nicene Creed.

I have to agree with this. My understanding out of a historical context as well would be as follows :

We are talking 4th century. And the Empire was vast. Christianity only became legal 12 years before. This sets for the perfect example where messages and intercommunication wasn’t easily (or even at all) possible between leading figures and communities and so forth. Therefore it will make perfect sense that Creeds could have differed.

And then the Arian controversy started in Egypt. It gained momentum and became a problem. Constantine had a very good idea in using Christianity to unify his Empire. (While still conducted to certain pagan beliefs, I’m not entirely convinced his actions didn’t include a political motive as well)

Therefore he called a council. As problems arose, threatening the Empire’s stability. And during the council established the Creed with the bit extra then the Apostles Creed to specifically address Arius.

So nothing really changed much in Nicaea. It was an affirming of the understanding between Constantine’s Empire.

You can see a side by side comparison of how these core beliefs were detailed in the Nicene Creed vs. the Apostles creed here - vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…hism/credo.htm

The information is the same, but due to that current event, you get a little more meat with the Nicene.

Okay, missed that you said it here. Agreed

I think if you review where you have questions about ‘development’ in the CC over time, you will learn what is happening is similar.

I’m not entirely agreeing much developed here. A creed was established affirming what most already believed and knew. It very well still corresponds with the very early Church even including the time of the Apsotles.

I think the last sentence of the above quote is VERY important.

Why in 325 did Arius and those who bought his line of thinking NOT claim their own form of Christianity? A Reformation? (Someone please correct me if he did lead a mini reformation)

The problem with such a reformation, if he did start one, is that the essential core belief of Christianity is that Jesus is God. To reduce Jesus’ divinity is to walk away from Christianity.

I can’t agree more, why mainline Protestants have absolutely so problem with it. Why he didn’t start a Reformation would maybe need some more research. I won’t claim to be an expert on Arius. What I can say and I still think it makes sense. Is that we can’t compare 325 and 1526. It is two total different eras. In 325 you had a very centralised government in the hands of an Emperor who would not have dared placing his Empire at risk over Arius.

Luther lived in a very big mush of German states each ruling themselves to some extent. If it wasn’t for Elector Frederick of Saxony’s “protection” as well as the support of other German rulers Luther may very well have been convicted of Heresy and what would follow. In this case, with Charles V, he also feared for his Empire. But this one was not centralized at all. So situation made it possible

Sorry this is so long, but now we have to tie it into your quote –

Something to consider is how today people get very offended over everything. I can see how you might read ‘imperfect’ and take it personally (I’m sure I would), but to understand, we have to look past the offending word and consider the context…

If Christianity was 1, and 1 is ‘whole’, but now Christianity is many, the many cannot be ‘whole’, the math just doesn’t work.

The imperfection is not a stain on you or any Protestant personally. It’s simply a recognition that there is more to Christianity for many people who do not (yet) know they don’t have it in ‘whole’.

But this is where my problem arises. If the Nicene Creed has the cores, why would one be imperfect if you contain what it says. What I meant with extras. It’s not more to Christianity, it’s just not needed to be a Christian. There are very few Catholic beliefs I would say I personally have a problem with. My problem lies with the necessity attached to it. Honestly and no offence, but reading those parts in the Catechism is like keeping Christ hostage.

 

[MichaelP3]

I grew up thinking the Catholic Church is so big and they just don’t care about us. And we are the mean ones. After this when I think back, not a single time in Church or Sunday school did we even discuss anything Catholic related. And later I found it’s the Catholic Church that has a problem with us. I honestly don’t have a problem with Catholicism, I have a problem with the problem they have with us. We both profess the essence of Christianity, which is why I don’t feel the need to convert any Catholic, as the core beliefs towards eventual salvation are in both. And I also came to know we have a very different understanding of the word Church, which would provably raise another question. It’s not about saying the Math doesn’t work. Subscribe to the cores and you fall under The Church of Christ. The universal Church. Whether you like to have pink or blue chairs to sit on does not matter.

That institution that made that claim and speaks with the authority of God, is the same one that gave us the Nicene Creed.

This you must understand I can’t agree with and historical context help me to be certain. As I am very comfortable to join The First Church in the form they had. There are too many contradictions

In the same way we saw the development of the Nicene Creed, we have a compendium of similar developments in the Catechism. Detailing the core.

You and I could point directly to what might be dealt with in the next update of the catechism, just have to look at our current events. For instance, People flipping genders will probably be covered at some point. I could see a line about the health impacts spiritually and / or physically (to be fair I just picked a current event, I don’t know if this is in the Catechism right now).

I know what you mean. But this is relating to additions that would happen because the world developed. People flipping genders wouldn’t have been a problem that early or even 50 years back.

Regards and all the best
Michael

 

[GKC]

My point exactly. I can confirm Presbyterian and Lutheran Profess both. Never really looked into Methodists but won’t be surprised if they do. It’s not like it denies any Protestant stance.

Since Methodism arose from Anglicanism, the services show a family resemblance. And you will find the Creeds there.

OTOH, since Methodism arose from Anglicanism, I hesitate to generalize.

 

[In_His_Grace]

Outstanding thread Michael. Looking forward to following along. Hopefully more will participate.

In His Grace

P.S. I did read Newman’s “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” a couple of years ago (twice actually). Your quote “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” in the OP comes from the introduction to this book. Here is the book…

An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine

 

[ffg]

#1
But this is where my problem arises. If the Nicene Creed has the cores, why would one be imperfect if you contain what it says. What I meant with extras. It’s not more to Christianity, it’s just not needed to be a Christian. There are very few Catholic beliefs I would say I personally have a problem with. My problem lies with the necessity attached to it. Honestly and no offence, but reading those parts in the Catechism is like keeping Christ hostage.

I grew up thinking the Catholic Church is so big and they just don’t care about us. And we are the mean ones. After this when I think back, not a single time in Church or Sunday school did we even discuss anything Catholic related. And later I found it’s the Catholic Church that has a problem with us. I honestly don’t have a problem with Catholicism, I have a problem with the problem they have with us. We both profess the essence of Christianity, which is why I don’t feel the need to convert any Catholic, as the core beliefs towards eventual salvation are in both. And I also came to know we have a very different understanding of the word Church, which would provably raise another question. It’s not about saying the Math doesn’t work. Subscribe to the cores and you fall under The Church of Christ. The universal Church. Whether you like to have pink or blue chairs to sit on does not matter.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#2
That institution that made that claim and speaks with the authority of God, is the same one that gave us the Nicene Creed.

This you must understand I can’t agree with and historical context help me to be certain. As I am very comfortable to join The First Church in the form they had. There are too many contradictions

Hi Michael,

Yeah, this site can take a lot of time. (Some folks find it worth it – a hint to a later answer!)

Let’s look at the above 2 items, I’m going to touch on #2 first because it’s the quickest (and I’ll do them in separate posts, because for #1, I will think about for a day)

In 325 the Catholic Church, the one Church of Christianity at the time, is the source of the Nicene Creed… (It should be noted that in 325 it wouldn’t be necessary to call the only Christian Church Catholic, though I believe the first use of the term is somewhere around 100 - someone will be all over that, if I’m wrong)

Who? Catholic Church, What? Meeting, When? 325, Where? Nicaea

Why? To answer Arianism

The key Result: Nicene Creed (There were other items addressed)

Perhaps I didn’t interpret your post correctly, and this isn’t the point of confusion. If it is though, you’ll have to lay out your ‘historical context’ that shows this DID NOT happen:

“An estimated 318 bishops came from Rome, Jerusalem and Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor, Persia, Georgia, Armenia, Gaul, Hispania and the Danube. Among them were Pope St. Silvester, St. Nicholas of Myra, St. Eusebius of Caesarea (considered the Church’s first historian), St. Athanasius and St. Alexander of Alexandria. Each bishop could bring up to two priests and three deacons, so the total attendance could have been as many as 1,800.

Many of the bishops had the marks of persecution on their faces – they had faced the threat of death for their faith and they were sensitive to details of doctrine.

The council’s main purpose was to quash the Arian heresy and settle the doctrine of the Trinity – that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were three divine persons in complete union. The term “Trinity” was not new, of course. Besides Jesus’ references to it in Scripture, many early Church fathers had written about it from the 1st century onward.

Besides the Arian heresy, the council fathers wanted to settle the date for celebrating Easter, and they had to contend with various practical problems such as usury and self-castration.

On May 20, 325, the council opened.

After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed, written in Greek. All but two of the bishops, who were Arian sympathizers, approved the text. Those two bishops, as well as Arius, were excommunicated and exiled.”

Source: A compact look at the council of Nicea 325: catholicnewsherald.com/our-faith/200-news/roknewspager-yearfaith/2718-the-nicene-creed-and-its-origins?showall=&start=1

I’ll catch up with thoughts on #1 tomorrow.

Take care,

Mike

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi Michael,

Yeah, this site can take a lot of time. (Some folks find it worth it – a hint to a later answer!)

Let’s look at the above 2 items, I’m going to touch on #2 first because it’s the quickest (and I’ll do them in separate posts, because for #1, I will think about for a day)

In 325 the Catholic Church, the one Church of Christianity at the time, is the source of the Nicene Creed… (It should be noted that in 325 it wouldn’t be necessary to call the only Christian Church Catholic, though I believe the first use of the term is somewhere around 100 - someone will be all over that, if I’m wrong)

Who? Catholic Church, What? Meeting, When? 325, Where? Nicaea

Why? To answer Arianism

The key Result: Nicene Creed (There were other items addressed)

Perhaps I didn’t interpret your post correctly, and this isn’t the point of confusion. If it is though, you’ll have to lay out your ‘historical context’ that shows this DID NOT happen:

“An estimated 318 bishops came from Rome, Jerusalem and Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Greece, Asia Minor, Persia, Georgia, Armenia, Gaul, Hispania and the Danube. Among them were Pope St. Silvester, St. Nicholas of Myra, St. Eusebius of Caesarea (considered the Church’s first historian), St. Athanasius and St. Alexander of Alexandria. Each bishop could bring up to two priests and three deacons, so the total attendance could have been as many as 1,800.

Many of the bishops had the marks of persecution on their faces – they had faced the threat of death for their faith and they were sensitive to details of doctrine.

The council’s main purpose was to quash the Arian heresy and settle the doctrine of the Trinity – that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were three divine persons in complete union. The term “Trinity” was not new, of course. Besides Jesus’ references to it in Scripture, many early Church fathers had written about it from the 1st century onward.

Besides the Arian heresy, the council fathers wanted to settle the date for celebrating Easter, and they had to contend with various practical problems such as usury and self-castration.

On May 20, 325, the council opened.

After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed, written in Greek. All but two of the bishops, who were Arian sympathizers, approved the text. Those two bishops, as well as Arius, were excommunicated and exiled.”

Source: A compact look at the council of Nicea 325: catholicnewsherald.com/our-faith/200-news/roknewspager-yearfaith/2718-the-nicene-creed-and-its-origins?showall=&start=1

I’ll catch up with thoughts on #1 tomorrow.

Take care,

Mike

I can reply to this because I only have one concern.

I have read the source you sent me. No problem I had with that. I do feel I replied to it. Did I somehow state I disagree?

But noting back to the text I bolded and coloured is the viewpoint I’m challenging. This is an assumption which lacks the evidence of history. It was the Bishop of Rome (I wouldn’t call him Pope for a few hundred years yet) and he didn’t have the Authority claimed by the Catholic Church today at this Council.

But okay, I need to sleep. Till next time

 

[ffg]

I can reply to this because I only have one concern.

I have read the source you sent me. No problem I had with that. I do feel I replied to it. Did I somehow state I disagree?

But noting back to the text I bolded and coloured is the viewpoint I’m challenging. This is an assumption which lacks the evidence of history. It was the Bishop of Rome (I wouldn’t call him Pope for a few hundred years yet) and he didn’t have the Authority claimed by the Catholic Church today at this Council.

But okay, I need to sleep. Till next time

Have a great rest Michael.

With regard to Pope being Pope, here is the list of popes, note #33. - newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

With regard to Authority, it’s interesting that you subscribe to the Creed developed under the 33rd pope (Bishop of Rome, if you like), but don’t find him to have Authority. Is the Creed flimsy?

With regard to 1 Christianity - We have to ask why? Why didn’t a Luther event happen earlier? Or did it?

There has to be a reason, or a reasonable reason why Christianity was not more than 1 early on (or was it?).

A consideration -

Remember early on we are talking about people being tortured for the faith. That means Christianity used to mean something deathly important to NON-Christians.

If I wanted to be a heretic when Christians were being killed, the last thing I’m going to do is call myself Christian!

Me the heretic: ‘No I’m not Christian! they think x, I think y!’

Soldier: ‘you keep your head…for the moment’

Now people can call themselves Christian and be perfectly comfortable in knowing they do not believe as other Christians.

The fact that this is not bothersome is troubling and will be addressed tomorrow when we consider #1.

Take care,

Mike

 

[SyroMalankara]

SyroMalankara;13618612:

What word would you feel at ease with, denomination? Group? Congregation? Ecclesial communities?

In another post titled POPE FRANCIS ASKS PROTESTANTS TO FORGIVE CATHOLICS there is a link to an article from the Catholic Herald in which Pope Francis makes the statement and I quote: “When all Christians of different churches listen to the word of God and try to put it into practice, they truly take important steps toward unity.” If the Pope calls Protestant churches “churches” why do you insist on terms like sect?

My friend, I prefer accuracy in terminology. Today’s model mirrors the secular PC, that is blur the language so that real conversation is obscured in all the niceties.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Okay I am again confused. By calling it explicitly a Roman baptismal formula one would again have to assume the Early Church was the Roman Church. Though I thought we already discussed this topic. My friend, there is nothing only Roman about the Creed. Or expressing allegiance to Rome when professing it.

I haven’t looked back but if I am not mistaken you first posted the Apostles Creed. The Apostles’ Creed is not considered authoritative in the East, nor is it formed by an Ecumenical Council. The Creed was only used by the Roman Church, and is formed from the Roman baptismal formula.

See this from the Center for Reformed Theology
reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed_orr.html:

1. The Roman Creed:

The Old Roman Form of the creed was, as said above, certainly in use by the middle of the 2nd century, in Rome; probably a considerable time before. We have it in both its Greek and Latin forms (the Greek being probably the original). The Latin form is given by Rufinus about 390 AD who compares it with the creed of his own church of Aquileia — a very old church. The Greek form is preserved by Marcellus, of Ancyra,in the 4th century. The old shorter form of the creed long maintained itself. We find it in England, e.g. up to nearly the time of the Norman Conquest (in 8th or 9th century manuscripts in British Museum).

1. The Received Creed:

The Received Form of the creed has a much more obscure history. The additional clauses came in at different times, though in themselves some of them are very old. The addition to the first article, e.g. “Maker of heaven and earth,” first appears in this form in Gaul about 650 AD, though similar forms are found in much older creeds. Another addition, “He descended into hell,” meets us first in Rufinus as part of the creed of Aquileia, but is probably also old in that church. It is known that the creed had assumed nearly its present shape (perhaps without the above clauses, and that on the communion of saints) by the time of Faustus of Reiz, about 460 AD. Thence it spread, and had reached Ireland apparently before the end of the 7th century. In England it appears a century later, about 850 AD (from the court of Charlemagne?), and from the beginning of the 10th century it largely superseded the older from. The same applies to other countries, so that the Gallican form is now the one in common use. Two significant changes may be noted in the form given to it. In England, whose form we follow, the Reformers substituted for “the resurrection of the flesh” the words, “the resurrection of the body,” and in Germany the Lutherans change the word “catholic” to “Christian,” in “the holy catholic Church.”

The previous discussions was on the fact the major Protestants Churches conform to the doctrines of the First Church. As I stated, simple and to the point of the cores.

This is an assertion but yet to be proven. Each protestant church chooses a different point to start from where they see “the cores” and what the “first church” practiced. How can all be right?

Any sane Protestant Church would ally themselves with The First Church because we have the same core doctrines. Yes we did take it from The First Church, and so did the Catholics and any other Church that profess it. I don’t see how I can make it anymore clear.

So when some of the Anglicans profess the Catholic belief in praying for their dead, and venerate saints, are they just obeying Rome or do they actually believe the early church did this? Between the Anglicans that say the episcopate is intrinsic to Succession and the Lutherans that say the presbyterate is sufficient - which is more ‘early church’?

And as an end note, let’s just call both Churches. I make a point to capitalise Catholic and Church when referring to Catholic out of a sign of respect. As I am not here to belittle any belief.

Why is not calling your church “a church” disrespectful? My understanding of Church is that it follows certain definitions, some of which your church does not consider a “core” and “essential” - therefore out of respect for your beliefs and mine, I used a different word. However, since it offends you that I do not inherently hold your views without discussion, I will go ahead and do so.