When other churches say the creed and use the word "catholic" why don't they just say universal?

[batman1973]

I like the music group…New Kids On the Block…

Woah! That takes a lot of steel to admit on the internet. You, sir, have my respect.

 

[benjohnson]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Gnostica

If I may give my opinion, as a Mason, about any group that seeks to convert the rather baroque Masonic ritual into part of a religion.

I WOULD SUGGEST RUNING AWAY IN A MOST HASTY FASHON WITHOUT STOPPING JUST IN CASE SOMETHING REALLY UNSAVORY IS FOLLOWING.

Again, this is just my opinion as a Mason, using the Masonic ritual as part of a religion is just as wrong as using Dr. Seuss’ “Sam I Am” as a textbook about nuclear science.

I like the music group…New Kids On the Block…

Ah… I see this is where we confess our musical tastes. I like Tiffany… especially the poignant “I think we’re alone now.” Really captures the feelings teen-age angst in a confusing world.

 

[nitesnake]

Like in the Lutheran Churches, why do they say One, Holy, catholic, and apostolic church. If catholic to them means universal, why not just say universal? I get that its a tradition, but you’d think that some denominations wouldn’t like saying catholic.

I suspect it’s because protestant religions are derived from heresy, but they truly believe they are part of the catholic church and in some sense they probably are… I’m not trying to be mean-spirited, it’s just a fact.

 

[CopticChristian]

If I may give my opinion, as a Mason, about any group that seeks to convert the rather baroque Masonic ritual into part of a religion.

I WOULD SUGGEST RUNING AWAY IN A MOST HASTY FASHON WITHOUT STOPPING JUST IN CASE SOMETHING REALLY UNSAVORY IS FOLLOWING.

Again, this is just my opinion as a Mason, using the Masonic ritual as part of a religion is just as wrong as using Dr. Seuss’ “Sam I Am” as a textbook about nuclear science.

Ah… I see this is where we confess our musical tastes. I like Tiffany… especially the poignant “I think we’re alone now.” Really captures the feelings teen-age angst in a confusing world.

Ben,

Prepare for gnosisofthomas to explain in great detail the New Kid on the Block religion.

 

[Indifferently]

it’s just a fact.

I think you will find its just your opinion. unless of course God has decided to start posting on CAF.

 

[SteveVH]

WHAT?!?!

Please explain in a nutshell how Mormonism is gnostic (in a new thread if necessary). About 99.7% of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would respond with a blank stare if you referred to the “gnostic” elements of our religion (and most probably wouldn’t even know about the silent ‘g’!). In LDS instructional classes, comparisons are made from time to time with Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish beliefs, but never gnostic. (Although I can’t say it doesn’t happen in an upper division university course.) Thanks.

And for the record, LDS worship services do not include a segment where early Christian creeds are recited.

Sorry for the dealy in my response.

First of all, if one looks carefully at Mormonism, one will find that the doctrine of progression, i.e. the attainment of knowledge, is the number one criteria for reaching one’s eternal destiny. Yes, I am aware that the LDS claim that one cannot be “saved” without the atonement of Christ. Yet the entire reason for our existence on this earth, according to Mormon belief, is to acquire knowledge (of good and evil) so that we might progress. The whole idea of continuing revelation is gnostic thinking.

Secondly, as other posters have mentioned, is the idea of “secret knowledge”. This has its essence in the “burning of the bosom”, the reception of knowledge concerning the truth of the BoM which can neither be proven or disproven. I have encountered, on numerous occassions when speaking with Mormons, an attitude that the only reason I do not agree with Mormon doctrines is that I am lacking in the enlightenement (secret knowledge) only possessed by Mormons and therefore am not capable of understanding. If I were just Mormon I would get it. Along with this add the fact, as others have also mentioned, that some knowledge of Mormonism is kept officially secret and only revealed to those who pass muster.

So yes, I still maintain that Mormonism has many charactaristics of Gnosticism, though they are not alone.

 

[SteveVH]

How does scripture give your church more authority than, say, the Eastern Orthodox Church? Or any other catholic church for that matter? You have to remember that the Bible is a creation of the Church, not the other way around.

Because the keys to the kingdom of heaven were given to Peter, specifically, and we are the only Church that holds the office of Bishop of Rome, Peter’s seat. While the Eastern Orthodox do have apostolic succession and correct doctrine (with very few exceptions) they do not hold the seat of primacy (and therefore authority) reserved for the chair of Peter.

Yes, I am quite aware that the Bible came from the Church, not the other way around. What this has to do the question at hand escapes me.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

The gnosticism of gnosisthomas…is based on a group started by a Liberal Catholic. They claim, falsely, Apostolic succession.

“Falsely” by whose standards?

Liberal Catholics as I recall are Anglican breakaways…

They broke away from the Old Catholic Church.

and they have what is called the Ecclesia Gnostica…

I corrected your spelling of a proper name.

since the gnostics were not translated into english until recently…

I’m not sure what you’re getting at exactly, but… When the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church (Ecclesia Gnostica) was started, there were a few books available: the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Mary, fragments of the Gospel of Thomas. There were also many scriptural quotes available from Catholic “heresiologists”, which were shown to be fairly accurate once the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered and translated. These were the primary sources used in the early days of the Gnostic Revival. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library was a godsend because we finally had more primary source material to draw from. We don’t tend to use the Catholic polemical materials anymore as a resource, but they can be interesting to read for historical study.

they claim sacraments, and appear to suggest some relationship to Christianity…

We worship Christ, receive His sacraments, and strive to live the gospel. There’s your relationship to Christianity!

 

[gnosisofthomas]

If I may give my opinion, as a Mason, about any group that seeks to convert the rather baroque Masonic ritual into part of a religion.

I WOULD SUGGEST RUNING AWAY IN A MOST HASTY FASHON WITHOUT STOPPING JUST IN CASE SOMETHING REALLY UNSAVORY IS FOLLOWING.

Again, this is just my opinion as a Mason, using the Masonic ritual as part of a religion is just as wrong as using Dr. Seuss’ “Sam I Am” as a textbook about nuclear science.

Masonry was only an influence on the Order of the Pleroma, which was an initiatory order Duc de Palatine started, completely separate from the Church. It doesn’t exist anymore, as far as I know.

The liturgy of the Church is nearly the same as the Tridentine Rite, except that it’s said in English, and includes Gnostic scripture and prayers.

I’m not too familiar with Masonry, but from the little I do know of it, I can’t imagine how combining Masonic ritual with a religion would even work. I’d be a little creeped out by it too!

 

[GKC]

“Falsely” by whose standards?

They broke away from the Old Catholic Church.

I corrected your spelling of a proper name.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at exactly, but… When the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church (Ecclesia Gnostica) was started, there were a few books available: the Pistis Sophia, the Gospel of Mary, fragments of the Gospel of Thomas. There were also many scriptural quotes available from Catholic “heresiologists”, which were shown to be fairly accurate once the Nag Hammadi Library was discovered and translated. These were the primary sources used in the early days of the Gnostic Revival. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library was a godsend because we finally had more primary source material to draw from. We don’t tend to use the Catholic polemical materials anymore as a resource, but they can be interesting to read for historical study.

We worship Christ, receive His sacraments, and strive to live the gospel. There’s your relationship to Christianity!

If this is the Liberal Catholic church that is discussed in Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, chapter IX, it is more accurate to relate them to the Old Roman Catholic church, in the Mathew succession, not to what is commonly referred to as the (continental) Old Catholics. Who were some of the prominent leaders or figures in this Liberal Catholic church, say, around 1918? Would they include the name of Leadbeater? Wedgwood? Just curious.

GKC

 

[followingtheway]

Why would we have a reservation against it?

Why should we change the creed? Anyway, it can cause confusion. I remember we were at a Methodist church once, and they said the creed. My dad was so confused and said it didn’t make any sense the Methodists talking about the Catholic Church.

Wait Non-Denominationals and Pentecostals use the creed? I didn’t know that.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

If this is the Liberal Catholic church that is discussed in Anson’s BISHOPS AT LARGE, chapter IX, it is more accurate to relate them to the Old Roman Catholic church, in the Mathew succession, not to what is commonly referred to as the (continental) Old Catholics. Who were some of the prominent leaders or figures in this Liberal Catholic church, say, around 1918? Would they include the name of Leadbeater? Wedgwood? Just curious.

GKC

You’re right, it’s the Old Roman Catholic Church… I forgot the “Roman.” They split over the question of Theosophy, and whether it was acceptable for a Christian to also be a Theosophist. Amusingly, the Liberal Catholics have more recently split, again over the issue of Theosophy!

Yes, Wedgwood was the founder, and Leadbeater was influential in their sacramental theology.

 

[Petergee]

Many churches consider themselves catholic (my church included), but distiguish between “big C” Catholic and “little C” catholic. “Catholic” with a capital C usually refers to the Roman Catholic Church, where “catholic” usually (but not always) means Christian churches within the apostolic succession who continue to recognize the sacraments. Of course, there are also some Protestants who don’t recognize the sacraments and/or apostolic succession but still consider themselves catholic.

The word “Catholic” (in Greek) was already in common use by about 100 AD at the latest with the apparent meaning the same as the Catholic Church uses it in to this day.

The use of two different types/styles of the alphabet’s letters in the same language did not start until about the 8th century, and the distinction in meaning between the same word written with a large or small capital letter did not begin until centuries after that.

St Augustine and the other Early Church Fathers use “Catholic” in their writings to distinguish those Christians in union with the successor of St Peter, as distinct from heretical groups.

Some protestant churches substitute the word “Christian” for the word "Catholic in the Creed. Of course “Christian Church” is oxymoronic; a church by definition is a group of Christians.

This is a tricky one for protestants and other non-Catholic Christians, because if they expunge the word “Catholic” from the creed they are admiotting that they are not the Chruch foundfd and headed by Christ. But if they leave it in, they are saying that they believe in the one, holy and apostolic Catholic Church when obviously they don’t.

 

[GKC]

You’re right, it’s the Old Roman Catholic Church… I forgot the “Roman.” They split over the question of Theosophy, and whether it was acceptable for a Christian to also be a Theosophist. Amusingly, the Liberal Catholics have more recently split, again over the issue of Theosophy!

Yes, Wedgwood was the founder, and Leadbeater was influential in their sacramental theology.

Yep. Episcopi vagantes And theosophy was central to the formation of the LCC. Mathews was agin it.

Masonry was around, too.

GKC

 

[gnosisofthomas]

The word “Catholic” (in Greek) was already in common use by about 100 AD at the latest with the apparent meaning the same as the Catholic Church uses it in to this day.

The use of two different types/styles of the alphabet’s letters in the same language did not start until about the 8th century, and the distinction in meaning between the same word written with a large or small capital letter did not begin until centuries after that.

St Augustine and the other Early Church Fathers use “Catholic” in their writings to distinguish those Christians in union with the successor of St Peter, as distinct from heretical groups.

Some protestant churches substitute the word “Christian” for the word "Catholic in the Creed. Of course “Christian Church” is oxymoronic; a church by definition is a group of Christians.

This is a tricky one for protestants and other non-Catholic Christians, because if they expunge the word “Catholic” from the creed they are admiotting that they are not the Chruch foundfd and headed by Christ. But if they leave it in, they are saying that they believe in the one, holy and apostolic Catholic Church when obviously they don’t.

St. Valentinus, a Gnostic bishop born c. 100, was Catholic. He was nearly elected bishop of Rome, and was never declared a heretic in his lifetime. It wasn’t until after his death c. 160 that Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote anything against the Valentinian Gnostics. Valentinians fully participated in the public life of the Church alongside other Catholics, and their teachings weren’t seen as being in conflict with Catholic Christianity. There’s really no indication that “Catholic” meant anything more than “universal” around 100 AD. Christianity was being spread across the earth, so it was truly universal.

 

[Schism_hater]

I
To those above who have said (in various ways) that we should not “change the creed”, allow me to present the unchanged creed.

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipoténtem,
Factórem cæli et terræ,
Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium.
Et in unum Dóminum Iesum Christum,
Fílium Dei Unigénitum,
Et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula.
Deum de Deo, lumen de lúmine, Deum verum de Deo vero,
Génitum, non factum, consubstantiálem Patri:
Per quem ómnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos hómines et propter nostram salútem
Descéndit de cælis.
Et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto
Ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Crucifíxus étiam pro nobis sub Póntio Piláto;
Passus, et sepúltus est,
Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras,
Et ascéndit in cælum, sedet ad déxteram Patris.
Et íterum ventúrus est cum glória,
Iudicáre vivos et mórtuos,
Cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum et vivificántem:
Qui ex Patre **Filióque** procédit.
Qui cum Patre et Fílio simul adorátur et conglorificátur:
Qui locútus est per prophétas.
Et unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confíteor unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatorum.
Et expecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
Et vitam ventúri sæculi. Amen.

In case it has not already been pointed out, you, quite ironically, have posted a changed creed. The original creed, when discussing the Holy Spirit, said (in Latin) “Qui ex Patre procedit”, not “Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit”. “Filioque” was not officially added in the west until c. 1014, and has never been added by the East.

 

[Petergee]

St. Valentinus, a Gnostic bishop born c. 100, was Catholic.

If he was a Gnostic he could not have been a Catholic. The two terms are mutually exclusive.

He was nearly elected bishop of Rome,

Evidence for this claim? It was very rare in the early centuries for a bishop to be transferred from one see to another. In fact many saw this as a type of “adultery” since the bishop was considered to be “married” to his diiocese.

and was never declared a heretic in his lifetime. It wasn’t until after his death c. 160 that Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote anything against the Valentinian Gnostics. Valentinians fully participated in the public life of the Church alongside other Catholics, and their teachings weren’t seen as being in conflict with Catholic Christianity.

I think you mean he wasn’t officially DISCOVERED to have been a heretic until after his death. The Church in all charity gives everyone the benefit of the doubt. Nobody is treated as a heretic until proven to be one.

There’s really no indication that “Catholic” meant anything more than “universal” around 100 AD.

St Ignatius of Antioch writing circa 100 AD uses the term “Catholic Church” exactly as the Catholic Church uses it today.

 

[Petergee]

In case it has not already been pointed out, you, quite ironically, have posted a changed creed. The original creed, when discussing the Holy Spirit, said (in Latin) “Qui ex Patre procedit”, not “Qui ex Patre Filioque procedit”. “Filioque” was not officially added in the west until c. 1014, and has never been added by the East.

Off topic here, and as you no doubt know, the Catholic case (though obviously the EO disagree) is that the word “filoque” is understood in the original creed, so explicitly adding it did not change the meaning.

Omitting the word “Catholic” or changing it to “Christian” or trying to put some alternative meaning to it, does materiially change the Creed. Or I should say “Creeds” since all of them refer to the Catholic Church, not only the Nicene-Constantipolitan Creed which you refer to, which is the only one in which “filioque” is an issue.

 

[fellowChristian]

Before arguing about one word’s translation in the Creed shouldn’t we ask the question…

Which church gave us the Nicene Creed?

 

[gazelam]

Sorry for the delay in my response.

First of all, if one looks carefully at Mormonism, one will find that the doctrine of progression, i.e. the attainment of knowledge, is the number one criteria for reaching one’s eternal destiny.

John 17:3 (KJV) And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Also, why did Jesus did visit the deceased wicked spirits of Noah’s day if not to help them make some sort of progress in the afterlife?

1 Peter 3:18-20 (KJV) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Yes, I am aware that the LDS claim that one cannot be “saved” without the atonement of Christ. Yet the entire reason for our existence on this earth, according to Mormon belief, is to acquire knowledge (of good and evil) so that we might progress.

LDS believe there are other purposes of mortality, such as, gaining a body and demonstrating the ability to keep God’s commandments. Gaining knowledge is also one of the purposes of life.

The whole idea of continuing revelation is gnostic thinking.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the College of Cardinals each time they select a new Pope? What would the Holy Spirit be doing if not revealing knowledge about the next Pope to the Cardinals? And since Catholics believe it happens each time, is that not an example of continuing revelation?

Secondly, as other posters have mentioned, is the idea of “secret knowledge”. This has its essence in the “burning of the bosom”, the reception of knowledge concerning the truth of the BoM which can neither be proven or disproven. I have encountered, on numerous occassions when speaking with Mormons, an attitude that the only reason I do not agree with Mormon doctrines is that I am lacking in the enlightenement (secret knowledge) only possessed by Mormons and therefore am not capable of understanding. If I were just Mormon I would get it.

Paul clearly taught that the only way to know of the divinity of Jesus is via the Holy Ghost.

1 Cor 12:3 (KJV) Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

Also, Peter testified of Christ’s divinity after receiving that knowledge from a divine source,

Matthew 16:16, 17 (KJV) And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Do Catholics believe there is a different way to know of Christ’s divinity other than via the Holy Spirit?

The “burning of the bosom” is simply a way to describe how the Holy Ghost communicates the truthful of something.

Luke 24:32 (KJV) And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Another description of the Holy Ghost communicating is “still small voice”.

1 Kings 19:11-13 (KJV) 11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it…

Along with this add the fact, as others have also mentioned, that some knowledge of Mormonism is kept officially secret and only revealed to those who pass muster.

It’s true that there is information only revealed in the LDS temple, however we would refer to the information as sacred, not secret. if it were secret, would there be tens of thousands of LDS missionaries offering to teach people how they can enter LDS temples?

So yes, I still maintain that Mormonism has many charactaristics of Gnosticism, though they are not alone.

I appreciate your time explaining the gnosticism label.