Would you consider this heretical?

[diggerdomer]

The wording in the catechism is very subtle and I confess I can’t put together a proper taxonomy for how the Orthodox work in. All I I know is that Rome does acknowledge them as Church’s but I think more in the sense of the early NT churches - just off the reservation so to speak. All I know for certain is that Protestants are not considered proper churches and are just clusters of baptised people who congregate together but are informal Catholics. I never said they were not Christian. You seem to have a sensitivity in this area and keep probing me for my sentiments. Why?

As for the Creed it has been essentially hijacked with a new semantic when it is attested in an ecclesial community outside of formal membership in the Catholic Church. Non Catholics expressing it outside of a communion with the Catholic Church render the attestation of faith disingenuous. It is devoid of a factual concept of unity such that when attested it renders it almost an irrelevant expression. One can believe in all the other important concepts (forgivness of sins, resurrection of the deat etc.) but without being in communion and in unity wth Catholics the “We” is not the same “We” and becomes “Separated Brother”. Our seperated brothers believe they are substantially in a seperate free standing but protesting relationship but still somehow still fully part of something that they are not in accord with. Thus the semantic has drifted to become an “invisible” catholic Church that are imagined to be all the same faith. This is not consistent with the Catholic semantic of the Creed which starts of with the assumption that "WE (who “believe”) and speak the prayer and faith attestation are in substantial formal communion (and in good graces) in a UNITY of faith and in conformity to apostolic authority and each other. Obedience to apostolic authority matters in the reckoning of “We”. Non-Catholics are factually NOT in conformity to the apostolic church’s authority nor therefor in any orthodox semblance of unity. The attestation is sincerely spoken but is not an actuality in fact and so is overall objectively insincere. That is why I call it hijacked since its semantic is changed.

It’s running very late here and I need to get to bed. Hope that makes sense.

James

Orthodox Christians are not “off the reservation”. I’m pretty shocked you would use such a phrase.

The Creed is a Christian Creed…prayed faithfully and truly by all Christians. It was not hijacked or whatever other odd thing you think by anyone. If you think Christians praying the Creed is a problem I think you really don’t understand the Creed and Church history (nor the sincerity of those faithful Christians who pray it).

 

[wisdomseeker]

The three Creeds we have are all valid and are all infallable teachings of the Church and form the first catechism for Catholics.

I would stick with the exact words approved by the Church.

The problem we have nowadays is that all the old school Protestant faiths all imagine that they are “the” Catholic Church or else everyone who is baptised is “catholic” in a large invisible church.

Christianity is being hijacked by heretics who not only stole the Catholic Bible and re-published it a tithe lite but even stole our Catholic Creed and prayers.

James

Hard saying for the hearing of those who oppose the Church. but hey, is it not what Jesus did. He stick to the Truth no matter how many stayed and how many left?

the enemies of the Church continue to try to put doubt in the minds of Catholics to ignore the Faith and agree with their theology.

they are trying to take over the authority of the Church. when are Catholics going to wake up and realize that those who believe they are christians couldnt careless about the True Church. their main goal is to abolish once and for all the belief of One True Church.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Orthodox Christians are not “off the reservation”. I’m pretty shocked you would use such a phrase.

The Creed is a Christian Creed…prayed faithfully and truly by all Christians. It was not hijacked or whatever other odd thing you think by anyone. If you think Christians praying the Creed is a problem I think you really don’t understand the Creed and Church history (nor the sincerity of those faithful Christians who pray it).

Digger I am not interested playing patty-cake with words. The apostles and the church fathers have said a lot more severe things about the larger matter of disobedience over the many centuries. There is no Catechism instruction that requires a Catholic to be politically correct; nor to pander to confirm somone in their sins with “feel good” words; nor to pretend that those who are in willful (or even ignorant) separation from us gain communion and a “right relationship” with God and Church by uttering a few phrases of our Catholic Creeds. There is no sacrament of “ignorance” nor one of “disobedience” that imparts grace.

These Creeds are the prayers of the Catholic Church and when spoken outside of the communion with the Catholic Church the words lose their context of a normative unity. A Satanist or a demon from hell could acknowledge all the very same Credal truths (and indeed a demon in hell knows what he hates) yet still stand seperate and opposed as an adversary to the Church that attests and affirms these same truths. Believing in the validity of the truths present in the Creed does not itself gain a unity nor salvation - this notion is just a variant of sola fide which must be anathema to a Catholic. This erroneous rationale would be like trying to use the Catholic Words of Consecration (the Epiclesis) outside of the apostolic priesthood and the rubrics of the mass to confect the sacraments. Here nothing supernatural happens except for a sacrilege in the illicit attempt & participation (as imputed by degree of culpability).

The Orthodox are a special case since they are a deemed a proper Church and because the Vicar of Christ has essentially used his ecclesial authority of loosing and binding to access their defect as an evanescent disunity that is not so distant nor so estranged to render the Catholic sacraments and liturgical prayers completely illicit and without effect.

Here’s what the Apostles and the Church say:

*Galatians 1.9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! *

Tit 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.

Matthew 18:17-18 If [a brother] refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

[Note: The Church has since deemed that ewe should call Protestants “Christian” by right of their baptism. But as well has said that we are to treat both pagan and fellow Christians alike; showing common dignity in accord with Catholic Catechism: Respect for the Human Person, Equality & Differences Among Men and Human Solidarity]

From the [URL='http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm']Catechism:
**SECTION ONE: “I BELIEVE” - “WE BELIEVE” **
26 We begin our profession of faith by saying: “I believe” or “We believe”. Before expounding the Church’s faith, as confessed in the Creed, celebrated in the liturgy and lived in observance of God’s commandments and in prayer, we must first ask what “to believe” means. Faith is man’s response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life. Thus we shall consider first that search (Chapter One), then the divine Revelation by which God comes to meet man (Chapter Two), and finally the response of faith (Chapter Three).

750 To believe that the Church is “holy” and “catholic,” and that she is “one” and “apostolic” (as the Nicene Creed adds), is inseparable from belief in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Apostles’ Creed we profess “one Holy Church” (Credo . . . Ecclesiam), and not to believe in the Church, so as not to confuse God with his works and to attribute clearly to God’s goodness all the gifts he has bestowed on his Church.138

THIS IS IMPORTANT - READ CC 750 SLOWLY 4-5 TIMES. The Church is simply professed as “Holy” and as such, like faith, is a GIFT of God but the object of BELIEF is GOD & NOT the Church. That said, Faith and The Church are BOTH essential Divine gifts. And The gift of the Church has given us a clear teaching on how to identify her - she is ONE, HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC. NONE of the Protestants faiths are apostolic - ERGO PROTESTANTS REJECT THE GIFT OF THE CHURCH THAT IS NECESSARY FOR SALVATION. Yet in spite of themselves and their ignorance to what baptism means and its profound spiritual power their election to baptism joins them in some way to the Catholic Church.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

diggerdomer:
[continued from response to prior post]
And finally a Vatican II Statement that gives insights on what it means to be in unity with the church. One can be fully incorporated or partially incorporated:
*
FULLY INCORPORATED INTO THE CHURCH"Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops" (Lumen Gentium 14, Catechism of the Catholic Church 837).

ASSOCIATED/PARTIALLY INCORPORATED INTO THE CHURCH
“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter” (Lumen Gentium 15). Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church” (Unitatis Redintegratio 3; CCC 838).
*
It is an absolute necessity no exceptions that at all to be joined to the Church in some manner, at least through the virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

As I see it Digger Protestants may PROFESS/CONFESS the Creed sincerely to the best of their means as constrained by defects of knowledge and reckoning. But we must ask how many of them who consciously reject the gift of The Catholic Church so necessary for salvation as is their certainty in faith in Jesus (taken as seperate from His gifts/body/bride) also properly CELEBRATE and LIVE the Creed? No matter how reverently and sincerely one professes it, if there is not a supernatural virtue of faith, hope and charity saying the Creed merits them NOTHING.

I will concede one error in my prior statements on this matter. A Protestant who professes the Creed who has the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity may without actual knowledge of what the Creed fully means in its unity relationship to the Catholic Church (viz a professed faith, a celebrated faith & a lived faith) may have their profession of faith spiritually co-joined by God to those same professions of the Catholic Church. Therefor in specific cases a channel to grace can be opened to the Catholic Church (through Christ of course) but grace is only transmit to the degree that the recipient is spiritually able to accept it. This is a deficient condition and is not normative though.

At the bottom of it we can say another thing with absolute certainty, but without ever assuming to judge for God (e.g. thinking that our salvation is a done deal) that:
*Romans 9:18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. *

James

 

[wisdomseeker]

The wording in the catechism is very subtle and I confess I can’t put together a proper taxonomy for how the Orthodox work in. All I I know is that Rome does acknowledge them as Church’s but I think more in the sense of the early NT churches - just off the reservation so to speak. All I know for certain is that Protestants are not considered proper churches and are just clusters of baptised people who congregate together but are informal Catholics. I never said they were not Christian. You seem to have a sensitivity in this area and keep probing me for my sentiments. Why?

As for the Creed it has been essentially hijacked with a new semantic when it is attested in an ecclesial community outside of formal membership in the Catholic Church. Non Catholics expressing it outside of a communion with the Catholic Church render the attestation of faith disingenuous. It is devoid of a factual concept of unity such that when attested it renders it almost an irrelevant expression. One can believe in all the other important concepts (forgivness of sins, resurrection of the deat etc.) but without being in communion and in unity wth Catholics the “We” is not the same “We” and becomes “Separated Brother”. Our seperated brothers believe they are substantially in a seperate free standing but protesting relationship but still somehow still fully part of something that they are not in accord with. Thus the semantic has drifted to become an “invisible” catholic Church that are imagined to be all the same faith. This is not consistent with the Catholic semantic of the Creed which starts of with the assumption that "WE (who “believe”) and speak the prayer and faith attestation are in substantial formal communion (and in good graces) in a UNITY of faith and in conformity to apostolic authority and each other. Obedience to apostolic authority matters in the reckoning of “We”. Non-Catholics are factually NOT in conformity to the apostolic church’s authority nor therefor in any orthodox semblance of unity. The attestation is sincerely spoken but is not an actuality in fact and so is overall objectively insincere. That is why I call it hijacked since its semantic is changed.

It’s running very late here and I need to get to bed. Hope that makes sense.

James

I cant understand to call others separated brothers and sisters if they dont believe anything that we believe. I can accept the EO, FSSP, etc… but to say that those with a complete different theology and understanding of the Word of God, can be called separated brothers.

i dont think the holy father is refering to every single Bible believer when he says this.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I cant understand to call others separated brothers and sisters if they dont believe anything that we believe. I can accept the EO, FSSP, etc… but to say that those with a complete different theology and understanding of the Word of God, can be called separated brothers.

i dont think the holy father is refering to every single Bible believer when he says this.

This is the profound power of the sacrament of Baptism. Even a fly-spec of faith in Jesus and the desire to be transformed into His image to partake of the promise (and to accept the obligations) is sufficient with the proper intention and form to radically transform a soul and mark it for Christ with a flood of supernatural grace. In that instant any such person is a “Christian Brother”. The problem we get into though is that many soon thereafter fall away into grave sin through various means (impurity and disobedience being the top 2). This happens to Catholics as well. In a sense persisting in grave sin makes everyone, both protestant and catholic alike, “seperated or estranged brothers”.

James

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is the profound power of the sacrament of Baptism. Even a fly-spec of faith in Jesus and the desire to be transformed into His image to partake of the promise (and to accept the obligations) is sufficient with the proper intention and form to radically transform a soul and mark it for Christ with a flood of supernatural grace. In that instant any such person is a “Christian Brother”. The problem we get into though is that many soon thereafter fall away into grave sin through various means (impurity and disobedience being the top 2). This happens to Catholics as well. In a sense persisting in grave sin makes everyone, both protestant and catholic alike, “seperated or estranged brothers”.

James

I see.

 

[jimmy]

‘One Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church’

In the past, when I have been discussing the Catholic faith with non-Catholics (Protestants, non-Christians, ect) we usually get to a point in the discussion where I am asked what I believe as a Catholic. I like to recite the Nicene Creed since it covers all the basics. When I get to the ‘One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church’ I will sometimes substitute the word ‘Universal’ for ‘Catholic’. I did this because as soon as I say ‘Catholic’, the wheels come off the bus and the conversation shifts more often than not to’Why should I obey the pope!’.

I researched this New Advent (Nicene Creed, Catholic) and the general context of the word is ‘universal’, as opposed to referencing the Catholic Church proper.

What is your opinion on changing the word but keeping the meaning? Part of me feels that if Church wrote catholic, use catholic. Another part of me feels that if I can get to the core issues by changing the word and keeping the meaning, go for it.

Discuss.

I would say it is problematic because Catholic has a broader meaning than universal. The local Church contains the fulness of Catholicity because it contains the Eucharist. Ignatius of Anioch was the first person on record to use the word Catholic. His letters are focused on communion with the bishop. There is one bishop and the community is in relation to him. Those who are seperated from the bishop are cut off from the Church and consequently from Christ. Everyone, whether Jew or Greek, is called to communion in the one Church with the one bishop as its head. There are no competing communities. Through this one community true worship is offered and the participation in the bread of heaven is recieved. There is one bread, one Church, one bishop, one Christ.

So Catholicity is an integral truth. It deals just as much with the local Church as with the universal Church. What I mean when I say it is an integral truth is that it penetrates through the whole of the Church rather than being simply the association of all the various churches together as a single whole.

 

[diggerdomer]

These Creeds are the prayers of the Catholic Church and when spoken outside of the communion with the Catholic Church the words lose their context of a normative unity.

That’s your interpretation.

That’s not Catholic teaching.

Christians can and do share the Creed (and the New Testament, and baptism, etc.) truly despite the lack of full communion among Christians.

 

[CentralFLJames]

That’s your interpretation.

That’s not Catholic teaching.

Christians can and do share the Creed (and the New Testament, and baptism, etc.) truly despite the lack of full communion among Christians.

That’s your interpretation.

I’ll concede baptism as “shared” since that is explicitly called out in the CC as the sole thing that let’s us even call Protestants Christian.

But the rest of it is just as you charged me: “that’s not Catholic teaching” since there is
no reference to anything you said about the other things in the Catechism.

You are implying that the Catholic Church teaches us Catholics what Protestants believe and teach. But with the exception of early Protestant’s erroneous beliefs about original sin radically perverting man & destroying his freedom your assertion is otherwise blatantly false. The Catholic Church only teaches the truth and is not in the business of teaching Catholics comparative religions or what non-Catholic faiths teach as necessary for salvation.

It so must follow that your personal assertion that Christians can and do share the Creed and the New Testament while being true to a limited degree is upon closer examination proven to be inaccurate. The general conventions of “sharing” means parties cooperate and share equally. But this is not the condition that exist. Also, Trent’s scores of anathemas against many heretical beliefs that happen to be generally held by Protestants demonstrates that Protestants are materially in a different faith than orthodox Christianity (e.g. Catholicism). Therefor even though the words of the NT might sound and appear to be textually similar or even in many cases identical, Protestants do not objectively profess the same faith as Catholics do. The semantics behind the wordings have been changed by the Protestants. The same holds for the Creed & Prayers. Further, Protestant bibles use “Protestantized” language translations, Protestant margin notes and Protestant foot notes in their bible translations that further their own new teaching tradition. And finally the Protestants have fully seperated the Catholic teaching traditions from the New Testament and replaced it with their own. Therefor Protestants have also changed the semantics and the meanings behind the words in the NT.

So “sharing” is hardly an accurate description of what the condition is.
I happen to think that “hijacked” is still is a closer description of that the current condition is since irrespective of motive or any imagined self righteousness that is what has happened.

James

 

[wisdomseeker]

That’s your interpretation.

That’s not Catholic teaching.

Christians can and do share the Creed (and the New Testament, and baptism, etc.) truly despite the lack of full communion among Christians.

what is it with you? dont you know what the CC teaches and what protestants teach? they are two different Gospels. the Creed belongs to the CC and not to protestants. the Creed has no meaning to them. they dont even believe that the CC is the one mentioned in the Creed. they made up a Church, an invisible Church which they think they are part of. the invisible Church in Heaven is One wiht the CC on earth. they are not different. both Church believe the same. there is no Church in Heaven made up of people who dissagreed and believe whaetever they want believe.

 

[diggerdomer]

what is it with you? dont you know what the CC teaches and what protestants teach? they are two different Gospels. the Creed belongs to the CC and not to protestants. the Creed has no meaning to them. they dont even believe that the CC is the one mentioned in the Creed. they made up a Church, an invisible Church which they think they are part of. the invisible Church in Heaven is One wiht the CC on earth. they are not different. both Church believe the same. there is no Church in Heaven made up of people who dissagreed and believe whaetever they want believe.

Read CCC 187, for instance.

The Creed “that Christians profess”

Note: it does not say “only Catholics”

 

[diggerdomer]

You are implying that the Catholic Church teaches us Catholics what Protestants believe and teach.

No I am not. That is what you might be inferring, though.

It so must follow that your personal assertion that Christians can and do share the Creed and the New Testament while being true to a limited degree is upon closer examination proven to be inaccurate.

See CCC 187 for instance.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No I am not. That is what you might be inferring, though.

See CCC 187 for instance.

The CC admits only that they use the same words. It does not mean that they subscribe the same meanings to the words obviously. Clearly when Catholics speak the Credal line that has the words “the holy catholic church” we mean THE Formal Roman Catholic Church. But when Protestants say the same words they usually mean only the invisible church that includes their own denominational church and a fuzzy collection of others known only to God for sure".

Let’s let it go Digger and move on…

James

 

[diggerdomer]

The CC admits only that they use the same words. It does not mean that they subscribe the same meanings to the words obviously. Clearly when Catholics speak the Credal line that has the words “the holy catholic church” we mean THE Formal Roman Catholic Church. But when Protestants say the same words they usually mean only the invisible church that includes their own denominational church and a fuzzy collection of others known only to God for sure".

Let’s let it go Digger and move on…

James

The point is all Christians pray the same Creed.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The point is all Christians pray the same Creed.

I thought we were done here but now you made an inaccurate statement that needs to be rebutted.

Your statement is false/inaccurate.

Anytime you use the word “All” in a discussion about Protestants you are opening up Pandora’s Box since the very essense of Protestantism is a personal freedom to choose what to believe in about Christianity. That gives rise to ever variety and innovation and unorthodoxy. The word "universal’ or “catholic” to a protestant when spoken in the creed must take on a whole new semantic that is ironically OPPOSITE (the nature of protest) to the conventions. This is the nature of falsehoods and evil - it immediately masquerades truth to pervert and twist meanings and propel humankind toward the incoherence of Man’s Kingdom - that is, Babel. Thus the new Protestant semantic completely eviscerates the Creed’s original unity of common “universal/catholic” belief with a REVERSED semantic; a new semantic of “unity in DIVERSITY” of opinion which renders the Creed a nearly complete contradiction of the conventions of what a Creed is meant to be.

Further, not all who are entitled to call themselves “Christian” by sole right of baptism pray the same Creed at all. Many Protestants have changed the words of the Creed to suit themselves. In place of “I believe in …the holy catholic Church” it is now left ambiguous with an: “I believe in… the Christian Church”. So this alone renders your statement that all Christians (as defined by Trinitarian Baptism) say the same Creed is false.

But the bigger other error in your assertion that “all” Protestants fact many Christians are not creedal at all but in so saying really have a new but very short creed: “No creed but Christ!”

In summary all Christians DO NOT say the same Creed. Some non-Creedal Protestants (like many Baptists sects & the genre of Free Christians) take Creeds as offensive and refuse to say them at all. Some Creedal Protestants have replaced the words entirely to distance themselves from Catholics. But ALL Creedal Protestants who say the same textual words as do Catholics have adapted all new meanings to the words by continuing to assert it outside of a physical communion with Catholics.

In essence the original purpose of The Creed as a symbol that all Christians used as a sort of password to recognize each other in gaining access to worship in times of persecution is gone. The password has been stolen by the followers of heretical leaders, given to their followers and been rendered nearly useless as a key for admission. If we tried to use the Creed in the same way the early church did a Catholic doorman might hear the right words {pass word) but would not be able to be 100% sure that the person was a full Christian who could be pre-screened for admittance to the Mystery of the Mass to receive the sacraments in accord with his own interior state of grace.

BTW - “Catholic is also defined” in the Catechism. So those Protestants who saythe Creed and use our form are changing the semantic of catholic:
830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation” which he has willed:** correct and complete confession of faith**, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

831** Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race**:

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.
​

*

Here is an interesting CAF discussion on The Creed: Apostles Creed: Protestants changed a word

This OP is drifting quite a bit now and we are at risk of getting it closed if we keep talking about the Creed here.

James

 

[diggerdomer]

I thought we were done here but now you made an inaccurate statement that needs to be rebutted.

Your statement is false/inaccurate.

Anytime you use the word “All” in a discussion about Protestants you are opening up Pandora’s Box since the very essense of Protestantism is a personal freedom to choose what to believe in about Christianity. That gives rise to ever variety and innovation and unorthodoxy. The word "universal’ or “catholic” to a protestant when spoken in the creed must take on a whole new semantic that is ironically OPPOSITE (the nature of protest) to the conventions. This is the nature of falsehoods and evil - it immediately masquerades truth to pervert and twist meanings and propel humankind toward the incoherence of Man’s Kingdom - that is, Babel. Thus the new Protestant semantic completely eviscerates the Creed’s original unity of common “universal/catholic” belief with a REVERSED semantic; a new semantic of “unity in DIVERSITY” of opinion which renders the Creed a nearly complete contradiction of the conventions of what a Creed is meant to be.

Further, not all who are entitled to call themselves “Christian” by sole right of baptism pray the same Creed at all. Many Protestants have changed the words of the Creed to suit themselves. In place of “I believe in …the holy catholic Church” it is now left ambiguous with an: “I believe in… the Christian Church”. So this alone renders your statement that all Christians (as defined by Trinitarian Baptism) say the same Creed is false.

But the bigger other error in your assertion that “all” Protestants fact many Christians are not creedal at all but in so saying really have a new but very short creed: “No creed but Christ!”

In summary all Christians DO NOT say the same Creed. Some non-Creedal Protestants (like many Baptists sects & the genre of Free Christians) take Creeds as offensive and refuse to say them at all. Some Creedal Protestants have replaced the words entirely to distance themselves from Catholics. But ALL Creedal Protestants who say the same textual words as do Catholics have adapted all new meanings to the words by continuing to assert it outside of a physical communion with Catholics.

In essence the original purpose of The Creed as a symbol that all Christians used as a sort of password to recognize each other in gaining access to worship in times of persecution is gone. The password has been stolen by the followers of heretical leaders, given to their followers and been rendered nearly useless as a key for admission. If we tried to use the Creed in the same way the early church did a Catholic doorman might hear the right words {pass word) but would not be able to be 100% sure that the person was a full Christian who could be pre-screened for admittance to the Mystery of the Mass to receive the sacraments in accord with his own interior state of grace.

BTW - “Catholic is also defined” in the Catechism. So those Protestants who saythe Creed and use our form are changing the semantic of catholic:
830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him “the fullness of the means of salvation*” which he has willed:** correct and complete confession of faith**, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.

831** Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race**:

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.
​

Here is an interesting CAF discussion on The Creed: Apostles Creed: Protestants changed a word

This OP is drifting quite a bit now and we are at risk of getting it closed if we keep talking about the Creed here.

James

If I am incorrect that all Christians pray the same Creed (whether Nicene --or more accurately, Nicene-Constantinopolitan–or Apostles’) please show me where there are different Creeds prayed by different Christians? And that there are Christians who reject the Nicene or Apostles Creeds? Thanks.

 

[Moscati]

If I am incorrect that all Christians pray the same Creed (whether Nicene --or more accurately, Nicene-Constantinopolitan–or Apostles’) please show me where there are different Creeds prayed by different Christians? And that there are Christians who reject the Nicene or Apostles Creeds? Thanks.

Calvary Chapel. My parents (who have always been evangelical) have recently started attending one of these, and their “creed” struck me very obviously NOT the Nicene Creed:

---

from their website: calvarychapel.com/what_we_believe.cfm

"Calvary Chapel has been formed as a fellowship of believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Our supreme desire is to know Christ and to be conformed into His image by the power of the Holy Spirit.

We are not a denominational church, nor are we opposed to denominations as such, only their over-emphasis of the doctrinal differences that have led to the division of the Body of Christ.
We believe that the only true basis of Christian fellowship is His (Agape) love, which is greater than any differences we possess and without which we have no right to claim ourselves Christians.
We believe worship of God should be spiritual. Therefore, we remain flexible and yielded to the leading of the Holy Spirit to direct our worship.
We believe worship of God should be inspirational. Therefore, we give a great place to music in our worship.
We believe worship of God should be intelligent. Therefore, our services are designed with great emphasis upon teaching the Word of God that He might instruct us how He should be worshiped.
We believe worship of God is fruitful. Therefore, we look for His love in our lives as the supreme manifestation that we have truly been worshiping Him."

---

I don’t want to argue with anyone–I do believe these people are Christians, because they do valid baptisms with water and the Trinitarian formula . . . but there are many churches out there that don’t pray the Nicene Creed (Wikipedia says 1000+ just of these!). Just for reference.

 

[CentralFLJames]

If I am incorrect that all Christians pray the same Creed (whether Nicene --or more accurately, Nicene-Constantinopolitan–or Apostles’) please show me where there are different Creeds prayed by different Christians? And that there are Christians who reject the Nicene or Apostles Creeds? Thanks.

BTW - this is not an argument I personally have any desire to “win”. I derive no pleasure or greater salvation or merit here. I just want to let people know the truth and to see just how far and radical the spectrum of beliefs are within the group of people we call “Christian” only because they are baptised. And that motive is to get people “alarmed” and engaged to get out there and start evangelizing and teaching the truth that we can only be confident in our salvation if we actually believe the fullness of the ONE true faith as taught by the Catholic Church. The Creed is just one of the most fundamental of beliefs but I think I have demonstrated that already many so called “Christians” do not beleive the same things behind the words as Catholics do and worse – many “Christians” do not even have a Creed and refuse to say one.

Here are references:
Free Christians (wikipedia)
Christians Without Creeds:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed#Christians_without_creeds

Some Christian denominations, and particularly those descending from the Radical Reformation, do not profess a creed. The Quakers, formally known as the Religious Society of Friends, find no need for creedal formulations of faith. **The Church of the Brethren **also espouses no creed, referring to the New Testament, as their “rule of faith and practice.” [9] Unitarians, who practice probably the most liberal of all religions, do not share a creed.[10]

Many evangelical Protestants similarly reject creeds as definitive statements faith, even while agreeing with some creeds’ substance. **The Baptists have been non-creedal **“in that they have not sought to establish binding authoritative confessions of faith on one another”.[11].111 While many Baptists are not opposed to the ancient creeds, they regard them as “not so final that they cannot be revised and re-expressed. At best, creeds have a penultimacy about them and, of themselves, could never be the basis of Christian fellowship”.[11].112 Moreover, Baptist ‘confessions of faith’ have often had a clause such as this from the First London (Particular) Baptist Confession (Revised edition, 1646):

Also we confess that we now know but in part and that are ignorant of many things which we desire to and seek to know: and if any shall do us that friendly part to show us from the Word of God that we see not, we shall have cause to be thankful to God and to them.
Similar reservations about the use of creeds can be found in the Restoration Movement and its descendants, the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the** Churches of Christ,** and the Independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.

James

 

[Holly3278]

Keep the word …and then explain it. but part of explaining it will mean of course …at the right time…mentioning the successor of St Peter

I agree. I would keep the word and explain it. However, I do not see substituting the word universal in place of Catholic as heresy.