The Credo- and the Magisterium of the Church.
You don’t explain why calling heresy a heresy is a from of serial abuse after it has been explained at great length including earlier posts where many theological students have explained at length why they converted from one form or another of Protestantism to Catholicism.
Surely, you don’t mean to say that Christ threw a lot of loose cannons on decks to cause a multiplicity of confusing interpretations? And that up until the Protestant Reformation of 1517, the Church that authenticated the canonical texts, interpreted, and preached its dogma was wrong for eleven centuries misleading a host of saints and martyrs on the way?
Or the vast constellation of theologians that support the Petrine Doctrine were all off-course? Or the scores of converts to the Catholicism from other non-Christian faiths?
All your write is an unsupported opinion about “specious” claims of Petrine authority.
Discuss the issues all you want but do not make it personal.
The credo of which you speak was not written by those whom were in any way acting "under" the so-called "Petrine authority" which the Church of Rome claims singularly for it's own.
From Schaff,
In the Nicene Creed we must distinguish three forms—the original Nicene, the enlarged Constantinopolitan, and the still later Latin.1. The original Nicene Creed dates from the first œcumenical Council, which was held at Nicæa, A.D. 325, for the settlement of the Arian controversy, and consisted of 318 bishops, all of them from the East (except Hosius of Spain). This Creed abruptly closes with the words 'and in the Holy Ghost,' but adds an anathema against the Arians. This was the authorized form down to the Council of Chalcedon.
2. The Nicæno-Constantinopolitan Creed, besides some minor changes in the first two articles, adds all the clauses after 'Holy Ghost,' but omits the anathema. It gives the text as now received in the Eastern Church. It is usually traced to the second œcumenical Council, which was convened by Theodosius in Constantinople, A.D. 381, against the Macedonians or Pneumatomachians (so called for denying the deity of the Holy Spirit), and consisted of 150 bishops, all from the East. There is no authentic evidence of an œcumenical recognition of this enlarged Creed till the Council at Chalcedon, 451, where it was read by Aëtius (a deacon of Constantinople) as the 'Creed of the 150 fathers,' and accepted as orthodox, together with the old Nicene Creed, or the 'Creed of the 318 fathers.' But the additional clauses existed in 374, seven years before the Constantinopolitan Council, in the two creeds of Epiphanius, a native of Palestine,and most of them as early as 350, in the creed of Cyril of Jerusalem.
The Nicene Creed comes nearest to that of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which likewise abruptly closes with πνεῦμα ἅγιον; the Constantinopolitan Creed resembles the creeds of Cyril and Epiphanius, which close with 'the resurrection' and 'life everlasting.' We may therefore trace both forms to Palestine, except the Nicene homoousion. [bolding added]
Notice how the Credo as you referred to it, did not originate, or come into being under this same "Petrine authority" which you so often speak of as belonging to 'Rome' (alone, as it were) when promoting the Church of Rome as the end-all to beat all of Christianity itself?
If you could only open your eyes wide enough to see just how much your own words refute your own thesis ---- once the things which your words touch upon --- such as Church history (and Scripture also), are honestly examined, then you possibly could better understand and appreciate the reasons why one prominent Roman Catholic theologian would venture such (spirit of Vatican II?) things as
"... What action? Generally speaking, certainly, a manner of thinking and acting that respects the other in his search for the true essence of Christianity; an attitude that regards unity as an urgent good that demands sacrifice, whereas separation demand justification in every single instance. But we can define the required action even more clearly in terms of the above diagnosis. It means that the Catholic does not insist on the dissolution of the Protestant confessions and the demolishing of their churches but hopes, rather, that they will be strengthened in their confessions and in their ecclesial reality. ..."[underlining added]
You may or may not accept that the man who wrote this, in doing so, provided good advice that Roman Catholics should pay close attention to --- some [Roman] Catholics would dismiss this portion as perhaps, too stealthily "modernistic", yet I will tell you squarely although you otherwise ballyhoo this particular man as one of the greatest theologians whom ever lived, it is not in this alone which you yourself do appear to me to be widely out of step and synchronization with him, and many other decent enough [Roman] Catholics too, without needing go so far as being among those [Roman] Catholics who are spoken of in this thread --->(Catholic) Religious Superiors Call for Rethinking about Gay Couples ... [Catholic Caucus], for around here I do think it should be allowed for a Roman Catholic to distance themselves from such as those, similar to how a vast majority(?) of the more conservative among Protestants (particularly the bible-thumpers which you frequently, rather figuratively spit upon) have nothing at all to do with the likes of the new-agey, wanna-be priestess, fag-hag bishop Shicori, with there being much greater call for recognition of the honest and actual distancing of the many from the likes of her, among so-called "Protestants", due to there being no one much among them whom asserts infallibility for it's own leadership, extending that also to it's own and "teaching magesterium", then it is as for the case within Roman Catholicism itself, whom you were just stressing stood for One Truth, were you not?
So much for the One truth, if we were to evaluate the various ecclesiastical organizations equally, as far as what really goes among any of them -- Rome included!
Turning aside from those sort of difficulties, and back towards this One Truth held by many (not just or only *some* number Roman Catholics as being that very thing);
Perhaps you may also need ask yourself how much agreement you may or may not be with written statements such;
although I dare say that the portion which makes mention of "the very center" may cheer or reassure your own self to an extent, for it does fairly enough appear to me that the man was speaking there most chiefly of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical portion of the larger body of what he otherwise did also define as "The true Church", quote-unquote.
The "credo" --- what is that but a general outline of what the Scriptures indicate are the fundamental truths concerning Christ --- with there at the end, an add-on line suggesting belief "in the Church"?
Do you not understand that such church assemblages as say, the Southern Baptists, consistently enough preach the base, fundamental precepts of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, even though they do not themselves necessarily, or often recite the words verbatim (of Western Version), as do the Methodists, most all Anglicans, and others perhaps, also? I say "perhaps" for I've not much attended Presbyterian church services, though I imagine they occasionally at least recite the creed, as do Lutherans, iirc.
These other ecclesiastical associations which you are so often directing your ire, preach the One Truth (minus "papacy" and RCC, so-called "Magesterium"), so just what is your problem with them --- other than they dare stand in opposition to things which neutrally enough can indeed be identified as "Romish" or Romanism, to borrow those 18th & 19th century terms?
But please, spare me yet another of your broadsides wherein you engage in selective sampling and equivocating, wherein the focus is upon outliers such as David Koresh, or Benny Hinn, or someone not truly central the Evangelical mainstream, as being truly representative of what may otherwise be viewed as Protestant theology, as described not by yourself or some other Romanist with an ax to grind, but in their own words, and deeds also.
Let also those "of Rome" be weighed, judged, or otherwise evaluated by the same exact measures and rules which are employed in any analysis or commentary which may come to mind, or in other words -- spare me the same old usual statements which you make that are broken-record repetition, until those same are equitably applied to one and all, without exception and special pleadings such as "the Church was not in error", "that was only that person..." (or group of persons) who were wrong, or sinning, for it does appear that whenever one can point to whatever possible error, or "sin" there be found in others (not "Catholic") that is held up as proof that they are not part of the true Church, thus meaning that whatever ecclesiastical body they are associated with is hopelessly reprobate, while those of Rome (and more to the point-- Rome, itself) are weighed and evaluated under differing rules & criteria, with seemingly whatever exception of special pleading is necessary in order to cast off all guilt for the Church of Rome itself be indulged in, while simultaneously passing judgement in the way and manner I just described, against all others
Is it not written that God truly HATES unequal scales?
I mean -- what would you say if among the Presbyterians ,there was not only a long history of sexual abuse of minors engaged in by those officially within their ranks serving as pastors-- but also there was a history of denial, cover-up and avoidance/down-playing of the issue, that reached even up to the very top of that ecclesiastical association?
Would the fact that even though there was evidence of some cover-up activity reaching into highest levels be mollified due to there having been also some activity (actions) engaged in on those same highest levels to combat the abuse, and put and end to further incidences of the same occurring?
When it comes to 'Rome', that is what has generally played out within the commentary of a wide swath of FRomans, here on the pages of FR.
I have gone into discussion of the issue at length, with you, before. Others have also. We have had our various presentations either ignored, or else swept away with some form or rhetorical flourish while you yourself declare that such information which is brought before yourself in refutation of your oft repeated claim "doesn't matter" or else all boils down to there needing to be a singular authority, or else all breaks down into chaos.
The Orthodox Christians, by their mere existence alone, refute the claims for singular 'papacy', or even the need for the ill-concieved, not-supported-by earliest Church history, error & rank HERESY that "papacy" as that known and now long promulgated by 'Rome' concerning itself, truly is.
All the bluffing and blustering of those of Rome concerning their own self reverentially entitled "Magesterium", cannot make the truths of history which refute the extents to which the various assembled claims are pushed -- go away.
History refutes you, and again, if you refuse the council of those of your own ecclesiastical organization, as much as any and everything else people here point out to you which refutes (or else just limits) your oft repeated (flawed) premises, and resulting ending error of general thesis, may the Lord Himself rebuke you also, and with gusto, for it is beginning to appear to me that is what it's going to take.
Who cares about opinion pieces of men written about Scripture?
It doesn’t derive its authority from being given the stamp of approval by men.
Your appeal to men means nothing.