[tjwmason]

The Apostles Creed exists in two forms; the original "Roman Creed" and the more popular "Trent" version that was a part of the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" published in Feburary, 1562. The Roman Creed arose circa 200 AD and traces its roots directly to the Apostles. It was in the later that the phrase "the Communion of Saints" was added.

No, no, no, no, no.

If this was the case, why does the Anglican Book of Common Prayer of 1552 have the relevant phrase in it? First, this was 10 years before the supposed addition. Secondly, it is from the Church of England which was at this point rabidly anti-Roman Catholic.

Do you have any source to back up your most bizarre suggestion?

[Natural Law]

I thought this was a discusion of Catholic doctrine, but I would be glad to discuss the reformation as well.

The nineteenth ecumenical council opened at Trent on 13 December, 1545, and closed there on 4 December, 1563. Its main object was the definitive determination of the doctrines of the Church in answer to the heresies of the Protestants; a further object was the execution of a thorough reform of the inner life of the Church by removing the numerous abuses that had developed in it. The specific inclusion of the phrase "Communion of Saints" was a direct repsonse to the Anglican creed. The Roman church was not going to permit the ownership of Saints by the Anglican church to go unchallenged.

There was a lot of tit-for-tat going on between the Anglican and Roman Churches. If you recall the Anglican liturgy originally excluded the Eucharist but later incorporated it because they were losing a PR battle. Popular belief was that if a Roman priest could bring forth the body and blood of Christ and an Anglican priest couldn't it was a sign from God that the Anglican's were not the true church.

This brings us full circle in the discussion; what part of doctrine and dogma is Devine in origin and what part is not?