Posted on 05/07/2012 2:39:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Well, I am there’s something we agree on. Other than the second sentence above, I couldn’t agree with you more.
Then we disagree to a major extent. The Nicene Creed is a basic profession of Christianity. If you cannot recite it in toto to the meaning that the writers meant it, then I do not believe that you are Christian.
RE: The Nicene Creed is a basic profession of Christianity. If you cannot recite it in toto to the meaning that the writers meant it, then I do not believe that you are Christian.
But I agree with the Nicene Creed. How does that make me not a Christian?
Moses encountered this with the plagues. The priests could match many of his acts so the proof escalated.
But I agree with the Nicene Creed. How does that make me not a Christian?
The Creed professes a belief in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It does not sound as if you profess that belief, based on your prior post.
This is where we disagree on the understanding of the Nicene Creed ( and even the older Apostle’s creed).
I do not equate “catholic” with “Roman Catholic.”
To avoid this misunderstanding, some even prefer to say “holy Christian church.”
While there is nothing wrong with this term, I am not be embarrassed by the older wording and the use of the original word — catholic because I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
The word catholic was first used in this sense in the early second century when Ignatius of Antioch declared, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Note: HE DID TAG THE WORD — ROMAN in front of it.
Jesus Christ is the head of the church, as well as its Lord. I understand the church to be the body of Christ extended throughout time as well as space, the whole company of God’s redeemed people through the ages.
The original word catholic simply means “general, universal, concerning the whole.”
Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one, even as he and the Father are one, so that the world might believe. I think it is right to pray and work for the “full visible unity” of Christ’s church on earth which we know for sure will be completely realized when Jesus comes again. When we say that we “believe in the holy catholic church,” we are confessing that Jesus Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, that all who truly trust in him as Savior and Lord are by God’s grace members of this church, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.
It’s as simple as that.
“Note: HE DID TAG THE WORD — ROMAN in front of it.”
This is true,dear friend,perhaps you have never read the following?
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
Excerpts..
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.
The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.
Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that — Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!
Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father’s home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.
Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.
In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these “non-Roman” rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.
So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the “branch theory” of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.
That’s right - thanks. And again, it was control of nature that the priests couldn’t match - Nile turning red, locusts, frogs, boils, etc. My pastor mentioned when Elijah (?) brought down the lightening on the pile of water-soaked wood as one other rare example. (Oh, and that whole parting of the sea thing Moses did!)
“”William Webster and cut and paste “”
I noticed this as well.
I think it’s possible that someone like William Webster could have been faced with realizing he was wrong about how he quotes the Church Fathers out of context and psychologically convinced himself that what he is doing is right because his life’s work is anti Catholic and regardless of truth it is money he makes off of falsehoods that means more than truth to him.This is the type of false teachers our Lord warns us that it would be better to have a millstone around their neck.
I pray for a Marcus Grodi type of conversion of William Webster!
Excellent reply, my friend.
I could not have put it any better.
The dudes who created the Creed understood it to be the Faith of the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic identifies the particular jurisdiction of a particular bishop. No more.
To avoid this misunderstanding, some even prefer to say “holy Christian church.”
And homosexual men may prefer to be 'married'. Liberals prefer Obama. So?
While there is nothing wrong with this term, I am not be embarrassed by the older wording and the use of the original word — catholic because I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. The word catholic was first used in this sense in the early second century when Ignatius of Antioch declared, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Note: HE DID TAG THE WORD — ROMAN in front of it.
The term Catholic Church is specific, to be sure. It means the Church descended from the Apostles, not any particular concoctions of men over the millennia.
Jesus Christ is the head of the church, as well as its Lord. I understand the church to be the body of Christ extended throughout time as well as space, the whole company of God’s redeemed people through the ages.
I understand the Church to be what Jesus indicated that it is. And that only includes those who believe in the teachings of the Church, as handed down from the Apostles. Else, the doctrines are completely man-made and fabricated from the whole cloth of Reformational desire and Restorationist whim.
Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one, even as he and the Father are one, so that the world might believe. I think it is right to pray and work for the “full visible unity” of Christ’s church on earth which we know for sure will be completely realized when Jesus comes again. When we say that we “believe in the holy catholic church,” we are confessing that Jesus Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, that all who truly trust in him as Savior and Lord are by God’s grace members of this church, and that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.
Then diverging one's self from the Catholic Church does not seem to conform to your thesis, does it?
It’s as simple as that.
Certainly. One is either Catholic or one is not.
RE: The dudes who created the Creed understood it to be the Faith of the Catholic Church. The term Roman Catholic identifies the particular jurisdiction of a particular bishop.
But that IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE BISHOPS OF THE OTHER CHURCHES.
Each churches were independently led by their own Bishop who were charged to be faithful to the gospel.
There was NO POPE.
While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at the time of the Council of Nicea, no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority.
This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.
While the creed of the council was its central achievement, it was not the only thing that the bishops accomplished during their meeting. Twenty canons were presented dealing with various disciplinary issues within the church. Of most interest to us today was the sixth, which read as follows:
“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.” (Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series II, XIV:15)
RE: And homosexual men may prefer to be ‘married’. Liberals prefer Obama. So?
Your analogy between the corruption of the word “marriage” by militant gays and the alleged corruption of the word “catholic” is a false one. MINE is the correct understanding of the word. Yours is the LATER INNOVATION.
RE: The term Catholic Church is specific, to be sure. It means the Church descended from the Apostles, not any particular concoctions of men over the millennia.
PRECISELY. Therefore it should not solely be owned and appropriated by ROME.
It is a good term that is understood to refer to all who are confessing that Jesus Christ himself is the church’s one foundation, that all who truly trust in him as Savior and Lord are by God’s grace members of this church ( Not only Roman Catholics).
RE: I understand the Church to be what Jesus indicated that it is. And that only includes those who believe in the teachings of the Church, as handed down from the Apostles.
And who are these people but those who believe and obey SCRIPTURES. For it is in the SCRIPTURES where we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I see no reason why non-Catholics who obey scriptures should be excluded from the church of Jesus Christ.
RE: Then diverging one’s self from the Catholic Church does not seem to conform to your thesis, does it?
Again who is diverging from the catholic Church? Only those who refuse to believe in Jesus and those who refuse to obey His teachings are the ones who are diverging. You have not shown that non Roman Catholics fir that description at all.
RE: Certainly. One is either Catholic or one is not.
Yes, and I don’t think you get to decide that.
RE: I pray for a Marcus Grodi type of conversion of William Webster!
Your prayers have been answered. Webster has never left the catholic church. He has returned home to its true roots.
Since we are into cutting and pasting articles, I might as well cut and paste one I agree with too (one that conforms to scripture).
http://www.gotquestions.org/universal-local-church.html
To understand the difference between the local church and the universal church, one must get a basic definition of each. The local church is a group of believers in Jesus Christ who meet in some particular location on a regular basis. The universal church is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ worldwide. The term church comes from at least 2 words. One of the words has to do with the meeting together or “assembly” (1 Thessalonians 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:1).
This word is one that pertains to the work of God in saving and sanctifying believers as “called-out ones.” When the word church is found in the English Bible, the word used is this one. The second word is one that speaks of ownership and literally means “belonging to the Lord.” This is the word that is transliterated into the actual word church. This Greek word is only used twice in the New Testament and is never used directly naming the church (1 Corinthians 11:20; Revelation 1:10).
A local church is normally defined as a local assembly of all who profess faith and allegiance to Christ. Most often the Greek word ekklesia is used in reference to the local assembly (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 11:8). There is not just one specified local church in any one area necessarily. There are many local churches in larger cities.
The universal church is the name given to the church worldwide. In this case the idea of the church is not so much in the assembly itself but rather in those constituting it. The church is the church even when it is not holding an official meeting.
In Acts chapter 8 and verse 3, one can see that the church is the church even when they at home. When examining the actual text of Acts 9:31; one can observe that the King James rendering of the word churches should actually be the singular church which describes the universal church not just the local churches. Some may try to describe the universal church as the invisible church. Be careful not to do this. The universal church is never described in scripture as invisible, and surely it was not meant to be invisible. Here are more verses that talk about the universal church: 1 Corinthians 12:28; 15:9; Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18.
RE: I think it’s possible that someone like William Webster could have been faced with realizing he was wrong about how he quotes the Church Fathers out of context
Maybe you can show me where he quotes the fathers out of context because I don;t see it between the classic back and forth he had with Steve Ray. In fact, he seems to be the one quoting the fathers IN CONTEXT.
But that IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE CHURCH OF ROME HAS JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY OVER THE BISHOPS OF THE OTHER CHURCHES.
Each churches were independently led by their own Bishop who were charged to be faithful to the gospel.
The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.
There was NO POPE.
The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.
While later Roman bishops would claim such authority, resulting in the development of the papacy, at the time of the Council of Nicea, no Christian looked to one individual, or church, as the final authority.
That's not what Paul says. He says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. He further goes on to say that it is only what the Church teaches that is right and correct.
This is important because often we hear it alleged that the Trinity, or the Nicene definition of the deity of Christ, is a “Roman Catholic” concept “forced” on the church by the pope. The simple fact of the matter is, when the bishops gathered at Nicea they did not acknowledge the bishop of Rome as anything more than the leader of the most influential church in the West.
We who? I am Roman Catholic. I do not consider my Orthodox brethren to be any less Catholic than I am. The pope is the first among equals, nothing more.
RE: And homosexual men may prefer to be ‘married’. Liberals prefer Obama. So?
Your analogy between the corruption of the word “marriage” by militant gays and the alleged corruption of the word “catholic” is a false one. MINE is the correct understanding of the word. Yours is the LATER INNOVATION.
Negative. The term Catholic was used as early as the first century by Irenaeus.
RE: I understand the Church to be what Jesus indicated that it is. And that only includes those who believe in the teachings of the Church, as handed down from the Apostles.
And who are these people but those who believe and obey SCRIPTURES. For it is in the SCRIPTURES where we find the teachings of Christ and the apostles. I see no reason why non-Catholics who obey scriptures should be excluded from the church of Jesus Christ.
Take it up with Jesus. I do not reason why when it comes to Him.
RE: Then diverging one’s self from the Catholic Church does not seem to conform to your thesis, does it?
Again who is diverging from the catholic Church? Only those who refuse to believe in Jesus and those who refuse to obey His teachings are the ones who are diverging. You have not shown that non Roman Catholics fir that description at all.
By refusing to follow the teaching authority of the Church (remember to shake the dust from your sandals), those who do not follow the Church are not of the Faith. And again, it is not just the Latin branch, but all Catholics.
RE: Certainly. One is either Catholic or one is not.
Yes, and I don’t think you get to decide that.
Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.
RE: The example of Paul shows that while he was a bishop in his own right, he still reported to the central authority.
To whom did he report?
He did go to Jerusalem to be laid hands on and to be commissioned to preach the gospel, but where does it show that Peter had authority over him?
In fact in Galatia ( as Paul himself wrote in his epistle ), it was PAUL HIMSELF exercising the authority based on the word of God ( the gospel ) who PUBLICLY REBUKED Peter in Antioch for his hypocrisy. See Galatians 2:11-16.
In fact, when Paul wrote about the pillars of the church to the Galatians, he said this:
“6 As for those who were held in high esteem —whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism —they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.” ( Galatians 2:6-9)
Notice any supreme authority given to Peter in the above passage? I don’t. I do notice these:
1) He said that both he and Peter were equally entrusted with preaching the gospel. Peter to the Jews and Paul to the gentiles. Where is the indicator that Peter was the Pope with authority over Paul?
2) When Paul mentioned the Pillars of the church, it is interesting that Peter (Cephas) was mentioned SECOND, next to James. Why would that be if Peter had jurisdictional primacy over the others? Shouldn’t he be mentioned first?
So no, all indications are that ALL APOSTLES held EQUAL positions in the preaching of the gospel. THERE WAS NO INDICATION OF ANY HIERARCHICAL AUTHORITY AT ALL.
RE: The patriarch of the Latin branch earned the first amongst equals status by being true to the Faith in the first millennium while the Orthodox were not quite, shall we say, orthodox.
And just because you said so, it must be so? Sorry, no dice. I want you to show me WHERE in the early churches ( yes, up to even Nicea ), Rome exercised authority over all the other churches.
If Rome held the doctrinal interpretation that everyone had to adhere to, then why did the Bishops not simply ask the Pope ( if indeed such a a position existed ) to speak infallibly for all on the one important doctrine — the Nature of God and the Deity of Jesus Christ — that separated orthodoxy from heresy?
Why bother meeting at Nicea? It would be a simple matter for the Pope to tell everyone what to believe and all to simply accept it.
Let the Bishop of Rome write a Papal Doctrinal Letter and let all adhere to what he infallibly said.
But no such thing existed.
In fact, it was ATHANASIUS (later Bishop of Alexandria ) who was the champion of the Nicene Creed.
RE: That’s not what Paul says. He says that the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth. He further goes on to say that it is only what the Church teaches that is right and correct.
You are referring to 1 Timothy 3:15:
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
Which leads to 2 questions:
1) What church was Timothy pastoring then? Answer the EPHESIAN CHURCH. Where in this passage did he refer to Rome?
2) When Paul used the term church? What was he referring to?
What Paul is referring to is this — The church holds forth the Scripture and the doctrine of Christ, as a pillar holds forth a proclamation. Hence, the church (any church anywhere in the world, be it in Ephesus, Rome or in New York) SHOULD be FAITHFUL to God’s word.
How do we know this? Because Paul said so.
He said this to Timothy in another letter:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”
This is ENTIRELY CONSISTENT with his advise to Timothy and the Ephesians church he pastored — THE CHURCH IS THE PILLAR OF TRUTH IN THAT IT MUST AND SHOULD BE FAITHFUL TO THE WORD OF GOD.
So, where does it mention the Church of Rome in the above passage? If Rome and the Pope were so important in this context, I find it strange that Paul failed to mention it at all.
RE: The term Catholic was used as early as the first century by Irenaeus.
Yes he did in his writings AGAINST HERESY, but again what did he mean by “catholic”? Did he mean a church headquartered in Rome with jurisdiction over all churches? Or did he mean the universal body of true believers everywhere?
If you say it is the former, maybe you can quote the exact explanation he gave for me....
RE: Take it up with Jesus. I do not reason why when it comes to Him.
Let’s see what the Lord Himself said concerning who His brothers and sisters are:
Matthew 12: 46-50
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
So, I’ve taken it up with Him and I still fail to see how he tells us that one must acknowledge the Papacy of Peter and his successors to be a member of His church.
I do see Him requiring OBEDIENCE to God (which of course requires adherence to HIS WORDS ).
RE: By refusing to follow the teaching authority of the Church (remember to shake the dust from your sandals), those who do not follow the Church are not of the Faith. And again, it is not just the Latin branch, but all Catholics.
But I DO follow the teaching authority of the church. I do not even disobey what the Popes teach.
However, in doing that, I must (and so must you) obey the teaching authority of Christ — Who taught us to — LOVE THE LORD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, WITH ALL YOUR SOUL AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND (Luke 10:27).
That does not mean BLINDLY accepting whatever a Bishop or even Pope teaches without using one’s mind (which the Lord Himself tells us to use) to discern whether what they teach are scriptural.
RE: Thankfully, only the Judge of All gets to decide that.
Of course, that is why I said your statement that “one is either Catholic or not” is not for you to decide. You agree with me and that’s good.
We each have to decide for ourselves whether we are Catholic or not. However, just like Salvation, we cannot simply pronounce our Catholicity and have it be a fact. We have to live Catholic by being in Communion with the Church and its doctrines and dogmas. The Early Church Fathers knew this, preached this, taught this, wrote this and lived this. Those who oppose the Catholic Church at every turn and are openly hostile to its teachings are not Catholic.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter." - Matthew 7:21
I have personally met an occultist who tried to declared she was a Christian. I am a Charismatic Catholic. What I am about to tell you Do not try this unless very heart felt pray in Holy Hour.
After she declared she was a Christian ,I looked at her while I under the Holy Spirit told her Noooo. I asked her to repeat the Apostles creed or Nicene creed or that Jesus came in the flesh. She could not do it. She had contortions and stutterings when it came to the the born of the Virgin Mary/ remember this means flesh. She could not even say Jesus born of the Flesh. Her husband flipped out. She declared that there was "many Gods "at the key moments to pronounce Christ in the Flesh.
What God was showing me is his word in 1John 4 is a real test to know a real Christian. If we continue in the life. Amen.
But the point is if you (seekand find)can declare Christ came in the Flesh this is because you truly believe in Jesus. This is the Holy Spirit. Do not let anyone fool you.
God does not care about us being 100 percent right on theology more than just knowing him in Love. His Divine Mercy is greatly beautiful in perfect love.
Today's Catholic Mass reading has a great example of Peter and others being surprised too in their beliefs:
Reading 1 Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and, falling at his feet, paid him homage.
Peter, however, raised him up, saying, “Get up. I myself am also a human being.”
Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, “In truth, I see that God shows no partiality.
Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him.”
While Peter was still speaking these things, the Holy Spirit fell upon all who were listening to the word.
The circumcised believers who had accompanied Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit
should have been poured out on the Gentiles also, for they could hear them speaking in tongues and glorifying God.
Then Peter responded, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people,
who have received the Holy Spirit even as we have?” He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
PRAISE JESUS!! AMEN!
Well thank you very much for the Bible passage you just quoted. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
RE: We have to live Catholic by being in Communion with the Church and its doctrines and dogmas. The Early Church Fathers knew this, preached this, taught this, wrote this and lived this. Those who oppose the Catholic Church at every turn and are openly hostile to its teachings are not Catholic.
________________________
Let’s not equivocate on the word “church” once again.
The Roman Catholic Church’s teachings (be it by the Bishop or Pope ) ALSO have to be discerned and judged in the light of scripture. Opposition to what a Pope or Bishop proclaims does not automatically make one in opposition to the church of Christ.
Conversely, it is also possible to oppose Popes or Bishop AND BE IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
How does one judge then? Here’s the simple answer:
Every individual is required to study God’s word for himself and examine what he believes in light of what the church ( the church as founded by Christ and His word as taught by the apostles ) to see if what he believes is right or wrong.
The PLUMB LINE or the standard by which I compare my belief IS SCRIPTURE. If I follow what scripture teaches, I AM IN HARMONY with what the apostles and the early church taught.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.” - Matthew 7:21
True. But the more important question is this -— how does one make sure that he does the will of the Father in heaven?
Here’s a simple answer — OBEY HIS WORD. And where do we find his word? Answer: SCRIPTURE.
And as I said to the other poster, whether an individual is in obedience is for God to decide, not anyone posting in this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.