The definition of why the Nicene Creed is needed did not come from Roman Catholic sources. Nor did it come only from church Fathers from way back when. That statement has been made by Lutheran theologians and pastors teaching a confirmation class for many, many years. In other words, most confessing catholic (in other words, Creedal, and I will not play the word games) Lutherans heard much of that same explanation of the Nicene Creed in their confirmation classes at some point. Granted most probably forgot as soon as the test was done, but that is true of many teenage kids.
As for why I am not a Roman Catholic, that is an interesting question. One that time and packing for our July 4th trip back home won't give me the chance to fully explain it.
For starters I have theological problems with the Roman Catholic (by this I mean the church body headed by the Pope in Rome, not just the Latin rite) Church. For starters, Papal infallibility. There are cases of Popes being tried for heresy (one famous case of a dead pope being so tried), an early Pope who was at best VERY sloppy with his Christology, not to mention the Western Schism where you had at times three Popes running around accusing all comers of heresy and schism. Which was handled in a very non Papal Supremacy way by the university in Paris (but I am rambling).
Then there is the deal with evolution. It amazes me that the Vatican, full of first class theologians, has so many rush to say that evolution is just fine without stopping to think about what that would do to the Incarnation. In short, which species did Jesus save, and when do we evolve out of that species.
In the race to be nice with the world who hates it, many have wandered into a Christological error as serious as Ariaus.
That and while most of the Catholics on Free Republic are very (for lack of a better term) orthodox, the church as a whole is very divided. I often use the term American Catholic Church in that in reality there are at least two churches pretending to be in communion with each other who do no believe in the same thing. When I lived in Nebraska, and met my Catholic wife there, we both believed much the same thing. Yes there are theological differences (which made the discussions I had with the priest during our pre Cana classes very fun for us, but annoying to my wife), but at our core, we believe much the same thing. The Catholics and the LCMS Lutherans may fight, but it more the fight between cousins or brothers than those who are total opposites. There is a lot of respect on both sides.
Here in eastern Iowa, that is not the case. Rainbow sashes at the altar. Sex scandals that drove some out of the Catholic Church to my Lutheran parish in order to escape. Not to mention the fact that while in Nebraska if you were a regular church attending Catholic or Lutheran, the life issues were pretty much the same. Here there are a great many pro death Catholics and priests.
In short, if I were to take say St. Fassisi blind folded to a church in the Diocese of Lincoln and then to one in Davenport, he might have a hard time knowing that they were the same religion, must less church body.
Many of the Catholics here know this. How many have jumped to the Eastern rites, even though that is not really licit. How many have complained about the bishop of so and so. Look at the Norte Dame speech.
Beyond the the theological issues, I have no desire to join a church body in the midst of an internal schism. To many family and friends in the ELCA to want to join that party.
redgolum:
Thanks for the post, although I am unlcear what you meant with respect to the “why and how” the Nicene Creed came about. Also, I think you are referring to the Monothelite crisis in the 7th century. Since you raised it, I would like to respond to it in detail below, hopefully, in a respectful way, citing 2 historians, 1 Catholic [Warren Carrol] and one former Lutheran {J. Pelikan), who late in his life became Eastern Orthodox. [Note that the work that I cited was done while Professor Pelikan was confessional Lutheran]
The Monothelite Crisis was related to the Will of Christ, in that it was only a Divine Will. The passage from St. Luke 22: 39-42 (Mount of Olives” where Christ states “not my will, but thine, be done” was used to support the position. This heresy started in around 630 AD when the Patriarch of the Church at Constantinople, Patriarch Sergius, proposed the Monothelite formula as a theological position to reconcile the Monophysite’s and in particular the Monophysite Patriarch who was in charge at the former important Bishop/See in Antioch. The Church in Alexandria was also under the Monophysite’. . Remember, the Monophysite heresy was rejected at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD under the orthodox leadership of Pope St. Leo the Great. Eventually, Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople would sign and agreement recognizing the Monothelite formula.
Warren Carroll in “The Building of Christendom: A History of Christendom Vol. 2”, pp. 223-224 points out that in all of the discussions among Alexandria, Antioch and Constantinople, Rome was never consulted. Finally, in 633 AD a monk named Sophronius of Jerusalem (who would become Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634 AD) voiced disapproval of the Monothelite formula but this disapproval had not reached Rome by early 634 when a letter from Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople reached Pope Honorius. In his letter, Patriarch Sergius told the Pope that the Monothelite formula had helped reconcile the Monophysites and the important Churches of Alexandria and Antioch. The letter also acknowledged that there were objections from Jerusalem and that as Patriarch of Constantinople; he would drop the usage of the phrase “one operation/will” of Christ if others would drop the insistence of “two operations/wills” of Christ. Pope Honorius’s letter of reply stated that it was better to not debate the question of “one operation” or “two operations” in Christ at this time as in any case, there could be no opposing wills in him since he always did the will of his Father.
With respect to Pope Honorius’s letter, Carroll writes (p. 224) “Somehow, through linguistic or intellectual incapacity or a culpable carelessness or timidity, the Pope entirely missed the point that even to talk about a man without a human will is philosophical nonsense and doctrinal heresy. A man without a will is not a man. If Christ had no human will He was not a man, but God only, and the Monophysites were right.
Papal infallibility was not involved, because the error was not one of ex cathedra teaching binding on all Christians, but a dangerous failure to not teach at a critical moment in a major theological controversy. Of such a failure, the Pope was clearly guilty. Forty seven years later, he was to be condemned for it-—The only Pope ever to suffer such a condemnation.”
In around 642 AD, the Monothelite heresy began to be supported by the emperors of Byzantine who saw it as a political tool to reconcile the Monophysite Christians, all of who lived in the Byzantine Empire that was now being challenged by Islam. All of Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople’s successors were Monotheletes. When Theodore, a Greek, became Bishop of Rome, he had the ability to do language to understand clearly the Monothelite heresy, wrote a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople stating Monotheleteism is heretical. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople reacted by throwing the Papal representatives in jail and destroying the Pope’s Church in Constantinople. In 649, Martin, who had been Pope Theodore’s legate to Constantinople, became Bishop of Rome (Pope). In 649, Pope Martin called a council to Rome to deal with the Monothelite heresy and some 105 Bishops came, including the Bishops from Jerusalem who read Patriarch Sophronius’s letters against the Monotheletes. The Council condemned Monotheleteism, all of its original proponents who had proposed the doctrine, and the current leader of it (Patriarch Paul) who had joined with the Byzantine emperors to push it in the Empire. Pope Honorius was not condemned in the Council.
Over the next 25 years, Monothelite doctrines where still held by Constantinople and the emperors, due to the need politically ally themselves with the Monophysites, as Islam and Byzantium were now fighting constantly. In 678, the Byzantine Emperor proposed to Pope Donus that a Council of the entire Church be called to finally resolve the Monothelite crisis. In 680, The Church of Rome in Holy week had a local Synod and reiterated the findings of the Western Council in 649 led by Pope Martin that had rejected the Monothelite formula and once again stated the Church of Rome’s position.. So, even before the Council, two clear positions had been taken by the Church of Rome. The Pope sent a letter to the Emperor reminding him of the inerrancy of the Church of Rome “in teaching Doctrine” as it had never deviated from the orthodox Apostolic Tradition. By the time the Council in Constantinople ended in September 681 AD, some 174 Bishops were present. The proponents of the Monothelite formula were challenged to find evidence that “clearly supported there position”. All the letters from the Patriarch’s of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, etc, were presented, by a monk named Marcarius of Antioch, as well as the letter from Pope Honorius. However, the Patriarch’s of Constantinople had already been condemned by Rome in 649 AD and there was no statement of clear support in Pope Honorius’s letter; on the other hand, there was no clear rejection. As Carroll states, clearly Pope Honorius had left the matter open. So, the Council then included him on the list of heretics.
So some 40 years after his death, the Council condemned Pope Honorius personally, even though he had never taught the doctrine, and the Church of Rome, which condemned the Monotheletes way back in 649 AD, did not condemn him since he did not “Define anything”. So Pope St. Leo II, when the decrees of the Sixth Council at Constantinople (680-681 AD) were to be confirmed by the Pope, Pope Leo II made it clear to Bishops in Spain and the Emperor that the Church of Rome never “taught Monotheleteism” and that Pope Honorius “had not endorsed Patriarch Sergius’s Monothelite views”, but he only refrained from condemning them. As Warren Carroll notes (p. 254), when writing the Byzantine Emperor, Pope Honorius was condemned because “he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted”. Carroll notes that when writing to the Spanish Bishops, Pope St. Leo II states “Honorius was condemned for not at once extinguishing the flames of heresy, but for fanning them by his negligence”.
Warren Carroll sums up the Monothelite crisis (p. 254) by stating “Despite all of this, the fact remains that no decree of a council has effect in the Catholic Church unless and until it is confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it. There is no “supreme law” prescribing how the Pope shall designate his confirmation. Pope Honorius, therefore, was never condemned by heresy by the supreme Church authority, but only for negligence allowing heresy to spread and grow, when he should have denounced it.; for this is all Pope Leo II ever said in announcing the confirmation of the acts of the council and explaining to the bishops of the Western church and the Catholic Kings of the West the meaning of what he had confirmed.”
Jaroslav Pelikan in Volume 2 of The Christian Tradition: The Spirit of Eastern Christendom, which was written while he was a Protestant (Lutheran), also goes into the Monothelite crisis. Later in his life, Pelikan would enter into the Eastern Orthodox Church, which was the Church of his ancestors as he was of Slovakian and Serbian ancestry. Still, but he always hoped that West and East would re-unite and said as much when Pope John Paul II died. One gathers when reading his works, as I have, that his studies of Patristics brought about a respect for the Latin Church and Rome that he perhaps did not have as a Lutheran. His op-ed piece in the nytimes clearly expressed a desire for Rome and the East to return to Full Communion.
In the section of Volume 2 “The Orthodoxy of Old Rome” (pp. 148-150), Pelikan reminds his readers of the “supreme example of orthodoxy of Rome in the period covered in Volume 1, the Catholic Tradition”, and in particular the role of Pope St. Leo were at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) the council Fathers stated “Peter has spoken through Leo”. Pelikan further notes that Rome had been on the side that emerged victorious from one controversy after another, and eventually it became clear that the side which Rome chose was the one that would emerge victorious. In the two dogmatic issues that we have addressed thus far, the doctrine of the person of Christ and the question of images in the Church, the orthodoxy of Rome was a prominent element, in the first of these perhaps the decisive element (p. 150).
So Pelikan discusses the case of Pope Honorius in the context of the previous discussion I cited above. He notes, correctly, that the case of Pope Honorius, was considered the strongest obstacle to the definition of Papal Infallibility even at the time of Vatican I (1870 AD). Pelikan cites the same sources as Warren Carroll does and goes into the case of Pope Honorius in detail. Pelikan draws a conclusion similar to Carroll and writes (p. 151) “If we distinguish between Monoenergism, the doctrine of one action in Christ, and Monotheletism, the doctrine of one will in Christ, Honorius must be identified with the latter but not the former, while many, perhaps most, who held to either doctrine held to both. Pelikan note that when faced with the question of one action or two, he (Honorius) had stressed one agent, the Lord Jesus Christ, who carried out the divine as well as the human actions through the humanity that was united to the Logos. Pelikan further notes that the question of one action or two actions was insoluble and thus was ruled out of discussion. So by stating “one agent”, who is Christ, “one action” was not explicitly stated. So Pope Honorius’s actions were based on not making it seem like Christ had “two competing wills”. Still, his failure to clearly reject Monothelitism makes it possible to explain why he was a Monothelete, and not to deny that he was one. In sum, the Council of Constantinople in 681 condemned the letter Pope Honorius and the Patriarchs of Constantinople (e.g. Sergius) and then describes how Pope St. Leo, while not condemning Honorius, did state that he had allowed for the Monothelete heresy to pollute the Apostolic Faith.
Pelikan goes back and states, as Carroll noted, that Pope Martin in 649 AD had condemned the Monotheletes’ and Honorius was not on the list. So as Pelikan puts it, while Honorius had agreed with the Monotheletes (Carroll does not come to that conclusion), Pope Martin when he confirmed the decrees at the Council of Rome in 649 AD, he could state that the we (Church of Rome) “that is, the pontiffs of this apostolic see, have not permitted them to spread this [error], or to steal the treasure of the faith’ (p. 153). Pelikan states, the case of Honorius apart, Pope Martin’s claim for Old Rome was borne out by record. What Rome decided in opposition to Monotheletism, in 649 and again in 680, was what the orthodox, catholic, and ecumenical church decided, in council assembled, in 681. Peter was sill speaking through the mouth of the Pope (p. 154)
In closing, the evidence presented from both Warren Carroll and Jaraslov Pelikan supports the notion that Pope Honorius did not “condemn the Monothelete heresy” when he first found out about it, and he may have agreed with it personally (although we don’t know that for a fact). However, what we do know is the following: 1) Pope Honorius did not teach the Monothelete doctrine via a Papal Letter that demanded “Full assent of the entire Church and Faithful” or 2) Pope Honorius did not call a Synod or Council that taught the Monothelete doctrine. We also know that the Church of Rome, when it chose to speak, spoke definitively against it in 649 AD at the Western Council in Rome called by Pope Martin and again at a Synod of Rome during Holy Week in 680 AD, some 6 months before the Council of Constantinople started in the fall of 680.
Anyway, thanks for the post and congrats to you and your wife on the new baby