In the Nicene Creed what is the intended meaning of the phrase "Εἰς μίαν, ἁγίαν, καθολικὴν καὶ ἀποστολικὴν Ἐκκλησίαν." Into one, holy, catholic and...

Xeno.of.athens said:

It comes from a Greek word that mean "according to the whole".

---

Catholic in the Nicene Creed comes from the Greek katholikē (καθολική), literally “according to the whole,” meaning universal in scope, teaching, and mission. The Fathers such as St Cyril of Jerusalem explain that the Church is called catholic because it is spread throughout the world and because it preserves and teaches the whole faith, not a subset of it .

In the Creed itself, the term means the one worldwide Church that holds the full apostolic faith, distinguished from the gatherings of heretical groups . The Catholic Church today teaches the same meaning: catholic refers to the Church’s universality in time, place, and doctrine, not to a later denominational label.

[Copilot using prompt: "what is the derivation for Catholic in the Nicene creed and what is its intended meaning in that document according to the early church fathers and the Catholic church. Keep your answer to a few sentences and use plain text with Australian spelling."]

Click to expand...

Apostolic Faith means the faith of the Apostles - not Apostolic Succession - and good to hear that Catholic - does not refer exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church.

Xeno.of.athens said:

I asked Copilot, "When did the Roman Catholic Church become institutionally distinct?" It answered:

The Roman Catholic Church did not “become” institutionally distinct at a single moment, because for the first millennium there was simply the Catholic Church, a communion of local churches sharing the same bishops, sacraments, and creed. The institutional separation emerged gradually, crystallising in the East–West Schism of 1054, when communion broke between Rome and Constantinople over authority, liturgy, and doctrine.​

From the Catholic perspective, Rome remained the same Church that had existed from the apostles, while the schism marked the loss of full communion, not the creation of a new denomination.​

Click to expand...

Thank you - neither changes my answer. And in some ways your answers support mine.

Xeno.of.athens said:

What has this stuff got to do with the Thread's topic? which is, I remind you,

Click to expand...

It supports my position that the Nicene Creed predates the Roman Catholic Church. Hence the creed means exactly what it says - the Catholic Church (universal) not Roman Catholic.

it directly answers your OP where you asked:

Xeno.of.athens said:

and to whom or to what does it rightly appy in the intention of the councils that defined the creed. My intention is to discuss especially the meaning of "one" (Greek: μίαν) in the creed.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

It supports my position that the Nicene Creed predates the Roman Catholic Church. Hence the creed means exactly what it says - the Catholic Church (universal) not Roman Catholic.

Click to expand...

The question is moreso "who is indicated by the phrase 'Catholic Church'?" Just substituting "universal" for "catholic" doesn't answer the question because the churches that use "catholic" in their name intend that meaning: "we are the universal Church."

jas3 said:

The question is moreso "who is indicated by the phrase 'Catholic Church'?" Just substituting "universal" for "catholic" doesn't answer the question because the churches that use "catholic" in their name intend that meaning: "we are the universal Church."

Click to expand...

Name one Christian Denomination that does not follow the Nicene Creed -

Just because the church denominations don't specifically have catholic in their name does not mean they are not part of the universal church. The Creed isn't prophetic in nature and it is not addressing a denomination that did not exist at the time of it's writing.

Always in His Presence said:

Name one Christian Denomination that does not follow the Nicene Creed

Click to expand...

The Southern Baptist Convention recently rejected inclusion of the Creed in their statement of faith because they object to the phrase "I confess one baptism for the remission of sin."

There are a lot of denominations and independent congregations that reject that statement but don't get as much publicity (I've seen it myself in nondenom megachurches that will "baptize" you as many times as you want). There are also a lot that reject the idea of "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" if you don't redefine those words, or the idea that God the Son was born of the Virgin Mary (e.g. John MacArthur). More fringe denominations like Oneness Pentecostals reject the statements on the Son and the Holy Ghost altogether.

Always in His Presence said:

Just because the church denominations don't specifically have catholic in their name does not mean they are not part of the universal church.

Click to expand...

Conversely, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem pointed out, just because the churches of a denomination claim to be the Lord's house doesn't mean that they are. The point of the discussion is to address the uncertainty.

Bob Crowley said:

The Athanasian Creed was developed to combat Arianism (which denied Christ's divinity and continued to circulate after the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople), Monophysitism (which reduced Christ to one nature), and Nestorianism (which separated his natures). It very much emphasises the Trinity. Now and again I'll recite it but certainly not from memory, as it is too long for that and not in popular usage.

Click to expand...

Actually there’s nothing in the Quincunque Vult (sometimes incorrectly called the Athanasian Creed) that would thwart what most people erroneously call monophysites (the miaphysite Oriental Orthodox) or Nestorians. Monophysitism is extinct; the Oriental Orthodox were never monophysites, and indeed Pope Dioscorus anathematized Eutyches, the Monophysite heresiarch, but this did not prompt him from being falsely accused of monophysitism by the crypto-Nestorian Ibas at Chalcedon, or being deposed, which was unfortunate. One wishes that the early church had listened to Archbishop Leo in his desire that a fourth ecumenical council not happen, but alas, it didn’t. Now with regards to the actual Monophysites, the Eutychians, they became Tritheists due to their idea of the human nature dissolving into the divine nature of Christ “like a drop of water into the ocean” making Him ontologically different from the Father and the Spirit, thus their actual successors are the Mormons, who are also Tritheists, and Quincunque Vult does preclude that. But nothing in it precludes the Miaphysite Christology, because the Oriental Orthodox believe, as do Chalcedonians, that the divinity of Christ in the Incarnation was united with his humanity without change, confusion, separation or division. The only difference is they use the phrase “from two natures” rather than “in two natures,” however, like Chalcedonians, they confess a hypostatic union. For this reason the Antiochian Orthodox (EO) and Syriac Orthodox (OO) churches have an ecumenical agreement which extends to the two churches not even converting members of the one church to the other, and allowing intercommunion, although unfortunately this does not extend to autonomous archdioceses such as the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America, which was formerly part of the Russian Orthodox Church led by a Syrian emigre bishop, St. Rafael of Brooklyn, which became autocephalous during the fragmentation of the Russian Orthodox Church after the death of St. Tikhon in brutal Soviet captivity. The process of EO-OO reunification has concluded theological dialogue and the pastoral and administrative integration is being promoted by IOTA (the International Orthodox Theological Association) Hierarch Members - International Orthodox Theological Association

Unfortunately, a number of English speaking Eastern Orthodox are unaware of the progress being made despite Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, having discussed it in his book, and believe Oriental Orthodox are monophysite heretics; likewise, some Ethiopian Orthodox have the opposite view, that all Chalcedonians are Nestorians (some of the monasteries hold to this view); I have also encountered, on ChristianForums, a member of the Armenian church who held to this view and also regarded some OO doctrines emphasized in the Syriac and Coptic churches as heretical despite the fact that this would make his own hierarchs guilty of being in communion with an heretical church (at one time Armenia did have a schism with the Syriac Orthodox over this issue, but that schism was resolved many many centuries ago, which is the one danger of people reading some Patristic documents out of context, in that they might assume the issues raised in them are still current issues).

As far as Nestorianism is concerned, it persists, but not in the Assyrian Church of the East, which replaced it with what could be called “Syro-Chalcedonian” Christology during the tenure of Mar Babai the Great as Catholicos of the East; in 1975 under the patriarchate of Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV, memory eternal, the Assyrian Church of the East, by this time divided by a schism from the smaller Ancient Church of the East over the last hereditary Catholicos changing the calendar to the Gregorian (and also an Indian bishop of the church discovering the ancient canons, well known to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic Church that preclude a bishop from choosing his own successor, thus making a hereditary episcopal office impossible under the Apostolic Canons; hopefully these canons were translated into the canon law systems Rome created to replace their nomocanon known as the Decretals, an assembly of canon law similar to the Eastern Orthodox Pedalion).

There are two versions of Quincunque Vult, the one familiar to most members contains the Filioque, but another version, which I suspect is the original, lacks it, and is divided into two sections rather than three, and is included in Russian Orthodox Psalters and A Psalter for Prayer, also known as the Jordanville Psalter, published by Holy Trinity Monastery of ROCOR; according to Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, who would know, it is also in some editions of the Greek Orthodox Horologion. Its text is as follows:

The Athanasian Creed
WHOSOEVER will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the Catholic Faith is this, That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Spirit uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Spirit Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity, to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion, to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. Likewise also the Holy Spirit is of the Father, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other, none is greater, or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together, and co- equal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, must thus think of the Trinity.

Concerning Christ
FURTHERMORE, it is necessary to everlasting salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the ages, and Man, of the Substance of His Mother, born in the world; perfect God, and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; equal to the Father, as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father, as touching His Manhood. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ; one; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the Manhood into God; one altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty, from whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic Faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.

Excellent posts @jas3 as always.

Xeno.of.athens said:

who proceeds from the Father and the Son,

Click to expand...

It goes without saying that the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East reject the filioque “and the Son”, which was not in the original version of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed, but rather was added in Spain in the sixth century in a noble but misguided attempt to address an outbreak of adoptionism, in an effort to emphasize the deity of Christ (but at the expense of the Patristic model of the Trinity) although some such as myself, and St. Maximos the Confessor, are more tolerant of it than others, if its understood to refer to the Son sending the Holy Spirit to serve as our comforter and paraclete rather than to the eternal origin of the Holy Spirit, since only the Father is unoriginate, with the Son and Holy Spirit being uncreated and coequal; according to the original version of the Nicene Creed.

Orthodox Christology, which many Roman Catholics adhered to in antiquity, before the schism, and indeed the schism initiated by St. Photius was resolved by Rome agreeing to strike the filioque from the Creed (they later changed their minds, but the Orthodox did not break communion, rather, it was Pope Leo IX’s predecessor who sent a legate, in an act Leo IX approved of, who, by the time he slapped a writ of excommunication on Holy Table of the altar of the Hagia Sophia before the liturgy (which is technically an uncanonical violation of the Altar, since the ancient canons are clear that one cannot place unauthorized objects on the Holy Table in a Byzantine Rite church, and fled the city, outrunning deacons (who would not have harmed him; the apostolic canons preclude clergy from striking other clergy). However the schism really did not become definitive until the violence against Eastern Christians during the crusades, especially the Fourth Crusade, but even in the first crusade, the only Christians of the East who came out ahead were the previously isolated Maronites in the mountains of Lebanon, who benefitted, like the Druze, from strategically defensible positions. They had become estranged from the Syriac Orthodox due to monothelitism.

At any rate, what is less well known is that the Byzantine Rite sui juris Eastern Catholic churches do not use the Filioque, and interestingly, the Roman Catholic Church does not use it when celebrating the mass in Greek, since it has argued that the filioque if expressed in Greek would be in error.

I want to be absolutely clear that I am mentioning this for historical context only, and not in an anti-Catholic manner, for as is well known, I love the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome and desire reunion with the Orthodox (the only thing I’m opposed to are the liberal bishops in the Roman church, particularly in Germany and Italy and some parts of Latin America; I really wish someone like Cardinal Sarah or Cardinal Burke had become Pope; I also particularly like Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco and Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakhstan; Cordileone is a hero of mine for taking a hardline stance against those in his diocese who deviated from Roman Catholic doctrine on human sexuality.

It should also be stressed that the Supreme Court decision reversing Roe vs. Wade could not have been accomplished were it not for the enormous effort made by pro-life Roman Catholics (Roman Catholics and Southern Baptists, due to their immense size and traditional values, collaborated on pro life issues and had hugely positive impact, whereas tragically all of the mainline Protestant denominations took stances on the issue which ranged from indifference to active pro-choice campaigning. The SBC, like the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, nearly became a mainline Protestant church, but through events in the 1970s in the case of the LCMS (the Seminex incident) and the early 1990s in the case of the SBC, avoided such an unhappy outcome. My prayer now is that the Roman Catholic Church will be able to resist liberal and postmodern influences, which were so stridently opposed by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Xeno.of.athens said:

My intention is to discuss especially the meaning of "one" (Greek: μίαν) in the creed.

Click to expand...

There are a few different answers to this. Many Protestants argue for a universal invisible church of all believers. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and most Oriental Orthodox historically took the view that their respective denominations constituted the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, however, thanks to ecumenical dialogue, this view has been tempered to some extent. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, memory eternal, declared with irenic gravitas “we know where the Church is, but we cannot say where it is not.”

Anglicans in particular tend to favor “branch ecclesiology”, arguing that there are multiple branches of the early church with Apostolic Succession and these collectively have Catholicity.

Confessional Lutherans rely on a small o orthodox definition that is based on the Gospel being preached correctly and the sacraments celebrated.

Congregationalists, the Stone/Campbell movement and its offshoots (the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ and the more conservative Churches of Christ) and many Baptists subscribe to a local church ecclesiology in which the Church is defined as the local church, and for this reason they tend to reject authority above the congregational level.

I myself have not firmly decided how this question should be answered in all cases because of the issue of reconciled schisms, since there have been a great many schisms which have been healed. For example, ROCOR was canonically isolated from the rest of Eastern Orthodoxy until 2007, but is now back in communion. In Spain, in the sixth century, the Three Chapters Controversy was a schism that was ultimately healed, that erupted in protest to the anathematization of Theodore of Mopsuestia (who is still venerated as a saint by the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Ancient Church of the East, who call him Mar Theodore the Interpreter; unforunately they also venerate Nestorius despite having outgrown the deeply flawed Nestorian Christology, which precludes ecumenical reconciliation with the Coptic Orthodox, who seek to be the anti-Nestorian church par excellence; also Nestorius was seriously unpleasant. Likewise among the Oriental Orthodox, the Armenians were estranged from the rest of the communion for several centuries, and there have been purely political schisms in India, and in the Ethiopian church. Most recently, among the Eastern Orthodox, the Orthodox Church of what is now called North Macedonia re-entered into communion with the canonical Orthodox churches after a primarily political schism with both the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, partially driven by the political issue of the name of the former Yugoslav Republic, and the issue of irredentism. This has now thankfully been resolved, however, during the schism the Serbian Orthodox Archbishop of Ohrid suffered from imprisonment and mistreatment. But it is resolved, glory be to God.

The main issue for me therefore is to work out a model for how to deal with schisms that heal, particularly in those cases where we cannot identify a schismatic party, such as in the schism separating ROCOR from the other Eastern Orthodox churches (albeit not completely and not consistently; ROCOR at times had relations with the Serbians and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem); this schism was not ROCOR’s fault; if anyone was at fault, it was the fault of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Likewise, there was a very similar schism in the Armenian church between the Catholicosate of Holy Etchmiadzin, which had to contend with Communism after the Soviet annexation of the Armenian nation in the late 1920s, and the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia, which became aligned with anti-Communist and Armenian nationalist elements. Historically, these two autocephalous Armenian churches existed because for a time, in the Middle Ages, there was both the ancient Kingdom of Armenia and the Kingdom of Cilicia, located where what remained of the Byzantine Empire met the Levant.* That schism was resolved around 1991 with the fall of the USSR and the independence of Armenia, whereas in the case of ROCOR it was not until 2007 that it was resolved.

*Additionally there are two other autocephalous Armenian churches in the Oriental Orthodox communion, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem; interestingly the Armenian church is the only church where Catholicoi outrank Patriarchs in terms of the order of precedence, but this does not mean that the Patriarchates are mere autonomous dependencies of Holy Etchmiadzin or the Great House of Cilicia.

At any rate, my struggle with the Visible Church Model pertains to the issue of resolved schisms where neither party is obviously schismatic; these frequently have a strong political component or an ethnocultural element.

jas3 said:

We have an exposition of this line (as well as most of the others) from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, a contemporary of the council.

"The Faith which we rehearse contains in order the following, AND IN ONE BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; AND IN ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC CHURCH; AND IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH; AND IN ETERNAL LIFE... Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the article, 'In One, Holy, Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.
"It is called 'catholic' then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.
"And it is rightly named (Ecclesia) because it calls forth and assembles together all men... Concerning this Holy, Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That thou mayest know how thou ought to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
"But since the word 'Ecclesia' is applied to different things (and also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly (Acts 19:14)), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and the Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to you now the article, 'And in One, Holy, Catholic Church'; that you may avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which you were regenerated. And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God..."

The version given by St. Cyril is not exactly the form found in the Creed, but his version is undoubtedly closely related to the Nicene Creed and the phrases are to be understood the same way. The Church is "One" in an institutional sense; it shares one name and one faith across the whole world. It is "Holy" in that it is established by our Lord and will never lose the true faith, and it is "Catholic" in that it is found across the whole world and in that it teaches and preserves the whole orthodox faith.

Click to expand...

This I agree with entirely. I would note that when St. Cyril of Jerusalem (not to be confused with St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria) wrote that, no one could have conceived of long lasting schisms where it is difficult or impossible to identify an at-fault party, such as the ROCOR schism. In the case of the schism involving the Macedonian Orthodox, on the other hand, its easy to say the Macedonians were at fault. Where things become very difficult is in a scenario where the laity become obliged to chose who is schismatic and who isn’t. Also, some schisms in Eastern Orthodoxy were resolved without reunification, for example, in Estonia, the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate settled the issue of some parishes being under the MP and some under the EP. We also now have the issue of some European nations attempting to force the Orthodox churches in their country, most distressingly, in Latvia, where the Orthodox are a minority population, into severing ties with the MP based on the misconception that the MP is an organ of the Russian state (whether one supports or opposes recent Russian action, every Orthodox church prays for the military of the country in which it is located, even Orthodox churches located in non-Orthodox or Islamic countries, which creates an unfair burden on autonomous churches under the omophorion of the MP, since they are being existentially threatened because the MP did what every other Orthodox church including the Ecumenical Patriarchate would also do; the small number of members of the Constantinopolitan church who still live in Turkey absolutely pray for the Turkish military and Patriarch Bartholomew completed mandatory military service in the Turkish Army; this despite such issues as the Turkish occupation of North Cyprus. Thus we have the potential for a number of schisms to be engendered based on ugly human politics.

jas3 said:

The Southern Baptist Convention recently rejected inclusion of the Creed in their statement of faith because they object to the phrase "I confess one baptism for the remission of sin."

Click to expand...

That’s deeply concerning.

Bob Crowley said:

In the end the most divisive issue is the Papacy, which is not only disputed by Protestants but also the Orthodox churches. If the churches ever reunify, my crystal ball tells me this will be the final and most bitterly contested dogma, not the term "Catholic".

Click to expand...

The Eastern Orthodox declared a willingness to recognize the Pope of Rome as primus inter pares under Canon 28 of Chalcedon, at Ravenna in 2006.

That said, that ship may have sailed; also the Oriental Orthodox do not actually have a primus inter pares except within each autocephalous member, and within Eastern Orthodoxy the Patriarch of Constantinople is no longer the unambiguous primus inter pares due to having pursued policies that alienated several Orthodox churches including those of Antioch, Jerusalem, Serbia, Bulgaria, Russia, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia (and likely Romania, because of new restrictions on Romanian pilgrims to Mount Athos; since Romania is the most populous Orthodox country in the EU and in close proximity to Greece, Romanians were beginning to account for a huge number of pilgrims to the Holy Mountain), and their refusal to recognize the autocephalous status of the Orthodox Church in America, because the OCA’s autocephaly comes from Moscow, and of late the current Archbishop of North America, who is quite likely to succeed Patriarch Bartholomew, which will probably lead to more division, has written a paper, while he was still Metropolitan of Bursa, arguing the Patriarch is primus sine paribus and alone has the ability to grant autocephaly, and, disturbingly, to revoke autocephaly, and for most Orthodox the idea that autocephalous status can be revoked is unacceptable. However there are several undeniably canonical churches that remain very much aligned with the EP, particularly the autocephalous churches of Greece (which is the church for those parts of Greece which were liberated in the Greek War of Independence in the early 19th century; those territories like Thessaloniki, Mount Athos, Crete and most of the smaller islands such as Lesbos which were liberated later are under the Patriarch of Constantinople), Albania, and Alexandria.

My prayer is that this does not degenerate into a schism, but I don’t think it will, since these churches have not broken communion with their neighboring churches over issues such as non-attendance at the rather unremarkable Council of Crete in 2016.

Xeno.of.athens said:

Apostolic Faith in the Creed never meant “the faith of the apostles without apostolic succession.” The Fathers are painfully clear on this. St Irenaeus—writing in the 170s, only one generation removed from the apostles—states that the only way to know the apostolic faith is to look to the churches “founded and organised by the apostles” and to the bishops who “by succession have handed down the tradition” (Adv. Haer. 3.3.1–3). He even mocks the idea that Scripture alone, detached from the living succession, could preserve the apostolic faith, because heretics quote Scripture too. For Irenaeus, apostolic and succession are inseparable realities.

Click to expand...

Also St. Cyprian of Carthage, who lived not long after St. Irenaeus, wrote extensively on apostolic succession, and his writings form the basis of the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of apostolic succession to this day (specifically St. Cyprian wrote that Apostolic Succession required the Apostolic faith on the part of the successor for them to be able to convey succession; mere succession was not enough).

Xeno.of.athens said:

Historically, the Creed’s “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” refers to a concrete, visible body with bishops in apostolic succession, unified in faith and sacraments. Every Father who comments on the phrase treats catholic as a mark of the Church’s universality, doctrinal completeness, and unity under legitimate bishops. No early Christian writer—none—uses catholic to mean “not Roman Catholic” or “any group that claims apostolic faith.” That reading is a modern invention with zero grounding in the sources.

Click to expand...

Of course, that definition can still apply to the Eastern Orthodox, or the Oriental Orthodox, or the Anglican Communion, or the Church of the East, without modification. Indeed at one time, on the basis of geographical reach alone, the Church of the East, or to use its full title, the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of the East, was the largest, and also had what is probably the most ancient liturgy in the form of the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari (which is used not only by the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East but also by the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro Malabar Catholic Church.

The real issue that the early church fathers did not address was sustained schisms and fluctuating schisms, for example, the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox have had intermittent relations with the Eastern Orthodox and in the case of the Syriac Orthodox Church, with the Oriental Orthodox, in both Mesopotamia and India, due to the common use of the Peshitta and the Syriac dialogue and the large number of Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East fathers who desired reunion on the basis of a shared belief that the uncreated divine nature of Christ was united at the Incarnation with our created human nature without change, confusion, separation or division), and we have the case of St. Isaac the Syrian who was a member of the Church of the East but who became venerated as a saint by all four of the ancient churches.

This is not to say that the visible church definition is lacking or that I disagree with it; I do not. Rather I believe we need to be prepared, in order to facilitate ecumenical reunification, and in order to be able to explain previous ecumenical reconciliations where a schismatic party cannot be identified or likened to the prodigal son, for example, the schism between ROCOR and the MP, where ROCOR in precisely following the instructions of St. Tikhon to all bishops abroad found itself canonically isolated after the Soviet government allowed the restoration of the Moscow Patriarchate and withdrew support for the Rennovationists in a bid to improve national unity as WWII approached, and numerous other related schisms. In many cases God might know who was right but we should leave that judgement to God. Thus, a visible church definition of Catholicity that can expand as reconciliations happen without penalizing the reconciled party. ROCOR saints are recognized as saints by all Orthodox, for example, St. John Maximovitch.

The sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches are potentially another good example of this, in that they have been, since Vatican II, encouraged to restore traditional Byzantine Rite usages, married clergy are now allowed in places where they were previously not allowed (which caused many Ruthenian Greek Catholics in the US to convert to Orthodoxy in places like Wilkes-Barre Pennsylvania; there are regions in the Eastern US where you’ll find ethnic Ruthenians and Lemkos in OCA, ROCOR, ACROD, Antiochian and even Serbian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox parishes, since ethnic exclusivity is regarded as a heresy (ethnophyletism). Insofar as Eastern Catholics venerate St. Gregory Palamas on the second Sunday in Lent, and, particularly in North America, worship in a manner almost indistinguishable from their Orthodox counterparts (especially ACROD, which uses a translation which is basically identical to that of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church), this is very positive, in my opinion.

Xeno.of.athens said:

That is just ahistorical revisionism bereft of serious reflection on when the creed was written and by whom and for what purpose.

Click to expand...

This is why I said there is no meeting of the minds -

In what way is the Church one?
In what way is the Church holy?
In what way is the Church catholic?
In what way is the Church apostolic?

As a Lutheran I quite, emphatically, proclaim my belief in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. The one Church of Jesus Christ.

As for the one Church, I can recall St. Augustine who reminds us that there are wolves within and sheep without. Which Dr. Luther echoes by speaking of how in the Church visible both wheat and tares co-exist. So where does the central unity or oneness of the Church reside? Ideally it should reside in a united confession of the Holy Gospel, in a united celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and recognized in our one and holy Baptism for "by one Spirit were were baptized into one Body"--so that all of the baptized belong to Christ, and as our Lord prayed, that His should be one even as He and His Father are one. Such is His High Priestly prayer. And yet, we behold a fractured faithful. Do we place the locus of the Church's oneness in her external structures of human authority, or in the grace and work of God by which we are brought to faith, plunged into the Mystery of Christ by Baptism. This does not, at all, suggest we minimize or consider certain things (such as whether the Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ or some memorial meal); but it does present a question of whether the Unam of Christ's Body is chiefly in the Mystery of Grace in Word and Sacrament, or in human institutionalism (without denying the importance of human institutionalism).

What renders the Church as holy? How is she the Sanctam of Christ? How is she Christ's holy ones? What is saintliness truly comprised of?

And what does it mean for the body of Christ to be called Catholicam, how is she the catholic Church of Jesus Christ, the universal, all-encompassing assembly of Jesus? St. Vincent reminds us that what is properly catholic is "what is believed everywhere, always, and by all"--this does raise some questions, there have always been some diversity of opinion on some matters. So that there has always been a hard line drawn on some matters (e.g. the Trinity) where a softer boundary is drawn on other matters where Christians have always had diversity of opinions. Dr. Luther desired to see the pre-eminence of Scripture, this proved to be a kind of double-edged sword. For on the one hand Luther would champion the exclusivity of Scripture as the word of God in written form, uniquely infallible and authoritative; and yet also lamented when people without any learning or discipline tried to use the Scriptures to claim themselves authoritative; we also can see how countless divisions have unfolded over the centuries because men claimed the authority of Scripture, and went their own way. Does this render Luther's criticisms invalid? Was Luther wrong to appeal to Scripture over the Magisterium of Rome? Or should we recognize that both are true: Scripture is indeed truly the authoritative decree, and is pre-eminent in all things; and also that there is always the danger of human beings claiming authority for themselves. So what does it truly mean to be catholic? Does Rome get to claim a monopoly when the ancient Sees of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem reminds Rome that the Councils and Canons don't allow for that? Does Constantinople get to claim a monopoly, even as Alexandria (e.g.) remains non-Chalcedonian? If Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians; Diaphysites and Miaphysites can come together and recognize that they, in fact, actually do have a shared confession in spite of the semantics--then that always invites us to further considerations.

And what of apostolicity? Is apostolicity found exclusively in the historic episcopate? Even when the historic episcopate is divided? For both Rome and Antioch both have valid claim as the See of St. Peter, for St. Peter truly established his apostolic throne in both Antioch and in Rome. But Rome claims that only Rome deserves to be called the Chair of St. Peter. And then claims St. Peter as prince of the apostles. There, to this day, even in these ancient Sees, remain division--for there is not one Patriarch of Jerusalem, but many. Not one Patriarch of Antioch, but several. Each competing in claim and authority. Is apostolicity found, exclusively, in one single chain, or all? Or should we instead discover true apostolicity in fidelity to the apostolic teaching. It is claimed the English Church lacks apostolicity by way of claiming her ancient apostolic orders are invalid, though the Archbishop of Canterbury has a direct line back to St. Augustine of Canterbury. The Scandinavian Churches (Lutheran) also have retained apostolic succession, but their claims are called invalid. Is apostolicity found in chain of succession, teaching, both? And which is truly of priority? Should every bishop in every church suddenly die today in a freak accident, would the Church cease? Would the Church cease to be apostolic?

I'm not trying to create a gish gallop here. I'm merely trying to invite contemplation on complex ideas. I have my biases, as others have theirs. My intent isn't even so much to argue the Lutheran bias, as it is to invite reflection and thought. Because I think these ideas are actually bigger than the Catholic vs Protestant vs Orthodox debate(s).