Meaning: "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

[Apex]

Very true!

Forgive me...

The implications of this means that the early Christians would have had a different "canon" than we do today. Using Paul's letters as an example again, I highly doubt the Corinthian church would have differentiated importance or authority between his letters.

 

[Goatee]

Recommend you go to an Eastern Orthodox church next Sunday quote what you did above and see if they allow you to take communion with them. They have a different understanding of the "One True Church."

Up to them I say. I have no issue with them.

 

[Goatee]

Over a growing push for liberalism, a re-working of Church laws regarding marriage and divorce, and eccumenism coming from Rome. Traditional priests and orders are facing punishment, in some cases.

Can't ever see a split myself. There have always been people who turn away though.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Well from the beginning of the Church even the church fathers were Bible thumpers. I'm looking at Against Heresies by St Irenaeus right now. A version with embedded notes which show which Scriptures he is referring to to make his argument. Here's a sample:

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, V.20 (St. Irenaeus)

Seems they held Scriptures to a very high standard as even the good Irenaeus said thus:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies Book III. Chapter I.)

The subject being the Gospel not the scriptures. He knew and practiced all the services. I bet non of us could keep his prayer rule.

No one doubts that the Church preserved the texts in this way. I think further he shows proof that they are of The Church.

Great stuff! Have you read any St. John Chrysostom yet?

Forgive me....

 

[redleghunter]

Let me follow this through... you trust the scriptures that these people picked out to be the canon. But you don't trust what they said about their beliefs.

So the Holy Spirit led them to somethings, just not everything.

Forgive me...

Are the Scriptures authoritative in themselves or were they made authoritative by the Church. I already posted how Irenaeus viewed the Scriptures, particularly the NT...He believed them to be of apostolic origin.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The implications of this means that the early Christians would have had a different "canon" than we do today. Using Paul's letters as an example again, I highly doubt the Corinthian church would have differentiated importance or authority between his letters.

Don't forget the "Shepherd of Hermas".

Not everything that was true was chosen to be in the canon. Only the things that were going to be used in services. That was the purpose for gathering these special ones.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Are the Scriptures authoritative in themselves or were they made authoritative by the Church. I already posted how Irenaeus viewed the Scriptures, particularly the NT...He believed them to be of apostolic origin.

Both. They are the primary "Holy Tradition" of The Church. They are her authority and she is their authority. It's the misuse that is the problem.

Forgive me...

 

[redleghunter]

Great stuff! Have you read any St. John Chrysostom yet?

I have read portions of his "Homilies on the Gospel of John."

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I have read portions of his "Homilies on the Gospel of John."

How do you find him? Too abrasive? His personal rhetorical style I mean.

Oh wait, I'm thinking about "adversus judaeos", have you read any of that?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

From ChristianityToday:
"He was later given the caption of "Doctor of the Church" because of the value of his writings (600 sermons and 200 letters survive). Along with Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Athanasius, he is considered one of the greatest of the early Eastern church fathers."

Forgive me...

 

[Apex]

Proper as in a name, no. The Church has no name, neither do her services. They are described by terms that often become a proper noun. Rome took it upon herself to make Catholic a proper noun. We would be just as happy to have it in Church Slavonic or Greek.

Forgive me...

This makes it more confusing on why you capitalize holy, catholic, apostolic, and church. If they are not proper adjectives and nouns, they are "common" - and should not be capitalized in English.

When I read the Nicene Creed, I see the phrase "holy catholic and apostolic church" like this: holy (adjective) catholic (adjective) and (conjunction) apostolic (adjective) church (common noun). This is how I can get away with defining the phrase as a general idea.

 

[1stcenturylady]

You think it belongs to the Roman Church? Is that correct? It does not. In fact they added to it, changing the shape of Christian Theology.

I'm not asking you to accept anything blindly, but it's rude beyond measure to use the words of others and redefine them to mean something else.

We would find the rules here on the forum to be no different. We cant misquote or mischaracterize the statements of others... yet when speaking with the language of the Orthodox Churches we take it lightly and change the meaning and not feel bad about it.

If we don't believe in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". Why say that we do?
It's a lie. Nothing short of it.

Forgive me...

It's called the Bride of Christ, and no denomination on earth can claim it exclusively.

 

[Tree of Life]

"I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"

It's a statement from the Nicene creed.

Is the meaning static as defined by those who wrote it or are we free to reinterpret it as we see fit?

Forgive me...

The phrase really comes from the Apostles' Creed, the origins of which are certainly early although not entirely known. When the words were penned nothing like the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today existed. The word simply means "universal" and is meant to convey that the gospel is destined to go to all nations. "Catholic Church" would be as opposed to "Jewish Church".

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

This makes it more confusing on why you capitalize holy, catholic, apostolic, and church. If they are not proper adjectives and nouns, they are "common" - and should not be capitalized in English.

When I read the Nicene Creed, I see the phrase "holy catholic and apostolic church" like this: holy (adverb) catholic (adjective) and (conjunction) apostolic (adjective) church (common noun). This is how I can get away with defining the phrase as a general idea.

Okay, but that "descriptive term" was being used to describe a very specific group, by those who were among that group. And when you break it up that way you are indeed changing the meaning to something other than what they intended. We would agree on that correct?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It's called the Bride of Christ, and no denomination on earth can claim it exclusively.

Hi, I don't think we've met.

Let me ask you. Does the bride of Christ have the authority to make changes in her own house?

Economia?

And if that is true, are all these different Churches and individual ideas the bride?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Okay guys, I just took a pain pill... if I get loopy... or I may fall asleep.

Forgive me...

 

[Apex]

Don't forget the "Shepherd of Hermas".

Not everything that was true was chosen to be in the canon. Only the things that were going to be used in services. That was the purpose for gathering these special ones.

Forgive me...

Special ones? How do you understand Scriptural inspiration? Do you believe these other "true" letters are inspired in the same way as the letters we find in the canon? If so, it seems rather ambiguous that those responsible for the canon would purposely leave some inspired material out for the sake of creating a lectionary.

 

[Apex]

Okay, but that "descriptive term" was being used to describe a very specific group, by those who were among that group. And when you break it up that way you are indeed changing the meaning to something other than what they intended. We would agree on that correct?

Forgive me...

And that group is all who believe in the encased theological points of the creed.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Special ones? How do you understand Scriptural inspiration? Do you believe these other "true" letters are inspired in the same way as the letters we find in the canon? If so, it seems rather ambiguous that those responsible for the canon would purposely leave some inspired material out for the sake of creating a lectionary.

They were designing services based on the twelve feasts of The Church to be used everywhere. These were the ones they wanted to make sure everyone had a copy of... They weren't going for... lets gather all truth textually.

Are you familiar with the story about how the Gospels themselves were chosen at the council?

Every morning when they came back to the room these four were on the top of the pile again.

Thousands of books and writing were considered.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

And that group is all who believe in the encased theological points of the creed.

That is the idea. All of it. As they teach it.

You know what makes up the catechism of The Orthodox Churches?

The Creed.

The services themselves are the scriptures. Stay for every service for a year and you will have heard the entire bible minus Revelation.

Forgive me...