As thecomments continue, it seems as though “evangelicals” have an agenda. All of this can be solved quite easily, i.e. when everyone agrees with my position.

But realy, how can one committed to the RCC really come to any conclusion other than the Pope, who recently stated that those outside the RCC were not legitimate expressions of Christianity.

I have a novel idea. Instead of trying to come up with the lowest common denominator of what an evangelical is, Let us include as much as possible from God’s Word as Paul did in Acts 20:26-27. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.

David

“Obviously we, as well as many others that post, would disagree with what this all means. I sincerely doubt we could resolve those theological arguments here since minds much greater than mine haven’t been able to come to an agreement either.”

Come on . . . Parchment and Pen can do all things

Well, this is certainly some good discussion. Thank you all for taking such a humble tone. It is refreshing.

(eating popcorn . . .)

Hi Kurt

Thanks for your thoughts. As I’ve grown to appreciate more and more about the Catholic church and its positions I believe they have a well grounded understanding of the authority of the Papacy, both theologically and historically.

Obviously we, as well as many others that post, would disagree with what this all means. I sincerely doubt we could resolve those theological arguments here since minds much greater than mine haven’t been able to come to an agreement either.

In regards to the creed I think Catholics do understand both meanings of the word “catholic.” In light of the Vatican’s recently released document it doesn’t seem surprising that many Catholics would interpret the word “catholic” in its most strict sense and subconsciously see a “C” where only a “c” is.

I hope that made some sense. But I do think that both sides could learn a lot by delving deeper into the orgins and history of the Creed. It really is fascinating and you realize that the assults that Christianity is undergoing today have been plaguing the church from its inception.

ChadS

ChadS,

I assume you are referring to “development of doctrine” on the supremacy of the Pope.

Giving respect to whom respect is due is one thing, to accord to yourself supreme over the rest of the Bishops is indeed going too far and should be rejected.

BTW I was a catechized RC kid, I was involved in Opus Dei, gone to Cursillo, devotee of St Jude so I do have experience with RC piety.

One thing I observe is that when the word ‘catholic’ is used by RCs they always think it refers to the RCC. This is where the equivocation happen, that word catholic and word Church gets double meanings and sophistical in treatment.

In the creed, catholicity means generalness, universality ie ecumenical, that the church is one, united though spread far a apart and though may be diverse.

It is a statement of faith, and faith does not always match the senses, when it does, it is no longer faith and faith even is no longer needed.

Kurt Vader

Chad Toney — I guess we’re coming out of the woodwork & at least two of us are Catholic.

Kurt — I would disagree with you on your statement on the pope. Certainly Christians did not have the same understanding of the papacy as we do now. However, that does not mean they did not adhere to an understanding that the Bishop of Rome exercised some final authority over the Church and other bishops. Many Orthodox will even admit that the Pope has a special place among all bishops — being the See of Peter — but will argue the Pope has gone too far with his authority.

ChadS

3 Chad’s in one comment section?! Ridiculous!

ChadS: I also experienced a shift in my understanding of the Nicene Creed when converting and I definitely know what you’re talking about.

Well Michael, we now understand a little more of what YOU understand an Evangelical is. I thought they were Fundamentalist that didn’t have to be in charge.

But the way things are today, isn’t it in the mind of the beholder? You listed quite a list of people claiming to be the E word. They are all very different. How is it possible for people to be so diverse and claim the same title, if it didn’t pay so well?

I appreciate your effort to bring a theologicql base as well as a subjective response to the definition. History is good also, but so few are willing to look at it today. keep trying to have people think!

David

Agree with Michael here.

The history of the creed dates back to 200AD back when there was no suggestion that the Bishop of Rome was Supreme over all.

So the “one” there could not have referred to a section of the church. Remember that it is a confession, that is , you believe that the church is one, it is united even if you do not see or your senses say it is not. That is what a confession or a creed is. It stands outside you and brings your mind to this truth for your mind and reason is always opposed to faith.

If you notice many in it are not verified by the senses. Take the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting, some of them have not happened yet, nevertheless you believe it shall be the case.

Lastly it should match up with “in the communion of the saints”.

Kurt Vader

Chad,

I think you are right about the “one” church. I doubt that those in the early church would have made such a sharp distinction between ontological unity and visible unity. In fact, it would have been unthinkable for it to be otherwise. It is not unlike the idea of the possibility of an unbaptized believer–this would have been unthinkable.

They could not have foreseen the Schism or the Reformation and therefore would have been rather naive to the issue. History has caused us all to have to redefine, or at least rethink, what “oneness” means ideally (now eschatologically) and what it means in our mundane circumstances.

Michael