Mike: “All –

The definition of a heretic is someone who was properly baptized and who rejects a single Dogma of the Catholic Church.”

A perfectly acceptable definition as far as I am concerned.

And by this definition, I am a heretic. No doubt about it.

But… BUT! I don’t think I’m damned to hell.

All -

The definition of a heretic is someone who was properly baptized and who rejects a single Dogma of the Catholic Church.

I list the Dogma of God the Holy Ghost in Section 3 of
http://Immaculata-one.com

Section 8 – describes why heretics are not Christians.

Section 7 – shows the Dogma on water baptism

Sections 1 and 2 – the Salvation Dogma

Mike
Our Lady of Conquest
Pray for us

Correction of myself: the “believe in the … church” clause is not the first sentence in the Apostle’s Creed, even in the Catholic verision; its later on.

But in my defense, I’d have to honestly say that the way I was introduced to the Creed, was in short excerpts … headed by the “believe … in … Church” clause.

Honestly, the way it was presented to me by the Church, gave me the impression that loyalty to the church was indeed, first on the agenda.

Glad to be reminded that the Creed itself, put its values in a slightly different order.

Still, believing in the Church is right there in the Creed, later on. And eventually, Church-worshiping, becomes a central element; displacing the worship of Christ.

Eric:

I might indeed agree with you, that the (I would add, Catholic and) Protestant evangelical churches, are more to blame than the Eastern Orthodox Church’s creed, for fixating on the church, and not on God.

At least as far as their formal Creeds are concerned. Though doesn’t the EOC otherwise, elsewhere, rather radically emphasize the authority of itself? Of its patriarchs?

What’s wrong with churches or fathers emphasizing their own authority? Someone has suggested that all churches tend to become minister “cults”; typically a minister has so much power, that he can and does usually mold the thought of everyone around him, into his own personal, often idiosyncratic idea, of a church.

Even major denominations intrude all-too-human misconceptions, into their picture of God, no doubt.

For that reason, I have no very great confidence in any church at all, whatsoever. There might be a good one out there; but we won’t know until judgment day, which one it was.

The first thing we see here, is an oath of allegiance to a church ….instead of beginning with God. That’s the problem.

Actually, it’s the Protestant Evangelical churches that have the problem. The first statement in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is:

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth…
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ…
“And in the Holy Spirit….

“I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” comes after all those statements.

However, in most statements of faith of Evangelical Protestant churches, the first statement is not about God, but about the Bible. See, e.g.:

dentonbible.org/index.php?pfile=whatwebelieve&mfile=aboutdbclm&dir=aboutdbc

rockpointechurch.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=73274

valleycreek.org/what_we_believe.php

metro-kc.org/downloads/PDF/statement-of-faith.pdf

There are, of course, exceptions:

hv.thevillagechurch.net/about/statement-of-faith

prestonwood.org/plano/who-we-are/beliefs/

The problem with creeds in general though, is that 1) they are often not from the Bible; and 2) they are church-centered.

The Apostle’s Creed for example, begins with “I believe in one holy apostolic catholic church.” Leaving aside the infinitely complex subject of who or what is really “catholic,” the important thing to focus on here, is that we begin with an oath of allegiance to … a “church.”

The first thing we see here, is an oath of allegiance to a church ….instead of beginning with God. That’s the problem.

And in fact, in many churches, “heresy” is defined as failure to obey not God’s rules, but a church’s.

Rayner #62-

Sorry you see it purely as a power play.

Again, I agree more with Scot McKnight:

“…creed-like NT statements gave rise to the classical creeds. The classical creeds are not inspired; they are not infallible. Instead, they are claims made by wide segments of the Church that say these statements express what the Church thinks is at the heart of the Bible in light of challenges to the faith. Creeds were used for confession at baptism and in liturgy, they were used for instruction in the faith, and they were useful for theological debates.”

Creeds are simple concise statements of basic doctrine that believers can resort to and recite and keep themselves on track. With creeds available to us, the Holy Spirit no longer needs to have direct control over instruction and doctrine, and that is why many Protestants have traditionally avoided them. Just say the words which the church has formulated for you. They will protect you from heresy, as well as from those other groups who say other words.

Ericw and Joe-

The issue with the Apostles’ Creed in the East appears to be more centered on the fact of the lack of specifics in regards to the deity-humanity of Christ. It is mainly held to be of Latin origin, and although the A. Creed is not troubling by itself, the East sees the Nicene as much more comprehensive in spelling out the important idea of the God-Man.

Eric:

Thanks as always, for your thorough research.