(SPLIT and MERGE) Unity or Dogma/Multiple Apostolic Churches conflict with the Nicene Creed?

[Constantine the Sinner]

Doesn't the idea of multiple Apostolic Churches conflict with the Nicene Creed?

 

[Open Heart]

Doesn't the idea of multiple Apostolic Churches conflict with the Nicene Creed?

There was only one when the Creed was written. The it has split due to schism is sin and needs to be fixed.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

There was only one when the Creed was written. The it has split due to schism is sin and needs to be fixed.

It split because of significant differences in the faith.

 

[Philip_B]

It split because of significant differences in the faith.

I think it may be fairer, and more accurate to say that splits happened when people held dogma more important than unity.

Jesus prayed that we may all be one. Interestingly he did not seem to have prayed that we would all get our theology straight.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I think it may be fairer, and more accurate to say that splits happened when people held dogma more important than unity.

Jesus prayed that we may all be one. Interestingly he did not seem to have prayed that we would all get our theology straight.

If unity were more important than dogma, then the early Christians would have all just been pagans. "Dogma" comes from the Greek word for "teaching". In Christianity (at least, Orthodox Christianity) it refers to the teachings Christ passed on directly to his Apostles, either before or after the Resurrection; nothing more, nothing less (rules not passed on directly by Christ are called "canons", they are considered important, but also subject to change on occasion).

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If I remember correctly, this thread was started when we had a separate forum for "apostolic churches" which included any that at least sought after apostolic succession for the hierarchy. That forum was ended when traditional theology was started and I think this thread was migrated over from that now defunct forum. That is the reason behind the title of this thread though.

Ah, well, in that case I'm going to forgo any further discussion on that topic, since it's entailing a threadjack.

 

[Philip_B]

it refers to the teachings Christ passed on directly to his Apostles, either before or after the Resurrection; nothing more, nothing less

I would be interested in the evidence your clearly have to support this assertion.

I fairness, let me provide John 17.13-23 as evidence of my claim that unity is of great importance.

 

[Kalevalatar]

It split because of significant differences in the faith.

WE all believe in one God, in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God who died for our sins so that we may have life, and in the Holy Spirit, don't we?

What else is there to "the faith"?

But one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we all agree, after all.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

WE all believe in one God, in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God who died for our sins so that we may have life, and in the Holy Spirit, don't we?

What else is there to "the faith"?

But one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we all agree, after all.

To prevent a threadjack, I answered here: http://www.christianforums.com/conversations/one-church.7186391/

 

[Open Heart]

It split because of significant differences in the faith.

I disagree. I think the differences were things we had gotten along about for the longest time, and could have continued to tolerate. What happened was that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople got into a contest of who was the head hancho, and split rather than come to an agreement. It was pride. The schism is sin. The church will not be right until it is overcome. There has been progress, with the removal of the anathemas and excommunications. However, the EO Church still does not even recognize the Catholic church as part of the Church.

 

[Philip_B]

I disagree. I think the differences were things we had gotten along about for the longest time, and could have continued to tolerate. What happened was that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople got into a contest of who was the head honcho, and split rather than come to an agreement. It was pride. The schism is sin. The church will not be right until it is overcome. There has been progress, with the removal of the anathemas and excommunications. However, the EO Church still does not even recognize the Catholic church as part of the Church.

It appears to me that the two great factors that contributed to the Great Schism in 1054 are

1] The Filioque Clause being inserted into the Nicene Creed in Rome in defiance of the anathemas for so doing expressed at the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus.

2] The question of the nature of the authority and Primacy of Rome, and specifically the question of did the Pope have the right or authority to overthrow the decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, without having an Oecumenical Council to do so.
​

If you look on the website of the World Council of Churches, it seems that these are the two issues that remain as obstacles to the relationship. I certainly am aware that East West relationships were testy over the years. When you read Photius Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit you see quite clearly that the E O have been strong and consistent in upholding the Nicene Creed as ratified in no less than three Oecumenical Councils. I concur that pride is an issue, and huge issue, and it is an appalling blot on the witness of the Church.

I think if the western Church returned to embrace the Creed of the First Council of Constantinople the E O would find the matter a whole lot easier. At least that is my read on it. I fear we have been in schism so long we may have grown comfortable in it.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I disagree. I think the differences were things we had gotten along about for the longest time, and could have continued to tolerate. What happened was that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople got into a contest of who was the head hancho, and split rather than come to an agreement. It was pride. The schism is sin. The church will not be right until it is overcome. There has been progress, with the removal of the anathemas and excommunications. However, the EO Church still does not even recognize the Catholic church as part of the Church.

See the conversation that I linked, this isn't an appropriate thread to discuss this. I tried to invite you, but it says I can't because of your settings.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

If you start a thread, rather than a private conversation, people can participate there.

Folks, as this thread is a sticky limited to "which church do you belong to" ... side conversation will likely end up being deleted. You can re-post your replies there.

If you need any help, Constantine, please let me know. I would be happy to do it for you, but I wasn't sure where you'd like to discuss it or what you want the title or OP to be?

Let me know if I can be of help.

It's completely at your discretion, feel free to start a thread, I will carry the conversation there. I trust your judgement in starting one, just link me to it when you're finished.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am creating this thread at the request of a member who wishes to continue a discussion begun in a thread for which the topic was OT. Relevant replies pasted below, please feel free to add anything I missed and enjoy the discussion.

I think it may be fairer, and more accurate to say that splits happened when people held dogma more important than unity.

Jesus prayed that we may all be one. Interestingly he did not seem to have prayed that we would all get our theology straight.

If unity were more important than dogma, then the early Christians would have all just been pagans. "Dogma" comes from the Greek word for "teaching". In Christianity (at least, Orthodox Christianity) it refers to the teachings Christ passed on directly to his Apostles, either before or after the Resurrection; nothing more, nothing less (rules not passed on directly by Christ are called "canons", they are considered important, but also subject to change on occasion).

I would be interested in the evidence your clearly have to support this assertion.

I fairness, let me provide John 17.13-23 as evidence of my claim that unity is of great importance.

WE all believe in one God, in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God who died for our sins so that we may have life, and in the Holy Spirit, don't we?

What else is there to "the faith"?

But one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, we all agree, after all.

I disagree. I think the differences were things we had gotten along about for the longest time, and could have continued to tolerate. What happened was that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople got into a contest of who was the head hancho, and split rather than come to an agreement. It was pride. The schism is sin. The church will not be right until it is overcome. There has been progress, with the removal of the anathemas and excommunications. However, the EO Church still does not even recognize the Catholic church as part of the Church.

It appears to me that the two great factors that contributed to the Great Schism in 1054 are

1] The Filioque Clause being inserted into the Nicene Creed in Rome in defiance of the anathemas for so doing expressed at the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus.

2] The question of the nature of the authority and Primacy of Rome, and specifically the question of did the Pope have the right or authority to overthrow the decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, without having an Oecumenical Council to do so.
​

If you look on the website of the World Council of Churches, it seems that these are the two issues that remain as obstacles to the relationship. I certainly am aware that East West relationships were testy over the years. When you read Photius Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit you see quite clearly that the E O have been strong and consistent in upholding the Nicene Creed as ratified in no less than three Oecumenical Councils. I concur that pride is an issue, and huge issue, and it is an appalling blot on the witness of the Church.

I think if the western Church returned to embrace the Creed of the First Council of Constantinople the E O would find the matter a whole lot easier. At least that is my read on it. I fear we have been in schism so long we may have grown comfortable in it.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

To start with, the Catholic position on the Pope: this is a very serious issue, since it violates Christ's teachings. There are a number of other issues, but the RCC has since continued to teach more and more things that violate what Christ taught, such Supererogation. These sorts of teachings are seriously objectionable, simply believing in Jesus and Baptism isn't enough, the One Church's job is to protect what Christ taught and ensure it is not distorted. Christ only founded One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that is the Church that teaches according to what he passed on; you either teach that, or you don't. Hence, ONE, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I see believing that there is but ONE Church to be an affirmation I make every time I say the Nicene Creed, if I thought there were more, I would be lying to say I believed in One Church.

 

[Philip_B]

Before I agree to be part of this discussion, I think that we should be clear that the assertion that the Catholic Position of the Pope violates Christ's teaching is not the place to begin the discussion. I am happy to have it, however it needs to be had in a spirit of openness and listening. I also suspect it may violate the terms under which this forum operates. I also have to note that there are a number of epistemal primitives that underlie your assertion in relation to the Unity of the Church that I feel also need to come off the table. Otherwise we are just saying we will have a discussion about the Great Schism so long as the East wins.

Whilst I feel that the East has a very strong case, however it is possible to whisper the truth gently. If you can't go there, then it is not a discussion.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Before I agree to be part of this discussion, I think that we should be clear that the assertion that the Catholic Position of the Pope violates Christ's teaching is not the place to begin the discussion. I am happy to have it, however it needs to be had in a spirit of openness and listening. I also suspect it may violate the terms under which this forum operates. I also have to note that there are a number of epistemal primitives that underlie your assertion in relation to the Unity of the Church that I feel also need to come off the table. Otherwise we are just saying we will have a discussion about the Great Schism so long as the East wins.

Whilst I feel that the East has a very strong case, however it is possible to whisper the truth gently. If you can't go there, then it is not a discussion.

This discussion was largely sparked by the idea that the Great Schism was over relatively unimportant issues, so it makes sense to actually confront those issues and see if they are unimportant.

You are free to offer an alternative epistemology of the Nicene Creed, if you see the Orthodox one as primitive, although I'd prefer you qualify what you mean by "primitive". Do you mean undeveloped by ways of thought that postdate Nicaea by hundreds of years? If so, that is a good thing in this case, at least in my opinion.

 

[Open Heart]

1] The Filioque Clause being inserted into the Nicene Creed in Rome in defiance of the anathemas for so doing expressed at the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus.

2] The question of the nature of the authority and Primacy of Rome, and specifically the question of did the Pope have the right or authority to overthrow the decisions of the Oecumenical Councils, without having an Oecumenical Council to do so.

I disagree about the Filioque being an item the would cause permanent schism. For one thing, there was reconciliation for a time with the agreement by both sides that the Creed would be altered to say "proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son." Where there is a will there is a way. Again, it is the sin of pride which keeps us apart.

I can't imagine what you are talking about in #2. We accept the Ecumenical Councils. We consider the original Creed to be the primary creed. We used the original Creed, for example, in the document "Dominus Iesus" (a declaration published by the CDF in 2000). All our Eastern Rite churches use the original Creed. Only the Latin Rite uses the version with the filioque.

 

[Open Heart]

See the conversation that I linked, this isn't an appropriate thread to discuss this. I tried to invite you, but it says I can't because of your settings.

I went as far back as I could, and found no link. Maybe it was in a post to someone else? What settings are you referring to?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I went as far back as I could, and found no link. Maybe it was in a post to someone else? What settings are you referring to?

Hello, Open Heart.

The link is here:

You all may continue here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/unity-or-dogma.7961171/

Enjoy the discussion.

Also, just to let you know, because all of these posts have been OT, they will likely be deleted. Here's the last cleanup. Nothing personal, but this thread is a sticky with the sole purpose of stating church membership for those who participate in TT.

You will want to repost your most recent reply there, as I did not include it.

MOD HAT

This thread has been cleaned.

Please stay on topic as per the OP.

Please only state which Apostolic Church you belong to.

Let me know if I can help further.