Rule Proposal: Nicene Creed

[Wigglesworth]

Should adherence to the Nicene Creed be a prerequisite to debating in this subforum?

[PaladinValer]

Yes and no.

It should be a prequisit to have the right of unlimited debate. However, I think non-Christians should have the privilege of limited debate.

[karen freeinchristman]

I agree with what PV said.

[AngCath]

Yes and no.

It should be a prequisit to have the right of unlimited debate. However, I think non-Christians should have the privilege of limited debate.
I think PV is on to something.

[Fish and Bread]

As stated elsewhere, I feel that the forum rules should in no way exclude people who would qualify as actual members of the churches included as the framework for STR. Thus, given that many bishops, priests, and lay people do not fully affirm the Nicene Creed in the LCC and ECUSA, I do not believe the Nicene Creed should be a requirement, as it would leave those people without a forum home. If the rules would exclude actual bishops from fill membership, something is wrong.

[RadixLecti]

As stated elsewhere, I feel that the forum rules should in no way exclude people who would qualify as actual members of the churches included as the framework for STR. Thus, given that many bishops, priests, and lay people do not fully affirm the Nicene Creed in the LCC and ECUSA, I do not believe the Nicene Creed should be a requirement, as it would leave those people without a forum home. If the rules would exclude actual bishops from fill membership, something is wrong.
I don't think you can be confirmed in any church of the Anglican communion and not affirm the creeds. I do support a non nicene sub forum though.

[Colabomb]

As stated elsewhere, I feel that the forum rules should in no way exclude people who would qualify as actual members of the churches included as the framework for STR. Thus, given that many bishops, priests, and lay people do not fully affirm the Nicene Creed in the LCC and ECUSA, I do not believe the Nicene Creed should be a requirement, as it would leave those people without a forum home. If the rules would exclude actual bishops from fill membership, something is wrong.

WWMC

[Fish and Bread]

I don't think you can be confirmed in any church of the Anglican communion and not affirm the creeds..

My understanding is that some parishes alter or omit the Nicene Creed in their confirmation liturgies, even though elements of it are in the prayer book form of the confirmation liturgy and it is the usual practice. There are even parishes that omit the creed every week and change "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" in the liturgy to reflect their non-trinitarian understanding. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just that it happens. And it wouldn't make sense to include those Episcopalian Anglicans from full membership in the forum, in my view, since they are full members of one of the churches on which the forum is based.

WWMC

The problem is that WWMC has no liturgical heritage or apostolic structure built in, and few traditions. A lot of them are liberals from churches that are about as liturgical as Baptists. I find it difficult to find threads I am interested in there because I have so little common ground in areas that I am interested in discussing like Lent or Advent or what bishops are up to or church politics. And I prefer far more Anglican-Catholicish bible translations and commentaries. I also like discussing the church fathers and such. It's a nice forum with nice people, but it's not "home" for me.

[Wigglesworth]

. . . There are even parishes that omit the creed every week and change "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" to "Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer" in the liturgy to reflect their non-trinitarian understanding. I am not saying this is right or wrong, just that it happens.

I wonder if anyone from such a parish is online at CF. This may be a dispute about favorite colors for the walls of a school for the blind.

Peace be with you.

[AveMaria]

I'm really uncomfortable with the implication in the poll question that liberal Christians do not affirm the Creeds.

[Wigglesworth]

I'm really uncomfortable with the implication in the poll question that liberal Christians do not affirm the Creeds.

That was not my intention at all, I assure you. Actually, my thought was that liberal Christians would accept nonNicene members in debate, while conservative Christians would have less patience with nonNicene members.

[AveMaria]

Ah, gotcha, and that makes sense! Sorry about jumping the gun to being offended! :blush: It's hard to phrase poll answers sometimes, to squeeze all the info in.

[DeoJuvante]

I don't understand why everyone is so keen to come up with standards for including and excluding people. I feel that this forum should be open to anyone who is part of the Anglican church.

In my view, the forum should be open to people who are confirmed or received members of churches in the Anglican tradition and in communion with Canterbury and people who are confirmed or received members of churches in the Old Catholic tradition and in communion with Utrecht.

In other words, if you're Anglican or Old Catholic, isn't that enough?

[Secundulus]

I don't understand why everyone is so keen to come up with standards for including and excluding people. I feel that this forum should be open to anyone who is part of the Anglican church.

In my view, the forum should be open to people who are confirmed or received members of churches in the Anglican tradition and in communion with Canterbury and people who are confirmed or received members of churches in the Old Catholic tradition and in communion with Utrecht.

In other words, if you're Anglican or Old Catholic, isn't that enough?

That definition leaves out the continuing churches.

[PaladinValer]

It also leaves out smaller Old Catholic churches like Wiggles' PNCC, Father Rick's church, and also the LCCI.

[DeoJuvante]

That definition leaves out the continuing churches.

It also leaves out smaller Old Catholic churches like Wiggles' PNCC, Father Rick's church, and also the LCCI.

Well, we could expand the definition to include those other churches, I guess, although frankly I don't consider those others to be Anglicans. My point is that anyone who is a practising Anglican or Old Catholic should have the right to participate fully in this forum.

[PaladinValer]

SO, CCs have been considered full members of STR since its conception.

[JasonV]

Speaking of Old Catholic validity, does anyone know where I can read the doc's of the Lambeth conference of 1920?

[PaladinValer]

Tried Project Canterbury? : http://anglicanhistory.org/

[JasonV]

No, but I found something rather disturbing at http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/downloads/1920.pdf

Resolutions 26 and 27 would apparently exclude a majority of Old Catholics here in the United States, and anyone who has Bishop Arnold Harris Matthew's in their episcopal lineage.

Specifically, resolution 27 seems to exclude me. My addition in bold:

We regret that on a review of all the facts we are unable to regard the so-called Old Catholic Church in Great Britain [later renamed the Liberal Catholic Church] (under the late Bishop Matthew and his successors), and its extensions overseas, as a properly constituted Church, or to recognize the orders of its ministers, and we recommend that, in the event of any of its ministers desiring to join our Communion, who are in other respects duly qualified, they should be ordained sub conditione in accordance with the provision suggested in the Report of our committee. So according to this resolution, my Church is not even recognized as a church by your Church! And this is not limited to just the Liberal Catholic Church, but applies to any Church which holds +Matthew in it's episcopal line!

I don't know if this includes Fr. Rick's OCCNA or Wigglesworth's PNCC, but it does include a number of other Old Catholic denominations here in the US, some in Europe, and also Australia.

So now what?

[DeoJuvante]

SO, CCs have been considered full members of STR since its conception.
Who are CCs? I'm talking about a) those who call themselves 'continuing Anglicans' and b) those Old Catholics who are not in communion with us.

[brightmorningstar]

The Nicene Creed has been a basic statement of faith for centuries, that some Bishops etc might not believe it suggests there should be no limit to who posts, if non believers are in the church why shouldnt non-believers be able to post, the question is what are Christian beliefs and what are not.

[EvAng]

I'm really uncomfortable with the implication in the poll question that liberal Christians do not affirm the Creeds.

I know of liberals who do not. The Creeds are not a test of whether one is liberal but wether one is orthodox.

[Camden202]

How can anyone profess to be 'christian' and have an issue with the Nicean Creed... or even describe it as problematic???

The only element of the Nicean Creed which would even be remotely problematic would be the part about "We believe in one Catholic and Apostolic Church" and some how confuse the issue thinking it refers to the Roman Catholic Church and perhaps the Coptic (Apostolic) Church...

"Catholic" Church means UNIVERSAL Church, the term catholic is latin for Universal.

"Apostolic" is simply a derivative of the faith and traditions which have a foundation in what was taught by the APOSTLES of Jesus (not disciples, Apostles)

Apostolic.... from Apostles.

So what exactly is the problem??? Is it that perhaps there is too much incarnational theology or theological questions contained within the Creed itself?

It seems absurd that anyone who professes to be 'christian' or a follower of 'christ' could have an issue with the Creed.

Can someone explain to me why this is even an issue?? Also please explain what the relevance is....

God Bless

[EvAng]

The Nicene Creed has been a basic statement of faith for centuries

And one recognised by the Church of England :)

[Colabomb]

How can anyone profess to be 'christian' and have an issue with the Nicean Creed... or even describe it as problematic???

The only element of the Nicean Creed which would even be remotely problematic would be the part about "We believe in one Catholic and Apostolic Church" and some how confuse the issue thinking it refers to the Roman Catholic Church and perhaps the Coptic (Apostolic) Church...

"Catholic" Church means UNIVERSAL Church, the term catholic is latin for Universal.

"Apostolic" is simply a derivative of the faith and traditions which have a foundation in what was taught by the APOSTLES of Jesus (not disciples, Apostles)

Apostolic.... from Apostles.

So what exactly is the problem??? Is it that perhaps there is too much incarnational theology or theological questions contained within the Creed itself?

It seems absurd that anyone who professes to be 'christian' or a follower of 'christ' could have an issue with the Creed.

Can someone explain to me why this is even an issue?? Also please explain what the relevance is....

God Bless

A lot of people reject what Christianity teaches, while claiming to be part of it.

And I agree with EvAng (Still wanna call him AV lol), the Nicene Creed has nothing to do with Lib/Con. It has to do with Orthodoxy.

[Wigglesworth]

So according to this resolution, my Church is not even recognized as a church by your Church! And this is not limited to just the Liberal Catholic Church, but applies to any Church which holds +Matthew in it's episcopal line!

I don't know if this includes Fr. Rick's OCCNA or Wigglesworth's PNCC, but it does include a number of other Old Catholic denominations here in the US, some in Europe, and also Australia.

So now what?

Don't expect to be allowed to concelebrate mass in a PNCC or Anglican parish if you happen to become ordained a priest.

As for STR, it has made no difference since the forum title has included "Anglican/Old Catholic."