The Authority of the Catholic Church on Doctrine
The first 4 centuries of the Catholic Church resulted in a number of defining doctrines that have set Christians firmly on the road we now travel. The doctrine and mystery of the Trinity is just one of these. Others include the Catholic Church changing the Sabbath from the 7th day to the 1st day of the week by its own authority as to “not judaiz by resting on the Sabbath” (canon 29 of the Synod of Laodicea ) as if the Jews picked the day themselves. Also, the greatly debated and disputed establishment of and proper observation of Easter to replace Passover. As well as the observance of Christmas to worship the birth of Jesus with the full knowledge that Jesus was not born on December 25th and that the apostles did not ever annually celebrate Jesus birth.
Each of these doctrines of the Catholic Church are celebrated without question and defended as sacred traditions of Christianity. We have wrapped ourselves in the established teaching and practices of “the church fathers” and others who have come before us secure in the idea that our actions are following the path led by Jesus. It is precisely us applying our own traditions to worship God, traditions which God did not establish, that Jesus condemned the Jews for.
Each major Christian denomination that does not consider itself subject to the central authority of Rome has renounced the authority of the Roman Catholic Church even calling it an abomination and as with Orthodox Catholics declaring the pope the Anti-christ. But the questions I ask myself here is, “if the Roman Catholic Church is not God’s one true church as they claim to be, at what point did they cease to be God’s one true church? Was it in the sixteenth century with the Protestant Reformation, the Inquisition of the Middle Ages or perhaps 1054 with the Great Schism between the east and west or was it much earlier? Perhaps 325 AD at the Council of Nicea or was it even before that?” And why despite the many declarations of apostacy against this church throughout the ages do these doctrines continue without question?
When Jesus surveyed the landscape of Judea he found the traditions of the worship of God by the Jews dead works. What would he say of our enlightened traditions of today? Has God’s plea that we would obey the statutes He established changed so much or has God been consistent on this point ?
If the apostles were alive today, would they recognize the church we ascribe to Peter? Or does Jesus’ gospel message of “repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” mean a whole lot more than doing 60km in a 50km zone when no one is looking?
The only thing I am really certain of is that it is all happening according to God’s divine plan just exactly as He expected, whatever that might be and we are to do the very best with what we have.
posted by Alex @ 6:02 pm
2 comments
2 Comments:
An anonymous blogger whom I wish I knew posted this on the Nicene Creed on another site.
Anonymous said...
The Nicene Creed was developed by the early Church largely in response to the teachings of Arius. Arianism taught that Jesus was not truly divine and of a different "substance" than God, which challenged the developing doctrine of the Trinity in the early church. The emperor Constantine, newly converted to Christianity, called a Church Council at Nicæa in AD 325 to bring some unity to the church amid developing controversies and false teachings. The Council at Nicæa adopted an early form of the creed, although the basic present form emerged from the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. It was officially adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451.
A major controversy in the church has swirled around one phrase of the creed, the so-called filioque clause. In the phrase, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son" the debate concerned whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from only the Father, or from the Father and the Son [filioque in Latin]. The phrase "and the Son" was not in the original Greek version of the Creed accepted at Nicæa and Constantinople. It was added in the Latin versions used in the Western (Roman) church in AD 589 as an attempt to clarify the relationship of the three persons of the Trinity. The concern was that the original wording made Jesus the Christ subordinate to the Father, a view that the Western church felt endangered the doctrine of the Trinity.
However, the Eastern tradition was committed to the earlier Greek version of the Creed and resisted any change. This highlighted the growing rift between the Eastern and Western traditions that would eventually lead to a permanent break in AD 1054. As a result, the Eastern Church has never used the version with the filioque clause, while most churches that derive from the Western tradition use the creed with the filioque clause. However, the Episcopal Church has recently approved omission of the filioque clause in new editions of the Book of Common Prayer.
The Church has widely used the Nicene Creed since the fifth century. In some liturgical churches, for example the Episcopal/Anglican Churches, it is recited every Sunday. In others, the Nicene Creed is alternated with the Apostles’ Creed for Sunday worship, although the Apostles’ Creed is more often used at Baptismal services. The Eastern Orthodox tradition uses only the Nicene Creed. While most non-liturgical Protestant churches prefer the shorter Apostles’ Creed, none would object to the doctrines the Nicene Creed summarizes.
It is the only creed accepted by all three major branches of Christendom: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox.
He also said this.
Anonymous said...
Just a comment. Having read all of Jake and Jason's posts, it seems as though one needs to be very careful what translation one uses. It's not good enough to switch translations, or find the one that proves your point. The two separate translations of Jn 1:18 speak to this.
Also, it would be fair to assume that since the Bible was translated into English by those who believed the Trinity, there would be bias in translation, right? That means that whenever a Hebrew or Greek word came up with more than one English concept to represent it, the translator's personal belief would enter the picture. That's where tools such as a concordance come in handy. It is easy for even people like me to use. We don't need to know words like "filioque", "pantheistic monism", "modulism", "docetism", "patripassianism" (my personal favourite) or for that matter "trinity". You won't find any of those words in a concordance or more importantly in the Bible.
The most important thing in reading from God's word is to lay aside your pre-conceived ideas and let His word speak for itself. Look to the scripture to tell you the Truth. Don't use it (or misuse it) to prove what you think it should be saying. And by all means, don't rely on others to read it for you and then tell you what to believe.
Post a Comment
<< Home