The Creeds, Basic Christian Orthodoxy, and Rome

[Reformed Thomist]

Do the ecumenical creeds of the Church -- the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed -- provide a standard for a basic Christian orthodoxy? Do Christians need to affirm more (or, for that matter, less) than what is contained in these creeds to be orthodox Christians? When does adding to these creedal truths negate Christian orthodoxy?

The underlying issue, as you may suspect, is the status of the Roman Catholic Church, or Roman Catholics, in Christendom. The RCC affirms (or claims to affirm) the truths contained in the ecumenical creeds -- Roman Catholics recite them throughout the liturgical year. She teaches quite a bit more than what is contained in them with regard to the faith, as do the vast majority of Protestant churches, and as we all know the ongoing Protestant beef with the RCC is that she has added things which are plainly heterodox (sacerdotalism, Mariolatry, effective 'Sola Magisteria', papal infallibility, etc.). The general Protestant position, as I see it, is that these additions of the RCC have negated a basic Christian orthodoxy which would otherwise be there. Is this correct?

We as Reformed Christians and conservative evangelicals generally have a tendency to throw the RCC and Roman Catholics in the same camp as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Is this fair? The RCC, despite all of its false and spiritually dangerous teachings and practices, appears to be orthodox on all of those issues which cults like the LDS and the Watchtower are not. Mormons and Jevovah's Witnesses reject the fundamental truths of the Christian creeds; Roman Catholics do not (even if their 'extra-creedal' teachings make their creedal affirmations problematic). In light of this, would it not be more reasonable to label the RCC a Christian communion with serious doctrinal problems rather than a non-Christian/anti-Christian/heretical communion?

I know that this post is a bit scatterbrained... I'm just looking for responses from my Reformed brothers, whom I increasingly feel are the only ones I can trust regarding these kinds of things, on this broad topic which has been swimming around in my mind.

Thanks.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

Some define Christian "orthodoxy" by the very ecumenical creeds you mention. In that sense, the RCC (and for that matter the Eastern Orthodox) are considered legitimate branches of Christianity. This is especially true in the eyes of scholars outside of Christianity.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The Creeds (like the Apostles' Creed) are sometimes intended to summarize essential Christian teaching, or (as with Nicea or Chalcedon) to define and refine an essential point of doctrine.

In neither case can the Creeds be said to "define" the Christian faith. They are "common speech," that is, they allow us to speak with one voice on matters of faith and practice. However, one can sometimes speak certain words (of Creed) and turn around and deny them with other words.

Rome has frequently done the latter. That is, she has added material that takes something away from the essentials she confesses in the Creed. Indeed, by setting herself up as the one, infallible interpreter of Scripture and Creed, she un-catholicizes herself, for she is thereby unchallengable, and irreformable. Thus, she denies the part of the Creed that confesses "the holy, catholic church."

Rome's main problem is that she denies the gospel, exclusive power of God to save. She mixes in her own mediation as though it were essential to the gospel. She conceives of herself as an "extention of the Incarnation," hence embodies the very qualities of Christ by which he saves lost sinners. She does not so much "mediate" the gospel, as she IS the gospel--which is, in the end, confusion and a denial of the gospel, because it is "another" gospel than Jesus Christ.

If the church IS Christ Incarnate, then what the church does (really, anything she does) is "gospel." Thus, the confused declarations of ECT, or lately the ManhattanDeclaration. Union with Christ is translated to "union with Church." So, the explanation of the sacerdotal priesthood, the dispensing of elemental "grace" in sacraments, etc.

All of it gets seriously tied together in a self-reinforcing system, which can only hold together tightly, or come thoroughly unglued when particular points of understanding are successfully challenged.

The self-attesting Scripture is one vital point on which to challenge Rome.
The solo-Mediation of Christ (in heaven) is another.
The Eschatological nature of the church.
The true sacramental nature of sacraments (challenging Rome's rationalism).
Rome's ahistorical "historic" claims.
The Papacy.
Her arrogance.

Break her open at any one of these points, and the whole edifice disintegrates.

 

[DeborahtheJudge]

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith. Which Faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the Catholic Faith is this:
That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.

The Creed of Athanasius.

841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church.

No one can know God except through Christ (Jn 1:18); but pagans know God (Acts 17:28, Rom 2:14-16); therefore pagans know Christ

Peter Kreeft.

In the case of the Muslims, Vatican II and Pope John Paul II are clearly presuming that the majority of them are not rejecting Christian revelation on the Trinity and the Incarnation out of malice, like the Pharisees, but out of ignorance. I think this presumption is reasonable. After all, only a minuscule proportion of Muslims would ever have been confronted with those ‘motives of credibility’ that, when recognized, morally oblige us to accept Christian revelation and become Catholics.

Muslims Worship the One True God (This Rock: January 2003)

Does the RCC really affirm the Creeds?

 

[yeutter]

Rome apostate but not a cult

The Creeds like the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, & Definition of Chalcedon and for the Western Church the Quicumque Vult are only partial statements of the faith. Their more important purpose is to define the limits of unbelief. A Church can not call it self an orthodox Christian body and believe any proposition contrary to those set forth in the oecumenical creeds.
The Church of Rome is an apostate Church because they officially teach error regarding faith and grace. The Church of Rome teaches many things that are contrary to the Word of God; but they should not be viewed as cults like we would the Seventh Day Adventist Church or monophysite cult the Armenian Apostolic Church.

 

[Philip]

Thomas, I would agree there. The RCC (and the EOC) is a church, not a cult, but an apostate or wayward church, much as I would consider certain liberal denominations. There are and have been since its beginning true believers within its fold, usually in spite of some of its teachings.