Do Roman Catholics still believe that this clause refers only to their church? Or have they shifted to a more Protestant understanding that this could include churches from other denominations that are faithful to the gospel?

I'm not sure, maybe 5 or 6. But it was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics damned to hell.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'm not sure, maybe 5 or 6. But it was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics damned to hell.

---

Damned to Hell is not true.

My favorite thing that people do is make claims about The Church despite having no interaction or understanding of it outside what you discussed within your protestant echo chamber.

---

There has been past chatter even on this board in which some of these claims are not really ever cleared up by some of the resident RCC and EO folk. My take away is that it is gray area at best.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'm not sure, maybe 5 or 6. But it was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics damned to hell.

---

Damned to Hell is not true.

My favorite thing that people do is make claims about The Church despite having no interaction or understanding of it outside what you discussed within your protestant echo chamber.

---

There has been past chatter even on this board in which some of these claims are not really ever cleared up by some of the resident RCC and EO folk. My take away is that it is gray area at best.

---

If it's gray to some, it's because there is genuine confusion amongst the bajillions of denominations now. The teaching is clear: you may be in alignment with the church more than you think. You may not be. We can't tell you yes or no until you come sit down and talk to us through it all. We cannot say you have rejected something that you have never had the opportunity to accept.

As such: maybe? If said person never comes to seek the Catholic Church or learn its teachings, that doesn't mean automatic damnation. Any teaching about being outside of the church leading to damnation was leveled at the heretics at the time of the promulgation of the heresy. Not for the people who have been taught those heresies 500 years later without a full understanding.

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

The Banned said:

---

Curious where you're coming up with 5 or 6 denominations back then. It was under the impression the first real splits started in the 400s, which was after the creed was adopted.

---

Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism. Arianism was the reason for the council of Nicaea in the first place.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

We cannot make that statement about anyone until they come and reject the Church and Faith as laid out by the Councils.

You could possibly align yourself with Orthodox beliefs, and then choose not to attend Church and pursue Salvation on your own.

I think most Orthodox followers would agree that God makes those decisions in the end and it is not for us to say and we ultimately cannot know God's mind or have the right to presume it.

If that is not clear enough for you, then you are just being obtuse and attempting to troll.

---

I'm not asking about individuals, but churches. Which you answered early on wrt the EO position: there is no "church" outside of The Church.

I'm curious to how you understand "church". Can you explain?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Curious where you're coming up with 5 or 6 denominations back then. It was under the impression the first real splits started in the 400s, which was after the creed was adopted.

---

Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism. Arianism was the reason for the council of Nicaea in the first place.

---

What's your point? Are you progressing or longing for Arianism? Non Trinitarian faith? Different Gods in the Old and New Testament?

Nicea firmly established our beliefs.

If this confuses you, you can simply go read some very elementary and base level books and educate yourself to the point that you could begin to have these conversations.

I suspect your entire intent is to troll and not offer much substance. Your schtick is obvious and gets tiresome.

Zobel said:

---

I'm curious to how you understand "church". Can you explain?

---

Protestants trying to claim "the church" is the same thing as non-religious/homosexual couples wanting to claim marriage.

They reject church history and the institution outright but still wish to cling onto some part of it and claim it as their own.

Nobody is forcing you to contribute if you feel that way.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Nobody is forcing you to contribute if you feel that way.

---

I am aware. I often start to feel the urge to write much longer replies to you but then decide it's ultimately not worth it and move on.

Zobel said:

---

I'm curious to how you understand "church". Can you explain?

---

There is a visible and invisible aspect. The visible are all churches who faithfully preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. This may be comprised of believers and hypocrites. The invisible are all those who are believers, aka "valid Christians", who may or may not be members of what you call The Church.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Curious where you're coming up with 5 or 6 denominations back then. It was under the impression the first real splits started in the 400s, which was after the creed was adopted.

---

Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism. Arianism was the reason for the council of Nicaea in the first place.

---

Do those really count as denominations? There were heretics. They were excommunicated or rehabilitated. The end (although it could take many years for that end).

I could be wrong but I think we saw heretics remain inside of the church whiling trying (and failing) to advance their heresy. I don't think we saw any real splinter groups running their own church's like we saw in the reformation. Again, could be wrong there

You said "I'm not asking about individuals, but churches". Does that mean you're only talking about visible churches?

Yes, I assume Catholics, EO, and the other "The Church" denominations limit the Creed's phrase to visible churches.

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Curious where you're coming up with 5 or 6 denominations back then. It was under the impression the first real splits started in the 400s, which was after the creed was adopted.

---

Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism. Arianism was the reason for the council of Nicaea in the first place.

---

Do those really count as denominations? There were heretics. They were excommunicated or rehabilitated. The end (although it could take many years for that end).

I could be wrong but I think we saw heretics remain inside of the church whiling trying (and failing) to advance their heresy. I don't think we saw any real splinter groups running their own church's like we saw in the reformation. Again, could be wrong there

---

Correct. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics. Is this still the accepted view? The Roman Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. All others are heretics.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

So you're not asking about the invisible church in the OP then? Just visible?

Zobel said:

---

So you're not asking about the invisible church in the OP then? Just visible?

---

That's up to you. Has the Roman Catholic understanding of "one holy catholic and apostolic church" changed?

How can it be up to me what you're asking?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

Zobel said:

---

How can it be up to me what you're asking?

---

Because you have your own understanding of the history?

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Curious where you're coming up with 5 or 6 denominations back then. It was under the impression the first real splits started in the 400s, which was after the creed was adopted.

---

Docetism, Ebionism, Gnosticism, Marcionism. Arianism was the reason for the council of Nicaea in the first place.

---

Do those really count as denominations? There were heretics. They were excommunicated or rehabilitated. The end (although it could take many years for that end).

I could be wrong but I think we saw heretics remain inside of the church whiling trying (and failing) to advance their heresy. I don't think we saw any real splinter groups running their own church's like we saw in the reformation. Again, could be wrong there

---

Correct. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics. Is this still the accepted view? The Roman Catholic Church is the one holy catholic and apostolic church. All others are heretics.

---

Yes and no. We're still the one church. The other churches were founded by heretics. Whether individuals inside of those churches here and now are capable of heresy is a different question.

In order to be capable of heresy as we use it here, you have to have been inside of the church, understood its teachings, and despite that full understanding, choose to say you know better.

So let's say we have a former Catholic in their youth that was maybe taken to mass once or twice a year. Catholic in name but it had no significance in their life and they never paid attention to the teachings. Along comes a knowledgeable evangelical that shows them how much God really does love them! They start going to an evangelical church and live their life for God. Heretic? I think we can all say no. Unaware of the full teaching of the church. Almost assuredly. Apart from the church in the manner in which the church defines? Probably not.

Contrast this with Luther. Ordained priest under the guidance of his local bishop, in communion with the Catholic Church. Luther comes to understand the faith is entirely different than what he was taught and assented to is his adult years, fully aware of his consent. He tells the church that his teachings are accurate and theirs are wrong. Heretic? Yes. Apart from the church? Yes.

The church a Protestant attends holds heretical views in differing degrees. If you're a Methodist (I think you said) you probably align closer with the Catholic Church than just about any other denomination outside of EO and maybe Anglican. But there are some differences. So how can you go to a church that holds some level of heretical views and not personally be a heretic? Personal knowledge of the difference, with a full and unbiased explanation of the Catholic views that keep you from joining, and a belligerent refusal to believe anyway. If that doesn't define you (and I would bet it doesn't define 99.5% of present day Protestants) then I don't think we can call you a heretic. All of those qualifiers have to be fully defined as well, but that's the shorthand way of typing it.

I'm not asking about history, I'm asking about what you meant when you wrote the question.

Zobel said:

---

I'm not asking about history, I'm asking about what you meant when you wrote the question.

---

My understanding is that Roman Catholics have historically viewed "one holy catholic and apostolic church" as all visible churches in communion with the Holy See. Has this changed? Have they adopted other (Protestant) theories on what the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" is in order to include those visible churches not in communion with the Holy See?

Are they The Church as CrackerJackAg claims for EO?

As far as I know you understanding is correct, and while I can't speak for them I believe that their understanding has not changed. I think they put an asterisk by the eastern Orthodox, though.

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

I'll rephrase so as not to derail. It was widely accepted that there was the one holy catholic and apostolic church, and the others were heretics.

---

One church, yet it is defined by "Rome" or "Roman."

---

To be clear, the phrase "Roman Catholic" was a slur first used by the Anglican Church in the 1500s. It's not something we went around calling ourselves. If you hear a Catholic call themselves Roman Catholic, that is a signifier of what rite in the church they are a part of: the Latin rite. They can also be Coptic, Ethiopian, etc etc.

Any time a Protestant calls us "Roman" they are simply going along with the Protestant slur used all those centuries ago.

---

Or clarifying that the catholic Church pre-dates the papal revolution. The biblical episcopal structure is interesting to consider in your history when thinking about aquinas' bishop rejecting his writings but the pope choosing to accept them. The roman institution is largely defined by the elevation of that bishop to the point where they can no longer be distinguished, man acting as man or with God's authority, since the downstream effects are so great over time.

---

Is your definition of the papal revolution the same as the EO's? The EO's grant that Rome was at least had primacy, but the degree is where the difference lies. Is that the Anglican view, or was the Roman bishop truly just another bishop?