“I believe in the resurrection of the dead …”

2 thoughts on ““I believe in the resurrection of the dead …””

1. My favorite part about the Nicean creed (and by that I mean the part I don’t say on those occasions when I go to mass) is the whole “I believe in believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

   Because I don’t. Not the “one” part. And what I find funny, is that this same creed to used by so many different sects of the Christian faith, all saying that the others are wrong. Or, at least, that’s my way of looking at it.

   Reply

2. Well, of course, “catholic” in this case simply means “universal” — i.e., that there is a universal church that can and should apply to everyone, everywhere. The denominations tend to either silently add that they’re It, or else (outside of the Roman Catholic church) elide the meaning to be sort of a Platonic ideal or a reference to world-wide Christendom. Thus, it’s not necessarily contradictory for Presbyterians to recite this passage fo the creed. (Indeed, I imagine you could even have a universalist viewpoint and still be able to make that part of the statement honestly.)

   Apostolic simply refers to the passing of the church’s authority via the apostles (as opposed to, say, the priesthood in Jerusalem).

   For folks who believe (as I do) that there are other ways of relating to God than explicitly through Christ, the Nicene Creed is a bit dicier, though I suspect that a bit of twisting and pulling on the words they can be made to fit into a broader mold (rightly or wrongly).

   The Catholic Encyclopedia has more pedantic examinations of the Nicene Creed and “catholic” for those as are interested. On the latter, it notes, a bit snarkily:

   But of all these various interpretations, which, after all, are not inconsistent with one another, and which are probably only characteristic of a fashion of exegesis which delighted in multiplicity, one conception of Catholicity is almost invariably made prominent. This is the idea of the actual local diffusion of the Church, and this is also the aspect which, thanks no doubt to the influence of Protestant controversy, has been most insisted upon by the theologians of the last three centuries. Some heretical and schismatical teachers have practically refused to recognize Catholicity as an essential attribute of Christ’s Church, and in the Lutheran version of the Apostles’ Creed, for example, the word Catholic (“I believe in the holy Catholic Church”) is replaced by Christian. But in the majority of the Protestant professions of faith the wording of the original has been retained, and the representatives of these various shades of opinion have been at pains to find an interpretation of the phrase which is in any way consistent with geographical and historical facts. (For these see CHRISTENDOM.) The majority, including most of the older Anglican divines (e.g. Pearson on the Creed), have contented themselves with laying stress in some shape or form upon the design of the Founder of the Church that His Gospel should be preached throughout the world. This diffusion de jure serves its purpose sufficiently as a justification for the retention of the word Catholic in the Creed, but the supporters of this view are of necessity led to admit that Catholicity so understood cannot serve as a visible criterion by which the true Church is to be distinguished from schismatical sects. Those Protestant bodies who do not altogether reject the idea of “notes” distinctive of the true Church consequently fall back for the most part upon the honest preaching of God’s word and the regular administration of the sacraments as the only criteria. (See the “Confession of Augsburg”, Art. 7, etc.) But such notes as these, which may be claimed by many different religious bodies with apparently equal right, are practically inoperative, and, as Catholic controversialists have commonly pointed out, the question only resolves itself into the discussion of the nature of the Unity of the Church under another form. The same must be said of that very large class of Protestant teachers who look upon all sincere Christian communions as branches of the one Catholic Church with Christ for its invisible head. Taken collectively, these various branches lay claim to worldwide diffusion de facto as well as de jure. But clearly, here again the question primarily involved is that concerning the nature of the Unity of the Church, and it is to the articles CHURCH and UNITY, that the reader who wishes to pursue the matter further must be referred.

   They’re also not impressed by the universalist interpretation of the word:

   Lastly, it should be said that among some confused thinkers of the Anglican communion, as also among certain representatives of Modernist opinions, an interpretation of the Catholicity of the Church has lately come into fashion which has little connection with anything that has hitherto fallen under our notice. Starting with the conception familiar in such locutions as “a man of catholic tastes”, meaning a man who excludes no rational interest from his sympathies, these writers would persuade us that a catholic church either does or should mean a church endowed with unlimited comprehensiveness, i.e. which is prepared to welcome and assimilate all opinions honestly held, however contradictory. To this it may be answered that the idea is absolutely foreign to the connotation of the phrase Catholic Church as we can trace it in the writings of the Fathers. To take a term consecrated by centuries of usage and to attach a brand-new meaning to it, of which those who through the ages had it constantly on their lips never dreamed, is to say the least extremely misleading. If this comprehensiveness and elasticity of belief is regarded as a desirable quality, by all means let it have a new name of its own, but it is dishonest to leave the impression upon the ignorant or the credulous, that this is the idea which devout men in past ages have all along been groping for, and that it has been left to the religious thinkers of our own day to evolve from the name catholic its true and real significance.

   Your mileage may (and should) vary.

   Reply