It isn't aimed at it, because you can't be, aren't actually interested in being satisfied by anything short of a dogmatic capitulation to your church. But it does answer on what is meant by what we recite.
As used and considered by Presbyterians? I just showed you. The rest approaches the sort of pointless squabbling I was talking to Pure about.
On Baptist, Methodist, or Anglican websites I imagine it would.
You're using the word "catholic" in a decidedly ahistorical manner, but I get your basic meaning, and agree with it. That's why the Catholic Church considers properly-baptized Protestants to be fellow Christians.
I think that's peculiar thinking. What unites the Body is greater by far than what divides us.
As they should. And why I consider my Catholic brothers and sisters to be exactly that, our differences notwithstanding.
No (Catechism, par. 2414). Now, again, how does this prove that your favored man-made Protestant sect is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail?
Trad...
Yet this fails to address the Truth Question, that is, whether or not Jesus Christ founded a Church in which the fullness of the Christian faith resides, and which He desires for all believers to enter in faithfulness to Him.
We recite it every Sunday.
Then you're just asking how you understand the apostolic relationship and its consideration, not how we view it in our use and what's the point in that?
Protestants believe that he did, but not as literally as you mean it. That is, there is one universal church, it's simply not the thing you'd have it. A similar difference attends how we see Peter and what was meant by the founding rock.
I don't feel similarly compelled though I know that many Protestants feel as strongly about it, if in a different fashion.
I'd remind you that it is the Catholic church, not the Protestant line, that holds traditions as a rival to scriptural authority. On the founding point, supra and by way of reference to arguments we're both likely more than a little familiar with and are fruitless to pursue again.
I'm not trying to talk you out of your choice. I'd attempt to talk you into an approach more in keeping with the humility and warmth of your Pope, but that's life for you.
Trad, I understand what you're asking. I've noted it. But there's no point in it and no dispute. By way of, when we say catholic, we mean universal. It's of no moment that the writer only understood the word to mean Catholic, lacking any other frame of reference.No. I'm asking how the authors understood the word that they wrote down.
I'm not asking you how you use the word. I'm asking how the author(s) of the Apostolic creed used it.
I'm no fan of slavery and I've always thought women should be allowed to vote. You?You're not a fan of constitutional constructionism, are you?
You should if your intention is to honor his understanding. But, you can honor "We the people" even while not believing that the phrase should mostly refer to landed white people, should be expanded without having to come up with a new pronoun.
You should if your intention is to honor his understanding. But, you can honor "We the people" even while not believing that the phrase should mostly refer to landed white people, should be expanded without having to come up with a new pronoun.
Aristotle would understand that. You? I'm taking an over/under.