I urge everyone to watch this segment on the status quaestionis of MEN in these USA. For decades there has been an open war on boys, men, masculinity. This has had devastating effects on society at large and on the Church in particular.
The guy he interviews in the second part of the video was great.
UPDATE BELOW
Originally Published on: Mar 5, 2018
The next time the Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) criticizes anyone for having a faithful, conservative understanding of the Church’s discipline or doctrine, point them to this article. The next time writers for the Fishwrap such as Michael Sean Winters or Phyllis Zagano attack, remember this article.
Fishwrap endlessly promotes a homosexualist agenda and the ordination of women. While claiming that we must all accept whatever the Pope says, they routinely undermined everything that John Paul II and Benedict XVI taught. And they have the audacity to put the word “Catholic” on their mast head.
A regular writer for Fishwrap, open lesbian Jamie Manson, has a piece today about the “ordination” of a woman as a bishop. No, it’s not objective. Here’s the first line, which just about sums up Fishwrap and their writers when it comes to aberrant behavior:
“Bye, Bishop Mema!” 4-year old Miles crooned as he wrapped his arms around his grandmother.
Blech.
Even though this was not a truly Catholic ordination, perpetrated by the “Ecumenical Catholic Communion in a Presbyterian Church (which itself is incredibly insulting towards Catholics), Mason simply accepts its validity.
Talk about your “Self-absorbed Promethean Neopelagians”! Lib, thy name is S-aPN!
We don’t have to stand idly by when these people with the help of the Fishwrap make a completely mockery of the Sacraments, the beating heart of our Catholic identity.
Pray for the conversion or the destruction of the Fishwrap.
Pray this prayer everyday for the rest of Lent.
St. Joseph, pray for us.
Dear St. Joseph, Terror of Demons and Protector of Holy Church, Chaste Guardian of Our Lord and His Mother, hear our urgent prayer and swiftly intercede with our Savior, whom as a loving father you defended so diligently, that He will pour abundant graces upon the staff of that organ of dissent the National catholic Reporter so that they will either embrace orthodox doctrine concerning faith and morals or that all their efforts will promptly fail and come to their just end. Amen.
UPDATE: 7 March 2018
Fr. Longenecker has his own take on this loony farce. His conclusion is dead on target:
The only other thing I would add is that the only thing crazier than these groups are the ones who agree with everything they stand for, but not only stay within the Catholic Church, but do so intending to change it from within. How different from the members of the Ecumenical Catholic Communion are people like Phyllis Zagano and James Martin SJ and the members of the hierarchy who support and promote them?
They believe the same thing as Bishop Denise of the ECC. They just don’t have the guts or integrity to get up and go join the ECC like she did. No.
As they have said, “We prefer to work within the system.”
Do I hear an “Amen!”?
At the site of the Pew Research Center you can read about the survey about Pope Francis five years into his pontificate. The numbers are on the move. They also, in surveying Americans, break the numbers down according to political leanings.
It also gets into shifting demographics of Catholics in these USA.
Here is a little bit:
Pope Francis Still Highly Regarded in U.S., but Signs of Disenchantment Emerge
Five years after his election, pope draws growing number of negative assessments, especially from Catholic Republicans[…]
Five years into Francis’ papacy, the vast majority of U.S. Catholics continue to have a favorable opinion of the Argentinian pontiff, and most say he represents a major – and positive – change for the Roman Catholic Church. At the same time, a new Pew Research Center survey finds signs of growing discontent with Francis among Catholics on the political right, with increasing shares of Catholic Republicans saying they view Francis unfavorably, and that they think he is too liberal and naïve.
[…]
But while Francis remains quite popular, there are signs that American Catholics are less enamored with him than was once the case. For instance, the share of American Catholics who say Pope Francis is “too liberal” has jumped 15 percentage points between 2015 and today, from 19% to 34%. And about a quarter of U.S. Catholics (24%) now say he is naïve, up from 15% in 2015.
[…]
Over the same period, the share of Catholic Republicans who say Francis represents a major, positive change for the Catholic Church has declined from 60% to 37%. By contrast, there has been little movement since the end of Francis’ first year as pope in the share of Catholic Democrats who view him as a major change for the better (71% today vs. 76% in 2014).
[…]
While Francis is quite popular with Americans overall, analysis of Pew Research Center surveys conducted since he became pope finds no evidence of a rise in the share of Americans who identify as Catholic (22% in 2012, 20% in 2017), and no indication of a Francis-inspired resurgence in Mass attendance. In surveys conducted in 2017, 38% of Catholic respondents say they attend Mass weekly. By comparison, in the year before Francis became pope, 41% of U.S. Catholics reported attending Mass weekly.There are, however, a number of changes occurring within American Catholicism that were underway before Francis became pope and have continued during his pontificate. For instance, the share of U.S. Catholics who are Hispanic has grown from 32% in the year before Francis became pope to 36% today. The share of U.S. Catholics who favor allowing gays and lesbians to legally marry has grown from 54% in 2012 to 67% in 2017. And while there has been little change in the partisan composition of Catholic voters as a whole, white Catholic registered voters have continued to trend in a Republican direction. As of today, 54% of white Catholic voters identify with or lean toward the GOP, up from 50% in 2012 and early 2013.
Other key findings from the new survey include:
Roughly half of Catholics (55%) say the priests at their parish are “very supportive” of Pope Francis, and an additional 23% say their priests are “somewhat supportive” of the pontiff. Roughly one-in-five self-identified Catholics decline to answer the question or else volunteer that they do not attend church often enough to assess the level of support for Francis among their parish priests. Just 2% say their priests are “not too” or “not at all” supportive of the pontiff.
[…]
Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week give Francis somewhat higher marks than do those who attend Mass less often; 56% of weekly Mass attenders say they have a “very favorable” view of the pontiff, compared with 40% among Catholics who attend Mass less often. Still, large majorities of both groups rate the pope at least “mostly” favorably.
[…]
This just scratches the surface of the results. Have a look for yourselves. It is fascinating reading.
In this podcast we hear the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1990 Instruction Donum veritatis, “On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”.
I post this now because of the present claims of some who clearly want to turn the Church’s teaching about some things upside down and also because of a liberal theologian’s post at Commonweasel “A Wake-Up Call to Liberal Theologians”.
Massimo “Beans” Faggioli is worried that liberal theologians are losing ground in the academy (i.e., Catholic colleges, universities) in the face of a shift of young people, etc., to more conservative theologians and traditional presentations of the Church’s teachings. Beans has created a strawman, the “neo-traditionalist”. He wrongly claims that conservatives ignore or reject Conciliar and post-Conciliar theology. It may be that conservatives tend to reject Concilium school writers, but they tend to embrace Communio writers. In other words, they’ve made a determination that some are right and some are wrong, but it is inaccurate to say that conservatives or traditional Catholics reject or ignore Conciliar and post-Conciliar theology.
Faggioli however, is right about how “market forces” are at work. Subsequently, he seems pretty concerned that his side of the field is losing ground. He has made an appeal to others of his leaning to make changes, lest they lose their influence as theologians in the academy and in the Church.
Apart from fundamental problems, Faggioli’s piece has some good points. However, there is an odd lacuna in his presentation. He made no reference to the 1990 CDF Instruction Donum veritatis which explicitly pertains to his theme and, therefore, his perceived plight of liberal theologians. I found that curious: surely he knows of the document.
If he is really interested in this question and really wants to preserve a role of lib
eral theologians in the Church, then he and they must remain in touch with Donum veritatis.
Hence, I now share Donum veritatis with a wider audience through reading it aloud. Some of you can listen more easily than you can sit and read.
I don’t attempt to read in-line citations or the notes. You can see those on the Vatican website.
The document has strong emphasis on the orientation of the theologian always to the truth which saves, Christ Himself. Theologians have a bond of charity with the pastors of the Church who exercise its Magisterium. It describes what doubts or dissent are and how they are to be resolved.
At the core of the document is the explanation of how pursuit of the truth is a service of the salvation of the whole People of God.
If this is what Faggioli and others want, then it seems to me that they will eagerly embrace this document. If they reject the document, then we might with good reason wonder what they are up to.
I offer this as a sincere help. Also, to all listeners, I suggest Tracey Rowland’s terrific book Catholic Theology.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Jesuit-run (hence confused) Amerika Magazine has posted a lament: “Where are the millennial Catholic activists?”
The head-scratching writer is bumfuzzled. Protests for favored lib causes are drawing people with lots of gray hair. Where are the young, social media savvy protesters?
First, the young generation of Catholics don’t feel the need to relive the halcyon days of yore, with the draft card and bra burning, dope smoking and guitar strumming, altar smashing and whitewashing. They don’t have that baggage. They aren’t triggered by protest signs and gray ponytails.
Yes, there are some young people at these protests, but let’s make a distinction. There are young Catholics and there are young catholics.
To the question, “Where are the millennial Catholic activists?” Fr. Longenecker posted the quintessential answer:
America Mag asks a question: Q: “Where are the Catholic Millennial Activists”? A: At Latin Mass.
— Fr. Dwight Longenecker (@dlongenecker1) March 6, 2018
Fr. Z über-kudos to Fr. L.
Demographic studies suggest that in a few years the numbers of people in pews will drop dramatically as boomers go to their frightening judgment and the “nones” get a little older and just leave.
In the next few years, dioceses will lose a high percentage of priests. Where I am, three priests have died in the last week.
It’s a war of attrition now as the Biological Solution really kicks into it’s ineluctable gear.
However, last Sunday at the TLM I celebrated it was like day-care in the church.
In these still small but growing traditional groups, there are lots of young families with lots of kids and more on the way.
TLMs are alive all over the place now and there are more and more of them. Since Summorum Pontificum in 2007 the number of TLMs has grown from around 200 to over 500. A couple years ago in France, traditional ordinations accounted for over 20% of all the ordinations.
I suspect that were there to be general permission to use the older Pontificale Romanum for ordinations to the diaconate and priesthood, well over half the men to be ordained would rather have the traditional form than the newer.
My sense is that this can’t be stopped, not without moves that would probably tear the unity of the Church to pieces. This is so, because the “gravitational pull” or “mutual enrichment” or “knock-on effect” really is taking place. The Ordinary Form is also being purified of dross in many places because of what priests learn at the TLM altar. A synergy is building.
Of course the seats of ecclesial power abound with prelates who would rather burn down struggling parishes and watch Satan disco dance in the ashes than do the slightest “traditional” thing to revitalize our identity and evangelical mission.
Hence, because this is also spiritual warfare, YOU, dear readers, need to buckle it on and get to work.
The storm is almost here.
Polish that armor, sharpen that sword, mend that shield, square that gear, do those drills. Pray for specific intentions. Practice mortifications for reparation for sins. Contribute at the parish. Examine your conscience.
GO TO CONFESSION!
UPDATE:
I post the above and then find an article about parish closures in Europe. HERE
The Diocese of Trier in Germany will reduce its number of parishes from 172 to 35 by the year 2020
[…]
The details provided by the CNS of some of the other diocesan reorganizations planned or currently underway in Europe makes for sobering reading:
– Berlin: 105 parishes to be reduced to 35 “pastoral spaces”, with unused churches to be sold off and 40% of clergy and lay staffers reassigned, thereby alleviating some of the Diocese’s $140 million debt– Vienna: 660 parishes to be merged into 150 hubs served by a handful of priests
– Luxembourg: 274 parishes reduced to 33
– Clogher, Ireland: 37 parishes cut to 14 “pastoral areas” coordinated by teams of just two priests and six laypeople
– Utrecht: 326 parishes to just 48 hubs in which only one church will serve as a “eucharistic center”
[…]
Some will spin this as a greater opportunity for lay people in the Church. Riiiiight.
It’s disaster, pure and simple.
See my comments above about disco dancing devils.
These are the fruits born of liberals.
Hey libs! THAT’s where you pour the water, you OAFS!
From a priest:
I have a multiple child Baptism coming up. My question is if one priest can supply all the various ceremonies and multiple priests celebrate the Baptism proper for the various children in the older Rituale?
Hmmm… no, not really. That makes the right confusing, at best.
Just follow the Rituale. Some things you have to do with each child individually, such as exorcisms, something can be done by all the godparents together, such as certain responses to questions and the recitation of the Creed.
Depending on how many there are, if you don’t have a great memory, you may need a little “label” on the kids with their names, or have a godparent hold one, for moments like the imposition of salt. Also have a list tucked into the book with all their names in the proper Latin (or English) forms, for moments when you can say one prayer over all of them.
If you try to force everything to be “meaningful” – looking around with significant eye contact and earnest expressions at every other word – you will be there all day.
Keep it moving and it won’t take that long.
And try not to let the inevitable din distract you from pushing forward.
No young person wants to follow an uncertain trumpet.
Here is a good video to rise to as the morning gets underway.
Actor Jim Caviezel speaking at Stuebenville. Posted at LifeSite.
¡Hagan lío!
My old friend Msgr. Hans Feichtinger has penned for First Things a piece about the German bishops.
DISCERNMENT ÜBER ALLES
The German bishops have announced that they will soon publish new guidelines for reception of the Holy Eucharist. [Because the old guidelines really need updating.] In the future, non-Catholics married to Catholic spouses and attending Mass with their families could, in certain cases, be admitted to communion if they profess the Catholic faith in that sacrament. [Woah! Faith is the last thing to go.] Already I have been asked about this change at the German-speaking parish in Canada’s capital city of Ottawa, where I am pastor. Our people pay close attention to what the bishops at home are up to. Members of the German community abroad, especially in the first generation, often are married to other people with German background, and some of these very stable marriages are “mixed,” with one Catholic and one Protestant spouse.
No one can deny the objective difficulty that arises when a family attends Church regularly and one of the parents (or even some of the children) cannot receive communion, either because as Catholics they do not receive it in Protestant churches, or as Protestants they are not admitted to the Catholic Eucharist. It feels strange, in a way that is hard to explain.
The ecumenical imperative is: Thou shalt be hospitable! And the ecumenically correct language is: Mixed marriages “unite” the confessions (they are konfessionsverbindende Ehen—gotta love these long German words). But much of this talk is delusional, or at least shallow. And the project very quickly leads to bizarre situations: Should a pastor stop giving communion to the non-Catholic spouse after the death of the Catholic one? We do have non-Catholic people attending our parish occasionally, even after the deaths of their Catholic spouses.
The bishops, of course, propose that pastors should discern in each individual case whether admission of a non-Catholic to communion would be permissible. Discernment über alles. According to the bishops, the basic condition for receiving Holy Communion is profession of the Catholic faith in the Eucharist. But that profession, as we have understood it up to now, [!] entails that no one may receive communion who is not a Catholic (or does not at least belong to a church in which all sacraments are considered such and valid), and that one must be in the state of grace, which in normal adult life requires going to confession once in a while. Talk of these things is ecumenically incorrect, of course. [In false ecumenical dialogue cannot admit that Catholics openly say what they are to profess openly.]
My predecessor in Ottawa and I have consistently explained why the Church does what it does, and why it sometimes says no. What the bishops in the Fatherland now are about to release sounds like yet another compromise for the sake of being—or rather, sounding—inclusive and pastoral, with very questionable pastoral consequences. The Church in Germany, with its great institutional strength, seems to become ever less resilient and less reliable, ever less willing to resist trends, even some that have already failed in the Christian communities that adopted them long ago. On loosening Eucharistic discipline, the trial and error has been done by others, and it turned out to be an error every time. Of course, such a change would also be a huge impediment to ecumenism with the Eastern Churches—but the Germans care less about Russia and other theologically underdeveloped countries. [Remember Card. Kasper’s comments about Africa.]
The German church tax is often thought to increase the freedom of the Church, as it makes parishes and dioceses less dependent on the wishes of donors. I have myself believed this for some time. But I am losing my faith. A normal diocese in Germany has a budget in the hundreds of millions; in larger dioceses the combined budget of diocese, bishop, parishes, and social services is beyond the billion mark. Money, lots of it, is the common denominator amid the many discontinuities of the last centuries, through reformation, secularization, social and political revolutions, and wars. To this day, the Church in Germany is holding on to its preferred income sources and its inclusion in the institutional grid of public institutions. The Church in Germany is recognized and treated by the state as something close to an entity of public law. In theory, this status should ensure its freedom, to a degree that churches in other countries should envy. But the same Church is increasingly unable to stand for core principles of the Christian message. The best-funded Catholic bishops in the world are not on the Olympic podium in the doctrinal-fidelity-and-courage competition. It seems they are not even running to win that prize (1 Cor. 9:24).
Theologians and prelates in Germany have long been champions of collegiality among the bishops. And there seems in fact to be very strong collegiality within the Conference of German Bishops itself. (Maybe there is also some peer pressure.) But when it comes to bishops outside the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, the Germans’ interest in collegiality is less strong—to say nothing of their longstanding difficulty with following laws and guidelines issued by the Holy See. For themselves, the Germans like exceptions. (Just wait for their whining about how they cannot implement the guidelines recently issued for theological faculties—never mind that Pope Francis himself signed off on them.) I am sure there are bishops and theologians in Germany who do not agree with the direction the Bishops’ Conference is taking under the leadership of its current Westphalian bosses. But they dare not disagree publicly. They do not seem to have the courage simply to say Non possumus, for fear of being relegated, by their confreres and colleagues, to the ranks of the “controversial” or those “against Francis.” Maybe a secret workshop needs to be organized for them with Jordan Peterson?
Breaking from the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, as the German bishops propose, is a bad idea, both doctrinally and pastorally—which goes to show that these things can be distinguished, yes, but not separated. It also goes to show that breaking up the discipline of the Church along the lines of nation-states is a model unfit for the globalized world (and thus shockingly old-fashioned!). More importantly, it is incompatible with the Catholic faith.
It is interesting that the Holy Father has not picked up on the difficulties and temptations of the well-funded Church in German-speaking lands. His message of a Church of the poor, informed by the needs of those on the margins, has not been heard in diocesan curias north of the Alps, concerned as they are with the needs of the good Catholic burghers. The projects presently advanced by the German bishops seriously undermine doctrinal integrity and fidelity, ecclesial unity, and pastoral practice. I wonder what it will take to change course, and I wonder whether and how Francis and his dicasteries will weigh in.
But then again, there are miracles—such as Germany’s victory over Canada in ice hockey at the Olympics. Every giant will fall at some point. While Rome seems to be sleeping, the time has come for bishops outside Germany to hold their brothers accountable, and for pastors in Germany simply to ignore episcopal guidelines and musings that are in stark contrast to the traditional wisdom, teaching, and discipline of the universal Church. That Church (in the documents of Vatican II, believe it or not) “affirms that underlying all changes there are many things that do not change; they have their ultimate foundation in Christ, who is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.”
Dear readers… more and more people are less and less silent.
This from Jesuit-run Amerika:
Cardinal Kasper: Quit throwing around the word ‘heretic’ [Hmmm. I’ll bet he says that!]
Think twice before calling someone a “heretic.”
That is the seemingly simple advice from Cardinal Walter Kasper, the prominent German theologian whose ideas have influenced Pope Francis, especially his view that mercy should be the guiding principle in pastoral practice. [That is an over simplification. There is another aspect to it: there is suggestion on the part of some that there is a “mercy” which can make truth and law and even revelation irrelevant.]
Speaking in an interview with Alessandro Gisotti at Vatican News, the 85-year-old prelate addressed controversy about “Amoris Laetitia,” the pope’s 2016 letter on families, which includes a provision that allows some divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion. [So that’s a direct confirmation of what AL suggests. However, there are those who say a) that it doesn’t or b) it shouldn’t.]
“First of all I would like to say that debate in the church is necessary. There is no need to fear debate!” the cardinal said. [Uh huh. Because that is what Card. Kasper offered about the contributions of African bishops during the Synod. HERE]
But he said the debate on “Amoris Laetitia” has become too heated—even though the “people of God” have accepted the teaching.
“There is a very bitter debate, way too strong, with accusations of heresy. A heresy is a tenacious disagreement with formal dogma.” [Yes. That’s right. The defenders of the interpretation of AL that allows for people in the state of mortal sin or also in a manifest irregular situation to receive Communion say that not everyone can live up to “ideals” laid down by the Church. That’s contrary to the formal teaching of the Council of Trent.]
Cardinal Kasper rejected claims from some Catholics who accuse Pope Francis of undermining church teaching on marriage. [AL sparked the discussion. AL is over the new signature of Pope Francis.]
“The doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage has not been called into question on Pope Francis’ part!” he said. “Before saying that something is heresy, the question should be what the other person means by what has been said. And, above all, that the other person is Catholic should be presupposed; the opposite should not be supposed!” [Perhaps we could channel our inner Kasper and respond: “But [he] should not tell us too much what we have to do.”]
Cardinal Kasper praised “Amoris Laetitia” for its accessibility, saying it is “not high theology incomprehensible to people” and that the “people of God understand.” [I think we are free to deny this premise. I suspect that the “people of God”, in fact, do NOT understand what’s going on. However, once both sides of the issue are explained they understand only too well that some people are trying an end-around with what has always been taught. Honest Catholics, hearing that adulterers can go to Communion, know that there’s something wrong.]
“The pope has an optimal connection with the People of God,” he said. [“Optimal”? Is that really the case these days?]
[…]
But, remember, “debate in the church is necessary. There is no need to fear debate!”
God Bless Card. Kasper.
From a reader…
What are the Four Catholic Creeds, and why don’t we use the most recent one in Mass?
Good question. Let’s start with some basics, which many readers might not know.
Our English word “creed” is from Old English creda, in turn from Latin credo, “I entrust, I believe”. The profession of faith we make during Holy Mass takes its nickname “Creed” from its first word in the Latin text which begins “Credo in unum Deum… I believe in one God…”. “Creed” is also used more generically for some statement of belief.
In the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, we recite the Creed mainly on Sundays and solemnities. In the traditional Extraordinary Form the Creed is used with much greater frequency.
Why do we have a Creed at Mass? Among other explanations we can turn to what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal says (67):
The purpose of the Symbolum or Profession of Faith, or Creed, is that the whole gathered people may respond to the word of God proclaimed in the readings taken from Sacred Scripture and explained in the homily and that they may also call to mind and confess the great mysteries of the faith by reciting the rule of faith in a formula approved for liturgical use, before these mysteries are celebrated in the Eucharist.
The 2002 Missale Romanum has some rubrics for the Creed. We read in the new translation of the Order of Mass at rubric 18: “At the end of the homily, the Symbol or Profession of Faith or Creed, when prescribed, is sung or said:…”. Oddly, the new translation excludes another rubric found in the Latin edition immediately after the Gregorian chant notation for how the priest is to sing the introduction, or intone, the Creed: “Toni integri in Graduali romano inveniuntur…. Complete tones are found in the Graduale Romanum.” The Graduale Romanum is published for the Holy See by the monks at the French Benedictine monastery at Solesmes. It contains all the chants needed for a choir, schola or congregation to sing the Proper and Ordinary in Latin.
Let no one claim congregations cannot sing the Creed in Latin! It is a powerful experience to hear a congregation sing the Creed with confidence. It isn’t hard. It just takes a little time and prompting. People should also be allowed actively and consciously to listen to beautiful settings from our treasury of sacred music.
For the Novus Ordo, or Ordinary Form, of Holy Mass – since the 2002 edition of the Missale Romanum – we are given two main options for the Profession of Faith. We may use the “Apostles Creed” or the “Nicean Creed” (fuller title “Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed”). Rubric 19 says that the Apostles Creed “adhiberi potest … can be used” in the place of the Nicene Creed “praesertim… especially” during Lent and the Easter season. That said, it is clearly the Church’s intention that Nicene Creed, which historically has been the only Creed for Mass, is the norm.
The Apostles Creed, or Symbolum Apostolicum, is especially familiar to those who recite the Holy Rosary. It is also used by other Christians, who accept it because it is not elaborate in its doctrinal scope. Many Christians are not interested in systematic doctrine.
In the early Church it was assumed that the Apostles themselves composed and handed down a “rule of faith”. There is pious legend of very ancient origin that the Apostles Creed was composed by the Twelve under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, each one of them contributing one of its “articles”. It is possible with some jostling and nudging to break down the Apostles Creed into twelve sections, though St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274) preferred to break it into seven (cf. STh II, q. 2). J.N.D. Kelly’s book Early Christian Creeds [US HERE – UK HERE] has great detail about this and other early professions of faith.
Rufinus of Aquileia (+410), the old friend and sometime nemesis of the irascible St. Jerome (+420), in his Commentary on the Apostles Creed relates the story of this Creed’s origin, already old in his day. The Apostles, given the ability to speak many languages by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, were about to take leave of each other and go out into the world. They wanted a norm for preaching so that, even though they were very far apart from each other, they would still be unified in their teaching. “So, they met together in one spot and, being filled with the Holy Spirit, compiled this brief token … each making the contribution he thought fit; and they decreed that it should be handed out as standard teaching to believers.” There is a contemporary document from Northern Italy, probably based on notes from the preaching of St. Ambrose of Milan (+397), that the Twelve were worried about heresy and they wanted to strengthen bishops who succeeded them. A sermon incorrectly attributed to St. Augustine of Hippo even breaks down which Apostle contributed which article and says this took place on the tenth day after the Ascension. When the Holy Spirit came they were all “inflamed like red-hot iron”. Peter started, of course, followed by Andrew, etc.
The Apostles Creed is much shorter than the Nicene Creed because in its earliest forms it predates the controversies about the divinity of the Holy Spirit and of Christ and His two natures, divine and human.
There was an even shorter and more ancient forerunner of the Apostles Creed called the Old Roman Creed or Old Roman Symbol, based in turn on a 2nd century regula fidei or “rule of faith” used in questioning candidates before baptism. St. Ambrose mentions an “Apostles Creed” in letter 42 to Pope Siricius. This could have been that Old Roman Creed or some subsequent development. The first full quotation of the Apostles Creed comes in an 8th century work by the St. Priminius (+753). After Charlemagne spread it through his lands it would eventually be used in Rome itself.
Thus in the Apostles Creed we have a profession of faith of very ancient origin, certainly going back to the very early times of the Church. This venerable collection of statements of belief epitomizes the most ancient declarations of faith of our forebears. Each point is rooted in the New Testament and the most deeply held convictions of the earliest Christians.
Here we must pause to look a the term “Symbol”, used to describe a “profession of faith” or a “creed”. The word comes from the Greek, a compound of the verb ballein (“throw”) and the preposition syn (“together). A symbolon was a token of proof, that something was genuine or that a person was who he said he was. For example, a symbolon could be the impression carved into something or left in a waxen seal (Greek character – as in the indelible change that takes place in the soul when you are baptized, confirmed or ordained.). Think of a modern silver stamp or the shiny holographic stamps on modern sports memorabilia and money.
A symbolon could also be half of an object purposely broken in half so that, once matched with its other half, it became a sign, a “symbol” of the identity of the one who carried it. An ancient contract, for example, might be written on a clay tablet, baked, and then broken in half, so that the two parties each had a piece that would fit together. Shards of pottery called “tallies” were also used, as in the story told by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus about Glaucus the Spartan and the man from Miletus and their financial deal.
In sum, in a “symbol” you “throw” the parts “together” to ensure identity. This has become a common topos in literature. Later cut pieces of paper could be used. In interior identity was exteriorized with a material symbol. A symbolon could also be used as a “ticket” for voting or even for travelling. The ever-sarcastic Tertullian (+ c. 220) used it in this sense when attacking the heretic Marcion, asking by what symbolum he took St. Paul “on board” his ship. St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258) applies the word to an early profession of faith much like the Apostles Creed.
In John LeCarre’s spy-novel Smiley’s People a torn postcard is used as a token to prove identity. In Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night Sebastian and Viola find they are twins this way. In the fluff movie The Parent Trap the identity of twins is discovered by halves of the same family photo. In the unfluffy history of the Franks, King Childeric, deposed as a libertine and debaucher, flees to Thuringia after leaving half of a gold coin with a friend so he could prove himself on his return. In Plato’s Symposium Aristophanes describes how Zeus split the originally androgynous into male and female halves who feel complete when they find each other in love. In the so-called “Judgment of Solomon” the identity of a baby is discovered by the threat of literal halving. None of this has anything to do with the Creed, of course, but it fun.
It is time to move on to the normative Creed used during Holy Mass. For the purposes of practicality, we must leave aside a separate option for the creedal variation of our renewal of baptismal vows with its dialogical structure.
The fuller title of the Creed we call by shorthand the “Nicene Creed” is the “Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed” (Symbolum Nicenum-Constantinopolitanum). The text has its roots in much earlier creeds and the questions and answers during baptismal rites going back close to Apostolic times. The text of our Mass’s Nicene Creed is related more immediately to the anti-Arian Council called by the Emperor Constantine at Nicea (in 325 in present-day Turkey).
Before the Council of Nicea creeds of various forms were for a local Church’s use. A new form of Creed developed from meetings of bishops in synods and councils held to address theological problems. The bishops and ecclesiastics who met in council had to subscribe to a summary of theological propositions which pointed to correct teaching, orthodoxy. They were tests.
Sometimes the formulas included anathemas for those who strayed from the faith they determined came from the Apostles: “As for those who say [HERESY X],… these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes/kicks out.” The meaning of the Greek word anáthema drifted around considerably, by the way. It originally stood for something dedicated or set apart. It could be good, as in set apart for God. It came later to mean set apart in an evil way, apart or separate from the community.
In any event the Creed promulgated by the Council of Nicea was the first of its kind, in that it had a universal legal authority and its anathema excommunicated those who dissented from what it defined.
The Council of Nicea was called to help bring unity to the important social force of Christianity which had recently been legalized and then made the religion of the Empire.
The Council was directed to work through Christological questions (that is, theology about who Christ is) which were tearing apart the unity of the Church and thereby creating problems for society as a whole. What the Fathers of the Council needed to agree upon in some way, was the relation of Jesus Christ, the Son incarnate, to Almighty God the eternal Father. The Council also worked to fix a date for the celebration of Easter (the first Sunday after the first full moon following the Spring Equinox), and also issue laws for the discipline of church practices. The Council was about unity of faith and practice.
Regarding the Christological question, the Council Fathers defined what they determined to be the faith of the Church going back to the teachings of the Apostles regarding who Christ is: Christ is truly God in a literal way, with the same divinity as the Father, and not just in a metaphorical way.
A theological debate was gripping especially the Greek East, where a priest named Arius (+336) in Alexandria had stirred and intensified a long debated proposition that Christ, identified with the Son, was not of the same divine nature as the Father, but was rather the first, highest, most sublime of all creatures. Christ was in a way divine, but not in same way the Father is divine. In fact, the pre-Incarnate Son was a creature. In the famous phrase of the Arians, “there was a time when he was not”. That meant he wasn’t eternal and God as the Father was eternal and God.
The theological twists of terminology are extremely complicated, and I run the risk of gross oversimplifications in what follows.
The Arian question divided the ancient Church and Empire. The Council at Nicea condemned the Arian errors and determined that by Christian Faith we believe that the Son is homoousios, Greek for “of the same substance” or “of the same being”, with the Father. Greek ousia, a feminine participle of the verb einai, “to be”, is a tricky term basically meaning “being”. Ousia is rendered into Latin, and therefore English, in a bewildering number of ways depending on the topic and era. Ousia could be rendered in Latin as either substantia (substance) or essentia (essence). To make this even more confusing, the term homoousios itself was controversial because the word had been used by Gnostics in a way that was later condemned. But we must keep moving…. Homoousios is rendered in Latin as consubstantialis.
The brilliant but erratic Church wild-child Tertullian (+c.220) was the first Latin writer we know of to render homoousios into Latin as consubstantialis (Against Hermogenes 44).
Tertullian chose substantia probably because Latin lacks many verb forms that Greek has.
Substantia was taken to mean what ousia meant, the way to describe the nature of a thing whereby it is what it is, namely, that which doesn’t depend on something else to exist.
Since classical Latin active lacks a participle for the verb esse, “to be”, another solution had to be found: substantia, something “standing under”. So, ousia is what subsists in itself and doesn’t depend on anything else. Consubstantialis was deemed the best Latin could do for homoousios, meaning, of the “of the same being/substance”.
The terms being and substance have certainly drifted apart from each other in philosophy, in metaphysics, over the centuries. Even in the ancient world different groups talked past each other with different understandings of the same terms. That said, today being and substance aren’t really the same thing in English.
The controversial decision to translate Latin consubstantialis with the Latinate slavishly literal “consubstantial” rather than “one in being” (as the bad old ICEL translation had it) was certainly correct.
May I add that, in some ways, the Arian crisis has reemerged in a deadly new form? If those who say that people in the state of mortal sin can properly be admitted to Holy Communion, then the divinity of the Lord and the doctrine of transubstantiation are put into question. Do we believe what Christ said about divorce and remarriage? Was He wrong? If He was wrong, He isn’t God and what we do at Mass is idolatry.
The next part of the history of the Creed we say during Holy Mass goes back to the time of another great Council of the Church, Constantinople I (381).
Oddly, the first text we have of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (the orthodox Catholic faith proclaimed at Nicea as expressed and expanded by the Council Fathers at Constantinople to account for other heresies that had been dealt with during the intervening years) actually shows up in the acts of yet another Council, the Council of Chalcedon (451) during which the Fathers defined that Christ had two perfect natures, divine and human.
At sessions of Chalcedon, the Nicene Creed was publicly read along with “the faith of the 150 fathers”, that is, the Creed used during Council of Constantinople in 381. Amazingly the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon, its acta, all survived. That is how we have the text of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
Furthermore, there enough differences between the original Nicene Creed and what we call the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed that we can say the later constitutes its own text. It is not merely a modification of the original Nicene version.
Perhaps that is enough about those ancient liturgical creeds.
There are other approved Creeds, not to be used at Mass, which deserve mention.
The so-called “Athanasian Creed”, called also Quicumque vult, was recited by clerics and religious occasionally in the pre-Conciliar form of the Office. Hence, it is also a liturgical creed, but not for Mass.
The Athanasian Creed was probably written in Latin in perhaps around the 6th century and got its name from a medieval legend that St. Athanasius (+373), during one of his exiles, gave the text to Pope Julius I (+352). It contains precise Trinitarian and Christological statements and ends with the less-than-ambiguous: “this is the Catholic Faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Another creed is the Creed of Pope Pius IV, called also the Professio Fidei Tridentina, issued on 13 November 13 1565 by Pope Pius IV in the Bull Iniunctum nobis after the Council of Trent (1545 – 1563). Hence, it was designed to defend the Catholic faith against Protestant error. This is one of the four authoritative Creeds of the Catholic Church. It was modified slightly after the First Vatican Council (1869 – 1870) to harmonize it with the dogmatic definitions of that Council. It was long used as an oath of loyalty for theologians and pastors, etc., and also for the reception of converts. This was the Creed my pastor had me recite when I was brought into the Church. It seems to have stuck.
I should mention also the non-liturgical “Credo of the People of God” promulgated in 1968 by Pope Paul VI for the 19th centenary of the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul. In his Motu Proprio Solemni hac liturgia by which he promulgated this Creed, a clearly troubled Paul wrote about those days as if he were describing our own times:
In making this profession, we are aware of the disquiet which agitates certain modern quarters with regard to the faith. They do not escape the influence of a world being profoundly changed, in which so many certainties are being disputed or discussed. We see even Catholics allowing themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty. The Church, most assuredly, has always the duty to carry on the effort to study more deeply and to present, in a manner ever better adapted to successive generations, the unfathomable mysteries of God, rich for all in fruits of salvation. But at the same time the greatest care must be taken, while fulfilling the indispensable duty of research, to do no injury to the teachings of Christian doctrine. For that would be to give rise, as is unfortunately seen in these days, to disturbance and perplexity in many faithful souls.
This describes Paul’s times, but our own as well, especially in light of how some people interpret Amoris laetitia.
The recitation of our Creeds, ancient and modern, brief or long, is necessary for us as Catholics.
It has been said that Creeds are for the head what good works are for the heart.
If we do not know the basics we believe as Christians, we cannot be good Catholics. We don’t know who we are.
We need to understand the basic tenets of our Faith and be able to stand up and make a profession of that Christian Faith when it is safe and convenient and when it is unpopular or even dangerous.
The repetition of the articles of faith, especially with others, can help to strengthen us in time of trial. This was certainly the case with the ancient martyrs. But no less is it the case in modern times.
For example, during the Chinese persecution of Christians at the end of the 19th century a 14 year old girl named Anna Wang was martyred in Hebei during the nationalistic Boxer Rebellion. With other Christians she was told to renounce Christ or die. Anna’s family fell, but she responded: “I believe in God. I am a Christian. I do not renounce God. Jesus save me!” She died and was born into heaven. Surely her opening declaration came from the Creed. We all face challenges to our faith, many of us on a daily basis. The recitation of creeds can be a preparation for our trials, small and large.
I hope these brief observations help.
Coat of Arms by D Burkart
A Daily Prayer for Priests
They find you a pro-life agent in your area who commits to giving a portion of the fee to a pro-life group!
PLEASE subscribe via PayPal if it is useful. Zelle and Wise are better, but PayPal is convenient.
A monthly subscription donation means I have steady income I can plan on. I put you my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I often say Holy Mass.
In view of the rapidly changing challenges I now face, I would like to add more $10/month subscribers. Will you please help?
For a one time donation...
Help Monks in Wyoming (coffee – UPDATED LINK) and Norcia (beer) and the wonderful "Soap Sisters" of Summit, NJ!
Please follow me on Twitter!
Visits tracked by Statcounter
since Sat., 25 Nov. 2006:
