Calvinist calls himself Catholic?

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

A Calvinist can be a catholic (universal) - but not a Catholic (member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church).
He/she can be a member of the Body of Christ if he acknowledges Catholic Theology as God-given.
Like a sinner surviving clutching hold of a rope from the Ark during the Flood.

 

[Gara3987]

On another forum I asked a Calvinist not to call me a “Roman Catholic” because it’s strictly incorrect - I am a Roman Rite Catholic. A Catholic.

He refused, telling me I don’t have the monopoly on the word Catholic - that he uses the word to distinguish me and people like me who submit to Papal authority - and that he is a Catholic too.

My mind has been blown. I almost don’t even know what to say? How can a Calvinist call himself Catholic too? And refuse to admit that I am a Catholic and he is a Calvinist?

You can explain to him the history of the term ‘Καθολικóς / katholikos.’

Among other places, in the concluding verses of the Gospel of St. Matthew (28, 19-20), and St. Mark (16, 15-16): “Go into the** whole **world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.”

                Compare St. John, 10, 16: “And other sheep I have that are not of this fold.   Them also I must                      bring, and they shall hear my voice, and **there shall be one fold** and **one shepherd.**”                     
                
                Of course the name “Catholic” was not given to the Church of Christ until after the time of                      the New Testament.   It was commonly called merely “The Church” or “Holy Church.”   There was no need to distinguish.   There was only one Church.                     
                
                St. Ignatius seems to have been the first to give the name “Catholic” to “The Church.”                        He did this in a letter he wrote about the year 107, and in the course of the next two centuries the                      name caught on, and came into general use.   By that time there were a few heresies in vogue,                      like Arianism, and **"Catholic" became a name to distinguish the true Church from error and                      schism.                     **
                
                In the beginning the word “catholic” was simply an adjective meaning “universal.”   **Then it                      came to have the meaning of "one and only" and to be used as an appellative**—a “proper                      name” for the Church.   This appellative use did not become common until the fourth century.                     
                
                The Apostles Creed in the beginning had “I believe in the Holy Church.” The word                      “Catholic” was inserted in the fourth century.   Some Protestants have now thrown this word                      “Catholic” out of the Creed and frankly substituted the word “Christian.”                     
                
                As for the word “**Roman**,” that is an Anglicanism—considered superfluous by all continental                      Europeans.   It is like calling a man by his confirmation name, in addition to his baptismal and                      family names.                     
                
                The word “**Roman** **Catholic**” really came from the legislative enactments of Protestant                      England.   They tried to pretend that there was another “Catholic” Church, namely, the                      “English Catholic.”   Hence the name "Roman" was needed to distinguish the two.                        We still employ the consequences of their fiction.

St Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop, and an Apostolic Father of the Church, wrote a letter to the Smyrneans… (107 AD)

"You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid. "

"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart… When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."

***–Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D… ***

Oremus pro Invicem

​

 

[cbmilne33]

From what I gather the Calvinist Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland has in its official title Catholic and Apostolic Church.You can google for the correct title.As a result we see the existence of the Scottish Church Society as a Scoto-Catholic organisation.(type Scoto-Catholic in your search bars).But however we are yet to see within broader Calvinism the emergence of a High Church Geneva Confession Catholics like we have the Anglo-Catholics and Augsburg Confession Catholics within Anglicanism and Lutheranism.

 

[zdon011]

There are Orthodox clergy who consider Calvinism heresy, with good reason:
fatherstephen.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/calvinism-as-heresy/

That doesn’t sound very Catholic to me.

 

[zdon011]

Actually, I agree with you in one respect. It is NOT a valid argument. But is it a valid assertion?
For example in asserting this:

1) It was never catholic belief in the early Church that Rome was the only true church, and that all churches must recognize Rome’s supremacy.

What would your response be?

All those claims have been trotted out for centuries, and have been refuted with hard, verifiable historical facts. It is not Catholics’ fault if some Protestants only listen to fanciful anti-Catholic propaganda of the Two Babylons and Ellen G. White school.

No, Catholics do not claim that ‘Rome’=‘the Church.’ Rather, Rome is a centre of organization and loyalty for Catholics because that is where the Apostolic successor of Peter, Christ’s appointed viceroy, happens to have been based for 2000 years.

If you look at Church history, it is a process of MINORITY heretical and schismatic groups breaking away from the MAJORITY Catholic Church (the ONLY Church in the time of the Apostles and Martyrs), because they disagreed with some aspect of the Catholic faith:
*5th century–Non-Chalcedonian Eastern and Coptic Christians (‘Oriental Orthodox’) break away;
*6th century–Nestorians and Assyrian Church of the East break away;
*11th century–Byzantine Church (‘Eastern Orthodox’) breaks away;
*16th century–Protestant heretics break away.

The result is that only those Christians who remained loyal to the Pope and the WHOLE of the Apostolic Tradition were left in the Catholic Church. But guess what? They still formed a majority among the Christian population, as they ALWAYS have.

 

[walt4lori]

As a former Anglican, I have found that most Anglo-Catholics are only un-comfortable with a handful of theological and administative issues they have with the Roman Catholic Church. Many are now making their way into the Catholic Church by way of the genorous offer of the Holy Father of a pesonal Ordinariate. Many Anglicans are presently attending churches where the priest has ‘the Dutch touch’. This means that the Anglican bishop that ordained them was consecrated by at least one ‘Old Catholic’ bishop. This is an end run around the Catholic Churches declaration that Anglican orders are ‘null & void’. The Holy Father was wise in stating that all Anglican clergy being received into the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate must receive the laying on of hands again. To try and sort out who had a valid ‘Dutch Touch’ and who did not would be difficult and take up time and resources when this is easily resolved by a Catholic bishop hands.

I was watching a program on EWTN recently about the shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in England. The Catholic priest on the show made the comment that the Anglican shrine (which is much larger than the Catholic ‘Slipper Chapel’ shrine) was much more ‘Catholic’ than the Slipper Chapel. One must wonder what he meant by that. Such statements only can continue the confusion among the faithful.

 

[benedictus2]

Actually, I agree with you in one respect. It is NOT a valid argument. But is it a valid assertion?
For example in asserting this:

1) It was never catholic belief in the early Church that Rome was the only true church, and that all churches must recognize Rome’s supremacy.

What would your response be?

My response would be it was. There was a belief that the Catholic Church united in Rome was the truth Church.

And the reason is simple. There were no other Churches then. The only other churches then were all heretical factions - Nestorians, Arians, etc, etc - whose heresies the Church condemned. So therefore they don’t count.

But it is also true that the local Church in Rome is not the only true Church because all the other local Churches were true Church but they were all under Rome. Rome was considered the prime bishopric.

 

[benedictus2]

On another forum I asked a Calvinist not to call me a “Roman Catholic” because it’s strictly incorrect - I am a Roman Rite Catholic. A Catholic.

He refused, telling me I don’t have the monopoly on the word Catholic - that he uses the word to distinguish me and people like me who submit to Papal authority - and that he is a Catholic too.

My mind has been blown. I almost don’t even know what to say? How can a Calvinist call himself Catholic too? And refuse to admit that I am a Catholic and he is a Calvinist?

How can a Calvinist be catholic (even in the sense of universal) considering that he does not belong to the universal Church. The universal Church of Christ is known for its visible unity.

I don’t think that is a mark of the Presbyterians or any other Calvinistic denomination.

 

[jmtosh]

On another forum I asked a Calvinist not to call me a “Roman Catholic” because it’s strictly incorrect - I am a Roman Rite Catholic. A Catholic.

He refused, telling me I don’t have the monopoly on the word Catholic - that he uses the word to distinguish me and people like me who submit to Papal authority - and that he is a Catholic too.

My mind has been blown. I almost don’t even know what to say? How can a Calvinist call himself Catholic too? And refuse to admit that I am a Catholic and he is a Calvinist?

Hi. I have often seen “Latin” Catholic Churches describing themselves as Roman Catholic. This Catholic denomination (despite the fact that in the Catholic Church there are not supposed to be denominations) calls itself Catholic because first and foremost they are Catholic. The Protestant persuasion is that first and foremost they are Christ’s called out remnant and only as a result of this distinguishable trait are they therefore part of the Church Catholic or Universal spiritual, Invisible body of Christ.
I personally refer to the RCC as the Western (Latin) Catholic Church.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi. I have often seen “Latin” Catholic Churches describing themselves as Roman Catholic. This Catholic denomination (despite the fact that in the Catholic Church there are not supposed to be denominations) calls itself Catholic because first and foremost they are Catholic.

They are not denominations but Rites within the Catholic Church.

The Protestant persuasion is that first and foremost they are Christ’s called out remnant [/quite]
Christ’s called out remnant? How did they come to be “Christ’s called out remnant?” On what do you base this ?

and only as a result of this distinguishable trait are they therefore part of the Church Catholic or Universal spiritual, Invisible body of Christ.
Christ’s church is not a spiritual invisible body of Christ. Christ Church and her unity is visible. The invisible unity theory does not make sense.

 

[DebChris]

Catholic means universal. Each of us who calls himself/herself Christian is a member of the catholic Church, the one universal Church of Christ. That being said, there is a difference between the Catholic Church which has remained faithful to the Apostolic teachings, and other denominations which have developed since the Reformation.
Your Calvinist friend is correct in stating that the Roman in Roman Catholic represents our continued allegiance to papal authority. The usage of Roman Catholic began first among Protestants and then became a source of identity with the Church in Rome. There is no shame in calling myself a Roman Catholic. It means that I accept papal authority and identifies the rite that I follow. When I move to a new town, I look under Roman Catholic in the telephone book to find the nearest Catholic church.
Most mainline denominations that I have visited continue to recite the Nicene Creed. As with the Roman rite, catholic is small case. My son-in-law is a Presbyterian minister. I find it interesting that the Nicene Creed used in his church does capitalize Catholic.

 

[jmtosh]

Oh, excuse me, Rites. This is a matter of simple semantics, like jaywalking in Dodge city! Do you recognise the Catholicity of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you believe that they must be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation? In other words are you in the same Church as they? If not, then you are a schism or branch of the Catholic Church.

Protestants believe that they are part of the Church by faith in Jesus Christ according to the Word of God, the Bible. They and all who believe in Jesus are part of His body. The Church is NOT an organisation or earthly institution but the spiritual house and temple of God as per the Apostle Peter in his First Epistle and the Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

The organised, institutionalised “Church” is an apostate, idolatrous religion.

Clement’s first Epistle to the Corinthians (yes I have a copy) is not a proof of Roman pre-eminence. Any student of Church history would know that at this early date the Bishop of Rome was not recognised as having authority over the whole Church Catholic. The letter rebukes the congregation for deposing their elders. He also refers to the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus on an equal level with Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch rebuked and encouraged Rome in his letter. It was a Christian communal, filial duty of fellowship to admonish one another. There is no indication of a Papacy, so I wouldn’t wax too lyrical about the propaganda you have been reading.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, confronts gnostics who tout a secret oral doctrine they obtained from the Apostles (hmmm, ring any bells?) and shows that it is the Church of Christ that can trace their authority to the Apostles by the scriptures and their faith.

I am a Protestant. I believe that the early Church was Catholic in that it was a common, universal body of believers through faith in Christ. Please note that this Church of the early fathers was not supervised by Rome or by a Pope so the claim by the RCC that they gave us the Bible and they were the Church is false. It was the Apostolic Church of Christ. In fact the Byzantine Church did more to give us the Bible and have a greater claim to Apostolic provenance than Rome ever has.

After the Constantinian change the church was infused with paganism and idolatry. The Donatists realised thay could not be part of a State Church with a Pontifex Maximus and left. They have my heartfelt sympathies.The truth is that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and nobody else.

There have always been believers in Christ and the word of God, the Bible. They were persecuted as heretics by the “Church”. The Waldenses and Albigenses were crushed by a Crusade in the early 1200s by the Latin Church. In England in the late 1300s and up until the early 1500s the Wycliffites evangelised England. Jan Hus (1415) and his followers were hounded and murdered by Rome for expressing faith in Christ contrary to the established “Church”.

In 1517, God used Martin Luther, a priest and monk to awaken Europe to the truth of God’s word. In fact most Protestants were priests who realised that the Papacy were misleading the laity and increasingly becoming Apostate. John Calvin in France and Knox in Scotland were also persuaded of the truth of Justification by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross. They may not all see eye to eye on minor points of scripture but are persuaded of the weightier matters pertaining to salvation. We are justified by God through faith in His blood. Hallelujah, Amen!

So, what can be said of a visible Church full of ritual and idolatry and without the Word of God? Which is the true Church, those justified by faith in Jesus or those who persecute His followers? Who is more Orthodox, those that maintain the orthodox doctrines of scripture or those who add to scripture with Papal bulls and decrees, councils and blasphemous pronouncements?

The Lord Jesus Christ taught that the Kingdom of God is within you and doesn’t come with observation. He taught faith in Him as a requirement for salvation.

 

[zdon011]

Hi. I have often seen “Latin” Catholic Churches describing themselves as Roman Catholic. This Catholic denomination (despite the fact that in the Catholic Church there are not supposed to be denominations) calls itself Catholic because first and foremost they are Catholic. The Protestant persuasion is that first and foremost they are Christ’s called out remnant and only as a result of this distinguishable trait are they therefore part of the Church Catholic or Universal spiritual, Invisible body of Christ.
I personally refer to the RCC as the Western (Latin) Catholic Church.

Protestant sects all came out of the ‘Western (Latin) Catholic Church.’ Since they left that Church, they can claim no meaningful continuity to the ‘Faith once delivered to the Apostles.’

 

[ESMDHokie77]

protestant denominations hold different beliefs (Baptists, pentecostals, etc). Catholic rites hold the same beliefs (Latin, Byzantine, etc.). ALL the same beliefs and not just the supposed “essentials” that protestants claim they are united on. And Catholics do in fact acknowledge the schism with the Orthodox Churches.

Catholics know that they belong to the visibly and invisibly united Church built by Jesus.

 

[zdon011]

The organised, institutionalised “Church” is an apostate, idolatrous religion.

Oh dear
jmtosh sounded like he was making a reasonable argument, but then the name-calling comes out. A real shame

The Lord Jesus Christ taught that the Kingdom of God is within you and doesn’t come with observation. He taught faith in Him as a requirement for salvation.

If a Roman during the days of the early Church simply said ‘I put my faith in Jesus and have decided to live according to his teachings,’ he would NOT have been considered a Christian, either by the Roman government or the Church. He would have to undergo the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, before which he would undergo a lengthy period of instruction (catechumenate). Only then would he qualify to participate in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and the life of the Church: this is the process still followed today by the one Church that existed at that time–the Catholic Church. Were these just a bunch of rules concocted by idolaters? NO.

This Tradition was followed by the Church from the very beginning, and was followed by ALL Christians until Protestant innovators decided that the Church should let its followers interpret God’s teachings for themselves. That is the kind of ‘freedom’ that gave us the ‘Prosperity Gospel,’ the Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist!

The only meaningful way we can experience Christ here on earth is through the Church he founded as His Body and Bride, under the authority of the Apostles: the Church that gave us the Bible and formulated the Christological doctrines through which we understand God. To call it a dispensable human institution is simply tragic.

 

[Newsy]

Protestants believe that they are part of the Church by faith in Jesus Christ according to the Word of God, the Bible. They and all who believe in Jesus are part of His body. The Church is NOT an organisation or earthly institution but the spiritual house and temple of God as per the Apostle Peter in his First Epistle and the Apostle Paul in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

The organised, institutionalised “Church” is an apostate, idolatrous religion.

Clement’s first Epistle to the Corinthians (yes I have a copy) is not a proof of Roman pre-eminence. Any student of Church history would know that at this early date the Bishop of Rome was not recognised as having authority over the whole Church Catholic. The letter rebukes the congregation for deposing their elders. He also refers to the Churches of Smyrna and Ephesus on an equal level with Rome.
Ignatius of Antioch rebuked and encouraged Rome in his letter. It was a Christian communal, filial duty of fellowship to admonish one another. There is no indication of a Papacy, so I wouldn’t wax too lyrical about the propaganda you have been reading.
Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, confronts gnostics who tout a secret oral doctrine they obtained from the Apostles (hmmm, ring any bells?) and shows that it is the Church of Christ that can trace their authority to the Apostles by the scriptures and their faith.

I am a Protestant. I believe that the early Church was Catholic in that it was a common, universal body of believers through faith in Christ. Please note that this Church of the early fathers was not supervised by Rome or by a Pope so the claim by the RCC that they gave us the Bible and they were the Church is false. It was the Apostolic Church of Christ. In fact the Byzantine Church did more to give us the Bible and have a greater claim to Apostolic provenance than Rome ever has.

After the Constantinian change the church was infused with paganism and idolatry. The Donatists realised thay could not be part of a State Church with a Pontifex Maximus and left. They have my heartfelt sympathies.The truth is that Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church and nobody else.

There have always been believers in Christ and the word of God, the Bible. They were persecuted as heretics by the “Church”. The Waldenses and Albigenses were crushed by a Crusade in the early 1200s by the Latin Church. In England in the late 1300s and up until the early 1500s the Wycliffites evangelised England. Jan Hus (1415) and his followers were hounded and murdered by Rome for expressing faith in Christ contrary to the established “Church”.

In 1517, God used Martin Luther, a priest and monk to awaken Europe to the truth of God’s word. In fact most Protestants were priests who realised that the Papacy were misleading the laity and increasingly becoming Apostate. John Calvin in France and Knox in Scotland were also persuaded of the truth of Justification by faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning work on the cross. They may not all see eye to eye on minor points of scripture but are persuaded of the weightier matters pertaining to salvation. We are justified by God through faith in His blood. Hallelujah, Amen!

So, what can be said of a visible Church full of ritual and idolatry and without the Word of God? Which is the true Church, those justified by faith in Jesus or those who persecute His followers? Who is more Orthodox, those that maintain the orthodox doctrines of scripture or those who add to scripture with Papal bulls and decrees, councils and blasphemous pronouncements?

The Lord Jesus Christ taught that the Kingdom of God is within you and doesn’t come with observation. He taught faith in Him as a requirement for salvation.

Thanks for your views on the history of the Catholic Church. If there is no connection between the Catholic Church now and the Early Church then, when and where did the Catholic Church come from? If you search this forum you will find threads asking this without significant answer.
I am a former protestant, I found that the theology differences were hard to support. I have found many who want to quote a very modern translation of the Bible to support their views. It makes me wonder how the Church got by for 300 years before the Bible was Canonized.
As far as “without the Word of God”, I hear more Scripture in a Mass than any other service I have been to. I would like to hear your basis for this comment.
I also appreciate Luther, anyone who can add to the Word of God and justify it must be Holy. Faith ALONE, is not what was meant in the Bible. If that was what was meant, then it would say that. Luther had some good ideas when he was calling the Church to fix problems, but when he started his own church he went too far. No Deutero-canonicals, questioning James and Revelation, adding text…

 

[jmtosh]

*“The only meaningful way we can experience Christ here on earth is through the Church he founded as His Body and Bride, under the authority of the Apostles: the Church that gave us the Bible and formulated the Christological doctrines through which we understand God. To call it a dispensable human institution is simply tragic.” *

The Apostolic Church is the foundation of Christ’s Church. It was primarily a Jewish Church until the Apostle Peter received his instruction to preach Christ to the gentiles (Acts 10). Thereafter the Apostle Paul was entrusted to preach Christ to the gentiles. Although the Church seemed to have been based in Jerusalem, upon his conversion he did not deem it necessary to immediately go up to Jerusalem to those that were Apostles before him (Galatians 3:17). He eventually did go up and was given the right hand of fellowship. In this early Church it was James, the Lord’s brother and Cephas and John who were pillars in the Church.

This is an Apostolic Church that busied itself with preaching the glad tidings of the forgiveness of sins by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This church preached Christ as the only mediator between God and men. It did not worship the Lord’s mother, nor pray to departed saints or teach purgatory. Neither did it teach salvation through the sacraments. It taught salvation through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The institutionalised “Church” of today is not the Church of the Apostles. Hebrews 12 tells how every believer in Jesus Christ is mystically joined by Christ with the Apostles and spirits made perfect in heaven. If the Apostles were on earth today they would not recognise the “Catholic Church” as the Church of Christ. Firstly, the garb of the officers of this Church would offend the Apostles. The hierarchy of laity and clergy would offend the Apostles.

THIS IS NOT THE CHURCH THAT JESUS CHRIST FOUNDED. The Church that Jesus founded is His and loves and worships Him and no other.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

This is an Apostolic Church that busied itself with preaching the glad tidings of the forgiveness of sins by faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This church preached Christ as the only mediator between God and men. It did not worship the Lord’s mother, nor pray to departed saints or teach purgatory. Neither did it teach salvation through the sacraments. It taught salvation through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Catholics don’t worship the blessed ever-virgin Mary. Your mentioning of the Apostles not worshiping Mary lends itself to the idea that you think modern Catholics do, which is false.

Can you tell us how your church considers itself apostolic and continuing the traditions of the Apostles and Apostolic succession?

 

[Newsy]

Catholics don’t worship the blessed ever-virgin Mary. Your mentioning of the Apostles not worshiping Mary lends itself to the idea that you think modern Catholics do, which is false.

Can you tell us how your church considers itself apostolic and continuing the traditions of the Apostles and Apostolic succession?

 

[jmtosh]

My friends, I know that it is easy for anybody to claim that they are the Church of the Apostles. Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons and a myriad of false cults do that, including the Klisti which are a depraved cult of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Cathars. My point is that the scriptures alone adjure us to test if we are in the faith and in Christ by showing us how the Christian life is lived.

James says that we show our faith by our works as faith without works is dead. In other words a tree is known by its fruit. However, one is initially saved by hearing the good news of Jesus Christ, believing and calling on Him. Salvation and justification by faith in Jesus Christ. (Romans 10:17).

I thank you for your kind words and tolerance but I cannot accept that the Church of Rome is the true, Apostolic and orthodox Church of Jesus Christ. Surely the canon (rule) of faith is in the scriptures. Jesus, the Word of God said I am the way, the Truth and the life. Isaiah says “to the law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them”. (Isaiah 8:20).

As I said, anybody can claim they have the authority of the Apostolic Church. Rome has consistently added to the teachings of the Apostolic Church by introducing all manner of ritual and dogma. This is not orthodoxy.

I apologise if I have offended anybody by labelling the Latin Church as I have. These are important issues and I am merely trying to provoke, or rather stimulate serious consideration of the Protestant Weltenschaung! That’s a word Luther would love!