Calvinist calls himself Catholic?

[NewsTheMan]

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?

 

[DavidFilmer]

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?

Calvin was a Catholic (he considered taking Orders).

There are many faiths which claim to be catholic - some with more legitimacy than others.

For example, the Greek Orthodox claim to be catholic, and Rome does not dispute their claim. They have valid Orders, and their Sacraments are recognized as valid. If a Latin Rite Catholic visits an Orthodox church, he should genuflect before the tabernacle, because it houses the true Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity, and Humanity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ - the same as in the Catholic Church. But he may not receive thereof (except in extreme circumstance).

It is unusual to find a modern Calvinist who claims the title “catholic,” but he is correct in saying that “Roman Catholics” do not have a monopoly on the term. However, the Church does not refer to herself as the “Roman Catholic” Church, but rather the “Catholic Church.”

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Ask him to come to Mass then!

 

[Barbkw]

You might explain what the word catholic means to a Catholic.

Unfortuneately, online I’ve found many anti-Catholic organizatins that either call themselves Catholic or report that they are (Dignity, Equally Blessing, Woman Priests, Catholics for Choice).

The Bishops have come out denouncing these “catholic” groups and have explained that their group missions are against Church theology and teaching.

 

[Third_Day]

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?

Give him this quote from a Bishop of the Catholic Church that I am sure he admires.
Augustine:
"In the Catholic Church… a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that… they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing… There are many other things that most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep up to the present episcopate, keeps me here.** And last, the very name Catholic,** which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called “Catholic,” when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

If a stranger came up to him and inquired where is the closet Catholic Church would he take them to his church? Don’t think so.

 

[Hecares]

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?

Long ago I had a protestant neighbor (I have forgotten what denomination) who, in a spirit of communion, showed me her church’s creed. It was identical to ours except that the word “catholic” began with a small “c” whereas ours began with a capital"C". She explained that their version of catholic merely meant universal. It did not refer to a particular religion as ours does. Could that come into play here? Just thinking.

 

[Kotton]

She explained that their version of catholic merely meant universal. It did not refer to a particular religion as ours does. Could that come into play here?

Of course, that is what many mean when using the word.

Barbkw:

You might explain what the word catholic means to a Catholic.

To a Catholic it is THE Church established by Jesus Christ, and carried forth by Apostolic Succession. And as explained in the quote from Augustine, it destinguished the True Faith from the doctrines of the hertics. While modern interpetation says ‘universal’, the original from the Greek means ‘of the whole-original’ teaching.

 

[SPH1]

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?

They are trying to hijack the term “Catholic”. Clearly they do not mean it in our sense; most don’t even recognize a visible, authoratative church.

Your guy’s “catholic church” couldn’t even come up with the creed!

 

[Philthy]

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?

Tell him the truth: he’s misrepresenting himself under the guise of inventing his own definition for the term Catholic and he knows it. His intended point with respect to having a “monopoly” on the term Catholic is childish and ridiculous. No one has a monopoly on any word and if anyone can invent any meaning for any word - such as he has done - then the meanings of words cease to exist. The term Catholic - especially with a capital C - is universally accepted to refer to a member of the same Church that St Ignatious of Antioch used in referencing it for the first known time; the Church that has the successor to Peter as their visible leader.

 

[Algo1]

Here is one response that I read some months ago that I think presents a valid argument:

**"In fact No Catholic Church no Christianity for 1500 centuries…

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.
2. The dogmatizing of myths peculiar to the Roman communion distinguish it from the church catholic. The dogmas of papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, and the bodily assumption are (for example) as anti-catholic as can possibly be.
3. Rome’s stance that it alone is the true church is not “catholic. In fact, it is anti-Christian in its sentiment to deny other churches to be part of the true church. I don’t know how more anti-catholic it gets than that.
4. The assumption that modern day Rome maintains the catholicity represented by the early church is a myth beyond intelligibility.
5. Calling the use of the term “Romanist” childish doesn’t make it so. I’m not surrendering my conviction simply to appease your sentiments.

The Roman communion didn’t give us the doctrine of the Trinity. The true and living God revealed Himself as triune in Holy Scripture, which the early church affirmed as having been taught by Holy Scripture. Any serious reading of the ECFs bears this out.

The Roman communion bears the responsibility for this offense of schism in the world today, and has a rich history of it going all the way back to the time when Victor wanted to excommunicate all the churches of Asia Minor, and who was rebuked by Irenaeus. The great schism of 1054 (which Romanists tend to think never occurred until the 16th century) divided the east from the west. So don’t pretend to lecture me on what is childish.

So I refuse to call members of the Roman communion “catholic” because I think it perpetuates a lie, no offense intended. Now, I understand from your standpoint that is very difficult to receive, but given your communion’s history I can do no otherwise.

Now, there are many other reasons why I find the Roman communion so offensive, but if you want to debate this further, I suggest a new thread."

**

 

[NewsTheMan]

Here is one response that I read some months ago that I think presents a valid argument:

**"In fact No Catholic Church no Christianity for 1500 centuries…

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.
2. The dogmatizing of myths peculiar to the Roman communion distinguish it from the church catholic. The dogmas of papal infallibility, the immaculate conception, and the bodily assumption are (for example) as anti-catholic as can possibly be.
3. Rome’s stance that it alone is the true church is not “catholic. In fact, it is anti-Christian in its sentiment to deny other churches to be part of the true church. I don’t know how more anti-catholic it gets than that.
4. The assumption that modern day Rome maintains the catholicity represented by the early church is a myth beyond intelligibility.
5. Calling the use of the term “Romanist” childish doesn’t make it so. I’m not surrendering my conviction simply to appease your sentiments.

The Roman communion didn’t give us the doctrine of the Trinity. The true and living God revealed Himself as triune in Holy Scripture, which the early church affirmed as having been taught by Holy Scripture. Any serious reading of the ECFs bears this out.

The Roman communion bears the responsibility for this offense of schism in the world today, and has a rich history of it going all the way back to the time when Victor wanted to excommunicate all the churches of Asia Minor, and who was rebuked by Irenaeus. The great schism of 1054 (which Romanists tend to think never occurred until the 16th century) divided the east from the west. So don’t pretend to lecture me on what is childish.

So I refuse to call members of the Roman communion “catholic” because I think it perpetuates a lie, no offense intended. Now, I understand from your standpoint that is very difficult to receive, but given your communion’s history I can do no otherwise.

Now, there are many other reasons why I find the Roman communion so offensive, but if you want to debate this further, I suggest a new thread."

**

Nothing there seems valid, it just seems to be stomping of feet arguing and using stubbornness as some sort of all powerful argument.

 

[Algo1]

Nothing there seems valid, it just seems to be stomping of feet arguing and using stubbornness as some sort of all powerful argument.

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?

 

[NewsTheMan]

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 that the question is flawed.

“Rome was the only true Church” makes no sense.
“that all churches must recognize Rome’s supremacy” similarly makes no sense.

Did all Christians submit that Peter and his successors, and that the Bishops appointed, had authority? Yes.

 

[Algo1]

My response would be that the question is flawed.

“Rome was the only true Church” makes no sense.
“that all churches must recognize Rome’s supremacy” similarly makes no sense.

Did all Christians submit that Peter and his successors, and that the Bishops appointed, had authority? Yes.

You seem to be in disagreement with Pope Leo Xlll then.

"The Roman Church, as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, by the will of Christ obtains primacy of jurisdiction over all other Churches." These declarations were preceded by the consent of antiquity which ever acknowledged, without the slightest doubt or hesitation, the Bishops of Rome, and revered them, as the legitimate successors of St. Peter.

source

 

[Newsy]

You seem to be in disagreement with Pope Leo Xlll then.

"The Roman Church, as the mother and mistress of all the faithful, by the will of Christ obtains primacy of jurisdiction over all other Churches." These declarations were preceded by the consent of antiquity which ever acknowledged, without the slightest doubt or hesitation, the Bishops of Rome, and revered them, as the legitimate successors of St. Peter.

source

It seems that these two ideas are in agreement. The Catholic Church follows the position given to Peter by Jesus himself. Peter went to Rome. Rome is a detail in the bigger picture (the primacy of St. Peter).
Just my opinion.

 

[Hboggs]

My response would be that the question is flawed.

“Rome was the only true Church” makes no sense.
“that all churches must recognize Rome’s supremacy” similarly makes no sense.

Did all Christians submit that Peter and his successors, and that the Bishops appointed, had authority? Yes.

“One of the oldest surviving Christian texts, aside from the Bible, is St. Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians. There we see the Church of Rome intervening in a controversy in a faraway church in Greece. St. Clement speaks from a positin of authority and does not hesitate to demand obedience. … At the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus confirmed the primacy of Rome and the Papacy. … ‘that tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and Universially known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul … which comes down to our time by means of the succession of Bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority — that is, the faithful everywhere in as much as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by faithful men everywhere.’ St. Irenaeus when on, then, to give a history of the papacy up until his on time. … In this order, and by the succession, the ecclesiasticial Tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” (THE FATHERS OF THE CHURCH - EXPANDED EDITION - pages 35-37, Mike Aquilina)

This book is a treasure to people like myself who don’t have the time or ability to read through thousands of pages regarding our heritage. As a former Southern Baptist, I have to say that one must be so prejudiciously blind as to not see what is right in front of you. No amount of truth will change the hearts and minds of those not open and willing to read the comments of those who lived during the first 300 years of Christianity. ANY objection that one may bring up against The Church can be resolved by prayerfully reading the history of the Church by those who were there. MY opinion does not matter. The opinion of TV preachers is irrelevant as was the opinion of Luther, Calvin and the others promoting heresy. It took me nearly 50 years to become Catholic, but Praise be to God better late than never.

 

[William_Pitts]

**We can believe what we choose. [But] we are answerable for what we choose to believe. — Newman, John Henry, Cardinal (1801-1890), Letter to Mrs Froude, 1848.

The apostle St. Paul was sure he was right before his conversion but found out he wasn’t.
**
What denomination is protestant?

 

[roy1521]

Thanks for the book recommendation!

 

[bikerman]

Hecares says:
Long ago I had a protestant neighbor (I have forgotten what denomination) who, in a spirit of communion, showed me her church’s creed. It was identical to ours except that the word “catholic” began with a small “c” whereas ours began with a capital"C". She explained that their version of catholic merely meant universal. It did not refer to a particular religion as ours does. Could that come into play here? Just thinking.:hmmm

to H:
the roman catholic creed DOES use “catholic” with a small “c”, at least the one in my church and it is “imprimatured”.

 

[bikerman]

forgot something in my post: the Nicene creed says we believe in “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” (note where the capital “C” is) and we believe in “one baptism”. as i understand it, anyone who is baptised (in correct form) is a member of the one Church, which is catholic, or universal. as Roman Catholics, we say our church is fully within the creed and others are in various stages of agreement or communion. many protestant churches use the Apostles creed which they feel to be an earlier, more correct version. we also learn this creed first as children in our catechism, but it seems to use the capitalized form “Catholic”. the Lutheran creed is the same except for using the word “Christian” instead of “Catholic” and the Methodist creed, otherwise the same too, uses “catholic”.

i think that the thinking of the majority of lay roman catholics hasn’t caught up yet with Vatican I and II and especially JPII as to how truly close we are to many of the other christian Churches. (the creed says we are all part of the one Church, if baptized) except for the primacy of the bishop of rome, some sacramental theology, and varying degrees of belief in the real presence in the eucharist most christian churches are pretty much the same as roman catholics in matters of the creed. in fact there are many roman catholics, who in actual belief (due to lack of knowledge or disagreement with rome) are no different than Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, etc.