Catholic but not Roman Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrthodoxBerean
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OrthodoxBerean

Guest
How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?
 
I would respond that it is a semantics game that I don’t want to play. 😉
 
I would ask what the point is?

The Roman rite is merely a label distingushing it from other rites, but does not imply any change in doctrine or morals.
 
Christopher’s is undoubtedly the best answer, but you might also point out that “Roman Catholic” isn’t the real name of the Church. It started out as a denigration that modern Catholics simply adopted as our own. I believe the official name is the Church of Christ.
 
In what way could the Early Church NOT be considered Roman Catholic? Knowing that the Early Church had a succession of Popes (the lineage of which still continues in the RCC) who resided in Rome might be a valid argument for a Roman Catholic Church.
 
40.png
OrthodoxBerean:
How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...
The early Christians all believed in the the eucharist, so I’d ask the non RC about the eucharist.

-Ted
 
Also, the Early Church subscribed to the current RCC canon of Scripture…Council of Rome 382 AD, Council of Hippo 393 AD, and Carthage 397 and 419 AD
 
I’ve seen this exact same caption on threads before. Many want to use the CATHOLIC title to give themselves credability. So the use of ‘Roman’ is considered just a part of the Catholic Church.
Well, I am Catholic and that’s all, as I don’t live in Rome. 😃

I realize that today we often have to use terms unliked by us just to make it clear to some people.

Kotton :o
 
40.png
Kotton:
I’ve seen this exact same caption on threads before. Many want to use the CATHOLIC title to give themselves credability. So the use of ‘Roman’ is considered just a part of the Catholic Church.
Well, I am Catholic and that’s all, as I don’t live in Rome. 😃

I realize that today we often have to use terms unliked by us just to make it clear to some people.

Kotton :o
Click to expand...
Oh man, don’t get me started on that…over at another forum I frequent we have Eastern Orthodox and other non-Catholics and they call themselves “Orthodox Catholics” and things like that…irritating!
 
40.png
OrthodoxBerean:
How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...
Ask them if they believe in these 11 key points (there are others of course) but these can all be proven by quotes from the early church fathers. If they do not agree with one or more then they basically disagree with the early church.
  1. that baptism is regenerational (i.e., is the means of initiation into the ‘new life’ in Christ)
  2. that baptism of infants is proper
  3. that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
  4. that the Eucharistic celebration is a true, continuing sacrifice, 5) there exists a hierarchy of bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon
  5. the special authority of the bishop of Rome
  6. intercessory prayer of the saints
  7. post-death purification (purgatory)
  8. tradition as a rule of faith in addition to Scripture, and
  9. that Mary was immaculate
  10. that Mary was ever-virgin.
They will claim the “real christian church” did not believe in them.
but ask them to provide any sources that call any of these 11 points heresy before the mid 300’s.
 
40.png
RJS:
Ask them if they believe in these 11 key points (there are others of course) but these can all be proven by quotes from the early church fathers. If they do not agree with one or more then they basically disagree with the early church.
  1. that baptism is regenerational (i.e., is the means of initiation into the ‘new life’ in Christ)
  2. that baptism of infants is proper
  3. that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ
  4. that the Eucharistic celebration is a true, continuing sacrifice, 5) there exists a hierarchy of bishop, presbyter (priest) and deacon
  5. the special authority of the bishop of Rome
  6. intercessory prayer of the saints
  7. post-death purification (purgatory)
  8. tradition as a rule of faith in addition to Scripture, and
  9. that Mary was immaculate
  10. that Mary was ever-virgin.
They will claim the “real christian church” did not believe in them.
but ask them to provide any sources that call any of these 11 points heresy before the mid 300’s.
Click to expand...
Silly RJS…don’t you know we burned all of the documents and forged the rest to support the Catholic view?

😃
 
Well, it must be noted that until around 325 there really was not a title Pope, just the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church has more of a Patriarchal past. Until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God. Then the Nicene Creed came about and Constantine gave jurisdiction to the Bishop of Alexandra and to The Bishop of Rome. When Constantine moved the Roman Empire to Constantinople that blurred things even more.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that apostolic succession is more or less based on land and location. Which is fine but maybe a bit tautological.
 
_Christopher_:
Silly RJS…don’t you know we burned all of the documents and forged the rest to support the Catholic view?

😃
Click to expand...
:bigyikes:
We did?

That may be true but some of them don’t know that 😉
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Well, it must be noted that until around 325 there really was not a title Pope, just the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church has more of a Patriarchal past…
Click to expand...
The title of Pope may not have been in existance, but the function of the position was the same. They had the same authority.
 
Speaking of history, I have a little site I did on my way into the Church that was initially for my benefit. I decided to go ahead and make it available online. I cite Catholic Answers a lot from it, particularly where I could not find other online sources. I used Jurgens, CA, Dave Armstrong, Catholic Encyclopedia and a few other sites to piece most of this together. It is far from complete and I haven’t worked on it in a while.

Feel free to look at it though and I do take suggestions and will work on it more if folks want me to …

sirnick.mrdataesq.net/~weunice/doctrine.php
 
40.png
Shibboleth:
Well, it must be noted that until around 325 there really was not a title Pope, just the bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church has more of a Patriarchal past. Until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God. Then the Nicene Creed came about and Constantine gave jurisdiction to the Bishop of Alexandra and to The Bishop of Rome. When Constantine moved the Roman Empire to Constantinople that blurred things even more.

The Roman Catholic Church holds that apostolic succession is more or less based on land and location. Which is fine but maybe a bit tautological.
Click to expand...
Actually this is not true. Jesus was always God, and this was always taught and declared so so by the Church. 🙂 It simply didn’t have to be formally proclaimed until some idots came along and challenged it. The date of a proclamation has more to do wirh challenges to the faith than the beginning of a doctrinal belief.
 
40.png
Regenhund:
Christopher’s is undoubtedly the best answer, but you might also point out that “Roman Catholic” isn’t the real name of the Church. It started out as a denigration that modern Catholics simply adopted as our own. I believe the official name is the Church of Christ.
Click to expand...
The wording… “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top