Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[planter654]

I wish moderators would have stepped in on this thread.

Why ask you?

God Bless

 

[whatisthetruth]

Bump

I was Catholic and the bible says…

Matthew 16:18(KJV)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

which is the foundation of catholic teaching to which blossom said in another thread,

Originally Posted by blossom02
If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church.
We, the Catholic Church, are the FIRST Christians!

According to Merriam Webster
m-w.com/dictionary

the definition of catholic is

1 aoften capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal

I agree Jesus expressed his plans to build His catholic or universal church for all mankind in the bible.

However

Roman Catholic has a different meaning.

relating to, or being a Christian church having a hierarchy of priests and bishops under the pope, a liturgy centered in the Mass, veneration of the Virgin Mary and saints, clerical celibacy, and a body of dogma including transubstantiation and papal infallibility

now the question becomes, was it Jesus intent to build His catholic/universal church into what the Roman Catholic Church has become?

I believe there are many catholic/universal churches in the world which are solely built on God’s word, the bible and no other book.

From the following web page
justforcatholics.org/a71.htm

One True Catholic Church

Question: I am an ex-Protestant and I hope to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church. I am not so much eager to become a Catholic, as I am eager to be united with the True Church that Christ founded (and I do believe there can be only one, not many), and to follow the apostles’ teaching.

Answer: Tragically you mistake the Roman Catholic Church for the one true church of Jesus Christ. You want to become catholic - and yet by joining the Church of Rome, you will become “Catholic” in name only and not in truth. In Christian theology the word “catholic” describes the entire church of Jesus Christ. The word “catholic” simple means “universal”. All God’s people from every nation and in every era, all who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus, together form the catholic church.

Not the Roman Catholic Church

The Lord Jesus has one universal - or catholic - church. He is the head, and all the redeemed are members of His body.

Ephesians 5:24-30 (KJV)

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

word is the bible

27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones
Ephesians 5:24-30…

For more answers on the difference between catholic and Roman catholic visit
justforcatholics.org/answers.htm#5
May we all agree on the truth of His word

Fish

 

[PBP]

If you were to query Catholic on the internet you find a few churches with the word “Catholic” in the title but when you would read the teachings you find they are not at all in communion with the Bishop of Rome. I make it a point to say I am Roman Catholic.

 

[justinthemartyr]

“Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God” (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

“For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., 18:2).

“[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is” (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).

 

[c659smith]

Look the Roman Catholic Church is the original Church of Jesus Christ. If you can show me how other Catholic Churches did not split from Rome and had a successor from Peter and prove they existed then it will be a good lesson for me,

But I know from scripture and history that all the Apostles set out after being annoited with the holy Spirit did take their cues from Peter to whom had establish the Roman Catholic Church with his death in Rome.

I do not even think that anyone would argue the point that Paul needed Peter and the other Apostles blessing to give salvation to the Gentiles and Peter being a big defender of Paul after all Paul death also was in Rome also realizing Rome was the goal.

Therre are no two stronger advocates for the Roman Catholic Church than Peter and Paul

Once the Roman Catholic Church was established all leaders as Christians reported and took their cues from Rome till the split with the Russian and Greek Churches. One day though all three will re-unite and then watch out.

 

[anthony022071]

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.

Prior to the Schism between East and West,there was only the Catholic Church. There was no talk of a “Christian Church”,and no official title of “Church of Christ”.

"The Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,’ on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly… for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;’ that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God.”

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 18:23,26 (A.D. 350).

 

[whatisthetruth]

Hi all,

I wanted to let you all know that I am wrong for coming to this site and sending a “I am right you are wrong” message.

I ask you to forgive me if I have said anything that may ave caused hurt feelings.

I will no longer be posting on this thread. It is obvious that we see God’s will through different “lenses”

We can debate our viewpoints and beliefs from know until whenever and nothing will change.

Quite frankly, I realize debating here is just like a chess match which ends in a stalemate. A lot of time and effort and the end result is no different from where the game started.

Having said that. I believe the answer lies within Jesus and what His will is.

I believe in order to settle a debate…Jesus, (the mediator), would encourage us first to see our similiarities and not our differences. I do not see any other better way to accompish God’s will for us and that is to have a one united church body in Jesus’ name.

That is why I started a “tired of debating lets agree on Jesus” thread. In that thread, Mark A was an example of let us first see our similiarities.

In closing thank you all for your feedback. It has been a wonderful learning experience about why everyone believes in the way they do.

I believe each and everyone of you are a champion in God’s eyes.

My prayer is that the champion which God designed in you may be realized one day as God works His miracles in your lives.

God bless you all,

truth

 

[c659smith]

anthony

You are working a play on words and Apostolic Succession. I guess you disagree with Apostolic Succession???

 

[anthony022071]

anthony

You are working a play on words and Apostolic Succession. I guess you disagree with Apostolic Succession???

Where did you get that idea?

 

[c659smith]

Anthony,

Your remarks:

"Prior to the Schism between East and West,there was only the Catholic Church. There was no talk of a “Christian Church”,and no official title of “Church of Christ”.

Was not sure what you are driving at.

That I agree with what you wrote as only one Catholic Church before the schism.

Left unanswered was

Who was the Churches that left Christ’s Church and caused the Schism. Who broke the Apostolic Succession with Rome.

 

[planter654]

Bump

I was Catholic and the bible says…

Matthew 16:18(KJV)
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

which is the foundation of catholic teaching to which blossom said in another thread,

According to Merriam Webster
m-w.com/dictionary

the definition of catholic is

I agree Jesus expressed his plans to build His catholic or universal church for all mankind in the bible.

However

Roman Catholic has a different meaning.

now the question becomes, was it Jesus intent to build His catholic/universal church into what the Roman Catholic Church has become?

I believe there are many catholic/universal churches in the world which are solely built on God’s word, the bible and no other book.

From the following web page
justforcatholics.org/a71.htm

One True Catholic Church

When I was young it was always called the Roman Catholic Church why are they now dropping Roman, for the church is in Rome is it not. Is there not books written from our grandparents, great grandparents with this title on them? The Roman Catholic Church?

I believe it is Jesus Christ Church who is High Priest forever over his Church, we are all, whoever, where ever, through out all nations who believe will make up his church, God’s children make up his church, it is not a building, for we are the temple of the Lord. But for now until Jesus returns, which I believe his generation has not ended, not until all gentles are in. Are given from God our freedom to practice our faith, beliefs whereever we chose, whether it is the Catholic Church etc. For I have chosen the Catholic Church as my earthly place to worship God, based on their teaching and understanding of God’s truth and in whom they serve… God. It is not the name of the church that saves me that is important but my faith and belief in God.

For in the end when all is fulfilled God has given us in the bible what name he will be called, his church, his kingdom etc.

God Bless

 

[c659smith]

Planter654

You said in your previous statement that you was Catholic.

If you are not Catholic now you know the difference and cannot wait till the day you come back home.

You realize it was the Church founded by Christ and given to Peter to watch over.

You understand Universal.

Well Universal is that I can go to an Eastern Ortrodox, greek Orteodox Roman Catholic and understand everything that is occurring with some very minor differeces which is mainly to customs.

These Churches will once again join back with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern already pretty much has. The Greek Orteodox is in constant collaboration with Rome. These are Universal.

The protestant and Anglican are not and as is evident in the Sacraments, the Eucharist, and Communion,

They do not follow Sacred Traditions except when it is convienent.

They do not follow Sacred Teachings as every other Protestant church has a different analysis of the Bible.

Abortion not in agreement with the congregation lets re-analyze so it can fit.

Divorce well lets remove that sectionor not quote it at all.

Jesus states you must do something well he must have meant it as a symbolism because we are not authorized to complete such a sacrament.

The Roman Catholic Church gave other Catholic Churches the authority to perform such sacraments such as the miracle of turning the bread and wine (not grape juice) into the body and blood of Christ.

 

[planter654]

Planter654

You said in your previous statement that you was Catholic.

If you are not Catholic now you know the difference and cannot wait till the day you come back home.

You realize it was the Church founded by Christ and given to Peter to watch over.

You understand Universal.

Well Universal is that I can go to an Eastern Ortrodox, greek Orteodox Roman Catholic and understand everything that is occurring with some very minor differeces which is mainly to customs.

These Churches will once again join back with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern already pretty much has. The Greek Orteodox is in constant collaboration with Rome. These are Universal.

The protestant and Anglican are not and as is evident in the Sacraments, the Eucharist, and Communion,

They do not follow Sacred Traditions except when it is convienent.

They do not follow Sacred Teachings as every other Protestant church has a different analysis of the Bible.

Abortion not in agreement with the congregation lets re-analyze so it can fit.

Divorce well lets remove that sectionor not quote it at all.

Jesus states you must do something well he must have meant it as a symbolism because we are not authorized to complete such a sacrament.

The Roman Catholic Church gave other Catholic Churches the authority to perform such sacraments such as the miracle of turning the bread and wine (not grape juice) into the body and blood of Christ.

The top of the page is not me, what I wrote it is at the bottom part of that same page me planter. My answered to the top part of the same page is written at the bottom to the one who said he was Catholic.

God Bless

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony,

Your remarks:

"Prior to the Schism between East and West,there was only the Catholic Church. There was no talk of a “Christian Church”,and no official title of “Church of Christ”.

Was not sure what you are driving at.

That I agree with what you wrote as only one Catholic Church before the schism.

Left unanswered was

Who was the Churches that left Christ’s Church and caused the Schism. Who broke the Apostolic Succession with Rome.

I was just stating a fact. The Church was always called Catholic. It was not called the Christian Church or the Church of Christ.
It was not called the Orthodox Church either – the faith was called orthodox.

It was the Church of Constantinople that broke away from the Catholic Church over the “filioque” clause in the Western creed,and the other Eastern Churches followed suit.
The Church of Constantinople was not founded by an apostle,like Rome,Antioch and Alexandria,but its ecclesiastical authority in the East was built up on Constantinople’s imperial authority.

catholic-legate.com/articles/filioque.html

< "However, the popular Eastern Orthodox insistence on a supposed “official Creed” illustrates the substantial difference in the way that the Eastern Orthodox communion and the Roman Catholic communion view binding Church authority. And an appreciation of this substantial difference is all-important to our discussion of Filioque, since it addresses a large part of the controversy –indeed, the driving force behind it. Now, it is no secret that the Byzantine East has often faulted the Roman West for being too “legalistic” in its approach to the Faith. However, when it comes to binding authority, it is actually the Byzantine East that is far more legalistic and divorced from the organic Tradition of the Church’s Christ-given power to “bind and loosen” (Matt 16:19, 18:18). In this, I have often argued that the true culprit behind our Schism is that the Eastern Orthodox Church is, in a fundamental way, the “imperial Church” created by Constantine the Great –the “state cult” and political “glue” employed to hold his Empire together. In saying this, I certainly do not mean to question, dispute, or downplay the Apostolic nature of Eastern Orthodoxy. On the contrary, we Catholics firmly believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is Apostolic in nature, and that it has the true priesthood and true Sacraments. But, be that as it may, this Apostolic Church of the Byzantine East still expresses itself in ways, and according to a cultural mode of thought, that is thoroughly “imperial” in the old Byzantine sense of “One Church, one Empire” …or perhaps, in its modern manifestation, “One Church, one cultural expression.” Because of this, the Byzantine East is very uncomfortable with anything that does not readily or neatly conform to its own historical experience or Byzantine (that is, “imperial”) cultural heritage. And, in that cultural heritage, it is the Ecumenical Council –in essence, a state-sponsored exercise of imperial Roman/Byzantine law –which ultimately determines what is and what is not official Church doctrine.

The Western Church, on the other hand, never fundamentally associated itself with the imperial “state cult”; and this was the case both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Rather, the West, along with the monastic communities in the East, always maintained a view of the Church as that old, underground society that was distinct from the secular world, and which was once persecuted by it. In this more ancient understanding, the teaching authority of the Church (what St. Cyprian called “the Chair of Peter”) was held by all Catholic bishops, whose unity and orthodoxy was identified and maintained, not by the Empire, but by their communion with Peter’s personal successor in the church of Rome –a church that St. Cyprian called “the womb and root of the Catholic Church” and “the principal church in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Ep.liv.). Because of this, the West has always been able to distinguish between the Church and a given civilization in which the Church (or an area of the Church) happens to reside." >

 

[c659smith]

I thank you for that information. You are well versed with the history of the Catholic Church and in shows in your writtings Sorry about the prior confusion but I was unsure where you were heading.

I totally agree with the history as you described it and it is what I was taught.

Thanks

 

[anthony022071]

I thank you for that information. You are well versed with the history of the Catholic Church and in shows in your writtings Sorry about the prior confusion but I was unsure where you were heading.

I totally agree with the history as you described it and it is what I was taught.

Thanks

The part of my last post between the arrows is not mine,by the way – it’s from the linked article by Mark Bonocore. He’s an apologist at The Catholic Legate.

catholic-legate.com/

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I was just stating a fact. The Church was always called Catholic. It was not called the Christian Church or the Church of Christ.
It was not called the Orthodox Church either – the faith was called orthodox.

It was the Church of Constantinople that broke away from the Catholic Church over the “filioque” clause in the Western creed,and the other Eastern Churches followed suit.
The Church of Constantinople was not founded by an apostle,like Rome,Antioch and Alexandria,but its ecclesiastical authority in the East was built up on Constantinople’s imperial authority.

It was founded by St. Andrew, but yes, its position it owed to its imperial authority, which, according to the Ecumenical Councils, is where Rome got her primacy.

The Western Church, on the other hand, never fundamentally associated itself with the imperial “state cult”

Oh, pleeease! the emperor gave, and the Pope of Rome took, the title of Pontifex Maximus, which was the title for the head of the imperial state cult.

; and this was the case both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

After the fall the pope assumed much of the persona of the emperor. Heard of the Donation of Constantine?

Rather, the West, along with the monastic communities in the East, always maintained a view of the Church as that old, underground society that was distinct from the secular world, and which was once persecuted by it.

Unam Sanctum.

Ah yes, that’s why you had the prince archbishops in the West, three of the eight electors of the “Holy, Roman Empire,” to this day the coruler of Andorra is the archbishop, etc.

And then there’s the Papal States.

In this more ancient understanding, the teaching authority of the Church (what St. Cyprian called “the Chair of Peter”) was held by all Catholic bishops, whose unity and orthodoxy was identified and maintained, not by the Empire, but by their communion with Peter’s personal successor in the church of Rome

And yet not one Ecumenical Council defined unity and orthodoxy by communion with “Peter’s personal successor.” One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church

–a church that St. Cyprian called “the womb and root of the Catholic Church” and “the principal church in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Ep.liv.).

He also called on, and translated Firmilian’s words that the pope of Rome excommunicated himself.

Because of this, the West has always been able to distinguish between the Church and a given civilization in which the Church (or an area of the Church) happens to reside." >

Then how was the Inquisition such a success?

 

[paarsurrey]

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.

Hi

If there is no real difference then; why don’t they unite to ONE?

Thanks

 

[c659smith]

paarsurrey,

One day it will be so unlike Islam which has no relationship with other sects of Islam except for death and destruction as can be seen throughout the world today.

 

[Margarite]

JasonTE
So are the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary. Nobody in the earliest centuries mentions such doctrines, they can’t …

First of all the Immaculate Conception makes sense. It makes sense that something as holy as Christ could not be contained in an imperfect container (for lack of a better word). Mary was much like the Ark of the Covenant. God specifically designed it for the purpose of holding something holy. God used the best material available to make the ark and then the holy things were placed inside of it. Mary is actually called “Ark of the Covenant.” She like the ark was singled out for a specific task. She was kept clean of all evil because she was to contain perfection itself. How could something imperfect contain and teach and raise something perfect?
I believe that the doctrine of her being a virgin is indisputable as both she and the angel refer to her being a virgin at the time of Christ’s conception.
Now to the idea that she had other children. That would be like taking the chalice used during holy mass to contain the Blood of Christ and using it at dinner to hold whatever drink you are drinking. It would be sacrilegious. Something that was kept pure so that it could hold God would not be allowed to be soiled by carrying something with sin in it. Any other child she would have had would have to have Original Sin (God would not make an exception for children who were not destined to hold the Holy of Holies) so she could not have other children.
The assumption also makes sense. One of the punishments for Original Sin was death. So why should Mary, if she was conceived immaculately, be subjected to the punishments of Original Sin? She shouldn’t.
So really to believe in the assumption one must also believe in the Immaculate Conception. And if one believes that Christ was born of Mary as the Bible says then it is logical to believe in the Immaculate Conception and thus the Assumption.
Catholic teachings are very logical and for everything there are a hundred reasons to believe and a hundred supporting facts.