Catholic but not Roman Catholic

[_Christopher]

cmom:

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.

Isn’t that always the case?

 

[Shibboleth]

_Christopher_:

Evidence?

Today it is referred to as the Arian heresy. The name kind of puts all of the blame on one person, Arius a priest of Antich, but he was trained that the School of Lucian at Antich and it was a widely held belief in this area and others that the Son could not be God in the same sense that the father was…

Bishop Alexander disagreed with this view and excommunicated Arius but many bishops still believed in the idea that Jesus was not God. To deal with this Constantine summoned all the bishops in the Roman Empire to a council at Nicaea in 325 AD. Of the 1800 bishops in the Roman Empire about 300 showed up. Constantine plead for peace at the first council.

The council at Nicaea of course gave us our current Nicene Creed.

 

[Shibboleth]

cmom:

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.

I agree that they were idots…. Idots? Just pointing out that the beginning of the Church catholic was not as cut and dry as we would like to think.

 

[_Christopher]

Shibboleth:

Today it is referred to as the Arian heresy. The name kind of puts all of the blame on one person, Arius a priest of Antich, but he was trained that the School of Lucian at Antich and it was a widely held belief in this area and others that the Son could not be God in the same sense that the father was…

Bishop Alexander disagreed with this view and excommunicated Arius but many bishops still believed in the idea that Jesus was not God. To deal with this Constantine summoned all the bishops in the Roman Empire to a council at Nicaea in 325 AD. Of the 1800 bishops in the Roman Empire about 300 showed up. Constantine plead for peace at the first council.

The council at Nicaea of course gave us our current Nicene Creed.

Yes, the Arian heresy almost took over the Church. But where do you get the idea that “until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God”?

It’s called a HERESY for a reason…it means it is in opposition to the established orthodox faith.

The Catholic Church believes Jesus is Lord from AD 33 onward. Heretics did not.

 

[Shibboleth]

_Christopher_:

Yes, the Arian heresy almost took over the Church. But where do you get the idea that “until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God”?

It’s called a HERESY for a reason…it means it is in opposition to the established orthodox faith.

The Catholic Church believes Jesus is Lord from AD 33 onward. Heretics did not.

They are labeled such because they lost. Imagine what would be written in history if it was the other way around.

 

[beng]

_Christopher_:

Shibboleth:

Until 325 the Catholic Church wasn’t even in agreement in whether or not Jesus was God.

Evidence?

John Henry “Cardinal” Newman wrote that during the peak of Arian heresy 80% of Bishops sumbmitted to the heresy.

But I would not say “UNTIL 325” because that sentence implies that before that the church is always in this heresy. That was not the case. In fact, one of the argument against Arianism is to use Tradition (big “T”) from earlier fathers (as what the church always done). So the earlier Church was pretty much determine that Jesus is God. But after Arius invented his theology, doubts arose (especially since Arius used, “no angels, not even the Son knows the day, only the father knows” as an argument)

 

[funkyhorn]

Shibboleth:

They are labeled such because they lost. Imagine what would be written in history if it was the other way around.

The heretics lost because they were WRONG! Jesus promised us that His Chruch would be immune to false teaching, “the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it (the Church)” (Mt 16:18). The Church is also the pillar of truth (1Tim 3:15) and is infallable in matters of doctrine. Since the Church is the pillar of truth and is immune to false teaching, there is no possible way that this debate could have gone the other way.

 

[Shibboleth]

I do not disagree nor am I defending their beliefs. I believe that it is heresy also. I was just pointing out that the beginnings of the Church are somewhat chaotic and that things are a little blurry to some people and why they assert that the founding church was Catholic but not necessarily Roman Catholic.

I am sorry I did not mean to imply that this schism was such since the beginning.

The Roman Catholic Church is the one Church determined by Jesus because the Bible says so, we know this because the Roman Catholic Church has interpreted it as such and the Church is infallible.

It is a bit tautological.

 

[Apologia100]

The official title is the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”.

 

[Boomer_Sooner]

Correct me if I’m wrong… but I’ve been told that in all of the documents of Vatican II, they never refered to the Church as the “Roman Catholic Church”, but rather “The Catholic Church”.

 

[Boomer_Sooner]

Thus, one can put two and two together to realize that the ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is the one, true, catholic Church.

 

[Crusader]

OrthodoxBerean:

How would you all respond to this common claim that the early Church was Catholic but not Roman Catholic?

I think a better question to ask is why non-Catholics refer to the Catholic Church as the “Roman Catholic Church.” Are they not aware that the entire Catholic Church is comprised of 23 churches and 7 rites?

Simple ignorance? Maybe they still have the miguided understanding that “other” Catholics, like “Anglo Catholics” also exist, and that they need to reserve their place at the table?

I have often wondered about this.

 

[Crusader]

Matthew 16:18-19: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

It says nothing about “churches”, just one church, the Catholic Church.

 

[PeacefulWaters]

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.

This is by far the best list of questions I’ve seen yet! Thank you for supplying this list. My guess is that #6 is the ringer! God bless you.

 

[Crusader]

Probably should add the Filioque ( that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son.)

 

[PhilVaz]

I would reply to it with a semi-humorous series entitled

Orthodox Catholic or Catholic Orthodox,
But Definitely Not Protestant Evangelicalism
which had No Existence in the Fathers, Doctors, or Saints of the Catholic Church (And Everyone Knows That But Let’s Make This Absolutely Clear)

a/k/a OCOCOBDNPEWHNEITFDOSOTCC (AEKTBLMTAC)

That Jason Engwer is like an anti-Catholic machine, he’s got his pet arguments against Catholicism down pretty well. Better than your typical “evangelical” arguments, but still lame.

Let me summarize all of them in a few sentences. Some of the early Fathers were “premillennial” therefore evangelicalism and dispensationalism is true; and some of the Fathers because they didn’t mention baptism, taught justification by faith alone (Clement, Mathetes); and some of the Fathers taught against the full canonicity of the deuteros (Jerome) therefore evangelicalism is true; and some of the Fathers seem to imply Mary had minor faults (Chrysostom), therefore evangelicalism is true; and some of the Fathers weren’t clear about the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, therefore “evangelical Protestantism” (with its own a thousand contradictory doctrines based on the Bible, mind you) is true.

That’s about it, now you don’t need to read the series. If Jason Engwer is a JND Kelly patristic scholar, then I’m John Carmack of id Software. Nice to meet you.

VazGames.com

Phil P

 

[Carl]

The Church was called Catholic, not Roman Catholic, from the earliest days. The designation “Roman” Catholic, as I understand it, originated at the time of the Reformation (seems to me I read this in an earlier version of the Catholic Encyclopedia on the internet.) Many Protestant leaders viewed themselves as part of the Catholic or “universal” Church and were loathe to give up the title “Catholic,” (it’s in their Creed too) but had to break from the Church at Rome, and so began to call us the Roman Catholic Church. A 150 years ago a radical element in the German Catholic Church broke away and called themselves Old Catholics (there are some in the U.S. and Canada). Then, of course, there’s Father Feeney’s remnants in New England … reactionary to the hilt, who call themselves Catholic.

Pax,
Carl

 

[srkbdk]

I have a suggestion for you. Go to your priest and ask him if you can have one of the Missal’s, when he says yes dont forget to give an offering if you can. Then turn to the page with the Profession of Faith (notice there is a spot where we are to bow during this prayer and we really should if you think of what is being said there). What you then do is take the missal to your friend and show them our Profession of Faith. Tell them this is what we believe as Catholics, and we have to believe it to be in line with the Church. Give them time to read it. Let it sink in faith unlike water can go through even the dense material called a human EGO. (easing God Out). Go to the last part of the prayer look at what it says I Believe in the Holy Spirit the Holy Catholic Church. Where is the word Roman??? We are members of the Holy Catholic Church, and that is that if we want to attach titles in adition and they cause not a problem with faith that is not a problem.

God Bless you and go slow with them asking this kind of question is a great sign. Do not allow the other to confuse the work God may have you doing.

 

[weunice]

Phil, when I get a chance I am going to read through your stuff. I also may take some of your ECF references and put them on my site if they do not overlap what I already have. My site is really more a raw data store of ECF quotes supporting Catholic doctrine.

I need to take all of these Catholic sources I am using and make a page that includes your stuff, Catholic Answers “Father knows best” series and the superb Catholic Distinctives essay written by Dave Armstrong. Oh, and of course Newmans Essay which is online as well.

To me, this topic was the nail in the coffin. Once this fell into place I realized I was being disobediant by remaining Protestant and returned to Rome.

 

[OrthodoxBerean]

PhilVaz:

I would reply to it with a semi-humorous series entitled

Orthodox Catholic or Catholic Orthodox,
But Definitely Not Protestant Evangelicalism
which had No Existence in the Fathers, Doctors, or Saints of the Catholic Church (And Everyone Knows That But Let’s Make This Absolutely Clear)

a/k/a OCOCOBDNPEWHNEITFDOSOTCC (AEKTBLMTAC)

That Jason Engwer is like an anti-Catholic machine, he’s got his pet arguments against Catholicism down pretty well. Better than your typical “evangelical” arguments, but still lame.

Let me summarize all of them in a few sentences. Some of the early Fathers were “premillennial” therefore evangelicalism and dispensationalism is true; and some of the Fathers because they didn’t mention baptism, taught justification by faith alone (Clement, Mathetes); and some of the Fathers taught against the full canonicity of the deuteros (Jerome) therefore evangelicalism is true; and some of the Fathers seem to imply Mary had minor faults (Chrysostom), therefore evangelicalism is true; and some of the Fathers weren’t clear about the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome, therefore “evangelical Protestantism” (with its own a thousand contradictory doctrines based on the Bible, mind you) is true.

That’s about it, now you don’t need to read the series. If Jason Engwer is a JND Kelly patristic scholar, then I’m John Carmack of id Software. Nice to meet you.

VazGames.com

Phil P

Phil when will this one, “HOLY BAPTISM, INFANT BAPTISM AND BAPTISMAL REGENERATION” be available?