Catholic but not Roman Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrthodoxBerean
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Crusader:
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?
Click to expand...
I’ve always used Roman Catholic to refer to the rite in which I was baptized. My friend is a Byzantine Catholic. We are both members of the Catholic Church. Catholic first, Roman second.

Like I am an Oregonian American. American first, Oregonian second.

To be Catholic requires that your bishop (or eparch) be in communion with the bishop of Rome, it does require your bishop to ba a Roman Catholic.
 
40.png
Crusader:
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?
Click to expand...
I’ve always used Roman Catholic to refer to the rite in which I was baptized. My friend is a Byzantine Catholic. We are both members of the Catholic Church. Catholic first, Roman second.

Like I am an Oregonian American. American first, Oregonian second.

To be Catholic requires that your bishop (or eparch) be in communion with the bishop of Rome, it does not require your bishop to ba a Roman Catholic.
 
I just call myself ‘Catholic’, yet it’s the different Rites that makes the Catholic Church a distinct flavor of ethnic/human cultures.

For the record, I am in the Byzantine RITE, not a different church or demonination. It is just that the largest RITE is the Roman Rite. Yet, all of the other RITES of the Catholic Church tend to be left out of the equasion, or not widely known.

Yes, we are ALL Catholic first and formost, but let us not be argumentive or divided by culture or tradition.

He is Risen! Indeed, He is Risen!
 
I would say they are right,the Roman name only became necessary to differentiate it from other rites and communions when the chuch began to splitt…It was used by the protestant reformers as a derogatory term…
 
<< Phil when will this one, “HOLY BAPTISM, INFANT BAPTISM AND BAPTISMAL REGENERATION” be available? >>

Its basically available here already

Baptism in the Fathers

But I wanted to add the many quotations from various Protestant scholars on the Fathers I’ve photocopied and compiled (Schaff, Pelikan, Paul Jewett, others), but couldn’t find those. Hence the link is blank because I wanted to include additional materal

OK I admit I lose interest in things and take on too big of “apologetics projects” sometimes… :eek: but you can be sure when I quote this or that scholar 99% of the time I went to the library myself and looked it up and/or photocopied the relevant pages, or I own and/or photocopied the book I am quoting. 👍 So I am not what is known by the anti-Catholic opposition as a “Google only apologist” 😛

Phil P
 
I thought that the official title of the Catholic Church was the “Church of Christ” on official documents.
 
40.png
PhilVaz:
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.
Click to expand...
Even after being corrected many times, you continue to misrepresent the purpose of the series. If you don’t understand its purpose and continue to misrepresent it even after it’s repeatedly explained to you, or you knowingly misrepresent it, how reliable is your response to the series going to be? Anybody interested in what I argue in my series on the church fathers should consult the series (ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_index.htm ), not Phil Porvaznik.

Some of the readers may also be interested in a written debate I had with Phil two years ago:

members.aol.com/jasonte3/debate2.htm

He violated the rules of the debate more than a dozen times, and he never turned in any closing remarks. (Mine were turned in before the deadline, but have never been posted.) People should consider such things when evaluating the apologetic work of Phil Porvaznik.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
Jason’s totally clueless about the Catholic faith.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

He thinks all Catholic rites are only Roman.

I can’t wait to see some Eastern Catholic and/or Eastern Orthodox (not the same!) eparchs rebuke this scumbag.
Click to expand...
If by “Jason” you’re referring to me, then may I ask where I’ve said that “all Catholic rites are only Roman”? I haven’t said it.

But I do refer to your denomination as the Roman Catholic Church. Many people do. Here are some examples of the Roman Catholic Church referring to itself as Roman, even using the term “Roman Catholic”. The first quote claims that every Christian church has the Roman church as its only foundation. If Rome is your only foundation, why would you object to being called “Roman”?

“Indeed, ‘from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.’” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 834, scborromeo.org/ccc/para/834.htm )

“I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches.” (First Vatican Council, 2:12, ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM )

Notice that, in the following quote, the universal church is referred to as “Roman”:

“They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy Roman and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ’, and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself.” (Council of Florence, session 9, ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM )

“Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the True Church in order to gain eternal salvation.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, 27, newadvent.org/docs/pi12hg.htm )

Now, would you explain to me why I’m a “scumbag” for referring to your denomination as the Roman Catholic Church?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
 
40.png
JasonTE:
If by “Jason” you’re referring to me, then may I ask where I’ve said that “all Catholic rites are only Roman”? I haven’t said it.
Click to expand...
Then why is your series not titled “Catholic but not Byzantine Catholic” or “Catholic but not Melkite Catholic” or “Catholic but not Maronite Catholic” or …

Obviously, you’re fixated on the Roman rite.
But I do refer to your denomination as the Roman Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
It is not a denomination.
Many people do. Here are some examples of the Roman Catholic Church referring to itself as Roman, even using the term “Roman Catholic”.
Click to expand...
That’s the Roman rite of the Catholic Church.
Now, would you explain to me why I’m a “scumbag” for referring to your denomination as the Roman Catholic Church?
Click to expand...
That’s not why I said you’re a “scumbag” 🙂 It is your catholophobic attitude that makes you that.
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
Then why is your series not titled “Catholic but not Byzantine Catholic” or “Catholic but not Melkite Catholic” or “Catholic but not Maronite Catholic” or …

Obviously, you’re fixated on the Roman rite.
Click to expand...
I quoted Popes and councils using the term “Roman” in the same manner in which I’m using it. You haven’t interacted with any of that documentation. If your Popes and councils consider the terminology acceptable, who are you to tell us that it isn’t acceptable?

If you didn’t know how I was using my terminology, you could have asked me or asked somebody else or you could have read the introduction to my series, which addresses the terminology. Have you read the introduction?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
 
40.png
JasonTE:
I quoted Popes and councils using the term “Roman” in the same manner in which I’m using it. You haven’t interacted with any of that documentation. If your Popes and councils consider the terminology acceptable, who are you to tell us that it isn’t acceptable?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you didn’t interact with what I wrote.

Let me clarify.

I am not objecting to the term “Roman Catholic”

I am objecting to the catholophobia. I am objecting your singling out the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, to attack.

Your series is not called “Catholic but not Maronite Catholic” for a reason. Or “Catholic but not Byzantine Catholic” or “Catholic but not Melkite Catholic” Or “Catholic but not Eastern Orthodox Catholic” or “Catholic but not Anglican Catholic” or…

Just attacking the Church in communion with Rome, particularly the Roman Rite.
 
40.png
BobCatholic:
I am objecting your singling out the Roman rite of the Catholic Church, to attack.
Click to expand...
No, in your earlier post you said that “He thinks all Catholic rites are only Roman.” Now you’re criticizing me for allegedly “singling out the Roman rite”. Where in my series do I say that “all Catholic rites are only Roman”? I don’t. And how does my series “single out the Roman rite”? It doesn’t.

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
 
40.png
JasonTE:
And how does my series “single out the Roman rite”? It doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Wonderful. Let’s put that to the test.

I look forward to you posting a link to the following of your series:

“Catholic but not Eastern Orthodox Catholic”
“Catholic but not Maronite Catholic”
“Catholic but not Byzantine Catholic”
“Catholic but not Melkite Catholic”
“Catholic but not Anglican Catholic”

(of course, there are way more churches than these, but the above are a good start)

🙂
 
BobCatholic,

I explained how I’m defining the term “Roman Catholic”. You defined it as a rite, even after I repeatedly explained that I’m not defining it that way. If I’m not defining it as a rite, then what’s the sense in asking me where I discuss other rites within my series?

Jason Engwer
members.aol.com/jasonte
New Testament Research Ministries
ntrmin.org
 
<< Have you read the introduction? Jason Engwer >>

I figured you’d find your way on here. Since we’re talking about your series, its only right you defend yourself. This could get interesting…

Phil P
 
JasonTE << Now, would you explain to me why I’m a “scumbag” for referring to your denomination as the Roman Catholic Church? >>

You are not a scumbag, you just need to find more things to do with your time. 😃 I was aware of the Pius XII encyclical referring to the “Roman Catholic Church” so thanks for bringing it up. I use Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church interchangeably.

But what you need to work on is your series sequel:

“Orthodox but not Russian Orthodox” 😛

Phil P
 
40.png
JasonTE:
BobCatholic,

I explained how I’m defining the term “Roman Catholic”. You defined it as a rite, even after I repeatedly explained that I’m not defining it that way. If I’m not defining it as a rite, then what’s the sense in asking me where I discuss other rites within my series?
Click to expand...
Let’s see the list I gave ya 🙂
“Catholic but not Eastern Orthodox Catholic”
“Catholic but not Maronite Catholic”
“Catholic but not Byzantine Catholic”
“Catholic but not Melkite Catholic”
“Catholic but not Anglican Catholic”
Click to expand...
  1. and 5) are not affiliated with the Catholic Church, which you rail against, but you missed that distinction and called them “rites” (however 2,3 and 4 are rites of the Catholic Church)
So, I’m still waiting for you to show me your series about 1) and 5)
at the least.

Remember, 1) through 5) are all not the same thing! Your comment does, however, lead me to believe that you think all of them are rites of the Catholic Church (which is not true)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top