catholic not Roman Catholic in the Apostles' Creed

[Atreyu]

Actually that link I provided in my previous post has quite an in-depth discussion on Cyprian, after some further reading. We could discuss this, if you like.

 

[Ignatius]

Atreyu:

Please see this link: clicky. Many Protestants recite the Apostles’ Creed (as stated in the above link), but when they reach the line:I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,.

The term “Roman Catholic” is a recent invention originally intended to be a term of derision. The Catholic Church consists of a lot more thatn the Sestern or Latin Rite. The universal Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and has passed on the Faith which He taught from that time, down through the ages to our own time.

 

[Malachi4U]

Hum???

My Bible says “Catholic Bible” not “Roman Catholic.”

My Catechism says “Catechism of the Catholic Church” not “Roman Catholic”.

All the official publications I have say “Catholic” not “Roman Catholic.”

 

[Atreyu]

Yes I know and I understand the difference…

The term Roman Catholic was originally used as a term of derision, but since then it has become a convenient label. Augustine’s view still holds: if someone were to ask you directions to the nearest Catholic Church, then you would direct them to the nearest Catholic Church. The fact that this church happens to also be labelled by the term “Roman Catholic” is irrelevent and is far into the realm of semantics.

 

[LatinCat]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Point taken. Still, I find it hard to identify the church catholic exclusively with the Roman Church. While ecclesiastical history does bear out a primacy assumed by the Bishop of Rome, the earliest form of this is expressed by the formula “primus inter pares”. And the Jerusalem council in Acts presents a number of authoritative voices, Peter’s being an influential one, though the council itself seems to be overseen by James. And, again, in Jerusalem.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

But Iraneaus made it clear that the primacy of Rome was the eccelsiology of the early Church.

 

[LatinCat]

Malachi4U:

Hum???

My Bible says “Catholic Bible” not “Roman Catholic.”

My Catechism says “Catechism of the Catholic Church” not “Roman Catholic”.

All the official publications I have say “Catholic” not “Roman Catholic.”

Careful, I brought this up in the Eastern Christianity forum, and the Eastern Orthodox nearly had a hissy fit.

 

[Promoman]

Some write it off as the universal beliefs in Christ, regardless of dneomination

Use of “Roman” was a slur- ie, Romanists

 

[SolaChristo]

Semper Fi:

The term ‘roman’ did not come into usage until the 15th centuries after the protestant reformation, until then everyone was catholic.

Were those of eastern tradition “Catholic”?

 

[smelton]

Atreyu:

Yes I know and I understand the difference…

The term Roman Catholic was originally used as a term of derision, but since then it has become a convenient label. Augustine’s view still holds: if someone were to ask you directions to the nearest Catholic Church, then you would direct them to the nearest Catholic Church. The fact that this church happens to also be labelled by the term “Roman Catholic” is irrelevent and is far into the realm of semantics.

This could be way off the point, but it has always seemed to me a bit of an oxymoron to say Roman Catholic. That is like saying Roman universial, correct? Seems a bit strange. Wouldn’t all the Church, the body of Christ, be the Catholic church. I mean that in the literal translation of the word Catholic not the one people mean when in a discussion. If a Catholic believes that a protestant will be saved by grace even if they attend a protestant church wouldn’t that church be call Catholic as well?

 

[Ignatius]

Atreyu:

Please see this link: clicky. Many Protestants recite the Apostles’ Creed (as stated in the above link), but when they reach the line:I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,They must put a footnote next to the word “catholic” (as indeed has been done at the above link), and explain that:

My question (which is to be aimed at Protestants who do recite the Apostles’ Creed) is this:

The Apostles’ Creed is extra-Biblical and comes from Tradition. Therefore, I would like to see where - in Tradition - the definition of “catholic” is as “not… the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ”. I can give examples to the contrary (ie, where people have stated that the catholic church is what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church), and so I would like to know if there are actually any examples of any early church fathers who maintain that “catholic” does not refer to what is known today as the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, the term “Roman Catholic” is somewhat of a misnomer that was made up in the 17th century as a term of derision. So, when the Apostles’ Creed was defined, there was only One Catholic Church, the Church Universal, which is the same as The Catholic Church of today.

I do not believe that there are any chruch father refrences to the Catholic Church before the 16th century that refer to any other than The Catholic Church.

May you have a joyous and blessed Christmas season.

 

[contramundum]

Deo Volente:

Grace & Peace!

Atreyu, this is a good question, I think.

I consider myself Anglo-Catholic. By this I mean that I am not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and make a distinction between the Roman Church institution and catholic tradition. Now, I will agree that the Roman Church has been a keeper of Catholic tradition (much more so than many of the protestant churches). But the Roman Church, as I see it, does not have a monopoly on Christian truth–nor, therefore, does it have a monopoly on Christian tradition. The Roman Church may disagree with me on this point. The Roman Church may define the Roman Church institutional authority as part of catholic tradition. I would agree with it insofar as we are speaking of a general and basic tri-partite division of clergy that forms the basis of the Roman instutional structure of authority–that is catholic tradition. But, for me, the local Roman Church institutional authority is just that–the local Roman Church institutional authority.

Now, to be honest, I have great respect for the Bishop of Rome–I pray for him and consider him a great leader of the church. But what has been obscured through the course of history is that he is primus inter pares. What has been obscured is the inter pares part of that formula, I think. And I think this obscuration occurred through a (perhaps inevitable) identification of imperial Roman authority with the Bishop of the local church in Rome. And this assured the ascendancy of the local Roman Church to a position of power that was not always accepted, acknowledged, or appreciated by her sister churches (hence the Great Schism in 1054 which effectively saw the See of Rome break with the other Great Patriarchal Sees and start on the road to becoming the Church of the West and, later, the Roman Catholic Church with the advent of the protestant reformation and the subsequent schisms).

Also, regarding the word catholic, we must remember that it means “universal”. Presumably, the Eastern Orthodox churches include the word catholic (or katholikos or some such) when they recite the creed and are not concerned with any associations the word may have with Western ecclesiastical tradition.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

The Roman Church did not break away from the Orthodox - it was the other way around. I believe the break was because they did not believe in the infallability of the Pope.

 

[cazayoux]

Deo Volente:

…But the Roman Church, as I see it, does not have a monopoly on Christian truth–nor, therefore, does it have a monopoly on Christian tradition. The Roman Church may disagree with me on this point. …

In fact, the Catholic Church does not preclude protestant beliefs are devoid of truth.

Every Catholic belief is agreed to in one Protestant denomination or another. That one believes X and Y, that one Y and Z.

I’d bet the question is more about the whole of truth.

michel