Catholic....Roman or not?

[Marsha_Adams]

But there are many, many Catholics in union with the Holy Father but do not follow the Roman Rite; these are the Eastern Catholics, who follow other rites, such as Byzantine, Coptic, Antiochene, and others. They are not properly called Roman Catholics but are just as Catholic as we are.

Yes, I know what you say is correct. And because all twenty-two of these Rites are in union with Rome, if I were a member of any of them I would proudly identify myself as a Coptic Catholic, or an Antiochene Catholic. But today in the U.S. I would rather be identified by the perjorative label Roman Catholic, than be lumped together with the American Pseudo Catholics (APC).

What is truly telling in my opinion, is the fact that I have never run into an APC who referred to him/her self as a Roman Catholic, preferring to be called just Catholic.

 

[porthos11]

But there are many, many Catholics in union with the Holy Father but do not follow the Roman Rite; these are the Eastern Catholics, who follow other rites, such as Byzantine, Coptic, Antiochene, and others. They are not properly called Roman Catholics but are just as Catholic as we are.

Yes, I know what you say is correct. And because all twenty-two of these Rites are in union with Rome, if I were a member of any of them I would proudly identify myself as a Coptic Catholic, or an Antiochene Catholic. But today in the U.S. I would rather be identified by the perjorative label Roman Catholic, than be lumped together with the American Pseudo Catholics.

Which is fine, since you are Latin.

The point the original poster was making was that Catholic=Roman, which is clearly not true.

 

[porthos11]

The Roman church, of course, claims that it is the only true apostolic and catholic (that is, universal) church.

This is so wrong. The Roman Church is only one of the Catholic Churches, and the Catholic Church has never made this claim, despite the bad behavior of many Latin Catholics towards their Eastern brethren.

There are 22 Catholic churches.

 

[estesbob]

This is so wrong. The Roman Church is only one of the Catholic Churches, and the Catholic Church has never made this claim, despite the bad behavior of many Latin Catholics towards their Eastern brethren.

There are 22 Catholic churches.

There are 22 different rites that make up the Catholic Church-There is only one Catholic Church.

 

[PC_Master]

We know this because it was handed down to us. It’s called Apostolic Succession.

My overall point was that Roman Catholocism claims its validity based on apostolic succession, but that apostolic succession, as far as anyone can tell, never specifically referenced the Roman church in the early centuries after Christ’s death. In fact, it wasn’t until several centuries later that this was the case.

That is partly true. The Eastern Orthodox also claimed to be Apostolic. She is rightly so because the Catholic Church affirms are valid even though the two ancient Christian Churches are in schism.

How about the most obvious (and from what I can tell, earliest) one – the East Assyrian Church? I’ll admit I don’t know a ton about this church, but it seems clear that they believe their authority comes from apostolic succession.

If you have not taken a course on Christian History based on un-bias sources, you would find that the Early Christianity in its common belief was very Catholic.

Catholic, as in universal…I totally agree with that. However, that doesn’t mean the Roman Catholic Church can claim that the references are specific to it alone, rather than the universal body of Christ, as the term would have been understood in that era. Also, I’ve studied this history from pro-RCC (Roman Catholic Church) and pro-Protestant sources, and consulted a lot of other historical info that I could find as well. Bear in mind, it’s not possible to have totally unbiased sources.

After the death of the Apostle, there were Popes, after Peter died named Linus, after Linus died, he was succeeded by Cletus…

History is divided on that. Some believe Paul ordained Linus, for example. Others claim that Clement succeded Peter.

Many of these so called Catholics who do not believe the current Pope Benedict XVI are putting themselves in serious error.

You’re basing your argument on the assumption that the current pope is valid. You need to establish that point first. Address the arguments given by the divergent groups, rather than simply saying “all who disagree with the Roman Catholic Church are wrong”.

If what they claim is True then Jesus promised to Peter that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it was not fullfilled.

Again, you’re presupposing the interpretation of that promise, which you can’t do. You have to establish that first.

There is only One Church and its the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, the 265th Sucessor of St. Peter.

Again, rhetoric.

The Roman Catholic Church came into existance during the Apostolic age. (Read the last chapters of Acts)

All churches at that time were trying to maintain ONE system of belief, which is strongly implied by the word “catholic”.

A agree that there may have well been one united church which was referred to as universal, or “catholic”. However, you cannot imply that this was specifically the Roman Catholic Church.

Many of those churches remain and still call themselves “catholic” because of the system of belief. All of the Orthodox churches, the Coptic Church of Egypt, the Armenian Church and the Assyrian Church of the East are examples. All have Sacraments, the priesthood, bishops, veneration of Mary and many, many other similar beliefs. It is what it means to be “catholic”.

So they’re catholic…but not the “one true holy apostolic church”?

…the Roman Church trying to hold onto its prominant position and the Constantinople church trying to gain position. The two bishops excommunicated each other. The seperation came over time and the schism was the culmination.

Possibly, but as you can see, serious action was taken for what may have been a political reason. Hardly showing that God’s “one true church” will do correctly.

Since then the excommunications have been rescinded and the churches are trying to work out differences. (www.patriarchate.org) The last Pontiff, Pope John Paul II has called the two seperated churches the “two lungs” of Christ’s church.

There’s been a lot of movement toward unification (even with protestants) in the past century, and all indications are that this will continue. This, however, is a flaw for another thread.

 

[PC_Master]

The only Church I can think of that would make this claim is the Antiochian Orthodox Church. Yes, their patriarch is a successor of Peter. Yes, they extend back to Apostlic times…However, the ther Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox also extend to Bible times as well, and are true particular churches.

I think that’s kind of proving my point.

The objection is overruled because Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. He wasn’t martyred in Antioch. Martry’s Blood overrules a second see’s claims.

Aside from the obvious argument that Peter was never in Rome (which I’ll reserve to discuss in another thread), there’s a simple question I have. What does martyrdom have to do with authority? Are you suggesting that if Peter hadn’t been martyred (and the only evidence we have of this martyrdom is the non-canon book “The Acts of Peter”), but had simply died after many years in the pontificate, that his successors would not have been valid? That seems quite obviously fallacious.

Is an historical fact that the Catholic church is the early church of established by Jesus Christ. Even Wikipedia which is secular affirms this…

Wikipedia quote removed

You should notice three things…

1. The term catholic can be used to mean universal, and commonly was in the early days of the church, as that is exactly what the word meant (even your own definitions further down attest to this fact). The Wikipedia article on “Catholic” has some good information on the distinction.
2. That the Roman Catholic Church (I use the term for disambiguation, referring to the church whose headquarters are in Vatican City, Rome) traces itself to apostolic times doesn’t mean that that claim is true or factual. It claims this is the case.
3. It’s more than likely that the Wikipedia article in question was largely written by Catholics, and thus calling it secular is not accurate.

There was a unified Church called the Catholic church. A plain reading of the Apostles creed affirms it is the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…

Had they spoken English, they’d have called themselves “the universal church”, which is a tradition that most protestants still adhere to. I agree that at that point in history there could well have been a single united Christian church. However, after the shcisms, particularly the schism between east and west, the Roman Catholic Church acted as though it was the one true church and everyone else was not. You can’t do that unless you have some objective proof of doing so. When each side claims it’s right, you have to have some objective proof to decide.

And would you name these other so called “Catholic” churches?

Let’s take the East Assyrian Church, for example. Or even the Orthodox Church of Antioch. Or, how about the other, more commonly known schismatic churches? The Roman Catholic Church felt the need to declare these groups as not being a part of God’s church, and these churches did the same for Rome. So, who’s right?

Again, your version of history isn’t in line with any reputable historian, secular nor Christian.

Would you care to show me any reputable historian that claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the one that was referred to in all of history?

High Beam Encyclopedia…
Columbia Encyclopedia…

You’ll note that both of those sources mention that the term catholic can refer to the “universal church” which can include those not in communion with the Pope. You should also note that those sources mention that the name Catholic was initially referring to the undivided church. After the schisms, each side still held that it was the true church, and they took respectively different names.

The difference between the former and the latter is that the former were in communion with the See of Rome. It is this communion which strengthens and really gives substance to the Catholic unity following the death of Peter and the apostles.

And tell me where, in the first few centuries of Christendom, the primacy of the See of Rome (as opposed to the Pope himself) specifically was emphasized.

…the Roman Church defines the main body as the one which goes with the Pope.

Yes, and I’m sure the East Assyrian Church would claim that it’s whoever goes with their Patriarch. And of course, the Orthodox Church of Antioch would claim that it’s whoever goes with the Patriarch of Antioch (not actually Antioch any more, but whereever it was they moved it to). This is my point – every church defines the “true church” or “main body” or however else you want to phrase it, as being the group which goes with their leadership. That’s a given.

 

[PC_Master]

If you really reasearch you will find that the Catholic Church is inded the one true Church founded by Christ. It is the ONLY Church that can trace it roots back to the Apostolic Era… Even the Churchs you have yet to name were offshoots of this Church and occured many centures after the death of Christ.

Claiming them offshoots doesn’t make it so. All that can be historically verified is that there were splits in the Catholic Church, some of which had more persons involved than others, and ended up with numerous denominations which don’t agree with the primacy of the Pope. From the Roman Catholic point of view, of course, the other churches are defined as split offs, but they define the Roman church in the same way. As we’ve already covered, one of those patriarchs excommunicated the Pope. By his opinion, he may have had the authority and justification to do so. However, part of the church (including the Pope) disagreed.

As the split was largely along regional lines, it does go to show that a lot of people obviously didn’t believe in the primacy of Rome at the time, or they’d never have allowed the schism to continue.

What you wont find is anythig even remotely resembling the false Doctrines of Sola Fidelis and Sola Scriptura-the core Doctirnes of Protestantism.

I would argue those points to a degree, but that’s again better for another thread. Here I only wanted to cover whether or not we can definitively say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic Church, or not. Thus far, noone’s shown any evidence to suggest we can.

have read a lot of your posts and I find that you seem to love to riffle feathers. If you are truly looking for an answer why don’t you post links to your questions. Many people will say they know something but until they prove it I must assume they know nothing. You stated that you did some studying can you please let us know exactly what you where studying. Until you do I can only assume you have only studied anti-catholic bigotry (jack-chick? )

I don’t intend to be a pain, but in this case, the claim I hear over and over again is “the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church created by Jesus”, and then the assertion that every reference to “Catholic” throughout history is to the Roman church. This affirmative claim needs some proof, which is what I’m asking for here. There’s no good reason I can see in my studies to indicate that the early fathers referred to anything but a united “universal church”. For any split after that to call itself Catholic, you have to demonstrate that you have that authority.

I’ve read my fair share of pro-Catholic and anti-Catholic sources, along with more secular articles. What I’m asking for here is even just a logical (not dogmatic) claim that I could check into myself.

 

[PC_Master]

You mentioned you have seen a list of Popes that aren’t part of the Catholic church. Where is this list so that we may take a look at it. You stated that splits where happening in the 400’s do you have a link or a book that can shed some light on your statements.

Sure – check out the East Assyrian Church. Their leader is the “Patriarch Catholicos of the East”, as I recall, and claims apostolic succession. There are complete lists of their leaders on Wikipedia and other sources.

Your last statement. Really shows how you live life in a tunnel. You can state all the ranting and rhetoric of your own beliefs but we can not rebuttal with our own documents. Seems a little biased don’t you think?

Not at all – I didn’t say “no documents”. I said “no rhetoric”. That is to say, if you’re going to answer my initial question “How do we know the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic church referernced throughout history?”, don’t just assert it or say we know it because the Roman Catholic Church has declared it has apostolic succession. Give some justification for the claim. I realize I’m putting the burden of proof on the Roman side of things, but I see that as fair, as Roman Catholics are the ones making the claim.

This is so wrong. The Roman Church is only one of the Catholic Churches, and the Catholic Church has never made this claim, despite the bad behavior of many Latin Catholics towards their Eastern brethren.

There are 22 Catholic churches.

Allow me to clarify. The Roman Catholic Church, as I refer to it, is the religious organization which is headquartered in Vatican City and is under the leadership of the Pope, currently and individual with the assumed papal name Benedict XVI. Under that organization are 22 “particular” rites/churches which are in full communion with Rome. Thus, they can all be termed as Roman Catholic, as opposed to Eastern Assyrian Catholic, or any other form of catholocism. The point is that the term “Catholic Church” is ambiguous even now, and in the early church, referred to what protestants today sometimes call the “universal church”.

It’s not a matter of labels – it’s a matter of understanding.

As many have asked for a list of churches which claim to be catholic (or “the one true church”) and claim apostolic succession of some kind, here are a few that the Wikipedia turned up…

Anglican Churches
Eastern Orthodox Church
Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
Liberal Catholic Church
Lutheran Churches
Old Catholic Church
Oriental Orthodox Church
Roman Catholic Church
Various “Independant Catholic” Churches

 

[porthos11]

There are 22 different rites that make up the Catholic Church-There is only one Catholic Church.

Drat. Wrong wording.

You’re right of course. The key is when to captialize “Church” or “church”.

There are 22 autonomous churches that are Catholic.

 

[porthos11]

It is a common mistake, but mistake nontheless for Catholics to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. Christ founded ONE Church, and that Church is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic church is only one (although the largest) church within the entire Catholic Church. The other 21 churches are part of that one Church founded by Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

It is a common mistake, but mistake nontheless for Catholics to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ. Christ founded ONE Church, and that Church is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic church is only one (although the largest) church within the entire Catholic Church. The other 21 churches are part of that one Church founded by Christ.

All of the 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are in union with the Church at Rome, thus making them “Roman.” They are not Latin Rite Catholics, to be sure, but they are Roman Catholics, in the sense that they are in full holy communion with the Bishop of Rome.

That’s just how I see it, but how else should we distinguish them from their schismatic brethren?

 

[jmcrae]

Sure – check out the East Assyrian Church. Their leader is the “Patriarch Catholicos of the East”, as I recall, and claims apostolic succession. There are complete lists of their leaders on Wikipedia and other sources.

You will notice, when studying that line, that it runs through the schism of 1054. Before 1054, they were Roman Catholic by the definition that you gave later in your post, and after that, they became whatever they call themselves today. (The line from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI does not encounter any schisms - the Bishop of Rome remains in full communion with himself throughout the entire 2000 year history of the Church. )

Allow me to clarify. The Roman Catholic Church, as I refer to it, is the religious organization which is headquartered in Vatican City and is under the leadership of the Pope, currently and individual with the assumed papal name Benedict XVI. Under that organization are 22 “particular” rites/churches which are in full communion with Rome. Thus, they can all be termed as Roman Catholic, as opposed to Eastern Assyrian Catholic, or any other form of catholocism.

I agree with this definition. It’s the definition that was universally in use up until 1054 or so. Not to be in full holy communion with the Bishop of Rome was the same thing as to be a non-Christian, up until that time. Even the heretics tried to show that they were in communion with him, even though they failed to demonstrate it very well.

The point is that the term “Catholic Church” is ambiguous even now, and in the early church, referred to what protestants today sometimes call the “universal church”.

Protestants schismated from the “universal church,” or whatever else you might like to call it, in 1521 AD. Shortly after that, about two thirds of them schismated from Lutheranism into Calvinism and Mennonism, and then after that, there were a whole bunch of schisms from all of them, plus the establishment of various national churches, most famously the Anglican Church, until today Protestantism is a veritable Babylon of every known and unknown heresy - any heresy you want to name, and any combo-pak of heresies you want to name, has at least one building and at least one preacher somewhere in the world of Protestantism, defending its cause.

 

[porthos11]

All of the 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are in union with the Church at Rome, thus making them “Roman.” They are not Latin Rite Catholics, to be sure, but they are Roman Catholics, in the sense that they are in full holy communion with the Bishop of Rome.

That’s just how I see it, but how else should we distinguish them from their schismatic brethren?

S(name removed by moderator)le. We’re Catholic, they’re not.

There are only 6 Rites. There are 22 churches.

IT’s not proper to use the term “Roman Catholic” to those who are not of the Latin Rite; they themselves would object to the term, and we should respect their wishes. Call the Latins Romans without any problems. Do not do so to the Easterns.

Just because they are in communion with the See of Peter does not make them Roman Catholic. It makes them Catholic.

Remember that the Catholic Church was originally based in Jerusalem, not Rome. It was just as Catholic then, bearing the four marks. Roman has never been a mark of the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

S(name removed by moderator)le. We’re Catholic, they’re not.

Okay, so then how do we get the schismatics to quit saying that they are Catholic, when they are not? Because they really do think that they are Catholic.

 

[Mannyfit75]

All of the 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are in union with the Church at Rome, thus making them “Roman.” They are not Latin Rite Catholics, to be sure, but they are Roman Catholics, in the sense that they are in full holy communion with the Bishop of Rome.

They aren’t Roman. They are Byzantine Rite, or Oriental. Roman is just another word for Latin. Henceforth, the Catholic Church is not only called Roman Catholic, it is the Catholic Church.

Is not the official language of the Catholic Church Latin?

 

[estesbob]

Sure – check out the East Assyrian Church. Their leader is the “Patriarch Catholicos of the East”, as I recall, and claims apostolic succession. There are complete lists of their leaders on Wikipedia and other sources.

Not at all – I didn’t say “no documents”. I said “no rhetoric”. That is to say, if you’re going to answer my initial question “How do we know the Roman Catholic Church is the Catholic church referernced throughout history?”, don’t just assert it or say we know it because the Roman Catholic Church has declared it has apostolic succession. Give some justification for the claim. I realize I’m putting the burden of proof on the Roman side of things, but I see that as fair, as Roman Catholics are the ones making the claim.

Allow me to clarify. The Roman Catholic Church, as I refer to it, is the religious organization which is headquartered in Vatican City and is under the leadership of the Pope, currently and individual with the assumed papal name Benedict XVI. Under that organization are 22 “particular” rites/churches which are in full communion with Rome. Thus, they can all be termed as Roman Catholic, as opposed to Eastern Assyrian Catholic, or any other form of catholocism. The point is that the term “Catholic Church” is ambiguous even now, and in the early church, referred to what protestants today sometimes call the “universal church”.

It’s not a matter of labels – it’s a matter of understanding.

As many have asked for a list of churches which claim to be catholic (or “the one true church”) and claim apostolic succession of some kind, here are a few that the Wikipedia turned up…

Anglican Churches
Eastern Orthodox Church
Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East
Liberal Catholic Church
Lutheran Churches
Old Catholic Church
Oriental Orthodox Church
Roman Catholic Church
Various “Independant Catholic” Churches

All except one in this list were formed AFTER the Reformation, The Eastern Schism took place about 1,000 years after Christ died. So we still have proof of only One Church for the first 1,054 years after the Death of Christ and 2 churches(both of which agreed on 99% of Doctirne) for 1500 years after Chirst died. Your assertion that there was any other Chrisitan Church other than The Catholic Church in the early Centuries is simply not true.

Even more clear than that is the Core Protestant doctrines were not believed by anyone until the Reformation. They were created out of whole cloth by Luther et al. They have no basis in Scripture and no basis in tradition. The Catholic Church is not the One True Church only if one beleives there was no Christian Church for 1,500 years

 

[porthos11]

Okay, so then how do we get the schismatics to quit saying that they are Catholic, when they are not? Because they really do think that they are Catholic.

We can’t stop them. But just because they call themselves so does not make it so, any more than JW’s and Mormons calling themselves Christians does not make them Christians. I will never dignify with the term Catholic those who are not, hence, there is no need to attach any prefix.

So when asked: What is your religion? Answer: Catholic.

If pressed, “what kind of Catholic?” Answer: Latin or Roman.

But if you’re an Eastern, the answer would be: Maronite or Greek, or Melkite Greek, or Ukrainian, or Ruthenian, etc.

 

[porthos11]

All except one in this list were formed AFTER the Reformation, The Eastern Schism took place about 1,000 years after Christ died. So we still have proof of only One Church for the first 1,054 years after the Death of Christ and 2 churches(both of which agreed on 99% of Doctirne) for 1500 years after Chirst died. Your assertion that there was any other Chrisitan Church other than The Catholic Church in the early Centuries is simply not true.

There have been early splits even before 1054.
Assyrian Church of the East, separated from the Catholic/Orthodox Church following Ephesus in 431.

Oriental Orthodox communion separated from Catholic/Eastern Orthodox following Chalcedon ca. 450.

 

[PC_Master]

All of the 22 Rites of the Catholic Church are in union with the Church at Rome, thus making them “Roman.” They are not Latin Rite Catholics, to be sure, but they are Roman Catholics, in the sense that they are in full holy communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Exactly. The church headquartered in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church. To clarify – Roman Catholics (not to be confused with the sub-group of Latin Rite Roman Catholics) would wish themselves to be called “The Catholic Church” because that implies that there is no catholic church outside of the Roman one. However, that is obviously (given the other denominations mentioned) hotly contested. To not acknowledge that others claim to be a part of the Catholic (aka Universal) church, even though Rome doesn’t recognize them, is just poor debating.

You will notice, when studying that line, that it runs through the schism of 1054.

Look again.

(The line from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI does not encounter any schisms - the Bishop of Rome remains in full communion with himself throughout the entire 2000 year history of the Church. )

What in the world are you trying to say? That’s like saing the line that the Orthodox Antioch Church claims, which originates with Peter in Antioch, and goes onward to the current day, remains in full communion with itself. Or that the line the Assyrian Church of the East uses remains in communion with itself…why does that matter? Everything is in full communion with itself! Nothing schisms against itself. Things divide, and then one portion schisms against the other…but nothing ever schisms against what it sees as itself.

I agree with this definition. It’s the definition that was universally in use up until 1054 or so. Not to be in full holy communion with the Bishop of Rome was the same thing as to be a non-Christian, up until that time. Even the heretics tried to show that they were in communion with him, even though they failed to demonstrate it very well.

Woah! Back up a second there. Don’t tack on things to my definitions like that, please. I said that the Catholic Church in the early centuries was the a single unified church (at least, possibly). That says nothing about the papacy.

In any case, you would need to establish that Rome had primacy in those first couple of centuries after Christ’s death. You can’t just assert that it was so!

Protestants schismated from the “universal church,” or whatever else you might like to call it, in 1521 AD.

No – they schismed from the Roman Catholic Church, not the universal church. The universal church, as was biblically understood, was not led by a pope. Feel free to prove otherwise, but there’s no evidence that such was the case.

IT’s not proper to use the term “Roman Catholic” to those who are not of the Latin Rite; they themselves would object to the term, and we should respect their wishes. Call the Latins Romans without any problems. Do not do so to the Easterns.

No – you use accurate terminology. How else would you describe the church which claims to be catholic and is headquartered in Rome? It’s important to make the distinction between the religious organization, and the concept of the universal (or catholic) church. Not doing so leads to the confusion of early church fathers writing about the “Catholic Church” as though it was the Roman Catholic Church, which isn’t the case.

Just because they are in communion with the See of Peter does not make them Roman Catholic. It makes them Catholic.

You have to establish that the term catholic exclusively applies to those in communion with the See of Rome (not of Peter, for multiple reasons) first.

Remember that the Catholic Church was originally based in Jerusalem, not Rome.

Yes, I’d agree, but this church didn’t have a pope as such. However, that sort of thing we’ll get to in another thread.

All except one in this list were formed AFTER the Reformation,

Again, read the stuff – Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian were all formed before the reformation.

Even more clear than that is the Core Protestant doctrines were not believed by anyone until the Reformation. They were created out of whole cloth by Luther et al. They have no basis in Scripture and no basis in tradition.

Who cares? This isn’t a debate about protestantism being legit. This is a question of whether the term Catholic applies exclusively to churches that are in full communion with Rome.

We can’t stop them. But just because they call themselves so does not make it so, any more than JW’s and Mormons calling themselves Christians does not make them Christians.

Likewise, Catholics claiming to be the one true church doesn’t necessarily make it so.

 

[Techno2000]

Is the term " Church of Peter " correct or incorrect ?