"Catholic" vs Roman Catholic, professor question

[Gorgias]

I suppose that works but only up to 431 when the Assyrian Church and the rest of Christianity split. And that ignores the fact that many of the Eastern Churches were effectively independent from their founding in the Apostolic era (and have remained so through to today) so the church wasn’t totally “undivided” anyway in all things even up to 431.

Independent? Really?

OK, maybe interdependent. Maybe “due to the modes of communication and distances between churches, not regularly in contact”. But… “independent”? That would seem to fly in the face of the historical fact of ecumenical councils, in which the churches came together in order to decide upon consensus statements of doctrine, wouldn’t you say?

In fact, the historical evidence that some groups broke away from the Church explicitly demonstrates that conformity was part of the ground rules! Then, if they disagreed with the consensus and refused to consent to it, these groups decided that they were gonna take their ball and go play a different game somewhere else! In other words, if ‘diversity’ were the watch-word, then the result of every ecumenical council would have been “some of us think X, and others Y. It’s all good. Go and love God – whoever you think He is”…!

 

[Gorgias]

Not necessarily true. Baptists and others who don’t profess the creeds (while still being Christian) certainly don’t see themselves as part of the catholic church, but rather the christian church.

Be careful with your caps: they do, indeed, see themselves as part of the universal church, even if it gives them the creeps to admit that ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’.

Indeed some Protestant denominations that even profess the creed have modified it so as to specifically remove any mention being catholic (big or small C), such as the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They render that line of the Nicene Creed:

“And I believe in one holy christian and apostolic church”

Yes, but read the footnote that they add to it: “Christian: the ancient text reads ‘catholic’, meaning the whole Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.”

What they’re saying is that they assent to being part of “the whole Church” which “confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.” In other words, they’re ‘catholic’, but don’t want to say it that way.

In fact, read all three creeds to which they subscribe in their statement of the Lutheran Confessions; the third is the Athanasian Creed, which they cite in its entirety and which says: “Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith… and the catholic faith is this…” and finally, “this is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.”

So, no – they don’t consider themselves “Christian but not catholic”. They just choose to de-emphasize the use of the word ‘catholic’, while retaining its meaning.

Nice try, though.

 

[exnihilo]

Yes, but read the footnote that they add to it: “Christian: the ancient text reads ‘catholic’, meaning the whole Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.”

What they’re saying is that they assent to being part of “the whole Church” which “confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.” In other words, they’re ‘catholic’, but don’t want to say it that way.

In fact, read all three creeds to which they subscribe in their statement of the Lutheran Confessions; the third is the Athanasian Creed, which they cite in its entirety and which says: “Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith… and the catholic faith is this…” and finally, “this is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.”

So, no – they don’t consider themselves “Christian but not catholic”. They just choose to de-emphasize the use of the word ‘catholic’, while retaining its meaning.

Nice try, though.

I agree with your points. I also thought this was a complex issue with the Lutherans. I thought that in German translations of the creed, which even predate Luther, they would use the German word for Christian in place of Catholic. It isn’t that hard to imagine given the issues of translation the Catholic Church has had in our times with English e.g. and with you or and with your spirit. Someone with more knowledge could confirm my understanding or shed more light on it.

 

[Padres1969]

Be careful with your caps: they do, indeed, see themselves as part of the universal church, even if it gives them the creeps to admit that ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’.

Yes, but read the footnote that they add to it: “Christian: the ancient text reads ‘catholic’, meaning the whole Church as it confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.”

What they’re saying is that they assent to being part of “the whole Church” which “confesses the wholeness of Christian doctrine.” In other words, they’re ‘catholic’, but don’t want to say it that way.

In fact, read all three creeds to which they subscribe in their statement of the Lutheran Confessions; the third is the Athanasian Creed, which they cite in its entirety and which says: “Whoever desires to be saved must, above all, hold the catholic faith… and the catholic faith is this…” and finally, “this is the catholic faith; whoever does not believe it faithfully and firmly cannot be saved.”

So, no – they don’t consider themselves “Christian but not catholic”. They just choose to de-emphasize the use of the word ‘catholic’, while retaining its meaning.

Nice try, though.

Yeah I dropped a cap there by accident. I typically am better with that particularly since I personally consider myself part of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, but not the Catholic Church.

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah I dropped a cap there by accident.

Aah… ok, then. Your assertion takes on a whole different meaning, if you meant “Catholic”…!

 

[catholic1seeks]

I suppose that works but only up to 431 when the Assyrian Church and the rest of Christianity split. And that ignores the fact that many of the Eastern Churches were effectively independent from their founding in the Apostolic era (and have remained so through to today) so the church wasn’t totally “undivided” anyway in all things even up to 431.

It depends on what you mean by *independent *and undivided.

We have to take into account basic cultural conditions. The early church simply could not have been as connected as in later centuries simply due to means of communication and geographic distance. It’s not like you could look of the Pope’s weekly Wednesday audience, so-to-speak.

But the churches were not independent or divided on many things, such as basic church structure of bishop, priest, and deacon. There were early synods and councils. Church leaders traveled to talk to other church leaders about practice (for example, the Easter dating controversy in the second century).

 

[steve_b]

My Christianity professor here makes a distinction between “Catholic Church” of the early church and “Roman Catholic Church” as well as the sense of the word “Catholic” vs when it used in the Roman Catholic context. She hasn’t really described what she means in detail.

to keep from assuming what may or may not be in her mind on this, ask her to clarify herself
c:

But I was wondering how I could address this issue? I know it’s harmless. She’s a sweet lady. But she encourages discussion.

Show her the Catechism.



what does it say on the cover?

 

[catholic1seeks]

to keep from assuming what may or may not be in her mind on this, ask her to clarify herself

Show her the Catechism.

http://static.trinityroad.com/prod/250/catechism-catholic-church-osv-hc-sc-1001016-bestseller.png

what does it say on the cover?

I know you’re being slightly funny, but that would be the same thing as me asserting “The Roman Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church,” which she knows, else she wouldn’t have to make the distinction in class: “Early church’s Catholic, not meaning the Roman Catholic sense… etc…”

 

[steve_b]

This diagram has some strengths, but one gets the feeling from it that the (Roman) Catholic Church suddenly formed at the date of 1054. This kind of precision can me marked for Protesant groups, but it’s different when talking about the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

And yes this diagram is from a wiki, but I saw similar diagrams in religious studies classes in university (a Jesuit university I’d add). And it makes sense from an academic perspective. The Eastern Churches also claim to have the fullness of faith and can make pretty much the exact same claims as the RCC to being the continuation of the pre-11th century church.

 Originally Posted by **Padres1969** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13693243#post13693243)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ches.svg/659px-Christianity_Branches.svg.png*

• **Re: **wiki, here’s why I personally don’t use Wikipedia.
• Every article within the greater list of articles on each subject in wiki, has [Edit] next to the sections of each article. Anybody can add or subtract from the article. Who acts as the gate keeper? Keep reading
• then there are the "disclaimers " at the bottom of each wiki page. One probably doesn’t even notice them, NOR in extension, read them.
• here they are please read them Disclaimers & Risk disclaimer
• Therefore, based on their own words, in their disclaimers, that all can read for themselves, I for one don’t trust them as a qualified resource.

Re: That graph

It’s ridiculous. Here’s why. Here’s a quick synopsis of the first 400 years #34 in writing, the evidence all properly referenced where Catholic Church is used. All the internal links in #34 are operational. Please read them.

As an aside, I have asked ANYONE (particularly the Orthodox) many times on these forums over the 12 years I’ve been here, to please quote for me (properly referenced) the first time in history, in writing when “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing. I’m still waiting. Maybe you have that answer.

**Re: **“Roman” Catholic

I’m sure you have already been shown the source of that qualification [Roman Catholic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm)

That said

~98% of the worlds Catholics today are Roman rite Catholics, while the remaining Catholics in the world ~2% are Eastern rite Catholics.

Both combined (not either/or but both) make up the Catholic Church. Both are 100% Catholic because they are in union with the Pope of Rome, the chair of Peter.

 

[steve_b]

I know you’re being slightly funny, but that would be the same thing as me asserting “The Roman Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church,” which she knows, else she wouldn’t have to make the distinction in class: “Early church’s Catholic, not meaning the Roman Catholic sense… etc…”

Answered in post #49

The Catechism is a universal catechism.
usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm