"Catholic" vs Roman Catholic, professor question

[ComplineSanFran]

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.

I would say that the Church in the West was clearly defined as Roman Catholic rather than your word ‘formed.’

 

[catholic1seeks]

As a compromise, one could say that diverse Christianities existed from the beginning. I mean, the heresies express this. But the church that saw Rome as having a unifying authority also always existed.

The debate would then be: Is it Christ’s will for all Christians to see Rome as the unifying structure of the church? In other words, does the Church exists fully in the church that is united to the See of Peter? Or is it just another Christian community?

Maybe a Christianity class at a public university should not settle that question. But as a matter of history, I think it is just to say that there has always existed a church that saw Rome with a primacy. For the professor to say that the Roman Catholic church is different from what is meant by the “Catholic Church” …hmm, I guess there is some sense in that, in that the (Roman) Catholic Church is not the only church that sees itself as fully inheriting the early Christian faith, life, and practice that called itself “Catholic.” But it would be fair to say that the (Roman) Catholic Church fully inherited the early church that called itself Catholic. So it is misleading to say they are not the same. For, actually, the division is one of geography:

Catholic Church of West —> (“Roman”) Catholic Church
Catholic Church of East → Eastern Orthodox Church

But good questions would be:
Who in the early church is saying “Catholic Church?” If it is bishop who also happens to believe that the Pope is the successor or Peter and has primacy over the church, then surely that sense of the church is the same as the modern (Roman) Catholic Church. But maybe an individual in the early church who uses “Catholic Church” but does not accept the primacy of Rome – maybe he could be seen as representing another sense of the Catholic Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I would say that the Church in the West was clearly defined as Roman Catholic rather than your word ‘formed.’

I’m not so sure that can even be said. What do you mean by defined?

In terms of the Schism, that did not even have a precise date per se. The split between East and West was very gradual. But I’m sure you know all of that.

 

[Padres1969]

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.

Well obviously it’s a simplistic diagram and yes the split between east and west was gradual, it’s not easy at this high level to diagram something like that. But the culmination of the long forming split did occur in the 11th century with the east and west existing as separate direct continuations of the early Church. Yes the RCC’s view is that it is the legitimate continuation of the early church. But the eastern churches make that same claim as well and from their POV has just as if not a stronger argument for it.

From an academic POV the OP’s professor is not wrong in pointing out that there is a difference between the early church and the current RCC from a non-Catholic POV. There was a split that culminated in the 11th century, and we do have two entities today in the east and west that claim to be the legitimate continuation of the early church (and as both internally describe it, “the one true church”). And that doesn’t even delve into the Oriental Orthodox churches or Assyrian Churches which also claim to be the successors of the early church and the “one true church” today and the arguments bringing those churches to the table engenders.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I’m not so sure that can even be said. What do you mean by defined?

In terms of the Schism, that did not even have a precise date per se. The split between East and West was very gradual. But I’m sure you know all of that.

Certainly in the first millennium, there were very different churches and practices throughout the known world - eastern, celtic, jewish, and of course all communities that were deemed heretical. It was not very cohesive, even in its authority.

By the second millennium, East and West WERE defined and set in its authority, theology, and boundaries.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well obviously it’s a simplistic diagram and yes the split between east and west was gradual, it’s not easy at this high level to diagram something like that. But the culmination of the long forming split did occur in the 11th century with the east and west existing as separate direct continuations of the early Church. Yes the RCC’s view is that it is the legitimate continuation of the early church. But the eastern churches make that same claim as well and from their POV has just as if not a stronger argument for it.

From an academic POV the OP’s professor is not wrong in pointing out that there is a difference between the early church and the current RCC from a non-Catholic POV. There was a split that culminated in the 11th century, and we do have two entities today in the east and west that claim to be the legitimate continuation of the early church (and as both internally describe it, “the one true church”). And that doesn’t even delve into the Oriental Orthodox churches or Assyrian Churches which also claim to be the successors of the early church and the “one true church” today and the arguments bringing those churches to the table engenders.

All of the churches you mention are a continuation of the early church in some sense, yes. As frustrated as I am of Orthodox timelines that show the Catholic Church shooting off of them in the 11th century, I’m also frustrated with Catholic timelines that do the same to the Eastern Orthodox Church. In this case, these churches inherited a common Christian ancestry affected by different cultures.

So the issue is not “which dates back to the first century” but whether or not unity with Peter is essential. You say the other churches have strong arguments. Maybe. I have always seen enough evidence for myself that the bishop of Rome has always had a sort of primacy. Maybe there is something I’m missing. But essentially, it goes back to Matthew 16:18 and why Jesus calls Peter the Rock.

 

[Padres1969]

All of the churches you mention are a continuation of the early church in some sense, yes. As frustrated as I am of Orthodox timelines that show the Catholic Church shooting off of them in the 11th century, I’m also frustrated with Catholic timelines that do the same to the Eastern Orthodox Church. In this case, these churches inherited a common Christian ancestry affected by different cultures.

So the issue is not “which dates back to the first century” but whether or not unity with Peter is essential. You say the other churches have strong arguments. Maybe. I have always seen enough evidence for myself that the bishop of Rome has always had a sort of primacy. Maybe there is something I’m missing. But essentially, it goes back to Matthew 16:18 and why Jesus calls Peter the Rock.

See I’d argue the unity with Peter argument is more a religious one, not an academic one. Yes the RCC views unity with the Bishop of Rome as essential to be considered part of the true church (and continuation of the early church). But the Orthodox deny that and have even long before the Great schism.

And you can make an argument that settling on unity with Rome as essential to Catholic faith was one of the many things that developed out of what became the modern RCC as part of the natural development of what became the modern RCC during the early Christian period as part of that slow split from the eastern churches. Yet another development in the long line of developments of the early church like the refutation of Arianism, various Christology issues the councils addressed, etc… Remember the Great schism wasn’t just the result of arguments on the position of Rome, but also on the Filioque, Iconoclasm, Liturgical variations, etc… The east settled on the issues one way, the west another. Hence why many diagrams show the situation as the one I posted above do. That the Great Schism was the split of the bulk of the remaining early church (minus the Oriental and Assyrian Churches who had obviously gone their own way) into two sides, east and west.

But back to the OP’s situation, I’d say it’s hardly wrong for his teacher to make a distinction between the early church and the Roman Catholic Church as it exists today. particularly from a non-Catholic academic POV. There are some good reasons to make that distinction. Though for clarity the professor might be better served referring to the pre and post schism churches as the Early Church and the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

 

[phil19034]

All of the churches you mention are a continuation of the early church in some sense, yes. As frustrated as I am of Orthodox timelines that show the Catholic Church shooting off of them in the 11th century, I’m also frustrated with Catholic timelines that do the same to the Eastern Orthodox Church. In this case, these churches inherited a common Christian ancestry affected by different cultures.

So the issue is not “which dates back to the first century” but whether or not unity with Peter is essential. You say the other churches have strong arguments. Maybe. I have always seen enough evidence for myself that the bishop of Rome has always had a sort of primacy. Maybe there is something I’m missing. But essentially, it goes back to Matthew 16:18 and why Jesus calls Peter the Rock.

For the Orthodox and Catholic Schisms, I recommend twolungs.com as a starting place.

 

[catholic1seeks]

For the Orthodox and Catholic Schisms, I recommend twolungs.com as a starting place.

The link doesn’t work

 

[Padres1969]

For the Orthodox and Catholic Schisms, I recommend twolungs.com as a starting place.

Doesn’t appear to be working.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

For the Orthodox and Catholic Schisms, I recommend twolungs.com as a starting place.

Is this a Schism issue? Or is it a broader picture of Christianity before the Schism?

 

[Bookcat]

Catholic is for the entire Church (including the 22+ eastern Catholic Churches).

Roman is more fitting for the Roman Particular Church.

 

[phil19034]

The link doesn’t work

Sorry… 2lungs.com

 

[phil19034]

Is this a Schism issue? Or is it a broader picture of Christianity before the Schism?

Christianity before the Schism is really no different than how the Catholic Church operates with the Eastern Catholic Churches.

The Latin Church (Latin Liturgical Family of Rites) is obviously the largest due to the Schism. But not all of the Latin Church practices the Roman Rite. There are SMALL groups that use the Mozarabic Rite, Ambrosian Rite, Bragan Rite, plus the very seldom used Dominican Rite, Carmelite Rite & Carthusian Rite. Plus there were several Rites that existed before the Council of Trent, which new and the Pope ended because there were too many Rites under the Patriarch of Rome (aka the Pope); plus the creation of new Rites were becoming theologically problematic (for example, there were several in the British Isles alone).

Additionally, the Roman Rite has three current Uses: The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the common, vernacular Mass that started after Vatican II), the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (the 1962 missal which was considered the ordinary form before and during Vatican II), and the Anglican Use.

In the Eastern Churches you have a number of Rites (Rite families). You can read about all the Rites of the Catholic Church here:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
ewtn.com/expert/answers/rites.htm

Also Wikipedia has some info worth checking out too

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_rites_and_churches#List_of_Catholic_liturgical_rites

 

[johnnyc176]

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

Well Jesus founded, the Catholic Church. The four marks of that Church are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. So I guess you would need to ask her if she is referring to that Church.

ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb2.htm

 

[Peter_J]

I have used this diagram also and it is one of my favorites. When I teach or write, I tend to use the term ‘early Christian Church’ to avoid confusion, especially between the Eastern Church and the Western Church. It also helps non-Roman Catholic Churches to understand their lineage. And I agree with you, Padres, that it makes much more sense academically.

Just from my experience, I would say that the term to use is “the undivided church”.

 

[Padres1969]

Just from my experience, I would say that the term to use is “the undivided church”.

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.

 

[exnihilo]

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

Every Christian thinks they are part of the Catholic Church. Everyone is aware of the creed. The Orthodox certainly use the term catholic and consider themselves Catholic. When a man uses the term Roman Catholic he generally does so to suggest the church with the Pope as its head is a distortion of early Christianity. Since the man isn’t a member of that church he considers that church to be in error. This isn’t an absolute because plenty of Catholics use the term Roman Catholic and I’ve even seen it used in an official way by churches themselves.

If you want to address it do not do it in class. I think you already know a lot about your professor’s thoughts and opinions based on her use of the term. If you are in any way challenging her, and you would be even if in a friendly way, it would be best to do that outside of class. If you’d like meet with her during office hours and have a discussion with her about the matter. Mostly ask her questions and don’t go in looking to debate. Not that you can’t challenge her gently and respectfully. As I see it your job is to learn. Not everything your professors teaches you will be true. In fact a lot of it wont be. Your job isn’t to teach them but to learn as much as possible, even if some of what you learn is that professors have and teach false ideas.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

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.

I agree with you Padres. The church has never been ‘undivided’.

 

[Padres1969]

Every Christian thinks they are part of the Catholic Church. Everyone is aware of the creed. The Orthodox certainly use the term catholic and consider themselves Catholic. When a man uses the term Roman Catholic he generally does so to suggest the church with the Pope as its head is a distortion of early Christianity. Since the man isn’t a member of that church he considers that church to be in error. This isn’t an absolute because plenty of Catholics use the term Roman Catholic and I’ve even seen it used in an official way by churches themselves.

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. 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”