Definition of communion with Rome

[WorkerPriest]

Yep, me too… at least since we stopped speaking in German.

“Christ is Risen! He is Risen indeed! Alleluia!”

At least, that is what I’ve learned growing up

 

[PJM]

=5Loaves;7831649]Christ is Risen!

Just to touch on a couple of the most obvious problems here… the books of New Testament canon were not written by Roman Catholics.

Friend are you saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul were not and are not Catholic:shrug: On what basis do you hold this unusual view?

The Apostle’s Creed in English reads “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church…” The current English translation in use by the Latin Church of the Nicene Creed, which you rather seem to be referring to, reads “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church…” The new translation being adapted by the Latin Church in Advent 2011 reads: “And one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

The Apostle’s Creed in English reads “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church…” The current English translation in use by the Latin Church of the Nicene Creed, which you rather seem to be referring to, reads “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church…” The new translation being adapted by the Latin Church in Advent 2011 reads: “And one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.”

OK And the difference in the beliefs are?

In the Roman Rite of the Latin Church in the Rite of Baptism the elect are asked “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church…”.

Given the FACT that There has been, Is and will continue to be ONLY ONE Church and Faith Founded by Christ; what my friend is the issue your raising?

None of these nor other similar professions of faith use the word “Catholic”. In all instances the word is “catholic”, typically translated as “universal”.

Catholic does mean univeral; and that is what we have been;ARE, and shall continue to be. And the CREEDS are an expression of OUR Faith beliefs [so why must it use the term "faith?]

The Progresion of names for todays Catholic Church are historically proveable:

First “the Way” around 33 A.D.

**Then “Christian” **How and when was the word “Christian” first used? The term ‘Christian’ was used to describe a follwer of Christ in terms of the world, from the world’s point of view. The pagans at Antioch called the Apostles “Christians” first (Acts 11:26; 26:28) [AROUND 80 AD] and used it derogatorily because the apostles didn’t follow the commercial world of the pagans. “Christian” is an adjective, not a noun. The substance is not in the word “Christian”, the substance is in the heart of the man it is attempting to describe, and which the pagan user cannot see.

"And then Catholic:
The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1**)." The term was First used by St. Ignatious of Antioch very early in the second century**.

OK And the difference in the beliefs are?

In the Roman Rite of the Latin Church in the Rite of Baptism the elect are asked “Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church…”.

Given the FACT that htere has been, Is and will continue to be ONLY ONE; what my friend i the issue your raising?

None of these nor other similar professions of faith use the word “Catholic”. In all instances the word is “catholic”, typically translated as “universal”.

TRY as I might; I find no basis for your comments. PLEASE feel free to PROVE me wrong.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Biedrik]

Friend are you saying that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Paul were not and are not Catholic:shrug: On what basis do you hold this unusual view?

You missed the point. What was being pointed out is that those men were not ROMAN Catholic. They were Catholic of course. However, we Romans aren’t the only kind around, nor are we more Catholic simply because we are part of the Roman liturgical rite. The fact is that the only Roman Catholics were the ones in Rome (so I guess Peter might have counted).

 

[PJM]

=FRANKYG;7831892]The Bible Is a CATHOLIC BOOK, meaning universal. I dont know how well informed you are in Church History, but the catholic church does not consist only of the Roman Church. The Church actualy started in the East.

I know i speak for thr orthodox Catholics in here that the church is not only ROMAN. It is divers with different traditions,

I reject your false interpetation of what the Church teaches. Please be respectful and accept that ypur post is for the most part, Heretical.

Blessings,
Francisco

NO MY FRIEND IT DID NOT; UNLESS YOU CONSIDER JERUSALEM AND ROME AS “EAST.” And I’m quite firmiliar with Church History.

Kindly share with me your ideas of my heresy?

**Can. 751 Heresy is **the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

And yes I am aware that the CC has a few braches WHO TOO ARE IN FULL COMMUNION WITH ROME. That is a valid point. Thank you

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

=(name removed by moderator);7834885]I think PJM you need to go away and research the Eastern Catholic Churches before returning to this. Also you need to return any of the Eastern Church is no MORE or no LESS Catholic than any other Church with the overall Church. The Catholic Church is not solely the Roman Catholic Church but is the Catholic Church whose faith is universal but the expressions of that faith are not identical in all places.

Much of your commentary on the Eastern Catholic Churches is not terribly offensive because it is ignorant and lacks knowledge. That is something we all at times lack but I think you would do well to read through some of the points other posters have made regarding the Eastern Catholic Churches and their role within the Catholic Church overall.

Also as a final point to say there have been no Latinisations is terribly untrue and both Pope Benedict and his recently beatified predecessor have pointed out the problems these caused at times in the past and the ill will they generated.

FREIND, I AM TRULY SORRY WE ARE NOT FINDING AGREEMENT. LIKE POPES JOHN PAUL II AND BENEDICT XVI, I HODE TO THE FACT THAT THERE CAN ONLY BE A SINGLE TRUTH ON ANY PRECISE ISSUE.

Everything I stated in verifiable by the Bible and history. I’m VERY found of the estern Churches and which we still had the piety you folks have. But some of the eastern claims, simply are not historically correct.

God Bless you, and I DO MEAN FRIEND!

Pat

 

[PJM]

=Biedrik;7834902]You missed the point. What was being pointed out is that those men were not ROMAN Catholic. They were Catholic of course. However, we Romans aren’t the only kind around, nor are we more Catholic simply because we are part of the Roman liturgical rite. The fact is that the only Roman Catholics were the ones in Rome (so I guess Peter might have counted).

No my friend; I did understand your ponit and don’t agree with.

**www.staycatholic.com **

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1**[A.D. 95]).**

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 A.D. 220]).

My friend let me be clear: I’m NOT saying the Eastern Churchs are not Catholic; only that peter is the ROCCK, and Rome the SEE od the CC.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[Vico]

With respect to 54.1, since all the first Seven Councils had the participation of Rome, it isn’t an issue.

With respect to 54.2, that doesn’t take into account the right of EC Churches to govern themselves under their Patriarch/Primate/Major Archbishop.

Our Church Synod has made many decisions without asking for papal permission first - only informing the Holy See later.

Alex

That particular canon is from the section of laws on the supreme authority of the Church. The supreme authority of the Church determines in canonical norms the limit of self-rule of a Church sui iuris and can intervene in special cases. The eastern Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal Churches have the greatest powers within their ancient territories. For example, the Apostolic See has the right to erect exarchies, rather than the heads of the eastern Church sui iuris.

 

[5Loaves]

You missed the point. What was being pointed out is that those men were not ROMAN Catholic. They were Catholic of course. However, we Romans aren’t the only kind around, nor are we more Catholic simply because we are part of the Roman liturgical rite. The fact is that the only Roman Catholics were the ones in Rome (so I guess Peter might have counted).

They were Christians. There was only the Church until East and West divided by mutual excommunications and each took on a label, Catholic in the West and Orthodox in the East…

The term “Roman Catholic” is quite recent, 17th century, having mainly come to the Latin Church as a label from the Church of England, replacing or in addition to the term “Papists”. Just as many of the Latin Church now happily call themselves Papists, the Latin Church has in recent years come to make use of the term “Roman Catholic”. You won’t find it in for example the Code of Canon Law: "Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church."

Peter was in Antioch, modern day Turkey, long before he was in Rome.

 

[JohnVIII]

The Bible Is a CATHOLIC BOOK, meaning universal. I dont know how well informed you are in Church History, but the catholic church does not consist only of the Roman Church. The Church actualy started in the East.

I know i speak for thr orthodox Catholics in here that the church is not only ROMAN. It is divers with different traditions,

I reject your false interpetation of what the Church teaches. Please be respectful and accept that ypur post is for the most part, Heretical.

Blessings,
Francisco

 

[Alexander_Roman]

That particular canon is from the section of laws on the supreme authority of the Church. The supreme authority of the Church determines in canonical norms the limit of self-rule of a Church sui iuris and can intervene in special cases. The eastern Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal Churches have the greatest powers within their ancient territories. For example, the Apostolic See has the right to erect exarchies, rather than the heads of the eastern Church sui iuris.

However, our UGCC synod contests that and our Patriarch truly does assert his right and power over the UGCC throughout the world now.

This is based on the ancient Roman canonical principle and theory that “it is easier to ask for forgiveness rather than to ask for permission . . .”

I understand there are also RC bishops who subscribe to something similar . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

They were Christians. There was only the Church until East and West divided by mutual excommunications and each took on a label, Catholic in the West and Orthodox in the East…

The term “Roman Catholic” is quite recent, 17th century, having mainly come to the Latin Church as a label from the Church of England, replacing or in addition to the term “Papists”. Just as many of the Latin Church now happily call themselves Papists, the Latin Church has in recent years come to make use of the term “Roman Catholic”. You won’t find it in for example the Code of Canon Law: "Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church."

Peter was in Antioch, modern day Turkey, long before he was in Rome.

No, in fact. The term “Orthodox faith” was used at the First Ecumenical Council and the term “Catholic Church” was in use as well to indicate that “the whole is in the part.” So wherever there was a bishop where the Orthodox faith was taught and the Sacraments/Mysteries distributed etc. THERE was the Catholic Church.

Both East and West used “Orthodox” and “Catholic” and both still do officially, even though each term does refer to one or the other Church today.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Also keep in mind that although not teaching Latin views on the dogmas, the Eastern Catholics do not deny them.

Eastern Catholic representatives were at Vatican I and II.

Constantinople IV (869), Lyons (1245), and Florence (1438) also had eastern representatives.

Some Eastern Catholic Churches were always in communion with Rome, that is they did not have a reunion.

We acknowlege their “pith and substance” but deny their Latin theological grounding as irrelevant to us.

We still don’t understand why you felt you had to proclaim the Marian dogmas when their “pith and substance” were always affirmed by the universal Church (other than the influence of extreme Augstinianism).

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Also keep in mind that although not teaching Latin views on the dogmas, the Eastern Catholics do not deny them.

Eastern Catholic representatives were at Vatican I and II.

Constantinople IV (869), Lyons (1245), and Florence (1438) also had eastern representatives.

Some Eastern Catholic Churches were always in communion with Rome, that is they did not have a reunion.

The “Eastern representatives” were Orthodox, not Eastern Catholic. And at Florence and Lyons, those who signed the decrees of union later either repudiated them or else became formal Roman Catholics, thus rejecting their own Eastern heritage.

The term “Eastern Catholic” is reserved solely to those Orthodox communities that came under Rome in an administrative arrangement of subjection that never existed when the Church was perfectly One.

Alex

 

[5Loaves]

No, in fact. The term “Orthodox faith” was used at the First Ecumenical Council and the term “Catholic Church” was in use as well to indicate that “the whole is in the part.” So wherever there was a bishop where the Orthodox faith was taught and the Sacraments/Mysteries distributed etc. THERE was the Catholic Church.

Both East and West used “Orthodox” and “Catholic” and both still do officially, even though each term does refer to one or the other Church today.

Alex

I was familiar with “catholic” and “orthodox” of course but not “Catholic” and Orthodox" in the First Ecumenical Council. Certainly the later meanings were distinct. (And today one finds St. X Orthodox Catholic Church, which would be an Eastern Orthodox Church. )

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I was familiar with “catholic” and “orthodox” of course but not “Catholic” and Orthodox" in the First Ecumenical Council. Certainly the later meanings were distinct. (And today one finds St. X Orthodox Catholic Church, which would be an Eastern Orthodox Church. )

You are obviously not of the Old Believer tradition because otherwise you would be “7Loaves”

Sorry, I had to say that . . .

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Very good response, John!!

But please enlighten me, do you name yourself after . . . who? Pope John VIII?

Just wanted to know . . .

Alex

 

[5Loaves]

You are obviously not of the Old Believer tradition because otherwise you would be “7Loaves”

Sorry, I had to say that . . .

Alex

Well, I am old… and a believer…
We’re having a heat wave here, which we in the SF Bay find agonizing, since we only do well, like house plants, between 58-68 degrees F, so I welcome a chuckle. Now I’ll go back to my ice pack.

 

[JohnVIII]

Very good response, John!!

But please enlighten me, do you name yourself after . . . who? Pope John VIII?

Just wanted to know . . .

Alex

Yes, Pope John VIII. My Orthodox name (real name) is Adrian. I chose “JohnVIII” because I believe it can be demonstrated from historical records that Pope John VIII did not believe in the filioque at all, any more then his contemporary St Photius of Constantinople. He did believe in the primacy of the Roman See however, but I think for different reasons then many do today.

 

[Vico]

However, our UGCC synod contests that and our Patriarch truly does assert his right and power over the UGCC throughout the world now.

This is based on the ancient Roman canonical principle and theory that “it is easier to ask for forgiveness rather than to ask for permission . . .”

I understand there are also RC bishops who subscribe to something similar . . .

Alex

There is nothing to prevent a Ukrainian Greek Catholic eparch, outside the Patriarchal territory, from exercising his power in accord with the Patriarch (M.A.), yet the Patriarch (M.A.) cannot compel him to do so. The Holy See could do so by approving a decree and make it binding throughout the world.

 

[Vico]

The “Eastern representatives” were Orthodox, not Eastern Catholic. And at Florence and Lyons, those who signed the decrees of union later either repudiated them or else became formal Roman Catholics, thus rejecting their own Eastern heritage.

The term “Eastern Catholic” is reserved solely to those Orthodox communities that came under Rome in an administrative arrangement of subjection that never existed when the Church was perfectly One.

Alex

So you mean Maronite and Italo-Albanian are not Eastern Catholic?