History of the Roman Catholic Church

[Ferde_Rombola]

Nor is protestant, Luther, sola scripture, sola fide, OSAS, a symbolic Eucharist, altar calls, personal interpretation of Scripture, Protestant101, whoever or whatever it might be or any number of false protestant doctrines and traditions. What’s your point?

That you don’t know who Padre Pio is speaks, not to Padre Pio, but to your ignorance, notwithstanding which, Padre Pio was documented several times to be in two places at the same time.

 

[Protestant101]

Not entirely. Not all of them were renamed “Rock”.

All these things are true. Jesus is the Rock. He grafted Peter into Himself, changing his identity, and making it one of Rock (as symbolized by the new name). The statement is also a firm foundation.

I don’t know who made this up, but it is very inaccurate. ARe you willing at all to look at the real history of the Roman (Latin) Rite?

I will concede that your imagination of the “Roman claims” certainly are!

Of course, those that required a justification for disobedience to the Roman Pontiff certainly needed to beleive that the claims were based on clay.

If the “Pontiff” is “Roman” then the Church is Roman Catholic…You are clutching at straws and building a shifting-sand theology.

Also, where does the Bible say “Jesus grafted Peter into Himself?”

Even today; all apostles of Christ’s love are given the same commission as Peter; to follow Jesus in feeding His sheep. There is no difference in “authority” between laity and clergy. When there is, it is man-made. We all have the same “authority” to collectively form that Rock upon which the Church was built - “Christ in you, the Hope of glory.” Peter, and all other believers are “rocks,” while Jesus is THE Rock" upon which THE Church is built.

 

[Protestant101]

Nor is protestant, Luther, sola scripture, sola fide, OSAS, a symbolic Eucharist, altar calls, personal interpretation of Scripture, Protestant101, whoever or whatever it might be or any number of false protestant doctrines and traditions. What’s your point?

That you don’t know who Padre Pio is speaks, not to Padre Pio, but to your ignorance, notwithstanding which, Padre Pio was documented several times to be in two places at the same time.

I might be “ignorant” but that point aside; this dude is not in Scripture. I rest my case.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

MSG.423 Ferde Rombola 

Junior Member

There is no such thing as the Apostolic Roman Church. I belong to the one, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.

**Mind you in AD 1598, John Bishop wrote a Book,”A Courteous Conference with the English Catholic Romane”.
Mind you you could dismiss him, because though he was an English Catholic Romane, he claimed that the pope had no political sovereignty and could not depose sovereigns or release their people from obedience.
Just think, had most Romanists agreed, just how many of them would have been saved from suffering for the papal interference in English Politics.
**
“that Robber Council.”

**At Trent which was not an Ecumenical Council, because it had neither been properly summonsed, nor had the Catholic Churches, neither Anglican nor of the East been asked!
Further it had been called by the Bishop of Rome, when, as far as I can see it was the Roman Emperor’s decision. To get people there [Bishops,] the pope had to bribe them by paying them money whilst he himself chose the organisers and officials while at the same time laying down what was to be discussed. Nothing had to be said about the papacy! So too, the pope sent orders that to publish no decree in advance of any session, nor even to propose it in any congregation,till it had been first submitted and approved by himself. It was agreed that tradition should have equal place with scripture and at the closing sessions that confirmation of all its findings should be asked for from the pope. This latter was a new ad

You will be surprised, I’m sure, that I do not manage my computer with the same skills, I bring to my arguments!
I assure you however I do try and will with your help try to improve and ‘promise to amend’ as they do say!
**

“I know you know all there is to know about the Christian faith.
**How kind, I do try I assure you!
**

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You will be surprised, I’m sure, that I do not manage my computer with the same skills, I bring to my arguments!

You beg the question. From my perspective your computer ‘skills’ match precisely your arguments, which is why I have deleted the anti-Catholic bigotry which prededes what I quoted. They show us where you’re coming from as clearly as they show your talent for fiction.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

 guanophore
Senior Member
Prayer Warrior

All these things are true. Jesus is the Rock. He grafted Peter into Himself, changing his identity, and making it one of Rock (as symbolized by the new name). The statement is also a firm foundation.

**Friend! If you truly believe this you must have shared at the casserole I cooked last night for tea!

------**
“]The pope is Christ in office,Christ in jurisdiction and power…We bow down before thy voice, O holy Father, as we would before Christ Himself…the voice of Christ, the God of truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ!”
Jan9,1870. Vat 1. OP.]

---

**Now S. Augustine speaks quite clearly and he is a doctor of the Church, is he not? Let us see what he has to say about things?
**

**“Since the whole Christ is made up of the Head and the Body.The Head is our Saviour Himself…who now sits at the right hand of God. But His Body is the Church!”
**​

**
“The Church exists in history because man believes in Christ, the Son of God. Without this Faith there can be no Church. Peter was first to confess this faith and thus became the,’ first Christian,’ to the extent however, that this title depends on a mans faith, a man can lose it. This is what happened to Peter and he had to undergo tears of repentance before he was re-established in his dignity!
[John Meyendorff. The Primacy of Peter.p14.]
**

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Also, where does the Bible say “Jesus grafted Peter into Himself?”

With regard to Christ, and Peter the rock, it’s true that the word “grafted” may not be explicitly used in the Bible. However, that Christ did indeed associate himself with St. Rock in unique and intimate way - quite separately from all other men, is quite beyond dispute.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen explains why this is:

When God said "we” (Matthew 17:27)

Another instance in which our Lord associated Peter with himself was in the payment of the temple tax. It is the only time in scripture where God ever associates a human being with himself under the personal pronoun we.

Just think how proud you were, when, as a child, perhaps, your father put his arms around you and said, “We will do this.”

Now at the time of the payment of the temple tax our blessed Lord told Peter to pay it, and he said to pay it “for me and thee.” Then he adds, “that* WE* may not scandalize.”

Here he makes himself one with Peter.

He is associated with Peter in a way that no one else can ever be associated. We - Christ and Peter. That is why papal encyclicals begin with the word we.

*Through the Year with Fulton Sheen *, 2003, compiled by Henry Dieterich, Selection for August 1st, Ignatius Press, ISBN 0898708737 ISBN 978-0898708738 p. 143.

books.google.com/books?id=gEuakFdoPnUC&pg=PA143&dq=%22only+time+in+scripture+where+God+ever+associates+a+human+being+with+himself%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES

 

[luckyfredsdad]

raumzeitmc2
Junior Member

WITH REGARD TO CHRIST AND PETER AND THE ROCK!

The Church Fathers Speak!

“**And if we too have said like Peter,‘Thou art the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter and to us there might be said by the Word,‘Thou art Peter,‘etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church…But if you suppose that upon one Peter only the whole Church is built by God, what would you say about John the Son of Thunder or each one of the Apostles ? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect?Does not the previously made , ‘The gates of hades,’ shall not prevale against it ,‘hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them?And also the saying ,”Upon this rock will I build My Church”? Are the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only and will no other of the blessed receive them”? Origen,Commentary on Matthew.12: 10-11.]

PETER THE ROCK AND THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER!!!

**“At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands he committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to to do and bear all. He bade tarry here [Antioch,] for a long period . Thus in his sight our City was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him and that is that this man, [Ignatius of Antioch,] succeeded to the office after him. For just as anyone taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the wole building and make it more unsound so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here , the Grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completeed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” S. J. Chrysostom, Hom. on S.Ignatius. 4.) **

S.J.Chrysostom on the Primacy!

"**James was invested with the chief rule [Acts.15.] and thinking it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. ‘And after they had held their peace, James answered,’ etc. [vs 13.] Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James more mildly: for thus it behooves one in higher authority, to leave what is unpleasant for othersto say, while he himself appears in the milder part!” [Hom. on Acts of the Apostles 33.]
**

**

 

[GKC]

“At Trent which was not an Ecumenical Council, because it had neither been properly summonsed, nor had the Catholic Churches, neither Anglican nor of the East been asked!”

Hmm. Here’s another one.

Henry and Elizabeth were each approached, as the Council stopped and started, to attend. Henry by Charles, and an envoy, Elizabeth by an envoy. Each declined, for political reasons. Whether it would have been useful to have them there is an interesting speculation.

Scarisbrick, HENRY VIII, pp. 469-470, Loades, ELIZABETH I, p. 152

Clement didn’t want the Council. Paul did, so did Charles. Charles and Paul had different ideas about what a good Council would be.

GKC

 

[luckyfredsdad]

At Trent which was not an Ecumenical Council, because it had neither been properly summonsed, nor had the Catholic Churches, neither Anglican nor of the East been asked!"

Hmm. Here’s another one.

**You’r looking too hard for fame. I doubt me it will get you in to the Romanist heaven unless you do a bit better!
First, I didn’t know Henry had been asked, I would have to look that up, not in the two latitudinarian writers you look to usually and I can’t in the two you mention in your mail. But Canon Dixon doesn’t mention it in 1700 pages of The History of the Church in England.Which covers Henry’s and Edward’s reigns exhaustively. So I do not believe it. Regarding Elizabeth? She was offered, or her Bishops were offered, seats with the poor relations, the protestants and she naturally refused! I personally would not count that as a genuine offer. But either way, the point of my letter, was as far as I am concerned, that the pope was not entitled to, or eligible to call a.” General” Council. It was the Roman Emperors prerogative traditionally and not the popes last Emperor died in 1453,] whose job was similar to all other bishops, simply to ratify or reject the findings. Further according to Dixon, there were never more than about 50 bishops there and a large portion of these were Italian ones who had to be either coerced or bribed by the pope, [probably in equal measure.] [Littledale, Council of Trent.]

**Canon Dixon mentions that Cardinal Pole, the Anglican papalist wrote a tract, Liber De Concilio that ,mentions the Emperor’s right to call the council and describes him as
“Head of the Church”! Presumably he was speaking of the cardboard Emperor,Holy Rpman and not the Byzantine ones. But it shows how circumstances change when it suits the Roman polemicists. Just think how much stick the Church in England has taken because the Tudors took the same title. **
**

 

[raumzeitmc2]

raumzeitmc2
Junior Member

WITH REGARD TO CHRIST AND PETER AND THE ROCK!

The Church Fathers Speak!

“…‘Thou art the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter and to us there might be said by the Word,‘Thou art Peter,‘etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank … and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church…

First, we should remember that Origen was an early writer. And in his day there was no fully developed notion of the Papacy such as we might understand the term nowadays. But Origen, traveling to Rome from Alexandria about the year 212, clearly recognized the special position of the *Church *at Rome, for he had been “desiring” to see “the most ancient church of Rome.”

See Eusebius, Church History, Book VI, 14:10, where he says of Origen:

So much for these matters. But Adamantius, — for this also was a name of Origen—when Zephyrinus was bishop of Rome, visited Rome, “desiring,” as he himself somewhere says, “to see the most ancient church of Rome.”

newadvent.org/fathers/250106.htm

The “Papacy” we must remember, was an outgrowth, not only of Christ’s words to Peter, but of the actual *unfolding historical of events *in the life of the Church, events which Christ himself was directing.

If however, we examine the writings of later fathers, who had the experience and hindsight of history to help guide guide them, then we do find a much more developed idea of* primacy of the Bishop of Rome*, of the great Apostolic See of Rome, even if all the particulars of that Primacy were not fully articulated.

But let’s recall again what St. Paul says about the Church at Rome, how it is “full of all goodness” and “filled with all knowledge.”

I myself am convinced about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge, and able to admonish one another. Romans 15:14.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans15.htm

Further, St. Paul tells us that these Roman Catholics were able to admonish one another, and thus able also to TEACH!

So we see Scripture, from the very beginning of the Churches existence, giving a certain special distinction to the Church at Rome. Do you agree?

Now going back to Origen’s statement. Origen is not here so much speaking of an office, but of Christians in general, of how they may be likened to Peter, even as they may be likened to Paul, or John or any of the other apostles. And Christians, really, can be likened not just to the apostles, but even to Christ himself! Christians are called “living stones”; Christ is called the "cornerstone for example. Not here also, that both Christ and Christians are called “stones,” not rocks!

But clearly, that doesn’t confer on them each individually Christs authority!

And what of the Old Testament? Could it not be said that those who did the will of God there might be likened, for example, to another Moses or another David? But surely such a resemblance, even if it exists, confered no authority on individual Jews.

But if you suppose that upon one Peter only the whole Church is built by God, what would you say about John the Son of Thunder or each one of the Apostles ? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect?

Again, this simply does not bear on the office of the Papacy.

Does not the previously made , ‘The gates of hades,’ shall not prevale against it ,‘hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them?And also the saying ,”Upon this rock will I build My Church”? Are the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only and will no other of the blessed receive them”? Origen,Commentary on Matthew.12: 10-11.]

Let me ask you: why did Christ single out Peter first to give the Keys to ? And why does he not give the keys to the people in any of His sermons?

PETER THE ROCK AND THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER!!!

**“At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands he committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to to do and bear all. He bade tarry here [Antioch,] for a long period . Thus in his sight our City was equivalent to the whole world. But since I have mentioned Peter, I have perceived a fifth crown woven from him and that is that this man, [Ignatius of Antioch,] succeeded to the office after him. For just as anyone taking a great stone from a foundation hastens by all means to introduce an equivalent to it, lest he should shake the wole building and make it more unsound so, accordingly, when Peter was about to depart from here , the Grace of the Spirit introduced another teacher equivalent to Peter, so that the building already completeed should not be made more unsound by the insignificance of the successor.” S. J. Chrysostom, Hom. on S.Ignatius. 4.) **

So here we have mention of *successors *to the apostles!

S.J.Chrysostom on the Primacy!

"**James was invested with the chief rule [Acts.15.] and thinking it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. ‘And after they had held their peace, James answered,’ etc. [vs 13.] Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James more mildly: for thus it behooves one in higher authority, to leave what is unpleasant for othersto say, while he himself appears in the milder part!” [Hom. on Acts of the Apostles 33.]
**

What are you saying, that James held the primacy?

 

[GKC]

At Trent which was not an Ecumenical Council, because it had neither been properly summonsed, nor had the Catholic Churches, neither Anglican nor of the East been asked!"

Hmm. Here’s another one.

**You’r looking too hard for fame. I doubt me it will get you in to the Romanist heaven unless you do a bit better!
First, I didn’t know Henry had been asked, I would have to look that up, not in the two latitudinarian writers you look to usually and I can’t in the two you mention in your mail. But Canon Dixon doesn’t mention it in 1700 pages of The History of the Church in England.Which covers Henry’s and Edward’s reigns exhaustively. So I do not believe it. Regarding Elizabeth? She was offered, or her Bishops were offered, seats with the poor relations, the protestants and she naturally refused! I personally would not count that as a genuine offer. But either way, the point of my letter, was as far as I am concerned, that the pope was not entitled to, or eligible to call a.” General” Council. It was the Roman Emperors prerogative traditionally and not the popes last Emperor died in 1453,] whose job was similar to all other bishops, simply to ratify or reject the findings. Further according to Dixon, there were never more than about 50 bishops there and a large portion of these were Italian ones who had to be either coerced or bribed by the pope, [probably in equal measure.] [Littledale, Council of Trent.]

**Canon Dixon mentions that Cardinal Pole, the Anglican papalist wrote a tract, Liber De Concilio that ,mentions the Emperor’s right to call the council and describes him as
“Head of the Church”! Presumably he was speaking of the cardboard Emperor,Holy Rpman and not the Byzantine ones. But it shows how circumstances change when it suits the Roman polemicists. Just think how much stick the Church in England has taken because the Tudors took the same title. ****

Believe it or not, as you wish. I don’t post to educate you (a daunting task), but to point out to the other readers when you say the thing that is not so. As, that Trent changed the Nicene Creed, or that the Act of Supremacy included the words “In as far as the law of Christ allows”. In this case you spoke, in your fashion, “…neither Anglican nor of the East been asked” Both the Supreme Head and the Supreme Governor were approached, and declined.

Charles couldn’t call a Council. Wasn’t in his job description. It’s why he pushed Clement and Paul around so much, threatening to call a German synod, or sic the Diet onto the issue. Surely you’ve read Froude.

The number of bishops attending depends on which functioning part of the Council you refer to, but yes, it was usually a predominance of Italians. Paul wished it so. And it was located in Trent …why?

Do look for the Scarisbrick. It supplanted Pollard as the best study of Hank’s life.

How’s page 37 coming?

GKC

 

[guanophore]

You say:

What does “Do this in remembrance of me.” suggest to you then? I suggest that is more than a hint.

Indeed, you are right. The memorial meal, based upon the amanesis of the Passover is an actual re-enactment of the original. During that re-enactment, they did not “symbolically” eat the lamb, but actually roasted and consumed the Lamb. One cannot understand the meaning of the “memorial” unless one understands the ritual of the Passover.

Jesus became the Lamb of our sacrifice. He gave his real blood and His real flesh on the cross, not “symbolic” flesh and blood. Also, the Lamb was to be completely consumed.

 

[guanophore]

If the “Pontiff” is “Roman” then the Church is Roman Catholic…You are clutching at straws and building a shifting-sand theology.

Sorry, 101,but this is just not accruate. Our last Pontiff was Polish,a nd that did not make the Church Polish. Our current Pontiff is German. that does not make the Church German. “Pontiff” is a Roman title. It does not change the languages and cultures of the Catholic Church that are not Roman.

If you were to admit that the Catholic Church is not Roman, most of the foundation of your profession against her would be washed away.

Also, where does the Bible say “Jesus grafted Peter into Himself?”

Jesus states that He builds His Church. There is only One Church, founded upon Himself, the cornerstone. Those who are built into Him like living stones are members of that One Body, the Church. The foundation of that building is comprised of the Apostles and Prophets. Perhaps you would like to explain how Peter can be part of the foundation, which is inseparably connected to the cornerstone, some other way?

Eph 2:19-22
19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 **built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, **21 in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; 22 in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

1 Peter 2:4-8
4 Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; 5 and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For it stands in scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7 To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe,

“The very stone which the builders rejected
has become the head of the corner,”

8 and

“A stone that will make men stumble,
a rock that will make them fall”;

Jesus did not rename Simon to “Rock” just to hear Himself talk. God only renames people when He is showing that He intends to change the course of their lives.

Even today; all apostles of Christ’s love are given the same commission as Peter; to follow Jesus in feeding His sheep. There is no difference in “authority” between laity and clergy.

Your perspective is not supported by scripture and history.

However, I understand why you must cling to this errant view, in order to justify rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ.

When there is, it is man-made. We all have the same “authority” to collectively form that Rock upon which the Church was built - “Christ in you, the Hope of glory.” Peter, and all other believers are “rocks,” while Jesus is THE Rock" upon which THE Church is built.

Actually, what is “man-made” is that perspective that departs from the Apostolic faith that is held by the Church from the day Jesus appointed Peter to His ministry to the flock until this day.

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. Ignatius to Smyrna ch 8 110 AD

Here is the trouble, 101. The same people that believed in Apostolic Succession and Authority are those who composed the Bible. If they were in error, why would you accept the NT at all?

If your view is correct, then they were already off course into “man-made” stuff just a few decades after the Apostles. Since the NT was not formed for three more centuries, how can it be reliable?

 

[guanophore]

I am not sure why you are here on CAF, lucky, or whether you plan to stay, but if you wish to continue dialogue, it would be in your best interest to read and follow the forum rules, which prohibit this type of derogatory remarks.

Certain Churches state that they are “Roman” to distinguish themselves from the other 22 Rites of the Catholic Church.

Might not be Apostolic Roman, but near enough.

I suppose, if your intention is to insult Catholics, this is as good a method as any. Those of us that do not belong to the Roman Rite find this offensive.

“that Robber Council.”

At Trent which was not an Ecumenical Council, because it had neither been properly summonsed, nor had the Catholic Churches, neither Anglican nor of the East been asked!
Further it had been called by the Bishop of Rome, when, as far as I can see it was the Roman Emperor’s decision. To get people there [Bishops,] the pope had to bribe them by paying them money whilst he himself chose the organisers and officials while at the same time laying down what was to be discussed. Nothing had to be said about the papacy! So too, the pope sent orders that to publish no decree in advance of any session, nor even to propose it in any congregation,till it had been first submitted and approved by himself.

What has this to do with “robbery”?
luckyfredsdad;5020805:

It was agreed that tradition should have equal place with scripture

This has been the Apostolic Teaching from the beginning. Is there some good reason to change it?

and at the closing sessions that confirmation of all its findings should be asked for from the pope. This latter was a new ad

Clearly, had the Pope been paying this kind of attention to the doings of the bishops and priests in Europe prior to Trent, then it is possible the Reformation may never would have occurred!

I assure you however I do try and will with your help try to improve and ‘promise to amend as they do say!

I hope you will give equal attention to the forum rules.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by Moderator Rachel Malloy.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please continue your discussion while being mindful of your charity!

 

[ricko]

Just to clear up one item that a person or more seem to be misinformed on.

The correct and official name of the Catholic Church is just that… The Catholic Church.

It consists of several different Rites, each having their own customs. The western world is mainly the Latin or Roman rite. It is proper for a Catholic in the west to identify himself as “Catholic, of the Roman rite” or just “Catholic” period.

It would be no more correct for me to call you Robert if your name is William than it is for anyone to call the Church “the Roman Catholic Church” or RCC as some use which should be CC. RCC reminds me of Royal Crown Cola and certainly not the Catholic Church.

In Christianity, calling a person or organization by its proper name is considered “good manners”

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Just to clear up one item that a person or more seem to be misinformed on.

The correct and official name of the Catholic Church is just that… The Catholic Church.

**In a northern hill town near where I live the Roman Clergy regularly issue and pass around a document named The Profession of the Tridentine Faith. Subtitled, *The Creed of Pius 10th. ***It is usually given to those who seek to return to the Church!
The last article begins ,I acknowledge the Holy Catholic, Apostolic ROMAN Church as the mother and mistress of all churches……

Now what does that say to you? What should people do who receive this document in good faith? If you have a complaint I think it should be made to the new, Cardinal Westminster or the parish priest who issues the document ,not to me!

Read also Bettenson ,Documents of the Christian Church, World Classics.Pg.373.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Re: The name, “Roman Catholic Church.”

From Wikipedia:

The Roman Catholic Church, officially known as the Catholic Church [note 1] is the world’s largest Christian church, representing over half of all Christians and one-sixth of the world’s population.[6][7]

Note 1 reads:

The Greek word “catholic” means “universal” and was first used to describe the Church by Ignatius in the late first, early second century.[1][2] Some different Christian denominations not in communion with The Catholic Church describe themselves as “catholic” (see Catholicism), but in common usage it refers to the body also known as the Roman Catholic Church and its members.[2]

The Church itself in its official documents since the first Council of Nicea in 325, including the documents of the most recent ecumenical councils, Vatican I and Vatican II, uses the name “Catholic Church”.[3][4]

According to Kenneth Whitehead, in his book One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic which was used by Catholic media to explain the Church’s name to worldwide viewers, “The term ‘Roman Catholic’ is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, confined largely to the English language.”[3] The Catholic Encyclopedia states “With regard to the modern use of the word, Roman Catholic is the designation employed in the legislative enactments of Protestant England, but Catholic is that in ordinary use on the Continent of Europe, especially in Latin countries. … From about the year 1580, besides the term papist, employed with opprobrious intent, the followers of the old religion were often called Romish or Roman Catholics. … Neither do the Catholics always seem to have objected to the appellation, but sometimes used it themselves.”[5]

Within the Church, the term refers to the Diocese of Rome or to the Roman Rite (Latin Rite) which comprises the largest part but not all of the worldwide Catholic Church which includes other rites as well (see Eastern Catholic Churches).[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church

---

But why do I complain of the disparagement of priests and of the sacraments, when almost everything is torn to pieces by them, spat upon in contempt, and put up to public ridicule? "There is no pope," they say, "no king, and lastly, no bishop or priest."…

There are many churches, moreover, where they consider it not only improper for them to enter, but where they judge them unworthy of paying them their respect. For they disdain to pay honor to churches dedicated by bishops who for some reason they considered unworthy…

But since Paul, who had previously been caught up to the third heaven, (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2) did not refuse to appear before Nero, what monk can be so proud of his holiness that he dare condemn the decision of the Apostolic See, where, to be sure, attention is paid, not a man’s deserts, but to the regulations governing ecclesiastical office?

These monks reach their decision on street corners, and defame the jurisdiction of synods. They pass judgment on monks, disparage everything that smacks of clerics, and are careful not to offend laymen who, indeed, deserve to be more sharply and bitterly censured. Should they see a monk approaching, they will say, "Look, here comes one of those scapulars.”.

Peter Daminan, Letter 146 (Lent, A. D. 1067)

The Letters of Peter Damian, 121-150 (Fathers of the Church, Medieval Continuation), Owen J. Blum O.F.M., tr., 2004, ISBN 081321372X, p. 163