Is the first Catholic Church Roman?

[guanophore]

Not really, When you have women teaching in church without headcovering, reading the Epistles, giving sermons, administering the Sacrament of the Eucharist, reciting and celebrating the entire communion service in the absence of a priest, they are performing activities that were once reserved only for the male clergy. Things sometimes proceed step by step, one step at a time.

Most of these are simply liturgical abuses, and are improper/illicit. The refusal to follow the Teaching of the Church on such matters should not be considered “progress” of any kind, but rather, what it is, which is at the very least ignorance, and at worst, outright rebellion.

The question was whether or not a female priesthood necessarily implies that there is no place for Jesus Christ in that Church. Your comment does not address that question.

There is a place for Jesus Christ in every heart, and every congregation that confesses Him as Lord and Saviour. They are no less subjects of the Roman Pontiff. Rebellious, disobedinet, disorderly, etc, but subjects none the less.

 

[guanophore]

 As clear as mud – precisely because they jettisoned the Magisterium with Christ’s Church

It might be muddy to you, Abu, because you refuse to admit the facts of the situation.

It was the other way around. They jettisoned the magesterium, ,because they perceived it as incurably incorrigible. They had plenty of valid grounds to believe so.

, and thus lost the priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and most of the sacraments and proceeded to the evils of divorce, contraception, abortion, euthanasia, IVF, women “priests” and women “bishops”, and no authoritative teaching, except virtually anything goes. What next is to come?

I think that what has been collapsing will continue to do so until it is totally dissolves (unless the Lord builds the house, then in vain to the buliders labor) and those who are faithful to the Sacred Tradition will return to the fold from whence they came, by God’s grace.

That fantasy of an “incurably incorrigible structure” has resulted in all of those losses while Christ’s Catholic Church is the only institution teaching the fullness of His Truth.

It was not a fantasy for them, Abu, but actual lived experience. There is just no way to justify or excuse the greed and indulgece of the desires of the flesh within the Magesterium. Take a look at the Medici family and how the Bishop of Rome involved himself and other cardinals and bishops in the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.

Get on Netflix and watch the series on the Borgia. Perhaps that will help you stop pounding Reformers over the head with such self righteous disdain.

“Thomas Babington Macaulay, unusual for an Evangelical, became fascinated by the Church of Rome in which he found many things to admire, and in his essay on Ranke’s History of the Pope’s in the 1840 Edinburgh Review he both argued that it had proved itself the most successful and long-lived of all Western institutions and it had done so because — and this would certainly have been a point particularly surprising to Victorian Protestants — it handled dissent far more positively than had those who broke away from it. — George P. Landow”

Personally I think that the only thing that has held it together is that it is divinely instututed, and Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail. Any human institution with this degree of corruption wouol have failed long ago.

If you were standing in the shoes of Hus or the Albigensians, I dont think you would find the Church very tolerant to dissention.

No number of wrongs make a right. There are endless selfist constructions. The very fact of disregarding Christ’s clear institution of His Church including “he that hears you hears Me” shows the selfism which is rampant.

You can blame it on selfishness, but there was no greater selfishness to be found than what lived in the corrupt Catholhic clericts of the time. It is not surprising that the flock had difficulty seeing and hearing Christ in their words and actions. The charge that the true Gospel was obscured is merited, as so many were no living out the gospel in word or deed.

 

[guanophore]

There have been cases where the reverse occurred; i.e., a Roman Catholic priest becomes an Episcopal priest. In a case like that, would the Sacraments of the former Roman Catholic priest be valid?

I don’t think so, since the form and intention are different.

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #60
There have been cases where the reverse occurred; i.e., a Roman Catholic priest becomes an Episcopal priest. In a case like that, would the Sacraments of the former Roman Catholic priest be valid?

A Catholic priest loses the clerical state “by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed”, Canon Law #290. “He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.” (Can #292).

 

[Mystophilus]

What is it that went against the Vatican?

Your claim that “Roman” is not part of the name of the Catholic Church, when it is so used by the Vatican. It is no bother to me either way, but I really think that you should have it out with them if you want it to stop being used.

you were blaming Catholics for starting it and doing all the harm .

Here is my post. Please locate the part of it in which I blame Catholics for starting it and doing all the harm.

Re: “THEY” and what caused anyone to become a heretic

Sorry, but all this text says is that someone who chooses a different way (i.e. a dissenter/heretic) is to be rejected after a second reminder. It fails to demonstrate anything about the early Protestant Reformers having magically created their ideas ex nihilo.

I quoted one who was Catholic

Actually, you quoted a theologian, but even had you quoted a Catholic historian, such as Lord Acton (“Power corrupts”, etc), it would still have failed to disprove the existence of all of the Protestant historians. Newman’s epigram is cute, but not remotely defensible.

It’s a tempest in a tea pot.

Which attitude is, as mentioned, why attempts at unity keep failing.

There’s only one letter Clement wrote, the others he was claimed to have written are spurious. The news of Clement dealing with sedition of bishops in Corinth (letter to the Corinthians) got around to more than Ignatius. For example, Irenaeus of Smyrna, same city as Polycarp, same city bishop Ignatius writes to, makes reference to Clement’s letter as well.

Irenaeus does, but, since Ignatius does not mention the letter, that “as well” is inaccurate.

Ignatius makes a quick reference, Irenaeus goes into detail to make his point

Sorry, but no: as already mentioned, Ignatius makes no reference either to Clement or to his letter, and there is something which you are evidently missing in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans. Although English no longer differentiates between the plural and the singular forms of “you”, Greek did, and all of those references in ch. 3 of Ignatius’ Romans are plural: he is not talking about just one person’s teaching, but about the teaching of the people in that church.

You should stick with Irenaeus, because Ignatius is not helping your cause.

Asking one bishop to assemble other bishops to meet, to find his replacement when he’s martyred, is one thing,

Actually, Ignatius teaches people in other bishops’ churches, throughout his letters. So does Polycarp in his.

Clement’s action otoh, was a whole different situation

Ignatius teaches through his letters; Polycarp teaches through his letter; Clement teaches through his letter.

 

[Abu]

guanophore #62
you refuse to admit the facts of the situation

The facts confirm that the Catholic Church is the only Church with the fullness of Christ’s teaching, His priesthood and His sacraments.

They jettisoned the magesterium, ,because they perceived it as incurably incorrigible. They had plenty of valid grounds to believe so.

That is precisely why they are in such a mess – without Christ’s instituted Magisterium no other grouping has the fullness of His Truth

There is just no way to justify or excuse the greed and indulgece of the desires of the flesh within the Magesterium. Take a look at the Medici family and how the Bishop of Rome involved himself and other cardinals and bishops in the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life.

Just as there is no attempt to justify anyone in the Catholic Church, including popes, committing sin, there is no justification whatsoever for anyone claiming what Christ has not provided, and does not provide, to any other Protestant grouping – the fullness of His truth, His Magisterium and all the sacraments. The fact that there has NEVER been any false doctrine on faith or morals taught to the whole Church by the Magisterium reveals the falsity of the claims.

You can blame it on selfishness, but there was no greater selfishness to be found than what lived in the corrupt Catholhic clericts of the time

No, it is selfism – narcissism, egoism, self-worship, in place of Christ’s Church, and it is the same with all of those who jettison Christ’s Church and His Magisterium.

 

[Tomdstone]

The fact that there has NEVER been any false doctrine on faith or morals taught to the whole Church by the Magisterium reveals the falsity of the claims.

Is Limbo for unbaptized infants a true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church? Also, in the early Church it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, that turned out to be not correct, as it is now taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son?
As far as morals go, was it taught that slaves must obey their earthly masters with respect and fear and that it was morally wrong for them not to do so?
And was torture by the rack accepted as morally justified when extracting confessions during the Inquisition?

 

[paulrxp]

Protestant roots do, most definitely, lie in Catholicism. All the first reformers were baptized Catholics. I think it is also very significant that no such divisions ever took place in the Eastern Church.
.

That is a rather interesting point. The Reformers were all from the Western Church, and their protest was against it. One wonders though why they just didn’t become Eastern Orthodox. It would be one of the top questions I’d ask the reformers, anyone have any theories?

 

[Vico]

That is a rather interesting point. The Reformers were all from the Western Church, and their protest was against it. One wonders though why they just didn’t become Eastern Orthodox. It would be one of the top questions I’d ask the reformers, anyone have any theories?

The reformers developed a different theology and moved away from Catholic and Orthodox tradition.

There were many schisms in Orthodoxy: Arsenite Schism, Old Believers, and those coming into full communion with the Catholic Church from the 16th century and later.

 

[steve_b]

Here is my post. Please locate the part of it in which I blame Catholics for starting it and doing all the harm.

What I was responding to was what you said here #27

“Catholics have been calling us heretics for a while. Somehow, calling us names, not to mention declaring wars against us and killing us, has failed to encourage us to recant; in fact, all it has ever encouraged Protestants to do is to call Catholics names, declare wars against Catholics, and kill Catholics. The end result has not been the conversion of anyone, just five hundred years of stupid warfare and the murder of innocents.”

looks to me like you’re saying Catholics started the killing.
M:

Sorry, but all this text says is that someone who chooses a different way (i.e. a dissenter/heretic) is to be rejected after a second reminder. It fails to demonstrate anything about the early Protestant Reformers having magically created their ideas ex nihilo.

That word for heretic means

• disposed to form sects, heretical, factious, a factious person, specializing in half-truths and misimpressions “to win others over” to their personal opinion (misguided zeal) – while creating harmful divisions

look where else (factions, sects, divisions etc )are also condemned, as I’ve said before, Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21, διχοστασίας dichostasia is the same word used in both passages. Romans shows who a person is REALLY serving (Satan), and Galatians gives the personal consequences for that sin.
M:

Actually, you quoted a theologian, but even had you quoted a Catholic historian, such as Lord Acton (“Power corrupts”, etc), it would still have failed to disprove the existence of all of the Protestant historians. Newman’s epigram is cute, but not remotely defensible.

No one can argue against Newman’s statement.
M:

Irenaeus does, but, since Ignatius does not mention the letter, that “as well” is inaccurate.
Although English no longer differentiates between the plural and the singular forms of “you”, Greek did, and all of those references in ch. 3 of Ignatius’ Romans are plural: he is not talking about just one person’s teaching, but about the teaching of the people in that church.

When Ignatius said “do nothing without the bishop”, we know what he means.

Clement used the royal “we” when talking to Corinth. That’s because he’s speaking for the Church.
M:

Actually, Ignatius teaches people in other bishops’ churches, throughout his letters. So does Polycarp in his. Ignatius teaches through his letters; Polycarp teaches through his letter; Clement teaches through his letter.

when Ignatius wrote to Rome

“You have never envied any one; you have taught others.”

Why would he write about envy? What specifically is he talking about since he didn’t say that to or about any other church he wrote to?

Clement’s First Epistle” Count the times “envy “ is used.

Do the same search through Ignatius letters

• Epistle to the Ephesians
• Epistle to the Magnesians
• Epistle to the Trallians
• Epistle to the Romans
• Epistle to the Philadelphians
• Epistle to the Smyrnæans
• Epistle to Polycarp

Where is the only place in these letters where “envy” and teaching others comes up? Romans. OTOH, How many times did “envy” come up in Clement’s writing to Corinth? 20 times. He obviously was instructing then and admonishing them against envy. Ignatius wakes clear reference to Clement’s letter to Corinth

 

[phil19034]

Your claim that “Roman” is not part of the name of the Catholic Church, when it is so used by the Vatican. It is no bother to me either way, but I really think that you should have it out with them if you want it to stop being used.

Read the following from ETWN. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

It will explain the usage of “Roman Catholic Church,” which is NOT an official name.

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #67
Is Limbo for unbaptized infants a true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

LIMBO for infants:
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1261):
"Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

“Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].

Also, in the early Church it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. However, that turned out to be not correct, as it is now taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son?

Never. That error was first elaborated by the Monarchians (c. 200). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press].

As far as morals go, was it taught that slaves must obey their earthly masters with respect and fear and that it was morally wrong for them not to do so?

In Exodus 21:2, the Sacred Scripture says: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.” Note here that God is not commanding the Israelites to have slaves (servants). Rather, He is merely implicitly permitting them to have slaves. What is referred to in other translations as “slaves” is more correctly rendered as “servants,” as the Douay Bible has it.

In Ephesians 6:5, 8 Paul is often quoted eagerly, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.

And was torture by the rack accepted as morally justified when extracting confessions during the Inquisition?

Regrettably torture has been used during those days.
In Veritatis Splendor, 80, Pope St John Paul II defines torture as intrinsically evil.

*The Catechism of the Catholic Church *states:
Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law (CCC 2297).

 

[steve_b]

Mystophilus forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif

oooops! Try this
catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-

That didn’t seem to work either.

Try this How do we counter the charge that the addition of “filioque” was an illicit alteration of the Creed?

hope that works

 

[phil19034]

Is Limbo for unbaptized infants a true teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

Limbo was NEVER an official teaching of the Catholic Church. It was a THEORY which because popular. Some nuns even thought it like it was official, but it was NEVER was.

Also, in the early Church it was taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
However, that turned out to be not correct, as it is now taught that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son?

The early Church’s creed said that “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father,” but the Church NEVER taught that it Son was not part of it.
Read the following:

• catholic.com/tracts/filioque
• catholic.com/quickquestions/how-do-we-counter-the-charge-that-the-addition-of-filioque-was-an-illicit-alteration-

As far as morals go, was it taught that slaves must obey their earthly masters with respect and fear and that it was morally wrong for them not to do so?

Your taking this out of context. The Church never taught that slavery (as Americans know it) was acceptable. It was always morally wrong and gravely sinful.

What the Church did teach was that **slaves, servants & apprentices **should obey their masters AND that masters should treat their slaves/servants/apprentices with respect and Human Dignity. Human Dignity includes the ability to own possessions, etc. In those situations, slaves, apprentices & indentured servants either served a set time period or could earn their freedom. Others agreed to living as a servant in order to receive food and protection. So the Church taught the slaves/servants/apprentices to cooperate with the system so they could live safe & healthy lives and eventually earn their freedom.

But the Church still taught that depriving a person of Human Dignity is/was/always will be morally wrong and that slavery that deprives a person of his/her Dignity is/was/always morally wrong. NOTE: American slavery 100% deprived a person of Human Dignity because it treated them like animals; hence the Church was 100% opposed to it.

And was torture by the rack accepted as morally justified when extracting confessions during the Inquisition?

The Church cannot be held accountable for what people and rulers (who just happended to be Catholic) did; no more than the Church of England be blamed for things the King of England or other English people did.

catholic.com/tracts/the-inquisition
catholic.com/magazine/articles/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed
catholic.com/magazine/articles/an-inquisition-primer

 

[randomusername]

I don’t see the problem with using Roman Catholic. There’s Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, etc. So why can’t I use the term that states my rite as well?

 

[phil19034]

I don’t see the problem with using Roman Catholic. There’s Eastern Catholic, Roman Catholic, etc. So why can’t I use the term that states my rite as well?

Using it to define your Rite is ok. Using it to define the entire Catholic Church is not.

Roman Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Ukrainian Greek Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Ethiopian Catholics, Malabar Catholics, etc. are all Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome. We are all Catholics. Calling the universal Catholic Church “Roman” negates the universality of the Church. (Which is why Anglicans started calling us that)

 

[Tomdstone]

LIMBO for infants:
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1261):
"Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.”

“Limbo was never a defined truth of faith.” The Ratzinger Report, p147].
Never. That error was first elaborated by the Monarchians (c. 200). Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, revised Fr Peter Joseph, 2001, The Saint Austin Press].
In Exodus 21:2, the Sacred Scripture says: “If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve thee; in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.” Note here that God is not commanding the Israelites to have slaves (servants). Rather, He is merely implicitly permitting them to have slaves. What is referred to in other translations as “slaves” is more correctly rendered as “servants,” as the Douay Bible has it.

In Ephesians 6:5, 8 Paul is often quoted eagerly, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.
Regrettably torture has been used during those days.
In Veritatis Splendor, 80, Pope St John Paul II defines torture as intrinsically evil.

*The Catechism of the Catholic Church *states:
Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law (CCC 2297).

Well, limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism and in Catholic catechism classes, all over the USA. And the creed declared at Constantinople proclaimed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. This can easily be checked.
In any event, you appear to agree that the teaching on torture has changed, which was my point on changes in moral teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
Do you agree that slavery is wrong, but that Popes have held slaves?

 

[phil19034]

Well, limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism and in Catholic catechism classes, all over the USA. And the creed declared at Constantinople proclaimed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father. This can easily be checked.
In any event, you appear to agree that the teaching on torture has changed, which was my point on changes in moral teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
Do you agree that slavery is wrong, but that Popes have held slaves?

The Baltimore catechism was NOT an official Church document. It was written by the American Bishops (who are not infallible), not the Vatican or the Pope. The Church never had an official Catechism until Pope St. John Paul II

Regarding your other points, read my previous reply to you.

So, the teaching on torture didn’t change. What people considered torture changed. You are confusing human interpretation (which is not infallible) with Church Teaching. The Church never said “this kind of torture is ok and this kind is not.”

Finally, let’s remember, when we say the “Church’s Teaching” we are referring to the magisterium. Not a group of Bishops or priests or nuns, but what the magisterium says.

 

[Abu]

Tomdstone #77
Well, limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism and in Catholic catechism classes, all over the USA.

If you know that why conceal or distort the truth?

Baltimore Catechism:
Q. 67. Who were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it?
A. There were in Limbo when Our Lord descended into it the souls of all those who died the friends of God, but could not enter heaven till the Ascension of Our Lord.

Thus Limbo was only until the Ascension.

the creed declared at Constantinople proclaimed that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father

Incorrect.

THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
Canon 5
“Regarding the Tome [2] of the Westerns: we have also recognised those in Antioch who confess a single Godhead of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.”
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CONSTAN1.HTM

Do you agree that slavery is wrong, but that Popes have held slaves?

Don’t you know that in Ephesians 6:9 St Paul teaches re “slaves”: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.”

Christ had not condemned slavery and St Paul told slaves to obey their masters (Col 3:22, et al), but with St Paul, the Church revolutionised the status of the slave from the first: (re Onesimus) “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” (Philemon 1:16).

This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – Pope Callistus (d. 236) had been a slave. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.

Continued expressed antagonism to Christ and His Church fails to understand that She is the spotless spouse of Christ, and remains so forever. Thus She is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy” [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39], despite the sins of Her members.

 

[Mystophilus]

Read the following from ETWN. ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

It will explain the usage of “Roman Catholic Church,” which is NOT an official name.

Sorry, but the same comment applies: the Vatican uses it.