Is the first Catholic Church Roman?

[guanophore]

All Protestants regardless of stripe fall into The Great Heresies each heresy coming in their own time. Protestant roots go no farther back than the protestant revolt in the 16th century.

So you do not consider the Cathars, Albignesians, John Hus, Tyndale or Wycliffe “protestant”?

BTW, I’ve asked this question over the years. Haven’t gotten an answer… yet. Maybe you have one.

What question is that?

The Orthodox are seperated from the chair of Peter as well, thus they are in schism. An act of schism, like heresy as well, are condemned in scripture. And that condemnation has no expiration date.

Actually the mutual excommunications were withdrawn, and the Orthodox are considered by the CC to have valid Holy Orders and valid sacraments. They are also not held responsible for the sin of schism that was charged to their ancestors.

An Irish Catholic is a Catholic. Re: different “rites” in the Catholic Church, they are still Catholic. If an Irish person is Anglican for example, they are Protestant

Just wanted to make a few clarifications

Irish Catholics are Latin Catholics (they received their liturgy in the Latin Rite).

 

[steve_b]

So you do not consider the Cathars, Albignesians, John Hus, Tyndale or Wycliffe “protestant”?

The point is heresy. That list isn’t meant as an exhaustive list. Heretics by any other name are still heretics
g:

What question is that?

The question is, When is the first time we see “Orthodox Church” in writing? And I would like to see the reference properly referenced
g:

Actually the mutual excommunications were withdrawn, and the Orthodox are considered by the CC to have valid Holy Orders and valid sacraments. They are also not held responsible for the sin of schism that was charged to their ancestors.

There is still schism to deal with.
g:

Irish Catholics are Latin Catholics (they received their liturgy in the Latin Rite).

There are also other Catholic rites in Ireland. They are ALL Catholic, not just Latin.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

The question is, When is the first time we see “Orthodox Church” in writing? And I would like to see the reference properly referenced

I may by mistaken but it may have been in 451AD at the Council of Chalcedon:

Canon 14. Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, the sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptised among heretics, they are to bring them into the communion of the catholic church. If they have not been baptised, they may no longer have them baptised among heretics; nor indeed marry them to a heretic or a Jew or a Greek, unless of course the person who is to be married to the **orthodox party **promises to convert to the orthodox faith. If anyone transgresses this decree of the sacred synod, let him be subject to canonical penalty.

 

[steve_b]

I may by mistaken but it may have been in 451AD at the Council of Chalcedon:
Canon 14. Since in certain provinces readers and cantors have been allowed to marry, the sacred synod decrees that none of them is permitted to marry a wife of heterodox views. If those thus married have already had children, and if they have already had the children baptised among heretics, they are to bring them into the communion of the catholic church. If they have not been baptised, they may no longer have them baptised among heretics; nor indeed marry them to a heretic or a Jew or a Greek, unless of course the person who is to be married to the **orthodox party **promises to convert to the orthodox faith. If anyone transgresses this decree of the sacred synod, let him be subject to canonical penalty.

that might be the only answer I’ve received in all the years of asking the question.

My question however, is when is the first time we see “Orthodox Church” in writing. I think in this context you present, it is a different context. Orthodox is an adjective not a noun. But kudos to you for responding. Thanks

This DOES show

• one must be in communion with the Catholic Church, (name)in order to be considered orthodox (adjective) in their faith and not heterodox (adjective) in their faith.
• one knows the Catholic Church and where it is, in order to be in compliance with this canon

Thanks for your response

 

[Vico]

that might be the only answer I’ve received in all the years of asking the question.

My question however, is when is the first time we see “Orthodox Church” in writing. I think in this context you present, it is a different context. Orthodox is an adjective not a noun. But kudos to you for responding. Thanks

This DOES show

• one must be in communion with the Catholic Church, (name)in order to be considered orthodox (adjective) in their faith and not heterodox (adjective) in their faith.
• one knows the Catholic Church and where it is, in order to be in compliance with this canon

Thanks for your response

Orthodox Catholic, was used in reaction to Nestorianism. Eventually Orthodox became more common in the eastern regions, according to Catholic Encyclopedia. No particular point in time was identified. The Synod of Jerusalem 1672 A.D. does not refer to an Orthodox Church.

 

[Mystophilus]

newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm are you refering to the forgery?

Nope. You might want to reread that link: the forgery is the Constitutum Domini Constantini Imperatoris, supposedly from Constantine to Syvlester I in the C4th, not Adrian I’s letter to Charlemagne (to which I would give a link if my internet connection had not gone insane).

 

[Mystophilus]

The “Roman” qualifier for the Catholic Church is explained here “http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Roman+Catholic”

As noted above, this explanation is historically inaccurate: “Roman” has been used as part of the designation for much longer than that, even by Popes and the Vatican itself.

All Protestants regardless of stripe fall into The Great Heresies

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.

So perhaps, just perhaps, it’s time we all left that sort of thing behind, and tried to find a more … how can I put this … Christian solution to the problem?

each heresy coming in their own time. Protestant roots go no farther back than the protestant revolt in the 16th century.

Nope. Protestant roots lie in Catholicism. If you want to call us prodigal children, at least remember whose children we are.

Hence Cardinal Newman’s famous quote, “to be deep in history is to cease being Protestant”

Considering that I live with one, and hang out with several other Protestants each of whose expertise in history is far greater than Newman’s ever was, I really must disagree with him on that one.

When is the first time we see “Orthodox Church” in writing?

The OED’s earliest reference in English is Paul Rycaut, 1679, although their earliest for “Orthodox Church” is 1772 (J. G. King). That, however, is our designation for them. As you will see in this catechism (especially 270-2, 279-280), they call themselves “the Catholic Church”.

As a general observation I would think the answer has to be well AFTER the council of Nicea, because the Nicene creed makes it an article of faith that one is to believe in One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.

Of course it does, and we Anglicans, like many other Protestants and like the Orthodox, proclaim that Creed regularly in church, and we believe in a singular, sacred, universal church descending from the Twelve Apostles. As we all understand, that statement referred not to a unity of churches based upon adherence to Rome, but to a unity of churches based upon adherence to one another. I believe that the Orthodox now (generally) understand it as referring only to themselves. Some Protestants take it as referring only to themselves; others of us take it as referring to all who agree with the ideas expressed in the Creed.

The Orthodox are seperated from the chair of Peter as well, thus they are in schism.

Actually, from the perspective of the Orthodox, it was the Latin churches which separated, while the Orthodox stayed on the original path: that is why they go one about the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, and the Latins’ change from a conciliar system to a centralised one. Frankly, their argument is the more compelling.

BTW, Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Church of Rome, wrote that the Church of Rome holds the presidency.

In fact, what he says is 'ητις και προκαθεται εν τοπωι χωριου 'Ρωμαιων, “the-one-which also presides in the-place of the-region of-the-Romans”. He is very specific about the location of that church’s pre-eminence, and does not assign any universal significance, let alone universal authority, to her.

 

[steve_b]

As noted above, this explanation is historically inaccurate: “Roman” has been used as part of the designation for much longer than that, even by Popes and the Vatican itself.

It’s accurate. “Roman Catholic Church” as it’s being used has NOT been the historical designation for the Church.

the Roman Church, was a location, just like the Corinthian Church, and the Jerusalem Church etc etc. In the documents that have been presented it is written “Roman Church”. The Anglican issue is clearly explained

The Catholic Church is the official name of the Church.
M:

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.

Seems to me Henry VIII started that killing and such that you describe. Do you know why Protestantism is called heresy?
M:

Nope. Protestant roots lie in Catholicism. If you want to call us prodigal children, at least remember whose children we are.

Catholicism isn’t a heresy. Your roots lie in your founders. They started their own deal. God does NOT divide what He prays will be perfectly one John 17:20-23. If people divide and do their own thing, they have to know they aren’t serving Our Lord Jesus but their own selfish appetites. Romans 16:17-20 , abd for those who do it there are dire consequences
Galatians 5:19-21 . The word for division / dissension /factions / sedition διχοστασίας* dichostasia* (whichever translation one uses) in those 2 passages is the same Greek word. So we know what the consequences for that sin is, if one dies in that state.
I would not be doing you any favors by glossing over that or ignoring it altogether.
Biblically, the same consequences are for heresy as well.
M:

Considering that I live with one, and hang out with several other Protestants each of whose expertise in history is far greater than Newman’s ever was, I really must disagree with him on that one.

Ya gotta show evidence for that my friend.
M:

The OED’s earliest reference in English is Paul Rycaut, 1679, although their earliest for “Orthodox Church” is 1772 (J. G. King). That, however, is our designation for them. As you will see in this catechism (especially 270-2, 279-280), they call themselves “the Catholic Church”.

It doesn’t matter what they call themselves. It’s a matter of what is true

As Augustine wrote in his time,

“[T]he very name of Catholic . . . belongs to this Church alone . . . so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called `The Foundation’ 4:5 [397 A.D.]).
newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm
M:

Of course it does, and we Anglicans, like many other Protestants and like the Orthodox, proclaim that Creed regularly in church, and we believe in a singular, sacred, universal church descending from the Twelve Apostles. As we all understand, that statement referred not to a unity of churches based upon adherence to Rome, but to a unity of churches based upon adherence to one another. I believe that the Orthodox now (generally) understand it as referring only to themselves. Some Protestants take it as referring only to themselves; others of us take it as referring to all who agree with the ideas expressed in the Creed.

And around and around it goes.
M:

Actually, from the perspective of the Orthodox, it was the Latin churches which separated, while the Orthodox stayed on the original path: that is why they go one about the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, and the Latins’ change from a conciliar system to a centralised one. Frankly, their argument is the more compelling.

They even agree the filioque is a tempest in a tea pot. The Church has never been conciliar “alone”. And who leads the Orthodox churches now?
M:

In fact, what he says is 'ητις και προκαθεται εν τοπωι χωριου 'Ρωμαιων, “the-one-which also presides in the-place of the-region of-the-Romans”. He is very specific about the location of that church’s pre-eminence, and does not assign any universal significance, let alone universal authority, to her.

Ignatius brings up the fact that Rome settled sedition among the bishops in Corinth Greece. You know how the authority of any bishop is. It’s in his own diocese. He has no authority in another bishop’s diocese, and certainly not in another country. Yet Clement of Rome settled sedition in Corinth. St John the apostle is still alive. Living much closer to Corinth than Clement of Rome was.

 

[Bookcat]

The names used by Christians for the Church and for themselves has been varied.

First members of the Church were called “the disciples”…

Later called followers of “the way” …and it seems “Nazarenes”

then at Antioch we started being called Christians.

Later in the first century the Church started to be called “Catholic” (see St. Ignatius --again at Antioch --use around the year 100)

The term “Roman” can be used to denote those of the Roman Church (Roman Rite) within the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

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.

So perhaps, just perhaps, it’s time we all left that sort of thing behind, and tried to find a more … how can I put this … Christian solution to the problem?

Thank you for saying this, Mystophilus. I think you are quite right, and your approach is much more in keeping with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which specifically tells us NOT to ascribe to moderns the sin of separation. Name calling doesn’t solve anything,

We must work with diligence for unity, especially in this day and age when so many on every side are falling away from the faith. I can imagine there are many Anglican broken hearts over recent departures from the Apostolic Faith.

Nope. Protestant roots lie in Catholicism. If you want to call us prodigal children, at least remember whose children we are.

This is also an excellent point. I was brought up to a stop once on the Eastern forum when an Orthodox member commented “let’s see you re-absorb your separated brethren (Protestants) then we will talk about East-West reunification”. I have to admit that there is quite a bit of merit in this attitude. 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.

… proclaim that Creed regularly in church, and we believe in a singular, sacred, universal church descending from the Twelve Apostles. As we all understand, that statement referred not to a unity of churches based upon adherence to Rome, but to a unity of churches based upon adherence to one another.

And to the One Faith shared by all

Actually, from the perspective of the Orthodox, it was the Latin churches which separated, while the Orthodox stayed on the original path: that is why they go one about the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, and the Latins’ change from a conciliar system to a centralised one. Frankly, their argument is the more compelling.

I have found it to be compelling in many ways.

In fact, what he says is 'ητις και προκαθεται εν τοπωι χωριου 'Ρωμαιων, “the-one-which also presides in the-place of the-region of-the-Romans”. He is very specific about the location of that church’s pre-eminence, and does not assign any universal significance, let alone universal authority, to her.

I think that the role of the Pope has developed over time, and been contaminated by secular influence as well (not sure it was a good idea to take the label of Pontiff) but the reason I have remained is that I do believe that the successor of Peter is to be the visible sign of unity within the Church, along with the bishops everywhere. I see this throughout the early writings (unity with the bishop) and I believe that the Petrine gifts were especially given to him for that reason.

 

[Ignatius]

I get that there are 23 Catholic Churches. I was wondering if the FIRST was called Roman Catholic. I watched a video and that is what it said and I just wanted it confirmed

The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants in the 16th century as a way to pidgin hole The Catholic Church so they could co-opt the term catholic for the religions they were inventing.at that time.

 

[guanophore]

The term Roman Catholic was invented by Protestants in the 16th century as a way to pidgin hole The Catholic Church so they could co-opt the term catholic for the religions they were inventing.at that time.

From that perspective, “Roman” is mild. There were many other adjectives used including Papists, Romanish, etc.

 

[Abu]

Mystophilus #27
The end result has not been the conversion of anyone, just five hundred years of stupid warfare and the murder of innocents.

Such a distortion of reality!

John Henry Cardinal Newman is one such outstanding convert, but the distorter is blind also to the fact that Sir Arnold Lunn in Now I See, Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others (p 218).

we Anglicans, like many other Protestants and like the Orthodox, proclaim that Creed regularly in church, and we believe in a singular, sacred, universal church descending from the Twelve Apostles

That is a distorted “belief” given Christ’s specific and clear institution of the Papacy in His Church to teach, rule and sanctify.

How strange that Christ Himself should be denied – it is clear from Scripture that Jesus established His Church on His St Peter.
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on this schism in the Church of Corinth.

But the Anglicans jettisoned the priesthood and thus have no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, Reconciliation.

it was the Latin churches which separated, while the Orthodox stayed on the original path: that is why they go one about the addition of the Filioque to the Creed, and the Latins’ change from a conciliar system to a centralised one. Frankly, their argument is the more compelling.

The rank errors continue. Apparently the unilateral distortion of priestly celibacy by the Orthodox at Trullo is unknown.
All Ecumenical Council proclamations have to be approved by the Pope or his delegate without which they are null and void.

 

[guanophore]

Such a distortion of reality!

It appears to be in more than one perspective!

That is a distorted “belief” given Christ’s specific and clear institution of the Papacy in His Church to teach, rule and sanctify.

I don’t think this is useful. No Bible verses will be able to support not only the term “papacy”, but the role that the Papacy became in the Church. We are hindered by a number of less than holy popes in that regard. No, the Petrine gifts can be validated, and the role of Peter in primacy, but the institution of what people look at today and understand as "papacy’ is not clear from what Christ did. It is clear to those who have accepted it because we look at those scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition, but this will not work with those who do not read the Scripture from that point of view.

How strange that Christ Himself should be denied – it is clear from Scripture that Jesus established His Church on His St Peter.

This is not strange at all. They just redirect the object to “Peter’s faith” and away from Peter’s person.

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

These verses do not necessarily sound authoritative either. They are actually giving him a directive to serve his brethren, not to rule over them.

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

Curious that many who deny the Catholic understanding of this view the Church founded by Christ as “invisible”.

But the Anglicans jettisoned the priesthood and thus have no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, no sacraments of Holy Orders, Confirmation, Reconciliation.

This is just patently false. None of the priests serving the Angilcan communion “jettisoned” anything when the King replaced the Pope as head of the English Church. On the contrary, they continued serving the sacrimental needs of the Church as though nothing had changed.

Traditional Anglicans have continued the role of the priest from that time until this, and have kept the Mass so much intact that many Catholics cannot tell they are at a Liturgy that is not in communion with Rome.

The rank errors continue. Apparently the unilateral distortion of priestly celibacy by the Orthodox at Trullo is unknown.

This is also not a fair assessment. Celibacy of priests has been peculiar to the Latin Rite in the West, and was instituted as a discipline for a variety of pastoral reasons. In the early Church, it was not required that the clergy be celibate, and in the East, where the abuses were not prevalent as they were in the West, married persons contined to be ordained to the priesthood. This is the same for Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with Rome. The Catholic Church also recieves and ordains married persons to the priesthood in certain situations.

All Ecumenical Council proclamations have to be approved by the Pope or his delegate without which they are null and void.

Not sure where this fits in with the rest of your rant, but I will affirm the accuracy of your statement.

 

[Mystophilus]

It’s accurate. “Roman Catholic Church” as it’s being used has NOT been the historical designation for the Church.

You can take that one up with the Vatican.

Seems to me Henry VIII started that killing and such that you describe.

Seriously? Your argument is “They started it”??? :banghead:

Catholicism isn’t a heresy.

I have never said that it is. It is, however, the system from which Protestantism developed. Therefore, the roots of Protestantism lie in Catholicism, as is very obvious from history.

Ya gotta show evidence for that my friend.

If you really want a list of Protestants with a firm grasp of history, I would suggest reading a list of British historians since the C16th, since the vast majority of those have been Protestants.

It doesn’t matter what they call themselves.

Since you were asking about their name, what they call themselves is entirely relevant.

The Church has never been conciliar “alone”. And who leads the Orthodox churches now?

That Catechism explains that, and also points out the conciliar structure which the Orthodox have always held to be the fundamental operation of the Church. That was what the Filioque Controversy was about, after all: the Latins’ making a unilateral alteration.

Ignatius brings up the fact that Rome settled sedition among the bishops in Corinth Greece. You know how the authority of any bishop is. It’s in his own diocese. He has no authority in another bishop’s diocese, and certainly not in another country. Yet Clement of Rome settled sedition in Corinth. St John the apostle is still alive. Living much closer to Corinth than Clement of Rome was.

You say that Ignatius “brings up” Clement’s writing to Corinth, and yet I cannot find any reference at all by Ignatius to Clement. Where are you getting that from?

Further, we have no evidence suggesting that the demarcation of episcopal territories was anywhere near as rigid at the end of the C1st as the Councils later made it. It might thus be worth noting that Ignatius approves of the intervention in Syrian Antioch of Polycarp, the Bishop of Smyrna (in his letter to Polycarp, 7.2), despite Smyrna’s being at the other end of Asia Minor and Syrian Antioch’s being very close to Jerusalem. Ignatius also wrote to the worshippers at Smyrna, despite Polycarp’s being their bishop. Bishops evidently helped out where they were needed in those days.

As many readers have noted, what is peculiar is that, while Ignatius refers to the bishop of the Ephesians, in his letter to them, to the bishop of the Magnesians, in his letter to them, to the bishop of the Trallians, in his letter to them, to the bishop of the Philadelphians, in his letter to them, and to the bishop of the Smyrnaeans, in his letter to them, he does not refer to a bishop of the Romans, in his letter to them. Indeed, the only bishop to whom he refers in his letter to the Romans is to himself, and his address to the Romans is plural, not singular. This is why many historians have suggested that Rome did not have a bishop at the time.

 

[Mystophilus]

Thank you for saying this, Mystophilus. I think you are quite right, and your approach is much more in keeping with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which specifically tells us NOT to ascribe to moderns the sin of separation. Name calling doesn’t solve anything

You know, reading this really made my day. Thank you!

I can imagine there are many Anglican broken hearts over recent departures from the Apostolic Faith.

Yes, I am afraid that there are: when we change things, we break people’s hearts; when we decline to change them, we break people’s hearts.

Our approach to the role of Tradition is, as I presume you know, rather different, and so we do not necessarily consider “updating” to be a bad thing, and I am one of the liberals who actually like the changes which are being made. Still, our bishops do an amazing job of keeping both ends of the spectrum together and talking.

I think that the role of the Pope has developed over time, and been contaminated by secular influence as well (not sure it was a good idea to take the label of Pontiff)

I don’t know about that last part: HH Francis is pretty good at building bridges.

but the reason I have remained is that I do believe that the successor of Peter is to be the visible sign of unity within the Church, along with the bishops everywhere. I see this throughout the early writings (unity with the bishop) and I believe that the Petrine gifts were especially given to him for that reason.

Whereas one of the reasons why the Anglican Church fits me so well is that I prefer unity by consensus, even consensus through a difference of opinion: we are a confederation of wholly-autonomous provinces.

This, I think, is one of the things which is going to prevent any sort of ecclesial unity being formed under the Pope: the Orthodox do not want that, because they believe in the Councils; many Anglicans do not want that, because we believe in democratizing everything (and a few other Protestants do not want it because they believe Jack Chick, but there is no accounting for conspiracy theorists); I really cannot speak for the Lutherans, of course.

 

[Abu]

Guanophore #34
the institution of what people look at today and understand as "papacy’ is not clear from what Christ did. It is clear to those who have accepted it because we look at those scriptures through the lens of Sacred Tradition, but this will not work with those who do not read the Scripture from that point of view.

Real Catholics do not equate with reality “what people look at today and understand” as a “point of view”. Those who cannot accept the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God have no basis for belief in the God who founded the Catholic Church…

They just redirect the object to “Peter’s faith” and away from Peter’s person.
These verses do not necessarily sound authoritative either. They are actually giving him a directive to serve his brethren, not to rule over them.

False.

Facing reality:
To demonstrate clearly that no one else has any authority against His Supreme Vicar and His Church, Christ gave His Supreme Vicars Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

That is why the few bad popes have never taught falsehood in dogma or doctrine to the whole Church.
That is precisely why designating himself as the servant of the servants of God, Pope Gregory the Great devoted his life in the service of God and things good and peaceful.

St. Paul has counseled you as to whom to avoid: “Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14).

St John counsels you: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6).

Thus do St Paul and St John confirm the teaching, ruling and sanctifying.

Celibacy of priests has been peculiar to the Latin Rite in the West, and was instituted as a discipline for a variety of pastoral reasons. In the early Church, it was not required that the clergy be celibate

False.
Celibacy is an Apostolic Norm from the time of the Apostles throughout the Church until arbitrarily ditched at Trullo.

This is just patently false. None of the priests serving the Angilcan communion “jettisoned” anything when the King replaced the Pope as head of the English Church. On the contrary, they continued serving the sacrimental needs of the Church as though nothing had changed.

False.

The reality is that the only authority from Christ is to St Peter who is His Supreme Vicar, and the other Apostles under St Peter in His Catholic Church.

DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
“Other examples of moral doctrines which are taught as definitive by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicitness of prostitution35 and of fornication.36

“With regard to those** truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively**, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations …37”

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 1998, the Solemnity of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

• Joseph Card. Ratzinger
  Prefect
  Notes:
  35 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 193.
  36 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2353.
  37 Cf. DS 3315-3319.

**Idol Worship
Question from Joe on 07-05-2001: **
Hello and thank you for answering my question. My question is, can Anglicans and Lutherans be considered idol worship for any adoration given to they’re invalid Eucharist’s? Thank you and God bless

**Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 07-07-2001 (EWTN): **
Certainly not. They probably sincerely believe it to be genuine, not accepting Pope Leo XIII’s ruling on the invalidity of Anglican orders, or the rulings of other Popes on the invalidity of Lutheran orders. - Dr. Carroll
tinyurl.com/nth6vlb

Furthermore, Anglicans have jettisoned the constant teaching against remarriage after divorce, and contraception.

 

[Tomdstone]

Whereas one of the reasons why the Anglican Church fits me so well is that I prefer unity by consensus, even consensus through a difference of opinion: we are a confederation of wholly-autonomous provinces.

One problem I see with the Anglican or Episcopal Church is that a bishop is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Doesn’t the Bible frown upon homosexual activity? Also, what does the word “catholic” mean to an Anglican and would you say that the Anglican Church qualifies as a catholic Church?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I was wondering if the first Catholic church rooted in Jesus was the Roman Catholic Church. Can someone in Ireland be a Roman Catholic or just Irish Catholic?

I hope this makes sense

“Irish Catholic” just provides some sense of that person’s ethnicity or cultural background.

There is only one Catholic Church with the pope as its visible head on earth. Jesus, of course, is the head of the entire Church which include the Church Suffering in purgatory and the Church Triumphant composed of those saints already in heaven.

Here is a bit of ancient history on the origins of the term, “Catholic Church”:
**
Earliest Use of the Name “Catholic Church”**

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

 

[guanophore]

 Real Catholics do not equate with reality “what people look at today and understand” as a “point of view”.

I will take this to mean that you have adjudged me not to be a “real Catholic”.

I find your evaluation inadequate, however, based upon a false premise. There is no reason to exclude modern perceptions when examining traditional theology. In fact it is the modern perceptions that separate us, much more than anything that happened 500 years ago.

One has to wonder why you have involved yourself in Catholic Answers Apologetics forum. Do you understand what apologetics means?

Those who cannot accept the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God have no basis for belief in the God who founded the Catholic Church..

I think the Scriptures themselves bear testimony that this statement is false. What we are talking about here is a difference of PERCEPTIONS.

The fact that others do not agree with your perceptions does not equate to their not accepting the Sacred Scriptures. The expectation that only one perception is the right and divine one is actually a fundamentalist attifude.

However, I will concede that a shared velieve in the inerrant and inspired Scriptures does help us cover a lot of ground.

The love for the scriptures among our separated brethren is a work of the Holy Spirit.

False.

My beloved brother, you may not agree with this interpretation, but it does, in fact, exist.

Facing reality:
To demonstrate clearly that no one else has any authority against His Supreme Vicar and His Church, Christ gave His Supreme Vicars Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

Well, Abu, I think that you will not make much progress reconciling with your separated brethren functioning under such a “reality”. You see, they are familiar with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures are very clear that Jesus’ way of leadership ws not one of “rulership” but one of service. He specifically taught against leadership by supremacy.

False.
Celibacy is an Apostolic Norm from the time of the Apostles throughout the Church until arbitrarily ditched at Trullo.

We must be reading different history books.

False.

The reality is that the only authority from Christ is to St Peter who is His Supreme Vicar, and the other Apostles under St Peter in His Catholic Church.

It seems you have a lot to learn about history, Abu. The decision of the King of England to make himself head of the church was political and economic. It was not subject to the democratic participation of the priests living in the region. In fact, it took some time for the facts to be spread throughout the country.

The priests of England were validly ordained, and Henry jettisoning the Pope did not change the fact that they provided licit sacraments to the people. This did change over time, placing all faithful Catholics in England at risk from both sides. But it was not the priests or the faithful Catholics that precipitated this problem.

**the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter *Apostolicae Curae*** on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations ...37”

Certainly there were many unwanted consequences from the actions of King Henry. Due to the fact that the Roman Hierarchy had become inextricably involved in secular matters of State, it was not possible for Pope Leo to allow the validly ordained priests of England to continue to serve after Henry took over headship. It would be more appropriate to say that their sacramental service was valid, but illicit, just as is the service of any priest who is in a state of schism. The Bishops could no longer ordain any valid priests from the perspective of Rome.

Furthermore, Anglicans have jettisoned the constant teaching against remarriage after divorce, and contraception.

I am not sure how this relates to whatever point you are trying to make. The departure of the ancient teaching on these matters is really relatively recent in the history of events. It does not support your assertion that any priests of England “jettisoned” the Pope at the time of the events with Henry.