Question for Catholic converts

[djr76]

The Biblical evidences behind Jesus making Peter the head apostle, in addition to what the early church fathers wrote about the supremacy of Peter’s chair was convinced me. Jimmy Akin’s book The Fathers Know Best is a great resource.

 

[pablope]

I am currently Orthodox and but in the process of becoming Catholic. I’m Romanian. Here is how the famous “You are Peter” Bible verse sounds in my language:

"That is what got me ultimately. Besides (this is a subjective point) the Catholic Church is visibly more structured doctrinally and more well organized. This is not entirely due to the fact that the Pope exists but I think that it is a factor.

Let me share what one convert found out…in his study of the papacy…http://www.calledtocommunion.com/20...ster-theological-seminary-to-catholic-priest/

The more I understood Catholic doctrine, the more I could appreciate the need for the Church and the magisterium. Clarity of theology and ecclesiology go hand-in-hand. This was first true for the Early Church. Back to that moment when the papacy made sense in the Westminster library. One interesting observation I found was that a greater understanding of the significance of the papacy developed alongside the development of Christology. As we study Early Church history, we find that writings in the first two centuries paled in clarity when compared with Scripture. But doctrinal clarity in the writings of the Early Church Fathers dramatically increased as questions of Christology were resolved in the fifth century. This happens to be at the same time that ecclesiology became more defined through the strengthening of the papacy. The broad parallels suggest that this is no mere coincidence. In order to define the faith in the early Church, the center had to hold. That was found through the papacy in the Catholic Church. The need today is no different–both for the broader Church and in our individual lives.

 

[pablope]

letter of Ignatius of Antioch

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
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.

 

[Coeurpieux]

In fact, i am aware of it.
When he used the word “Catholic” Bishop Ignatius of Antioch meant “universal” which is the dictionary meaning of the word. He did not mean the Roman Catholic Church, since he died in A.D 108, hundreds of years before the Great Schism. The Roman Catholic Church as you know it came into being in 1054, when the the Early Church separated into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern(Orthodox) Christianity.

 

[Coeurpieux]

This debate ended days ago. I find myself repeating the same idea over and over again. I recall I answered your question somewhere in the thread before and @mrsdizzyd helped provide clarification on this very matter. . Please read the entire thread.

 

[pablope]

In fact, i am aware of it.
When he used the word “Catholic” Bishop Ignatius of Antioch meant “universal” which is the dictionary meaning of the word. He did not mean the Roman Catholic Church, since he died in A.D 108, hundreds of years before the Great Schism.

How do you know then what Ignatius meant by using the word “Catholic” in his letter?

The Roman Catholic Church as you know it came into being in 1054, when the the Early Church separated into Western (Roman Catholic) and Eastern(Orthodox) Christianity.
[/

The Roman, in the name of the Catholic Church…or the word “Roman” was not added to the name of the CC till around the Reformation…as a derogatory name for the Catholics who remained with the Bishop of Rome. I think it was the Anglicans who appended the name.

After 1054, it was simply the Catholic and Orthodox…

 

[Coeurpieux]

Oh really? I never knew that. Thanks for letting me know.
But if that is so, why did the Crusaders refer to themselves as Latin (Roman) Catholics and to the Orthodox as the Greeks??
The Crusades happened way before the Protestant Reformation.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Latin was the language of the West, Greek the East.

It’s really not that complicated.

Same reason there’s an Antiochean Church, and a Coptic Church, etc. They’re specific names to specific rights within the whole Catholic (Universal) Church.

I get that you have Orthodox sympathies but you’re twisting history to suit your ideology.

Jesus founded the Catholic Church. He put Peter in charge, and wherever the authority of Peter rests (with the Bishop of Rome) there is the earthly head of the Church founded by Christ. Anyone who is in rebellion against that authority has cut ties with the Church founded by Christ.

 

[Coeurpieux]

I never said that the Orthodox’s lack of communion with Rome was acceptable. Rather, I have several times affirmed that the problem with Orthodoxy is its lack of communion with Rome. The only thing I have affirmed is that Orthodoxy , despite this fault, is a valid and apostolic church with a valid priesthood and valid Eucharist.
And no, i am twisting history to suit my "Orthodox sympathies ". The Orthodox are Christians just like you and me, stop acting like they are a Protestant sect that holds its services in a mall’s food court.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

How do you know then what Ignatius meant by using the word “Catholic” in his letter?

The historical record is pretty solid on this question. ‘Catholic’ was an adjective until the Schism when it becomes a proper name for the church in communion with Rome.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

Not one person has disputed the orthodox’s Valid apostolic succession.

 

[Coeurpieux]

Then this discussion is over

 

[fmirenzi]

Or do you believe that the early Christians refered to themselves as “Catholic” even before the Great Schism?

It’s not a belief. They did actually. They literally wrote about it.

 

[fmirenzi]

The Roman Catholic Church as you know it came into being in 1054

It is just called the Catholic Church. Roman Catholic is a term invented by the English during the Reformation.

 

[fmirenzi]

if you believe Christianity had been Catholic since the beginning…

If you don’t believe this, you may want to question whether you are in fact Catholic.

 

[exnihilo]

This was an issue I had to struggle with. When I looked at the issue it seemed to me that the Orthodox did not have a workable means of maintaining unity and doctrine. What I mean is the catholic position that the holy father is the ultimate principle of unity in the church works. You see that among the Orthodox they ultimately don’t have unity. This is why they can’t have councils to decide issues. The church is always faced with new challenges and questions and must be able to address them.

Some consideration was given to the fact that the only Orthodox churches near me are very ethnic. I wondered if I would ever truly be able to fit in.

What probably ultimately determined it for me was a simple matter that I was a Western Christian. My roots and where I am now are Western Christianity. As much as I like many aspects of Orthodoxy that isn’t my heritage. Your heritage does mean something in Christianity. Assuming I had catholic ancestors, and I most likely did, they would’ve been Catholic. So it made sense that I should be too. Otherwise I’m just being a protestant by picking the ancient church that makes the most sense to me rather than following the bishop I happened to be under due to the accident of birth.

 

[Ukay]

Because Jesus says to Peter “On this rock I will build my church” and he did!