The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[6glargento]

i hear the argument form protestants and orthodox that

“the early chruch was catholic as in universal but not ‘Roman Catholic’ this was invented later.”

when did the term “roman catholic” origionate and how would one show that the roman catholic church is the same catholic church that ignatius mentions in his letter. many fudemententalists will insist that the roman catholic church started with constantine paganizing christiandom and many orthodox will insist that the roman catholic church started at the great scism in 1054

 

[6glargento]

i hear the argument form protestants and orthodox that

“the early chruch was catholic as in universal but not ‘Roman Catholic’ this was invented later.”

when did the term “roman catholic” origionate and how would one show that the roman catholic church is the same catholic church that ignatius mentions in his letter. many fudemententalists will insist that the roman catholic church started with constantine paganizing christiandom and many orthodox will insist that the roman catholic church started at the great scism in 1054

 

[steveandersen]

the name of the organization is the Catholic Church not Roman Catholic.

I would have to look it up but IIRC the oldest writen refferences date to the 2nd or 3rd century, well before Canstantine or the great scism.

The term Roman Catholic is used mostly by outsiders who wish to remian separate from us but still use the Nicean creed.

“Yeah, we believe in one Catholic Church…just not THAT one.”

 

[JesusforMadrid]

i hear the argument form protestants and orthodox that

“the early chruch was catholic as in universal but not ‘Roman Catholic’ this was invented later.”

when did the term “roman catholic” originate and how would one show that the roman catholic church is the same catholic church that ignatius mentions in his letter. many fudemententalists will insist that the roman catholic church started with constantine paganizing christiandom and many orthodox will insist that the roman catholic church started at the great scism in 1054

The First Century Church didn’t used the term “Roman Catholic” or even “catholic”. It appears nowhere in the Scriptures. They were merely Christians, followers of the Christ, and also referred to as followers of the Way. The Didache or I Clement, both first century texts, do not refer to “catholic” at all.

The first use of the word “catholic” was by Ignatius in 107. By “catholic” he meant universal, to distinguish from heretics. Polycarp also used the term in the later 2nd century, again to refer to the universal Christian church.

The term “Roman Catholic” appears very late in history, English Protestant theologians of the end of the sixteenth century, who saw themselves too as Catholics, were the first to use the term “Roman Catholic” to refer to those who were faithful to Rome.

So in terminology, the Early “catholic” church was absolutely NOT the “Roman Catholic” church.

In terms of practice, documents and archeology suggest that the Early Christian church (1st century) was rather different from the modern Roman Catholic Church: no infant baptism, no transubstantiation (although yes real presence, perhaps in the Lutheran or Anglican sense), no assumption, immacuate conception, perpetual virginity or sinlessness of Mary, no prayers to the dead, no incense, no images (except the fish symbol), no vestiments for clergy, no primacy of Rome (until Irenaeus in the late 2nd century) and no references to the pope (until the 3rd century).

So, Early Church=“catholic” yes, but not modern “Roman Catholic”.

I hope this helps.

 

[Maranatha]

So, Early Church=“catholic” yes, but not modern “Roman Catholic”.

1 Tim 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Same Christians believe in Infant baptism; some believe you must speak in tongues; some believe the entire Bible should be taken literally; some believe in the real presence on Christ in the Eucharist.

Since, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and since there can’t be more then one truth then there must be one catholic church.

 

[BrianH]

1 Tim 3:15

But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
Same Christians believe in Infant baptism; some believe you must speak in tongues; some believe the entire Bible should be taken literally; some believe in the real presence on Christ in the Eucharist.

Since, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and since there can’t be more then one truth then there must be one catholic church.

Given the context, specifically talking about the role of the deacons and bishops, it seems to me we are looking at the “church” in this passage as referring to a local body under the control of the local bishops and deacons?

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
without Mark 4:11, 1st Cor 5:12, Col 4:5
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[Maranatha]

Given the context, specifically talking about the role of the deacons and bishops, it seems to me we are looking at the “church” in this passage as referring to a local body under the control of the local bishops and deacons?

You have a very interesting tradition. On what authority do you base your interpretation?

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

So in terminology, the Early “catholic” church was absolutely NOT the “Roman Catholic” church.

The early catholic Church is what is now called the “Catholic Church”—Roman Catholic is not the official title, never has been. It is the Catholic Church–Latin Rite and there is also the Eastern Rite. Both rites are firmly held in the untorn net of Peter. It is Peter who will bring the fishes to the Lord. (John 21)

I fully agree that the Church did not start out being called Catholic. I don’t think that St. Peter or anyone else thought it was particularly important to call a meeting and say "Hey folks what should we call our Church? "

In terms of practice, documents and archeology suggest that the Early Christian church (1st century) was rather different from the modern Roman Catholic Church: no infant baptism, no transubstantiation (although yes real presence, perhaps in the Lutheran or Anglican sense), no assumption, immacuate conception, perpetual virginity or sinlessness of Mary, no prayers to the dead, no incense, no images (except the fish symbol), no vestiments for clergy, no primacy of Rome (until Irenaeus in the late 2nd century) and no references to the pope (until the 3rd century).

To those with an open mind who seek the truth, the evidence is overwhelming that it is the same Church. Infant baptism is in the early Church and even in the Bible (whole families included children). Transubstantiation is a word that came along later, that is true, but it was not a new doctrine. Just a word used to better describe what the early Church taught… the full Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord is in Eucharist (another word that came along a bit later). Jesus taught this, the Bible teaches this, the Church teaches this and yet, still so many are “walking away” from this teaching. Marian dogma was not defined until later, yes. But it is clear from early Fathers that she was considered holy. Intercessory prayer is all over the Bible, incense is in the Bible, Images is in the Bible. Vestments, are you kidding, how could that possibly matter? That is a Jewish practice in the Bible carried into the Church. Primacy of Peter who later went to Rome is in the Bible and in early writings. You’re probably right that the word “pope” wasn’t around until later. The OP can check out this site to confirm what I’ve said, it contains the scripture verses as well as what the Church Fathers wrote.

So, Early Church=“catholic” yes, but not modern “Roman Catholic”.

Actually the “Roman Catholic” Church is THE ancient Church. Find me another Christian church-- records of the Baptists, or Pentecostals, or maybe the Methodists, not too mention modern day American non-denomination churches…you won’t find them. There was only one Church back then. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail, and they have not. Present day practices are not identical to the early Church, some things have developed, but it is still the same Church.

 

[BrianH]

You have a very interesting tradition. On what authority do you base your interpretation?

We mainly agree, why is that interesting?

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly, but also the local community or the whole universal community of believers. These three meanings are inseparable. “The Church” is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ’s Body.

 

[Ignatius]

i hear the argument form protestants and orthodox that

“the early chruch was catholic as in universal but not ‘Roman Catholic’ this was invented later.”

when did the term “roman catholic” origionate and how would one show that the roman catholic church is the same catholic church that ignatius mentions in his letter.

You can’t because they will refuse to see it. “Tere is none so blind as him who will not see.”

 

[janman55]

Some here have argued that Catholic is in Sacred Scripture.

“the Catholic Church” (Greek: katholikos ekklesia) developed from Acts 9:31 “the Church throughout all” (Greek: ekklesia kath olos).

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Actually the “Roman Catholic” Church is THE ancient Church. Find me another Christian church-- records of the Baptists, or Pentecostals, or maybe the Methodists, not too mention modern day American non-denomination churches…you won’t find them. There was only one Church back then. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail, and they have not. Present day practices are not identical to the early Church, some things have developed, but it is still the same Church.

The early church wasn’t a Southern Baptist Fellowship? I didn’t know! Showing that it wasn’t certainly does not suggest that it was a Roman Catholic one either.

That aside, there was only one church back then in the same sense that there is only one church today, which is Christ’s. There were in fact many local churches, with their pastors, deacons and bishops. We don’t have the Corinthian Church or the Thessalonian Church today because those were assumed under an increasingly centralised and monarchical structure over time based in Rome, the legitimacy of which has been contested by many other churches in the course of history, namely the Orthodox and Protestant churches.

The Roman Catholic church of today is different in both practice and theology from the Roman Catholic church at the time of the Council of Trent and very different from the Christian church of the time of the apostles.

 

[Maranatha]

The early church wasn’t a Southern Baptist Fellowship? I didn’t know! Showing that it wasn’t certainly does not suggest that it was a Roman Catholic one either.

That aside, there was only one church back then in the same sense that there is only one church today, which is Christ’s. There were in fact many local churches, with their pastors, deacons and bishops. We don’t have the Corinthian Church or the Thessalonian Church today because those were assumed under an increasingly centralised and monarchical structure over time based in Rome, the legitimacy of which has been contested by many other churches in the course of history, namely the Orthodox and Protestant churches.

The Roman Catholic church of today is different in both practice and theology from the Roman Catholic church at the time of the Council of Trent and very different from the Christian church of the time of the apostles.

Discipline changes and evolves but dogma does not. The Catholic Church faithfully teaches the deposit of faith as pass to us from the Apostles.

Can you give one example of dogma that the Catholic Church as changed from what she has received from the Apostles?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Discipline changes and evolves but dogma does not. The Catholic Church faithfully teaches the deposit of faith as pass to us from the Apostles.

Can you give one example of dogma that the Catholic Church as changed from what she has received from the Apostles?

The modern Roman Catholic church is very different from the churches of the New Testament and the 1st century. The Reformers split with Rome because they felt the Roman church had strayed from authentic New Testament Christianity in a number of areas. Basically, all the major differences between Protestants and Catholics are where Evangelicals believe Catholics have strayed from the Apostles’ teaching.

I don’t want to cart out the same old tired list; there are other threads that deal with these differences.

What you might do, however, is read The Didache (re discoved in 1888 after a 1700 hiatus). Read I Clement. Then compare that to a modern day (i) Evangelical author (e.g. CS Lewis) and (ii) a modern day Catholic author (e.g Scott Hahn). Which one sounds more like these 1st century authors?

No mention of Mary whatsoever in the Didache, Clement, Lewis (or St. Paul, for that matter). No transubstantiation. No Pope.

 

[rtconstant]

You may want to read Apostalic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome he lived around the end of the 2nd century and his descriptions of The Church and its practices are totally Catholic. The Catholic Church being the original Church is really a matter of historical fact.

You of course are still free to not acknowledge its teachings. However, to do so you’d have to accept that Church really didn’t survive much past the apostalic age and that true doctrine was silent on the earth until the 1500’s.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The modern Roman Catholic church is very different from the churches of the New Testament and the 1st century. The Reformers split with Rome because they felt the Roman church had strayed from authentic New Testament Christianity in a number of areas. Basically, all the major differences between Protestants and Catholics are where Evangelicals believe Catholics have strayed from the Apostles’ teaching.

I don’t want to cart out the same old tired list; there are other threads that deal with these differences.

What you might do, however, is read The Didache (re discoved in 1888 after a 1700 hiatus). Read I Clement. Then compare that to a modern day (i) Evangelical author (e.g. CS Lewis) and (ii) a modern day Catholic author (e.g Scott Hahn). Which one sounds more like these 1st century authors?

No mention of Mary whatsoever in the Didache, Clement, Lewis (or St. Paul, for that matter). No transubstantiation. No Pope.

In the Early Church defining who Jesus was the Church’s priority. That is how the Trinitarian doctrine to explain the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit became a defined doctrine of the Church.

The doctrine concerning Mary cames later on (ie, Assumption of Mary, and Immaculate Conception). Though, early Christians believed that Mary was the new Eve, New Ark of the Covenant (read the Writings of the ECF from scripturecatholic.com ).

Transubstantiation was already there but the term did not came about until it was challenged.

You may also note that the first 200 years, the Church did not defined Trinity until 325 A.D when Jesus’ divinity was put into question.

During the first 200 years, the Scripture was limited to OT text Hebrew Torah and Septuagint. The Gospel was spread orally in its beginnings. It was not until 384 A.D during the Council of Rome made a list of what books should be in the Bible.

Just because a terminalogy is not mention in the Bible, it doesn’t mean it wasn’t believed. The Church needed to defined these doctrines and dogma so there would be no false teachings.

Doctrines and Dogma must be set of belief held by the Apostles. No new doctrine was professed by the Catholic Church. It’s always been there. The only thing that change are disciplines, like saying Latin Mass, and use the language of the people, or allowing alter girls, etc.

 

[Alexius]

Discipline changes and evolves but dogma does not. The Catholic Church faithfully teaches the deposit of faith as pass to us from the Apostles.

Can you give one example of dogma that the Catholic Church as changed from what she has received from the Apostles?

The term is “Roman Catholic” because it is the church headed by the Roman bishop. The term “catholic” is not monopolized by the Roman church, as the Orthodox and Roman churches were one during the first millenium. If Catholic means “that which has always been believed,” then most of the papal dogmas are out the window. I believe that Rome teaches “doctrinal development,” which means that the Roman doctrines of today do not match those of the apostles. Hence, the “receive and pass on,” turns into “receive, reform/use most resently obtained human reason to disect the doctrine in question, and pass on the rough draft.” Orthodoxy has things to learn from Rome, but Rome has much more to learn about preserving the apostolic treasure. The Roman church has no right to push universal papal supremacy on the Orthodox, when it is clear that the early Church gave Rome only primacy of HONOR, not authority! If any church needs to enter into communion with another, it is the Roman church which needs to go back to the Orthodox. The western bishop needs to go to the rest of the Church (the other four bishops in the east).

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[PhilVaz]

Alex << The term is “Roman Catholic” because it is the church headed by the Roman bishop. The term “catholic” is not monopolized by the Roman church, as the Orthodox and Roman churches were one during the first millenium. >>

OK, we get it. It is Catholic but not Roman Catholic, and Orthodox but not Greek Orthodox. Orthodox but not Russian Orthodox. And last but not least

Orthodox but not Greco-Carpatho-Albanian-Ukrainian-Antiochian-Serbian-Romanian-Bulgarian Orthodox.

Phil P

 

[Maranatha]

The term is “Roman Catholic” because it is the church headed by the Roman bishop. The term “catholic” is not monopolized by the Roman church, as the Orthodox and Roman churches were one during the first millenium. If Catholic means “that which has always been believed,” then most of the papal dogmas are out the window. I believe that Rome teaches “doctrinal development,” which means that the Roman doctrines of today do not match those of the apostles. Hence, the “receive and pass on,” turns into “receive, reform/use most resently obtained human reason to disect the doctrine in question, and pass on the rough draft.” Orthodoxy has things to learn from Rome, but Rome has much more to learn about preserving the apostolic treasure. The Roman church has no right to push universal papal supremacy on the Orthodox, when it is clear that the early Church gave Rome only primacy of HONOR, not authority! If any church needs to enter into communion with another, it is the Roman church which needs to go back to the Orthodox. The western bishop needs to go to the rest of the Church (the other four bishops in the east).

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

Hi Alexius,

I respectively disagree. “Doctrinal Development” does not mean that doctrine changes but that we can come to understand al the implications of the original teachings. The original teachings do not change. We can also apply the doctrines to new situations. The Bible does not state that human cloning is immoral but the Church can say without error that it is.

The term Roman Catholic is a pejorative term used in the English language created by Anglicans. The Bishop of Rome is the head of Latin Rite of the Church. There are 22 other rites who are in union on all doctrinal matters with the Catholic Church.

The term Catholic is originally a Greek work that mean “universal.” The term does not mean “that which has always been believed.”

I will pray for you as well.

Maranatha!

 

[Alexius]

Hi Alexius,
The term Roman Catholic is a pejorative term used in the English language created by Anglicans. The Bishop of Rome is the head of Latin Rite of the Church. There are 22 other rites who are in union on all doctrinal matters with the Catholic Church.

I will pray for you as well.

Maranatha!

Maranatha:

I was under the impression that the Bishop of Rome is in charge of all who are under his jurisdiction, Latin rite and Eastern rite. Sure, in the Eastern Catholic churches there are patriarchates and eparchies, but I thought that ultimately all are under the Pope.

This confuses me; however, as many Church Fathers like St. Ignatius of Lyons and St. Cyprian of Carthage taught that each church is under one bishop. To have a local Bishop and a universal Bishop would mean that each church is under two bishops. Just very confused

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius