The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[Redbandito]

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.

The logic is a little flawed here. Catholics don’t refer to themselves as Roman Catholics, but as Catholics. We always have. Again, the Roman Catholic Church became the title of the Catholic Church when people decided to divide themselves from the Universal Apostolic Church. Thus, to say that the name Roman Catholic was not in usage til the Reformation era and thus RC’s are not THE Catholic Church really has no logical basis.

BTW, I beg to differ about some of those doctrines not being present in the first century. No incense in worship? Have you ever read the Book of Revelation? No “transubstantiation,” yet there was the “real presence?” And how do you suggest that would have been accomplished? How could we have Christ’s true physical presence in bread and wine without a change of substances? I would really like to hear how you rectify that. Remember, the use, or lack thereof, of certain terminology, does not prove that the teachings did not exist. Otherwise, in order to be consistent, you must believe the Trinity is an invention of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD). Do you believe this?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

No “transubstantiation,” yet there was the “real presence?” And how do you suggest that would have been accomplished? How could we have Christ’s true physical presence in bread and wine without a change of substances? I would really like to hear how you rectify that.

Real presence in the Catholic does not necessarily mean physical presence as you use the term. We consume the Body & Blood of the Lord and Savior under the species of bread and wine because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice because we do not resacrifice the Lord every Sunday at Mass – we partake of the one sacrifice at Calvary for the forgiveness of sins. What we are eating when we consume the Host and the Cup is the transformed (transubstantiated, or consecrated) bread & wine which really is the body & blood of Jesus under these two different “species” (meaning they maintain the attributes of bread and wine in that they still feel, taste and have the same texture of ordinary bread & wine).

1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Real presence in the Catholic does not necessarily mean physical presence as you use the term. We consume the Body & Blood of the Lord and Savior under the species of bread and wine because the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice because we do not resacrifice the Lord every Sunday at Mass – we partake of the one sacrifice at Calvary for the forgiveness of sins. What we are eating when we consume the Host and the Cup is the transformed (transubstantiated, or consecrated) bread & wine which really is the body & blood of Jesus under these two different “species” (meaning they maintain the attributes of bread and wine in that they still feel, taste and have the same texture of ordinary bread & wine).

 

[JonathanKinsman]

There is a thread on Sola Scriptura that addresses this in detail and much better than I could.

Sorry, J4M, I read through that SS thread and found NO support contra to this assertion.

Pax Christi (from a Catholic who attends Latin rite, or Roman, liturgical celebrations and mass)

 

[JonathanKinsman]

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. quote]

Jesus4Madrid: These are your words, so I am not pulling this out of …a hat.

Martin Luther, when he split from Rome, decided to change “authentic New Testament Christianity in a number of areas,” primarily, Scripture itself.

Luther threw out quite a bit of the NT for his ‘new’ German bible (what was it? the 9th or 10th in that language?). Of James, Luther said, “I do not regard it as the writing of an Apostle,” because he believed it “is flatly against St Paul and all the rest of the Scripture in ascribing justification to works.”
(from his Preface to James’ Epistle).

Luther also axed Hebrews, Jude and *Revelation *(that hotbed of 19th century American hallucinatory theology), consigning them to “quasi-canonical” status (see Luther’s Preface to the New Testament).
He was, of course, overruled by later ‘councils’ of his followers.

And let’s not forget his changing of Scripture, especially when it came to one of his ‘pet’ sola scriptura ideas: salvation by faith alone.So what did the good Sola Scripturist do? Why, Luther put in the word ***only ***after the phrase "we are justified by faith."

Today, Lutheran bishops like Krister Stendahl, acknowledge Martin Luther’s errors and endorse translations which follow the codices and manuscripts of the Septuagint, Vulgate and others from the Vatican’s library.

In fact, Lutheran churches today use the Catholic Lectionary for their liturgical services. This Lectionary was printed post-Vatican II and is also used by Presbytarian churches.

Henry the VIII split from Rome because the Pope would not allow him to divorce his Spanish wife. You, of all readers (being from Spain) should know this: the Church of England which gave rise to OTHER schismatic sects (Baptist, Pentacostals, Assemblies of God, et cetera) started because a King wanted a divorce!

Doesn’t sound like **“the Roman church strayed” **here!

 

[frnate]

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

Certainly the Protestant concept of the “Roman Catholic Church” was “invented later” but after reading this entire thread (as well as many others on CA) I have realized that the issue for Protestants is that they they are so 'Romaphobic" that they will go to nearly any lengths to deny the legitimacy of Rome. While at the same time those who are in submission to the Pope are busy getting their hackles up because they see it merely as a challenge to the universal jurisdiction of the Holy Father. The issue of universal jurisdiction is only important to those who claim it. Of the five ancient patriarchates, only one has ever taught, believed or claimed universal jurisdiction. Which is far outside the collegial practices so evident in the early Church. In fact it is at the very heart of the schism. Keep in mind that like Alexius, I am not Orthodox either but much of my theology is more in line with the East. I would point out however that it was the Church of Rome to whom St. Paul wrote and they were most certainly Catholic. For him, as for me it is a way to distinguish between locales or jurisdictions. There always has been more than one jurisdiction despite the inventiveness of RC theologians.

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Certainly the Protestant concept of the “Roman Catholic Church” was “invented later” but after reading this entire thread (as well as many others on CA) I have realized that the issue for Protestants is that they they are so 'Romaphobic" that they will go to nearly any lengths to deny the legitimacy of Rome. While at the same time those who are in submission to the Pope are busy getting their hackles up because they see it merely as a challenge to the universal jurisdiction of the Holy Father. The issue of universal jurisdiction is only important to those who claim it. Of the five ancient patriarchates, only one has ever taught, believed or claimed universal jurisdiction. Which is far outside the collegial practices so evident in the early Church. In fact it is at the very heart of the schism. Keep in mind that like Alexius, I am not Orthodox either but much of my theology is more in line with the East. I would point out however that it was the Church of Rome to whom St. Paul wrote and they were most certainly Catholic. For him, as for me it is a way to distinguish between locales or jurisdictions. There always has been more than one jurisdiction despite the inventiveness of RC theologians.

Peace,
+Nathan

Of course there has been more than one jurisdiction. This is the way Jesus Christ organized His Church. He appointed the Apostles to spread the Gospel to all nations, and wherever the Apostles established a hierarchy (a bishopric), there was that jurisdiction, i.e. “wherever the bishop is, there is the catholic church” – St. Ignatious of Antioch. The Church does not dispute this historical fact and is in agreement theologically, so I’m not really sure what you’re referring to when you mention “inventions of RC theologians”. However, St. Paul might have written to the Roman Church, but when he was on his way throughout western Europe to spread the Gospels, he merely had to visit because the founder of the Church of Rome (St. Peter) wasn’t there (this can be read in the Epistle to the Romans). Therefore, from ancient times even someone considered a “founder” of a Church (as Sts. Peter & Paul are both considered founders of the Church of Rome), it can be seen that St. Peter held a certain primacy of the church even though St. Paul co-founded that jurisdiction.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Keep in mind that like Alexius, I am not Orthodox either but much of my theology is more in line with the East.

Your Eminence,

Your profile mentions that your religion is “Catholic Charismatic” and that you are a Bi-Vocational Bishop. Are you in communion with the Holy See, and if so how is most of your theology eastern while considering yourself to be a “Catholic Charismatic”? Also, what jurisdiction do you head?

God bless!

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Jesus4Madrid: These are your words, so I am not pulling this out of …a hat.

Martin Luther, when he split from Rome, decided to change "authentic New Testament Christianity in a number of areas,"

 

[Mannyfit75]

JesusforMadrid:

Sorry, but this attack on Martin Luther is a strawman. And calling Henry VIII are Reformer is a stretch. Yes, 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.

No the Catholic Church has not stray away from the Apostles teaching. The teachings of the Church is Apostolic. Like the Nicene Creed states, “I believe in One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”

There is no Church doctrine or dogma that promotes heresy. The CC have been a strong defender in the right to life, taught against contraception. There are some Protestants who think contraception is ok. Woah, that opens door for fornication.

catholic.com/library/Contraception_and_Sterilization.asp Conception.

catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp Birth Control

 

[Mannyfit75]

Sorry, but this attack on Martin Luther is a strawman. And calling Henry VIII are Reformer is a stretch. Yes, 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.

Martin Luther and Henry VIII example proves the error of the Reformers. Henry VIII himself through his own vanity wanted to divorce. The CC denied him an annulment since his reason was to bear a son. He was also an adultery.

Martin Luther remove books from the Bible which he himself is guilty of. The Reformers themselves were not united, and from tstem other Protestant sects with different doctrines and belief.

Where is the unity in Protestantism? There isn’t. Not all of them agree on certain issue like baptism, eucharists, etc.

The official teachings of the Catholic Church is One and the same. Though some Catholics held different opinions, they themselves cannot change doctrines or dogma that is already defined by the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Nicene]

TNT, you have pretty colours in your posts. I should try that.

Actually, I don’t “cling” to ECF at all. Rather, I use it to try to understand Scripture and to compare it to modern RC doctrine.

The RC church has sent the bar very high on ECF supporting tradition: “unanimous consent”, according to Trent. So, ECFs who do not support the modern RC church’s doctrine are very troubling, for me as they should be for RCs, becuase without “unanimous consent”, (i) these doctrines are suspect or (ii) tradition alone is not a source of doctrine, certainly not on equal footing with Scripture, as Trent said.

Lets see how honest you are going to be with unanimous consent of the fathers and to that which it is referring. Your assertion is that it is referring to the traditions of the church fathers found in ancient writings and not scripture:

*Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,–considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,–ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,–thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,–print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author’s name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

Besides the above, wishing to repress that temerity, by which the words and sentences of sacred Scripture are turned and twisted to all sorts of profane uses, to wit, to things scurrilous, fabulous, vain, to flatteries, detractions, superstitions, impious and diabolical incantations, sorceries, and defamatory libels; (the Synod) commands and enjoins, for the doing away with this kind of irreverence and contempt, and that no one may hence forth dare in any way to apply the words of sacred Scripture to these and such like purposes; that all men of this description, profaners and violators of the word of God, be by the bishops restrained by the penalties of law, and others of their own appointment.*

The above applies specifically, as stated in the document, to interpretation of scripture.

Are you being honest?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

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.

Actually you will see, if you actually read the Ignatiun letters, that he unequivocally condemns most modern Evangelical beliefs.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Nicene]

1. The Council of Trent said that there had to be “unanimous consent” of the Early Church Fathers for a tradition to be considered doctrine.

Read two posts above and please tell us again this is what it says. This goes towards integrity.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Hesychios]

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

It is confusing because it is wrong.

The bishop of Roma has de facto power over all the dioceses. That is not the way it was meant to be.

MIchael

 

[TylerAlex]

Actually you will see, if you actually read the Ignatiun letters, that he unequivocally condemns most modern Evangelical beliefs.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Can you give me some examples of most Modern Evangelical beliefs? Beyond condeming, what implications then would that have on those that actually preached those beliefs?

Thank you.

 

[Nicene]

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?

CS Lewis wasn’t an Evangelical protestant, he was Anglican (Church of England) In fact all three sound like the first century christian. Where does that leave Evangelicals? Would you mind expanding on CS Lewis defence on pergutory as “a cleaning up time”?

“I hope, that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am coming round, a voice will say “Rinse your mouth out with this.” This will be purgatory.” ~CS Lewis

Unless I am mistaken Evangelicals deny purgatory, or has that changed?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[JesusforMadrid]

You think incorrectly then again I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

Roman Catholic is not official or the politically correct term to address “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.” It is simply Catholic Church, and the early Church is today’s Catholic Church which is in union with the Pope.

You have misread the Scripture and the Writing of the ECF.

For one Ignatius is deeply developed with Liturgical worship of the Eucharist, which is very Catholic. St. Ignatius first called Christ’s Church Catholic in 107 A.D.

You are in error when you deny that CC today isn’t the same Body as it was over 2,000 yrs ago.

The practiced of modern Catholic Church differs, but the dogmas and doctrines are the same.

The problem with calling the Catholic Church as Roman Catholic, is to neglect the Eastern Rite Catholic Church or Byzantine Rite Catholic Church (whose style of worship is more like Greek Orthodox), but these Eastern Church are in union with the Pope.

Again, please re frame calling Roman Catholic Church. It is called Catholic Church headed by Jesus Christ, and is Prime Ministered by the current successor of Peter, Pope Benedict XVI.

You and others have insisted that I call the Church of Rome the Catholic Church. This, however, is considered hidebound and insulting to many Catholics who are not loyal to Rome, including Anglo Catholics who in many respects are Rome’s least “separated brothers”. So, rather than insult them, I ask that you accept RC instead of just “Catholic”. Most RCs do not object.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

CS Lewis wasn’t an Evangelical protestant, he was Anglican (Church of England) In fact all three sound like the first century christian. Where does that leave Evangelicals? Would you mind expanding on CS Lewis defence on pergutory as “a cleaning up time”?

“I hope, that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am coming round, a voice will say “Rinse your mouth out with this.” This will be purgatory.” ~CS Lewis

Unless I am mistaken Evangelicals deny purgatory, or has that changed?

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

True on both counts. Lewis was a “middle church” Anglican. In spite of the purgatory issue, Lewis sounds more 1st century Christian than Scott Hahn or other modern RC authors, who, however Marian, must obligatorily sign off every book with an encomium to Mary. No 1st century authors do that (perhaps you can give me one). He is also much more “Evanglical” than “Catholic” in his writings. You will find that today, Evanglicals claim him as one of their own, for his orthodoxy and emphasis on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

[frnate]

A brief disclaimer — I in no way intend my posts as ANY sort of attack on either any poster on this forum or that venerable and most praisewothy body known as the Roman Catholic Church. +N (If I just NEED to attack someone I’ll go to CARM)

I’m not really sure what you’re referring to when you mention “inventions of RC theologians”.

What I mean is that RC theologians and doctors have been forced to defend the position that there is only one supreme jurisdiction, thus creating the corner into which the RC has painted herself by claiming universal authority over that jurisdiction and has since been forced to either present new and inventive interpretations of Scripture and ECF to support her claim or abandon that position (as she should but probably will not.)

it can be seen that St. Peter held a certain primacy of the church even though St. Paul co-founded that jurisdiction.

It is not here disputed that the See of Peter holds *“a certain primacy” *it is the nature of that primacy which is at question. Even now I would etimate that 99.9% of all Catholic and Orthodox communions would readily acknowledge the debt of gratitude, if nothing else, owed to Rome by all of Christendom. Gratitude, honor, respect and yes even a great love do not, however, confer or even, necessarily, imply ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Peace,
+Nathan