The "catholic but not Roman Catholic" argument

[hoosierdaddy]

Fair enough Jonathan. I am always willing to learn and even accept that I used a logical fallacy if it is done respectfully.

Now, doesn’t the fact that your rites changed mean your teachings changed? Don’t rites come from teachings?

Since I am a Christian and “catholic” means universal church it follows that I am catholic. I have always accepted this fact; I just am not a Roman Catholic (which I believe is just another denomination).

Oh trust me, I have read Catholic sources, etc. I have the CCC. Now, I know what you were trying to do when you mentioned my ‘complaints’ and ‘points’ and I forgive you for it.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Redefine? I gave you the dictionary’s definitions.

So the 4th session of Trent was using your same dictionary definition? Is this the right definition, the one we can now say, yes, this is what “unanimous consent” really means? Because other posters have given me others.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

.

, The 68 Fathers were silent for 4 centuries about the Assumption. Show me they weren’t.

Let’s use the Assumption as a case example for the larger issue of lack of consent (opps, now a meaningless word), I mean written approaval, of Marian dogma. Leave aside the Trent debate about consent. Present me the case from tradition for the Assumption. Use any of the 68 Fathers
listed previously by New Advent to make your case.

Jesus4Madrid (I’ve noticed some others use ‘J4M’ and you seem to be okay with that, but I understand you want me to use the full moniker):

Before you get too far afield about this red herring: 68 Fathers.

There is a difference between what you term “Early Church Fathers” and “Fathers of the Church” (I found these terms of yours while scrolling for that reference which you requested on Fatima and I will post after these comments. The search engine is down)

“Doctors of the Church” otherwise known as egregiii doctores ecclesiae (‘outstanding teachers of the Church’) number 32, not 68.

At the time of the Council of Trent, they numbered even less, about 10 or so.

When Church documents list specific ‘Fathers’ then you can be sure the Church, then and now, considers those writers to be “Dogmatic Fathers” on questions of, well, I think you know what’s coming next, ‘dogma.’

You are fond of quoting Tertullian (I have collected some of your ‘Marian’ posts) but never mention that Tertullian otherwise known as ‘the father of Latin theology’ is NOT a Father of the Church. He had some crazy ideas that were his and his alone. He was a Montanist, which may be of interest to you and your views of Christianity and the Catholic Church, a 3rd century “pentacostal” sect which espoused the belief in the impending end of the world.

Tertullian condemned all Christians who became soldiers (count me out), artists (ditto), or state officials (whew! he didn’t say municipal officials!) and all parents who did not veil their daughters.

He is only referred to today by theologians (Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream Protestant) for his work on the formation of the doctrines of original sin, the Atonement and the Trinity. he gave us Catholics the word sacramentum for the several sacred mysteries of the Church

Now, here is what I propose you and I do, Jesus4Madrid.

I propose we go to the Vatican website where the source documents are for the dogma of the Assumption and we read them in whatever language we are comfortable in and then if you are hot and bothered by THAT dogma, I am sure all of us Catholics are game for a discussion.

However, quit using the bogeyman of the Council of Trent and the “unanimous consent.”

To quote you from Posting 370 on "Split: Another Marian Debate:"

"The Council I of Trent ruled that there had to be substantial unanimity in the Church Fathers for a dogma that has arisen through tradition to be accepted."

Of course, you backtracked on that ‘substantial unanimity’ after being called on it and changed it to “unanimous consent.”

However, that statement is still a lie. The Fourth Session (we hashed this many times, friend) was concerned with ‘scriptural interpretation,’ not Marian dogma. You know, like discussion about the Trinity from the Bible and from Church Fathers and other Patristic writers such as Tertullian??

Dogma does not have to arise from Scripture anyway. There is not Tradition nor Scriptural statement which says that it has to, should or must.

 

[Redbandito]

So the 4th session of Trent was using your same dictionary definition? Is this the right definition, the one we can now say, yes, this is what “unanimous consent” really means? Because other posters have given me others.

Well I don’t know J4M. Why don’t you show me why we should accept your definition?

 

[JonathanKinsman]

Fair enough Jonathan. I am always willing to learn and even accept that I used a logical fallacy if it is done respectfully.

Now, doesn’t the fact that your rites changed mean your teachings changed? Don’t rites come from teachings?

Since I am a Christian and “catholic” means universal church it follows that I am catholic. I have always accepted this fact; I just am not a Roman Catholic (which I believe is just another denomination).

Oh trust me, I have read Catholic sources, etc. I have the CCC. Now, I know what you were trying to do when you mentioned my ‘complaints’ and ‘points’ and I forgive you for it.

Hoosierdaddy, a ‘rite’ has to do with the liturgy. Roman rite or Latin rite is what kind of Mass you will see on an Ordinary Sunday.

What prayers are used (from the Psalms and from Pauline letters), in what order things progress and how. For example, in Anglican Use churches (they’re part of the Catholic Church), the Presiding Priest and an Assistant Priest enter with the Lectors and Altar Servers (altar boys in my day!) with incense and chanting. And the language used is redolent of the most honey-tongued Elizabethan or Jacobean poet.

We don’t do that in the ‘Roman’ rite or (as Jesus4Madrid likes to say) as an ‘RC.’

Rites (like the Marriage rite) have to do with how the Faithful worship God. Not whether one way is better or more biblical than another.

But what EVERY rite (Catholic and Orthodox) have in common aside from Protestants, is that the Eucharist IS the True Presence, not a mere memorial or symbol of Jesus.

And this of course leads to another discussion on the role of the priest in Catholic and Orthodox traditions. Another thread, another day.

Teachings. When I say teachings, I mean the Cycle of Redemption. The prophecies in the OT about the Messiah, God’s promises to His people the Jews, Jesus *redeeming *mankind from sin, *salvation *as a two-way street (Jesus’ sacrifice laid the foundation of redemption, but each of us-Catholics have always believed-has to build on it, working out our own salvation in “fear and trembling.” (1 Cor 3:11-15, 10:12, Phil 2:12, Mt 24:42-51).

These teachings have never changed since the early Church, whatever one wants to call it.

"Catholic" Protestants NEVER called themselves ‘Catholic’ or ‘catholic,’ until the mid to late 20th century. Why? I guess when one wants to feel like what they believe is what was always believed, then it is necessary to assume the language (not the beliefs, mind you!) of those one feels are not what they have always contended they were: Catholics (of whatever Rite) in communion (their bishops) with Rome (the Bishop of Rome, specifically).

You can call yourself whatever you want, many non-denominational christians have started to imitate Orthodox and Coptic (that’s Catholic Church from Egypt and environs) rituals and claim to be the “original church of Jesus.”

Others, mostly renegade Baptists, put on Jewish liturgical wear and claim to be “Messianic Jews,” MORE AUTHENTIC than the average Catholic.

There’s no law against acting out whatever belief one wants to: it just seems silly for so many to beat around the (burning) bush and not investigate the historic, original, founded at Pentacost, laid out by Jesus through Peter and His Apostles, Catholic Church.

Sorry for the preaching. God bless you.

 

[MickC]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

*The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”
*

see:
Catholic Encyclopedia

This is the same Roman Catholic Church to which I belong - the word “Roman” being more adjective than noun to distinguish it from Anglo and so on.

I’ve three volumes of the writings of the Early Fathers of the Church, and what I see within these pages is the Catholic Church. Perhaps others may see something different, but I do not.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

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.

Instead of attacking all of these dogmas at once, I wish that you would do a specific search on the forum or start a thread for each of these issues. Instead of doing a hit and run troll such as this…

 

[4life4nfp]

The Word Trinity did not show up for hundreds of years, yet from the getgo Christians believed in the Father-Son_Holy Spirit. Just because the word Pope was not used does not mean the office did not exist.

quote me an Early Church Father that believed other than the real presence in the Eucharist as taught today by the True Church of Jesus Christ. Schisms in the church caused everyone to further define the Catholic church as the Roman Catholic Church. The church Jesus promised to be with until the end of time. The Holy Spirit in Acts was given to remind us of all that Jesus said. The church he built the foundation with Peter, who he gave the keys to kingdom (as did Prime Ministers did in that time period when the King would leave, he would place the prime minister in charge.) Go to Mass and read the Bible and the early church Fathers and you will be amazed how the early Catholic Church is ABSOLUTELY the Roman Catholic church. Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. They knew all roads lead to Rome, what better place to head the church from to spread it to the ends of the Earth. BTW, who prays to the dead, are not the Saints alive?
see (Matthew 22:31-32)

Infant Baptism? See (Acts 16:15) quote me a biblical reference or church father that said not to baptize infants.

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.

Actually confused things a bit. No Incense? What about the type in the Old Testament revealing the New in Malachi 1:11?
“Malachi 1:11
For from the rising of the sun to its setting, my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name; and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord.”

This was written before the good news was proclaimed to the Gnetiles. Incense being offered… A pure offering… All nations… Where today and for the past 2,000 years, a pure offering has been made to God. Today, every hour, thinking of all the time zones… The re-presentation of calvary, The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the purest offering of Jesus Christ, the paschal Lamb is made every day… From the Eucharistic prayer…“from east to west, a perfect offering is made.” The New fulfills the Old and the Old reveals the New.