The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[jmcrae]

Guonophore;

All of that is true. The headquarters of the Church moved to Rome with St. Peter when he was arrested and taken there to die.

Since he was the head of the Church, the authority of the Church went with him. It has remained there until this very day, and will probably remain there until the Judgement Day.

 

[guanophore]

It became “Roman Catholic” when Peter arrived in Rome.

Peter was ordained by Christ to be chief shepherd of the Church. (John 21:15-19)

His successors are the Popes of that specific Catholic Church whose headquarters are still in Rome today.

I don’t think so. (I don’t think I ever disagreed with you before either!)

The church was Catholic until the schism in 1054. At that time, it divided between East and West, and after that the West became synomous with “Roman”. That is why there are two acceptable rites today: Roman, and Eastern Catholic Liturgies. Both are valid.

 

[jmcrae]

Also, a distinction needs to be made between Catholic with a big “C” and catholic with a small “c”.

The only “small c” Catholics are those who, first, want to be members of Christ’s Church, and second, are completely unaware that Christ founded the Catholic Church, and thus, don’t know or even suspect that they need to become members of it.

 

[guanophore]

The only “small c” Catholics are those who, first, want to be members of Christ’s Church, and second, are completely unaware that Christ founded the Catholic Church, and thus, don’t know or even suspect that they need to become members of it.

I believe that the Holy Orthodox also consider themselves catholic, athough they avoid using the word so as to avoid the impression they are in communion with Rome.

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t think so. (I don’t think I ever disagreed with you before either!)

The church was Catholic until the schism in 1054. At that time, it divided between East and West, and after that the West became synomous with “Roman”. That is why there are two acceptable rites today: Roman, and Eastern Catholic Liturgies. Both are valid.

Eastern Catholics in communion with Rome are also “Roman” in the sense that I am thinking of here, because they are in union with Rome.

I am not talking about the liturgy, or the Rite, here; I am talking about the Church itself. The Eastern Catholics are members of the Catholic Church that has its headquarters in Rome, the same as us Latin Rite Catholics. We are all - East and West - members of the same Church and we are all united to the same Pope.

 

[jmcrae]

I believe that the Holy Orthodox also consider themselves catholic, athough they avoid using the word so as to avoid the impression they are in communion with Rome.

They also have valid succession from the Apostles.

 

[jmcrae]

Not even remotely close to the truth. Read the confessions of the reformers yourself and see otherwise.

Augsburg Confession (Lutheran)
ctsfw.edu/etext/boc/ac/

Westminster Confession (Reformed/Calvinist/Presbyterian, etc.)
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

Thirty-Nine Articles (Anglican)
anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

It turns out that none of these documents are actually binding or authoritative in any way, on anyone - not even members of the ecclesial communities that produced them.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

This is what Jesus Christ ordained. Read your New Testament. The Apostles were in charge of the Church. Peter was the lead Apostle. Jesus founded the Catholic Church, and set Peter and the other Apostles in charge of it. They in turn appointed successors - the Pope and his Bishops.

* Jn 15:16 - Jesus chose special men to be his Apostles.
* Jn 20:21 - Jesus gave the Apostles his own mission.
* Lk 22:29-30 - Jesus gave them a kingdom.
* Mt 16:18 - Jesus built His Church on Peter, the rock.
* Jn 10:16 - one shepherd to shepherd Christ's sheep.
* Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17 - Peter appointed to be chief shepherd.
* Eph 4:11 - church leaders are hierarchical.
* 1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17 - identifies role of bishops, priests and deacons.
* Tit 1:5 - commission for bishops to ordain priests.

• Mt 28:18-20 - Jesus delegates all power to Apostles.
  • Jn 20:23 - power to forgive sins.
  • 1 Cor 11:23-24 - power to offer sacrifice (Eucharist).
  • Lk 10:16 - power to speak with Christ’s voice.
  • Mt 18:18 - power to legislate.
  • Mt 18:17 - power to discipline.

(Taken from The Church and Peter; An Apologists Bible Cheat Sheet)

I suggest you read it yourself, rather than read into it.

You are still incorrectly referring to Peter as the “chief” sheperd based on John 21. I offered you a airplane ticket to visit the Vatican if you could find the word “chief” anyplace in John 21.

Also, Matthew 28 says nothing about Jesus delegating any power, let alone all power, to his disicples. Rather he says that he is the possessor of all authority. And he charges them with a mission, and says that he will be with them to the end of the age. Do you underestand that to refer just to the Apostolic age? If so (which is not my view), then one might argue that Christ is no longer with his church. If it goes beyond that (which is my view) to mean until the end of the world, then I would argue that the commissioning is not just for those disciples but all who become disciples of Christ.

The actual giving of power to his disciples is found as you noted in John 20, but again that is to all not just those present on that occasion. Or maybe you think that Thomas (who was not present) was not given power to forgive sins?

 

[guanophore]

I suggest you read it yourself, rather than read into it.

You are still incorrectly referring to Peter as the “chief” sheperd based on John 21. I offered you a airplane ticket to visit the Vatican if you could find the word “chief” anyplace in John 21.

Also, Matthew 28 says nothing about Jesus delegating any power, let alone all power, to his disicples. Rather he says that he is the possessor of all authority. And he charges them with a mission, and says that he will be with them to the end of the age. Do you underestand that to refer just to the Apostolic age? If so (which is not my view), then one might argue that Christ is no longer with his church. If it goes beyond that (which is my view) to mean until the end of the world, then I would argue that the commissioning is not just for those disciples but all who become disciples of Christ.

The actual giving of power to his disciples is found as you noted in John 20, but again that is to all not just those present on that occasion. Or maybe you think that Thomas (who was not present) was not given power to forgive sins?

Are you a “sola scriptura” person, or are you open to the evidence of the early church fathers?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I think you are lacking some study of Christian History, Grace Seeker.

Just because I don’t agree with the interpretation of events purposed here, does not mean I haven’t studied it.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
No! That just is not true. The catholic church is the body of Christ. It includes all Christians. It is not the exclusive pervue of a few (or the many millions) that take their marching orders from Rome. All who claim Jesus as both Lord and Savior are catholic.

I think that you will see that I have indeed made such a distinction.

Even after the papacy was established in Rome, it was some time before the idea of it being the Roman Catholic Church emerged. It was just the holy catholic Church. Catholic was an adjective, not a name. The need to emphasize distinctions came when local congregations and leaders in the eastern and western regions of the one Church began to be in disagreement. Once the divisions were codified into names like Roman Catholic to distinguish it from those who were not in agreement, then the church was no longer truly catholic (i.e. universal). As others have said, the Orthodox Church still sees itself as catholic just as much as the Roman Catholic Church does. It chooses not to use the adjective because of the confusion it would cause.

As long as the Roman Catholic Church sees itself as distinctive because of it’s Romanness, it can never be truly catholic for to be truly catholic, it must include all of universal Christendom and it does not.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Are you a “sola scriptura” person, or are you open to the evidence of the early church fathers?

I’m open to the evidence of the early church fathers, but I would consider Scripture to be primary and the early church fathers to be illustrative and informative. If they became innovators, then I would have to find something on scripture to hang there ideas on.

For example, the whole concept of the Trinity is something that comes from the thinking of the early church fathers, but it is also possible to see how they drew that out of scripture and the experience of the Church.

But also, for example, If someone wants to make a case for Peter being the “chief” shepherd from the early church fathers, then don’t go quoting John 21 to substantiate that point. If you quote John 21, I’m going to read John 21 to see what it says, not some other source.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

There can only be one head. Either the Church is headed by Christ, or it is headed by the Pope. I submit it is headed by Christ and thus includes all who belong to Christ.

There is only one Head. Christ is the Head of His Church Universal and the Pope is the Prime Minister of His Church on Earth.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I will repeat what I’ve already said. When it became Roman Catholic it quit being truly catholic.

But it’s only called the “Roman Catholic Church” by those who wish to deny its proper authority or by misinformed Catholics who do not recognize the true diversity of the Universal Church. I am a member of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, which makes me a Roman Catholic, but there is no “Roman Catholic Church”. There are many distinctive rites of the Catholic Church and different particular churches which are in full communion with the Pope in Rome, and these are no where near “Roman Catholic” as these churches were not founded by the apostles Peter or Paul (but some of them were). These include the Byzantine Catholics (of many jurisdictions), the Coptic Catholics, the Maronites who have no counterpart in the East or in the Orient, the Syriac Catholic Churches, etc. etc. I can go into any one of these parishes and fulfill my Sunday obligation as they are all members of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is quite diverse, thank you.

 

[guanophore]

But it’s only called the “Roman Catholic Church” by those who wish to deny its proper authority or by misinformed Catholics who do not recognize the true diversity of the Universal Church. I am a member of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, which makes me a Roman Catholic, but there is no “Roman Catholic Church”. There are many distinctive rites of the Catholic Church and different particular churches which are in full communion with the Pope in Rome, and these are no where near “Roman Catholic” as these churches were not founded by the apostles Peter or Paul (but some of them were). These include the Byzantine Catholics (of many jurisdictions), the Coptic Catholics, the Maronites who have no counterpart in the East or in the Orient, the Syriac Catholic Churches, etc. etc. I can go into any one of these parishes and fulfill my Sunday obligation as they are all members of the Body of Christ, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is quite diverse, thank you.

I am Byzantine also, and that is why I said that Grace Seeker did not know the history of the church.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Just because I don’t agree with the interpretation of events purposed here, does not mean I haven’t studied it.

I think that you will see that I have indeed made such a distinction.

Even after the papacy was established in Rome, it was some time before the idea of it being the Roman Catholic Church emerged. It was just the holy catholic Church. Catholic was an adjective, not a name. The need to emphasize distinctions came when local congregations and leaders in the eastern and western regions of the one Church began to be in disagreement. Once the divisions were codified into names like Roman Catholic to distinguish it from those who were not in agreement, then the church was no longer truly catholic (i.e. universal). As others have said, the Orthodox Church still sees itself as catholic just as much as the Roman Catholic Church does. It chooses not to use the adjective because of the confusion it would cause.

As long as the Roman Catholic Church sees itself as distinctive because of it’s Romanness, it can never be truly catholic for to be truly catholic, it must include all of universal Christendom and it does not.

The only time that the Church uses the name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ is in dialog with Christians who are not members of the Body which is prime ministered by the Pope in Rome. For instance, the official body of Catholic bishops in the United States is called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, not Roman Catholic Bishops. The official catechism which is published by the USCCB is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. If you search in the Catechism, catholic church is used and ‘the Church’ is used even moreso. Roman Catholic Church is not used once. Roman Catholic Church, as I said, is a title used by those Christians who wish to deny the authority of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church prime ministered by the Pope in Rome.

As an aside, I ought to mention that my particular church, the Church of Denver (Archdiocese of Denver), is headed by Archbishop Charles Chaput. Charles Chaput has more authority in his particular archdiocese than the Pope does, as His Eminence is in Communion with the Pope, and as being brother bishops, both have jurisdiction but different types of jurisdiction in the Universal Church. We must assent to infallible pronouncements of the Roman Pontiff, the Magisterium, etc. etc. but Charles and Benedict remain brothers nonetheless.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

I am Byzantine also, and that is why I said that Grace Seeker did not know the history of the church.

Well, what I am is guilty of not being more precise. I am aware that there are indeed many “Catholic” bodies that are not “Roman” that are still in communion with Rome. I am also aware that there are a few that are not.

I also apologizes for falling into the error of using the term Roman Catholic Church, I was doing that to be distinct from some of the other varieties of Catholic that are not in communion with Rome, not to deny the existence of non-Roman forms of Catholicism that are in communion with Rome. Should I use the term Roman-rite Catholic?

My daughter lives in Istanbul. I have heard of Byzantium, and decades before she moved there. I’m sure there is much church history I also don’t know, but what area specifically do you see me as being deficient in?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

I also apologizes for falling into the error of using the term Roman Catholic Church, I was doing that to be distinct from some of the other varieties of Catholic that are not in communion with Rome, not to deny the existence of non-Roman forms of Catholicism that are in communion with Rome. Should I use the term Roman-rite Catholic?

No, to use that as a descriptive of the whole Church would make Eastern and Oriental Catholics second-class Catholics. You can use Catholic Church or The Church, to be precise, and we’ll know what you mean.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

There is only one Head. Christ is the Head of His Church Universal and the Pope is the Prime Minister of His Church on Earth.

Not the way I would have phrased it, but I can live with that.

The Prime Minister, but not the only minister. And even the Prime Minister really has no more temporal authority as a minister than any other minister except that which is conferred on him by those other ministers. When he violates their trust with respect to that authority or fails to properly exercise it, then there are sometimes calls for a change in the Prime Minister.

Now with respect to the Catholic Chuch, there came a time when the minority party simply withdrew. That was probably a mistake. It would have been better if the point which led to that had not happened, but many egos were at fault, not just one or even two. Today, we live with that scar on Christendom. It is plainly obvious that we are not in communion. But, let us not open up that scar and aggrevate more with accusations that one or the other is somehow less Christian.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

No, to use that as a descriptive of the whole Church would make Eastern and Oriental Catholics second-class Catholics. You can use Catholic Church or The Church, to be precise, and we’ll know what you mean.

I will use Catholic Chruch. For if I use the term The Church, I am referring to more than just those who submit to the authority of the Pope.

I claim that I too am part of the Church, but my bishop is not in Rome.

 

[guanophore]

As long as the Roman Catholic Church sees itself as distinctive because of it’s Romanness, it can never be truly catholic for to be truly catholic, it must include all of universal Christendom and it does not.

I think that the title RCC is only used by people who are non-Catholic and have issues with “Romanness”. the Catholic Church does not see itself this way, and does not teach “Romanness”. The Church’s teachings are all about universal Christendom. I am curious why you think they are not?

In answer to a question in your other post, the Byzantine Rite is based on Liturgies developed by the Eastern fathers, St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. these are the same liturgies used by the Orthodox. they are not Latin (Roman) in nature, practice, or language.