the first Church.

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes, and the Eastern Catholics as well. This is one way the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics distinguish themselves from Latin Rite Catholics.

Of course you may describe yourself as you please, but technically speaking, you are Catholic - Latin Rite.

It misrepresents the Church to the world, and especially Protestants who are ignorant to the true Catholic nature of the Church.

Hello guanophore Among Catholics, it is healthful and beautiful to distinguish one anothers Catholic Rites in discussions of Liturgy. What we run the risk of to other non catholic Christians is the misunderstanding that they (non catholics, dare I include Protestants) will recognize themselves as another “Rite” of Christianity that mistakenly makes them valid Catholics, as it is well known, some protestant faiths include the word “Catholic” in their creed, but with a new meaning differing from antiquity.

I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite. I am a Roman Catholic because I follow “Peter” the Bishop of Rome of whom Jesus built his church. When one uses the term “Roman Catholic” references his obedience to the Church Jesus built upon Peter. I run a risk here by stating all those in communion with Peter and his successors in the Pope are Roman Catholic with their respective Catholic Rites. Protestants and non catholics circles know this fact and commonly associate all Catholics with the Roman Pope seated on the Chair of Peter.

When Catholicity begins to separate herself by terms to define our differences from one another’s Catholic Rite instead of unity in our One Faith, it runs the risk of confusion and or accepting all non catholics/protestants form of worship as valid, which will bring about more abuse of the freedom of religions. It is important IMHO that “Roman Catholic” remain as a term attaching oneself to the Chair of Peter of whom Jesus built his church. If one only claims to his Catholic liturgical Rite as his authority, opens the flood gates to non catholics and protestants becoming separated “Rites” as a valid form of Catholicity. When one uses the Term “Roman Catholic” includes all Catholic Rites who are in full communion with Peter and his successors in the Bishop of Rome the “Pope”. But when discussing one’s Catholic liturgical Rite identifies those members of the body of Jesus Christ to the many members existing both in Heaven and on earth.

Peace be with you

 

[jbelokur]

Hello guanophore

I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite. I am a Roman Catholic because I follow “Peter” the Bishop of Rome of whom Jesus built his church. When one uses the term “Roman Catholic” references his obedience to the Church Jesus built upon Peter. I run a risk here by stating all those in communion with Peter and his successors in the Pope are Roman Catholic with their respective Catholic Rites. Protestants and non catholics circles know this fact and commonly associate all Catholics with the Roman Pope seated on the Chair of Peter.

Peace be with you

Please back this up with something more than just your own personal sentiment. As I have said before, the term Roman Catholic Church is most commonly used as a pejorative term by non-Catholics ie. protestants, it is not a term that refers to one’s obedience to the pope. Eastern Rite Catholics I’m sure don’t consider themselves “Roman Catholics” yet they are in union with the pope, and this goes for all of the rites. Again as I’ve asked before, please show me one shred of evidence that the Church actually uses this term for herself, which she doesn’t, and I’ll change my religion tag to Roman Catholic tomorrow. We are, as Catholics, apart of The Catholic Church. I believe then that if one is going to distinguish themselves online then it should be for example, “I’m a part of the Catholic Church, Latin rite.” and so on. Or as is often done,
“I’m Eastern Rite Catholic”.

 

[Hisalone]

The community that gathered around Jesus was very carefull to preserve it’s structures. They still structure that community to this day. The Church is the only Church because it is the only one made visible by the structures established in the beginning by the ‘so called’ first church.

Talk about a circular arguement.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hello guanophore Among Catholics, it is healthful and beautiful to distinguish one anothers Catholic Rites in discussions of Liturgy. What we run the risk of to other non catholic Christians is the misunderstanding that they (non catholics, dare I include Protestants) will recognize themselves as another “Rite” of Christianity that mistakenly makes them valid Catholics, as it is well known, some protestant faiths include the word “Catholic” in their creed, but with a new meaning differing from antiquity.

I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite. I am a Roman Catholic because I follow “Peter” the Bishop of Rome of whom Jesus built his church. When one uses the term “Roman Catholic” references his obedience to the Church Jesus built upon Peter. I run a risk here by stating all those in communion with Peter and his successors in the Pope are Roman Catholic with their respective Catholic Rites. Protestants and non catholics circles know this fact and commonly associate all Catholics with the Roman Pope seated on the Chair of Peter.

When Catholicity begins to separate herself by terms to define our differences from one another’s Catholic Rite instead of unity in our One Faith, it runs the risk of confusion and or accepting all non catholics/protestants form of worship as valid, which will bring about more abuse of the freedom of religions. It is important IMHO that “Roman Catholic” remain as a term attaching oneself to the Chair of Peter of whom Jesus built his church. If one only claims to his Catholic liturgical Rite as his authority, opens the flood gates to non catholics and protestants becoming separated “Rites” as a valid form of Catholicity. When one uses the Term “Roman Catholic” includes all Catholic Rites who are in full communion with Peter and his successors in the Bishop of Rome the “Pope”. But when discussing one’s Catholic liturgical Rite identifies those members of the body of Jesus Christ to the many members existing both in Heaven and on earth.

Peace be with you

because of this term Roman Catholic, people think of the CC is just another denomination of Christianity. people believed that today. just google denominations and you see roman catholic Church being included.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Please back this up with something more than just your own personal sentiment. As I have said before, the term Roman Catholic Church is most commonly used as a pejorative term by non-Catholics ie. protestants, it is not a term that refers to one’s obedience to the pope. Eastern Rite Catholics I’m sure don’t consider themselves “Roman Catholics” yet they are in union with the pope, and this goes for all of the rites. Again as I’ve asked before, please show me one shred of evidence that the Church actually uses this term for herself, which she doesn’t, and I’ll change my religion tag to Roman Catholic tomorrow. We are, as Catholics, apart of The Catholic Church. I believe then that if one is going to distinguish themselves online then it should be for example, “I’m a part of the Catholic Church, Latin rite.” and so on. Or as is often done,
“I’m Eastern Rite Catholic”.

Gabriel of 12;
Hello jbelokur, My post addressed another poster that caution should be taken here in deciphering between catholic protestant rites, from Roman Catholic Rites. You are wise in recognizing that both non catholics and protestants reference the term “Roman Catholic” as Identifying the Church Jesus built upon Peter. One must recognize also that both secular and Jewish religious communities have officially documented that Jesus Christ is the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.

A couple of things to consider here; One that the Roman Empire consisted of both East and West. The princes of the apostles Peter and Paul made headway in both the East and Western Roman Empire, in converting both Jews and Gentiles. Another aspect here is that Paul’s epistle to the “Romans” exist in the New Testament. We know from the New Testament that Peter’s role was a universal significance and cannot be restricted to a particular tradition limited to one person or place.

We have Paul by his own Rite was an apostle of Jesus because Jesus appeared to him. Paul a learned Jew, after 3 years in ministry, authenticated his Catholic Rite by visiting Peter only and the brother of Jesus, Gal.1: 15 But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia 13 and then returned to Damascus.18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

Roman Catholicism conquered the Roman Empire both East and West beginning with the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

It appears you argue terminology from an ecumenical standpoint which decides our differences in Valid Catholic Rites and Holy Orders, of which I do not disagree with your view, although I would argue substance which unifies the body of Jesus Christ of whom he built his Church upon Peter from antiquity which united both East and West in the Roman Empire under the title of Catholicism.

Roman Catholic does not need to be mentioned among those in full communion with the Roman Pontiff our Pope, for those in communion only need to mention their Catholic Rite for the former is a given. Roman Catholic is still recognized by the World in general as the one Church Jesus founded.

To deny this title is to isolate oneself independently to the mind of the world.

Peace be with you

 

[guanophore]

risk of to other non catholic Christians is the misunderstanding that they (non catholics, dare I include Protestants) will recognize themselves as another “Rite” of Christianity that mistakenly makes them valid Catholics, as it is well known, some protestant faiths include the word “Catholic” in their creed, but with a new meaning differing from antiquity.

Yes, I agree. It is a risk.

I am a Catholic of the Latin Rite. I am a Roman Catholic because I follow "Peter" the Bishop of Rome of whom Jesus built his church.

No, Gabriel, this is not what makes you “Roman”. You see, all Catholics, in all 23 Rites, follow the successor of Peter, and are in union with the Bishop of Rome. W’hat makes you “Roman” (Latin Rite) is that the liturgy reflects the Latin language and culture.

When one uses the term “Roman Catholic” references his obedience to the Church Jesus built upon Peter.

Yes, saying you are Roman Catholic does (or should, though most of those that claim this in the US are actually in rebellion) indicate a reference to the Church built upon Peter. However, it means the same thing for all the other 22 Rites that are in unity with the Bishop of Rome.

I run a risk here by stating all those in communion with Peter and his successors in the Pope are Roman Catholic with their respective Catholic Rites

Yes, and I am telling you it is unwarranted and unnecessary. It is more important for Protestants (as well as Catholics who don’t know any better) to understand that the Church is truly universal, that we are all one in doctrine, if not in language and culture.

Protestants and non catholics circles know this fact and commonly associate all Catholics with the Roman Pope seated on the Chair of Peter.

No, I don’t think most people know that there are 22 Catholic Rites in communion with the Bishop of Rome that are not “Roman”.

When Catholicity begins to separate herself by terms to define our differences from one another’s Catholic Rite instead of unity in our One Faith, it runs the risk of confusion and or accepting all non catholics/protestants form of worship as valid, which will bring about more abuse of the freedom of religions.

This is just my point, Gabriel. We are not separated by our differences in culture and language (liturgy/rite). It is essential that we demonstrate to the world the true universality of the Church.

It is important IMHO that “Roman Catholic” remain as a term attaching oneself to the Chair of Peter of whom Jesus built his church. If one only claims to his Catholic liturgical Rite as his authority, opens the flood gates to non catholics and protestants becoming separated “Rites” as a valid form of Catholicity.

I understand your need to do this, even if I can’t appreciate it. It is demeaning to all Catholics who are in union with the Chair of Peter but are not Latin. Dishonoring fellow Catholics in order to accomodate the ignorant does not seem like charity to me.

When one uses the Term “Roman Catholic” includes all Catholic Rites who are in full communion with Peter and his successors in the Bishop of Rome the “Pope”.

No, Gabriel, it does not. What it does is indicate that the person using this term for those in non-Latin Rites is either ignorant or disrespecful of those Catholics that do not share his language and culture.

But when discussing one’s Catholic liturgical Rite identifies those members of the body of Jesus Christ to the many members existing both in Heaven and on earth.

This does not make any sense to me at all. Those who are in heaven are no longer bound by their language and culture.

Peace be with you

Actually, your position brings the opposite. It is distressing to encounter this level of stubborness and disrespect among my brethren.

 

[guanophore]

My post addressed another poster that caution should be taken here in deciphering between catholic protestant rites, from Roman Catholic Rites.

This is a strawman, Gabriel. There are no “protestant rites”. A Rite is a liturgical ritual, primarily of Divine Liturgy, but also including prayers and disciplines, calendar, and devotionals that is distinguished from others primarily by language and culture, but also by Authority appointed by the Aposltes. Protestants, by virtue of their origins, are no longer part of the Apostolic succession, and therefore, have no “Rites”.

It seems to me that you are the one in need of the “caution”.

You are wise in recognizing that both non catholics and protestants reference the term “Roman Catholic” as Identifying the Church Jesus built upon Peter. One must recognize also that both secular and Jewish religious communities have officially documented that Jesus Christ is the founder of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus founded One Church, Gabriel. It is Catholic,and has been since before the Roman/Latin Rite developed.

Another aspect here is that Paul’s epistle to the “Romans” exist in the New Testament. We know from the New Testament that Peter’s role was a universal significance and cannot be restricted to a particular tradition limited to one person or place.

Yet, this is exactly what you do when you insist that all valid Catholics are “Roman” Catholics. You discount all the Churches founded by Peter and Paul in all the other areas of the Empire that are not Latin in character.

We have Paul by his own Rite was an apostle of Jesus because Jesus appeared to him. Paul a learned Jew, after 3 years in ministry, authenticated his Catholic Rite by visiting Peter only and the brother of Jesus, Gal.1: 15 But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia 13 and then returned to Damascus.18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.

For some reason you made this stuff up. I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your fantasies. Paul did not have his “Rite authenticated” by Peter and James.

Your imaginings are disrespectful to all the Churches founded by Paul, in Syria of Antioch, Corinth, Thessolonica, and everywhere he travelled that did not become Latin.

Roman Catholicism conquered the Roman Empire both East and West beginning with the Martyrdom of Peter and Paul.

No, Gabriel, the Roman Rite did not exist at that time. The language of the Church and the scripture was Greek at that time.

It appears you argue terminology from an ecumenical standpoint which decides our differences in Valid Catholic Rites and Holy Orders, of which I do not disagree with your view, although I would argue substance which unifies the body of Jesus Christ of whom he built his Church upon Peter from antiquity which united both East and West in the Roman Empire under the title of Catholicism.

No, Gabriel, the point has nothing to do with Protestants, except in your own prejudiced mind. We are trying to show you that the other 22 Rites are just as Catholic as the Latin Rite,a nd that most of them preceeded the Latin Rite, which developed later.

Roman Catholic does not need to be mentioned among those in full communion with the Roman Pontiff our Pope, for those in communion only need to mention their Catholic Rite for the former is a given. Roman Catholic is still recognized by the World in general as the one Church Jesus founded.

No one is trying to say that the Latin Rite is not part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church founded by Christ. What I am trying to point out to you is that your view of the world is very narrow. The Latin Rite is more popular here in the US and Europe. If you travel to Egypt, you may not recognize the Catholic Coptic Church, but that does not make it less Catholic.

To deny this title is to isolate oneself independently to the mind of the world.

Actually, Gabriel, the opposite is true. You have adopted a pejorative term for the Body of Christ, and are trying to force it artificially upon those other Catholics to whom it does not belong. Your approach is quite steeped in carnal thinking, since you appear to want to avoid the truth that the Catholic Church is not “Roman” out of fear of ignorant Protestants.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I read the Bible shouldn’t the First CHurch have been Christs ministry as the example and the way it was practiced by his Disciples? If so most of the Churches now are not in the founder of the Christians image if that is a heirarchy with strict dogma and large mopney making engines earning profits. I would say the Home and Simple Church movements are the closest thing Christians have to a church like Christ would have envisioned.

Matthew 18:12 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the middle of them.

I don’t see any need for what some faiths are doing with huge worship sites when all that money could go to aiding the poor and society. And Jesus clearly in this passage did not demand more than say a family get together to honor God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

This is a strawman, Gabriel. There are no “protestant rites”. A Rite is a liturgical ritual, primarily of Divine Liturgy, but also including prayers and disciplines, calendar, and devotionals that is distinguished from others primarily by language and culture, but also by Authority appointed by the Aposltes. Protestants, by virtue of their origins, are no longer part of the Apostolic succession, and therefore, have no “Rites”.

It seems to me that you are the one in need of the “caution”.

Jesus founded One Church, Gabriel. It is Catholic,and has been since before the Roman/Latin Rite developed.

Gabriel of 12;

Wow, you are all over the map on this one issue of “Roman Catholic”. I cannot give an opinion of Protestants services, or what you protest against them is not in charity by refusing to acknowledge protestants services as of the “divine” be it called liturgy, service, mass, Sunday worship and as not having a liturgy is between you and protestants not me. I only state what I have witnessed from them, though many differ in practice.

I will refrain from negative name calling of your opinions here, and pray the same charity in return. I do respect your comments though, it appears to me, we have missed the main point of discussion as far as authority is concerned in the Roman Catholic Church. We were never comparing Catholic Rites, this is your view never mine, of which I cautioned as to not confuse protestants Liturgies, Sunday bible study, or of which ever name you wish to give them, leave me out of the disqualifications of their respective Worship services, just don’t confuse what is a valid Catholic Rite by recognizing all them as separate (which I disagree with you, when all are one in one body in one bread supported by different members) can validate protestants and non catholics into this circle of “universality”. Thus Roman Catholicism solves this by naming authority.

Again I will repeat my summary here; The term of Roman Catholic need not apply to those of Valid Sacraments, Holy orders, and Liturgical Rites. But to the World, who only know of The Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter of whom Jesus built his Church from antiquity recognize the Roman Catholic Church for what it is. This does not insult, nor disqualify all respective Catholic Rites. You cannot name a “Coptic” or “Latin” rite to reference the universality or Catholicity of the whole Church. But when the world states “Roman Catholic” she knows she is speaking about all those Catholic rites in full communion with the Roman Pontiff the Pope successor of Peter.

I never stated that all valid Catholic Rites are “Roman Catholic”. Of which you appear to be confusing the issue here. We need not get into the dating of the differing Catholic Rites to justify or disqualify the authority that exist over all these Catholic Rites come from Rome in the Catholic Church. Now the argument I here you whispering in this topic is recognizing each Catholic Rite as independent from the Latin Rite to be an independent Church which is never the case. This is ecumenical thinking of late century recognizing independent Church’s be it Catholic Rite’s or Protestant (rites) worship services of their own authority, this summarizes what I have been trying to state here.

I don’t have a solution to change the Worlds view of the Roman Catholic Church, yes secular governments including the Eastern world recognize the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t believe you can spend 12 lifetimes to change the Worlds view of the authority coming from the Roman Catholic Church, as you appear to be addressing here from your late ecumenical thinking in terminology. Here I will conclude that I dont disagree with your valid assessments of the Catholic Rites. I only comment on how the world perceives all valid Catholic Rites in communion with the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, this is how those in communion with Rome are perceived, no matter how you or I wish to term the Catholic Church, be it by Rite, or Roman Catholic by authority which includes all. This is not my opinion, this is world view.

I don’t claim to be a Roman citizen when I state my Latin Rite is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. My Catholic Rite falls under the authority of the Pope, Peter’s successors. When I am asked of my religion from the world, I respond, “I am a Roman Catholic”, stating this, speaks volumes of what I believe. When I am asked by a learned religious to which Rite do you practice? I state “The Latin Rite”.

My thinking is no different than that of the early persecuted church, maybe this is where we differ, you coming from a late ecumenical period, and you find me “Rock” stubborn. I dare say, the early church fathers taught me much, but there is still much more to learn.

Peace be with you

 

[MDK]

Talk about a circular arguement.

Just because you do not understand this and disagree, does not make it circular. Unless, of course by circular you mean that your poor interpretations keep coming back at you.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

I understand the Catholic main arguement is the statement by Jesus directed to Peter, in general. Is it wise doctrine to base a theology like this on one passage if that is the case?

He could have just as easily meant that statement in a spiritual way on this “rock” being those of strong and abiding faith are his church, which is the protestant view in the main.

 

[MDK]

I understand the Catholic main arguement is the statement by Jesus directed to Peter, in general. Is it wise doctrine to base a theology like this on one passage if that is the case?

He could have just as easily meant that statement in a spiritual way on this “rock” being those of strong and abiding faith are his church, which is the protestant view in the main.

Perhaps there is more to understand. The Apostles, including Peter all understood what Jesus was saying. This understanding and practice has been handed down in the Church from the very beginning with Peter.

To answer your question about basing things on incorrect reading of Scripture, I’d say the Catholic Church has an iron-clad case of teaching without error, including authoring the Scriptures. On the other hand, the opponents are relying simply on Scriputre reading 2,000 years later with no benefit of the Apostles or their successors whom they taught. Another thing to consider is that Scriptures were authored by God’s Church. In other words, the Church was built by Christ, with Peter as visible head, before this same Church ever authored NT Scriptures.

It is indeed perilous to misinterpret Scriptures, as those who make their faith system based on their own interpretations of Catholic authored Scriptures. Christ built His Church, which later gave us Scriptures. To come in later and misinterpret Scriptures, believing the church is built after Scriptures is a big mistake.

 

[ferdie]

Perhaps there is more to understand. The Apostles, including Peter all understood what Jesus was saying. This understanding and practice has been handed down in the Church from the very beginning with Peter.

To answer your question about basing things on incorrect reading of Scripture, I’d say the Catholic Church has an iron-clad case of teaching without error, including authoring the Scriptures. On the other hand, the opponents are relying simply on Scriputre reading 2,000 years later with no benefit of the Apostles or their successors whom they taught. **Another thing to consider is that Scriptures were authored by God’s Church. In other words, the Church was built by Christ, with Peter as visible head, before this same Church ever authored NT Scriptures. **

It is indeed perilous to misinterpret Scriptures, as those who make their faith system based on their own interpretations of Catholic authored Scriptures. Christ built His Church, which later gave us Scriptures. To come in later and misinterpret Scriptures, believing the church is built after Scriptures is a big mistake.

I wish that people will ponder on the bold part. The Church has 2000 yrs of Apostolic succession with Bishop of Rome as the visible head of the visible Church.

“That doctrine is evidently true which was first delivered: on the contrary, that is false which is of a later date. This maxim stands immovable against the attempts of all late heresies. Let such then produce the origin of their Churches: let them show the succession off their Bishops from the Apostles, or their disciples. If you live near Italy, you see before your eyes the Roman Church: happy Church to which the Apostles have left the inheritance of their doctrine with their blood! Where Peter was crucified, like his Master; where Paul was beheaded, like the Baptist! If this be so, it is plain as w have said, that heretics are not to be allowed to appeal to Scripture, since they have no claim to it. Hence it is proper to address them as follows:- Who are you? Whence to you come? What business have you strangers with my property? By What right are you, Marcion, felling my tress? By what authority are you Valentine, turning the course of my streams? Under what pretense are you, Appelles, removing my landmarks? The state is mine: I have the ancient, the prior possession of it. I have the title deeds delivered to me by the original proprietors. I am the heir of the Apostles; they have made their will in my favour; while they disinherited and cast you off, as strangers and enemies.”
Tertullian De Praes, Haeres, XXXVi, XXX

 

[jbelokur]

Guanophore,
Why is it do you think that when I argue this point, ie. that the term “Roman Catholic” is not a term that the Church uses for herself, and therefore we as Catholics of any rite should refer to ourselves as being in communion with The Catholic Church, that I keep having people accusing me of not recognizing the pope as the head of the Church? Or as Gabriel said that it is some sort of attempt toward ecumenism?

 

[jbelokur]

I understand the Catholic main arguement is the statement by Jesus directed to Peter, in general. Is it wise doctrine to base a theology like this on one passage if that is the case?

He could have just as easily meant that statement in a spiritual way on this “rock” being those of strong and abiding faith are his church, which is the protestant view in the main.

I think that if you carry that idea through the whole dialogue you will find that it just doesn’t work. However, the traditional Catholic interpretation will.

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
[20] Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ

You should be able to see clearly that Jesus uses in these four verses the word “you” seven times, all of them referring back to the subject of this verse which is Peter. So when you change verse 18, you are left with verses 17,19 & 20 which don’t really make sence.

 

[jbelokur]

Gabriel of 12
So would you say the the world, secualar and Protestants would not recognize that the Holy Father is the head of The Catholic Church with out the adjective Roman before it? Why is that? And if it were the case, why did was there such a distinctive action in both the VI and VII counsils to make sure the term Roman Catholic never appeared in any of the Documents?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12
So would you say the the world, secualar and Protestants would not recognize that the Holy Father is the head of The Catholic Church with out the adjective Roman before it? Why is that? And if it were the case, why did was there such a distinctive action in both the VI and VII counsils to make sure the term Roman Catholic never appeared in any of the Documents?

Good point, Secular world governments existing today from their history had to contend with the Roman Catholic Church or the authority of the Pope and Catholic Magisterium. From their recorded histories came either friend or foe of the Roman Pontiff, early on the Pope or Bishop of Rome was always sought out to "cut off the head of the body of the Catholic church .

The last world Empire to exist was the Roman Empire that united both East and West. Providence will prove the fall of Pagan Rome and the Rise of Roman Catholicism or Catholicism with the Bishop of Rome at its head (this becomes debatable due to Constantine a pagan Emperor who ruled the Eastern Church from Constantinople) but lost power to other pagan Emperors, some who were related to Constantine. Providence will have the Chair of Peter in his successors in the Popes along with the Eastern Patriarchs who also have apostolic succession outlive the Roman Empire and other enemies of the Catholic church.

Most Protestants came from the Catholic Church and their founders had allegiance to the Chair of Peter in Rome. Rome in her Bishop (the Pope) in unity with the Magisterium (all Catholic Bishops world wide) are understood by main Protestantism as the “Roman Catholic church”. This title does not prejudice against the different Catholic Rites, but that those in communion with the Pope Bishop of Rome.

I hope you are addressing Vatican I and Vatican II, not the Sixth or Seventh councils? The reason “Roman Catholic” is not included in the Vatican council II documents is due to the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratrio). In this literate age terminology with an ecumenical mindset is crucial. For example I have witnessed non catholic preaching preach " death before obedience to the Roman Catholic Church". The main reason for these councils was to clarify and bring unity back to Christianity. The wounds on both sides still run deep today in peoples and governments.

I must stress although “Peter” is surely mentioned in the documents and his successor, I have not read all the documents, but from what I recall the term “Pope” is never mentioned in the documents either. Only Bishop terminology. So because"Pope" is never mentioned in the documents does not negate the office of Pope, but his office as successor of Peter is clearly mentioned. Ecumenical thinking cannot change what God has put together.

Mediums like this forum, helps the councils to clarify “Catholic” teaching. The Vatican documents from council I,II is a clarification of the Catholic faith in the present to express a venue for fallen away Christians and Catholics to come to an understanding and correct misconceptions of her teachings. And a document to introduce Jesus Christ to the World.

What I just expressed are my opinions and views of which you kindly inquired of me. And are open for discussion and debate.
Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

because of this term Roman Catholic, people think of the CC is just another denomination of Christianity. people believed that today. just google denominations and you see roman catholic Church being included.

Interesting I have heard the other side of the coin; Anti Catholics, or unlearned Christians try to summarize and or justify that the Roman Catholic Church is a denomination separated from the other Catholic Church’s, by listing each “Catholic Rite” as a separate denomination from the Roman Catholic church, (this is never the case, for we all partake of the same bread in the body of Jesus Christ). In attempt to shrink the whole of Catholicism to a bunch of separated denominations as compared to Protestant denominations. People are being deceived by such anti Catholic rhetoric. The challenge to this site has been addressed here, it was revealed that the author of this site was anti Catholic and his research was false and done incorrectly.

Fact; The Roman Catholic Church is not and never will be a denomination. She is the body of Jesus Christ.

 

[jbelokur]

Good point, Secular world governments existing today from their history had to contend with the Roman Catholic Church or the authority of the Pope and Catholic Magisterium. From their recorded histories came either friend or foe of the Roman Pontiff, early on the Pope or Bishop of Rome was always sought out to "cut off the head of the body of the Catholic church .

The last world Empire to exist was the Roman Empire that united both East and West. Providence will prove the fall of Pagan Rome and the Rise of Roman Catholicism or Catholicism with the Bishop of Rome at its head (this becomes debatable due to Constantine a pagan Emperor who ruled the Eastern Church from Constantinople) but lost power to other pagan Emperors, some who were related to Constantine. Providence will have the Chair of Peter in his successors in the Popes along with the Eastern Patriarchs who also have apostolic succession outlive the Roman Empire and other enemies of the Catholic church.

Most Protestants came from the Catholic Church and their founders had allegiance to the Chair of Peter in Rome. Rome in her Bishop (the Pope) in unity with the Magisterium (all Catholic Bishops world wide) are understood by main Protestantism as the “Roman Catholic church”. This title does not prejudice against the different Catholic Rites, but that those in communion with the Pope Bishop of Rome.

I hope you are addressing Vatican I and Vatican II, not the Sixth or Seventh councils? The reason “Roman Catholic” is not included in the Vatican council II documents is due to the Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratrio). In this literate age terminology with an ecumenical mindset is crucial. For example I have witnessed non catholic preaching preach " death before obedience to the Roman Catholic Church". The main reason for these councils was to clarify and bring unity back to Christianity. The wounds on both sides still run deep today in peoples and governments.

I must stress although “Peter” is surely mentioned in the documents and his successor, I have not read all the documents, but from what I recall the term “Pope” is never mentioned in the documents either. Only Bishop terminology. So because"Pope" is never mentioned in the documents does not negate the office of Pope, but his office as successor of Peter is clearly mentioned. Ecumenical thinking cannot change what God has put together.

Mediums like this forum, helps the councils to clarify “Catholic” teaching. The Vatican documents from council I,II is a clarification of the Catholic faith in the present to express a venue for fallen away Christians and Catholics to come to an understanding and correct misconceptions of her teachings. And a document to introduce Jesus Christ to the World.

What I just expressed are my opinions and views of which you kindly inquired of me. And are open for discussion and debate.
Peace be with you

Firstly, yes, I was speaking of the Vatican I & II councils.

I’ve posted this before, but I believe that it merits reposting:

"The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that – Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!"

You will see that it was not by accident that the term “Roman Catholic” is not found in the Vatican Councils documents. This is not the same as your assertion that the term pope doesn’t appear there either. Those that made certain that this term did not appear did not do so out of an ecumenical effort, but because this phrase is not used by the Church. It is however used by those who are not Catholic.

Full Article:ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

 

[jbelokur]

Fact; The Roman Catholic Church is not and never will be a denomination. She is the body of Jesus Christ.

I don’t think anyone here is claiming that.