There is more than one Catholic Church - How is this possible?

[Esdra]

Hi,

does anybody know how many Churches there are that claim to be Catholic?

I know so far:
The Roman Catholic Church
The Eastern Catholics
The LCC
the PNCC
and the Old Catholics (who are mostly to be found in Europe!).

Actually I even dare to say that also the Anglican Church is more Catholic than Protestant…

Are there more? Why is even the Catholic Church divided? If it has the fulness of Truth - how can this be possible?

What are the perspectives of these Churches towards each other?

Esdra

 

[Nine_Two]

When you say “More Catholic than Protestant” I assume you mean closer to Catholicism than your own church, since they are very much Protestant.

The Eastern Catholics are a branch of the Catholic Church, I assume you meant Eastern Orthodox, who also call themselves Catholic.

While Roman Catholics and Orthodox use the term “Catholic” as something of which there can only be one, and therefore dispute each others claim to Catholicism, the Protestant Churches which call themselves Catholic claim it is something which is not mutually exclusive, again the Catholic and Orthodox churches don’t recognize these Churches in any way as “Catholic”.

 

[VetA]

Are there more? Why is even the Catholic Church divided? If it has the fulness of Truth - how can this be possible?

What are the perspectives of these Churches towards each other?

Esdra

The ones that are in communion with Rome (the One True Church established by Christ himself) are different rites which means that they believe everything taught by the church, but they have a different form of the Mass. the perspective of the rites that are in communion with each other is that they are catholic but they have a different form of the mass than us.

 

[Wesley7]

**Based on what I’ve studied I can put it simply ~

The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The Orthodox Church is the Church of Jesus Christ.

However, in Protestantism different denominations exist because they were founded by men.
**

 

[KingTheoden]

Esdra, you are onto something big, but not quite in the manner you are thinking.

Anglicans are not a “Church” since they lack valid orders, that is a Priesthood. They might have practices that, more or less, resemble Catholic practice and do (sometimes) claim to be a part of the ‘Catholic’ Church, but they most certainly are not.

Old Catholics are relatively few in number and came about when they rejected the Dogmas of the First Vatican Council. They did possess a valid Priesthood, but were in schism. However, it is unclear now if they currently have a completely valid Priesthood and many question whether their Priests perform valid consecrations of the Eucharist. They have become extremely liberal by doing things like embracing homosexuality and the concept of ‘women priests,’ an impossibility.

The Polish National Catholic Church is relatively few in number and came about over a jurisdictional squabble. They did have a valid Priesthood but were and remain in schism.

The Liberal Catholic Church was never part of the Catholic Church. An Anglican theosophist formed this sect and was ordained by a former Catholic priest who was consecrated a Bishop by the Old Catholic Church. (So already, you can see a very messy line of Apostolic Succession, but a valid one at least initually.) This sect holds extremely non-Christian beliefs such as reincarnation and theosophy.

---

So, with that in mind, there are different pieces of the one, holy, Catholic Church.

Eastern Catholics are Catholics who have their own rites and their own Church structure (this is known as sui juris.) They are distinct from Latin Rite Catholics, whose Patriarch happens to also be the Pope.

There are 23 sui juris Churches (the Latin Rite is the largest by far.) Within each sui juris Church, there is a diversity of liturgical rites (e.g., in the Latin Rite, the Roman Rite is the most common, but there is also for example the Ambrosian Rite.)

Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid Churches, but are in schism. Similarly, Oriental Orthodox Churches are valid Churches but also in schism.

I hope this helps!

 

[1ke]

Hi,

does anybody know how many Churches there are that claim to be Catholic?

I know so far:
The Roman Catholic Church
The Eastern Catholics

The Catholic Church (which is ONE Church) is comprised of the Latin Rite (a.k.a. “Roman Catholic”) and 22 Eastern Rite Catholic Particular Churches. A Particular Church does not mean they are separate “churches” but rather refers to their governance. These 23 particular Churches comprise the Catholic Church. They are all fully in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

The LCC
the PNCC
and the Old Catholics (who are mostly to be found in Europe!).

Actually I even dare to say that also the Anglican Church is more Catholic than Protestant…

These are NOT Catholic Churches. They are either schismatic or heretical, depending upon their doctrinal teachings and whether they retain valid Holy Orders. These are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome and although they try to put “Catholic” in their names to give themselves legitimacy (or confuse people) they are NOT Catholic Churches.

Are there more?

I’m sure there are.

Why is even the Catholic Church divided?

The Catholic Church is NOT divided. Since the first century, we know how to find the ONE Church of Christ: it is under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Others may try to pretend, but they are not part of the Catholic Church.

If it has the fulness of Truth - how can this be possible?

The Church does have the fullness of truth, and it is not divided.

What are the perspectives of these Churches towards each other?

I don’t have any idea what these other various groups think about the Catholic Church. But the Church is clear on its position relative to these other groups: the Church desires that they reject their schismatic ways and return to fold.

 

[Julian0404]

When GOD organized the one true religion and gave that religion to the Nation of Israel, The Chosen People, HE did not give it a name. When JESUS HIS SON, came to the Nation of Israel to further teach and move the Nation to accept HIS Body & Blood, and once rejected, opened the One True Faith to the Gentiles, the continuation of that faith, again was not give a name by JESUS or GOD The Father. The continuation of that One True Religion was later named “Catholic”, by accident.

Why is a name not important ?

Because it can be abducted, abused, spun and adopted by any group of people who wish to associate themselves to that name.

Therefore, GOD gave us four signs to search for to find the One True Religion, and those four signs are included in the Apostles Creed, “… one, holy, catholic and apostolic…”

One - in unity in teaching and beliefs
Holy - set apart from all others, distinct and protected by The HOLY SPIRIT
Catholic- universal, open to all who believe
Apostolic - having a traceable historic roots back to the original 12 Apostles.

The major separation of all the churches who carry the name or profess the practice of Catholicism is do they, or are they under the authority of and follow the directives and teachings of THE HOLY FATHER, The Pope?

Here is where the rubber meets the road. If they deny the authority of the Pope, which follows within the sign of ONE, they are not the continuation of the faith. They may be close, but they are not the Church which includes all four signs and thus not the Church - the organized religion - which GOD established.

 

[Hesychios]

Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid Churches, but are in schism.

Of course, from the EO perspective it is the Papacy and it’s followers who are in schism.

Archbishop Elias Zoghby of blessed memory wrote an interesting booklet entitiled “Are we all schismatics?” in French (an obviously rhetorical question). The English version was actually entitled “We are all schismatics”.

I think the point is clear. If we cannot see ourselves as separated from each other we are not going to make any progress at reconciliation.

An excellent case study on this exact principle was during the Great Western Schism, when there were actually three Catholic churches, which blended back together co-equally constitute the modern Latin Catholic church. They could not have accomplished this seamingly impossible feat without first acknowledging one another as equally valid and licit churches, plus no little bit of push from the civil authorities of the day and (of course) the will of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hesychios]

I know so far:
The Roman Catholic Church
The Eastern Catholics
The LCC
the PNCC
and the Old Catholics

Are there more?

There is also the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Church (with about five million members, I think).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother KingTheoden,

Old Catholics are relatively few in number and came about when they rejected the Dogmas of the First Vatican Council.

The ecclesiastical origin of the Old Catholics predates V1, though their numbers increased after V1. You have to remember that no Catholic bishop participated in any schism after V1.

The Polish National Catholic Church is relatively few in number and came about over a jurisdictional squabble. They did have a valid Priesthood but were and remain in schism.

Actually, they do have a valid priesthood.

Eastern Catholics are Catholics who have their own rites and their own Church structure (this is known as sui juris.) They are distinct from Latin Rite Catholics, whose Patriarch happens to also be the Pope.

Not just “rites,” but also theology and spirituality. And I think you meant “Church hierarchy,” not “Church structure.” The ecclesiological structure of all the Catholic Churches is the same.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother 1ke,

They are all fully in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

.
Just to clarify, I would say “they are all fully in communion with the Bishop of Rome and with each other.”

The Catholic Church is NOT divided. Since the first century, we know how to find the ONE Church of Christ: it is under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.

Once again, just to clarify, though communion with the bishop of Rome was the primary indicator of orthodoxy in the early Church, it was not the initial indicator of orthodoxy. The first indicator was normally the local bishop. Failing that, the pedigree of the bishop is tested (i.e., his apostolic succession). Failing that, appeal would be made to the Metropolitan. Failing that, appeal would be made to the Patriarch. Failing that, appeal is finally made to the Pope.

Communion with the bishop of Rome was, really, a “last resort” indicator, when nothing else seemed to work.

If it was a matter of relevance outside the patriarchal boundary, especially a doctrinal matter, the normative forum was an Ecumenical Council.

I felt it necessary to point this out because there are many Catholics who forget the collegial nature of the Church, and think that everything depends on the Pope. In truth, there was never a time in the Church when the Pope alone was the guardian of orthodoxy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Of course, from the EO perspective it is the Papacy and it’s followers who are in schism.

Archbishop Elias Zoghby of blessed memory wrote an interesting booklet entitiled “Are we all schismatics?” in French (an obviously rhetorical question). The English version was actually entitled “We are all schismatics”.

I think the point is clear. If we cannot see ourselves as separated from each other we are not going to make any progress at reconciliation.

An excellent case study on this exact principle was during the Great Western Schism, when there were actually three Catholic churches, which blended back together co-equally constitute the modern Latin Catholic church. They could not have accomplished this seamingly impossible feat without first acknowledging one another as equally valid and licit churches, plus no little bit of push from the civil authorities of the day and (of course) the will of the Holy Spirit.

Well said, brother. The spiritual fruits of understanding, wisdom, and humility are the best weapons we need to combat the devil’s attempts to keep the Church separated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

There is also the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Church (with about five million members, I think).

I think there is also an Independent Catholic Church in the Philippines.

I find it interesting that a lot of these so-called “Catholic” churches originated from movements of phyletism.

Blessings

 

[benedictus2]

Hi,

does anybody know how many Churches there are that claim to be Catholic?

I know so far:
The Roman Catholic Church
The Eastern Catholics
The LCC
the PNCC
and the Old Catholics (who are mostly to be found in Europe!).

Actually I even dare to say that also the Anglican Church is more Catholic than Protestant…

Are there more? Why is even the Catholic Church divided? If it has the fulness of Truth - how can this be possible?

What are the perspectives of these Churches towards each other?

Esdra

I think this is easily answered by saying “because Catholic means universal”.

The Anglican church (at least the High Anglican) is closer to the Catholic Church because when it separated from Rome it had properly ordained Bishops.

Theologically speaking, I think the Orthodox Churches have more in common with the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglican communion especially the way it has been travelling recently with the ordination of women and actively gay clery and bishops, has moved father and farther from Rome.

I am not sure what the LCC is but if by the PNCC you mean the Polish National Catholic Church, this one is not in communion with Rome and I think have several doctrinal differences.

 

[benedictus2]

I think there is also an Independent Catholic Church in the Philippines.

I find it interesting that a lot of these so-called “Catholic” churches originated from movements of phyletism.

Blessings

The Philippine Indepent Church is not Catholic. And you are right about phyletism.

 

[benedictus2]

**Based on what I’ve studied I can put it simply ~

The Catholic Church is the Church of Jesus Christ.

The Orthodox Church is the Church of Jesus Christ. **

I think Pope John Paul II called it breathing from two lungs.**

However, in Protestantism

different denominations exist because they were founded by men.
**I would agree with that.

 

[Esdra]

Thank you for all of your replays.

So we could summarize:

The Orthodox Churches (except maybe the Ethiopion Church and the Thomas Church in India, not sure, however) - including the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

the Roman Catholic Church, including the PNCC (and maybe even the Old Catholics)

and the Anglican Church have the Apostolic Succession.

Is this correct? Have I forgotten something?

But what does this mean for the one, true Church, established by Christ Jesus?

Why is it divided? They all have the apostolic succession? But are they the Churches of Christ?

See, in these religions it is as hard to find the “one and true Church” than in the Evangelical/Protestant Religions.

All clame to be right!
**
One last point:** What about the Protestant Denominations who believe in the Real Presence, like the Lutheran Evangelical Church?

Esdra

 

[Monica4316]

Catholics are only those who are in communion with the Pope.

This includes Roman Catholics (Latin rite) and Eastern rite Catholics. These are not separate Catholic “Churches”. They are part of one Church, and in communion with one another, and with the Pope. They just have different rites (liturgies, etc).

 

[GKC]

Addressing only the Anglican Churches, the Roman Catholic Church specifically holds that, in general, the Anglicans do not possess apostolic succession. This is set out in Leo XIII’s *Apostolicae Curae. *

Anglicans disagree, but if you are interested in what Roman Catholics believe about the matter, that is it.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

Thank you for all of your replays.

So we could summarize:

The Orthodox Churches (except maybe the Ethiopion Church and the Thomas Church in India, not sure, however) - including the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

the Roman Catholic Church, including the PNCC (and maybe even the Old Catholics)

and the Anglican Church have the Apostolic Succession.

Is this correct? Have I forgotten something?

But what does this mean for the one, true Church, established by Christ Jesus?

Why is it divided? They all have the apostolic succession? But are they the Churches of Christ?

See, in these religions it is as hard to find the “one and true Church” than in the Evangelical/Protestant Religions.

All clame to be right!
**
One last point:** What about the Protestant Denominations who believe in the Real Presence, like the Lutheran Evangelical Church?

Esdra

 

[minkymurph]

I really feel we should get rid of these terms; ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ when it comes to knowledge of the divine. Right and wrong are human terms. They are black and white, literal and not literal. God transcends all that is human and cannot be spoken of in terms of black/white, right/wrong.

Divine revelation can be spoken of in terms of true/untrue which transcends right/wrong.
The question we are faced with is: what is divinely revealed and what is of human orientation? The term Catholic means universal,; God offers salvation to all humankind. That means we believe salvation is given to all, as opposed to Calvin’s view of an elect. Within Catholicism, there are different theological opinions. Theological opinions are of human orientation. They are not divine teachings. The unity of Catholicism is the Nicene creed and the belief salvation is open to all. Anyone who belives these things is entitled to call themselves Catholic. Roman Catholics accept Papal infallibility. Not all Catholics accept Papal infallibilty. This is the distinction between Roman Catholic and Eastern/Anglican/other Catholic.