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

[Hesychios]

From what I have learned, this group is Latin Catholic in every way. They follow all of the dogmas of the Papacy, including recognizing the bishop of Rome as spiritual leader and his infallibility. The law in China does not permit a local church to be governed from outside of it, nor foreigners to minister at the local level.

Thus, the big dispute, the only real dispute, is over the appointment of bishops. The bishops are actually valid but some of them would have illicit appointments, being chosen locally in the manner of some Eastern Catholic patriarchal synods and Orthodox synods. In fact some of the bishops have received Papal approvals, so in in an ironic sort of way they are in better standing with the Pope than the SSPX and the entire organization cannot be considered in schism.

They have sent seminarians and nuns outside of the country, where these receive lodging in Catholic monasteries and training in Catholic seminaries.

There is a parish in the town I work in, a long bus drive away. I do not normally attend nor ever receive communion because I consider them Catholic, although I have put money in their poor box.

Interestingly the number of Christians is rising here at an amazing rate. Most of these are evangelicals. There are two Protestant churches in this town and I see a lot of people who are Christians, including the shopkeepers next to my store (they play Christian hymns very loudly in their shop, and are very friendly ). Bibles are readily available, printed and sold right here, but it is the ‘Union’ version, a Protestant translation.

The Catholics have an excellent translation (actually, I think two translations), but they lack the funds to promote it, and I think it is hurting their efforts.

Before the civil war ended the Catholics outnumbered the Protestants in China three to two, now there are estimates of fifty million Protestants (way up), and about four to five million Catholics (down slightly) in the approved church and less than a million in the underground church. As I understand it many people who go to the underground church also attend the approved church, so it is very hard to determine actual numbers.

I am aware of that. The Catholic and Orthodox churches suffered a great deal, because foreign missioners were expelled and it takes a long time develop vocations in a sacramental church.

The xenophobic mania of the Proletarian Cultural Revolution launched by Mao in the 1960’s really devastated the native priesthood, who were seen as foreign pawns. The treatment of these people, Catholic and Orthodox alike, was humiliating as well as often deadly.

In the interest of balanced reporting, I should point out that the Buddhists and Daoists caught hell too, as part of the “Four Olds” their temples were ransacked and monks were beaten to death.

The Orthodox church literally disappeared in those years, when the nightmare was over I think there were three native priests left, who may have since died. The only way to go to an Orthodox liturgy now is to visit an embassy on Sunday, and I am too far from Beijing for that.

The government has been reconstructing or replacing some of the Orthodox temples, but there are no regular services. As I understand it, there are now a few native PRC citizens training for the priesthood in Russia, so things may turn around.

 

[guanophore]

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

It is an irrelevant question. I can claim to be Pope, and it will not make it so.

Catholicity is defined by adherance to the church doctrine, not by who “claims” they are. That is why we have so many politicians who claim to be Catholic, yet are not, in their actions and expressions.

Catholicity is defined by being in unity with the successor of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

ut 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!

Esdra

I think you have made the best case for why Jesus founded His Church upon the Rock of Peter. Jesus knows the heart and ways of man. He knew this would happen, and He knew that His visible Church on earth would need a visible sign of unity, which is what the successor of Peter does.

 

[Wesley7]

A word that comes to mind is 'Catholicity" . .

 

[WetCatechumen]

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.

I have read Tous Schismatiques? (an English translation). I found it very intriguing. While, unfortunately, I find His Eminence’s proposal unworkable, his point about the nature of the separation was most profound.

I mean, what did it matter to a Christian in Britannia and a Christian in the Ukraine? Both went to a Eucharistic service every Sunday. When Cardinal Humbert excommunicated Patriarch Michael and Patriarch Michael excommunicated Cardinal Humbert, what did it matter to those two Christians?

They both continued to pay their dues and worship Christ. Did the sin of Humbert and Cærularius cause the Holy Spirit to refuse the call of the humble parish priest in Britannia, or did he refuse the call of the priest in the Ukraine?

I think not. The bishops were the ones who sinned. The churches then had intercommunion all over the place until gradually, issues of political and geographic isolation made the divide worse. Accusations of heresy had been flying on both sides for the last two hundred years.

Furthermore, we must also consider the Miaphysite churches. Did their bishops’ refusal to accept the terminology of Chalcedon render the parish priest in Ethiopia unable to confect a true Eucharist? Again, I doubt it.

Hence, the traditional Roman Catholic view that the Eastern Orthodox Church is in schism from it and Rome is not is incorrect. The West is at fault for causing the separation; the excommunications were mutual, the accusations of heresy were mutual, and the rejection and violence on both sides were mutual.

I think, personally, and this is the Catholic Church’s teaching, that whether or not the Holy Spirit answers the call and makes the gifts holy is dependent upon the priest having the intention and the valid authority. The fact that my bishop, who has been appointed over me as a successor to the apostles, has unfortunately severed communion with another bishop, would not seem to me to remove his divine authority. Hence, the authority of my priest would not be affected.

Hence, we in the churches with Apostolic Succession, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church (dyophysite), the Orthodox Church (miaphysite), and the Church of the East, all are united by a physical and spiritual bond that transcends the separation of our bishops. It would be weird to say that we are One Church, but unless I did not receive the Body of Christ this morning, then we are united.

 

[benedictus2]

It is an irrelevant question. I can claim to be Pope, and it will not make it so.

Exactly. I thought once I’d try claiming to be Queen but for sure they would have grabbed me by the neck and kicked (literally) me out of Buckingham palace

 

[Hesychios]

Catholicity is defined by being in unity with the successor of Peter.

Well, actually no.

That is not a definition of Catholicity.

 

[Wesley7]

I looked it up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Its on pg. 309

I read the 1203 part.

‘Catholicity’ is having a variety of different Rites all belonging to the same Catholic Church.

 

[Esdra]

Well, actually no.

That is not a definition of Catholicity.

What IS then the definition of “Catholic”?
The Apostolic succession and the Magistrarum Ecclesiae?

The pope apparently isn’t!

For me the RCC can’t be the true, from Christ established Church. There is so many disunity even among the Orthodox/Catholic Churches themselves!

I mean, it is similar for me as how Mormons claim, that they have the truth.

Actually, I think NO Church has the full truth! - Yes, even not the Protestant Churches. All only have parts of the Truth. - And one can decide for himself which path to choose.

Digression: Most here have chosen the Catholic Path, others the various Orthodox Paths. I have chosen the Anabaptist path - or simply said, the Christian path (because, at least here in Austria, there isn’t much disunity between the protestant Churches according doctrine as it is apparently (what I have read about in “Surprised by Truth” and here in CAF) in the US. Here Baptists, Anabaptists, Mennonites and the Methodists and even the Lutheran Church (although the last two have a a bit different doctrine) came along pretty well and all consider them as Christians. Visiting each other’s services and considering themselves as Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus.

• Some are more right - and some less. Now you can argues which one is more right, and which is less right!
  But be careful: Which parameters do you use to decide that? Because this is what I was told, when I tried to say the SDA, Jehovah’s Wittnesses and the Mormons have the fewest true parts.

Esdra

 

[guanophore]

Well, actually no.

That is not a definition of Catholicity.

It is one aspect, certainly not the only one. The unity with the successor of Peter is unity in doctrine,not necessarily practice, which varies throughout the sui juris communities.

 

[Major_Minor]

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.

 

[guanophore]

For me the RCC can’t be the true, from Christ established Church. There is so many disunity even among the Orthodox/Catholic Churches themselves!

First of all,the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Secondly, this statement is like saying “for me Jesus is not really the true Messiah, because the Apostles bickered among themselves about who was the greatest:”.

It is evaluating that which is of God based upon the fallible responses of the humans to whom the revelation is given. It does not make any logical sense.

I mean, it is similar for me as how Mormons claim, that they have the truth.

I agree. Claiming to have the truth does not make it so. It is incumbent upon us to investigate where God has revealed the truth, not the sometimes empty claims of persons.

Actually, I think NO Church has the full truth! - Yes, even not the Protestant Churches. All only have parts of the Truth. - And one can decide for himself which path to choose.

Is that why you are here at CAF? Are you trying to decide for yourself which path to choose?

Digression: Most here have chosen the Catholic Path, others the various Orthodox Paths. I have chosen the Anabaptist path - or simply said, the Christian path (because, at least here in Austria, there isn’t much disunity between the protestant Churches according doctrine as it is apparently (what I have read about in “Surprised by Truth” and here in CAF) in the US. Here Baptists, Anabaptists, Mennonites and the Methodists and even the Lutheran Church (although the last two have a a bit different doctrine) came along pretty well and all consider them as Christians. Visiting each other’s services and considering themselves as Brothers and Sisters in Christ Jesus.

This makes it even more puzzling that you are on a Catholic forum. Are you looking to reinforce the choices you have already made? It seems like you are motivated to find the same division in Catholicism that exists among our separated brethren.

• Some are more right - and some less. Now you can argues which one is more right, and which is less right!

It seems that you believe the HS did not keep Jesus’ promise to lead us into all Truth, and that He did, in fact, leave us orphans.

But be careful: Which parameters do you use to decide that? Because this is what I was told, when I tried to say the SDA, Jehovah’s Wittnesses and the Mormons have the fewest true parts.

Esdra

Catholics accept the parameters of Jesus, through the Apostles. We follow the Apostolic command to hold fast to the traditions, just as they were passed on to us.

 

[Esdra]

First of all,the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Sorry. Don’t get this one. What are you referring to?

Secondly, this statement is like saying “for me Jesus is not really the true Messiah, because the Apostles bickered among themselves about who was the greatest:”.

I think you can’t compare these two! What does Jesus as being Messiah have to do with the Apostles quarreling who are the greatest?!

33 They came to Capernaum; and when He was in the house, He began to question them, “What were you discussing on the way?”

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[guanophore]

First of all,the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

ISorry. Don’t get this one. What are you referring to?

The four marks of the church founded by Christ are that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

There are 23 Rites within this Church. Only one of them is “Roman” (more precisely, Latin).

Secondly, this statement is like saying “for me Jesus is not really the true Messiah, because the Apostles bickered among themselves about who was the greatest:”.

I think you can’t compare these two! What does Jesus as being Messiah have to do with the Apostles quarreling who are the greatest?!

Exactly. there is no relationship between the Truth of what is taught, and the people that fail to follow it. To say that the Church in not valid because some people are disobedient to the faith makes no sense at all.

35 Sitting down, He called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”

Esdra

Do you think their wrong behavior and attitudes disqualify the Truth Jesus taught? You are saying that people’ s problems are your “proof” that the Catholic Church is not right.

It is an error in logic.

It is evaluating that which is of God based upon the fallible responses of the humans to whom the revelation is given. It does not make any logical sense.

Don’t get this either. (??)

It is beacause you have settled for a deficient notion of “church”.

Is that why you are here at CAF? Are you trying to decide for yourself which path to choose?

Well, actually no. Originally I came to CAF because of the Orthodox Canon. Then I started reading. Just like that. And I must admitt, I learned a lot about Catholicism… And I also learned that I was very poorley catechised!
Well, I think for me it is more about contrasting - and yes, maybe finding “the true path” as well. Although I am pretty sure I am on a good track in my Anabaptist Church.

I used to think that when I was in an Anabaptist Church too.

There IS disunity even in Catholicism (including the Orthodox Churches and the seperated Catholic Churches, including Anglicans [and maybe Episcopolean - although I haven’t heard about them before I got here to CAF!]) - So, there is no “one, holy, apostolic, orthodx Church” - there are many!

No Esdra, there is not. You are suffering from a deficient notion of “church” that has been promulgated upon you by Reformers who have departed from the Apostolic faith.

The Church is much more than the fallible humans on earth that are a part of her.

The reason the Church is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic is because Jesus is her Head, and the HS is her soul. These divine elements make these things so. It is wrong to judge the integrity of the Church by the actions of persons who have departed from her.

It is like saying “Jesus is not really the true Messiah, because all the Apostles did not follow HIm in unity.” You are judging the Source based upon the wrong actions of a few, or in the case of the Apostles, one. They all ran away and left Him in the garden. Did that mean the Church He built was not valid?

The Church Jesus said he would protect is the community of all Believers in Him!

No, actually, He did not. He spoke this to the Apostles and prophets, who are the foundation stones of His Church. Those who depart from fellowship with them have left the promise.

The thing with the denominations only came later. 312 AD, 1054 AD. and then in the 16th century and the “3rd reformation” in the 19th/20th century.

Are you trying to justify that men have divided from Christ? What is your point here?

So do the Orthodox Christians - and I even think the Anglicans and the seperated Catholics. - Who is right then? → see above!

All who have departed from the One have left part of the promises behind.

 All are right who believe in the nicene Creed. - All, who believe that Jesus is the Christ and who believe in God the Father and His Holy Spirit (and so on). These people form the Church of Christ Jesus - the Body of Christ! -

And to they extent they believe that, they are in unity with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those who have departed from unity with the successors of the Apostles have separated from part of the Truth, and the promises given to them.

So even most protestant Churches have the Truth because most of them have accepted the Nicene Creed!!

Yes, many have retained much truth from Catholicism. Unfortunately, in trying to jettison what they believed were corrupt leaders, they jettisoned part of the Apostolic doctrine as well.

 

[Esdra]

First of all, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

The four marks of the church founded by Christ are that it is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

You are completely right. This is even today the terms how you can distinguish between heresies/sects and parts of the Body of Christ. This is also written in the Nicene Creed!

There are 23 Rites within this Church. Only one of them is “Roman” (more precisely, Latin).

I didn’t know that there are that many rites!

Secondly, this statement is like saying "for me Jesus is not really the true Messiah, because the Apostles bickered among themselves about who was the greatest.“

Exactly, there is no relationship between the Truth of what is taught, and the people that fail to follow it. To say that the Church in not valid because some people are disobedient to the faith makes no sense at all.

Well, but this is the reason why people, including me, are running away from Church. They can’t see the truth of the Church, and I even don’t deny that they have it, because it’s the people who should reflect this truth and they should live according to the teaching. Otherwise they are Pharisees!

Do you think their wrong behavior and attitudes disqualify the Truth Jesus taught? You are saying that people’s problems are your “proof” that the Catholic Church is not right.

Well, actually no… But I can’t be in such a church “full of Pharisees”! You should know, for you also were an Anabaptist – Most Anabaptists live according to their faith. At least this is what I feel here in the Anabaptist Church in Austria!

It is an error in logic.
It is evaluating that which is of God based upon the fallible responses of the humans to whom the revelation is given. It does not make any logical sense.

Well, I simply can’t be in such a Church where there are so many people who are Pharisees!

It is because you have settled for a deficient notion of “church”.

The Church is the communion of ALL believers in Christ Jesus. That’s so sure for me like the Amen after a prayer!

Is that why you are here at CAF? Are you trying to decide for yourself which path to choose?

I used to think that when I was in an Anabaptist Church too.

Well, what make you convert then? (Please tell me via PM, otherwise we are getting a little bit hard off topic here! )

No Esdra, there is not. You are suffering from a deficient notion of “church” that has been promulgated upon you by Reformers who have departed from the Apostolic faith.

Well, actually I know very little about the scriptures of the Reformers. Most things I write here I found out myself in my 8 year long private bible studies! I am “only” an Anabaptist for half a year now. Actually I think I got quite a lot influenced by my dad. Although he had studied Catholic theology he kept and keeps saying a lot of reformed teachings. I think he read about them and quite liked their ideas!

The Church is much more than the fallible humans on earth that are a part of her.

That could be, yes. But the fallible humans are the “visit-card” of the Church. I think many people, especially here in Europe think like I do. And for many this is the reason to leave!

The reason the Church is only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic is because Jesus is her Head, and the HS is her soul. These divine elements make these things so.

That’s completely correct. Amen. I also believe in that. But the Church is the community of all believers in Christ Jesus following the Nicene Creed = “mere Christianity”.

It is wrong to judge the integrity of the Church by the actions of persons who have departed from her.

to be continued…

 

[Esdra]

It is like saying “Jesus is not really the true Messiah, because all the Apostles did not follow HIm in unity.” You are judging the Source based upon the wrong actions of a few, or in the case of the Apostles, one. They all ran away and left Him in the garden. Did that mean the Church He built was not valid?

Well, I am convinced that I am in the Church Christ has established! And yes, the Catholics, at least those who are really believing Catholics are also part of this Church, of this Body of Christ.

No, actually, He did not. He spoke this to the Apostles and prophets, who are the foundation stones of His Church. Those who depart from fellowship with them have left the promise.

Well let’s go to Sacred Tradition. I believe that Sacred Tradition nowadays IS Sacred Scripture. When Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim 3:15) that he should obey the Tradition also he meant the letters. Because the SS was at that time, of course, only the Septuagint (Old Testament). So the ST IS now the SS. So even most protestants follow the apostles!

Are you trying to justify that men have divided from Christ? What is your point here?

In a way yes! At least they watered down the original teachings by Christ because they swallowed the one or other cult from the Roman Empire when they became major religion in 312 AD. Or do you really think the pagans who were forced to become Christians gave up their religion just like that? This is the reason, in my opinion, why the Early Church swallowed the most common pagan cults to make the believe “legal”. And in my opinion there must have been many people still worshipping in their pagan cults. Otherwise the Church wouldn’t have put them into the Church!

All who have departed from the One have left part of the promises behind.

I think we have a different understanding what the body of Christ and what the One Church, proclaimed in the Necne Creed is!

And to an extent they believe that, they are in unity with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Those who have departed from unity with the successors of the Apostles have separated from part of the Truth, and the promises given to them.

Yes, many have retained much truth from Catholicism. Unfortunately, in trying to jettison what they believed were corrupt leaders, they jettisoned part of the Apostolic doctrine as well.

I am sure some did, yes. This is my parameter to divide between a sect and a part of the Body of Christ.

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[minkymurph]

Perhaps this thread should have started with a definition of ‘Church.’

Once we establish what ‘Church’ is; we can discuss if there are more than one and why.

Anyone want to go for it?

 

[Hesychios]

Perhaps this thread should have started with a definition of ‘Church.’

Once we establish what ‘Church’ is; we can discuss if there are more than one and why.

Anyone want to go for it?

Oh.

Too hard , honestly.

Some people speak of the parish as a church. Some people speak of the entire conglomerated whole of Christianity as the church. As a term it seems to have multiple applications, and perhaps all of them are valid in some sense. But if that is the case, we can be using the same language and talk past one another indefinitely!

We should perhaps try to see it as the early Christians did, if that is possible.

I detest quote mining, because we cannot help but apply our own filters to what we seek, and it reflects our biases. I am as susceptible as any to this weakness. But here goes …

I am writing to all the Churches and I enjoin all …
Saint Ignatios of Antioch - Letter to the Romans

… to the Churches of Galatia: grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ …
Saint Paul - Galatians 1:2-3

John, to the seven churches in Asia: grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, …
Saint John (or pseudo-John?) Revelations 1:4

Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the καθολικός (universal/complete/whole=katholikos/catholic) Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid.
Saint Ignatios of Antioch - Letter to the Smyneans

The episcopate is a single whole, in which each bishop enjoys full possession. So is the church a single whole, though it spreads far and wide into a multitude of churches and its fertility increases.
Saint Cyprian of Carthage - On the Unity of the Church

 

[guanophore]

Well, but this is the reason why people, including me, are running away from Church. They can’t see the truth of the Church, and I even don’t deny that they have it, because it’s the people who should reflect this truth and they should live according to the teaching. Otherwise they are Pharisees!

Oh this is a fact! I did it myself. It took me a long time to realize that it was wrong for me to judge the validity of Jesus teaching by observing the behavior of Judas.

Well, actually no… But I can’t be in such a church “full of Pharisees”! You should know, for you also were an Anabaptist – Most Anabaptists live according to their faith. At least this is what I feel here in the Anabaptist Church in Austria!

There are people with pharasaic attitudes in every communion. If you believe that Catholicism is only “full of Pharisees” then you are clearly not ready to enjoy the privilege of being Catholic.

Well, I simply can’t be in such a Church where there are so many people who are Pharisees!

Okey dokey! I commend you to your community of persons of pure heart. I am sure you will be blessed in their fellowship.

The Church is the communion of ALL believers in Christ Jesus. That’s so sure for me like the Amen after a prayer!

It is that, but also much more. If this is all Church is to you, then you have settled for a deficient notion of Church.

Well, actually I know very little about the scriptures of the Reformers. Most things I write here I found out myself in my 8 year long private bible studies! I am “only” an Anabaptist for half a year now. Actually I think I got quite a lot influenced by my dad. Although he had studied Catholic theology he kept and keeps saying a lot of reformed teachings. I think he read about them and quite liked their ideas!

Keep studying. Like me, you may find as you continue that the Church founded by Christ is, indeed, Catholic.

That could be, yes. But the fallible humans are the “visit-card” of the Church. I think many people, especially here in Europe think like I do. And for many this is the reason to leave!

Yes. I think this prideful response is responsible for most of the division in the Body of Christ. It was certainly the major factor in the Great Schism of 1054.

That’s completely correct. Amen. I also believe in that. But the Church is the community of all believers in Christ Jesus following the Nicene Creed = “mere Christianity”.

When you get to the Early Fathers, you will find the Apostles taught that the valid gathering is that which is united with the Bishop.

 Well, I am convinced that I am in the Church Christ has established! And yes, the Catholics, at least those who are really believing Catholics are also part of this Church, of this Body of Christ.

When you read up on the Reformation, perhaps you will be enlightened.

 Well let’s go to Sacred Tradition. I believe that Sacred Tradition nowadays IS Sacred Scripture. When Paul wrote to Timothy (1 Tim 3:15) that he should obey the Tradition also he meant the letters. Because the SS was at that time, of course, only the Septuagint (Old Testament). So the ST IS now the SS. So even most protestants follow the apostles!

While it is true that the NT scripture was produced out of Sacred Tradition, they are complimentary, not identical. Sacred Tradition enables us to understant the Scripture from the point of view of those who wrote it.

 In a way yes! At least they watered down the original teachings by Christ because they swallowed the one or other cult from the Roman Empire when they became major religion in 312 AD.

You have been given misinformation about the history of your faith. This information is not accurate.

Or do you really think the pagans who were forced to become Christians gave up their religion just like that?

It is not possible to “force” someone to become a Christian. You have been misled.

This is the reason, in my opinion, why the Early Church swallowed the most common pagan cults to make the believe “legal”. And in my opinion there must have been many people still worshipping in their pagan cults. Otherwise the Church wouldn’t have put them into the Church!

You are confused and misinformed.

I think we have a different understanding what the body of Christ and what the One Church, proclaimed in the Necne Creed is!

You are absolutely correct on this. Catholics retain the Teaching of the Apostles about the nature of the Church. The Reformers and their sprititual descendents, such as the Anabaptists, have departed from the Apostolic teaching.

I am sure some did, yes. This is my parameter to divide between a sect and a part of the Body of Christ.

You are functioning at a disadvantage, because you have lost the meaning of some of the elements in the Nicean creed.

It is curious you would accept such a creed, since you claim it originated by a corrupt church that had incorporated paganism.

 

[Hesychios]

There are 23 Rites within this Church. Only one of them is “Roman” (more precisely, Latin).

I didn’t know that there are that many rites!

Actually, there are just five major ritual/liturgical traditions. The Alexandrian (east-north Africa), the Antiochian (Syriac), the Roman, the Constantinopolitan (aka Byzantine, influenced or derived from Antioch) and perhaps the Armenian (probably derived from Antioch very early). (The church of the East uses what might be called East Syrian liturgy, so it is basically Antiochian.)

The reference is to 23 Autonomous Ritual Particular Churches Sui Iuris. The big one, Latin Catholic, today uses the Roman rite almost exclusively and accounts for 98-1/2 % of the total.

The other 22 Sui Iuris churches number approximately 17.5 million persons, or approximately 1-1/2% of the total. Most of these are derived from other Apostolic Christian groups who were proselytized into communion with and submission to the Pope at various times in the past. Sometimes this was due to politics, sometimes due to war, sometimes due to the spread of western European influence around the world during the Mercantile Age. Some of these are very similar in practice, but are divided administratively from one another according to how the bishops of Rome decide.

Catholics can sometimes get a bit persnickety over the term ‘Roman’, but it correctly applies to the diocese of Rome, in Italy, which happens to be the diocese of the Pope. It’s liturgy was once confined to central Italy, but has spread to take over the rest of western Europe since the rise of the Franks. Thus the liturgical rites of northern Italy, southern Italy, north Africa, Gaul, Spain and the British Isles have all been suppressed in favor of the Roman (See of Rome’s) liturgical rites.

Orthodox are known by the term ‘Roman’ in parts of the Middle East, and have no objections to it, as it correctly describes their ancestral connection to the Roman empire, whose citizens they once would have been. However, they follow the liturgical practices derived from the See of Antioch, either directly or indirectly

More (very good and unbiased) information on this subject is available at the CNEWA website, courtesy of Father Roberson.