Universal catholic church and The Catholic church

[annad347]

Protestants believe that their church, other Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox churches are all part of the universal catholic church.

WOW this is crazy. I dont think Jesus meant for this to be so confusing

 

[De_Maria]

Universal catholic church and The Catholic church

What exactly is the difference?

In my opinion…

Universal catholic church is a Protestant term. I don’t know what Protestants mean when they use it. I do know that some include the Catholic Church in their definition of this term. Some don’t. Whether they include Jehovahs and Mormons, I don’t know.

The Catholic Church is the name of the Church which Jesus Christ established. It is the only truly world wide (i.e. universal) Church. No other church approaches it in sheer size.
It is easily recognizable because it is the one which is led by the Pope and still uses liturgical worship.

Please try to explain with as many easy to understand words as possible without too many links. I just want to get an understanding of the differences without go out on line to read websites I wont understand.

The differences? Generally, I speak of the differences between Protestant and Catholic worship. I don’t use the term “universal catholic church”.

As for those differences. Protestants generally don’t believe in:

1. The Mass. The requirement to gather together on Sundays to worship by offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
2. Prayer to Mary and the Saints.
3. The belief in the necessity of works for salvation.
4. and lots of other things. But, I think those are the big differences.

Thank you for your help.

I hope I was of some help.

 

[Brendan_64]

Like who makes one universal cathoic church valid or not valid if the universal church includes all Christian churches?

My understanding is that all Christian denominations are not part of the Universal Church. My understanding is that the individuals, because of their Baptism are part of the Body of Christ and linked to the Universal Church in an imperfect form of communion, but the organisations they belong to are not part of the universal Church.

 

[phil19034]

What exactly is the difference?

Please try to explain with as many easy to understand words as possible without too many links. I just want to get an understanding of the differences without go out on line to read websites I wont understand.

Thank you for your help.

There is no difference. They are the exact same thing.

Only a non-Catholic would attempt to explain a difference.

 

[annad347]

Only a non-Catholic would attempt to explain a difference

A few Catholic on this message board have said there is a difference.

I’m just looking for more details about what the differences. without doing a search on line, cause sometimes that give you more then you can handle and still not get an answer.

As for those differences. Protestants generally don’t believe in:

1. The Mass. The requirement to gather together on Sundays to worship by offering the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
2. Prayer to Mary and the Saints.
3. The belief in the necessity of works for salvation.
4. and lots of other things. But, I think those are the big differences.

This is helpful information, thanks.

 

[Dlee]

Per the Protestant perspective, no one is really in charge of the catholic church

Christ would be head of the universal catholic church (Baptist tradition)

 

[Fauken]

Protestants believe that their church, other Protestant churches, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox churches are all part of the universal catholic church.

I think that’s a bit of a sweeping generalization.

 

[Gorgias]

Is that why Catholic believe their church is the universal catholic church?

If one leaves the “universal catholic church”, is he still a member of it?

WOW this is crazy. I dont think Jesus meant for this to be so confusing

The shocking thing, though, is that… He knew this would happen. (Luke 12:53)

I don’t think I’d say “Jesus didn’t mean this”, so much as I’d say, “He foresaw it.” I think He didn’t want it… but then again, free will means that an Augustinian monk in the 1500’s can do whatever he wants. Even if what he does ends up splitting Western Christianity into two, and leads to half of it splintering into thousands of shards.

 

[Dovekin]

so any church… christian religious church is part of the catholic church?

This is true in some sense, but it is probably easier to understand if you reverse it.

The catholic church is part of every Christian community. Here the catholic church means a community that faithfully continues the community that formed around Jesus and his disciples; it is what is affirmed in the Creed. This church is identified by a number of characteristics like the Eucharist, baptism, bishops, the gospels, etc.

The Catholic church believes that they are the continuation of that community. They believe that the Orthodox churches are a continuation of that originnal community, but they lack an essential part of the community because they do not recognize Papal primacy correctly.

The catholic church continues in many churches and communities, but not with the fullness that continues in the Catholic church. We could detail differences beyond the rejection of the Papacy for most other communities, like Luther’s rejection of indulgences or prebyterian rejection of bishops, etc. There are also things that we all share, like the Lord’s Prayer that connect us all back to that original community.

This is not a perfect way to understand it, but it might help. The catholic church exists in part in every Christian community. Catholics believe it exists fully in the Catholic church.

 

[Justin_Mary]

I think anyone who believes every line of the Apostles Creed is part of the universal catholic church.

But I think to truly understand the Apostles Creed is to be Catholic.

I also believe we pray for all who believe when we pray the Mass. I thank God for all the religious & saints who prayed me into the Catholic Church.

 

[Wannano]

annad347:

Is that why Catholic believe their church is the universal catholic church?

If one leaves the “universal catholic church”, is he still a member of it?

WOW this is crazy. I dont think Jesus meant for this to be so confusing

The shocking thing, though, is that… He knew this would happen. (Luke 12:53)

I don’t think I’d say “Jesus didn’t mean this”, so much as I’d say, “He foresaw it.” I think He didn’t want it… but then again, free will means that an Augustinian monk in the 1500’s can do whatever he wants. Even if what he does ends up splitting Western Christianity into two, and leads to half of it splintering into thousands of shards.

Is that the CC’s official interpretation of Luke 12:53 ? Somehow I think it is used here out of context.

 

[ziapueblo]

I feel that the term Universal and Catholic are used synonymously by both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox. Both Churches, rightfully so, believe themselves to the the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

ZP

 

[annad347]

Jesus Christ is the head of the catholic church.

So if He knew this woud happen, that His church woud be divided, what is He trying to teach us by allowing to happen? There’s a lesson… Jesus is always teaching us something.

 

[Gorgias]

Is that the CC’s official interpretation of Luke 12:53 ?

There’s this funny dynamic that pops up when folks don’t like what a Catholic says – somehow, a discussion always turns into "what’s the official teaching – show me that "!

No, the Church doesn’t have an “official interpretation” of every verse in the Bible.

Somehow I think it is used here out of context.

So, take a look at what Pope Francis said at a Midday Prayer earlier this year. It’s not an “official doctrinal teaching”, just a reflection, but its implications are consonant, I’d assert, with what I’m saying:

In today’s Gospel reading (see Lk 12: 49-53), Jesus warns the disciples, …"No, I tell you, but division” ( Lk 12: 51). He came to “separate with fire”. To separate what? Good from evil, just from un just. In this sense He came to “divide”, to disrupt – but in a healthy way – the life of His disciples, shattering the easy illusions of those who believe they can combine Christian life and worldliness, Christian life and compromises of every type, religious practices and attitudes against others.

So, if some Christians of the 1500s decided that they felt that the Church “compromised” their faith and went elsewhere, then yeah… Christ foresaw that coming. And, let’s be honest: the Reformation gained momentum not on its religious claims, but because secular forces saw it as a chance to wrest political and financial control away from Rome and into their own hands. So, yes… “worldliness” and “attitudes against others”.

Sorry if that makes you feel queasy, but Jesus’ message wasn’t always ‘rainbows and unicorns’…

 

[Gorgias]

So if He knew this woud happen, that His church woud be divided, what is He trying to teach us by allowing to happen? There’s a lesson… Jesus is always teaching us something.

It’s that no matter what the human action is, God does not constrain our free will and disallow it. We make our own choices. We choose for Him or against Him, and He doesn’t prevent it. Even choices that split the Church that Jesus Himself founded – even those! – He does not thwart!

Our actions have consequences, however, of course. These too He does not thwart.

 

[BartholomewB]

If you ever see the Nicene or Apostles Creed in a Catholic church, you’ll notice in the last bit where they say: “we believe in the holy Catholic Church” they capitalize the “C”, while if you see it on a Protestant one, the “C” is not capitalized.

And in the original language of the Creeds, no capitalization.
There was also no distinction between the “Catholic Church” and the “catholic church” back then.

Lower-case letters were a medieval innovation. There is now a Greek font based on the handwriting seen in the earliest Koine Greek manuscripts:
https://greekcntr.org/collation/index.htm

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Is that the CC’s official interpretation of Luke 12:53 ?

There’s this funny dynamic that pops up when folks don’t like what a Catholic says – somehow, a discussion always turns into "what’s the official teaching – show me that "!

No, the Church doesn’t have an “official interpretation” of every verse in the Bible.

Somehow I think it is used here out of context.

So, take a look at what Pope Francis said at a Midday Prayer earlier this year. It’s not an “official doctrinal teaching”, just a reflection, but its implications are consonant, I’d assert, with what I’m saying:

In today’s Gospel reading (see Lk 12: 49-53), Jesus warns the disciples, …"No, I tell you, but division” ( Lk 12: 51). He came to “separate with fire”. To separate what? Good from evil, just from un just. In this sense He came to “divide”, to disrupt – but in a healthy way – the life of His disciples, shattering the easy illusions of those who believe they can combine Christian life and worldliness, Christian life and compromises of every type, religious practices and attitudes against others.

So, if some Christians of the 1500s decided that they felt that the Church “compromised” their faith and went elsewhere, then yeah… Christ foresaw that coming. And, let’s be honest: the Reformation gained momentum not on its religious claims, but because secular forces saw it as a chance to wrest political and financial control away from Rome and into their own hands. So, yes… “worldliness” and “attitudes against others”.

Sorry if that makes you feel queasy, but Jesus’ message wasn’t always ‘rainbows and unicorns’…

It is interesting to me that when a non-Catholic uses a Bible verse to substantiate a certain idea it is quickly pointed out that only the Church can correctly interpret the Scriptures. That is why I asked if your application of those verses was the official take. Seems like a reasonable thing to ask if even individual Catholics are not supposed to interpret Scripture for themselves.

I am not arguing that Jesus did not see into the future, of course He did. I agree with Pope Francis’ comments that following Jesus and living according to the world’s standards are at odds with each other. That is what I have always been taught these particular verses meant. The division Christ brings to people and families is the fact that there is a choice everyone must make, that choice being that Jesus is the only way, truth and life and the acceptance that no one comes to the Father without Jesus. Either we accept Christ’s offer or we don’t and that brings division between individuals. To manipulate these verses to mean that Jesus was talking of the Reformation of the Church is a stretch.

 

[Gorgias]

It is interesting to me that when a non-Catholic uses a Bible verse to substantiate a certain idea it is quickly pointed out that only the Church can correctly interpret the Scriptures. That is why I asked if your application of those verses was the official take.

Fair enough. However, I’d say “authoritatively”, rather than “correctly.” Non-Catholics provide correct interpretations all the time, when they interpret them in the way that the authoritative interpreter (i.e., the Magisterium) does. However, when they get it wrong, it’s useful to point out that their incorrect interpretation doesn’t have the same force as the interpretation of the authoritative interpreter.

To manipulate these verses to mean that Jesus was talking of the Reformation of the Church is a stretch.

If you say so. I can’t think of a larger “division” in the Body of Christ than the one wrought by the Reformers, though.

 

[Vico]

…
If one leaves the “universal catholic church”, is he still a member of it?

…
Is that the CC’s official interpretation of Luke 12:53 ? Somehow I think it is used here out of context.

Mystici corporis Christi Pope Pius XII, 1943:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...ii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.”[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.

17. I Cor., XII, 13.
18. Cf. Eph., IV, 5.
19. Cf. Matth., XVIII, 17.

Catechism

752 In Christian usage, the word “church” designates the liturgical assembly, 141 but also the local community 142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 …
141 Cf. 1 Cor 11:18; 14:19,28,34,35.
142 Cf. 1 Cor 1:2; 16:1.
143 Cf. 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 1:13; Phil 3:6.

NABRE footnote for Luke:

[12:49–53] Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom is a refining and purifying fire. His message that meets with acceptance or rejection will be a source of conflict and dissension even within families.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

It is interesting to me that when a non-Catholic uses a Bible verse to substantiate a certain idea it is quickly pointed out that only the Church can correctly interpret the Scriptures. That is why I asked if your application of those verses was the official take.

Fair enough. However, I’d say “authoritatively”, rather than “correctly.” Non-Catholics provide correct interpretations all the time, when they interpret them in the way that the authoritative interpreter (i.e., the Magisterium) does. However, when they get it wrong, it’s useful to point out that their incorrect interpretation doesn’t have the same force as the interpretation of the authoritative interpreter.

To manipulate these verses to mean that Jesus was talking of the Reformation of the Church is a stretch.

If you say so. I can’t think of a larger “division” in the Body of Christ than the one wrought by the Reformers, though.

That was not the thrust of my objection to the use of those verses. Certainly the Reformation brought change and like religion itself got mingled with politics. However, I also understand that the CC has officially stated that both sides of the Reformation contributed to the fulfillment of division. In the end, whether it was all a part of God’s larger plan we will all find out regardless of which side we favor in this life.