What is the name of that Church which was established in Rome by Sts. Peter & Paul which is currently headquartered at the Vatican?

[MGLechner]

One must remember that Sts Peter and Paul not only founded the Church in Rome, but also the Antiochian Church as well…see the link below.

antiochian.org/patofant

 

[dzheremi]

The Catholic Church has done much to allow for cultural practices/expressions of faith (it does not try to europeanize it’s members), more so than any other church. There are always more ways in which this can be improved but suffice it to say it is universal.

Either I didn’t explain myself clearly enough or you’re taking as a strength something I have come to see as a weakness (or at least something that I am far less comfortable with than I was previously).

I’m not sure that I would say that the CC has done “more than any other church” to allow for the cultural expressions of faith, but even if we take that to be the case, that’s kinda what I meant: It allows these practices, but does not live by them itself. It doesn’t embrace eastern theology as much as declare dogma to believed across the WHOLE church, even those eastern churches for whom said dogma is absolutely foreign. It is essentially a western/european institution with various eastern churches in communion with it, but even as we are told that the eastern churches are the jewels of the Catholic communion, the relationship of the eastern formerly-Orthodox churches and the Maronites to Rome tells us more about the Catholic communion than any nice words. It is often repeated here that a great many Latin Catholics do not even know of the existence of the eastern catholic churches, and from all I’ve seen that seems to be true (though it is getting better). If we are to believe that we are “two lungs”, then how can we truly breathe when one lung dictates to the other, and otherwise operates in ignorance of the contributions of the other to the overall health of the communion? It is not hard to imagine how this may have occurred: Centuries of Latin-Rite “superiority”/neglect and mistreatment of the eastern churches, a lack of a common theological language, etc.

Again, if we are to be two lungs, we should act like it. Truly embracing the unique spirituality of the eastern churches is not possible so long as they are simultaneously required by Rome to hold doctrines that are not in their tradition. It is not coincidental that reunion with the Orthodox, for instance, is such an impossibility, because they recognize this, as well, but unlike Catholics here and elsewhere will not pretend that there can be two or more standards of belief within one communion of churches (see: Monica’s comments from EC’s elsewhere in the thread, about how Rome is wrong about this or that), or that it is the role of one bishop to dictate infallibly the doctrine to be held across the entire church while pleading out of the other side of his mouth that they should also return to their own spirituality. Which is it? Why do I or you or anyone have to affirm the Filioque while Byzantines do not? Why are they not allowed to teach against it if it is against their traditional theology? Just what does “cultural expressions of faith” mean if it is only a matter of a different language or a different order to the liturgy while the underlying theology is still made to conform to Rome?

God bless Eastern Catholics. I love them to death, but since I can’t buy or even understand any of this, I don’t think I could ever be one. I’ll either be Orthodox or I’ll be in communion with Rome, because I can’t see being both.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

In Scripture , it was first referred to as The Way

In Greek, it could be called Universal, or Catholic

Henry, wishing to usurp the universality of the word Catholic deemed to insult the real Church by calling them Romanists. Hence Roman Catholic was intended to insult.

 

[Reuben_J]

If you are a Roman Catholic Christian, are you (like the hijaker) offended when someone says you are a Roman Catholic? Do you think it’s a slur? Do you (like the hijaker) think that those of your Church who accept others refering to your Church as the Roman Catholic Church are ignorant?

I am Greek Orthodox now, but before I converted I was a Roman Catholic Christian. Most of my friends and aquaintences are all Roman Catholic. I was and they are very proud to be called Roman Catholics!

I have no problem with Roman Catholic. I know what it means and I know Catholics know what it means. I am using Roman Catholic here to differentiate myself from the Anglican who called themselves Catholics too and other Protestants who think their church is catholic.

The problem with the term Roman Catholic is the insinuation by Protestants that it a later day denomination like any Protestant denominations. Well, it is not. Only in that sense I would be offended.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

And I think, Josie, that noncatholics should call the Catholic Church “The Catholic Church” because that is what she prefers. It is just good manners.

Is it good manners to call Anglicans protestants?

When Pope Benedict and other high officials put out letters and so on, most, in fact all, I have seen bear the name, Roman Catholic Church and why not when the Roman Church at Trent dscribed itself thus!

 

[MrS]

MrS;6019829:

In Scripture , it was first referred to as The Way

In Greek, it could be called Universal, or Catholic

**This is simply not true! When did Henry insult the ,‘real Church,’ by calling them Romanists? There was only one Church, Henry didn’t leave it, more to the point the Anglicans didn’t either! The Pope broke communion with Henry, but communion was never refused by the Anglicans.
It was in Eliza’s reign that the split came, 1st, the Council of Trent called upon its supporters to break communion with opponents of Trent and in 1571, came the pope’s Fatwa, against Elizabeth! He then, some forty yrs after Rome’s first sulk, called on the supporters of Trent to eschew English altars. Thus causing a schism.

The traditional catholics held to the original description of the Church in England and used the ancient term Anglican. Whilst the Neo Donatists were given the term Roman by the Creed of Trent, because they no longer followed ancient ways and bishops of the old communion, but now followed the bishop of Rome!**

Yeah, okay. Tell it to the Anglican members and clergy who now wish to rejoin the Catholic Church and its allegiance to the office of Peter.

Your version of history does not fly here or elsewhere outside the Anglican community.

.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

luckyfredsdad;6026091:

Yeah, okay. Tell it to the Anglican members and clergy who now wish to rejoin the Catholic Church and its allegiance to the office of Peter.

These people are Anglicans, only in the wider sense that the Romans on this board are catholics! They are in essence Neo Anglicans. They have neither the knowledge or the time for traditional Anglicanism which is simply Western orthodoxy! These TAC/FIF, are simply pale Romans and you are quite welcome to them. I do not take communion from either their or your priests!

Your version of history does not fly here or elsewhere outside the Anglican community.

What has that to do with me? That you believe or disbelieve what I and others say is chiefly your business. As my aunt always said,‘there’s none so blind as them as don’t want to see!’ I won’t force history on to you!

.

 

[Reuben_J]

Is it good manners to call Anglicans protestants?

To me, Christians can be roughly known by three major categories - Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants. This is excluding groups like Mormons, JWs and Gnostics. I will readily address them as such without being biased, ill-intention and disrespect. Of course I will respect their wish if they want to be known differently.

I know many Catholics have problem in catching up with Protestantism and I am one of them. There are just too many different denominations. But when I call them Protestants it is surely not with disrespect.Likewise I will accept them calling me Roman Catholic if they say it sincerely.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

.

St. Peter’s Church.

I’ve never been there, but I’ve seen lots of pictures of it.

.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The term Roman Catholic, as we know and understand it today, was brought to life at the Council of Trent,when it was given as a name to the organisation that evolved from that Council,The Holy Catholic Roman Church! Are you telling us that the Roman leadership at that time were being nasty to their own members?

 

[luckyfredsdad]

**I have never heard the term Roman Catholic being used as an offensive alternative to Catholic! At least in this country!
In England at least in my lifetime, leftfooter, has been the derogatory term. Or papist.
You evade the major comment about the provenance of the term, springing as it did from one of your own Council’s decisions. Around here all the Roman Churches bear the label Roman Catholic School, or Roman Catholic Church of S.Mary or whatever?
**

 

[ricko]

Gee luckyfredsdad, it’s really simple. Roman Catholic is not the name of the Church. How hard can that be to understand? You are at a Catholic forum run by Catholic Answers at Catholic.com. It’s called the Catholic Catechism not the Roman catechism. It has been called the Catholic Church for almost 2,000 years. You nor anyone else has the authority to change its name and in keeping with good manners you should respect the name of that Church.

Thus Clement of Alexandria wrote, “We say that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith.” From quotations like this it is easy to see how “Catholic” became the proper name of the true Church founded by Christ.

The saints, whose names many of us bear, like Francis of Assisi, Thomas of Canterbury, Wilfrid of York, Bernard of Clairvaux, Henry the Emperor, Louis of France, Edward the Confessor, Margaret of Scotland, Hilda of Whitby, and hosts of others, were members of it. One and all, they knew it as the Catholic Church.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304iron.asp

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Gee luckyfredsdad, it’s really simple. Roman Catholic is not the name of the Church. How hard can that be to understand? You are at a Catholic forum run by Catholic Answers at Catholic.com. It’s called the Catholic Catechism not the Roman catechism. It has been called the Catholic Church for almost 2,000 years. You nor anyone else has the authority to change its name and in keeping with good manners you should respect the name of that Church.

Thus Clement of Alexandria wrote, “We say that both in substance and in seeming, both in origin and in development, the primitive and Catholic Church is the only one, agreeing as it does in the unity of one faith.” From quotations like this it is easy to see how “Catholic” became the proper name of the true Church founded by Christ.

The saints, whose names many of us bear, like Francis of Assisi, Thomas of Canterbury, Wilfrid of York, Bernard of Clairvaux, Henry the Emperor, Louis of France, Edward the Confessor, Margaret of Scotland, Hilda of Whitby, and hosts of others, were members of it. One and all, they knew it as the Catholic Church.
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9304iron.asp

You wish, as they do say!
You’r indulging in wishful thinking. Your Church, the Roman Catholic Church is the child of the Council of Trent!
At the Reformation, the unkind cut the from the Lutherans was,“Where was your church before Trent!”
At the most you are a Catholic Sect!

 

[MrS]

You wish, as they do say!
You’r indulging in wishful thinking. Your Church, the Roman Catholic Church is the child of the Council of Trent!
At the Reformation, the unkind cut the from the Lutherans was,“Where was your church before Trent!”
At the most you are a Catholic Sect!

At first I thought you were just being stubborn and defensive of your own faith community.

Now I see that you are just angry. And getting more angry when you are shown to be clearly wrong and you are lacking any documents that would support your argument.

Cool off, try to find a decent history of the Church (that would be the Catholic Church only, because anyone else who uses the name Church has simply usurped it).

Then come back with more than just opinion or bias. Thanks

.

 

[JonNC]

Is it good manners to call Anglicans protestants?

Is it? My understanding is Anglicans don’t consider themselves Protestant, so I try to avoid doing it. Then again, many Lutherans, like myself (Evangelican Catholics), view Lutheranism as a reformational Church, not protestant.

Jon

 

[josie_L]

The original meaning of the word Catholic is “Whole” and “Complete”. In the 5th Century, it began to take on the meaning of “Universal”.

“The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the “the catholic resurrection” (Justin Martyr), “the catholic goodness of God” (Tertullian), “the four catholic winds” (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of “the general resurrection”, “the absolute or universal goodness of God”, “the four principal winds”, etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase “Catholic Epistles” as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.”

newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

---

The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning “universal”.[1] ^ (cf. Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon)

---

The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

---

The Muratorian Canon

"Besides these [letters of Paul] there is one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in affection and love, but nevertheless regarded as holy in the Catholic Church, in the ordering of churchly discipline. There is also one [letter] to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, in regard to the heresy of Marcion, and there are several others which cannot be received by the Church, for it is not suitable that gall be mixed with honey. **The epistle of Jude, indeed, and the two ascribed to John are received by the Catholic Church **(Muratorian fragment [A.D. 177]).

note: The Catholic Church is in the singular and thus referring to the universal church.

---

"Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church, the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the “Catechetical Discourses” of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): “And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.” On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) “Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.”

kofc-903.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=2

---

The Word “Catholic” Defined

However, we have yet to define the word catholic. It comes from the Greek katholikos, the combination of two words: kata- concerning, and holos- whole. Thus, concerning the whole. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the word catholic comes from a Greek word meaning “regarding the whole,” or more simply, “universal” or “general.” Universal comes from two Greek words: uni- one, and vertere- turning. In other words, a “one turning”, “revolving around one,” or “turned into one”. The word church comes from the Greek ecclesia which means “those called out,” as in those summoned out of the world at large to form a distinct society. So the Catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered into the universal visible society founded by Christ.

www.catholic-convert.com/documents/CatholicWordMean.doc

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure that I would say that the CC has done “more than any other church” to allow for the cultural expressions of faith, but even if we take that to be the case, that’s kinda what I meant: **It allows these practices, but does not live by them itself. It doesn’t embrace eastern theology as much as declare dogma to believed across the WHOLE church, even those eastern churches for whom said dogma is absolutely foreign. **It is essentially a western/european institution with various eastern churches in communion with it, but even as we are told that the eastern churches are the jewels of the Catholic communion, the relationship of the eastern formerly-Orthodox churches and the Maronites to Rome tells us more about the Catholic communion than any nice words. It is often repeated here that a great many Latin Catholics do not even know of the existence of the eastern catholic churches, and from all I’ve seen that seems to be true (though it is getting better). If we are to believe that we are “two lungs”, then how can we truly breathe when one lung dictates to the other, and otherwise operates in ignorance of the contributions of the other to the overall health of the communion? It is not hard to imagine how this may have occurred: Centuries of Latin-Rite “superiority”/neglect and mistreatment of the eastern churches, a lack of a common theological language, etc.

That we differ in theological language is a matter of semantics rather than doctrinal differences as you will understand when you read the article on this website I have posted for you, here is just a little excerpt (written by a Byzantine Catholic):

Theological Differences: Is it true that the Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to have different theological expressions? If so what does it involve?

This certainly is true. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not only “allowed” but are actively encouraged to cultivate their own distinctive theological expressions.

Eastern Catholics, while fully Catholic and in communion with the Pope, differ in more ways than just liturgy. We also possess a unique spiritual tradition, as well as a unique theological approach. While we agree with the Latin Church on fundamental matters of doctrine, we approach doctrine in a very different way - from the Eastern perspective. While the Western Church has traditionally formulated doctrine in terms of scholastic Latin theology, we rely almost exclusively on the theology of the Eastern Church Fathers.** This difference, rather than rupturing the unity of the Church, further expresses the true UNIVERSALITY of Christ’s Church. **

This is authoritatively taught by the Second Vatican Council:

“All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in-their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth,” (UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, no. 4).

“What has just been said about the lawful variety that can exist in the Church must also be taken to apply to the differences in theological expression of doctrine. In the study of revelation East and West have followed different methods, and have developed differently their understanding and confession of God’s truth. It is hardly surprising, then, if from time to time one tradition has come nearer to a full appreciation of some aspects of a mystery of revelation than the other, or has expressed it to better advantage. In such cases, these various theological expressions are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting. Where the authentic theological traditions of the Eastern Church are concerned, we must recognize the admirable way in which they have their roots in Holy Scripture, and how they are nurtured and given expression in the life of the liturgy. They derive their strength too from the living tradition of the apostles and from the works of the Fathers and spiritual writers of the Eastern Churches. Thus they promote the right ordering of Christian life and, indeed, pave the way to a full vision of Christian truth,” (ibid., no. 17).

east2west.org/doctrine.htm

edit: I have yet to respond to other points you made in your post but the article does mention a few of the things you argued in a more positive light. God bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

You wish, as they do say!
You’r indulging in wishful thinking. Your Church, the Roman Catholic Church is the child of the Council of Trent!
At the Reformation, the unkind cut the from the Lutherans was,“Where was your church before Trent!”
At the most you are a Catholic Sect!

This is unwarranted. Please stop it.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

This is unwarranted. Please stop it.

Unwarranted? It is warranted by catholic practice, tradition and History!
We have to remember that the Holy Catholic Church works on Tradition; Tertullian, Archbishop Bramhall and Cardinal Newman, all claimed ]in their own words,] That if it’s new its not catholic, .
There were in the first thousand years, seven councils of the Church thought so important that they were accepted by all Catholic Christians.
Councils were the vehicles for the College of Bishops, the Church’s magisterium, to thrash out problems under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. [See Acts.15.]

These were called ,usually, by the Emperor and often staffed by his commissioners. This was the system within the Church. A council became ecumenical, after the fact, as it were, of acceptance by the wider Catholic Church.

In 1545, [approx,] a Council was called not by any Emperor and after only discussion by a small clique.It was called by the Bishop of Rome, who staffed it by his own chosen men and who decided who should be chosen to attend and indeed what should be discussed!When it was found difficult to get sufficient support, the Bishop of Rome called on the Bishops of the Suburbicarian Church, that was the local Church of the Italian peninsular and Islands, to attend. These were the Pope’s pensioners, virtually! Once the Council met the constituents were seperated in to two groups and not allowed to discuss matters between them. Rome was a taboo subject. The results were not collectively agreed till they had been sent to Rome for the all clear! Further, In a Profession of Faith,[Creed,] It was agreed that all clerics should affirm scripture only by viewing it through the teachings of the Holy Fathers , [which to a catholic is Holy Tradition?] Further, on two occasions notice was given that the name of the Church was to be the Roman Church, or CatholicApostolic Roman Church. { Littledale, Council of Trent.}

The point being that the pope and his advisers had taken on themselves the authority to call a council of the Church, which even today the orthodox resent and disclaim. Also they had formulated a Creed or Confession, against the Canons of the most important Council of the Catholic Church, Nice!

Many Catholics looked upon this as a breakaway Church!
The Council also called for its supporters to eschew Communion with catholics who didn’agree with them. THAT IS SCHISM? All this, plus the break from Holy Tradition, caused many folk to claim a new Church had been created. It was claimed that the pope was anti-christ! A move that was crushed by Anglican scholars and theologians. {See J. Evelyn’s Diary ,Jan.1686.’ Thorndyke’s Works’,1686 Lon.S.Paul’s. Bishop Bull and Bishop Hickes the Non Juror.] These are just a few scholars who can be accessed from the Internet or whose books are easily available.There are lots more.

Anyroadup, As my Bishops forbid me to say that Rome is no longer Catholic, since Trent, as some people still do, or at least wonder, I think, on good reason, that Rome is a Catholic Sect as a result of a coup, at Trent!

 

[Reuben_J]

Anyroadup, As my Bishops forbid me to say that Rome is no longer Catholic, since Trent, as some people still do, or at least wonder, I think, on good reason, that Rome is a Catholic Sect as a result of a coup, at Trent!

As long you say that Roman Catholic Church is the church that has its beginning with St. Peter, and then you are right. The ‘Roman’ came about to differentiate it from competing church like yours who wants to be known as Catholic as well.

The Catholic Church is not a sect. It was always known as the Catholic Church because it was the only church founded by Jesus.

You can write your history as you like but please do not do it for the Catholic Church and got it wrong. There are no changes in the Catholic Church today. It has always been, and is and will be the same. That much cannot be said for the Anglican Church, and I am sorry I have to say that.