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

[luckyfredsdad]

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.

**That the Roman Church started when and where it did, I agree, but that was simply the Bishopric of Rome! The Church in Britain started at the same time, founded according to the Orthodox, by Aristobulos, [Lingard ] or by S.Simon Zelotes S.Dorotheus,.
**

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

When did I ever say that the Catholic Church is a sect? You put words in to my mouth and I would rather you didn’t. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ and its Members are Children of God.
But Rome is not the totallity of the Catholic Church! It is simply a part, a large part, but not the whole by any means.

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.

The Anglican Church is just that part of the Church that developed in Britain. It holds to the Catholic faith as delivered by Christ and delivered by the Council fathers, which is, I’m sad to say, more than you do! In short, Traditional Anglicanism is Catholicity with a British face!

 

[Reuben_J]

I was interchanging Roman Catholic with Catholic. For a while I forgot I was speaking to an Anglican. The Roman Catholic Church is not a sect.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

I was interchanging Roman Catholic with Catholic. For a while I forgot I was speaking to an Anglican. The Roman Catholic Church is not a sect.

Prove it?

 

[Reuben_J]

Prove it?

How do you want me to prove it?

The Roman Catholic Church has been in existence since the time of the apostles. There were no other churches then and all doctrines were the same.

 

[Reuben_J]

Useful clarification there.

I think he has demonstrated it and why some of us need to use the term Roman Catholic. When I use Catholic he thought I did not mean Roman Catholic. As I said, I do not mind using Roman Catholic as long as it understood as the one true Catholic Church which it is.

I feel insulted when people call it a sect. I guess they probably want to bring it down to the same level as their own church, and perhaps that makes them feel better, I don’t know.

 

[MrS]

How do you want me to prove it?

The Roman Catholic Church has been in existence since the time of the apostles. There were no other churches then and all doctrines were the same.

Ruben, this person has issues and angers… and a misunderstanding of actual history.

I understand one whose balloon has been deflated. The Anglican Church has/had a lot going for it. It just did/does not have valid orders other than what they have given themselves.

To call the Catholic Church a cult is no different than what Henry did in calling it Romanist.

He chooses to insult as Henry did. That is his problem.

For those with faith, no “proof” is necessary.

For those without, no “proof” will suffice.

.

 

[Ad_Gentes]

I am currently a Roman Catholic Christian; have been since I was an infant, attended Catholic School, have been in missions, and are very active within my parish community. I use to not like being call Roman Catholic. I was not offended by it, but did not think it was the proper name; after all, I was simply Catholic. The Church itself does not commonly used that name on official documents (at least modern/recent ones). The Catechism of the Catholic Church says just that: “Catholic Church”. And there are other Catholics in union with Rome that are not, technically speaking, Roman Catholics (e.g. Byzantine Catholics, Maronite Catholics, etc.). I came to the conclusion, then, that other Christian denominations called us Romans to emphasize our link or relationship with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, and to minimize our Catholic claim.

As I have study more and more history, to include readings from the early Church Fathers, I was amazed that while the entire Church did not called itself Roman at the time (before the Great Schism), the Church of Rome (as well as those in the West) in fact did. That in itself is not surprising since there were five great Patriarchates to include that of Rome. But even after the Great Schism, the Catholic Church called itself Roman (e.g. Holy Roman Church) throughout its history. From my observations, it was not until the later centuries (especially after the Second Vatican Council) that the Church dropped the “Roman” from most of its documents. The Catholic Church in the United States, probably due to vast amount of Protestant denominations, continues to use (although not exclusively) the name “Roman” (e.g. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta) to differentiate itself from other churches. This is especially true since there are several denominations claiming “Catholic” in their names.

Now I realize that while not all the Catholic Church is Roman, in the proper sense, most of it (within the Latin Rite) can be called Roman and those within the Archdiocese of Rome certainly are. So in conclusion, while I still prefer to call myself simply Catholic, I admit that I am in fact a Roman Catholic and that this name can also be appropriately apply to the Church in communion with Rome, and especially to those using the Latin Rite.

God bless!

 

[Ad_Gentes]

The Roman Catholic Church has been in existence since the time of the apostles. There were no other churches then and all doctrines were the same.

Brother Reuben,

Not to enter into any arguments here (since I understand what you are trying to say), but your statement is partially correct. The Roman Church “has been in existence since the times of the apostles.” That is a true statement, but back then it was not called Roman Catholic Church as it refers today. Initially, the one Church founded by Christ was simply called the Church. Later it was called the catholic Church when referring to the universal Church; the Church was catholic and the faith was orthodox. From the times of the apostles to the first few centuries, the term Roman was used almost exclusively, to refer to the Patriarchate of Rome. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the churches in the West used this name more and more. After the Great Schism, the name Roman was often used for the entire Catholic Church in communion with Rome. When you say “[t]here were no other churches then and all doctrines were the same”, that is correct in the context that all churches (or at least most of them) where in communion with each other and where considered the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. There where, however, many churches in different cities and region. The Roman Church refered initially to the particular Church in Rome, and later to those Churches under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, not to the entire Church of East and West.

Blessings!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Yet you do so, a few minutes afterwards?

 

[luckyfredsdad]

How do you want me to prove it?

The Roman Catholic Church has been in existence since the time of the apostles. There were no other churches then and all doctrines were the same.

I have never said anything different! Read my posts and stop behaving foolishly!

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Ruben, this person has issues and angers… and a misunderstanding of actual history.

I understand one whose balloon has been deflated. The Anglican Church has/had a lot going for it. It just did/does not have valid orders other than what they have given themselves

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Brother Reuben,

Not to enter into any arguments here (since I understand what you are trying to say), but your statement is partially correct. The Roman Church “has been in existence since the times of the apostles.” That is a true statement, but back then it was not called Roman Catholic Church as it refers today. Initially, the one Church founded by Christ was simply called the Church. Later it was called the catholic Church when referring to the universal Church; the Church was catholic and the faith was orthodox. From the times of the apostles to the first few centuries, the term Roman was used almost exclusively, to refer to the Patriarchate of Rome. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the churches in the West used this name more and more. After the Great Schism, the name Roman was often used for the entire Catholic Church in communion with Rome. When you say “[t]here were no other churches then and all doctrines were the same”, that is correct in the context that all churches (or at least most of them) where in communion with each other and where considered the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. There where, however, many churches in different cities and region. The Roman Church refered initially to the particular Church in Rome, and later to those Churches under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, not to the entire Church of East and West.

Blessings!

**A lonely Flower in a garden of weeds! **

 

[luckyfredsdad]

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

Thank you, we agree!

 

[MrS]

**A lonely Flower in a garden of weeds! **

as I said…

you simply have anger issues… but I think they only further cloud your erroneous comments.

opinions…

 

[Sword_Brethren]

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!**

Anglican Catholic is that the same as the Anglican Church of England?

 

[peary]

The church known as Saint Peter’s Basilica is located in Vatican City.
There is also the Sistine Chapel, and the Church of Saint Anne.
There is also Santa Maria delle Pieta.

They are all Catholic churches.

I am not quite sure as to what you mean by what church was established by Saints Peter and Paul and currently headquartered at the Vatican. If you mean the Catholic Church, then that is your answer.

 

[Reuben_J]

Brother Reuben,

Not to enter into any arguments here (since I understand what you are trying to say), but your statement is partially correct. The Roman Church “has been in existence since the times of the apostles.” That is a true statement, but back then it was not called Roman Catholic Church as it refers today. Initially, the one Church founded by Christ was simply called the Church. Later it was called the catholic Church when referring to the universal Church; the Church was catholic and the faith was orthodox. From the times of the apostles to the first few centuries, the term Roman was used almost exclusively, to refer to the Patriarchate of Rome. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the churches in the West used this name more and more. After the Great Schism, the name Roman was often used for the entire Catholic Church in communion with Rome. When you say “[t]here were no other churches then and all doctrines were the same”, that is correct in the context that all churches (or at least most of them) where in communion with each other and where considered the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. There where, however, many churches in different cities and region. The Roman Church refered initially to the particular Church in Rome, and later to those Churches under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome as Patriarch of the West, not to the entire Church of East and West.

Blessings!

Thanks brother for the supporting post to explain this subject.

That exactly what I was saying but perhaps the meaning somehow lost during the discussion. Take me for example. When I first join this forum, I put my religion as Catholic. What that means is quite obvious among us Catholics – it is the Church founded upon Simon Barjona who Jesus called Peter, the rock (small r) upon which he (big R) will build his church.

I was mentioning in my earlier post in this thread that Christians can be roughly divided into three categories – Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants. In that categories I meant to put the Anglicans in Protestants section without prejudice. And of course you are right – it was not called Roman Catholic during the early church era – there was no necessity for it, there was only one church then.

After joining this forum for a while I noticed that there are Protestants, chiefly Anglicans who also called themselves catholics. Strictly for the sake of clarity and working purpose to differentiate myself from Protestants who go by the name catholics, I added ‘Roman’ to Catholic in my religion. Of course we Catholics know what this mean and I have no problem identifying myself as Roman Catholic.

But as it is brought up in this thread, the term Roman Catholic has a prejudial connotation. That I would object. If everybody understood the term Roman Catholic to mean the one universal church that was founded upon the apostles since the inception of Christianity, I have no problem with that because that is what I mean – Roman Catholic = Catholic.

With this I also hope to answer the question of this thread.

God bless you too.

 

[Reuben_J]

Ruben, this person has issues and angers… and a misunderstanding of actual history.

I understand one whose balloon has been deflated. The Anglican Church has/had a lot going for it. It just did/does not have valid orders other than what they have given themselves.

To call the Catholic Church a cult is no different than what Henry did in calling it Romanist.

He chooses to insult as Henry did. That is his problem.

For those with faith, no “proof” is necessary.

For those without, no “proof” will suffice.

.

And I have been called foolish by the said poster.

 

[Bill_Pick]

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

I have always call them Cathloic, but then what do I know

 

[Reuben_J]

For detail read, here are relevant materials for explanation of definition of terms and names:

RITES

A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments has at its core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence – of matter, form and intention – derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15).

There are three major groupings of Rites based on this initial transmission of the faith, the Roman, the Antiochian (Syria) and the Alexandrian (Egypt). Later on the Byzantine derived as a major Rite from the Antiochian, under the influence of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom. From these four derive the over 20 liturgical Rites present in the Church today

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Relationship with the term "Roman Catholic"

Certain Catholic[6] and non-Catholic sources use the term “Roman Catholic” to mean “Latin-Rite Catholic”, and the Holy See was known in the eighteenth century to use “Roman Church” to refer to the Latin Church and “Greek Church” to refer to what was then considered a single Oriental Church that included not only Byzantine but also Armenian, Coptic and Syrian Catholics: the 1755 papal encyclical Allatae Sunt said: “The Oriental Church is composed of four rites - Greek, Armenian, Syriac, and Coptic; all these rites are referred to by the single name of the Greek or Oriental Church, just as the name of the Latin or Roman Church signifies the Roman, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic rites, as well as the special rites of different Regular Orders”.[7]

In more recent times, this usage is not found in the Church’s official documents. On the contrary, Church documents use the term “Roman Catholic Church” to refer to the worldwide Church as a whole, though by no means as frequently as the term “Catholic Church”. This usage is found in the encyclicals Divini illius Magistri and Humani generis and in curial documents such as Notes on the correct way to present the Jews and Judaism in preaching and catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church. It is commonly used in agreements signed by the Pope together with the heads of other Churches.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Rite