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

  • Thread starter Thread starter SingleMomMonica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Development of ‘rites’

Ritus in classical Latin in means primarily, the form and manner of any religious observance.
In a slightly different sense we call the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a rite-thus we speak of the Roman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and various Eastern rites. In the latter sense the word is often considered equivalent to liturgy, which, however, in the older and more proper use of the word is the Eucharistic Service, or Mass; hence for a whole series of religious functions “rite” is preferable.

The Catholic Church has never maintained a principle of uniformity in rite. Just as there are different local laws in various parts of the Church, whereas certain fundamental laws are obeyed by all, so Catholics in different places have, their own local or national rites; they say prayers and perform ceremonies that have evolved to suit people of the various countries, and are only different expressions of the same fundamental truths

The Western medieval rites are in no case (except the Ambrosian and Mozarabic RiteRites), really independent of Rome.

In 1570 the revisers appointed by the Council of Trent restored with scrupulous care and, even in the light of later studies, brilliant success the pure Roman Missal, which Pius V ordered should alone be used wherever the Roman Rite is followed. It was a return to an older and purer form. The medieval rites have no doubt a certain archæological interest; but where the Roman Rite is used it is best to use it in its pure form.

Protestant rites

The Reformation in the sixteenth century produced a new and numerous series of rites, which are in no sense continuations of the old development of liturgy. They do not all represent descendants of the earliest rites, nor can they be classified in the table of genus and species that includes all the old liturgies of Christendom.


The Protestant rites are deliberate compositions made by the various Reformers to suit their theological positions, as new services were necessary for their prayer meetings. No old liturgy could be used by people with their ideas. The old rites contain the plainest statements about the Real Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice, prayers to saints, and for the dead, which are denied by Protestants. The Reformation occurred in the West, where the Roman Rite in its various local forms had been used for centuries. No Reformed sect could use the Roman Mass; the medieval derived rites were still more ornate, explicit, in the Reformers’ sense superstitious. So all the Protestant sects abandoned the old Mass and the other ritual functions, composing new services which have no continuity, no direct relation to any historic liturgy. However, it is hardly possible to compose an entirely new Christian service without borrowing anything. Moreover, in many cases the Reformers wished to make the breach with the past as little obvious as could be.

newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
 
I really don’t understand why this is a recurring topic. No slur nor insult has any power unless you give it that power. My family has always used the term Roman Catholic. My name tag at RCIA says “Roman Catholic Candidate” on it. I am not going to shy away from using it as an identifier. If someone jeers at me and yells “You Roman Catholic, you!” I am going to give him/her a friendly wave and say “Thank you!”
 
Sword Brethren;6032752:
No! The Anglican Catholics hold to the ancient faith, the Anglo-Catholics, the TAC and FiF, both of whom ,it would appear, seek to join with Rome, don’t. They allow innovations.
But, where is the successor of St. Peter? Where the successor of St. Peter is, there is the Holy Catholic Church.
 
This hopefully will sound like a silly question to most viewers; however, it is one that hijaked another thread that I know of and someone posted on that thread that it’d hijaked several other threads.

My hopes in starting this thread is to allow the hijaker their own thread so that they will stop hijaking others to address the issues they have with the name of their own Church.

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!
"What is the name of that Church which was established in Rome by Sts. Peter & Paul which is currently headquartered at the Vatican? " ** The Catholic Church
**
 
luckyfredsdad;6034439:
But, where is the successor of St. Peter? Where the successor of St. Peter is, there is the Holy Catholic Church.
**
The successor of S. Peter is primarily the College of Bishops.That is the Bishops collectively! They act through the Councils and Synods led,particularly within the Councils by the guidance of the Holy Ghost!

We have seven Ecumenical Councils, that dealt with the great problems of the early Christian Councils. Four were Christological, two explanatory and one , according to our Bishops at least, was a matter of manners! In none of these efforts did the Pope play anything more than any other bishop and less than many!**
 
Sword Brethren;6035742:
**
The successor of S. Peter is primarily the College of Bishops.That is the Bishops collectively! They act through the Councils and Synods led,particularly within the Councils by the guidance of the Holy Ghost!

We have seven Ecumenical Councils, that dealt with the great problems of the early Christian Councils. Four were Christological, two explanatory and one , according to our Bishops at least, was a matter of manners! In none of these efforts did the Pope play anything more than any other bishop and less than many!**
Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The rock is St. Peter and no one else.
 
This hopefully will sound like a silly question to most viewers; however, it is one that hijaked another thread that I know of and someone posted on that thread that it’d hijaked several other threads.

My hopes in starting this thread is to allow the hijaker their own thread so that they will stop hijaking others to address the issues they have with the name of their own Church.

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!
From EWTN, Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 10-03-2008:
"I do not use the term “Roman Catholic Church” and also official documents of the Vatican do not use the term “Roman Catholic Church.”
The Catholic Church is a communion of several ritual Churches, including the Latin Church, Ukrainian Church, etc. The key to this is the authority of the pope, the successor of St. Peter (as you realize). If the Church is under the authority of the pope and the bishops in communion with him, then the Church is authentically Catholic.

Be careful, though. Some groups might claim to be Catholic but not truly be, according to our definition, since they are not under the authority of the pope.

I would note that the vast majority of the membership of the Catholic Church are members of the Latin Church.

The term “rite” (not “right”) refers to the ceremonial traditions that a ritual Church uses. Some ritual Churches use the same “rite.” For example, several of the Churches (including the Ukrainian) use the Byzantine rite.

Some rites are used only by one ritual Church. For example, the Maronite ritual Church uses the Maronite rite. This is an example where the ritual Church and the rite names are the same.

The Latin Church uses the Roman rite. So in this case, the name of the ritual Church and the name of the rite are different.

So the bottom line needs to be – is the Church under the pope or not? If it is, then OK. If not, beware."
 
**Has anyone ever said he did?
Why bring Henry in to the square? We might as well bring in the lady from the Corner shop!
The Bishop of Durham, when asked a qustion regarding Henry , from some not too bright member of your Church, reflected , that his postillion had as much to say on the matter as the King had ,at that time!
**
[/quote]
 
(name removed by moderator);6036055:
luckyfredsdad;6035832:
Has anyone ever said he did?
Why bring Henry in to the square? We might as well bring in the lady from the Corner shop!
**The Bishop of Durham, when asked a qustion regarding Henry , from some not too bright member of your Church, reflected , that his postillion had as much to say on the matter as the King had ,at that time! **

Maybe because he is the “rock” on which your church is built.

.
 
luckyfredsdad;6036216:
(name removed by moderator);6036055:
Maybe because he is the “rock” on which your church is built.

.
Whatever gave you that idea?

And if he was, which he isn’t, would it make him any different from the Pope at that time, who was the ruler of broad lands, in Northern Italy.? Which did he resign, the pope that is, lands or Mitre?
Henry was chief magistrate and no more!
 
Anglican Catholic is that the same as the Anglican Church of England?
I have no idea. The term “Anglican Catholic” could also refer to Catholics in communion with Rome who make use of the recently-established Anglican Rite.
 
[/quote]

Considering his arrogance, I would not be surprised if Henry appointed Christ.

.
[/quote]
 
The name of the Church is Catholic as proven from yet another Catholic source:

It is adopted, for instance, in the “Catechismus ad Parochos”, which in accordance with a decree of the Council of Trent was drawn up and published in 1566 with the highest official sanction (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). In this authoritative document we read:

The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic, that is, universal; and justly is she called Catholic, because, as St. Augustine says, ‘she is diffused by the splendour of one faith from the rising to the setting sun’. Unlike republics of human institution, or the conventicles of heretics, she is not circumscribed within the limits of any one kingdom, nor confined to the members of any one society of men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love, all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freemen, male or female.
 
The name of the Church is Catholic as proven from yet another Catholic source:

It is adopted, for instance, in the “Catechismus ad Parochos”, which in accordance with a decree of the Council of Trent was drawn up and published in 1566 with the highest official sanction (see CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE). In this authoritative document we read:
The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic
 
[/quote]

**Probably about the same time as the Pope was and by the same source?

A guess I confess, but you did ask! **
[/quote]
 
luckyfredsdad;6035832:
Matthew 16:18 “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The rock is St. Peter and no one else.
According to the Council of Trent and the Creed which it professed,all who promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome are,concerning Holy Scripture obliged to agree,‘nor will
I ever understand or interpret it, except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers’.

This is interesting if only because the Holy Fathers, I.E. SS, Hilary, Gregory Nyssen,Chrysyostom, Cyril of Alexandria, [to name but a few,] all believe that the rock , was not Peter, but the faith Peter professed! Others, including S.Augustine had the impression that Christ was the Rock, (in the OT, the term,’ Rock,’ was used consistently to designate God ,himself!)
Whilst Origen, believed the ,‘Rock,’ was all men who believed the faith.
Launoy a Roman Catholic Scholar found that there are 17 Fathers in favour of the Rock, being Peter, whilst 44, believe that the Rock was Peter’s Faith and 16, for it being Christ , Himself.!
This being so, I would have thought it would have caused some concern to various of your companions, but obviously ?
For myself in view of Trent and its injunction and the near absence of support for the Roman interpretation amongst the Fathers, that the Mattean quote doesn’t give Peter much rope and the papacy none whatsoever .
I must say, that any quotes should be within the range of the Holy Fathers of the first three hundred years. Not medieval times! Further if you cut the papacy out following the comments of our Lord in John5, vs 30, it leaves very little room for movement!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top