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

[Reuben_J]

You can.

However, consider this… a lot of people even call themselves part of the American Catholic Church. And that all “sounds” well and good.

After all, it is simply adding a name to Catholic that is not offensive.

but…browse their site and see just how offensive they really are. accus.us/

Now perhaps this is off topic… but the idea is just to convey what adding a name does. In this case it covers a lie…
In the case of Roman Catholic,… is just causes confusion.

.

That is a good issue to ponder by the Church leadership.

This is rather sad because when the ‘Roman’ was added to Catholic it was to clear confusion, that we were not Anglicans. Now it causes confusion again and shall we take it off and back to the way we were, just Catholic? Going by what happening today it will not solve the predicament either. So many churches are calling themselves catholics and these are not even those rites under the papal see.

Yes we know that the new catholic churches being formed or called as such are definitely not what Jesus wanted, and their effect surely is to dilute and cause confusion to the Catholic Church as the sole Church that Jesus founded.

Today the American Catholic Church is founded. In five hundred years time when history will become blur, what is there to stop them from calling themselves the original church that Jesus founded? They already are today but that can be obviously refuted, but with the twists and turns, in five hundred years time, their claim would be even harder to refute.

Does that ring a bell with competing churches today?

So where do we stand and what we are supposed to do? I think ultimately it is us, the Catholic Church, no matter what name we give ourselves, we are still the Church that Jesus founded. It is quite messy when we begin to get affected by what others do.

Just a thought.

 

[ricko]

i can’t see why “Roman Catholic” would be a bad thing

some churches do identify themselves as a Roman Catholic Church on the sign outside. if the pirests and bishop identify themselves as that, why can’t i?

Because the name of the Church is the Catholic Church. That’s the name the Church has gone by for almost 2,000 years. The Protestants started calling our Church “The Roman Catholic Church”

You are on Catholic Forums run by Catholic Answers at Catholic.com.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Because the name of the Church is the Catholic Church. That’s the name the Church has gone by for almost 2,000 years. The Protestants started calling our Church “The Roman Catholic Church”

You are on Catholic Forums run by Catholic Answers at Catholic.com.

**Explain then the canons of the Council of Trent and the Creed of Trent?

Are you distancing yourself from Trent? What about the Pope’s missive that he published about four weeks ago where the source was given the Roman Catholic Church! Are you saying it was a forgery? Or maybe he’s losing it?**

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Josiah:

I’m not quite seeing where he stated that the church in Rome was founded by St. Paul and Peter. And I don’t see what date for that or evidence given…

But again, since when it writes to it, it obviously already existed and since Paul had never been there - it would seem problematic at best for him to have founded it. And since Paul in 57 AD never mentions Peter at all, and since the usual chronology for Peter places him in Rome LONG after the church was founded there - it seems problematic for him to have been the founder. Thus, I’m not sure how EITHER of them (much less both of them) are the founders of the church in that city.

And if they didn’t found any church there, it could have had no name. Then or now. See my point?

Right - and it’s a good point.

Then obviously since they founded no church in that city, thus it could not have a name. Then or now.

.

 

[MrS]

Then obviously since they founded no church in that city, thus it could not have a name. Then or now.

.

Does that “logic” apply to your denomination also? No city, no apostles, therefore named after a man/founder?

Should the Anglicans be termed the Henrys?

No wonder, since Christ first introduced the word Church (never used in the OT), the word Catholic is combined with Church for the only legitimate use of the two words together.

We are Catholic… open to all of mankind
We are Church… only faith community founded by Christ Himself.

Thus it is only natural that the entity founded by Christ is the Catholic Church.

All other Christians, though part of the Body of Christ by virtue of a Trinitarian Baptism, are at best living in the back yard and not in the House of God, under the roof of the One True Church.

.

 

[jmcrae]

Then obviously since they founded no church in that city, thus it could not have a name. Then or now.

It has always been the Diocese of Rome, even from the time when it was first established.

It became the headquarters of Christ’s worldwide Church (aka the Catholic Church) when the Apostles (including Peter, who had already been the Pope since 33 AD) were taken there in chains to be held until their executions. Since each successor to Peter appointed a subsequent successor prior to his death, or else the Bishops as a whole appointed successors, they kept the Pope in captivity until about 325 AD. At that time, the leaders of the Church were released. By then, there was nothing for them to return to in Jerusalem, so they remained in Rome- where they have stayed, to this very day. (Mostly.)

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Does that “logic” apply to your denomination also? No city, no apostles, therefore named after a man/founder?

Sure. But then this thread isn’t about St. Paul and St. Peter founding my congregation in my city. It’s about St. Paul and St. Peter founding a congregation in the city of Rome.

Since nothing has been shown to indicate that either did (much less both), thus it comes hard to see how such could have a name - then or now.

Should the Anglicans be termed the Henrys?

People can give whatever name they like to their congregations…

No wonder, since Christ first introduced the word Church (never used in the OT), the word Catholic is combined with Church for the only legitimate use of the two words together.

I haven’t a clue what that has to do with the congregation founded by St. Paul and St. Peter in the City of Rome (especially since it appears they didn’t found one there).

But actually, for centuries, the word “catholic” was used in the only meaning it had, an ADJECTIVE meaning “whole” “universal” “all-embracing” “general.” It’s still used in the original (and for centuries only) meaning of that. LATER, it would evolve a new, secondary, additional meaning: moniker, a proper noun, for a denomination. But that was later.

Thus it is only natural that the entity founded by Christ is the Catholic Church.

Well, I’d discuss whether Jesus founded any specific denomination but I agree He founded the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints. Of course, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with The Catholic Church or any other denomination,. but more importantly, it has nothing to do with this thread, which is about what NAME was given to a congregation founded by St. Paul and St. Peter in the City of Rome. It hasn’t been established that they founded ANY congregation there - thus how can such have a name at all?

.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I’d discuss whether Jesus founded any specific denomination but I agree He founded the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints. Of course, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with The Catholic Church

It has everything to do with the Catholic Church; it’s the one that He founded.

or any other denomination,. but more importantly, it has nothing to do with this thread, which is about what NAME was given to a congregation founded by St. Paul and St. Peter in the City of Rome. It hasn’t been established that they founded ANY congregation there - thus how can such have a name at all?

It became the headquarters of Christ’s worldwide Church (aka the Catholic Church) when the Apostles (including Peter, who had already been the Pope since 33 AD) were taken there in chains to be held until their executions. Since each successor to Peter appointed a subsequent successor prior to his death, or else the Bishops as a whole appointed successors, they kept the Pope in captivity until about 325 AD. At that time, the leaders of the Church were released. By then, there was nothing for them to return to in Jerusalem, so they remained in Rome- where they have stayed, to this very day. (Mostly.)

 

[Javl]

Both Eastern and Western Churches before the split were all called Catholic. It was after the split that the different churches started to claim a different identity besides Catholic ( all consider themselves to be the original Catholic Church ). Someday, soon I hope, we will all just call ourselves Catholic and no loonger use any other means of identity.

I am proud to be Catholic and call myself Roman Catholic to identify myself as belonging to a church that is in communion with the Bishop of Rome ( Pope ). Also Roman Catholic since the governance of the Catholic Church is in Rome. At one time to be called Roman Catholic may have been a slur and an insult, but no longer.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[MrS]

Well, I’d discuss whether Jesus founded any specific denomination but I agree He founded the church that is one, holy, catholic - the communion of saints. Of course, that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with The Catholic Church or any other denomination,. but more importantly, it has nothing to do with this thread, which is about what NAME was given to a congregation founded by St. Paul and St. Peter in the City of Rome. It hasn’t been established that they founded ANY congregation there - thus how can such have a name at all?

.

Therein lies the crux of the issue…

That is why so many new groups sprung up during the Reformation, and many more continue to appear today. Each think Jesus said something different than

“… and upon this rock I will build My Church…”

I.… Jesus. Not Martin Luther, Calvin, Smith, or the corner preacher with a gift of gab.

Build.… His rules, His authority, His plan, His apostles etc

My… The entity, Church, belong to Him alone, and is NOT open to what one wishes it could be for their own comfort

Church… Is the Body of Christ for sure. And HE is the head and His rules prevail. They are not subject to a “variety” of interpretation as one chooses.

Catholic, yes. The Church is open to all the universe. All can come and join when God so moves them in that direction. None can come and rearrange the “furniture”.

/

 

[AmericanJosiah]

“… and upon this rock I will build My Church…”

What “rock?” The DNA of Peter the man - in which case the church died in 67 AD when Peter did, or the confession of Peter?

I.… Jesus. Not Martin Luther, Calvin, Smith, or the corner preacher with a gift of gab.

Ah, but Luther and Calvin did not claim to found the one holy catholic church - the communion of saints. They both passionately believed, taught and confessed that JESUS founded His church. And it still continues to this day, and it still is one, holy and catholic, and it still is the communion of saints. The idea that Jesus founded a denomination is unique to The Catholic Chruch and the LDS Church (as far as I know; maybe other denominations claim that too).

Build.… His rules, His authority, His plan, His apostles etc

Yup, that is the Protestant position. He is the sole Lord of His church. Not any human being. Not any denomination. Not me, not you, not anyone. There is one Lord - and He is Jesus.

My… The entity, Church, belong to Him alone, and is NOT open to what one wishes it could be for their own comfort

Yup, that is the Protestant position. It is HIS church - not any denomination. It’s not me (“Me” meaning any congregation or denomination), it’s HIS. I’m not the authority, He is.

Church… Is the Body of Christ for sure. And HE is the head and His rules prevail. They are not subject to a “variety” of interpretation as one chooses.

Yup, that is the Protestant position. “Church” means gathering, assembly - and it means PEOPLE. Only PEOPLE have faith, only PEOPLE are Christians - thus His Church is PEOPLE. It’s not a denomination. And yes HE is the head - not any man. And yes, one man or group of men are not “right” even if they insist that they are or even if they are bishops in a certain denomination. ALL are accountable.

Catholic, yes. The Church is open to all the universe. All can come and join when God so moves them in that direction. None can come and rearrange the “furniture”.

Yup, allthough the word is little “c” - the original meaning as an adjective. By the work of the Holy Spirit, by virtue of our faith in Christ, we are TOGETHER the church, the Body of Christ. It’s not a denomionation, it’s a communion.

**
Now, how does any of that substantiate that St. Paul and St. Peter founded any congregation in the city of Rome, and what moniker was given to such at the time? **



.

 

[Reuben_J]

Sure. But then this thread isn’t about St. Paul and St. Peter founding my congregation in my city. It’s about St. Paul and St. Peter founding a congregation in the city of Rome.

Since nothing has been shown to indicate that either did (much less both), thus it comes hard to see how such could have a name - then or now.

…

I haven’t a clue what that has to do with the congregation founded by St. Paul and St. Peter in the City of Rome (especially since it appears they didn’t found one there).

…

It hasn’t been established that they founded ANY congregation there - thus how can such have a name at all?

.

Huh? ??? What did St. Peter did in Rome then?

Sure, churches then were not like they were now, but church he nevertheless started in Rome. Many Christians were to be found in Rome albeit underground so much so St. Paul needed to write a pastoral letter to them. If Paul deemed it necessary to write to Christians in Rome, a logical thinking would be to where that letter would be addressed to, if not to the church there.

Does not matter whether there was church building or not, but certainly the letter to the Romans found its way to those responsible for the congregation there and for it to be preserved until today. Once reaching Rome, the content of the letter had to be disseminated to the followers. You have to have a church for that to happen normally.

BTW, how could there be Christians without a church?

You have been given the list of apostolic successions, the early Popes after St. Peter in Rome.

 

[Reuben_J]

What “rock?” The DNA of Peter the man - in which case the church died in 67 AD when Peter did, or the confession of Peter?

.

The passage concerned is self explained. Obviously the rock is Peter. Obviously that is what Jesus would build his church upon - Peter and of course, because of his confession.

Then he said the Gate of Hell will not prevail against this church, definitely saying that it would not die off with Peter.

 

[AmericanJosiah]

Huh? ??? What did St. Peter did in Rome then?

The issue before us is WHAT was the moniker of the congregation in Rome that St. Paul and St. Peter founded. Well, there’s zero evidence that they founded ANY congregation there - so therefore, it could not have had any name: then or now. Obviously.

There’s ZERO evidence - from Scripture or Tradition or history - that Peter or Paul were even in that city before the 60’s, and yet the congregation there seems to have been founded in the 40’s. Thus, they could not have founded or established it.

When Paul writes to the congregation around 57 AD, it is obvious he had never been there. And yet obviously, a congregation exists there because he’s writing to it. Thus, how could he have founded it? Obviously, he could not. And while an allusion in Scripture and certainly Tradition places Peter there, such is at least 20 years AFTER that congregation was established. Reality: neither of these saints had a thing to do with the founding or establishing of the congregation in Rome. They never founded one there, so obviously such could not have had a name: then or now.

the church he nevertheless started in Rome.

Neither started any church in Rome. Sorry, it’s just history.

Many Christians were to be found in Rome albeit underground so much so St. Paul needed to write a pastoral letter to them. If Paul deemed it necessary to write to Christians in Rome, a logical thinking would be to where that letter would be addressed to, if not to the church there.

Does not matter whether there was church building or not, but certainly the letter to the Romans found its way to those responsible for the congregation there and for it to be preserved until today. Once reaching Rome, the content of the letter had to be disseminated to the followers. You have to have a church for that to happen normally.

Yup, and since Paul had not been to Rome, OBVIOUSLY he could not have founded or established the church there. Just as you noted.

BTW, how could there be Christians without a church?

Exactly. Thus Paul and Peter could not have founded it.

Since neither of them founded any congregation in Rome, such could not have had a name - then or now. Obviously.

.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Um, I thought the Church was established by Christ…

 

[luckyfredsdad]

The passage concerned is self explained. Obviously the rock is Peter. Obviously that is what Jesus would build his church upon - Peter and of course, because of his confession.

Then he said the Gate of Hell will not prevail against this church, definitely saying that it would not die off with Peter.

You have a cafeteria, pick and mix religion. “Obviously the Rock is Jesus”! There’s nothing obvious about it, the Holy fathers who interpret these scriptures thought it was PETER’S FAITH!! Only in the ghetto is it thought otherwise!
You are inventing a new religion and ruining the ancient one!

 

[josie_L]

You have a cafeteria, pick and mix religion. “Obviously the Rock is Jesus”! There’s nothing obvious about it, the Holy fathers who interpret these scriptures thought it was PETER’S FAITH!! Only in the ghetto is it thought otherwise!
You are inventing a new religion and ruining the ancient one!

Peter’s name was specifically changed to rock (Kephas in the aramaic) in order to signify that Peter the rock was grafted into Jesus the rock (cornerstone) in order to establish the foundations of Christ’s Church. Furthermore, the rock is in reference to Peter as well as his confession of faith (they are not mutually exclusive), and there is a plethora of evidence from the Church fathers to know I speak the truth.

p.s. Do not attempt to malign the universal/Catholic Church luckyfred or I will report you and have you banned.

 

[ricko]

**You have a cafeteria, pick and mix religion. “Obviously the Rock is Jesus”! There’s nothing obvious about it, the Holy fathers who interpret these scriptures thought it was PETER’S FAITH!! Only in the ghetto is it thought otherwise!**You are inventing a new religion and ruining the ancient one!

Quotes from some of the ECF concerning Peter being “The Rock”

Tertullian
“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

Origin
“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ bult the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does out Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 249]).

Cyprian
If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Ambrose
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal” (On Twelve Psalms 40:30 [A.D. 394]).

 

[MrS]

Yep, still waiting.

Amazing sometimes how one who is “outside” the family know what is best for the family. Sure glad that God is God, and He gave us His Church to implement His plan.

.

 

[Formosus]

You have a cafeteria, pick and mix religion. “Obviously the Rock is Jesus”! There’s nothing obvious about it, the Holy fathers who interpret these scriptures thought it was PETER’S FAITH!! Only in the ghetto is it thought otherwise!
You are inventing a new religion and ruining the ancient one!

I think you will find that some fathers say that it was Peter’s confession, others say that it is Peter himself who is the rock. Personally I don’t find them to be contradictory.