Yes or no?

[benjohnson]

Oh, OK.

I do not see the connection with the OP. Seriously, you should start a thread on that very interesting topic.

The connection I’m floundering around with making - would be that in modern times the Pope has said that it is necessary to be in Communion with him in order to be in the Catholic church.

So to define the Catholic church as most Roman Catholics understand it - we must include that definition.

If you were to send me to the 2nd century, I could possible say that I was in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But I can’t say that in this century, even with this good pope. It’s a question of the powers of the office.

My premise if that most people in the 2nd century, if transported into the future, would have all sorts of questions about the Papacy and some of them would say that the modern office of the Pope is something they don’t recognize.

 

[phil19034]

Dissent? Alienated? He did much more than that. He went with an army, conquered Rome and parts surrounding, forced the pope off his throne under threat of death, appointed his own pope who shared his views, and had the popes for the next 250 or so years bow to the authority of the Emperor and Patriarch. Was he “in union” with that first pope he threatened to kill?

No one will argue that we haven’t had bad or perhaps even evil Popes. We have.

Jesus never promised to protect the Church from Judases.

But Christ did promise to protect the Church from teaching error in regards to the teaching of Faith and Morals. No Pope has ever declared Heretical Dogma or Doctrine.

That is the protection that the Church was given. The devil smiles every time someone leaves the Church or whenever a good Christian bashes the Catholic Church.

God Bless

God Bless

 

[dronald]

I have made no such alteration. The synod authorized that many years ago. Anyway, that is in line with the original intent of the authors as they were speaking of the Christian Church which is the catholic, universal church. Not any particular denomination.

Do you see anything biblically wrong with professing the one holy Christian and apostolic church?

I’m surprised they didn’t just say “universal Church.”

 

[phil19034]

The connection I’m floundering around with making - would be that in modern times the Pope has said that it is necessary to be in Communion with him in order to be in the Catholic church.

So to define the Catholic church as most Roman Catholics understand it - we must include that definition.

If you were to send me to the 2nd century, I could possible say that I was in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But I can’t say that in this century, even with this good pope. It’s a question of the powers of the office.

My premise if that most people in the 2nd century, if transported into the future, would have all sorts of questions about the Papacy and some of them would say that the modern office of the Pope is something they don’t recognize.

I don’t think so. If you read the letters of the Fathers, even the other Patriarchs, they all talk about being in union with Chair of Peter or the See of Rome. They even talk about appealing to the Bishop of Rome.

Yes, the administrative role of the Pope has grown as the Church has grown. That’s very true. Just as the role of President of the United States has grown or the British Prime Minister.

Leaders are often asked or forced to take on more responsibility (hence power) to address issues which develop.

Also… Way too many people actually think the Pope has more power than he has. For example, the Pope cannot interfere with a Bishop unless he’s doing something truly Heretical or Evil. The Pope really can’t do anything about a bad bishop except “promote” him to a role in the Roman Curia" or accept his retirement at 75.

Also, the Pope names new Bishops based on the recommendations of the local, nation Catholic bishop’s conference. The Pope obviously doesn’t know all the priests world wide and cannot name new Bishops without help. This has always been the case and the Seat of Peter has always had a “veto” or final say during disagreements.

 

[phil19034]

I’m surprised they didn’t just say “universal Church.”

That’s because the word “catholic” doesn’t just mean “universal.” It also means “being part of the whole.”

The reason the fathers of the Church started calling us “Catholic” was because we were BOTH universal AND part of the whole.

If you read the fathers, you will often see how they will mention that being Catholic meant being in communion with the See of Peter.

These writings start in the late 1st and/or early 2nd century (before the Roman Empire stated sticking their nose into Church business) and up-to the Great Schism. And the MAJORITY of these founders who were quoted were part of the Eastern Rites.

You can be Christian and not be in Communion with Rome. But you cannot be Catholic if you are not in communion with the Chair of Peter.

That’s why the Church of the East isn’t Catholic, after the separated after the 2nd Council, why the Oriental Orthodox are not Catholic after they separated after the 3rd council and why the Eastern Orthodox are not Catholic after they separated after the 7th Council. Even the Old Catholics are not Catholic after separating after Vatican I or the Congregation of Mary Immaculate Queen (CMIR) are not Catholic after separating after Vatican II.

In every schism (not including the Protestant one) that split was over ethnic misunderstandings or what I will call "putting tradition over infallible interpretation.

God Bless

 

[joe371]

I don’t think so. If you read the letters of the Fathers, even the other Patriarchs, they all talk about being in union with Chair of Peter or the See of Rome. They even talk about appealing to the Bishop of Rome.

Yes, the administrative role of the Pope has grown as the Church has grown. That’s very true. Just as the role of President of the United States has grown or the British Prime Minister.

Leaders are often asked or forced to take on more responsibility (hence power) to address issues which develop.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Greetings House,
How about showing us the other catholic church in which Luther did not originate from. I think you will only see the Orthodox lung right?

Peace!!!

Not at all. I see the Oriental Apostolic churches including the Coptic and Armenian Apostolic churches, the Orthodox Tewahedo Church in Africa, the Mar Thoma Churches in the Far East, the Assyrian Church of the East, further there were proto Protestant groups like the Waldensians, and the Lollards, I am sure there are others I am not thinking of.

 

[joe371]

phil19034;12207810]That’s because the word “catholic” doesn’t just mean “universal.” It also means "being part of the whole."

The reason the fathers of the Church started calling us “Catholic” was because we were BOTH universal AND part of the whole.

If you read the fathers, you will often see how they will mention that being Catholic meant being in communion with the See of Peter.

These writings start in the late 1st and/or early 2nd century (before the Roman Empire stated sticking their nose into Church business) and up-to the Great Schism. And the MAJORITY of these founders who were quoted were part of the Eastern Rites.

The Greek roots of the term catholic = “according to (kata-) the whole (holos).” The term was used like you said, as well as referring to a single, visible communion, distinguishing the catholic church from other movements.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m surprised they didn’t just say “universal Church.”

That’s what universal means.

The Greek word (adjective): καθολικός (katholikos). It comes from the Greek καθόλου (katholou), which means: “on the whole”, “according to the whole”.

The English word “catholic” is derived from the Latin “catholicus” (Which comes from the Greek above).

So they used this term to mean: “The Church as a Whole” or “The Whole Church”.

The West has kept this Tradition since that first Church. It later was identified as the Latins and inevitably Roman.

Some people will do anything to deny this. That’s their problem not mine. I don’t go around redefining things in order to fit my purpose…

 

[joe371]

No one will argue that we haven’t had bad or perhaps even evil Popes. We have.

Jesus never promised to protect the Church from Judases.

But Christ did promise to protect the Church from teaching error in regards to the teaching of Faith and Morals. No Pope has ever declared Heretical Dogma or Doctrine.

That is the protection that the Church was given. The devil smiles every time someone leaves the Church or whenever a good Christian bashes the Catholic Church.

God Bless

God Bless

Exactly.

The devil probably smiles when good Christian belonging to the catholic church bash a protestant church, something I have not seen too often, thank God.

 

[joe371]

The connection I’m floundering around with making - would be that in modern times the Pope has said that it is necessary to be in Communion with him in order to be in the Catholic church.

So to define the Catholic church as most Roman Catholics understand it - we must include that definition.

If you were to send me to the 2nd century, I could possible say that I was in communion with the Bishop of Rome. But I can’t say that in this century, even with this good pope. It’s a question of the powers of the office.

My premise if that most people in the 2nd century, if transported into the future, would have all sorts of questions about the Papacy and some of them would say that the modern office of the Pope is something they don’t recognize.

Phil addresses the atter quite nicely, in my humble opinion:

Yes, the administrative role of the Pope has grown as the Church has grown. That’s very true. Just as the role of President of the United States has grown or the British Prime Minister.

Leaders are often asked or forced to take on more responsibility (hence power) to address issues which develop.

I’m telling, this separate topic would make for a great thread Ben. :juggle:LOL…

 

[joe371]

Not at all. I see the Oriental Apostolic churches including the Coptic and Armenian Apostolic churches, the Orthodox Tewahedo Church in Africa, the Mar Thoma Churches in the Far East, the Assyrian Church of the East, further there were proto Protestant groups like the Waldensians, and the Lollards, I am sure there are others I am not thinking of.

Very true. ML and subsequent protestant churches are all offshoots of the one catholic church, in union with the Petrine office.

 

[joe371]

Even today, there is only one Holy Catholic Church. The “Roman Catholic Church” is only PART of the Catholic Church (yes, the largest part, but only part). “Roman Catholic” refers to the Roman Rite of the Latin Church.

The term became popular in English due to the Anglicans as a way to distinguish the fact that Catholics were loyal to the Pope and were viewed as being disloyal to the King of England.

The few times that “Roman Catholic” was even mentioned by Catholics before the time of Henry VIII was simply to differentiate the Roman Rite from other Latin and Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church (who are ALL in union with the Bishop of Rome).

Anyone who says anything else is simply wrong.

Another fact that people need to understand is that there were different Rites in the West before the Council of Trent made most Catholics use the Roman Rite. Norway, Sweeden, England, etc all had their own Rites and Uses. When the Pope suppressed the newer Rites in favor of the Roman Rite, I’m sure this angered some and lead to more revolts in the Northwestern Europe.

God Bless

Great point.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Oh, I did not know that the synod had the authority to alter the Nicene creed?

Unlike you, and my use of a big C, I see nothing wrong with your church professing the one holy Christian and apostolic church.

Oh, I did not know that the synod had the authority to alter the Nicene creed?

It does. It has as much authority to alter its own liturgy as the Roman Catholic Church has to alter its own liturgy.

Unlike you, and my use of a big C, I see nothing wrong with your church professing the one holy Christian and apostolic church

Thanks!

 

[joe371]

It does. It has as much authority to alter its own liturgy as the Roman Catholic Church has to alter its own liturgy.

:yup:That makes sense.

 

[adf417]

I’m surprised they didn’t just say “universal Church.”

Often wondered this myself.

 

[adf417]

Not at all. I see the Oriental Apostolic churches including the Coptic and Armenian Apostolic churches, the Orthodox Tewahedo Church in Africa, the Mar Thoma Churches in the Far East, the Assyrian Church of the East, further there were proto Protestant groups like the Waldensians, and the Lollards, I am sure there are others I am not thinking of.

So why was it such a big deal (struggle) for Luther to leave the Catholic Church? Why not join one of these communities you describe above? You do agree it was one of the biggest events in Christianity for Luther to leave the Catholic Church, right? Today when someone leaves the Catholic Church there is not quite the same hoop-la, why is that? Isn’t It because he [Luther] started something no one else would do? He left the “One”-Holy-Catholic-and Apostolic Church. Why else do you consider him your “hero” (I believe I have heard you say)?

Peace!!!

 

[JonNC]

There is only One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and that is the Catholic Church, which was founded by Our Lord and Savior, God the Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ about 2,000 years ago…

From the Augsburg Confession:
Also they [churches of the Augsburg Confession]** teach that one holy Church is to continue forever.**
and
** …in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic. **

Lutherans believe, as taught in the Augsburg Confession, that there is one Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we are a part, a communion within it, a tradition within it. Not a separate Church, but indeed members of the one holy Church.

…on the Rock of Saint Peter, our first Pope.
Jesus said Himself, “Thou art Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of netherworld shall NEVER prevail against it.”

While its a projection back into history to say that St. Peter was the first Pope, but no Lutheran would deny what you have said here (though we might quibble that the Rock of St. Peter has a great deal to do with his confession).

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Latin and Greek have nothing to do with my reason for capitalizing catholic. I use it, to make a distinction between the “invisible” catholic church which all Christians, regardless of denomination, belong, and the** visible catholic church in union with the Petrine office**. It’s really quite harmless…

Hi Joe,
Its this, Joe. I would say that the capitalized Catholic Church can and often does mean both, or either.
I am a member of the visible Catholic Church. It must be visible because it is where one hears the word and receives the sacraments. Catholics in communion with the Bishop of Rome do that, so do Orthodox, and Lutherans, and others.

Catholic Church can also mean, specifically, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Perhaps the distinction in the Augsburg Confession of “Church Catholic” is a good one, which avoids confusion.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

One non-Catholic asked me to capitalize the C to make a distinction between the visible catholic church which I belong to and the “invisible” catholic church; you disagree with that person. Hmmm…I am rather torn…Should I listen to him or you?

Listen to me.

I was recently criticized for capitalizing “Evangelical Catholic” in my profile. I believe that term better clarifies what I identify myself as being. I am Catholic in the evangelical tradition, commonly known as Lutheran.

Assuming House is being serious, and not facetious, I disagree with him.
I do not mind sounding “too Catholic”. The very fact that we are a liturgical, sacramental communion makes us very Catholic, particularly in the eyes of other protestants.
Since I am a member of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, I am not willing to cede the capitalized name “Catholic” to only those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, though they have an equal claim to it as members of the universal Church Catholic.
I believe it is an unnecessary distinction to replace the word Catholic in the Nicene Creed with Christian, as is done in the LCMS Lutheran Service Book (ironically, they didn’t make the change in the Athanasian Creed, but kept the term catholic ).

Jon