Catholic, Roman Catholic, Non Catholic, Protestant & Catholic.

LordSutch

There's an awful lot of talk about Catholic (this, that, and the other) here on the Christianity forum, there's also a lot of talk about "Non-Catholics" what ever they are..

So hot on the heels of an ongoing discussion on the 'Communion thread' I thought it would be a good idea to have a dedicated Catholic (meaning of) thread here, so that the other thread won't be derailed from its main theme of Communion.

So I'll kick off with some disambiguation regarding the use of the word Catholic in relation to the Anglican Church of Ireland, and we can take it from there in a good natured & Christian manner .......

Protestant and Catholic. http://ireland.anglican.org/information/6

Thank you K, for being the inspiration for this thread :-)

newmug

To me, Catholic is just a shortened version of "Roman Catholic". It is the biggest and original Christian denomination, and I would think most people identify the word Catholic with Roman Catholicism.

Anything other than RC is Protestantism. So to me, Anglican "Catholics" are really Protestants. Sure isnt it against the Catholic/Universal nature of the church being unified under one leader they were protesting about in the first place. (Catholic is the Greek word for Universal).

Also, the association with england and all things british among Protstants here in Ireland creates another clear divide between them and RC followers, who usually identify with Ireland and all things Gaelic. Now I know that is more political than religious, but I cant imagine members of the orange order calling themselves "Church of Ireland" or "Anglican Catholics". And if there truly were some Irish people who wished to protest against the Pope's stewardship of the one true unified and original Christian Church, why dont they call themselves "Irish Catholics"? Why the Anglician bit?

The only place I ever found this whole confusion about the word Catholic is here on boards, ironically, mostly by Protestant posters.

uck51js9zml2yt

Having once been a Roman Catholic. I left but am definitely not defined as Protestant.
As for it being the original, the early church was not Roman Catholic.
This differentian came with the split between the eastern and western pontiffs which was at a time later than the origins of the church.

newmug

Devon Sharp Bass wrote: »

Having once been a Roman Catholic. I left but am definitely not defined as Protestant.
As for it being the original, the early church was not Roman Catholic.
This differentian came with the split between the eastern and western pontiffs which was at a time later than the origins of the church.

Ah now it was. St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Hence "Roman" Catholic.

uck51js9zml2yt

newmug wrote: »

Ah now it was. St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Hence "Roman" Catholic.

Says who? The Roman Catholic Denomination !!

If you read the Acts of the Apostles correctly, it says Peter was one of 3 who were recognised as leaders in the Church in Jerusalem.
The only time Peter went to Rome was to be executed.

newmug

Devon Sharp Bass wrote: »

Says who? The Roman Catholic Denomination !!

If you read the Acts of the Apostles correctly, it says Peter was one of 3 who were recognised as leaders in the Church in Jerusalem.
The only time Peter went to Rome was to be executed.

Come on missus. This is historical fact. St. Peter was the leader of the apostles, he was the one Jesus handed the reigns of power to when He departed, he was the bishop all the subordinate bishops reported to, Peter is the word for "rock"...... "Upon this rock I will build my Church".

And yes, when he was murdered, it happened to be in Rome. Hence the administrative beginnings of Jesus's Church grew from there. The Vatican stands on his grave. What a headstone! These are historical truths even to non-believers. And it was called the "Christian" church right up until other people decided to break away. Hence the break-away-ers are not the original denomination, St. Peters line is, directly back to Christ Himself. So says all 3.5 billion of us who didnt break away, and made a conscious decision to stay with the Jesus's original Church, eventhough its not perfect seeing as its being ran by mere mortals.

Having a different mere mortal in charge doesnt change Jesus's message, OR the fact that nobody's perfect. All being in a break-away denomination does is puts another degree of separation there between you and Jesus.

Manach

Historically speaking from a number of texts, the Catholic Church was the original Christian institution from Roman times. Various schisms from that, main Orthodox & Protestant, have formed and each now claim the foundation authority from that original church. However in popular parlance, Catholic is almost always synomious with Roman Catholic.

uck51js9zml2yt

Firstly ,I'm not "missus".
Secondly, you really need yo do some general reading on church history.
Thirdly, the original language says you are Peter (a pebble) and upon this Rock (Jesus ) the Church would be built.
The 3 recognised leaders in Jerusalem were Peter, James and John. Unfortunately it took persecution of the church for them to do what they were told and " go into the world and preach"
There is nothing in Scriptute to say any of the other Apostles were subordinate to Peter.
The only reference which may be seen as subordination was Paul checking with the leaders in Jerusalem to confirm the Revelation he was given. His Revelation changed a lot of thinking among the early Church as to what should be adhered to by Gentile Converts. It was then agreed that Paul should go to the Gentiles, while Peter would go to the Jews. So if anyone had more influence on us Gentiles, it was Paul.

Edit : I'm not a member of any of the Protestant churches so by definition ,I'm not Protestant.

Benny_Cake

newmug wrote: »

To me, Catholic is just a shortened version of "Roman Catholic". It is the biggest and original Christian denomination, and I would think most people identify the word Catholic with Roman Catholicism.

Anything other than RC is Protestantism. So to me, Anglican "Catholics" are really Protestants. Sure isnt it against the Catholic/Universal nature of the church being unified under one leader they were protesting about in the first place. (Catholic is the Greek word for Universal).

There is a tendency in Western Europe to forget 100s of millions of Orthodox and Coptic Christians, who trace themselves back to the apostles just as Roman Catholics do. The Eastern Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox are definitely not Protestants. I think that JP2 compared the Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians as two lungs which were complementary.

hinault

newmug wrote: »

To me, Catholic is just a shortened version of "Roman Catholic". It is the biggest and original Christian denomination, and I would think most people identify the word Catholic with Roman Catholicism.

Anything other than RC is Protestantism. So to me, Anglican "Catholics" are really Protestants. Sure isnt it against the Catholic/Universal nature of the church being unified under one leader they were protesting about in the first place. (Catholic is the Greek word for Universal).

Also, the association with england and all things british among Protstants here in Ireland creates another clear divide between them and RC followers, who usually identify with Ireland and all things Gaelic. Now I know that is more political than religious, but I cant imagine members of the orange order calling themselves "Church of Ireland" or "Anglican Catholics". And if there truly were some Irish people who wished to protest against the Pope's stewardship of the one true unified and original Christian Church, why dont they call themselves "Irish Catholics"? Why the Anglician bit?

The only place I ever found this whole confusion about the word Catholic is here on boards, ironically, mostly by Protestant posters.

I couldn't have said it better, Newmug.

Peregrinus

OK. It will come as no suprise to grownups to learn that (a) a word can have more than one meaning, depending on the context in which it is used, and (b) the meaning(s) of a word can change over time. To which I'd add (c) nobody owns a word - no individual, no group.

"Catholic", as we all know, is from the Greek and it means something like "universal, with respect to the whole, on the whole, in general". In a churchy context, it's first recorded in the early second century - AD 107, to be exact, used by Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Church at Smyrna. He uses it to make the distinct between (but also to emphasis the connection between) the Church at Smyrna and the Catholic, or Universal, Church.

Initially, it's just used to make the point that every local or particular church is part of a greater whole, united in faith, in practice, in mutual recognition. But by later in the second century it has acquired an argumentative sense. "Catholic" is used in contrast to "schismatic" or "sectarian". Basically what seems to be going on here is an acceptance that differences of belief or practice are not necessarily destructive of the unity of the church. Some are minor, and are simply things that the church can agree to disagree about. (Do we celebrate confirmation at the same time as baptism, or later? Do we ordain married men?) Others are more important, and there's a recognition of a need to arrive at a shared position. But as long as the two (or more) sides are committed to trying to find a common common position together - talking to one another, listening to one another, meeting in councils, etc, etc - it's OK that they haven't yet found that common position. But when one group take the view that "this is our position, we don't care what other churches believe or do" - that's not "Catholic"; that's destructive of the unity of the church; that's sectarian.

So if the differing sides meet in a council to try and hammer things out, they are both behaving in a Catholic way, even if they don't reach any agreement (or any agreement that "sticks" for very long). But if they refuse even to come to the council, they are rejecting Catholicism. Or if they refuse to accept a position hammered out at a council, that's not Catholic.

The term didn't signify a particular denomination until the Protestant Reformation. There were certainly divisions in the church before then, but they tended to be characterised as, e.g. Latin vs. Greek. But even during the Great Schism, when the western and eastern churches weren't talking to one another, and had excommunicated one another's leaders, they were still both "Catholic" in the sense that they felt there should be a single shared position on all matters of significance; they just didn't agree on what that position should be or how it should be arrived at.

It isn't until the Protestant reformation that we have Christian traditions that challenge the whole notion of Catholicism. Protestantism lays great stress on the unmediated relationship between the individual and God; a corollary of that is relatively less stress on the Christian community. For these traditions of Protestantism, unity of practice and/or belief among all Christians is simply not a priority. Shared baptism, and shared faith in Christ, is all the unity that the church requires.

At this point we start to see "Catholic" being used as a denominational identifier, for the principal denomination which holds that a shared approach to faith and and worship, and a commitment to a common approach to exploring faith and settling disagreement, are essential. And, to Protestants, the denomination which most strongly insisted on that was the one we now know as [Roman] Catholicism. If Protestantism had arisen in Eastern Europe rather than Western Europe, it's probably the Eastern Orthodox Church that would now be called "Catholic".

Anglicans, as we know from other threads, consider themselves to be both Protestant and Catholic. Protestant, because the protested the errors of Rome. But Catholic, because they look for a higher degree of universality in practice and belief than some of the other Protestant traditions - e.g. alone among the Protestant traditions they retained the episcopacy as a central instrument of unity.

Although Anglicans consider themselves Catholic, it's not a distinctive characteristic of that tradition (because, of course, Catholics also consider themselves Catholic) so it doesn't become part of the name of that tradition. Sometimes there are distinctions drawn between "Catholic" with an upper-case 'C'. to refer to the denomination, and "catholic", with a lower-case 'c' to refer to the universality of the church, and sometimes that's useful. But sometimes it's just a typographic preference.

LordSutch

Catholic = Universal.
Catholic = Anglican.
Catholic = Roman Catholic.

In normal speak Catholic = Roman Catholic (RC).

The term Non Catholic is a troublesome term for obvious reasons.
Anglicans are also of the Catholic Church (but not of the Roman branch).

santing

Thanks Peregrinus for your clear explanation.

So it was around AD 1560 that the word 'catholic' started to be used as a differentiator rather than our common heritage ... before that it nearly always means the same as 'Christian.'

Compare for instance also the usage of the word catholic in 'catholic epistles' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic+epistles:)

Catholic Epistles in the Bible
the epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; so called because they are addressed to Christians in general, and not to any church or person in particular.

We could also look at Ireland in AD 1180 where the Norman Conquest from a 'catholic' people (Roman Rite) in a 'catholic' country (Not (exclusively) Roman Rite led to a drastic church 'reformation' which resulted in creation of dioceses, new bishops, new rules for baptism and marriage, church tax, new rules for monasteries etc....

credoie

santing wrote: »

Thanks Peregrinus for your clear explanation.

So it was around AD 1560 that the word 'catholic' started to be used as a differentiator rather than our common heritage ... before that it nearly always means the same as 'Christian.'

Compare for instance also the usage of the word catholic in 'catholic epistles'

We could also look at Ireland in AD 1180 where the Norman Conquest from a 'catholic' people (Roman Rite) in a 'catholic' country (Not (exclusively) Roman Rite led to a drastic church 'reformation' which resulted in creation of dioceses, new bishops, new rules for baptism and marriage, church tax, new rules for monasteries etc....

The Church was always unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Orthodox Church professes the same Creed. They name themselves Ortho-Dox.. Right believers.

The Catholic Church is a communion of various church's in communion with Rome. If you went to Lebanon you would find the Maronite Church, which is not Roman, but which is Catholic, it has Married Priests and its own Liturgical Rite.

In Ukraine there are several million Catholics which are Greek-Catholic, their own church. They name their own bishops, Married men may be ordained priests. However they are in communion with Rome, and form part of the Universal Catholic Church (the one with the Pope)

If other Churches want to call themselves Catholic, then so be it.

santing

credoie wrote: »

The Church was always unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Orthodox Church professes the same Creed.

"was always" is hard to prove ... this is first added in the second Nicene Creed (i.e. 381 versus 325). And even then it is years after the apostles died.

But yes, you are correct that the Celtic churches considered themselves in communion with Rome, and they were quite betrayed with the Laudabiliter.
Communion didn't seem to mean subjected to the bishop of Rome and that was corrected by the church reforms of the synod of Kells.

newmug

credoie wrote: »

The Church was always unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Orthodox Church professes the same Creed. They name themselves Ortho-Dox.. Right believers.

The Catholic Church is a communion of various church's in communion with Rome. If you went to Lebanon you would find the Maronite Church, which is not Roman, but which is Catholic, it has Married Priests and its own Liturgical Rite.

In Ukraine there are several million Catholics which are Greek-Catholic, their own church. They name their own bishops, Married men may be ordained priests. However they are in communion with Rome, and form part of the Universal Catholic Church (the one with the Pope)

If other Churches want to call themselves Catholic, then so be it.

I'm sorry but no, not "so be it"! All these churches are different denominations, with different rules and different origins. Just because you call yourself something doesnt make it so. The OP asked what "Catholic" should mean - Peregrinus made a good point that one interpretation of the word means that all the various denominations are friendly towards each other. Fair enough, he/she's probably technically right. But to lay people, to the vast, vast, vast majority of the world's population, Christian or otherwise, common use of Catholic means Roman Catholic, the unadulterated, dominant, original Christian Church with its beginnings straight from Jesus. Anything else is not truly "Catholic" in the ordinary sense of the word, and having it in their name doesnt magically make it so.

katydid

newmug wrote: »

To me, Catholic is just a shortened version of "Roman Catholic". It is the biggest and original Christian denomination, and I would think most people identify the word Catholic with Roman Catholicism.

Anything other than RC is Protestantism. So to me, Anglican "Catholics" are really Protestants. Sure isnt it against the Catholic/Universal nature of the church being unified under one leader they were protesting about in the first place. (Catholic is the Greek word for Universal).

Also, the association with england and all things british among Protstants here in Ireland creates another clear divide between them and RC followers, who usually identify with Ireland and all things Gaelic. Now I know that is more political than religious, but I cant imagine members of the orange order calling themselves "Church of Ireland" or "Anglican Catholics". And if there truly were some Irish people who wished to protest against the Pope's stewardship of the one true unified and original Christian Church, why dont they call themselves "Irish Catholics"? Why the Anglician bit?

The only place I ever found this whole confusion about the word Catholic is here on boards, ironically, mostly by Protestant posters.

It's hardly ironic that Anglicans, who are just as much Catholic as Roman Catholics, would question the misuse of the term "Catholic" by Roman Catholics...

Look, Anglicans are called Anglicans because their denomination of Christianity originated in England. They are part of a union of churches which has that in common. Roman Catholics are called Roman Catholics because their denomination is administered from Rome.

While there is a certain dilemma for people in NI, NI unionists and OO members who are members of the CofI are happy to identify as such. And here in the Republic, CofI members are just ordinary Irish people like you. There is no English connection.

Church of Ireland people are indeed Irish Catholics. But it would be inaccurate to describe ourselves as Irish Catholics exclusively, as Roman Catholics are also Irish Catholics...:pac:

katydid

newmug wrote: »

Ah now it was. St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Hence "Roman" Catholic.

He may have been, but the leadership of the Christian church didn't always lie with the bishop of Rome. The history of the early church is a saga of conflict between different parts of the Christian world for leadership.

The original church, of which Peter may or may not have been bishop, is not the same as the various denominations that exist today. The original church no longer exists.

katydid

newmug wrote: »

Come on missus. This is historical fact. St. Peter was the leader of the apostles, he was the one Jesus handed the reigns of power to when He departed, he was the bishop all the subordinate bishops reported to, Peter is the word for "rock"...... "Upon this rock I will build my Church".

And yes, when he was murdered, it happened to be in Rome. Hence the administrative beginnings of Jesus's Church grew from there. The Vatican stands on his grave. What a headstone! These are historical truths even to non-believers. And it was called the "Christian" church right up until other people decided to break away. Hence the break-away-ers are not the original denomination, St. Peters line is, directly back to Christ Himself. So says all 3.5 billion of us who didnt break away, and made a conscious decision to stay with the Jesus's original Church, eventhough its not perfect seeing as its being ran by mere mortals.

Having a different mere mortal in charge doesnt change Jesus's message, OR the fact that nobody's perfect. All being in a break-away denomination does is puts another degree of separation there between you and Jesus.

IF Peter was the founder of the Christian church in Rome, he was part of a movement that was springing up all over the Eastern Mediterranean. From the very beginning, there were divisions and splits in the church. The only reason the Roman branch came out on top was the support from the Emperor Constantine.

Politics...

katydid

credoie wrote: »

The Church was always unam, sanctam, cathólicam et apostólicam Ecclésiam. One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Orthodox Church professes the same Creed. They name themselves Ortho-Dox.. Right believers.

The Catholic Church is a communion of various church's in communion with Rome. If you went to Lebanon you would find the Maronite Church, which is not Roman, but which is Catholic, it has Married Priests and its own Liturgical Rite.

In Ukraine there are several million Catholics which are Greek-Catholic, their own church. They name their own bishops, Married men may be ordained priests. However they are in communion with Rome, and form part of the Universal Catholic Church (the one with the Pope)

If other Churches want to call themselves Catholic, then so be it.

And if Roman Catholics want to claim that they are the only real Catholics, so be it.

katydid

newmug wrote: »

I'm sorry but no, not "so be it"! All these churches are different denominations, with different rules and different origins. Just because you call yourself something doesnt make it so. The OP asked what "Catholic" should mean - Peregrinus made a good point that one interpretation of the word means that all the various denominations are friendly towards each other. Fair enough, he/she's probably technically right. But to lay people, to the vast, vast, vast majority of the world's population, Christian or otherwise, common use of Catholic means Roman Catholic, the unadulterated, dominant, original Christian Church with its beginnings straight from Jesus. Anything else is not truly "Catholic" in the ordinary sense of the word, and having it in their name doesnt magically make it so.

Dominant and original are not interchangeable. It may be, through an accident of history, dominant, but it certainly isn't original. The original church hasn't existed for the best part of two thousand years.

LordSutch

newmug wrote: »

...butt to lay people, to the vast, vast, vast majority of the world's population, Christian or otherwise, common use of Catholic means Roman Catholic, the unadulterated, dominant, original Christian Church with its beginnings straight from Jesus. Anything else is not truly "Catholic" in the ordinary sense of the word, and having it in their name doesnt magically make it so.

I think it all boils to prefix 'Roman'.

If its there we know exactly what denomination is specified, and if the prefix is missing, then it could mean Anglican or Roman Catholic, although the chances are Catholic refers to Roman Catholic > which is not to deny that the C of I is not Catholic in it's teaching & beliefs.

You mention that the RC Church is the "unadulterated, dominant, original Christian Church" which surely hints that other Christian Churches are not the real McCoy! ... then you say anything else is not truly Catholic.


Ouch!

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

You mention that the RC Church is the "unadulterated, dominant, original Christian Church" which surely hints that other Christian Churches are not the real McCoy! ... then you say anything else is not truly Catholic.

The ones dating from 1517 to the present day are all derivations starting with Martin Luther.

Peregrinus

katydid wrote: »

It's hardly ironic that Anglicans, who are just as much Catholic as Roman Catholics, would question the misuse of the term "Catholic" by Roman Catholics...
Church of Ireland people are indeed Irish Catholics. But it would be inaccurate to describe ourselves as Irish Catholics exclusively, as Roman Catholics are also Irish Catholics...:pac:

Well, yes, but equally we could question the title "Church of Ireland". Yes, it's a church and, yes, it's an Irish church, but it's not the Irish church; just one of many that could equally call themselves churches of Ireland. And of course the "Church of Ireland" title did start out as embodying a claim of exclusivity, of priority, of national representation. It no longer does, but nobody in the church has felt the need to change the name, and anybody outside the church who quibble about the name will likely be regarded as petty and pedantic.

The fact is that pretty well all church titles invoke characteristics that are not unique. The Church of Ireland is not the only Irish church. The Presbyterian Church of Ireland is not the only Irish church which is presbyterian in government. The Catholic church is not the only church which considers itself Catholic. The Orthodox churches are not the only churches which consider themselves orthodox. The Baptist churches are not the only ones which practise baptism. And so forth.

In most contexts, its pretty easy to work out when somebody using the word "Catholic" is using in the sense of a church whose Catholicism is expressed in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or in a wider sense. If disambiguation is needed, the qualifier "Roman" is available, but it's not often needed. It's not part of the formal title of the church, just as "Anglican" isn't part of the formal title of the Church of Ireland.

Peregrinus

santing wrote: »

So it was around AD 1560 that the word 'catholic' started to be used as a differentiator rather than our common heritage ... before that it nearly always means the same as 'Christian.'

Not quite. It's original meaning was "Christian in communion with other Christians", as opposed to "Christian but striking out independently and therefore damaging/destroying the unity of the church".

LordSutch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite. It's original meaning was "Christian in communion with other Christians", as opposed to "Christian but striking out independently and therefore damaging/destroying the unity of the church".

Well if you're talking about the reformation, then surely that was a good thing (at the time) in relation to stripping back all the layers of non Christian practises that had crept into the Church!

The Protestants were protesting at the loss of the true message, Rome wouldn't reform and "get back to basics" so the Catholic Church split into two Catholic & Apostolic churches. One Church (RC) continued as before..... while the reformed Catholic churches got back to the basic message of Christianity, minus the layers of "old wallpaper" that needed to be removed.

That's one way of looking at the reformation.

Peregrinus

LordSutch wrote: »

Well if you're talking about the reformation, then surely that was a good thing . . .

Yes, it was. Or, it wasn't. Depending on your point of view.

In this thread, which is devoted to exploring what various terms mean and how they are used, it's not necessary and almost certainly not helpful to get sidetracked into arguments about who is "right" in the various disputes in relation to which the terms are employed.

In the reformation, Protestants raised a long list of objections to what they saw as errors and abuses in the church. In many cases, there would be agreement on all sides that they their objections were well-founded. E.g. Luther, famously, objected to the sale of indulgences. Everyone accepts that he was right to do so, and in fact at the Council of Trent the Catholic church took his views on board, banned the sale of indulgences and made it an excommunicable offence. So that was, by general consensus, a "good" criticism.

With regard to other objections, agreement was not so readily reached - e.g. Zwinglian criticism of Catholic belief in the Real Presence was not only not "good" from a Catholic perspective, but also not "good" from most Protestant perspectives; Lutherans, Calvinists and Anglicans all rejected it (and still do). But presumably the Zwinglians thought that their objections were "good".

But most of this is a side-show as regards the issue in this thread, which was what "catholic" means. Pretty well all Christian denominations agree that the church is, and must be, Catholic - it's right there in the Creed. But they disagree about what catholicism requires. What relationship, exactly, does a Christian have to stand in with respect to other Christians for the church to be Catholic?

Over in the blue corner, you have the most Protestant Protestants, who say that common baptism is all that is required. In the red corner, your [Roman] Catholics who say that mutual recognition, shared worship, a shared approach to exploration of the faith, a shared episcopacy, a shared adherence to the teaching authority and the jurisdiction of the church , agreement on the popes and councils as the instruments through which that authority and that jurisdiction are expressed, etc, etc represents the degree catholicity to which the church is called. But this is not a simple binary; at any number of points in between those two corners, we have various Christian denominations saying "Catholicicity calls for this, yes, but not for that".

Is it good that the church divided on this issue? Your mileage may vary but in my opinion, frankly, no. The end result was opposing camps, each defining themselves in opposition to one another, which had all the polarising effect that you would expect on both camps. The Catholic church became much more centralised, much more subject to Rome, after the reformation than it was before - too much jurisdiction. Protestantism became (and remains) extremely splintered, with two many groups and communities who hold that they don't have to scrutinise either their faith or their actions by reference to what other Christians say to them - too little communion. I think both traditions have suffered as a result of that, and we are only beginning to repair some of the damage to each of them.

hinault

LordSutch wrote: »

The Protestants were protesting at the loss of the true message, Rome wouldn't reform and "get back to basics" so the Catholic Church split into two Catholic & Apostolic churches. One Church (RC) continued as before..... while the reformed Catholic churches got back to the basic message of Christianity, minus the layers of "old wallpaper" that needed to be removed.

That's one way of looking at the reformation.

That is one way of looking at the reformation.

uck51js9zml2yt

Apart from the reformation , there was always a stream of belief outside the main churches.

Broadbents Church History is worth reading.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite. It's original meaning was "Christian in communion with other Christians", as opposed to "Christian but striking out independently and therefore damaging/destroying the unity of the church".

Every branch of Christianity extant today originated from groups who did that.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, but equally we could question the title "Church of Ireland". Yes, it's a church and, yes, it's an Irish church, but it's not the Irish church; just one of many that could equally call themselves churches of Ireland. And of course the "Church of Ireland" title did start out as embodying a claim of exclusivity, of priority, of national representation. It no longer does, but nobody in the church has felt the need to change the name, and anybody outside the church who quibble about the name will likely be regarded as petty and pedantic.

The fact is that pretty well all church titles invoke characteristics that are not unique. The Church of Ireland is not the only Irish church. The Presbyterian Church of Ireland is not the only Irish church which is presbyterian in government. The Catholic church is not the only church which considers itself Catholic. The Orthodox churches are not the only churches which consider themselves orthodox. The Baptist churches are not the only ones which practise baptism. And so forth.

In most contexts, its pretty easy to work out when somebody using the word "Catholic" is using in the sense of a church whose Catholicism is expressed in communion with the Bishop of Rome, or in a wider sense. If disambiguation is needed, the qualifier "Roman" is available, but it's not often needed. It's not part of the formal title of the church, just as "Anglican" isn't part of the formal title of the Church of Ireland.

Indeed, the name Church of Ireland is anachronistic and inaccurate. Just a historical remnant really; I'd have no problem with changing it.

It's easy enough to work out the context of what "Catholic" or anything else may mean, but there is no harm in being accurate, when possible.

Peregrinus

But it's not inaccurate, is it? The Catholic Church is Catholic, the Church of Ireland is a church of Ireland.

In some contexts a qualifier such as "Roman" or "Anglican" is useful; in most it's not necessary; in a few contexts it may even be unhelpful. (Sometimes "Roman" is used to distinguish Catholics who celebrate the Roman rite from Catholics who celebrate one of the Greek rites, but they are all in communion with Rome. The Anglican Church in America is not a member of the Anglican Communion, but the Episcopal Church in the United States is.)

In general, if you can tell from the context that someone is using the word Catholic to refer to the church commonly called the Catholic Church, then other people will also be able to tell that from the context. It's not then necessary to ask him to substitute "Roman Catholic". This can be reserved for contexts where confusion might otherwise be engendered. And same goes the other way around.

LordSutch

The Apostles Creed (from the Church of Ireland prayer book).

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

You'll notice the reference to Catholic above, and since I was a nipper in short trousers I have been aware that we are indeed catholic, (but not Roman Catholic) therein lies the difference between the two Christian traditions.

katydid

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's not inaccurate, is it? The Catholic Church is Catholic, the Church of Ireland is a church of Ireland.

In some contexts a qualifier such as "Roman" or "Anglican" is useful; in most it's not necessary; in a few contexts it may even be unhelpful. (Sometimes "Roman" is used to distinguish Catholics who celebrate the Roman rite from Catholics who celebrate one of the Greek rites, but they are all in communion with Rome. The Anglican Church in America is not a member of the Anglican Communion, but the Episcopal Church in the United States is.)

In general, if you can tell from the context that someone is using the word Catholic to refer to the church commonly called the Catholic Church, then other people will also be able to tell that from the context. It's not then necessary to ask him to substitute "Roman Catholic". This can be reserved for contexts where confusion might otherwise be engendered. And same goes the other way around.

Yes, the Catholic church is Catholic. The Catholic church has many members, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox etc. It is inaccurate to call one branch of it by the general name which designates the wider church body.

Surely it's useful always to make this distinction? Then there is no confusion.

credoie

katydid wrote: »

Yes, the Catholic church is Catholic. The Catholic church has many members, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox etc. It is inaccurate to call one branch of it by the general name which designates the wider church body.

Surely it's useful always to make this distinction? Then there is no confusion.

We have our view on who is Catholic and you have your view. As with many things in Christianity many denominations have different views on different things. I am not forcing my belief in you. The Church was once one, holy,universal and Apostolic.

Given the vastly different views that many churches have on different topics it would be hard to see how we could return to unity.

katydid

credoie wrote: »

We have our view on who is Catholic and you have your view. As with many things in Christianity many denominations have different views on different things. I am not forcing my belief in you. The Church was once one, holy,universal and Apostolic.

Given the vastly different views that many churches have on different topics it would be hard to see how we could return to unity.

My views are not the issue here, but the facts. The facts are that the original church that was founded by Christ doesn't exist; every Christian denomination is an offshoot of sorts of this original body. The Roman version is one version, the one which initially gained domination in the east of Europe because of political and dynastic considerations. So the term "Catholic" can't be applied to it alone, and is inaccurate in this context.

Sadly we will never return to unity. Some denominations will continue to dishonour women or refuse to allow the laity a say. Others will continue to see the Eucharist in different ways. Unfortunately, the fact that humans are so varied in their opinions, there was never going to be a fully unified church. Even Jesus's followers couldn't agree amongst themselves...

hinault

credoie wrote: »

We have our view on who is Catholic and you have your view. As with many things in Christianity many denominations have different views on different things. I am not forcing my belief in you. The Church was once one, holy,universal and Apostolic.

Given the vastly different views that many churches have on different topics it would be hard to see how we could return to unity.

The One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church which existed in AD 33 still exists today at the Vatican.:cool:

It is to this Church that all others need to return to.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

The One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church which existed in AD 33 still exists today at the Vatican.:cool:

It is to this Church that all others need to return to.

Read your church history. Or just history...

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church which existed in AD 33 still exists today at the Vatican.:cool:

It is to this Church that all others need to return to.

I nearly choked on reading this.
The arrogance isnt surprising. I'm so glad I'm not part of it.

credoie

katydid wrote: »

My views are not the issue here, but the facts. The facts are that the original church that was founded by Christ doesn't exist; every Christian denomination is an offshoot of sorts of this original body. The Roman version is one version, the one which initially gained domination in the east of Europe because of political and dynastic considerations. So the term "Catholic" can't be applied to it alone, and is inaccurate in this context.

Sadly we will never return to unity. Some denominations will continue to dishonour women or refuse to allow the laity a say. Others will continue to see the Eucharist in different ways. Unfortunately, the fact that humans are so varied in their opinions, there was never going to be a fully unified church. Even Jesus's followers couldn't agree amongst themselves...

Church or Ekklesia in Greek just means a group of people summoned. They passed the faith as they received it one.

the Orthodox say they have the true faith. Catholics under the Pope say they have the true faith.. etc.. What I tried to do was to see what were the elements that united us all. If you travel to the Armenians or the Copts, Eastern Orthodox or Melikite , Syriacs or greeks we might not all be united,, but there are fundamentals that unite us, so it is possible to look back at the original church and fund a unity of sorts.

The Mass or Devine liturgy units us, Male apostolic succession, bible texts, many Saints. Belief in the true presence in the Eucharist, Hierarchy. Monastic life. Celibacy of Bishops. In Rome the very same alters used to celebrate mass 1900 years ago are in use today. The copts separated pretty early on, yet they share much with the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.

The reformation was a drastic separation from what was common ground (in my opinion). I am not asking you to take the "Roman" Catholic view on the Catholic Church, I think its important to question its stance. I did. But the more I studied the Armenians (who separated really because of a lost in translation moment) and the Orthodox the more I understood the Catholic Church.

hinault

Devon Sharp Bass wrote: »

I nearly choked on reading this.
The arrogance isnt surprising. I'm so glad I'm not part of it.

The church founded by Christ subsists, and has always subsisted, in the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

katydid

credoie wrote: »

Church or Ekklesia in Greek just means a group of people summoned. They passed the faith as they received it one.

the Orthodox say they have the true faith. Catholics under the Pope say they have the true faith.. etc.. What I tried to do was to see what were the elements that united us all. If you travel to the Armenians or the Copts, Eastern Orthodox or Melikite , Syriacs or greeks we might not all be united,, but there are fundamentals that unite us, so it is possible to look back at the original church and fund a unity of sorts.

The Mass or Devine liturgy units us, Male apostolic succession, bible texts, many Saints. Belief in the true presence in the Eucharist, Hierarchy. Monastic life. Celibacy of Bishops. In Rome the very same alters used to celebrate mass 1900 years ago are in use today. The copts separated pretty early on, yet they share much with the Orthodox and the Catholic Church.

The reformation was a drastic separation from what was common ground (in my opinion). I am not asking you to take the "Roman" Catholic view on the Catholic Church, I think its important to question its stance. I did. But the more I studied the Armenians (who separated really because of a lost in translation moment) and the Orthodox the more I understood the Catholic Church.

All Christians believe that the path they have chosen is the right one, but at the end of the day as long as we all believe in the fundamentals, what does it matter?

It is a matter of opinion, nothing else, whether apostolic succession is necessarily male. Scripture and the understanding of the nature of the Eucharist is a matter of opinion and interpretation.

As I said, where humans are concerned, opinions will never agree.

I understand the Catholic church too, in all its manifestations. And I certainly understand the Roman Catholic church, in which I was raised. And, understanding it, I reject it for what I consider very good reason. But I respect those who don't reject it, or choose to join it, even if this mystifies me.

uck51js9zml2yt

hinault wrote: »

The church founded by Christ subsists, and has always subsisted, in the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm

Quoting the Catholic cathecism on the mater doesn't make it true.

I could say 2+2=5 . write a paper on it to justify it and still be wrong.

credoie

katydid wrote: »

All Christians believe that the path they have chosen is the right one, but at the end of the day as long as we all believe in the fundamentals, what does it matter?

It is a matter of opinion, nothing else, whether apostolic succession is necessarily male. Scripture and the understanding of the nature of the Eucharist is a matter of opinion and interpretation.

As I said, where humans are concerned, opinions will never agree.

I understand the Catholic church too, in all its manifestations. And I certainly understand the Roman Catholic church, in which I was raised. And, understanding it, I reject it for what I consider very good reason. But I respect those who don't reject it, or choose to join it, even if this mystifies me.

I rejected it and came back to to. All the reasons I found to reject it initially were wrong when I went looking for the truth.

Jayop

LordSutch wrote: »

The Apostles Creed (from the Church of Ireland prayer book).

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

You'll notice the reference to Catholic above, and since I was a nipper in short trousers I have been aware that we are indeed catholic, (but not Roman Catholic) therein lies the difference between the two Christian traditions.

Surely then it should read..."a holy Catholic Church" not "the holy catholic church" if there are multiple catholic churches.

credoie

Jayop wrote: »

Surely then it should read..."a holy Catholic Church" not "the holy catholic church" if there are multiple catholic churches.

When the Creed was written there was one Holy Catholic Church in 325

katydid

credoie wrote: »

I rejected it and came back to to. All the reasons I found to reject it initially were wrong when I went looking for the truth.

Well, nothing has changed since I left - they still disrespect the laity and women in particular, so there's nothing to go back to. No place for me in a church that disrespects me on two counts, even if I found some of its theology acceptable

Different people can accept different things, that's the way people are.

hinault

Devon Sharp Bass wrote: »

Quoting the Catholic cathecism on the mater doesn't make it true.

I could say 2+2=5 . write a paper on it to justify it and still be wrong.

The Catechism contains the Truth.

Jayop

credoie wrote: »

When the Creed was written there was one Holy Catholic Church in 325

Yeah but it's incorrect now so should be updated.

I've no problem with non RC peeps calling themselves Catholic, but at least get the grammar right.

katydid

credoie wrote: »

When the Creed was written there was one Holy Catholic Church in 325

At the Council of Nicea, the attendees came from all parts of the already divided Christian church. They united against the Arian heresy, but when they were not united against Arianism, they were jostling for pre-eminence in the church. The Creed was the statement of what they shared, but it didn't say anything about what they didn't share.

And it didn't take long to start fighting over the wording of the creed...

credoie

katydid wrote: »

Well, nothing has changed since I left - they still disrespect the laity and women in particular, so there's nothing to go back to. No place for me in a church that disrespects me on two counts, even if I found some of its theology acceptable

Different people can accept different things, that's the way people are.

Yet the millions of Catholics look up to women saints in the Church? Catherine of Siena, Theresa of Avila and Therese de lisieux, Mother Thesesa, Joan of Arc, Edith Stein, St. Bernadette, St. Margaret Mary. Yes men have let the Church down, but God lifted many women high above them all. Everyone Man and Woman is at the service of the Faith, of Christ. He does not change.

I would say for me women in the Church hold far more "power" than men, once you have abandoned yourself to God and God fills you then you are capable of far greater things that humanly possible.