GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic  (Read 12013 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #105 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 09:36:04 »
Yeah thats what you get when you always have an argument about everything and with everybody.
You write so much that you cannot remember anymore what it is you write.

Thread: Peter the First Pope
Post: page 13, 11:00 PM

WOW - that's quite a post.
Too bad it's ALL built upon a false doctrine - Sola Scriptura.

All of that being said - and as I have already shown (ad nauseam) - the Petrine office IS Scriptural and I have provided the proof over and over (Isaiah 22:20-24, Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31, John 21:15-17).

And my post PROVES your LIE.

I never said, as YOU claimed, "Wrong! Thats Sola Scriptura".

I said the following:
"WOW - that's quite a post.  Too bad it's ALL built upon a false doctrine - Sola Scriptura".

This is an accurate statement because the "proof" in question was based on this false doctrine of sinful men.
Get your facts straight before responding.  
It's getting rather embarrassing for you . . .

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #105 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 09:36:04 »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #106 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:16:17 »

Yeah, I just read it and thought it was quite funny.

Reminds me of an earlier post by Elvis this week.
Someone listed a few Bible verses to make a point. Elvis responded with "Wrong! Thats Sola Scriptura".
Then Elvis continued to support his point of view by listing, guess what....Bible verses!

Ummm . . . care to point me to that post of mine - or are we to suffer through more of your falsehoods?
Yeah thats what you get when you always have an argument about everything and with everybody.
You write so much that you cannot remember anymore what it is you write.

Thread: Peter the First Pope
Post: page 13, 11:00 PM

WOW - that's quite a post.
Too bad it's ALL built upon a false doctrine - Sola Scriptura.

...blah, blah, blah...

All of that being said - and as I have already shown (ad nauseam) - the Petrine office IS Scriptural and I have provided the proof over and over (Isaiah 22:20-24, Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31, John 21:15-17).

I think Elvisman was trying to point out that the Scriptures AND Traditions of the Church complement each other. Many believe in only one (Sola Scriptura) and completely dismiss the other. Take the  Christian worship service for example. St Justin Martyr writing about this in during his lifetime (100 to 165), describes the tradition of the Mass, most of which we Latin Rite folks continue with to this very day. It (the Mass) is both Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures combined.

If you read his post you see that Elvis is not trying to point out that Scriptures and traditions can complement each other.
Nobody will have an argument with Scriptures and tradition complementing each other.
For a tradition to be acceptable however, it needs to be verified against the Scripture.

So we have someone who has a tradition not to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.
And we have Elvis who has a tradition to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.

The latter is denying the first the validity of his post by claiming Sola Scriptura, whilst proclaiming his own opinion to be correct by taking the exact same Scripture as basis.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #106 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:16:17 »

Offline Ladonia

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2483
  • Manna: 119
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #107 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 10:51:52 »

Yeah, I just read it and thought it was quite funny.

Reminds me of an earlier post by Elvis this week.
Someone listed a few Bible verses to make a point. Elvis responded with "Wrong! Thats Sola Scriptura".
Then Elvis continued to support his point of view by listing, guess what....Bible verses!

Ummm . . . care to point me to that post of mine - or are we to suffer through more of your falsehoods?
Yeah thats what you get when you always have an argument about everything and with everybody.
You write so much that you cannot remember anymore what it is you write.

Thread: Peter the First Pope
Post: page 13, 11:00 PM

WOW - that's quite a post.
Too bad it's ALL built upon a false doctrine - Sola Scriptura.

...blah, blah, blah...

All of that being said - and as I have already shown (ad nauseam) - the Petrine office IS Scriptural and I have provided the proof over and over (Isaiah 22:20-24, Matt. 16:18-19, Luke 22:31, John 21:15-17).

I think Elvisman was trying to point out that the Scriptures AND Traditions of the Church complement each other. Many believe in only one (Sola Scriptura) and completely dismiss the other. Take the  Christian worship service for example. St Justin Martyr writing about this in during his lifetime (100 to 165), describes the tradition of the Mass, most of which we Latin Rite folks continue with to this very day. It (the Mass) is both Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures combined.

If you read his post you see that Elvis is not trying to point out that Scriptures and traditions can complement each other.
Nobody will have an argument with Scriptures and tradition complementing each other.
For a tradition to be acceptable however, it needs to be verified against the Scripture.

So we have someone who has a tradition not to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.
And we have Elvis who has a tradition to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.

The latter is denying the first the validity of his post by claiming Sola Scriptura, whilst proclaiming his own opinion to be correct by taking the exact same Scripture as basis.

Because the one not supporting the office of the Pope is relying on Sola Sriptura only, with what we would say an erroneous interpretation.

Elvisman is using the verse  ( albeit with a diiferent interpretation) to point out to the Sola Scripturist that it is indeed in the Bible. So, we believe that it is is indeed verified in the Scriptures. So, this should satisfy the Sola Scripturist, no?

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #108 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 11:27:20 »
If you read his post you see that Elvis is not trying to point out that Scriptures and traditions can complement each other.
Nobody will have an argument with Scriptures and tradition complementing each other.
For a tradition to be acceptable however, it needs to be verified against the Scripture.

So we have someone who has a tradition not to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.
And we have Elvis who has a tradition to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.

The latter is denying the first the validity of his post by claiming Sola Scriptura, whilst proclaiming his own opinion to be correct by taking the exact same Scripture as basis.

Not at all - you're simply making spurious claims about me again.

I have listed Traditions over and over again on this thread that are not only not explicitly mentioned in Scriptue - some are not even alluded to yet YOU accept them.  The FIRST is the Canon of Scripture.  You depend on a CATHOLIC Tradition for what belongs in your Bible.

More PROOF for the fallacy of Sola Scriptura . . .

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #108 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 11:27:20 »

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #109 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 12:53:53 »
If you read his post you see that Elvis is not trying to point out that Scriptures and traditions can complement each other.
Nobody will have an argument with Scriptures and tradition complementing each other.
For a tradition to be acceptable however, it needs to be verified against the Scripture.

So we have someone who has a tradition not to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.
And we have Elvis who has a tradition to believe in the office of Pope, and who is using Scripture to support his opinion.

The latter is denying the first the validity of his post by claiming Sola Scriptura, whilst proclaiming his own opinion to be correct by taking the exact same Scripture as basis.

Because the one not supporting the office of the Pope is relying on Sola Sriptura only, with what we would say an erroneous interpretation.

Elvisman is using the verse  ( albeit with a diiferent interpretation) to point out to the Sola Scripturist that it is indeed in the Bible. So, we believe that it is is indeed verified in the Scriptures. So, this should satisfy the Sola Scripturist, no?

Not really no  ::smile::

The office of Pope came after the Scriptures, and is a result of interpretation of those Scriptures.
Someone argued that a Pope was needed because the Scriptures said....
At that point the tradition was started. Before Paul and Peter, there was no Pope.
Hence the office of Pope was established through (arguably incorrect) interpretation of the Scriptures.

After a long time you may then have a tradition, but you are incorrect to say that you have a tradition AND Scriptures, therefore you are not Sola Scriptura.
By that same merit a Protestant could argue that his tradition is NOT to have a Pope, so then he too has a tradition AND Scriptures.

You cannot say to a Sola Scripturist: "Your opinion is false, because it's Sola Scriptura" for the simpe fact that 99% of your and my opinions are based on Sola Scriptura.

For example:
Your church practices baptism by sprinkling and it is practiced for a long time, it is tradition that this is the way it's done.
Someone comes to you and says: "Look, I don't read anywhere in the Scriptures that sprinkling is being used, so I stick to immersion"
Are you going to tell this person that that is a false doctrine because it is Sola Scriptura?

Another example:
There are churches where it is tradition for women to cover their head during the service.
So now the Catholic Church is practicing Sola Scriptura because it does not have such a tradition?
Or perhaps allowing women bare-headed in the church is a deviation from tradition and not Scriptural at all?

The point that I want to make is this: saying to someone "You are wrong because you are Sola Scriptura" or claiming you are correct because you happen to have a tradition, are both no-brainers.

Wisdom and peace to you

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #109 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 12:53:53 »



Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #110 on: Wed Mar 14, 2012 - 13:38:17 »
Not really no  ::smile::

The office of Pope came after the Scriptures, and is a result of interpretation of those Scriptures.
Someone argued that a Pope was needed because the Scriptures said....
At that point the tradition was started. Before Paul and Peter, there was no Pope.
Hence the office of Pope was established through (arguably incorrect) interpretation of the Scriptures.

After a long time you may then have a tradition, but you are incorrect to say that you have a tradition AND Scriptures, therefore you are not Sola Scriptura.
By that same merit a Protestant could argue that his tradition is NOT to have a Pope, so then he too has a tradition AND Scriptures.

You cannot say to a Sola Scripturist: "Your opinion is false, because it's Sola Scriptura" for the simpe fact that 99% of your and my opinions are based on Sola Scriptura.

For example:
Your church practices baptism by sprinkling and it is practiced for a long time, it is tradition that this is the way it's done.
Someone comes to you and says: "Look, I don't read anywhere in the Scriptures that sprinkling is being used, so I stick to immersion"
Are you going to tell this person that that is a false doctrine because it is Sola Scriptura?

Another example:
There are churches where it is tradition for women to cover their head during the service.
So now the Catholic Church is practicing Sola Scriptura because it does not have such a tradition?
Or perhaps allowing women bare-headed in the church is a deviation from tradition and not Scriptural at all?

The point that I want to make is this: saying to someone "You are wrong because you are Sola Scriptura" or claiming you are correct because you happen to have a tradition, are both no-brainers.

Wisdom and peace to you

Honestly, AVZ - it’s difficult to understand how you can get so confused by what seems to be a simple conversation.
Let me try to explain.

SOLA SCRIPTURA is a false Doctrine because the very Scripture that it purports to teach this Doctrine is DEVOID of it.  In other words, it is a self-refuting Doctrine because the Scriptures themselves do NOT support it.

As for Baptism – I don’t fully understand how Sola Scriptura “Immersion Only

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #111 on: Fri Mar 16, 2012 - 06:06:59 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Offline Insight

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2379
  • Manna: 50
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #112 on: Sun Mar 18, 2012 - 23:55:25 »
Not really no  ::smile::

The office of Pope came after the Scriptures, and is a result of interpretation of those Scriptures.
Someone argued that a Pope was needed because the Scriptures said....
At that point the tradition was started. Before Paul and Peter, there was no Pope.
Hence the office of Pope was established through (arguably incorrect) interpretation of the Scriptures.

After a long time you may then have a tradition, but you are incorrect to say that you have a tradition AND Scriptures, therefore you are not Sola Scriptura.
By that same merit a Protestant could argue that his tradition is NOT to have a Pope, so then he too has a tradition AND Scriptures.

You cannot say to a Sola Scripturist: "Your opinion is false, because it's Sola Scriptura" for the simpe fact that 99% of your and my opinions are based on Sola Scriptura.

For example:
Your church practices baptism by sprinkling and it is practiced for a long time, it is tradition that this is the way it's done.
Someone comes to you and says: "Look, I don't read anywhere in the Scriptures that sprinkling is being used, so I stick to immersion"
Are you going to tell this person that that is a false doctrine because it is Sola Scriptura?

Another example:
There are churches where it is tradition for women to cover their head during the service.
So now the Catholic Church is practicing Sola Scriptura because it does not have such a tradition?
Or perhaps allowing women bare-headed in the church is a deviation from tradition and not Scriptural at all?

The point that I want to make is this: saying to someone "You are wrong because you are Sola Scriptura" or claiming you are correct because you happen to have a tradition, are both no-brainers.

Wisdom and peace to you

Honestly, AVZ - it’s difficult to understand how you can get so confused by what seems to be a simple conversation.
Let me try to explain.

SOLA SCRIPTURA is a false Doctrine because the very Scripture that it purports to teach this Doctrine is DEVOID of it.  In other words, it is a self-refuting Doctrine because the Scriptures themselves do NOT support it.

As for Baptism – I don’t fully understand how Sola Scriptura “Immersion Only
« Last Edit: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 00:19:33 by Insight »

Offline forklift

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #113 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 00:37:29 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

Offline AVZ

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4815
  • Manna: 105
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #114 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 01:50:07 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

So....Protestants are then members of the Protestant Catholic Church, as in Protestant Universal Church?

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #115 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 06:29:50 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

In all the quotes on this thread which I have made regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the use of the adjective "Roman" I have used words from official , papal documents .

In these documents which refer to the Roman Catholic Church it is the Universal Church which is being referred to .

Latin rite , Byzantine rite , Armenian rite etc. do not enter into the matter .

When the Popes I have quoted wrote of "the Roman Catholic Church " they were writing of the Universal Church , not of some "Latin-rite Church" .

The Universal Church , whether Latin-rite , or Byzantine-rite , or Armenian-rite , is Roman not because of any rites but because it is in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

If one were to limit the term "Roman Catholic Church" to those who use the Latin rite , it would make theological nonsense of what the Popes are saying in using the adjective "Roman" .

The Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of all those Catholics who use different rites because they are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

Offline forklift

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #116 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 08:52:02 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

So....Protestants are then members of the Protestant Catholic Church, as in Protestant Universal Church?

Actually yes, they are members of the Universal Church. They just aren't in communion with the Church in Rome. They don't hold the same core beliefs, they don't accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church, and most of them don't celebrate the Eucharist at all.

Offline forklift

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
  • Manna: 5
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #117 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 09:07:15 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

In all the quotes on this thread which I have made regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the use of the adjective "Roman" I have used words from official , papal documents .

In these documents which refer to the Roman Catholic Church it is the Universal Church which is being referred to .

Latin rite , Byzantine rite , Armenian rite etc. do not enter into the matter .

When the Popes I have quoted wrote of "the Roman Catholic Church " they were writing of the Universal Church , not of some "Latin-rite Church" .

The Universal Church , whether Latin-rite , or Byzantine-rite , or Armenian-rite , is Roman not because of any rites but because it is in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

If one were to limit the term "Roman Catholic Church" to those who use the Latin rite , it would make theological nonsense of what the Popes are saying in using the adjective "Roman" .

The Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of all those Catholics who use different rites because they are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

I get what you are saying and you are not necessarily wrong. You are correct that the Latin Rite is the Roman Rite, however, with Vatican II came changes in the way Mass was said. Since that time, Mass has been said in the language of the people so the term "Latin Rite" has fallen out of use to be replaced by the term "Roman Rite." Your assertions are a bit dated. The term "Roman Catholic Church" has never been an "official" name of the Church and has in the past 50 years fallen out of use all together by most Catholics. The term is held onto like a rock, however, by the Jack Chick followers out there.

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #118 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 16:10:34 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

In all the quotes on this thread which I have made regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the use of the adjective "Roman" I have used words from official , papal documents .

In these documents which refer to the Roman Catholic Church it is the Universal Church which is being referred to .

Latin rite , Byzantine rite , Armenian rite etc. do not enter into the matter .

When the Popes I have quoted wrote of "the Roman Catholic Church " they were writing of the Universal Church , not of some "Latin-rite Church" .

The Universal Church , whether Latin-rite , or Byzantine-rite , or Armenian-rite , is Roman not because of any rites but because it is in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

If one were to limit the term "Roman Catholic Church" to those who use the Latin rite , it would make theological nonsense of what the Popes are saying in using the adjective "Roman" .

The Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of all those Catholics who use different rites because they are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

I get what you are saying and you are not necessarily wrong. You are correct that the Latin Rite is the Roman Rite, however, with Vatican II came changes in the way Mass was said. Since that time, Mass has been said in the language of the people so the term "Latin Rite" has fallen out of use to be replaced by the term "Roman Rite." Your assertions are a bit dated. The term "Roman Catholic Church" has never been an "official" name of the Church and has in the past 50 years fallen out of use all together by most Catholics. The term is held onto like a rock, however, by the Jack Chick followers out there.
My Diocese calls itself the Roman Catholic Diocese and Roman Catholic Church on its web site but that is I think because it is a Roman Rite Diocese.

But generally the universal Church just uses the term Catholic in it's documents rather than Roman Catholic


Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #119 on: Mon Mar 19, 2012 - 22:37:33 »

Still waiting for your understanding of John 10:35 a relativley simple passage teaching a profound lesson for all Christians, even a Romanist like yourself.

If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken(loosed);

As we saw Jesus was engaged in a discussion in which He is accused of blaspheming God. He uses this scripture, quoting from Psalm 82:6, to support His assertion that He is the Son of God.

A declaration the RCC's and Protestants currently deny.

That verse in Psa 82:6 cannot be declared to be irrelevant; it carries the weight and authority of God because He inspired it. God's Word is truth; what He says is true regardless of how strongly you wish to wrest the Scriptures. We cannot simply discard it because we disagree with it  ::nodding::. If we do, we are, in effect calling God a liar. ::nodding::

Are you a liar Elvis? We shall see if your "nail in the coffin" approach is not in fact the storing up of many lies, some of which against God Himself.

Questions you cannot / wont answer:

1. Was Jesus wrong to quote Psa 82:6? If so, provide a well reasoned answer using the Bible...

2. What makes this Scripture impossible to break or loose?

3. We have confirmation by Jesus Christ that both John 10:35 (NT) and Psa 82:6 (OT) speak to each other and confirm and interprate one another, if so, can this be said of all Scripture?

4. If Jesus himself is considered a god (small "g") like his brethren (Israelites), then who is God (big "G")? In whose image they are all made?

5. Finally, why do you think Jesus pressed the Jews hard with this Scripture in Psa 82:6 and what lesson do you think Jesus was trying to get them to see?


Insight  ::smile::

You deny the Deity of Christ so your entire position is, shall we say, "Skewed".

If Jesus isn't God - why would you bother worrying about what he has to say?  It is BECAUSE he is God that I worship Him and try to live His example.

If He wasn't God - I wouldn't be a Christian - or whatever it is that you claim to be.

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #120 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 06:27:08 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

In all the quotes on this thread which I have made regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the use of the adjective "Roman" I have used words from official , papal documents .

In these documents which refer to the Roman Catholic Church it is the Universal Church which is being referred to .

Latin rite , Byzantine rite , Armenian rite etc. do not enter into the matter .

When the Popes I have quoted wrote of "the Roman Catholic Church " they were writing of the Universal Church , not of some "Latin-rite Church" .

The Universal Church , whether Latin-rite , or Byzantine-rite , or Armenian-rite , is Roman not because of any rites but because it is in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

If one were to limit the term "Roman Catholic Church" to those who use the Latin rite , it would make theological nonsense of what the Popes are saying in using the adjective "Roman" .

The Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of all those Catholics who use different rites because they are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

I get what you are saying and you are not necessarily wrong. You are correct that the Latin Rite is the Roman Rite, however, with Vatican II came changes in the way Mass was said. Since that time, Mass has been said in the language of the people so the term "Latin Rite" has fallen out of use to be replaced by the term "Roman Rite." Your assertions are a bit dated. The term "Roman Catholic Church" has never been an "official" name of the Church and has in the past 50 years fallen out of use all together by most Catholics. The term is held onto like a rock, however, by the Jack Chick followers out there.
My Diocese calls itself the Roman Catholic Diocese and Roman Catholic Church on its web site but that is I think because it is a Roman Rite Diocese.

But generally the universal Church just uses the term Catholic in it's documents rather than Roman Catholic



Sorry , but on this thread I have quoted from Roman Catholic documents examples where the Magisterium refers to the universal Church as the Roman Catholic Church .

Your diocese is a Roman Catholic Diocese because the diocese is in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

It calls itself the Roman Catholic Church because it is the Church in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

In "Mystici Corporis Christi" Pope Pius XII referred to what he called "The true Church of Jesus Christ" as "the One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Roman Church" .

He also said : "Nothing surely more honourable can be imagined than to belong to the One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Roman Church ."

Why did he give the adjective Roman to the Church ? It can't have been because of a Latin rite because he would have been teaching heresy . He would have been saying : "The true Church of Jesus Christ is the One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Latin-rite Church ." Clearly that would be nonsense , and the Eastern Rite Churches in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , would have been up in arms . They would have been excluded from "the true Church of Jesus Christ" .

No , don't be led astray by incorrect interpretations being given of the Church because there are several rites within the Roman Catholic Church .

The true Church of Jesus Christ is One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Roman because it is in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

My parish website has " St Mary's RC Parish " .

No one in the parish would see the parish being referred to as an RC , Roman Catholic parish because of the rite used in the Liturgy of the parish . They know that it is referred to as a Roman Catholic parish because it is in communion with the bishop of the diocese who is in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #121 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 09:57:05 »

Roman Catholics are Catholics, therefore all Catholics are Roman Catholics. That is an incorrect statement.

In what way is it incorrect , Forklift ?

With specific reference to my reply #52 , could you please give the reasons why I am in error in what I say ?

Let me say it this way, Byzantine Catholics are Catholics, but they are not Roman Catholics. They are, however, in communion with the Church in Rome. There are many different types of Catholics, they are in communion with the Church in Rome, but they aren't Roman Catholic. So to call the entire Church "Roman Catholic" would be incorrect.

Catholic means Universal, so let's replace the words. Byzantine Universal Church, Roman Universal Church, Armenian Universal Church, Alexandrian Universal Church, Anthiocian Univeral Church, West Syrian Universal Church, East Syrian Universal Church. All of these Churches are part of the Universal Church, or the Catholic Church, yet only one of them is Roman. They are all in agreement with each other, they all accept the Bishop of Rome as the titular head of the Church. They all hold the same core beliefs, but each one has different traditions and ways of celebrating the Eucharist.

Does that make sense to you?

In all the quotes on this thread which I have made regarding the Roman Catholic Church and the use of the adjective "Roman" I have used words from official , papal documents .

In these documents which refer to the Roman Catholic Church it is the Universal Church which is being referred to .

Latin rite , Byzantine rite , Armenian rite etc. do not enter into the matter .

When the Popes I have quoted wrote of "the Roman Catholic Church " they were writing of the Universal Church , not of some "Latin-rite Church" .

The Universal Church , whether Latin-rite , or Byzantine-rite , or Armenian-rite , is Roman not because of any rites but because it is in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

If one were to limit the term "Roman Catholic Church" to those who use the Latin rite , it would make theological nonsense of what the Popes are saying in using the adjective "Roman" .

The Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of all those Catholics who use different rites because they are in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

I get what you are saying and you are not necessarily wrong. You are correct that the Latin Rite is the Roman Rite, however, with Vatican II came changes in the way Mass was said. Since that time, Mass has been said in the language of the people so the term "Latin Rite" has fallen out of use to be replaced by the term "Roman Rite." Your assertions are a bit dated. The term "Roman Catholic Church" has never been an "official" name of the Church and has in the past 50 years fallen out of use all together by most Catholics. The term is held onto like a rock, however, by the Jack Chick followers out there.
My Diocese calls itself the Roman Catholic Diocese and Roman Catholic Church on its web site but that is I think because it is a Roman Rite Diocese.

But generally the universal Church just uses the term Catholic in it's documents rather than Roman Catholic



Sorry , but on this thread I have quoted from Roman Catholic documents examples where the Magisterium refers to the universal Church as the Roman Catholic Church .

Your diocese is a Roman Catholic Diocese because the diocese is in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

It calls itself the Roman Catholic Church because it is the Church in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

In "Mystici Corporis Christi" Pope Pius XII referred to what he called "The true Church of Jesus Christ" as "the One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Roman Church" .

He also said : "Nothing surely more honourable can be imagined than to belong to the One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Roman Church ."

Why did he give the adjective Roman to the Church ? It can't have been because of a Latin rite because he would have been teaching heresy . He would have been saying : "The true Church of Jesus Christ is the One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Latin-rite Church ." Clearly that would be nonsense , and the Eastern Rite Churches in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , would have been up in arms . They would have been excluded from "the true Church of Jesus Christ" .

No , don't be led astray by incorrect interpretations being given of the Church because there are several rites within the Roman Catholic Church .

The true Church of Jesus Christ is One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Roman because it is in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

My parish website has " St Mary's RC Parish " .

No one in the parish would see the parish being referred to as an RC , Roman Catholic parish because of the rite used in the Liturgy of the parish . They know that it is referred to as a Roman Catholic parish because it is in communion with the bishop of the diocese who is in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

Catholic Churches around just have Catholic Church on their signboards.

Papal Documents since Vatican II anyway seem to just refer to the Catholic Church
(e.g.
 APOSTOLIC LETTER
DIES DOMINI
OF THE HOLY FATHER
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS, CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON KEEPING THE LORD'S DAY HOLY)
as does the Catechism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, not Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church).

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #122 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 15:19:08 »

Papal Documents since Vatican II anyway seem to just refer to the Catholic Church


Pope Paul VI referred the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church in joint declarations he signed with the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965 and 1967 .

He did likewise in declarations he signed with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church in 1971 and with Archbishop Donald Coggan , Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury , in 1977 .

Pope John Paul II referred to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church in 1979 , 1980 (3 times) , 1985 , 1986 (twice) , 1989 , and 1991 (4 times) , and probably many other times .

Pope Benedict XVI referred to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church at a meeting in Warsaw in 2006 .

He did likewise in declarations he signed with Archbishop Rowan Williams , Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury , in 2006 , and with the Orthodox Patriarch I of Constantinople in 2006 .

Offline winsome

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5103
  • Manna: 91
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #123 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 17:02:00 »

Papal Documents since Vatican II anyway seem to just refer to the Catholic Church


Pope Paul VI referred the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church in joint declarations he signed with the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965 and 1967 .

He did likewise in declarations he signed with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church in 1971 and with Archbishop Donald Coggan , Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury , in 1977 .

Pope John Paul II referred to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church in 1979 , 1980 (3 times) , 1985 , 1986 (twice) , 1989 , and 1991 (4 times) , and probably many other times .

Pope Benedict XVI referred to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church at a meeting in Warsaw in 2006 .

He did likewise in declarations he signed with Archbishop Rowan Williams , Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury , in 2006 , and with the Orthodox Patriarch I of Constantinople in 2006 .

Mostly to distinguish the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church since both claim the official full title of “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #124 on: Tue Mar 20, 2012 - 18:25:44 »
Quote from: winsome
Mostly to distinguish the Catholic Church from the Orthodox Church since both claim the official full title of “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #125 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 05:38:13 »

Papal Documents since Vatican II anyway seem to just refer to the Catholic Church


Pope Paul VI referred the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church in joint declarations he signed with the Orthodox Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965 and 1967 .

He did likewise in declarations he signed with Patriarch Mar Ignatius Yacoub III of the Syrian Orthodox Church in 1971 and with Archbishop Donald Coggan , Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury , in 1977 .

Pope John Paul II referred to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church in 1979 , 1980 (3 times) , 1985 , 1986 (twice) , 1989 , and 1991 (4 times) , and probably many other times .

Pope Benedict XVI referred to the Catholic Church as the Roman Catholic Church at a meeting in Warsaw in 2006 .

He did likewise in declarations he signed with Archbishop Rowan Williams , Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury , in 2006 , and with the Orthodox Patriarch I of Constantinople in 2006 .


However you call yourself Roman Catholic if you want to.

I certainly will .

Like the Popes I have mentioned I am proud to be Roman Catholic , proclaiming that I am in full communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

Immediately I cease to be Roman , to be in communion with the Roman See , I cease to be Catholic .
« Last Edit: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 06:08:57 by Paulus »

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #126 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 06:05:51 »
Quote from: winsome

Well said ... a pretty good article on the subject from EWTN affirming your statements: http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm



The EWTN article contains inaccuracies and is not consistent with what certain Popes have said .

The Magisterium in no way remits the claim of the Church to be Catholic when it also speaks of it as Roman . It is the distinctive mark of Catholics to be in communion with the Roman See . And the use of Roman is not of recent date .

"The Catholics," Blessed John Henry Newman wrote , "during this period (viz. that of the Arian Goths ) were denoted by the additional title of Romans . Of this there are many proofs in the histories of Gregory of Tours , Victor of Vite , and the Spanish councils..."

After giving this one example of Catholics at the time being called Romans , Blessed John Henry Newman proceeds : " The word contains also an allusion to the faith and communion of the Roman See . In this sense the Emperor Theodosius , in his letter to Acacius of Beroea , contrasts it with Nestorianism , which was within the empire as well as Catholicism ; during the controversy raised by that heresy , he exhorts him and others to show themselves "approved priests of the Roman religion .""

Later on similar passages are adduced from the Emperor Gratian and St Jerome . ( "Development", p. 280 , seq )
« Last Edit: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 06:13:31 by Paulus »

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #127 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 17:35:21 »
Okey dokey Paulus ... I prefer the description "People of God" myself...

... mostly because I am not a "Roman" Catholic.  Gets to be a pain explaining the many different Rites that are not Roman, but still in full communion with the universal Church.

JMJ,
-S

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #128 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 17:50:07 »
Okey dokey Paulus ... I prefer the description "People of God" myself...

... mostly because I am not a "Roman" Catholic.  Gets to be a pain explaining the many different Rites that are not Roman, but still in full communion with the universal Church.

JMJ,
-S

Just out of curiosity - which Rite are you from, if I may phrase it that way.

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #129 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 18:42:59 »
Quote from: Elvisman

Just out of curiosity - which Rite are you from, if I may phrase it that way.
Thanks for asking ... kinda a odd mix: I consider the Byzantine Catholic - Maronite to be my spiritual home, but because I work for the RC Bishop and still teach RCIA for the Latin Rite I am a mess!

LOL - My move to away from the Latin Rite has not been formalized, and I have Canonical approval to attend the Divine Liturgy and the Mass.

Peace,
Scott

Elvisman

  • Guest
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #130 on: Wed Mar 21, 2012 - 20:48:30 »
Quote from: Elvisman

Just out of curiosity - which Rite are you from, if I may phrase it that way.
Thanks for asking ... kinda a odd mix: I consider the Byzantine Catholic - Maronite to be my spiritual home, but because I work for the RC Bishop and still teach RCIA for the Latin Rite I am a mess!

LOL - My move to away from the Latin Rite has not been formalized, and I have Canonical approval to attend the Divine Liturgy and the Mass.

Peace,
Scott

It's good to have you here, brother!

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #131 on: Thu Mar 22, 2012 - 06:38:50 »
Okey dokey Paulus ... I prefer the description "People of God" myself...

... mostly because I am not a "Roman" Catholic.  Gets to be a pain explaining the many different Rites that are not Roman, but still in full communion with the universal Church.

JMJ,
-S

Yes , I like "People of God" .

I have no problem with how we label ourselves .

The point I am making , and I have mentioned its usage by Popes from Pius XI to Benedict XVI , plus some information from Blessed John Henry Newman , is that the usage of the term "Roman Catholic Church" is an accurate description of the Catholic Church .

I am not saying that all Catholics must call themselves Roman Catholics as many do , but that those who choose to call themselves thus are theologically correct .

Those who don't like the words Roman Catholic don't have to use them , but they must be tolerant of those who do , and this tolerance must also be extended to the Popes who have used the words in question .

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #132 on: Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 01:27:14 »
Quote from: Paulus
Yes , I like "People of God" .

I have no problem with how we label ourselves .

The point I am making , and I have mentioned its usage by Popes from Pius XI to Benedict XVI , plus some information from Blessed John Henry Newman , is that the usage of the term "Roman Catholic Church" is an accurate description of the Catholic Church .

I am not saying that all Catholics must call themselves Roman Catholics as many do , but that those who choose to call themselves thus are theologically correct .

Those who don't like the words Roman Catholic don't have to use them , but they must be tolerant of those who do , and this tolerance must also be extended to the Popes who have used the words in question .
Gotcha...

I was, however, a little confused by a statement in your earlier post:
Quote from: Paulus
Immediately I cease to be Roman , to be in communion with the Roman See , I cease to be Catholic .
Just want to make sure that you understand that one need not be ROMAN to be in communion with the Roman See.   ::smile::

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #133 on: Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 04:49:08 »
Quote from: Paulus
Yes , I like "People of God" .

I have no problem with how we label ourselves .

The point I am making , and I have mentioned its usage by Popes from Pius XI to Benedict XVI , plus some information from Blessed John Henry Newman , is that the usage of the term "Roman Catholic Church" is an accurate description of the Catholic Church .

I am not saying that all Catholics must call themselves Roman Catholics as many do , but that those who choose to call themselves thus are theologically correct .

Those who don't like the words Roman Catholic don't have to use them , but they must be tolerant of those who do , and this tolerance must also be extended to the Popes who have used the words in question .
Gotcha...

I was, however, a little confused by a statement in your earlier post:
Quote from: Paulus
Immediately I cease to be Roman , to be in communion with the Roman See , I cease to be Catholic .
Just want to make sure that you understand that one need not be ROMAN to be in communion with the Roman See.   ::smile::

Yes not "Roman" as in "a citizen of the city of Rome" . However "Roman" as in "Roman Catholic" .

"The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing . " ( Pope Pius XII in "Humani Generis"] .

Immediately I cease to be Roman Catholic , I cease to be in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , and so cease to be Catholic , and so also cease to be a complete member of the Mystical Body of Christ .

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #134 on: Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 11:04:22 »
Quote from: Paulus

Yes not "Roman" as in "a citizen of the city of Rome" . However "Roman" as in "Roman Catholic" .

"The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing . " ( Pope Pius XII in "Humani Generis"] .

Immediately I cease to be Roman Catholic , I cease to be in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , and so cease to be Catholic , and so also cease to be a complete member of the Mystical Body of Christ .
Once again, one need not be a ROMAN Catholic to be part of the Catholic Church.

I am NOT a Roman Catholic and I did not cease to be in communion with the Pope.

That is why I don't care for the use of "Roman" when one is describing the universal church - it is insulting to the 21 other Catholic rites that are not Roman and are part of the universal church.

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #135 on: Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 13:21:26 »
Quote from: Paulus

Yes not "Roman" as in "a citizen of the city of Rome" . However "Roman" as in "Roman Catholic" .

"The Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing . " ( Pope Pius XII in "Humani Generis"] .

Immediately I cease to be Roman Catholic , I cease to be in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , and so cease to be Catholic , and so also cease to be a complete member of the Mystical Body of Christ .
Once again, one need not be a ROMAN Catholic to be part of the Catholic Church.

I am NOT a Roman Catholic and I did not cease to be in communion with the Pope.

That is why I don't care for the use of "Roman" when one is describing the universal church - it is insulting to the 21 other Catholic rites that are not Roman and are part of the universal church.

I know where you are coming from . There was a time when Catholics not of the Latin rite were in some quarters looked upon as second class members . That was put to rights at the Second Vatican Council , especially through the forceful way an Eastern rite patriarch , sorry I can't remember his name , spoke out in the name of the Eastern rite Catholics .

I understand your being protective and proud of your rite , and I am all for it .

Throughout this thread I have written and quoted from Popes , and the main point I want to get across is that they used the word Roman to designate communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome . Rites , whether East or West , are not part of the issue in this matter . You are a Catholic in the Maronite rite . I am a Catholic in the Latin rite . We are both Catholics in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome , and it is this fact , using the language Popes have used , which makes us members of the Roman Catholic Church .

The only way to understand what the Popes were saying , such as Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi where he wrote "The true Church of Jesus Christ is the One , Holy , Catholic , Apostolic and Roman Church", is to understand that they are designating the Church in communion with the Roman See , with the Bishop of Rome .

Now I have no problem with your not wanting to be referred to as a Roman Catholic , as long as you are not denying the use of the word Roman as the above quote from Pius XII intended it to be used .

When my father was alive , and he was a better Catholic than I will ever be , and he was asked what his religion was he would say Roman Catholic .

Sometimes I say I am Catholic , sometimes Roman Catholic . It's part of common parlance which I don't object to . If the adjective Roman was good enough for Popes from Pius XI to Benedict XVI , and for others if we look into the history of how the term was used , then it's good enough for me .
« Last Edit: Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 13:43:01 by Paulus »

Offline Scott1

  • Maronite Catholic
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Manna: 3
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #136 on: Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 14:02:41 »
Well said my friend.

Offline Paulus

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1302
  • Manna: 138
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #137 on: Sun Mar 25, 2012 - 15:06:05 »
Well said my friend.

Thanks , I hope you understand what I am trying to say . It's not always easy to get across points when at times they have been part of polemics .

Don't hesitate to query or seek verification about anything I have said .

















Offline highrigger

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1112
  • Manna: 26
    • View Profile
Re: What is Holy about a Roman....Catholic
« Reply #138 on: Wed May 02, 2012 - 11:03:43 »
Quote
Once again, one need not be a ROMAN Catholic to be part of the Catholic Church.

I am NOT a Roman Catholic and I did not cease to be in communion with the Pope.

That is why I don't care for the use of "Roman" when one is describing the universal church - it is insulting to the 21 other Catholic rites that are not Roman and are part of the universal church.

Scott,

Roman Catholic simply describes the part of the catholic church centered in Rome. It is not an insult. It helps us differentiate when we speak of catholics. My own church is catholic even though we are protestant. We recite the apostles creed every Sunday." I believe in the holy catholic church."

We are holy becuse we are accepted by God as holy when we repent and are justified. That is all.

Peace, JohnR