Christ instituted ONE Church. The various communities geographically separated held to the same beliefs, the same faith. They were unified by the teachings of the Apostles, who were guided by the Holy Spirit to teach and preach the SAME Gospel throughout the world. In the following generations, the successors of these apostles were bound to continue to protect this deposit of teaching. WITHOUT the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church would have NEVER survived intact, but would have became numerous local churches with varying degrees of beliefs and practices. We believe in the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic" Church. When this became part of the Nicean Creed, there WAS only ONE place that people could point to when asked "Where is the Catholic Church"? They didn't point to the Gnostic communities, the Judaizer communities, Donatists, and so forth. Is there a difference today?
Visibly speaking, there can only be ONE center of unity, one Church that continues the fullest teachings of Christ. During the time of the Apostles, there was no need to distinguish between a "Roman" Catholic and an "Antiochian" Catholic Church. They were united under the same visible head, the successor of Peter. I don't know when the first use of "Roman Catholic Church" came about, but I would think it was much later. However, the center of the Church's visible unity has been Rome since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
With that all said, though, we must understand the distinction that the Vatican Bishops made 40 years ago. They said the Church SUBSISTS in the Roman Catholic Church. They did NOT say it IS the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, a member of the Holy Catholic Church does NOT necessarily belong to the Roman Catholic Church. Note the difference. There is NO other "Church" outside of the Roman Church that better represents what Christ established. His Church subsists within the Roman Church. But a Baptist or Lutheran is not necessarily outside. Think Geometry and Sets and Subsets...Think of Lutheran and Baptist sets as intersecting that circle called "Catholic", with larger parts of its circle within the "Catholic" circle, depending upon how much we share. The word "subsists" makes all the difference. But when a Lutheran or Baptist hears the claims of Catholicism, and they ring true - what must he do? Stay within the Lutheran or Baptist churches? That is a rejection of Christ.
You don't even think I attend a real "church", and certainly not a church of Christ.
It is not an apostolic church. It is an imitation of what Christ established. But this does not make it a tool of the devil! The Spirit is still operative within it to the degree that the Southern Baptist churches teach and preach CATHOLIC teachings. For example, do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead? Yes? Well. Congratulations. That is a Catholic doctrine and teaching. Is it a Baptist teaching or a Catholic teaching? It is the Baptist church teaching what the Catholics have been teaching already for 1500 years. Do Baptists read a Baptist compilation of the NT Scriptures, or the Catholic compilation of the NT? And so forth.
Protestants have decided on their OWN accord what was good and what was not (in their opinion). By separting from the Catholic Church, they had lost some of the truths of the faith, some of the means of grace that God has granted to His people THROUGH His Church.
When our pastor performs the Lord's Supper, you would say it is in complete error because my pastor has no power or authority as compared to a priest.
Read Numbers 16. To our modern ears, Korah makes sense:
Now Korah... took [men] and they rose up against Moses, with two hundred and fifty men of the sons of Israel, princes of the congregation, of the council, men of renown and they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said unto them. [We have had] enough of you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD [is] among them; why then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD? (Numbers 16:1-3)
Why should priests and bishops have power over us? Aren't we ALL a priestly people? Aren't we all God's children? Why should I do it this way? When if I want to do it this way? And that thing about the Immaculate Conception. That doesn't make sense to me. It can't be true... Sounds like Korah's same chorus (sorry)
Well. If we claim that Christianity is a REVEALED religion, why does man continuously try to rationalize the faith, make it flow with society? Why do we question God's ways of worshiping Him? Why do we question the Holy Spirit's ways of reading His Book, His practices? Is it a religion of man or of God? That is the question you must ask yourself. If it is FROM God, we OBEY. We don't question! Once we analyze and look at the Catholic faith - and see its source, we drop all of our feeble "but, what about...". If it is from MAN, then each man is as good as another. Each interpretation is as good as another. Any old ritual is as good as another.
Is that what you "hear" the Spirit doing within His Church? That each man decides for Himself the "correct" way? Or do we accept what has been given through the God-man, Jesus Christ, Whose hope we lay our rest upon? Do we believe what the Pastorals teach, that the Apostles left Timothy, Titus, and their generation a charge to keep the faith wholly as passed down? Is because of MAN??? NO! Either if is from us or from God.
If in the end, before God's judgment seat, I am found wrong - I will go to God and say I was merely obeying what I was taught. Men who claimed to hear your teachings - I tried to put into practice. THERE WAS NO OTHER CHURCH TO POINT TO THAT COULD VALIDLY CLAIM THE TITLE "CATHOLIC CHURCH". What will be the excuse for those who refuse to follow the claims of the ONLY Church that traces back to Christ? The SAME Church that claims to have the guidance of God Himself - as written in Divine Scriptures? "Well, God, I did it my way" "I couldn't buy into that thing about the Virgin Birth, or a Bodily Resurrection". It is either all or none. It is either all made up, or it is truly ALL from God.
Regards
Officially, never. The earliest document known to mention the "Catholic Church" is the letter St. Ignatius (who was appointed bishop of Antioch by St. Peter) read in 107 AD before he was martyred in a Roman arena in Smyrna (today's Turkey).
St. Polycarp, who was born around 65 AD (he was a disciple of St. John), and also martyred in Smyrna, also mentions the Catholic Church in 155 AD.
The name was apparently used to distinguish the Church established by Christ from various heretical groups who also called their gatherings as "churches."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 335 AD) writes to that effect:
Orthodox Church also refered to itself as a Catholic Church, all the way up to the Vatican I. The proclamation of papal infallibility dogma, however, brought further distancing and the need to distinguish the true or orthodox Catholic Church from the the particular (Latin) Church which strayed into error on this issue.
The term Roman Catholic refers specifically to the Roman Catholic Diocese, somuchso that the Cardinals are officially known as the Roman Catholic Cardinals, as each has a diocese inside the city of Rome. In the English speaking world, the term Roman Catholic became commonly used at one point, probably under Anglican influence which subscribed to the "three branch" theory of the Church (Anglican, Roman and Orthodox).
But, the Church is only one, both Apostolic and Catholic. All other Christian congregations to some extent touch, or share part of that Church, or are fully included in it.
Read Numbers 16. To our modern ears, Korah makes sense: ...
Well, that's a nice story. LOL! Since the intent was to compare Protestants to Korah and his merry band, then at least God has spared us for 500 years and counting. :)
Why do we question God's ways of worshiping Him? Why do we question the Holy Spirit's ways of reading His Book, His practices? Is it a religion of man or of God? That is the question you must ask yourself. If it is FROM God, we OBEY. We don't question!
"We" don't question God's ways, we question man's. The same goes for the Holy Spirit's ways of reading His book, and practices. You appear to define some truth by the opinions of men you agree with. Peter and the other apostles were human, were sinners, and were subject to error. Jesus himself proved that. I do not accept that Peter was infallible. As an apostle, he had a special closeness with Jesus, but he remained human and subject to human failing. His writings in the Bible were inspired, and thus perfect, but I don't see what made him a perfect man after Pentacost. Were he so, he would either be part God, or cease to be human. I agree that if the faith is from God, we should not question. We just don't put our trust in men.
What will be the excuse for those who refuse to follow the claims of the ONLY Church that traces back to Christ? The SAME Church that claims to have the guidance of God Himself - as written in Divine Scriptures? "Well, God, I did it my way"
You seem to say that your Church has "the keys" to truth because you trace it back to the apostles. You might also say that the millions of men who have been in its charge ever since cannot error as a group over time. Of course, you would admit that certain Catholic clergy have proven themselves unworthy, either through commission or omission. Why would I trust a priest who could be among those who commit such and such a sin habitually, 100% in defiance of the core of "Christian in general"/Catholic teachings? There certainly are ministers of my faith who commit such and such a sin habitually, and are thus outside the faith, too. I wouldn't trust them either. My point is only that men sin, whether they are in the clergy or not, of any faith. I do not trust my own pastor, whom I love, just because he is my pastor. I trust in God, prayer, and the word.