The Reformation is over. Catholics 0, Protestants 1

triablogue ^ | April 13, 2015 | Jerry Walls

[RnMomof7]

I'm going to transcribe an article that Jerry Walls wrote when he was a grad student at Notre Dame:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am nearing the end of three very happy (with a brief interlude) years as a graduate student in the philosophy department at Notre Dame. The philosophy department is quite lively and stimulating and I have learned a great deal about my discipline.

Along the way, I have also acquired an education of another sort–namely in the ways of the Roman Catholic Church. My education in this regard has been informal and piecemeal, to be sure. My insights have been gathered from diverse sources: from lectures, from letters to the Observer, from articles in the conservative magazine Fidelity, from interaction with undergraduates I have taught. But most of all, I have learned from numerous conversations with students and faculty in the philosophy and theology departments, many of which have involved a friend who is a former Roman Catholic seminarian. While my informal education in these matters hardly qualifies me to speak as an authority, Roman Catholics may find interesting how one Protestant in their midst has come to perceive them. I can communicate my perceptions most clearly, I think, by briefly describing three types of Catholics I have encountered. 

First, I have met a fair number of conservative Catholics. Those who belong to this group like to characterize themselves as thoroughly Catholic. They stress the teaching authority of the Church and are quick to defend the official Catholic position on all points. For such persons, papal encyclicals are not to be debated; they are to be accepted and obeyed. Many conservative Catholics, I suspect, hold their views out of a sense of loyalty to their upbringing. Others, however, defend their views with learning, intelligence, and at times, intensity.

At the other end of the spectrum of course, are the liberal Catholics. These persons are openly skeptical not only about distinctively Roman doctrines such as papal infallibility, but also about basic Christian doctrine as embodied in the ecumenical creeds. It is not clear in what sense such persons would even be called Christians. Nevertheless, if asked their religious preference, on a college application say, they would identify themselves as Catholics. I have no idea how many Catholics are liberals of this stripe, but I have met only a few here at Notre Dame.

It is the third type of Catholic, I am inclined to think, which represents the majority. Certainly most of the Catholics I have met are of this type. I call this group "functional protestants."

Many Catholics, no doubt, will find this designation offensive, so let me hasten to explain what I mean by it. One of the fundamental lines of difference between Catholics and Protestants, going back to the Reformation, concerns the issue of doctrinal authority. The traditional Roman Catholic view, as I understand it, is that its official teachings are guaranteed to be infallible, particularly when the pope or an ecumenical council exercises "extraordinary magisterium" when making doctrinal or moral pronouncements. Protestants have traditionally rejected this claim in favor of the view that Scripture alone is infallible in matters doctrinal and moral. This was the conviction MartinLuther came to hold after he arrived at the conclusion that both popes and church councils have erred. After this, his excommunication was all but inevitable.

When I say most Catholics are functional Protestants I simply mean that most Catholics do not accept the authority claims of their Church. In actual belief and practice, they are much closer to the Protestant view.

This is apparent from the fact that many Catholics do not accept explicitly defined dogmas of their Church. For example, I have talked with several Catholics who are doubtful, at best, about the Marian dogmas, even though these have the status of infallible doctrine in their church. Such Catholics have often made it clear to me that they believe the basic Christian doctrine as defined in the creeds. But they frankly admit that they think their Church has taken some wrong turns in her recent history. Where this is the case, they do not feel compelled to follow. As one of my functional Protestant friends put it: "I am a Roman Catholic, but I am more concerned about being Catholic than about being Roman."

That many Catholics are functionally Protestant is also evident in their attitude toward the distinctive moral teachings of their Church. The obvious example here is the Roman Catholic teaching that all forms of "artificial" birth control are immoral. The official view was reaffirmed explicitly by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humanae Vitae, and has been reiterated again and again by Pope John Paul II. Nevertheless, as the article on Humanae Vitae in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion noted, "the papal ban is simply being ignored," and "a concrete authority crisis has thus emerged."

I attended the recent debate on abortion between Fr. James Burtchaell and Daniel Maguire. It is interesting to me that Fr. Burtchaell who eloquently defended the conservative view on abortion, admitted to a questioner that he rejects his Church's teaching on birth control. I could not help but wonder: is Fr. Burtchaell, Catholic statesman though he is, also among the functional Protestants?

This raises, of course, the deeper issue here: to what extent can a member of the Roman Catholic Church disagree with the official teachings of his Church and still be a faithful Catholic? Can one reject the teaching of a papal encyclical while remaining a faithful Catholic? If so, can he also reject a doctrine which the pope has declared infallible?

I have put these questions to several Catholics. Conservative have assured me that the answer to both the latter questions is no. Others insist the answer is yes.

This brings me to a final point concerning functional Protestants: they do consider themselves faithful Catholics. I have  often pointed out in conversation with such Catholics that their views differ little from mine. Why then remain Catholic I ask. In response, these Catholics make it clear to me that they love their Church and intend to remain loyal to it. More than one has compared the Church to his family. One's family makes mistakes, but one does not therefore choose to join another family.

I am not sure what to make of this response. It is not clear to me that one can line up behind Luther in holding that the Popes and councils have erred in their doctrinal and moral pronouncements, and still be a faithful Catholic.  But on the other hand, things have changed since the 16C. It is no longer the case that a Catholic will be excommunicated for holding what Luther held. Perhaps this is just another sign that the Reformation is–despite the pope's best efforts–finally taking hold within the Roman Church. 

Jerry Walls, "Reformational Theology found in Catholicism," The Observer, Thursday, April 23, 1978, p8.

[daniel1212]

A 2008 study from barna showed the following: The study also showed that Protestants were four times as likely to tithe as were Catholics (8% versus 2%, respectively).

When dealing with cultists or conspiratorialists look for the usual recourse of disallowing any source by from a RC one, even though unknown to them such affirm what was posted, such as numerous agencies typically attest to , or lack any data on it.

[daniel1212]

So you, belonging to a ‘church’ that is at most 500 years old have been ‘divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit’ to discern that the beliefs of our Catholic Church are in error.

Not so, as Rome is contrary to Scripture while your basis for the veracity of RC teaching cannot be the weight of Scriptire, but is based upon the novel but false premise of perpetual ensured magisterial veracity of Rome.

Thus while for Reformers,

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable"

And who,

...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position. (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 195948-49).

For RCs were see the recourse of no less than Cardinal Manning in response to which:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,”

And while much can be said about the state of the evangelical church today (and of my need for Christ-likeness), yet it is Catholicism and the church of Rome in particular (as the church taking up the most space on the broad way to destruction) that is most manifest as standing in critical and overall contrast to the NT church. Which church, as manifested in Scripture,

1. Was not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of office as per Rome, which has presumed to infallibly declare that she is and will perpetually be infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

2. Never promised or taught a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium was necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture assured that such had assured infallibility.

3. Never was a church that manifested the Lord's supper as being the central means of grace, around which all else revolved, it being “the source and summit of the Christian faith” in which “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” by which one received spiritual life in themselves by consuming human flesh, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54). In contrast to believing the gospel by which one is regenerated, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and desiring the milk (1Pt. 2:2) and then the “strong meat” (Heb. 5:12-14) of the word of God, being “nourished” (1Tim. 4:6) by hearing the word of God and letting it dwell in them, (Col. 3:16) by which word (Scriptures) man is to live by, (Mt. 4:4) as Christ lived by the Father, (Jn. 6:57) doing His will being His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And with the Lord's supper, which is only manifestly described once in the life of the church, focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people, or even dispensing bread as their primary ordained function, versus preaching the word. (2Tim. 4:2)

5. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made themselves distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7) Or were all to be formally called “father” as that would require them to be spiritual fathers to all (Mt. 23:8-10 is a form of hyperbole, reproving the love of titles such as Catholicism examples, and “thinking of men above that which is written, and instead the Lord emphasizes the One Father of all who are born of the Spirit, whom He Himself worked to glorify).

6. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift, (1Cor. 7:7) or otherwise manifested that celibacy was the norm among apostles and pastors, or had vowed to be so. (1Cor. 9:4; Titus 1:5,6)

7. Never taught that Peter was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, interpreting Mt. 16:18, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself. (For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

8. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

9. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or elected any apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

10. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

11. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling (RC "baptism") in recognition of proxy faith, and which thus usually ends with becoming good enough again to enter Heaven via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

12. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

13. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

14. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs.

15. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

16. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven") who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them (a uniquely Divine attribute in Scripture).

17. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as seen here

[daniel1212]

To say "Roman Catholic" is something of an anachronism. The Church was "Catholic," tout court. It was only after the 16th Century that the term "Roman Catholic" gained any currency:

So the distinctive term "Roman Church" was not used before then, and that "Roman Catholic" should not be used?

[daniel1212]

The apostles would attend the synagogue on Saturdays and then on Sundays meet for an agape meal and the Eucharist in a home church. You can see this in the book of Acts where they all lived in one community.

Really? You mean "breaking bread" meant the Catholic Eucharist in Acts? Where?

[daniel1212]

There was an priest in Boston, years ago, who believed it that way, damning all non-Catholics, and preached it. His name was Fr. Leonard Feeney. He was told his interpretation was erroneous and that he should retract his opinion; he defied this counsel; and he was excommunicated in 1953 for his obstinate persistence in this error despite repeated warnings.

That would be debated by his adherents. And he certainly has his supporters now, incldg here.

Here is a comparative chart on this which may need some more work:

Historical RC teaching	Comments	Modern RC teaching	Comments
Pius XII, Humani Generis (27,28):  "Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the Sources of Revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation...These and like errors, it is clear, have crept in among certain of Our sons." http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html	Thus the Mystical Body of Christ is said to be the Roman Catholic Church, and which is the true Church, belonging to which is necessary for salvation. However, the Vatican Two defender could argue that this does not mean the Roman Catholic Church is uniquely the Mystical Body, but which is what the pope seems to be arguing against as being part of the errors of modernism which he is addressing.	Vatican Two: Lumen Gentium 16: "The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...	Thus rather than the Mystical Body of Christ being uniquely the Roman Catholic Church, she is united in faith with many (properly) baptized Protestants.
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood..." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]	Thus the universal Church of the faithful is said to be one that holds to the erroneous doctrine of transubstantiation with its NeoPlatonic explanation, outside which no one at all is saved.	"They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood." — LUMEN GENTIUM: 16.	Thus rather than salvation requiring being part of the universal Church of the faithful which holds to the Catholic transubstantiation, with rejection of which excluding one from salvation, baptized Protestants are generally affirmed as being part of the universal body of Christ.
Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem, March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church) http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9singul.htm	Thus the pope decrees (imagines) that the Apostolic Roman Church under Peter is the One True Church® outside of which one cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation, and is not in the Church. He thinks this bombast will prevent dissent, but it has not worked.	Dominus Iesus: " …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html	While Rome, of course, asserts that all grace to be found in separated Churches and communities come from her, and thus ecumenical RCs can try to use this as meaning Protestants are part of the church, it is certain that Popes Boniface VIII, Pius IX, Pius XI, Pius XII, Innocent III, Eugene IV and the Council of Florence and the authors of the other exclusive elitist assertions here — would not stand for this.
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos: Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox “schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity), 11, Encyclical promulgated on January 6, 1928, #11; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html	Thus the specific stipulation that recognition and submission to the pope as supreme is stated to be necessary to be in the One True Church and for salvation, which excludes even the EOs.	Joint Catholic-Orthodox declaration: Grateful to God, who mercifully favored them with a fraternal meeting...Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I have not lost sight of the determination each then felt to omit nothing thereafter which charity might inspire and which could facilitate the development of the fraternal relations thus taken up between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church of Constantinople. They are persuaded that in acting this way, they are responding to the call of that divine grace which today is leading the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, as well as all Christians, to overcome their differences in order to be again "one" as the Lord Jesus asked of His Father for them.	So much for recognizing and obeying the authority and supremacy of Peter for life and salvation. Note the substantial differences between the two.
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself." — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html	Here we have an accepted (by many) “infallible” clear statement — made when Rome had no real lasting competition besides the EO, and used an unholy sword to deal with dissent, and could control the press — that submission to the Roman pope is necessary for salvation, with “subject” not meaning the EOs view of the pope, but the RC manner of submission.	CCC 838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324	Evidently Vatican Two sees some Prots as somehow being subject to the Roman Pontiff, which Boniface VIII say is absolutely necessary for salvation. While Lumen Gentium does says. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved,” this refers to baptism being the door by which men enter the Church. Thus to refuse baptism would be refusing to enter the Church, and not those whop know of the exclusive claims of the Roman church but are not convinced of them, and thus do not enter it.
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516, http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm	Thus the presumptuous pompous decree of Boniface VIII is affirmed by the Fifth Lateran Council, adding to Rome collective guilt.	Dominus Iesus: "...these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...”	Obviously, if “separated brethren” are part of the Body of Christ, and are instruments for salvation, then it cannot be held that subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful. Period.
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council),  Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441 (Florentine style),  [considered infallible by some]	Here is specified who is excluded from becoming participants in eternal life, which includes heretics and schismatics, yet in reality some dissent from Rome it is necessary to be saved. Rebellion to errors of Rome is obedience to God.	Lumen Gentium 8; This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. . These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.	Consistent with what has been said previously is the change here regarding the word “subsist.” Noted RC theologian Yves Congar states, The problem remains if Lumen Gentium strictly and exclusively identifies the Mystical Body of Christ with the Catholic Church, as did Pius XII in Mystici Corporis. Can we not call it into doubt when we observe that not only is the attribute "Roman" missing, but also that one avoids saying that only Catholics are members of the Mystical Body...Vatican II admits, fundamentally, that non-Catholic christians are members of the Mystical Body and not merely ordered to it. (Le Concile de Vatican II, (Paris: Beauchesne) p. 160.)
Therefore we can see that Vatican Two Rome has contradicted previous church teaching, even if that was not consistent. But which latest magisterial teaching is what RCs are to obey, and not interpret for themselves what church teaching really is by examination of the past,. For, It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. However, both pre and post Vatican Two Roman Catholicism was and is a serious deformation of the NT church, as partly detailed here by God's grace. We can know who is in the Church; we cannot know, with moral certainty, who is outside the Church. By going by what the church currently teaches, by word and deed, which simply indicts Rome as contradicting herself, and teaching that liberals are RCs. Which only indicts

[LurkingSince'98]

That’s nice.

For the Greater Glory of God

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So the distinctive term "Roman Church" was not used before then, and that "Roman Catholic" should not be used?"

Hmm. I don't quite know what to say.

Apparently the term "Roman Catholic" was first invented in the 17th century --- by Anglicans. I don't think it's used in official Catholic church documents.

In an earlier era, the Byzantines were the "Roms" (because Constantinople was the "Second Rome" and the Eastern Empire was the Roman Empire) and the Catholics were the "Franks" --- so called mostly by the Muslims. I remember how startled I was to read all of Western Europe, west of Ukraine, called the "Land of the Franks."

It's a little confusing, because some early (pre-Reformation) documents use the term "Roman Church" to mean the "whole" church, but others use it to mean just the See of Rome, that is, the Diocese of Rome.

I've seen it used to designate the Latin Rite, but that's even more confusing, because (1)most Western Christians don't use Latin liturgically anymore, and (2) properly speaking, it's not a "rite" but a "Church." The Melkites, Maronites, and Chaldeans, similarly, are not "rites" but "Churches." Catholic Churches!!

As for whether "Roman Catholic" should be used now for Western Catholics, it seems like it's so widespread there's no stopping it.

My inclination, though, is that "Catholics" in the West should simply be called "Catholic".

I trust I have made myself sufficiently obscure?

[MamaB]

That is the funniest thing I have read today. The Catholic religion is based on traditions. Thanks for the laugh.

[Resettozero]

You live in a total dream world if you think you’re polite.

That's making things personal, miss.

Apparently, being confronted with the truth is something you find impolite.

[Salvation]

**My inclination, though, is that “Catholics” in the West should simply be called “Catholic”. **

Correcto, my friend.

[Salvation]

Ukrainian (Catholic) Church an example of 'synodality' for Pope
Traditional Rites in Union Now with the Catholic Church
Catholic conservatives: A traditionalist avant-garde
The Rites of the Catholic Church [Catholic Caucus]
One and Many Churches (origins of the Church)
THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- There are many!
(Cardinal) Newman on Rites and Ceremonies

[Resettozero]

That’s nice.

That's nice?

Confronted by the evidence presented in post 322, all you can reply is "That's nice"?

I begin to understand why many RCs avoid going to a gathering of Christians where Jesus is King and His Gospel is preached for free. You folks do not easily listen to or accept the truth, unless it is presented on your terms.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I see from this that official documents have used the term "Roman Catholic." I stand corrected.

But the term remains ambiguous. For instance, Pope Francis just honored St. Gregory of Narek as a "Doctor of the Church," although he was ("technically"?) an Armenian Orthodox, not even a regular "Eastern Orthodox." He was not "Catholic," and it's quite possible he never met a Catholic in all his life.

Nevertheless, he never wrote anything at variance with Catholic doctrines. In fact, current Catholic canon law (1983) allows Orientals to receive Communion in a Catholic church. So are they "in communion"? Hmm....

I guess that was the assumption on Pope Francis' part, that if a guy is eligible for Catholic Sacraments, and not personally a proponent of heresy (not even "miaphytism,"), he's good to go.

I'm not a canon lawyer, but I would say from the Peanut Gallery that it's not quite as cut-and-dried as some people suppose.

Plus, anyone who has been Baptized --- anywhere, by anyone--- has entered the Catholic Church, as long as water and the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 were used.

So there's untold hordes of Christians out there, of various denominational flavors, who are regarded (by us) as "certainly, but imperfectly, Catholic."

That's you, buddy. :o)

In any case, God's action is not limited to, or by, the Sacraments. As the axiom has it, "We are bound by the Sacraments; but God is not bound by the Sacraments." He can do as He pleases.

[miss marmelstein]

You’ve been personal with me. Double standard much?

[Resettozero]

Apparently, being confronted with the truth is something you find impolite...and too personal.

[Zuriel]

**Catholics have the infallible Teaching of Christ’s Church.**

So if the eating of the mass gives eternal life, why the repetition? Does it wear off? If it doesn’t wear off, why the need to repeat the ritual? For those RCs that choose to partake of the mass once a month or less, are they in some sort of danger?

**The Protestant “Reformation” was really the “Protestant Revolution,” that took Christendom backwards into a Dark Age of Error.**

The original church didn’t teach the ‘mass’ (Lord’s supper) the way your’s does. Didn’t pray to Mary. Didn’t make statues to bow before (They in fact condemned it). DIDN’T (just like Jesus Christ and the apostles) EVER use the phrase ‘God the Son’.

Your ‘church’ grabbed the mainstream attention, because it appealed to ‘lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life’, while mixing in scripture, for a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.

The ‘few there be that find it’ (since Acts 2), have been keeping it original, whether in the shadows (because of persecution), or openly for 2,000 years.

[Elsie]

AHHHhhh...

Just more DOCUMENTED examples of the ancient, unchanging church.

[Elsie]

You’ve been personal with me. P>Rats!!

This was MY fantasy!

[ealgeone]

Inquisition

[Zuriel]

**Really? You mean “breaking bread” meant the Catholic Eucharist in Acts? Where?**

Silly you. ‘Tradition’ brings out these unrecorded teachings. It is unlimited in rule making. Kinda like the 0bummer machine.