Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote][url="http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html"][b]Creed of Pope Pius IV[/b][/url] "I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic [u]Roman[/u] Church as the mother and teacher of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ."[/quote]This creed is binding upon the faithful, was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council. If you don't accept this then quite frankly, your not in good standing with the Church doctrinally. Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1287810676' post='2181717'][url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2.HTM"]Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church.[/url][/quote]So? This shows we are apart of the Latin Rite of the Church because this is the Latin Rite's Code of Canon Law, which subsequently includes the Latin-Sub-rites. When we refer to the "[i]Roman Catholic Church[/i]" or "[i]Roman Catholics[/i]", that is more than just the Latin Rite. Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
KnightofChrist Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) Roman and Latin are interchangeable. The CCC which is more authoritative than the Baltimore Catechism and certainly Wikipedia, uses Roman Rite and Latin Rite interchangeably. Roman Catholic Church, or The Church of Rome is one of the Sees, or [i]Sui Juris[/i] Churches, it has it's own Rite, as do the other [i]Sui Juris[/i] Churches of the One Holy Catholic Church. Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287807603' post='2181706']No... [b][color="#8B0000"]There is the Latin Rite, sometimes referred to as the "roman rite", but its technically and legally "[i]Latin Rite[/i]".[/color][/b] When someone says "[i]Roman Catholic[/i]" or "[i]Roman Catholic Church[/i]" its referring that the person or group is in union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. But the term is so frequently misused and misunderstood... its not surprising some people are resistant to the term "[i]Roman[/i]".[/quote][quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287808468' post='2181707']Yes. [b]The Roman Catholic Church is a [i]Sui Juris[/i] Church of the Holy Catholic Church[/b]. Just as the Byzantine Church is a [i]Sui Juris[/i] Church of the Holy Catholic Church. So to the Antiochain Church, and the other [i]Sui Juris[/i] Churches of the Holy Catholic Church.[/quote][quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287811271' post='2181721'][color="#8B0000"][b]Roman and Latin are interchangeable.[/b][/color] The CCC which is more authoritative than the Baltimore Catechism and certainly Wikipedia, uses Roman Rite and Latin Rite interchangeably. Roman Catholic Church, or The Church of Rome is a one of the Sees, or [i]Sui Juris[/i] Churches, it has it's own Rite, as do the other [i]Sui Juris[/i] Churches of the One Holy Catholic Church[/quote]Umm... It sounds like your trying your HARDEST to disagree... If you don't confess that all Catholics belong to the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church, you are NOT in good standing with the Church... Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
HisChildForever Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 Eastern Catholics are in full communion with Rome but identify themselves as, for example, "Melkite Catholic" - not "Melkite Roman Catholic". If "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" does NOT stand for a Rite, then Melkite Catholics would refer to themselves as "Melkite Roman Catholic".
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1287811966' post='2181725']Eastern Catholics are in full communion with Rome but identify themselves as, for example, "Melkite Catholic" - not "Melkite Roman Catholic". If "Roman" in "Roman Catholic" does NOT stand for a Rite, then Melkite Catholics would refer to themselves as "Melkite Roman Catholic".[/quote]IF they[b] don't accept[/b] the definitions of two Ecumenical Councils binding upon the faithful, they don't qualify them to Catholic and in union with the Bishop of Rome.... Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
HisChildForever Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 They are Catholics. The [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-encourages-eastern-catholics-to-maintain-traditions/"]Pope[/url] encourages their traditions and recognizes their union to Rome. [quote] “In maintaining Catholic communion,” he stated, “the Eastern Catholic Churches had no intention of renouncing faithfulness to their own tradition. As has been noted on several occasions, the union they have already achieved with the Church of Rome must not cause the Eastern Catholic Churches to lose an awareness of their own authenticity and originality.” “Therefore,” the Holy Father continued, “the task of all the Eastern Catholic Churches is that of preserving their legal heritage and nourishing their traditions, which are a treasure for the whole Church.” [/quote]
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1287812441' post='2181728']They are Catholics. The [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-encourages-eastern-catholics-to-maintain-traditions/"]Pope[/url] encourages their traditions and recognizes their union to Rome.[/quote]Yeah, because their not Latin Rite Catholics...
KnightofChrist Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) The term "Roman Catholic Church" is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms, if one truly applies it to the whole Church. Rome a city is a certain place, and a fixed location. Catholic meaning Universal is all places and locations, in all times. Using the term "Roman Catholic Church" for the whole Catholic Church is improper. The Catholic Church transcends Rome, tomorrow it could not exist, but the Church will always exist. The term "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", in the Creed of Pius IV, is not meant to be an official name of the Church, at least not in the manner Cat is arguing. It is rather a response to the Protestant rebellion (as was the Council of Trent). The term is meant to imply there is only one Church and the Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the Church, with the Pope as its head. Not that the whole Church is "Roman", the whole Church is clearly not. The Church is Universal. This is also interesting: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm"]How did the Catholic Church get her name?[/url] Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287815107' post='2181735']The term "Roman Catholic Church" is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms, if one truly applies it to the whole Church. Rome a city is a certain place, and a fixed location. Catholic meaning Universal is all places and locations, in all times. Using the term "Roman Catholic Church" for the whole Catholic Church is improper. The Catholic Church transcends Rome, tomorrow it could not exist, but the Church will always exist. The term "Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church", in the Creed of Pius IV, is not meant to be an official name of the Church, at least not in the manner Cat is arguing. It is rather a response to the Protestant rebellion (as was the Council of Trent). The term is meant to imply there is only one Church and the Church of Rome is the Primatial See of the Church, with the Pope as its head. Not that the whole Church is "Roman", the whole Church is clearly not. The Church is Universal. This is also interesting: [url="http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm"]How did the Catholic Church get her name?[/url][/quote]There is no OFFICIAL NAME for the Church. That is one definition for the word "[i]catholic[/i]", but I will agree that it's more of a Catholic focused definition. But it changes nothing. Unless they admit this creed, reaffirmed by two councils, that they belong to the "[i]Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church[/i]"... they are not in good standing or union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. As I admitted, the term is frequently misused and misunderstood. Also that we are the Latin Rite ([i]sometimes called the roman rite, though infrequent and a bit inappropriate[/i]). KnightofChrist, again you just thumb your nose at the Church when it's convenient for you. I'm starting to think you need a phisy tag. LOOK how the creed starts:[quote][b][url="http://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/Symbola/Tridentinae.html"]Creed of Pope Pius IV[/url][/b] I, N, with a firm faith believe and profess each and everything which is contained in the Creed which the [u]Holy Roman Church[/u] maketh use of. To wit: [/quote]The whole of the Catholic Church is Roman, in as much as its subject and in union with the Bishop of Rome, because the Bishop of Rome is the successor and vicar of Saint Peter the Apostle. Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
KnightofChrist Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 [quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287816433' post='2181736'] There is no OFFICIAL NAME for the Church. That is one definition for the word "[i]catholic[/i]", but I will agree that it's more of a Catholic focused definition. But it changes nothing. Unless they admit this creed, reaffirmed by two councils, that they belong to the "[i]Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church[/i]"... they are not in good standing or union with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. As I admitted, the term is frequently misused and misunderstood. Also that we are the Latin Rite ([i]sometimes called the roman rite, though infrequent and a bit inappropriate[/i]). KnightofChrist, again you just thumb your nose at the Church when it's convenient for you. I'm starting to think you need a phisy tag. [/quote] There is no need for personal attacks. Again Latin and Roman are interchangeable they mean the same exact thing. The Church is as much Roman as it is Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287817147' post='2181737']There is no need for personal attacks. Again Latin and Roman are interchangeable they mean the same exact thing. The Church is as much Roman as it is Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian.[/quote]IF you like it or not the Church when she refers to herself as Roman, she is usually referring not to a single rite when using this term. Though avoiding admission to the Holy Roman Church is getting a bit disturbing, but I hope you just missed that second part of my previous post... It's not a personal attack. I think you need to read the Phourm Guidelines to be reminded what a personal attack is. But if the Church is as Roman as it is all these other things, why the heck doesn't the Church seem to think so in her documents, creeds, and councils? Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
KnightofChrist Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287817528' post='2181738'] IF you like it or not the Church when she refers to herself as Roman, she is usually referring not to a single rite when using this term. Though avoiding admission to the Holy Roman Church is getting a bit disturbing... It's not a personal attack. I think you need to read the Phourm Guidelines to be reminded what a personal attack is. [/quote] Your need to focus upon my person and make my Catholicism or lack thereof in your eyes, the topic of this debate is very strange, and yes a personal attack. Because you are no longer debating/attacking the topic but rather me personally. The Church calls herself Universal, because she is Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. I agree with all of the terms so do cease your questioning of my Faith in Mother Church. Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287817911' post='2181739']Your need to focus upon my person and make my Catholicism or lack thereof in your eyes, the topic of this debate is very strange, and yes a personal attack. Because you are no longer debating/attacking the topic but rather me personal. [/quote]Well it's odd that you would devote so much time to denying an authoritative and binding creed of the Church upon the faithful, reaffirmed by two councils that calls the Church specifically "Roman" ([i]even without the phrase "catholic"[/i]). It would seem to me that just saying, "Yeah, I'm cool with the creed, but I don't feel a need to hyperfocus on the word Roman." And I would be like, "Yeah dude, even I said that in saying it was a misused and misunderstood term, with resistance to it being used." Then we both could go drinking... and... stuff... BUT NO... That's IMPOSSIBLE! You have a very "[i]us vs them[/i]" mentality. I think if I told you that your home was burning down, I have the feeling you would sit inside calmly being burned alive just to spite me.[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287817911' post='2181739']The Church calls herself Universal, because she is Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. I agree with all of the terms so do cease your questioning of my Faith in Mother Church.[/quote]Odd that the Church in her documents, creeds, or councils doesn't call herself the litany you have created for yourself. But they definitely call her Roman... I wonder why... Just another situation you backed yourself into... Which the only reason I can imagine you doing this is... You have problems with me, real or imagined. I'm the enemy to you, you can't agree with the enemy because the enemy is wrong... Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
KnightofChrist Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Mr Cat' timestamp='1287818345' post='2181740'] Well it's odd that you would devote so much time to denying an authoritative and binding creed of the Church upon the faithful, reaffirmed by two councils that calls the Church specifically "Roman" ([i]even without the phrase "catholic"[/i]). It would seem to me that just saying, "Yeah, I'm cool with the creed, but I don't feel a need to hyperfocus on the word Roman." And I would be like, "Yeah dude, even I said that in saying it was a misused and misunderstood term, with resistance to it being used." Then we both could go drinking... and... stuff... BUT NO... That's IMPOSSIBLE! You have a very "[i]us vs them[/i]" mentality. I think if I told you that your home was burning down, I have the feeling you would sit inside calmly being burned alive just to spite me.Odd that the Church in her documents, creeds, or councils calls herself the litany you have created for yourself. But they definitely call her Roman... I wonder why... Just another situation you backed yourself into... Which the only reason I can imagine you doing this is... You have problems with me, real or imagined. [/quote] I believe the Church to be Universal. By being Universal I believe she is also Roman, nor do I deny that she is also Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian because she is, again, Universal. I will pray that you cease your obsession over constantly questioning and denying my faith in Mother Church as this is not the first, second, or even third time you have denied my Catholicism. Even though I fear you will mock me for saying so... may the Peace of Christ be with you, Brother in Christ. ✠ Edited October 23, 2010 by KnightofChrist
Mr.Cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287819083' post='2181741']I believe the Church to be Universal. By Universal I believe she is Roman, nor do I deny that she is also Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Carthusian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Maronite, Syro-Malankar, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Syro-Malabar, Byzantine, Belarussian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Greek, Greek-Melkite, Hungarian, Italo-Albanese, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian. I will pray that you cease your obsession over constantly questioning and denying my faith in Mother Church as this is not the first, second, or even third time you have denied my Catholicism. Even though I fear you will mock me for saying so... may the Peace of Christ be with you, Brother in Christ. ✠[/quote]If you consider this mocking, then I hope you never upset me... I am chiefly perceptive, not judgmental, honestly I am FAR more indifferent to you than you might imagine. Honestly I don't care what you think about me either... Though you like to pretend I do... But I am seeing a definite pattern in your treatment of the authority and ministry of the Church... of people on Phatmass... and otherwise. If you can't explain why the Church SPECIFICALLY defines herself as Roman, but not any of the other Rites that you have mentioned ([i]except Latin, don't like the Latin Rite?[/i])... then where is the argument? Edited October 23, 2010 by Mr Cat
Guest Shadyrest Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 [quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1287805660' post='2181696'] If you are as familiar with Catholic doctrine as you claim to be, then you would realize that the distinction between "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" is important. [/quote] And I could tell you that if you were familiar with basic linguistics, you should realize that that the Roman Catholic church has wrongly appropriated to itself the term, "Catholic". Why? Because it is self-contradictory to call a body "Roman" (which is [i]particular) [/i]and at the same time, [i]"Catholic"[/i], (which means [i]universal). So the term "Roman Catholic" is a contradiction in terms, strictly speaking.[/i] All those who believe in Christ, are in fact, members of the Christian catholic church. Rome has no monopoly on the word.
Guest Shadyrest Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1287805715' post='2181697'] [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I"]Peter 5:13[/url] - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome. [/quote] While Peter may have been in Rome, it is completely gratuitous to say the Lord wanted to establish His church there because it was the center of the world. On the contrary, the Lord has repeatedly shown He does not use the wildly popular extravagant things of the world in numerous places, not the least of which is the incarnation and His ordaining that the hotels at the time would filled to capacity, unable to accommodate the birth, so the next best option had to be employed. Then, when we recall that Jesus told the disciples that the kings of the world excercise their authority over others, [i]"but it shall not be so with you", [/i] then the gargantuan "Vatican" spectacle in Rome, Italy, surely could not be what He had intended. In addition, you are reading too much into 5:13. The word "Rome" is mentioned around 10 times, and no where is Peter's name mentioned in connection with establishing a "See". As usual, Catholics have to desperately scrounge around and find "code word" evidence to support her doctrines, and I am not impressed.
Archaeology cat Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 First off, welcome to the phorum, Shadyrest. As others stated, the place of Rome isn't necessarily important. Had Peter stayed in Antioch, then his successors would be in Antioch, and that would be where the Pope lived. What we do see in the Bible is Jesus building His Church upon Peter (Matthew 16). And we also see that Peter ends up in Rome, and thus that his successors are in Rome. Sorry to keep it so short, but I have a baby sleeping on me. God bless!
Winchester Posted October 23, 2010 Posted October 23, 2010 [quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287802968' post='2181691'] [size="4"]By the way, I have no idea what you mean in your other post that you returned to your own vomit. You don't appear to write in clear sentences; only to say that my argument is invalid. [/size] [size="4"]When I refer to the Roman Catholic Church, I may [i]indeed [/i] refer simutaneously to the See of Peter! A web definition for the Holy See: It is, "[/size][i][size="4"]the episcopal [/size][u][size="4"]jurisdiction[/size][/u][size="4"] [so we again we're talking geography] of the Bishop of Rome forming the central government of the church (Roman Curia)." [/size][/i] [size="4"]You appear to be playing some sort of semantic game. The main headquarters of the [i]rite [/i]of the Roman Church is in Rome, Italy, just as Jehovah's Witnesses set up their charade somewhere in N.Y. I know perfectly well that if someone was a Maronite Catholic or any one of (I think at least a dozen) other rites, they are at liberty not to be called "Roman". But at the end of the day, [i]who cares?! [/i] They are all in subjection to ROME, and there can be nothing wrong with calling them [i]Roman Catholics, [/i] since your own literature demands a distinctly [i]Roman identity.[/i][/size] [font="arial, sans-serif"][size="5"] [size="2"]Mainland Chinese party officials might well regard it as more charitable and polite to designate their totalitarian regime the "People's Republic of China," but I'll stick with "Red China." Mormons might find it more charitable and polite if we called them "Christians" rather than "Mormons." After all, the self-designation of their cult is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." I'll stick with "Mormons". Likewise, the abortion lobby prefers to peddle euphemisms like "woman's choice" or "medical procedure." Does charity or courtesy oblige me to be a party of their agenda? As far as I'm concerned, they're having an [i]abortion, and that's that.[/i] [/size] As for Roman Catholics, if the shoe fits, wear it. "I acknowledge the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and [u]Roman[/u] Church, the mother and mistress of all the Churches." ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM"][color="#5588aa"]First Vatican Council, 2:12[/color][/url]) "They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy [u]Roman[/u] and universal church and the seamless robe of Christ', and with serpent-like bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself." ([url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM"][color="#5588aa"]Council of Florence, session 9[/color][/url])[/size][/font] [/quote] Wow, lots of text formatting. Looks like an appeal for money for a political campaign or a sweepstakes entry form. Nice. See versus rite. The "Roman Church" refers to the See. The problem is, you didn't use this correctly. You weren't talking about the Roman Church or the Roman Rite, but the Catholic Church as a whole, all of whom are subject to the "Roman Church" in different senses of both words, which end up meaning the See of Peter. Are you arguing that in a chain of command, everyone is essentially the general? Or perhaps you're arguing that there are not multiple ways to use the same word. Both? I referenced the Bible with the "vomit" quote. I thought you'd appreciate that. I am disappoint. And when I mashed the backspace button, but had forgotten I was no longer in this window and therefore went all the way back to the secret Roman Catholic Devilbase website, when I forwarded back to here, all my witticisms were present still. Thank you, Firefox!
Recommended Posts