Do you find the term "Roman Catholic Church" to be an accurate description of the Church of Jesus Christ?

[Thing]

Was'nt it the Anglican catholics who started the 'Roman' Catholic thing.
"Pope Gregory the Great sent St Augustine in the late 6th century from Rome to evangelise the Anglo-Saxons..."
England was Catholic under the Pope for a thousand years before the Anglicans abandoned the Pope in the 1500's but wanted to continue calling themselves Catholic and so called those ol' diehards who stayed faithful to the Pope 'Roman' Catholics.

[drafdog]

No.

(It does not please me to elaborate.)

Brother Matthew

[Ignatius]

Originally Posted by Mannyfit75

Do you find the term "Roman Catholic Church" to be an accurate description of the Church of Jesus Christ?

Explain your answer in this poll.

"Catholic Church" is an accurate description of the Church of Jesus Christ?

[luckyfredsdad]

Originally Posted by Thing

Was'nt it the Anglican catholics who started the 'Roman' Catholic thing.

No it wasn't! It was the Pope through the Creed of Trent,[1564] who said that the name of the Church was,'the Holy Roman Church,'!

Pope Gregory the Great sent St Augustine in the late 6th century from Rome to evangelise the Anglo-Saxons..."
England was Catholic under the Pope for a thousand years before the Anglicans abandoned the Pope in the 1500's but wanted to continue calling themselves Catholic and so called those ol' diehards who stayed faithful to the Pope 'Roman' Catholics.

Gregory did indeed send Augustine from Rome to Britain, but he was sent to work on the labours of other men, ground already ploughed as it were, a thing S.Paul positively refused to do! Christianity had already successfully converted Britain some five hundred years earlier! He went to a King whose wife was a Christian and was met by a bishop from the continent and handed a Christian Church which was already in use. When the pagans made an attack on the whole of Christian Britain, the followers of Augustine,[all but one,] were runners and Britain was rechristianised by the Northern Celts and Irish Christians.Rome had nothing to do with it!

Regarding the reformation? All the English did was to follow and put into practice the commands of the Ecumenical Councils, specifically those canons that forbad the bishop of one see from invading, or intruding on another one.

The use of the term Roman to describe those Catholics who chose schism, rather than conformity with the ancient Church in England took place in 1570. The schismatics were latter day Donatists who preferred the teaching of Trent to the old and traditional Catholic faith.

[luckyfredsdad]

Originally Posted by Ignatius

"Catholic Church" is an accurate description of the Church of Jesus Christ?

But where does it relate specifically and solely to the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church?

Where are your proofs from scripture and the Fathers, that Rome has sole rights?

[Ignatius]

Originally Posted by luckyfredsdad

But where does it relate specifically and solely to the Bishop of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church?

Where are your proofs from scripture and the Fathers, that Rome has sole rights?

That's not what this thread is about. Go back and read the posts.

[luckyfredsdad]

Originally Posted by Ignatius

That's not what this thread is about. Go back and read the posts.

Well then the answer is no!
That's the answer, one can see perfectly why you do not wish any elaboration!

[Roman_Army]

I chose the first option. Obviously, the proper name for the whole Church is the Catholic Church. We cannot call the entire Church of Christ the "Roman Catholic Church" for the simple fact that not all Catholics are Roman and that such a name relegates Christ's Church to a mere ethnic, nationalistic, and local sect among many others. I'm in the Latin church of the Catholic Church, but I do not consider myself to be "Roman" even though I have a great fascination and love for the seat of the greatest empire known to man and the seat of the Church that is mother to all other Churches. Only those naturally born in the city of Rome, Italy are properly called "Roman." The Church is not nationalistic nor ethnic. She is not a sect nor denomination among many. She is not a mere religion among many possible religions. She is the very kingdom of God, Bride of Christ, Mother of all, and the only authentic religion which leads directly to God and his Heavenly dwelling. All other religions merely lead indirectly to God and have borrowed from the Church, adding falsehoods to half Truths, and subtracting from the full Truth.

[luckyfredsdad]

[quote=Roman_Army;5943640]

. Obviously, the proper name for the whole Church is the Catholic Church. We cannot call the entire Church of Christ the "Roman Catholic Church" for the simple fact that not all Catholics are Roman and that such a name relegates Christ's Church to a mere ethnic, nationalistic, and local sect among many others.

Ethnic! Latin Church, Ruthenian, Greek or Roman ? What is this if it isn't ethnic and what is this if it isn't pic and mix?
Yet, your official name, puts it quite well. Catholic and Apostolic ROMAN Church! This was accepted by a vote of Roman Catholic Bishops at the Council of Trent. It was included within the Creed of Trent printed by the Pope some months after the Council and even today is still distributed widely within the North of England. This is because Catholic Bishops gave up their Catholic responsibilties on to the shoulders of the papacy, they surrendered their religious freedom!
I can quite see your objections to it and sympathise with you, but has the Roman Church, or Latin Church abandoned the Creed of Trent and is that Council no longer classed as Ecumenical by the body that arose from its endevours?

I'm in the Latin church of the Catholic Church, but I do not consider myself to be "Roman" even though I have a great fascination and love for the seat of the greatest empire known to man and the seat of the Church that is mother to all other Churches.
Only those naturally born in the city of Rome, Italy are properly called "Roman."

I'm sorry to be sound vulgar, but the choice isn't yours unless it is what people today call a pick and mix religion. The Bishop of Rome is the Head of the Roman Catholic Church. That Body was formed at Trent, or as a result of Trent,1564! The Bishop of Rome claims that to be Catholic you have to be a member of that Church!

The Church is not nationalistic nor ethnic. She is not a sect nor denomination among many. She is not a mere religion among many possible religions. She is the very kingdom of God, Bride of Christ, Mother of all, and the only authentic religion which leads directly to God and his Heavenly dwelling.

A sect, according to my Funke and Wagner is an organisation separated from the parent body on a single issue. That is what the Roman Church, via the papacy has done, it has split from the rest of the Catholic Church on an intrusion, or addition to the faith, the Claims of the Bishop of Rome. It has added to the Deposit and is now a Catholic Sect,albeit a large one! Now I notice that whilst many on this board state their beliefs, very few ever defend them , by following the Canon of Lerins, or indeed the Canon of Trent which says that Scripture must be judged through the traditions of the fathers.

[Roman_Army]

Luckfredsdad:

Umm... Last time I checked, the Council of Trent only says "holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" maybe your Anglicanized version of the Council adds Roman in order to suit your theology, but it is not found in the original. It is similar to how feminists and liberals change the wording in Scripture and also in the liturgy to suit their own philosophical perspectives. Now, I do not deny that there is an ethnic element to particular churches. But, that's the key word particular. There are many particular churches within the one Catholic Church. Even within the Latin branch there are many different ethnic groups within with distinct culture, heritage, and theological emphasis which have been preserved. The Polish Church would be much more different than the Mexican Church, etc.

Maybe through your relativistic philosophy you see Catholic bishops as surrendering their freedom to the Papacy. But, nothing can be further from the Truth. The bishops are at liberty to form their own opinions that do not conflict with the already settled dogmas and doctrines of the Church. Most likely you see these very doctrines and dogmas as restrictive and making a bishop a slave. But, through the perspective of these very bishops and indeed most devout Catholics these dogmas and doctrines actually free us from the dictatorship of relativism, sin, the nihilism, and the hopelessness associated with it. We believe that God has revealed himself in concrete ways to humanity and showed himself to us so that we may know him with certainty, he is indeed social with us, not some distant and shy deity that leaves us to figure him out for ourselves without any certainty. Christ said the Truth will set you free, not that satisfying the ego, appetites, or corrupt desires of the flesh will set you free. A big part of knowing the Truth is trusting in the Holy Spirit which has never ceased his work in the Church since Pentecost. He has continued to guide the bishops including in the Golden age of the Early Church Fathers in interpreting the Scriptures. This is why we must not contradict their interpretations, that is when they are unanimous on an interpretation concerning faith or morals. This Tradition also applies today. When the bishops teach a doctrine in faith or morals unanimously they are infallible and are to be adhered to. However, it is not possible for there to be discontinuity in Tradition. The bishops of one age must be in harmony with the bishops of a past age as well. The voice of the ancestors is just as authoritative. As Anglican convert to Catholicism the great author GK Chesterton noted, Tradition merely extends the democracy to the dead who are still alive in spirit. (Oops.. I guess former Anglicans GK Chesterton and the great soon to be canonized Cardinal Newman gave up their religious freedom to the Pope. )

The body or organization which gave heed to authority of the bishop of Rome and all his brother bishops was around long before the Council of Trent. It was here since the time of the Apostles. You might not want to believe this, though I'm sure deep down inside you know that it is True, but cannot handle it well, at least not yet.

[luckyfredsdad]

Roman_Army;5944431]Luckfredsdad:

Umm... Last time I checked, the Council of Trent only says "holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" maybe your Anglicanized version of the Council adds Roman in order to suit your theology

In the Creed of the Council of Trent it is written plain and in my version,in very good English,
A. Holy Roman Church!
B. In the 111rd Chapter it mentions
"holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church"!
Whilst these are taken from a different source than my earlier message, the originals are taken from leaflets given in a town about 9 miles away, by the local Roman Cergy! They are given to people who have expressed a wish to,' return to Rome', as it were! I must have about 10 copies!
I don't know if I mentioned it to you earlier, but there is no need to even put a gloss on anything never mind falsify. The Roman tradition speaks for itself.
,

He has continued to guide the bishops including in the Golden age of the Early Church Fathers in interpreting the Scriptures. This is why we must not contradict their interpretations, that is when they are unanimous on an interpretation concerning faith or morals. This Tradition also applies today. When the bishops teach a doctrine in faith or morals unanimously they are infallible and are to be adhered to. However, it is not possible for there to be discontinuity in Tradition. The bishops of one age must be in harmony with the bishops of a past age as well. The voice of the ancestors is just as authoritative. As Anglican convert to Catholicism the great author GK Chesterton noted, Tradition merely extends the democracy to the dead who are still alive in spirit. (Oops.. I guess former Anglicans GK Chesterton and the great soon to be canonized Cardinal Newman gave up their religious freedom to the Pope. :whacky

They wouldn't be the first and if we are being told the truth, they will not be the last, but never-the-less, they do immeasurable harm to the Body of Christ! They are what my Aunt, [A Scot,] used to term, "The weaker Sisters!"

The body or organization which gave heed to authority of the bishop of Rome and all his brother bishops was around long before the Council of Trent. It was here since the time of the Apostles. You might not want to believe this, though I'm sure deep down inside you know that it is True, but cannot handle it well, at least not yet.

Friend of course it is true! The Bishopric of Rome is of very great antiquity. But he was not nor did he claim to be infallible or Jurisdiction over the rest of the College of Bishops. He was given authority by the Emperor over the Bishops of Suburbicarian Italy. This as far as I understand was Italy below Rome and the islands, later he was made Patriarch of the West, again by the Church and he shared with the POpe of New Rome a primacy of sorts, of position, only!
Trent was a coup, and whist it took time, [ the Gallic Bishops fought it till they were sacked by the pope at Napoleon's behest in about 1810.] it was never forgotten .Why do you think the Old Catholics broke away in 1870?