Was the church Jesus said he would build the Roman Catholic Church?What about the other churches?

[Luvtosew]

I believe church include all Christians. Catholic means universal. RCC means the roman catholic church.

[karaleigh]

Originally Posted by sarahdupuis

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matthew 16:18)

I like to go to Bible History Online when it comes to a good source for information.

Here is what the ISBE says in regards to your question. Hope it works!
Excerpted...

LITERATURE
The word "church," which is derived from kuriakos, "of or belonging to the Lord,"...
I. Pre-Christian History of the Term.
'ekklesia' soon became a distinctively Christian word, whether Jews or Greeks, who first heard it applied to the Christian society it would come with suggestions of familiar things. ...Greek world, 'ekklesia' was the designation of the regular assembly of the whole body of citizens in a free city-state, "called out" The Septuagint translators, the "congregation" or community of Israel, especially in its religious aspect as the people of God.... Old Testament, employed by Stephen, in the Book of Acts, describes Moses as "he that was in the church (the Revised Version, margin "congregation") in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). The word thus came into Christian history with associations alike for the Greek and the Jew.... The pre-Christian history of the word had a direct bearing upon its Christian meaning, for the ekklesia of the New Testament is a "theocratic democracy" (Lindsay, Church and Ministry in the Early Centuries, 4), a society of those who are free, but are always conscious that their freedom springs from obedience to their King.
II. Its Adoption by Jesus.
According to Mt 16:18 the name ekklesia was first applied to the Christian society by Jesus Himself, the occasion being that of His benediction of Peter at Caesarea Philippi....But now when it was clear that He was to be rejected by the Jewish people (compare Mt 16:21), and that His society must move on independent lines of its own, it was natural that He should employ a new name for this new body which He was about to create, and thus should say to Peter, on the ground of the apostle's believing confession, "Upon this rock I will build my church." The adoption of this name, however, did not imply any abandonment of the ideas suggested by the conception of the kingdom. In this very passage (Mt 16:19) "the kingdom of heaven" is employed in a manner which, if it does not make the two expressions church and kingdom perfectly synonymous, at least compels us to regard them as closely correlative and as capable of translation into each other's terms. And the comparative disuse by the apostolic writers of the name "kingdom," together with their emphasis on the church, so far from showing that Christ's disciples had failed to understand His doctrine of the kingdom, and had substituted for it the more formal notion of the church, only shows that they had followed their Master's guidance in substituting for a name and a conception that were peculiarly Jewish, another name whose associations would enable them to commend their message more readily to the world at large.

[Paul theApostle]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

Indeed yes, but mine was a suggestion, not a reprimand. I don't know why, of all the responses here, you chose mine to make this point.

sarahdupuis - welcome to CAF, and no offense intended. As you now know, your Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters get a little sensitive about this nomenclature issue. Please participate in the Eastern Catholic forum when you have a chance, as you will likely learn why relatively quickly.

Now, back to your question ...

I understand,i felt you might feel that way when i posted that,im sorry ,it was not really directed at you but everyone or all of us,so i wrote Peace at the end hoping you would understand i wasnt reprimanding you

sorry again for that ByzCathC

Im still learning posting etiquette

[triumphguy]

The Church Christ founded was One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, under the primacy of Peter..

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

The Catholic Church is more than just the Roman Catholic Church. So the answer to your original question is "NO".

No that is not correct.

The Roman Catholic Church is the (one and only) Catholic Church. She is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" we, in the Creed, profess our belief in.

The Catholic Church has identified herself in Councils (i.e. Vatican I) as the Roman Catholic Church. So too a number of major encyclicals by various Popes makes this perfectly clear. After all, you take away the "Roman" and you necessarily take away the "Catholic" too, as should be obvious.

I don't want to argue semantics. My only concern here is in stressing the literal one-ness of the Church and the proper use of terms. The idea of a completely vague collection of various churches or assemblage of all believers (or whatever) is a fairly modern and peculiarly Protestant idea. It can be dangerously close to religious indifferentism, indiscriminately including anyone who calls themselves a Christian as actually being Christian (what's to stop the Church of Scientology from claiming to be a Christian Church?), whereas a valid baptism is necessary for incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body.

There is only one Church: Christ has only one Mystical Body, which is the Church (in distinction to His Glorified Body in Heaven, which is a real Body in a real place). We have only one "holy Mother, the Church."

All the validly baptized are made members of Christ's Mystical Body. Mortal sin makes Christians dead members of that Body; heresy, schism and apostasy have the power to even sever us from His Body.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

No that is not correct.

The Roman Catholic Church is the (one and only) Catholic Church. She is the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" we, in the Creed, profess our belief in.

The Catholic Church has identified herself in Councils (i.e. Vatican I) as the Roman Catholic Church. So too a number of major encyclicals by various Popes makes this perfectly clear. After all, you take away the "Roman" and you necessarily take away the "Catholic" too, as should be obvious.

I don't want to argue semantics. My only concern here is in stressing the literal one-ness of the Church and the proper use of terms. The idea of a completely vague collection of various churches or assemblage of all believers (or whatever) is a fairly modern and peculiarly Protestant idea. It can be dangerously close to religious indifferentism, indiscriminately including anyone who calls themselves a Christian as actually being Christian (what's to stop the Church of Scientology from claiming to be a Christian Church?), whereas a valid baptism is necessary for incorporation into Christ's Mystical Body.

There is only one Church: Christ has only one Mystical Body, which is the Church (in distinction to His Glorified Body in Heaven, which is a real Body in a real place). We have only one "holy Mother, the Church."

All the validly baptized are made members of Christ's Mystical Body. Mortal sin makes Christians dead members of that Body; heresy, schism and apostasy have the power to even sever us from His Body.

Sorry, but you are wrong and I am right. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Catholic Church. Read this:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...siarum_en.html

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Sorry, but you are wrong and I am right. The Roman Catholic Church is not the only Catholic Church. Read this:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...siarum_en.html

There is nothing in that document that denies what I wrote, and there is still only one Catholic Church.

"One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the communion of saints." That's what I profess belief in whenever I say the Creed. I am not sure what it is you are saying. Notice that it is the communion of saints: not the communions...

Furthermore, that Church is not only today, but it is yesterday and even includes tomorrow (God willing). And it is still one. It also includes the souls in Heaven and in Purgatory. And it is still one.

[Paul theApostle]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

There is nothing in that document that denies what I wrote, and there is still only one Catholic Church.

"One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the communion of saints." That's what I profess belief in whenever I say the Creed. I am not sure what it is you are saying. Notice that it is the communion of saints: not the communions...

Furthermore, that Church is not only today, but it is yesterday and even includes tomorrow (God willing). And it is still one. It also includes the souls in Heaven and in Purgatory. And it is still one.

May ConTG speak for himself but i gather hes trying to say the Eastern Catholic churches are indeed "Catholic" but they are not Roman

So to say the 'Roman' church is the only Catholic church ,hes saying that thats wrong

[mdgspencer]

"What about the other churches?" was asked in the original post.
The Lutheran church began in the Sixteenth Century. The Methodist church in the Eighteenth Century. The Adventists began in the Nineteenth Century. Every Protestant Church, as well others like the Anglican Church and the Morman Church began more than a thousand years after Christ. We can name all their founders and give the exact dates they began.
We can name the people who began these churches, and we know the year they were begun in recent centuries. Obviously they were not begun by Christ.
I hope this answers your question--"what about the other churches."

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by Paul theApostle

May ConTG speak for himself but i gather hes trying to say the Eastern Catholic churches are indeed "Catholic" but they are not Roman

So to say the 'Roman' church is the only Catholic church ,hes saying that thats wrong

The point is that when a Church is in communion with Rome it subsequently becomes a Catholic Church and so a Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise any particular Church could, for example, deny the Papacy and still claim to be a Catholic Church owing to its Rite having Papal approbation.

The Church has various parts but it is ultimately one Body with one single Head:

[16] And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

[Paul theApostle]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

The point is that when a Church is in communion with Rome it subsequently becomes a Catholic Church and so a Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise any particular Church could, for example, deny the Papacy and still claim to be a Catholic Church owing to its Rite having Papal approbation.

The Church has various parts but it is ultimately one Body with one single Head:

[16] And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

I dont really care what the Eastern Catholics want to call themselves by or whether they want to shake off the label of being "Roman" Catholic or whatever

If you see ConTGs religion next to his name,its says 'non practicing Roman' Catholic ,so hes saying hes a practicing Catholic but not a Roman one

I know in the East,Constantinople is New Rome,so really all eastern christians can say that they are Romans ,your either a Roman with Old Rome or New Rome(Constantinople)

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

The point is that when a Church is in communion with Rome it subsequently becomes a Catholic Church and so a Roman Catholic Church. Otherwise any particular Church could, for example, deny the Papacy and still claim to be a Catholic Church owing to its Rite having Papal approbation.

So, I drove down the road this morning and passed St. Brigid's Roman Catholic Church (as per the signage on the front lawn). A few miles away, I drove past St. Andrew the Apostle Byzantine Catholic Church (again, as per the signage on the front lawn). Is one to then assume that the latter is not a true Catholic Church in communion with Rome because it uses the term "Byzantine" instead of "Roman"? Has the latter laid claim falsely to being Catholic, that is, part of the Catholic Communion of 23 sui juris Churches, including the Latin Church?

And yes, there are other churches that use the term Catholic in their titles and church names but indeed are not in communion with Rome. But those are not the Eastern Catholic Churches, many of whom have paid a hefty price over the centuries for their faithful allegiance to Rome. And we know who the others are: simply forcing a label of Roman Catholic on all the Churches in the Catholic Communion is not going to fix that - not one bit.

Virtually every document that comes out of the Vatican these days refers only to the Catholic Church without the "Roman" designator. Even the landmark release of the Catechism was published with the title Catechism of the Catholic Church. In charity and with an open mind and heart, please consider the possibility that is rather intentional.

[thomas jd]

Originally Posted by sarahdupuis

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matthew 16:18)

There is only one Church, the Catholic Church, all others that are called churches are places to pray!

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

There is nothing in that document that denies what I wrote, and there is still only one Catholic Church.

"One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, the communion of saints." That's what I profess belief in whenever I say the Creed. I am not sure what it is you are saying. Notice that it is the communion of saints: not the communions...

Furthermore, that Church is not only today, but it is yesterday and even includes tomorrow (God willing). And it is still one. It also includes the souls in Heaven and in Purgatory. And it is still one.

I am not saying that there is no One Catholic Church. I'm saying that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Catholic Church. The One Catholic Church is composed of 23 sui juris Catholic Churches, the Roman Catholic Church being one of only 23. Yes, it is one but not one as Roman. The Church is one body, the Roman Church say is the torso. It is part of the one but is not THE one. Its definitely not the left leg nor the right arm. Those are other Churches sui juris.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Paul theApostle

I dont really care what the Eastern Catholics want to call themselves by or whether they want to shake off the label of being "Roman" Catholic or whatever

If you see ConTGs religion next to his name,its says 'non practicing Roman' Catholic ,so hes saying hes a practicing Catholic but not a Roman one

I know in the East,Constantinople is New Rome,so really all eastern christians can say that they are Romans ,your either a Roman with Old Rome or New Rome(Constantinople)

True enough the Greeks were called Romans by those in the Middle East. But the whole point of the term "Greek Catholic" is to differentiate ourselves from Roman Catholics who are those of the Latin Rite.