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

[JharekCarnelian]

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.

Nor has anyone said otherwise. You are creating a strawman rather than dealing with the points other such as Constantine have made. Constantine commented recently that he had experienced examples of been called less than Catholic by Latin Catholics and I sadly fear this is beginning to veer into that territory. Before marriage to my wife who is a member of one of the Orthodox Churches like all too many Latin Catholics I knew very little about the Eastern Catholic Churches. As a result of marriage I naturally ended up learning more about them, our seperated Eastern brothers and the sui juris Churches.

Eastern Catholics often lament the fact that the western Church is sadly ignorant of their traditions and that historically the way some of these Churches were reconciled with the overall Church was less than diplomatically handled. We must be careful of avoiding presuming EITHER Latin or Eastern Catholics represent the totality of the faith. Both are parts of an overall whole.

[ByzCathCantor]

All that said, to get back to the original question, I would submit that it is consistent with current Catholic Church teaching to say that all of the Apostolic Churches (those with Apostolic succession and sacraments recognized as valid) represent the full Church of Christ with traceability to the original Church as bestowed upon the Apostles, St. Peter as the chosen first among them. As the Catholic Church possesses the continuity and responsibility of the chair of St. Peter, it asserts this special role of trusteeship for the preservation, defense and teaching of the True Faith and the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

To suggest that the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the Truth (that is, it represents the only remaining and permanent remnant of Christ's Church) at present seems inconsistent with its own teaching and contrary to the cause of unity, which it seeks in accordance with Christ's own prayful desire that we "all be as one". We recall that this prayer acknowledged that we must "all be as one" so that the world would know the Truth.

If however we use the term Church in the broader sense, that is, the Church of Christ as the necessary means through which promised salvation is earned, then perhaps the responsibility bestowed upon the Catholic Church, heir to the chair of St. Peter, to preserve Her unity might suggest a more singular and discriminating role, but mainly in the context of the discharge of that great responsibility and not to the exclusion of the other Apostolic Churches.

[Aelred Minor]

Blech. What an ugly word fight.

This thread is another example of why I think we should drop the term "Roman Catholic" entirely. To most people, the term means all Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and this seems to have been the original meaning of the term. To a large and often highly opinionated minority today, it means Latin rite Catholics exclusively. The conflicting definitions lead to endless confusion and pointless conflicts, and sometimes to an exaggerated sense of distinction between Eastern Catholics and all the other Catholics due to a sort of unfortunate mixing of the two definitions.

Meanwhile, as long as the term continues to be used, let's just agree to take the term in the sense the person using it means it.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Aelred Minor

Blech. What an ugly word fight.

This thread is another example of why I think we should drop the term "Roman Catholic" entirely. To most people, the term means all Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and this seems to have been the original meaning of the term. To a large and often highly opinionated minority today, it means Latin rite Catholics exclusively. The conflicting definitions lead to endless confusion and pointless conflicts, and sometimes to an exaggerated sense of distinction between Eastern Catholics and all the other Catholics due to a sort of unfortunate mixing of the two definitions.

Meanwhile, as long as the term continues to be used, let's just agree to take the term in the sense the person using it means it.

No, the original meaning is meant for the Catholics who belong to the Church in Rome, not all Christians in communion with the Pope. It came I believe from the Anglicans who want to differentiate the Church of England from the Church of Rome. So it really has nothing to do with Eastern Catholics.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

If however we use the term Church in the broader sense, that is, the Church of Christ as the necessary means through which promised salvation is earned, then perhaps the responsibility bestowed upon the Catholic Church, heir to the chair of St. Peter, to preserve Her unity might suggest a more singular and discriminating role, but mainly in the context of the discharge of that great responsibility and not to the exclusion of the other Apostolic Churches.

Whats confusing with the term "Church" is that there are different levels of Church. Each diocese is an individual and autonomous Church. Then there are the Archdiocese/Metropolitan where it is composed of several diocese/eparchies. Then the Patriarchial Church composed of several Archdiocese/Metropolitan. Then the entire Catholic Church as a whole. Simply put, parts of the body belong to the body, but they are different and distinct parts. You can't call the whole body as torso or leg. To claim that the entire Catholic Church is the same as saying Roman Catholic Church is to say that torso means the entire body.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Whats confusing with the term "Church" is that there are different levels of Church. Each diocese is an individual and autonomous Church. Then there are the Archdiocese/Metropolitan where it is composed of several diocese/eparchies. Then the Patriarchial Church composed of several Archdiocese/Metropolitan. Then the entire Catholic Church as a whole. Simply put, parts of the body belong to the body, but they are different and distinct parts. You can't call the whole body as torso or leg. To claim that the entire Catholic Church is the same as saying Roman Catholic Church is to say that torso means the entire body.

ConstantineTG - I'm not even referring to the "terminology debate" here - in fact, I had attempted to move us beyond it. Remember, I'm a "cradle" Eastern Catholic - I do not consider myself a Roman Catholic - I have been told otherwise over the course of a lifetime by Roman Catholics. The reasons though are unimportant to this discussion, other than to note that the distinction should be respected by our Roman Catholic brethren in this and other dialogues, as your point out.

My point (as it related to the genesis question in the OP) was that if one wants to equate the [Roman] Catholic Church with the original Apostolic Church, as established by Christ Himself and perfected by the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we should allow that the oft suggested notion of exclusivity of the [Roman] Catholic Church as the sole inheritant of the Church established by Christ can be partially understood in terms of its unique position as the heir to the chair of St. Peter.

Do you think that the Church actually teaches that the other Apostolic Churches are not sharers in inheritance of the Church established by Christ, entrusted to the Apostles, Peter as appointed by Christ the first among them?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

ConstantineTG - I'm not even referring to the "terminology debate" here - in fact, I had attempted to move us beyond it. Remember, I'm a "cradle" Eastern Catholic - I do not consider myself a Roman Catholic - I have been told otherwise over the course of a lifetime by Roman Catholics. The reasons though are unimportant to this discussion, other than in that they should be respected by our Roman Catholic brethren in this and other dialogues, as your point out.

My point (as it related to the genesis question in the OP) was that if one wants to equate the [Roman] Catholic Church with the original Apostolic Church, as established by Christ Himself and perfected by the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we should allow that the oft suggested notion of exclusivity of the [Roman] Catholic Church as the sole inheritant of the Church of Christ can be understood in terms of its unique position as the heir to the chair of St. Peter.

Do you think that the Church actually teaches that the other Apostolic Churches are not sharers in inheritance of the Church established by Christ, entrusted to the Apostles, Peter as appointed by Christ the first among them?

Of course not. All the Churches are equal in dignity. The Primacy falls on the Bishop of Rome himself, not the entire Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps part and parcel, the diocese of Rome may be seen as a Prime See, but not every diocese of the Roman Church.

[ByzCathCantor]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Of course not. All the Churches are equal in dignity. The Primacy falls on the Bishop of Rome himself, not the entire Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps part and parcel, the diocese of Rome may be seen as a Prime See, but not every diocese of the Roman Church.

And what of the Apostolic Churches currently outside the Catholic Communion (i.e. the Orthodox Churches), as I believe was partially the point of the original question?

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

And what of the Apostolic Churches currently outside the Catholic Communion (i.e. the Orthodox Churches), as I believe was partially the point of the original question?

I would view those as still been Catholic Churches, although unfortunately seperated from us at the present moment.

[Langdell]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

I would view those as still been Catholic Churches, although unfortunately seperated from us at the present moment.

What would you say regarding the Anglican Church? That's a topic of particular interest to me (without intending to stray too far from the thread topic).

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by Langdell

What would you say regarding the Anglican Church? That's a topic of particular interest to me (without intending to stray too far from the thread topic).

I would not include them as I do not view the majority of their clergy as having valid orders and thus I view them as an ecclestical community rather than a Church.

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

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.

No. The Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all the Churches; she is not a torso.

[JharekCarnelian]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

No. The Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all the Churches; she is not a torso.

All the Churches are of equal dignity.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by 1AugustSon7

No. The Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all the Churches; she is not a torso.

Says who? Certainly not Pope Paul VI in ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM.

Here are some excerpts in case you refuse to read the entire document, bolds are mine for emphasis:

2. The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government and who, combining together into various groups which are held together by a hierarchy, form separate Churches or Rites. Between these there exists an admirable bond of union, such that the variety within the Church in no way harms its unity; rather it manifests it, for it is the mind of the Catholic Church that each individual Church or Rite should retain its traditions whole and entire and likewise that it should adapt its way of life to the different needs of time and place.

3. These individual Churches, whether of the East or the West, although they differ somewhat among themselves in rite (to use the current phrase), that is, in liturgy, ecclesiastical discipline, and spiritual heritage, are, nevertheless, each as much as the others, entrusted to the pastoral government of the Roman Pontiff, the divinely appointed successor of St. Peter in primacy over the universal Church. They are consequently of equal dignity, so that none of them is superior to the others as regards rite and they enjoy the same rights and are under the same obligations, also in respect of preaching the Gospel to the whole world (cf. Mark 16, 15) under the guidance of the Roman Pontiff.

So who do I believe? Random anonymous internet poster or Pope Paul VI? Um.... tough one....

[1AugustSon7]

Originally Posted by JharekCarnelian

Nor has anyone said otherwise. You are creating a strawman rather than dealing with the points other such as Constantine have made. Constantine commented recently that he had experienced examples of been called less than Catholic by Latin Catholics and I sadly fear this is beginning to veer into that territory.

No. The implication that anything I have said can be construed in the slightest as implying that I suggested any Catholic of any Rite is something less than Catholic or is not a Roman Catholic is the only strawman here.