Nobody with a sense of early church history can object to either catholic or apostolic.
Or indeed the passage of faith by tradition.
Indeed, the church most certainly was catholic, for hundreds of years and many councils.
The change to a proper name Catholic as in "Roman Catholic" was only used post schism when the easterns went off to do their own thing, so then used as a means of distinction.
By that time the "catholic" church councils were responsible not just for the creed but also the canon and new testament, centuries before the schism..
Viewed by each other there are substantial differences between orthodox and RC - but viewed by the rest they are strikingly similar so still in essence catholic. Liturgical, sacramental, believe in real presence only if performed by clergy in apostolic succession, accept Marys role in salvation history, and so on.
Listening to many modern day Christians they seem to think the new testament just appeared, and was the basis for faith throughout history, they seem to have collective amnesia for the first millenium or millenium and a half
They have a vision of a multidenominational church that just did not exist till the reformationist churches dropped authority and tradition as the means of retaining meaning to scripture. Only then were all empowered to make up their own meanings, and then and only then did opinions and mutually exclusive dogmas so denominations of radically opposed dogma appeared. There are many protestant mutually exclusive views of such as eucharist and baptism. But it was certainly not always so.There was only one truth, the meaning handed with scripture by tradition.. Real presence in the case of eucharist. Protestants losing tradition has allowed massive variations in interpretation.
Or indeed the passage of faith by tradition.
Indeed, the church most certainly was catholic, for hundreds of years and many councils.
The change to a proper name Catholic as in "Roman Catholic" was only used post schism when the easterns went off to do their own thing, so then used as a means of distinction.
By that time the "catholic" church councils were responsible not just for the creed but also the canon and new testament, centuries before the schism..
Viewed by each other there are substantial differences between orthodox and RC - but viewed by the rest they are strikingly similar so still in essence catholic. Liturgical, sacramental, believe in real presence only if performed by clergy in apostolic succession, accept Marys role in salvation history, and so on.
Listening to many modern day Christians they seem to think the new testament just appeared, and was the basis for faith throughout history, they seem to have collective amnesia for the first millenium or millenium and a half
They have a vision of a multidenominational church that just did not exist till the reformationist churches dropped authority and tradition as the means of retaining meaning to scripture. Only then were all empowered to make up their own meanings, and then and only then did opinions and mutually exclusive dogmas so denominations of radically opposed dogma appeared. There are many protestant mutually exclusive views of such as eucharist and baptism. But it was certainly not always so.There was only one truth, the meaning handed with scripture by tradition.. Real presence in the case of eucharist. Protestants losing tradition has allowed massive variations in interpretation.
Last edited:
Upvote
0