Hey guys

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by Wolseley
It means catholic as in universal church and Catholic as in communion with the Holy See.

My level of ignorance astounds even me.

What's the Holy See? 

Technically, there is no such thing as "Roman Catholicism"; more properly it would the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. "Roman Catholicism" is a somewhat acrimonious term devised by Protestants a couple of centuries ago. It's common among non-Catholics, but Catholics themselves rarely if ever use that term.

Thanks for using words that I have to look up their meaning.

So Roman Catholicism is a derrogatory word developed by Protestants?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

So Roman Catholicism is a derrogatory word developed by Protestants?

Basically, yes.

What's the Holy See?

The Pope. Also known as the Vicar of Christ, etc. We have all sorts of confusing names to mix people up.

 

[Theresa]

Isn't the Holy See the Magesterium in union with the Pope? I mean the Pope is the only one who can speak infallibly but it can be in union with the Holy See. I imagine it as a group of men, Archbishops or Cardinals, all theologans, discussing, researching, praying and what not over the issues and then, if it appears "good to the Holy Spirit and to us" then something would be defined or changed, if it is a Tradition with a small 't'. I mean, I can imagine the Pope going against the majority if they were trying to do something iffy but if it is for something good, I imagine the majority of them would agree.

More specualtion, Wolsely, can you clarify. I've never seen an exact definition of the "Holy See."

Thanx, Luv
Theresa

 

[isshinwhat]

Holy See
(From the Latin Sancta Sedes, Holy Chair).

A term derived from the enthronement-ceremony of the bishops of Rome. The seat or chair in question must not be confounded with the ancient sedes gestatoria in the centre of the apse of St. Peter's, and immemorially venerated as the cathedra Petri, or Chair of Peter; the term means, in a general sense, the actual seat (i.e. residence) of the supreme pastor of the Church, together with the various ecclesiastical authorities who constitute the central administration. In this canonical and diplomatic sense, the term is synonymous with "Apostolic See", "Holy Apostolic See", "Roman Church", "Roman Curia". The origin of these terms can only be approximately ascertained. The word sedes, "chair", is an old technical term applicable to all episcopal sees. It was first used to designate the Churches founded by the Apostles; later the word was applied to the principal Christian Churches. These ecclesiae dictae majores were understood to be the five great patriarchal sees of Christian antiquity: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. To these the word sedes was applied: "quod in iis episcopi sederent in thronis", and of Rome it was expressly said: "Romana quidem erat prima sedes propria dicta." Thus, Gelasius I (492-496) at a Roman council: "Est ergo prima Petri apostoli sedes." In the earliest Christian writings, also, we often find references to the see or chair of Peter: "Sedet in cathedra Petri". Throughout the early Middle Ages the term was constantly in official use. Thus, in the "Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, II, Paris, 1892, 7), under Leo III (795-816): "Nos sedem apostolicam, quae est caput omnium Dei ecclesiarum, judicare non audemus." (We dare not judge the Apostolic See, which is the head of all the Churches of God.) We can thus readily understand how Holy See came be the technical term for the pope, the central ecclesiastical government, and the actual abode of the same.

 

[Wolseley]

So Roman Catholicism is a derrogatory word developed by Protestants?

More or less.

What's the Holy See?

In general terms, it means the Vatican; i.e., the Pope, Roman Curia, Magesterium, and all other bodies and authorities consitituting the official head of the Catholic Church.

A "see" is simply the headquarters of a bishop; you have the See of Los Angeles, the See of Boston, the See of Detroit, and so on; the See of Rome is the also the headquarters of the Church, so it is known as the Holy See; the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, but he is also the head of the entire Church.

 

[seebs]

Can we just reorganize? Let's call you guys the "Tall funny hats", Eastern Orthodox "Round funny hats", and the Protestants "Men without hats".

Man, the protestant reformation really defined the funky sound of the 80's.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by seebs
Can we just reorganize? Let's call you guys the "Tall funny hats", Eastern Orthodox "Round funny hats", and the Protestants "Men without hats".

Man, the protestant reformation really defined the funky sound of the 80's.

LOL!  We can always count on you to introduce some humor!

 

[seebs]

Once, when I was trying to figure out why God is so nice to me, I got a completely unambiguous answer. "I like you. You're funny." A source of consolation to me, that is.

 

[nyj]

Originally posted by Reformationist
So Roman Catholicism is a derrogatory word developed by Protestants?

From what I have read the term "Roman Catholic" was coined when the Anglicans wanted to show that they were "still Catholic" even though they had seceeded from the Catholic Church. They called themselves "Anglo-Catholic" and claimed that in conjunction with themselves, there were two other "legitimate" branches of Catholicism. "Roman Catholic" for the Catholics that followed the Pope and "Greek Catholic" for those of the Orthodox faith. Oddly enough, even though the Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) were wont to distance themselves from the Pope, they viewed Protestants with a greater distaste, which wound up placing themselves somewhere "in the middle" when viewed by both the other parties.

From there terms like "romish" and "romist" were a hop, skip and jump away from being coined to describe the "Roman Catholic" branch of Catholicism and became common place in religious rhetoric in the seventeeth century.

Today however, while the term "Roman Catholic" may have lost some of it's verbal sting, it is not a term recognized by the Catholic Church. In all official writings, the Church refers to herself as simply "The Catholic Church" and reserves the name "Roman Catholic" to solely address those Catholics who reside in the Diocese of Rome, Italy. The term "Roman Catholic" also is used sometimes defiantly, as is the example of the Society of Jesus who were given the derogatory name of "Jesuits", a name that they use that is now commonplace throughout the world.

For more on the term "Roman Catholic", check out the following link: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm

Personally, I call myself a Catholic. I'm not a big fan of labels. I'm not a liberal Catholic, I'm not a conservative Catholic. I'm not a traditional Catholic, I'm not a neo-Catholic. I am Catholic. I worship in the Catholic Church. A Church that is universal because it was established by Christ to preach His Word so that all men may come to know and worship Him. To call myself by any other qualifier seems like an attempt to limit His message.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by nyj
From what I have read the term "Roman Catholic" was coined when the Anglicans wanted to show that they were "still Catholic" even though they had seceeded from the Catholic Church. They called themselves "Anglo-Catholic" and claimed that in conjunction with themselves, there were two other "legitimate" branches of Catholicism. "Roman Catholic" for the Catholics that followed the Pope and "Greek Catholic" for those of the Orthodox faith. Oddly enough, even though the Anglicans (Anglo-Catholics) were wont to distance themselves from the Pope, they viewed Protestants with a greater distaste, which wound up placing themselves somewhere "in the middle" when viewed by both the other parties.

Were the Anglicans Protestants?

God bless

 

[chelcb]

Reformationist,

From what I know about the situation with Angelicans is King Henry broke from Rome and he kept the bishops so they do, or did have a valid priesthood.

When Luther broke he had no bishpos brake with him, at least none that I know, of I could be wrong, so that is how protestantism was born. What you see now with the difference in opinions on how we worship and matters of spirituality and on some doctrinal matters is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. With every split from Luthers seed you see someone else wanting to do away with something or another.

 

[onesheep]

Originally posted by nyj
Today however, while the term "Roman Catholic" may have lost some of it's verbal sting, it is not a term recognized by the Catholic Church. In all official writings, the Church refers to herself as simply "The Catholic Church" and reserves the name "Roman Catholic" to solely address those Catholics who reside in the Diocese of Rome, Italy.

I wish some of the Catholic churches out here would do the same.  It's very difficult trying to explain to a non-Catholic that there is no "Roman Catholic" when some Catholic Churches and Schools use that phrase in the official names of the Church.  With the derogatory way that term is said (more and more I hear it that way) I've really come to dislike it.

 

[chelcb]

Originally posted by chelcb
Reformationist,

From what I know about the situation with Angelicans is King Henry broke from Rome and he kept the bishops so they do, or did have a valid priesthood.

When Luther broke he had no bishpos brake with him, at least none that I know, of I could be wrong, so that is how protestantism was born. What you see now with the difference in opinions on how we worship and matters of spirituality and on some doctrinal matters is a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. With every split from Luthers seed you see someone else wanting to do away with something or another.

 

Too add Ref- On who's authority do they have to do this?

 

[sklippstein]

I was informed recently, that whether u are a (c) or (C).....u are still a catholic......true? What about the charismatic catholics......are they under the (c) or (C)?

 

[chelcb]

From what I know, the Charismatic Catholics are within the Church not something apart from. When the big movement occurred with Charismatic the pope did give Catholics his blessing to be charismatic which means to operate in the gifts of the spirit, this has nothing to do with doctrine or teachings, it is prayer groups that have specific ministries, like healing and such.

If I am wrong I welcome correction.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by chelcb
Too add Ref- On who's authority do they have to do this?

Who, the Anglicans or the Protestants?

Here's a question for you.  If the authority was passed down through the Holy Roman church and someone, even someone ordained a bishop, splits off are you telling me they retain this authority even though they may not be in communion with the Holy See?

God bless

 

[chelcb]

Either,

What they have the authority to do is hold mass and administer the sacraments, which is the life of the Church.

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by chelcb
Either

Couldn't say for the Anglicans.  But as for Protestants, the Holy Spirit, despite what you profess, is not limited to people who are submitted to the Roman Pope.  You have already acknowledged that the Holy Spirit moves among non-Catholics to do His Will.  My question is, what would be the purpose of indwelling non-Catholics with the Spirit of God if they are not submitted to the Roman Pope, the Catholic church, or her teachings?  Wouldn't that mean, according to ex cathedra statements, works of piety that are productive of eternal rewards are limited to those in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" and any such works, even the shedding of ones blood "for Christ's sake" are unprofitable and will not be rewarded by God with eternal life?  IOW, Protestants who don't submit to the Pope, which is all Protestants, won't receive the blessing of eternal life?

What they have the authority to do is hold mass and administer the sacraments, which is the life of the Church.

I thought Jesus was the life of the Church.

God bless

 

[chelcb]

Originally posted by Reformationist
Couldn't say for the Anglicans.  But as for Protestants, the Holy Spirit, despite what you profess, is not limited to people who are submitted to the Roman Pope.  You have already acknowledged that the Holy Spirit moves among non-Catholics to do His Will.  My question is, what would be the purpose of indwelling non-Catholics with the Spirit of God if they are not submitted to the Roman Pope, the Catholic church, or her teachings?  Wouldn't that mean, according to ex cathedra statements, works of piety that are productive of eternal rewards are limited to those in the "bosom and unity of the Catholic Church" and any such works, even the shedding of ones blood "for Christ's sake" are unprofitable and will not be rewarded by God with eternal life?  IOW, Protestants who don't submit to the Pope, which is all Protestants, won't receive the blessing of eternal life?



I thought Jesus was the life of the Church.

God bless

 

To the first comment, what I mean by on who's authority, I mean to do away with something or another when each sect splits from the other, what authority do they have to decide what there keeping and what their throwing away. The HS does indeed moves in protestants but again he does not give the authority to determine what is going to be taught and not taught, that authority he gave to the Church and when we weigh what each church teaches against what is taught by Rome, it is then we can discern if they are indeed being moved by the spirit or not. The last part of you comments I address in the other thread.

To you second comment, yes he is and we receive him in the sacraments so that is why it is imperative that we have a valid clergy to administer them. 

 

[Reformationist]

Originally posted by chelcb
To the first comment, what I mean by on who's authority, I mean to do away with something or another when each sect splits from the other, what authority do they have to decide what there keeping and what their throwing away. The HS does indeed moves in protestants but again he does not give the authority to determine what is going to be taught and not taught, that authority he gave to the Church and when we weigh what each church teaches against what is taught by Rome, it is then we can discern if they are indeed being moved by the spirit or not. The last part of you comments I address in the other thread.

So Protestant ministers do not have the authority to interpret Scripture and decide the Truth of Scripture?  So basically, all Protestants who teach something that does not coincide with the teachings of the Catholic church are teaching in error, right?  If all the teachings of Protestants coincided with the Catholic church then there would be no such thing as Protestants, right?  So all Protestants are in error?

To you second comment, yes he is and we receive him in the sacraments so that is why it is imperative that we have a valid clergy to administer them. 

We receive Him by His grace which is not confined to receiving the sacraments of the Holy Catholic church.

God bless