They Call It Roman

[lionroar0]

What you think of their doctrinal positions really doesn't change anything.

If you have reason to think that the quotations are bogus, you'll need to explain that. Otherwise, for anyone merely to be a Christian of a different denomination doesn't matter.

A schismatic group will spouse it's own doctrine. That's why it's a schismatic group.

Peace

 

[mont974x4]

Find us a document from Pope Benedict that states that.

Peace

Did benny decide to deny the unam sanctum?

 

[lionroar0]

Did benny decide to deny the unam sanctum?

When you figure it out post it. I'll give you a hint. It's in the Catechism.

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0259r.htm
see (3).

That's better. Makes for a stronger argument. I have been reading some of the quotes from TJ sites. Some call the Church, just the Catholic Church and others. The Church at Rome, and the Roman Catholic Church.

Looks like any of the three will do.

Also one has to take into account that the Church has more rites now then let's say 100yrs ago.

Peace

 

[Albion]

A schismatic group will spouse it's own doctrine. That's why it's a schismatic group.

If we were talking about doctrine, you'd have a point. We're not. But anyway, I see that you are comfortable with a variety of wording that has been used over the years for this church, so that's that from what I can see. If I can just add one little addendum, while we all know that there are different rites, whenever they need to be mentioned--which is seldom--"rites" does the job quite fair and square.

 

[mont974x4]

When you figure it out post it. I'll give you a hint. It's in the Catechism.

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm

Peace

I posted the unam sanctum yesterday. Rome defines it that we must submit to the pope in order to be saved. So, I ask again, did benny deny the unam sanctum?

 

[Rhamiel]

we are getting off topic, the name of the Church is Roman Catholic, that is the topic of debate, I prefer to call it Catholic, but if you want to call it Roman Catholic that is great, I am just glad that it is not being called such degrading names like "the Roman religious system" or things like that

 

[mont974x4]

There's plenty of accurate names that would offend you, I imagine.


Nice ducking my question btw.....I'll go start a new thread for it to help spare this thread.

 

[Albion]

we are getting off topic, the name of the Church is Roman Catholic, that is the topic of debate, I prefer to call it Catholic, but if you want to call it Roman Catholic that is great, I am just glad that it is not being called such degrading names like "the Roman religious system" or things like that

Reminds me of how hard we had to work to have our churches not called "ecclesial communities" instead of "churches."

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

we are getting off topic, the name of the Church is Roman Catholic, that is the topic of debate, I prefer to call it Catholic, but if you want to call it Roman Catholic that is great, I am just glad that it is not being called such degrading names like "the Roman religious system" or things like that

I rather like the way the Orthodox Church calls themselves. Mine would be "orthodox Christian" I suppose.

http://christianforums.com/t2085709-reunification-the-opposite-of-schism.html

The majority of individuals I've encountered who are in the Orthodox Church are also converts from Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, including myself. I was baptized Missouri Synod Lutheran as a child and then grew up attending a Church of God, Anderson, IN, church, then a charismatic church for a few years up until my discovery of Orthodox Christianity in college. I think estimates now are that there are up to 6,000,000 Orthodox Christians in North America, so we're experiencing above average growth, at a time when many other groups are losing ground. Thanks be to God.

Basil

 

[Albion]

I rather like the way the Orthodox Church calls themselves. Mine would be "orthodox Christian" I suppose.

http://christianforums.com/t2085709-reunification-the-opposite-of-schism.html

The majority of individuals I've encountered who are in the Orthodox Church are also converts from Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, including myself. I was baptized Missouri Synod Lutheran as a child and then grew up attending a Church of God, Anderson, IN, church, then a charismatic church for a few years up until my discovery of Orthodox Christianity in college. I think estimates now are that there are up to 6,000,000 Orthodox Christians in North America, so we're experiencing above average growth, at a time when many other groups are losing ground. Thanks be to God.

Basil

Time to show that Orthodox cross at the top of your page, isn't it?

 

[TraderJack]

Yep let's set the record straight. I agree.

These are schismatic sites. According to them the Pope is a heretic and everyone except them are going to hell.

Peace

Whether you consider them to be "schismatic" or not is totally irrelevant to the FACT that "Roman" has been added by Rome itself for centuries, as is clearly shown from the CORRECT quotes from those sites.

Therefore, your attacking the source is a non sequitur.

 

[TraderJack]

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0259r.htm
see (3).

Lets see them attack that source. It is an often used tactic that when having no argument containing truth to attack the source.

 

[TraderJack]

Also, Catholic when it was first used by Chrisitans meant 'complete', not universal.

Yes, or "whole". The exact same idea is found in the NT teachings of Jesus, Paul and the NT Church when using the term that is translated into English as "perfect", meaning, "complete or whole".

Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
"Chapter VIII.-Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid"

Interestingly no one should be called universal bishop. It is a remnant of the earlier church teaching about no one assuming almighty offices. But the Church in Rome has already by this time moved further away from the primitive church. It is a stepping-stone/phase in the development of the Papacy.
Compare this with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Rome

The Catholic argument is
"Gregory the Great condemned the title universal bishop in the sense of meaning that all other bishops are not really bishops, but mere agents of the one Bishop, a concept that is blatantly contrary to Catholic teaching, which holds that all bishops are by divine institution true successors of the Apostles. For he states:
For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops.

{Epistle LXVIII}"
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ152.HTM
Which is in fact contrasted by Catholic teaching that makes the bishop of Rome more equal than all others, and that all others are dependent on their office to him.
Compare the early church with this. A bishop is supreme in his diocese. No one above him but Jesus. In the RC Church every bishop however can be undermined by one bishop, that of the bishop of Rome.
It's a legal fiction that the RC Church maintains in order to pretend its bishops are the same; the idea lampooned in another and un-related work "Some are more equal than others".*
936 The Lord made St. Peter the visible foundation of his Church. He entrusted the keys of the Church to him. The bishop of the Church of Rome, successor to St. Peter, is "head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the universal Church on earth" (CIC, can. 331).
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/936.htm
There's only one "Vicar of Christ" and only one "Pastor" of the universal church. It's simply playing with words; universal bishop or universal pastor.
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/882.htm

What we see from history, when viewed objectively, without the lens of Roman twisting of facts, is that the Roman bishops began deviating from the Church as a "whole" and set the church of Rome on a separate path from that of the whole Church, and has continued on that same path of error.

 

[TraderJack]

cool
Roman Catholic Church
I am cool with that, I will call it the Catholic Church but if you say Roman Catholic I will still know what you are talking about.

And that is why many call the Roman distinctives, "Romanism", just as one calls the Mormon distinctives, "Mormonism" or the distinctives of Karl Marx, Marxism, etc.

 

[TraderJack]

This doesn't invite schism?:

"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Pure Papal Bull, specificaly, Unam Sanctum.

Conversely, protestant documents say the samething about their particular congregations. ei.. Westminster confession.

Show us where the Westminster Confession says anything as you have charged.

Support your claim.

 

[TraderJack]

What you think of their doctrinal positions really doesn't change anything.

If you have reason to think that the quotations are bogus, you'll need to explain that. Otherwise, for anyone merely to be a Christian of a different denomination doesn't matter.

A schismatic group will spouse it's own doctrine. That's why it's a schismatic group.

Peace

You sidestep the point, being that those sites correctly quote Roman popes and theologian, as has been proven to you by simon citing a Roman Catholic site with the same quote from the sicut rationi by Hormisdas.

 

[TraderJack]

When you figure it out post it. I'll give you a hint. It's in the Catechism.

http://www.kofc.org/un/publications/cis/catechism/index.cfm

Peace

Well, one Roman, "tz620q" has informed us that the Catechism or Catholic Encylopedia are not reliable sources.

http://christianforums.com/t6857735&page=21

 

[TraderJack]

A schismatic group will spouse it's own doctrine.

Do those quotes that correctly reveal the long term use of "Roman" by Roman popes, etc, espouse any of those groups doctrines?

Whether Rome considers them to be schismatic or not has no bearing whatsoever on the facts contained in the quotes, and amounts to nothing but a diversionary argument of no substance.

 

[TraderJack]

we are getting off topic, the name of the Church is Roman Catholic, that is the topic of debate, I prefer to call it Catholic, but if you want to call it Roman Catholic that is great, I am just glad that it is not being called such degrading names like "the Roman religious system" or things like that

It is also called by Rome itself, "the Roman faith", which is synonymous with "Roman religion" or "Roman religious system". So, no need to get offended when those are the natural conclusions of the terms your own heirarchy uses.