Roman Catholic?

[jazzmine]

On this board, in several threads, I have seen the term "Roman Catholic" used by several people. I have also just seen the word "Catholic" used.

Is there a difference between them, or are some people just shortening it to just Catholic?

Please note that I am not any religion, and this is not in anyway intended as a derogatory attitude toward any Catholics. I'm just curious, and would love to know more about it.

trisha

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice - Albert Einstein

[SoxFan59]

I would say, by and large, when folks refer to "Catholics" on this board, they mean the Roman Catholic Church, the one headquarterd in Rome with Pope John Paul II as its head.

But there are other "Catholic" churches. For example, my wife was raised in the Byzantine Catholic church, a small "eastern rite" church which has a liturgy similar to the eastern orthodox churches but has close ties to the Roman Catholic church. For example, the Byzantine rite includes the "fileoque" passage in the Nicene Creed (which is the phrase involving the Holy Spirit "proceeding from the Father AND THE SON." The orthodox churches do not recognize the "AND THE SON" part of the phrase), and aknowledge that the Pope is the ultimate spiritual authority on earth.

But the term "Catholic" in its literal meaning is misleading. It literally means "united" or "unified." The aforementione Nicene Creed, which was written and adopted before much of the dogma that is in Roman Catholicism today arose, proclaims belief in "One, holy catholic Church." The meaning there is not so much what folks today consider the "Catholic" church, but looks to the unity of believers who profess faith in Christ. Thus, even most Protestant denomnations who use the Creed still proclaim faith in a "catholic" (that is, small "c") church.



------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[jazzmine]

I find that very interesting. I'm not educated in any of this enough to post a thought-provoking message, but I would love to hear why people think that there are so many different teachings for one religion.

Religion here being used to mean "names of religions."

For example. Why so many factions of the Catholic Church? Why so many factions of the Protestant Church? This is not a question of whether any and all are "Christian", just a question on their different doctrines.

Factions may not be a good word to use here, but you get my drift.

trisha

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice - Albert Einstein

[StrTrkr777]

Well I can't speak for all groups, but I believe the differences came/come about due to differences in interpretation.

The bible was written many thousands of years ago. It has been translated many times and the original works are for the most part not available. The only things that are available are later copies of the originals. These copies may or may not be exact.

Then the bible is also not always complete clear, there are a number of areas that lends itself to interpretation.

My biblical history is not the best, so bear with me, hopefully SoxFan or some others will add to this.

The Christian belief was formed around the time of Jesus. After Jesus was resurrected and asscended into Heaven, his close followers continued to teach others about him. One of his last teachings was go out to all the world and spread the word.

Now some of this group of followers did just that, they went out and began teaching and the numbers of their church grew. However, there were churches in each area, Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, etc. So, over time some of these groups would likely interpret the bible somewhat differently. Also, you might have the case where some in a particular church decided that they believed one point and another group believed something else. This often would cause a split in the church and would create two separate churches. Both believed mostly the same things but had a difference of opinion in one or more areas.

Over time, as communications grew, it became apparent that mutiple churches could do more than single churches. That is if a church wanted to send a missionary they might not could afford to, but 4 churches might be able to do so. Churches began to form under different group names based on their similar beliefs.

Some believe in having particular regular occurances during their worship service. One major difference between Baptists and Methodists (AFAIK) is the method of baptism. The Baptists (in general) believe that the person must be fully immersed in the water, the Methodist (in general) feel that sprinkling is sufficient. There are other differences, but I am not as familiar so I do not want spread any misinformation.

Also, the Baptists do not (in general) baptize babies. A difference from I believe the Catholic and Methodist churches.

Admittedly, these differences are not very great. I do not believe most of the differences are. I believe the main focus should be on do we believe in Jesus Christ and what he did for us and do we serve him as Lord.

If so, and you call yourself a Christian, then I would embrace you as a fellow Christian. I still will attend my church because it follows most closely to what I believe the Bible teaches.

Jeffery

[Keeves]

This factionalism sometimes gives a bad reputation to religion in general, when in fact it is not a fault of religion, but an aspect of human nature found in other areas as well. For example, a phrase in a country's laws will be understood one way by one group of experts, and another way by a second group of experts. Both are equally patriotic and devoted to the original intent of the law, but they do disagree on what the original intent was. This is not the laws fault, it is just human nature.

[Pickman's Model]

Well, I'm a Catholic who studied his Church history, so I know a little about this, but mind you, I'm no expert.

In the beginning, all Christians were of one faith---the "catholic" faith. The word literally means "universal", and since there was only one Christian body, it was more or less true, if you exclude the "heretical" bodies such as Gnostics and Arians, which we won't go into.

The Roman Empire, at the time of Emperor Constantine (who legalized Christianity and made it the state religion---this was in the 300's AD) was split into two halves. The Western half had its capital in Rome, and the people spoke primarily Latin. The Eastern half had its capital in Constantinople and the people spoke primarily Greek. (The dividing line between these two sections of the Empire went right down through what is now Rumania.)

The Christian (or "catholic", if you will) Church began, over a period of many hundred years, to drift apart, east from west. The two sides couldn't quite agree on which day Easter should be celebrated on, for example, and as has been mentioned, there was that little article in the Creed about the Holy Spirit. In the West, where people spoke Latin, the Roman government had collapsed, and there was political chaos; the only institution which remained intact was the Church. As a result, the Pope (being the only guy left with any authority on anything) gained a lot of prestige, and later, political power, which in the long run was a detriment rather than a help. (Religion should always stay out of politics, IMHO.) The Pope, who was ostensibly the successor to St. Peter, 1st bishop of Rome, felt that he should be the leader of the entire Church, since St. Peter was the leader of the original 12 Apostles. The folks over in the Greek-speaking side, however (where, by the way, the Roman government was still in power and still perfectly stable; the Eastern Roman Empire actually lasted until 1453, although in history books it's usually referred to as the "Byzantine Empire") felt that all the bishops should be equal and work in concert together. As a result, friction built and built.

Finally, in 1056, the squabble reached a head, and the Pope excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople, who reciprocated in kind. The whole thing was more about power than faith, but people are like that, as we all know. From this point on, the Greek Church became known as the Orthodox Church, and the Latin Church became known as the Catholic Church, and they went their own ways. Eventually, the Orthodox churches developed along national lines, such as Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, etc., but they all more or less considered the Patriarch of Constantinople as figurative head of the Church, although his decrees were not binding. The Catholic Church became known as the Roman Catholic Church, due to the headquarters being in Rome. Here, however, the Pope reigned supreme, and his word was binding on the entire Western Church. There were also a number of Eastern churches that did not follow the split in the East, but remained loyal to the Pope; these became the Syrian Catholics, the Melkite Catholics, etc., but they were (and are) really a unified part of the Roman Catholics----it's all one Church, they just use variations in their liturgies.

So, up until the 16th century, you now had two Christian bodies---Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Over the 500 years between 1056 and 1517, the Catholic Church got rather corrupt in high places, and was badly in need of reform. However, the Popes and high ranking churchmen were dragging their heels, because, well, people are like that, as we all know. Finally Martin Luther rebelled and formed the Lutheran Church, and this sent waves throughout Western Europe---a lot of different Protestant bodies popped up, but eventually they settled down into two camps: Lutheran, based on Luther's teachings, and Reformed, based on John Calvin's teachings. So now you have three Christian bodies: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant. The Protestant bodies have, unfortunately, been unable to agree with each other on many different subjects, and they have continued to splinter to the point where there are hundreds of Protestant denominations in the world. To be fair, there have also been groups of Catholics who have split with Rome over the years, but by doing so they automatically become more or less Protestant, and not simply "another" Catholic church.

So, in today's world, you have the Roman Catholic Church (usually just shortened to "Catholic") with it's small number of Eastern Catholic churches in tow; the various Eastern Orthodox churches, still organized along national lines; and the hundreds of Protestant churches----Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, Presbetyrian, Reformed, Fundamentalist, etc., etc. That's the history, in a nutshell. As to the reasons why these developed, that would take a week to explain, and this post is already reaching the status of a Russian novel, so I won't go into all that, other than to say that that's how people are, as we all know. People are messy, and anything run by people, even churches, are bound to be messy as well. But, there's always the happy little thought that God loves us all, even if we're messy. Isn't that nice?

I hope this helps answer your question......

[gene]

Thanks for the info. Who are the "Old Catholics"-are they like the "Old Believers" of the Orthodox Church? (a sect that split off from orthodoxy in the 16th century).

[jazzmine]

Thank you guys...this is a fascinating subject. You're right, people are messy. I supposed if I would just remember that I wouldn't feel such... I don't know what the word is... irritation?... for the different religions.

In the words of Billy Idol (I think), She cried "More, More, More"

I'll read as much as you all have time or inclination to put up .

trisha

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice - Albert Einstein

[Jodi]

Guys, I was talking about doctrinal differences, not differences in how the services are conducted. I mean, I used to know why the Congreationalists and the Presbyterians split apart, but I don't remember it now, though I do remember thinking it wasn't much of a reason to stomp out and start your own church. The point is that many churches have historically gotten mired down in -- and split up over -- minute points of doctrine that many modern worshippers would greet with a puzzled "who cares?" Does the Bible forbid cardplaying AND dancing, or just cardplaying, or just dancing, or only certain TYPES of dancing? A lot of these questions, which seemed important then, don't seem so important now. I think many moderate Protestant denominations today are actually becoming MORE similar, rather than less, and that may fundamentalist denominations are also becoming more similar -- the gap that I see widening is the gap between fundamentalist Christians and moderate Christians.

And look at all the different kinds of Jews there are--Hassidic, Orthodox, Reform, goodness knows what else. There's been a lot of "what makes you a Jew?" debate recently, with as much yelling as the "who's a real Christian?" creates.

I know Moslems fight among themselves, too--do Buddhists?

[cmkeller]

Flora:

I know Moslems fight among themselves, too--do Buddhists?

Yes, but if you ask them, they'll just tell you they're "clapping with one hand".

------------------
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@schicktech.com

"Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks."
-- Douglas Adams's Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective

[C K Dexter Haven]

See, many Catholics stay in one place. Other Catholics move about a great deal, and so are called.... ummm..... Roamin' Catholics.

I'm sorry, really I am, but it's this uncontrollabobble urge.

[LongHrn99]

Yes, there are two Buddhist factions. I don't remember the names for both and I'm too lazy to go upstairs and get the book off the shelf to look it up. Basically, the "Western" Buddhists from Tibet\India believe that Dalai Lama and the like are people that became enlightened, and instead of moving on towards Nirvana, choose to remain reincarnated to lead others towards enlightenment. The "Eastern" Buddhists from Indochina and its surroundings believe that you have to work on enlightenment for yourself. Gurus are just people that are more enlightened than you, not enlightened in the full sense of the word. When a guru from this path becomes fully enlightened he moves on to Nirvana. As for Muslims, they have two sects as well. It developed somewhere along the lines of following either Mohammed's son or Mohammed's right hand man after Mohammed's death. Once again, I don't remember the names. They believe the same basic tenants of Islam, but I think they disagree on money issues and such. I think all the info here is right, it's been too long since the religions class I took. Correct me on any of this, as if I actually had to ASK someone here to correct an incorrect post.

[Jodi]

Aren't the two types of Islam Sufi and Suni? And aren't the Suni Moslems the more moderate and the Sufi the more fundamental?

WARNING! POSTER KNOWS NEXT TO NOTHING ABOUT ISLAM! ENTIRE POST MAY BE TOTALLY INCORRECT!

[Monty]

There are a lot more than two sects (or paths, if you will) in dar al-Islam (The Mansion of Submission (to God)). Essentially, the two major sects are the Sunni, who can be conveniently termed orthodox, and the Shi'iah, who can be considered, well, somewhat mystical. Actually, I see the Shi'iah as approaching Roman Catholicism what with the relics, shrines, and prayer beads.

A couple of other interesing sects are the Sufi, who are quite mystical; the Wahabi, who rule Saudi Arabia; and the Druze, who some Muslims don't consider to be Muslim.

Feel free to contact me via e-mail if you'd like to further this discussion--I'm fascinated by Islam, although I'm not a Muslim.

I don't know about all that, but the best T-shirt logo I ever saw at a 12-Step meeting was "Recovering Catholic."


By the way, Shakers didn't have sects at all. That is why there are so few left.

P.S. Is it Episcopalian that is known as "Catholic Lite...all the pomp with half the guilt"...?

What Would Jethro(Bodine) Do ?

[LongHrn99]

That's what I've always heard the Episcopal church called. Man, even with half the guilt, this Baptist boy would rather have his serving of religion with 0 calories instead of the 1 that Episcopals put in.

[Jodi]

Well, I'm not sure of what it is, but I believe there is some difference between the Roman Catholic church and the Irish Catholic church, although I don't think it amounts to denying the ultimate authority of Rome. Any Irish Catholics out there?

And, just as a clarification -- while the Protestant religion did splinter into numerous denominations in the 17th and 18th centuries, I think several of those splits (significant at the time) are not terribly important now, because people generally aren't as concerned about the finer points of dogma. For example, as far as I'm concerned, there's not a whole lot of difference between Methodism, Presbyterianism, Congregationalism, and United Church of Christ. Whatever made them factionalize in the late 18th and early 19th century really isn't important today.

[Ukulele Ike]

Methodists sing more.

------------------
Uke

[StrTrkr777]

Well I don't know for sure, but I was told by a Methodist (I believe) that we Baptists pray more during our services. Example open with prayer, have announcements, have a prayer, sing a couple of songs, have a prayer, sing a couple of more songs, have a prayer, preach the sermon, have a prayer, sing another song, have a prayer, leave to head home.

Jeffery

[tomndebb]

Jodih:

Guys, I was talking about doctrinal differences, not differences in how the services are conducted.

Well, yes, except that most of the names within the Catholic and Orthodox groups have tended to follow the rites of the group.

There used to be many more divisions within the Catholic Church, generally based on the rites practiced by each group--which tended to follow ethnic lines. The Maronites, Chaldeans, Greeks, Armenians, and others who lived within the Byzantine Empire, but who accepted the pope as the ultimate leader of the church were "protected" by their separation from the west and maintained their own religious rites. There were probably as many of these groups/rites in the west, but (especially after the schism of 1054) the Roman hierarchy actively suppressed those various groups. The Gothic rite is the only one I can remember off the top of my head, but I remember hearing of several others when in school. (These rites were probably never as well-established as those in the east, since most of them were simply local variations on the Latin/Roman rite that was introduced by missionaries from Rome, whereas the eastern rite groups can generally trace their histories back to the second century or earlier. I still think the church lost a wonderful opportunity to recognize diversity by insisting that they all conform to the Roman convention.) So the Catholic ("universal") church has the 800 pound gorilla of Rome and a number of smaller rites in the east while the Orthodox ("correct teaching") church is composed solely of ethnic (now national) rites with size being determined simply by the population of the region in which they are established.

The various "Old" churches are generally not affiliated with any other churches. They may be considered "protestant" because they were formed in protest of the Catholic (or, more rarely, Orthodox) churches, but their theology usually looks more like the Catholic or Orthodox group from which they split than any group that can trace their heritage to Luther or Calvin. Several of the "Old [national] Catholic" churches split off in the 1870's in revolt against the teachings of Vatican I; we now have a new group of splinters that have declared that the in Vatican II, the Catholic Church stopped being Catholic and that they are the only true Catholics. Whatever.

------------------
Tom~

[jinky]

Irish Catholics are Roman Catholics.

------------------
Bíonn caora dhubh ar an tréad is gile (there is a black sheep even in the whitest flock).

[Shirley Ujest]

Well, I'm not sure of what it is, but I beleive there is some difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Irish Catholic Church...<snip> any Irish Catholics out there?

:::Raising hand in back, rising slowly from my seat:: Aye. Bein' Irish Catholic it's Twice th' Guilt and none of the fun.

The schism between Rome & Constantinople goes even deeper. The peoples of the East also abandoned the Latin alphabet & kept the Greek or the Cyrillic alphabets. I can't argue with the excellent post from Pickman's model that states the the line separating the two empires ran through modern-day Romania (next GD ? - is it Romania or Rumania?), but I can tell you where it is today... The line separating east & west churches, alphabets, & identities turns into a tangle in Bosnia-Herzogovina. Croatia is west; Serbia is east. In Bosnia, they are intermingled, along with a strong Muslim contingent. The Balkan peninsula is where the schism was felt most strongly, and brings to mind a quote from some 1960/70's poets:

Too many people have lied in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call.
Too many people have died in the name of Christ; and I can't believe it all.
- CSN, Cathedral

------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html

[Monty]

Sue: I'd have to say that "abandoned" isn't the correct, er, most apt description of the choice of alphabets. After all, both the Romand and the Cyrillic (sp?) alphabets are an adaptation of the Greek alphabet. There's also the issue of the existing alphabets in the region being replaced by the ones currently in use.

[Monty]

"Romand" should be "Roman."

[Northern Piper]

I believe that prior to the Reformation, the western church was simply called the "Catholic church." The term "Roman Catholic" started to be used by those Anglicans who maintained that they were reformed Catholics, not Protestants: Anglo-Catholics, not Roman Catholics.

jodih - agree with most of your comments, especially your assessment of the growing gulf between moderate and fundamentalist Christians.

But, I would say that the rites are also important in understanding the different Christian groups, because they reflect the various doctrines that set them apart. Infant versus adult baptism is a very good example, since they reflect very different understandings of the purpose of baptism: to welcome an infant into the church, protected from original sin, compared to the personal choice made by the individual.

Similarly, the sparse liturgy of some Protestant churches plays down the eucharist, because it is seen to carry the idea of the priest as mediator with God. Instead they emphasise sermons and prayers - individual communion with God.

Some Protestant churches are sparsely furnished, because they take the prohibition on graven images very seriously - that's why Cromwell's Roundheads destroyed so many statutes and stained glass.

As for the Catholics that strayed from the Roman Catholic church - I disagree with Pickman's Model that they became Protestant. They view themselves as Catholics, and do not accept Calvinism, Luther or Zwingli. They left the Roman Cathoic church over points of doctrine and church govenrment (usually in relation to the extent of the Pope's authority). I suppose the Roman Catholic church would view the Old Catholics as schismatic, rather than Protestant.

[thirdwarning]

TennHippie,
I hadn't heard the "Catholic Lite" expression, but I used to have Catholic (Roman, to be specific) friends who referred to their Lutheran friends (totally in jest) as "Lapsed Catholics".

[Pickman's Model]

When I was a kid, the Catholic kids and the Lutheran kids used to play ball together on the vacant lot next to the hardware store. They called us "mackerel-snappers" and we called them "Looeys". We all seemed to get along okay; we'd swap notes on how our services were conducted, and the Looey kids preferred theirs, but they were terribly jealous of the neat holy cards and medals of saints and rosaries we always carried.

When I said that Catholic groups who split from the Church became Protestant, I didn't mean doctrinally. Actually, you're right, they were considered schismatic rather than Protestant; but I was using a sort of mental shorthand that's a hold-over from parochial school----anything that was Christian but not Orthodox or Catholic (i.e. in good standing with Rome) was Protestant. My apologies.

Incidentally, we used to get a huge charge out of the anti-Catholic jokes the Lutheran kids used to tell us. I remember one that went something along the line of the Lutheran kid seeing a crucifix for the first time, mounted on a wall right between a picture of the Pope and a picture of the diocesan bishop, and telling the priest he knew the man on the cross was Christ since Christ was "hung between two thieves". A real thumper, that. Ah, memories!

[j2browning]

Originally Posted by Jodi

Well, I'm not sure of what it is, but I believe there is some difference between the Roman Catholic church and the Irish Catholic church, although I don't think it amounts to denying the ultimate authority of Rome. Any Irish Catholics out there?

There's no denying the Pope is a hero in Ireland.

[tomndebb]

j2browning, welcom to the SDMB. Generally, if a thread is over a couple of months old, we prefer that you start a new thread with a link to the previous one, rather than resurrecting a zombie thread.

This is now closed.

[ /Moderator Mode ]