The Apostles Creed is used by most Western Christians. The Nicene Creed is accepted by almost all Christians. The virgin birth is accepted by many denominations (and is a completely separate concept from the Immaculate Conception). So these are hardly divisive issues. The main issue arising from the Nicene Creed is filioque, but it didn’t cause a complete rejection. I can’t find a cite that the term Roman Catholic Church was ever used in that time, or even often in the following centuries.
It was the fiioque that caused the division of the Orthodox to separate from the RCC.So for 700 years they were united. Then( in the 1400s) years later Luther decided the church needed reforming…hence the Reformation. After that the many divisions started, Yes I know the Virgin Birth meant that Mary conceived Jesus was not born of man,so in reality he had no human father,and that alone make one wonder where he got his male human hormones. And that Mary, is taught by the RCC that God made a special privledge so Mary would be conceived by her parents not to have the stain of sin at her birth.As i under stand it so Jesus wouldn’t be tainted with original sin. Probably to explain that situation?
To be called the Roman Catholic church it would have to have had it’s origin in Rome, and the successors to Peter would come from there. When it started to use the term Roman Catholic I make no claim, but I would imagine it would be away to separate it from the Orthodox.
In many languages, it isn’t used nowadays. Also, I understand the “Roman” part refers to the specific Mass rite used, not to the head of the Church being the Bishop of Rome: the rite is called “Roman” because it came from Rome, and it came from Rome because the Pope was there, but the name refers to the rite and not to the bishopry. I’m a Catholic and use the (current) Roman rite, there’s other Catholics who use other rites such as the Coptic rite, and many of my foreparents were Catholics (as opposed to, say, arrians) who used the visigoth rite.
When you go from Vatican to Vatican’t.
I think it’s when they officially convert out, like if they join another faith or decide to follow none at all. Kinda like Tom Cruise - he officially converted out of the Catholic Church to become a Scientologist.
I disagree with the chick who claimed that Catholicism discourages women’s rights - Catholic women actually work more than evangelical Protestant women. There’s not much of the homemaker mentality found in Baptists in places such as the American South.
As I was told, it is called the Roman Catholic church because it’s head(the pope was from Rome), and Peter was Bishop of Rome, then his successors were chosen as head.
The Maronite Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, Ukranian-Greek Catholic Church, et al. are not the “Roman” Catholic Church, but their head is the Pope in Rome. The main differences are in their practices, e.g. the liturgical language, or how they pray and kneel, what kind of incense to use, etc. And the priests in many can marry. The Roman rite is used in much of the west, but the other churches are still full Catholic members, they just have minor different rites.
Yes, that is true, but they follow the Pope’s lead on things, and do allow married priests. But that came about many years ago, well after Constintine’s time. All were united under Rome until the year 1,000 when the Orthodox separated from Rome.
They recognize the Pope as their leader…but does the Pope recognize them as official off-shoots of the Roman Catholic Church?
Actually, that’s wholly inaccurate.
The Catholics believe in the ‘freedom of conscience’ 1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. "He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters."53
Joseph Ratzinger back in 1968 (who is now the pope) said "“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church.”
(SOURCE: “Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II”, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1, chapter 1)
As for the RCC changing its official opinion on things, it has. Many times.
As for infalibility, no pope has spoken ex cathedra since 1950:
…Papal infallibility thus does not extend to declarations by the Pope—even on faith or morals, and still less, of course, on other matters—not solemnly proposed as dogmas to be professed by the whole Church. Nor is infallibility to be confused with impeccability, as if the Pope were immune from sin.
Back to the thread, I’m an atheist and was pretty much raised as such. My SO is a Catholic. When we were visiting my parents down in Florida last year, I found out that I was baptized Catholic (I always thought it was a protestant religion for some reason). So apparently I’m “Catholic” as far as the RCC is concerned.
That’s in reference to the assertion that “Roman Catholic” means “has the Pope as the head and he lives in Rome.” But there are other churches which follow him but are called something else, led by pariarchs who live elsewhere but are subservient to il papa. AFAIK all acknowledge Peter.
Yes. E.g.:
I believe there are some churches out there that want to join the (R)CC, but full communion has not yet been established (some of the Indian churches?). But all the Eastern Rite churches are part of the Catholic church. Some joined later, the Maronite Church asserts that they were never separated theologically or doctrinally, except by geography and the end of the Crusades.