Today, two church groupings or organisations lay proprietary claim to the word "Catholic" - especially when spelt with a capital C.

One is The Roman "Catholic" Church --- this one is well known in the Western world and to Nigerians.

The other is The Orthodox "Catholic" Church (aka Eastern Orthodox Church) -- this one is not so well known in the Western world or to Nigerians.

Because the Orthodox Catholic Church is not so well known, many people readily assume that the Roman "Catholic" Church is the one, or even only, organisation entitled to the word "Catholic".

To many who know better, The Orthodox "Catholic" Church actually has a better (or at least equal) proprietary claim to the capitalised "Catholic".

1. It was they who coined the word.
2. It was at one of their Churches that Christians were first called "catholic": Antioch.
3. They were using the word before the Roman Catholics
4. They gave the word a particular meaning --- which is actually different from what many (especially Roman Catholics) now understand the word to be.
5. In the historic "Catholic" Church, in its original meaning as well as in its subsequent Theodosian meaning, they were actually the most active; e.g. they were the most active at Nicea (the Roman Catholics were very peripheral at Nicea).

As this thread progresses, additional material will be added to help lead to a better understanding and apreciation of the word "Catholic" -in both the capitalised sense and in the small sense catholic.

Enigma: Today, two church groupings or organisations lay proprietary claim to the word "Catholic" - especially when spelt with a capital C.

One is The Roman "Catholic" Church --- this one is well known in the Western world and to Nigerians.

The other is The Orthodox "Catholic" Church (aka Eastern Orthodox Church) -- this one is not so well known in the Western world or to Nigerians.

Because the Orthodox Catholic Church is not so well known, many people readily assume that the Roman "Catholic" Church is the one, or even only, organisation entitled to the word "Catholic".

To many who know better, The Orthodox "Catholic" Church actually has a better (or at least equal) proprietary claim to the capitalised "Catholic".

1. It was they who coined the word.
2. It was at one of their Churches that Christians were first called "catholic": Antioch.
3. They were using the word before the Roman Catholics
4. They gave the word a particular meaning --- which is actually different from what many (especially Roman Catholics) now understand the word to be.
5. In the historic "Catholic" Church, in its original meaning as well as in its subsequent Theodosian meaning, they were actually the most active; e.g. they were the most active at Nicea (the Roman Catholics were very peripheral at Nicea).

As this thread progresses, additional material will be added to help lead to a better understanding and apreciation of the word "Catholic" -in both the capitalised sense and in the small sense catholic.

Bros, if these church go to war over right to use the name catholic, you go appear for war crime tribunal o!. if the eastern guys see this your write up now, and katakata burst, you will be held responsible o!

One interesting thing about this matter and the claims to the use of the capitalised "Catholic" is that both claimants i.e. both the Orthodox "Catholic" Church and the Roman "Catholic" Church admit at least tacitly that the Church is not truly "Catholic" when broken.

As some would say, to use "Catholic" in the sense that they are both using/claiming it is a misnomer or an "oxymoron". For example https://www.nairaland.com/1064710/dilemma-god-trinity/16#12536089

gbrookes02: . . ..

I am not a Roman Catholic, they are false. Roman Catholic is an oxymoron you can't be Roman (local) and catholic (universal) at the sametime.

An example of a tacit recognition of this by Roman Catholics is the "two lungs" analogy. In Ut Unum Sint, at para 54 "pope" John Paul II said:

In this perspective an expression which I have frequently employed finds its deepest meaning: the Church must breathe with her two lungs! In the first millennium of the history of Christianity, this expression refers primarily to the relationship between Byzantium and Rome. From the time of the Baptism of Rus' it comes to have an even wider application: evangelization spread to a much vaster area, so that it now includes the entire Church. If we then consider that the salvific event which took place on the banks of the Dnieper goes back to a time when the Church in the East and the Church in the West were not divided, we understand clearly that the vision of the full communion to be sought is that of unity in legitimate diversity. This is what I strongly asserted in my Encyclical Epistle Slavorum Apostoli 85 on Saints Cyril and Methodius and in my Apostolic Letter Euntes in Mundum 86 addressed to the faithful of the Catholic Church in commemoration of the Millennium of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'.

Zikkyy:

Bros, if these church go to war over right to use the name catholic, you go appear for war crime tribunal o!. if the eastern guys see this your write up now, and katakata burst, you will be held responsible o!

Bros, make one of them (even Roman Catholics*) jos make me dem lawyer, make I make small coins!

* "A lawyer is a person who argues that white is black or black is white ---- according as he is paid."


Thank God I write this thread as a Christian and not as lawyer, otherwise I have just opened myself up to some accusations and jokes with that definition of "lawyer"!

Enigma: .....
5. In the historic "Catholic" Church, in its original meaning as well as in its subsequent Theodosian meaning, they were actually the most active; e.g. they were the most active at Nicea (the Roman Catholics were very peripheral at Nicea)....

Actually, I forgot one more!

6. "Their people" were most active and instrumental in the "compilation" of the Bible!

^^^

7. In fact they are the ones who originated the expression "the Bible"!

Enigma: ^^^

7. In fact they are the ones who originated the expression "the Bible"!

lol.

You want make Chukwudi444444. 444444. 444444 cry?

Lol.

Enigma: ^^^

7. In fact they are the ones who originated the expression "the Bible"!

8. Also, they are the ones who originated the title "pope"! They were calling their partriarchs "popes" long before the Roman Catholic Church apropriated and arrogated the term!

This is a most senseless and ridiculous thread. What does it serve to prove, even acceding that all its claims be true and correct. What then? What's the remote relevance of anything being said here to anything remotely relevant anywhere, anyhow?

Most striking is the fact that we have here an OP who is busy lamenting the who's and when's of Catholic history, saying that this or that party did this or that act first, used this or that term first, etc. That's pretty rich coming from a person who practices a foreign adopted religion himself, and worships foreign men as Almighty God.

Interestingly, in the sense that is paramount, there is only one Church. The Roman Catholic Church seems to accept this but at the same time some of its teachings and actions indicate different "Churches" in this paramount sense of capital C "Church"!

In the Introduction to Ut Unum Sint, we read;

The courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church, gives new vigour to the Council's call and reminds us of our duty to listen to and put into practice its exhortation.

What is the point of speaking of one Church, when you say there are other "Churches" (capital) and you say yet others are not even Churches at all but merely "ecclessial communities"?

Pointless!

Interesting description of "the Catholic Church" in the Catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Orthodox Catholic Church): http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

270. Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

Enigma:

* "A lawyer is a person who argues that white is black or black is white ---- according as he is paid."


Thank God I write this thread as a Christian and not as lawyer, otherwise I have just opened myself up to some accusations and jokes with that definition of "lawyer"!

Heres the full quote

there was a society of men among us, bred up from their youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose, that white is black, and black is white, according as they are paid. - Jonathan Swift

ROMAN Catholic could mean the Church under the protection of the Roman empire. Constantine legalized and promoted christianity and boosted its ranks. Theodosius adopted it as a State religion.

Besides at the Council of Nicaea, it was recognised that bishops of Rome and Alexandria had overarching jurisdictions beyond their cities

^^ Now you are beginning to see why I kept telling you to learn some basics. Anyway, your post is still wrong in a number of respects.

1. I don't think even Roman Catholics would agree with you that their church is called "Roman Catholic" because, at some point, it came under "the protection of the Roman Empire". If necessary, I will explain why; but knowledgeable people will not really require the explanation.

2. At the Council of Nicea, three (not two) primary Sees with oversight functions were recognised: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome (with special status for Jerusalem).

One of the things I've been pointing out to you is that the early Christians most influential in "compiling" the Bible, fighting out the Christology and Trinity debates etc, were actually mostly not from the Roman See but more properly belonged to the other Sees.

Awesome thread Let's hope too many people don't get apoplectic because of and on it

Sweet crack about the lawyer. Thank Jesus you're not writing as one o

My brother, you see am?

Daalu, biko.

@enigma

1. Some roman catholics would disagree with me? That's your answer?! How subjective!

2. I will concede to Antioch. Given that the Eastern Orthodox Church receives instructions from the Constantinople Patriarch, being the Head of the church, how do you explain his source or recognition of his authority?

Meanwhile, see the Roman Catholic Church admit the crucial role of the Eastern Orthodox in some of the most important and significant events of early Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church even admits that it "drew" a lot from them 'Orthodoxen'!

Para 14 of www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Similarly it must not be forgotten that from the beginning the Churches of the East have had a treasury from which the Western Church has drawn extensively - in liturgical practice, spiritual tradition, and law. Nor must we undervalue the fact that it was the ecumenical councils held in the East that defined the basic dogmas of the Christian faith, on the Trinity, on the Word of God Who took flesh of the Virgin Mary. To preserve this faith these Churches have suffered and still suffer much.

And see the Roman Catholic Church tacitly confirm what I have been saying that a lot of the "church fathers" were not Roman Catholics.

Para 15 of http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Moreover, in the East are found the riches of those spiritual traditions which are given expression especially in monastic life. There from the glorious times of the holy Fathers, monastic spirituality flourished which, then later flowed over into the Western world, and there provided the source from which Latin monastic life took its rise and has drawn fresh vigor ever since. Catholics therefore are earnestly recommended to avail themselves of the spiritual riches of the Eastern Fathers which lift up the whole man to the contemplation of the divine.

Enigma: Interestingly, in the sense that is paramount, there is only one Church. The Roman Catholic Church seems to accept this but at the same time some of its teachings and actions indicate different "Churches" in this paramount sense of capital C "Church"!

In the Introduction to Ut Unum Sint, we read;



What is the point of speaking of one Church, when you say there are other "Churches" (capital) and you say yet others are not even Churches at all but merely "ecclessial communities"?

Pointless!

Meanwhile, one interesting response to the Roman Catholic position on "Churches" and "Ecclessial Communities" (following the publication of a "Responses" thing by the RCC Congregation on Doctrine or summat like that in 2007)

From No, I'm Not Offended

I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement — it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right — not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

Meanwhile, this other comment makes a good suggestion for next (every!) Sunday and people can ask non-Roman Catholic Christians:

Did you go to ecclessial community today?

Very interesting links, big bro

Enigma: Meanwhile, see the Roman Catholic Church admit the crucial role of the Eastern Orthodox in some of the most important and significant events of early Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church even admits that it "drew" a lot from them 'Orthodoxen'!

Para 14 of www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

What does that have to do with dosproving Rome as the head of the Church?!

I learn a lot from Christians, still doesn't make me a Christian.

Enigma: And see the Roman Catholic Church tacitly confirm what I have been saying that a lot of the "church fathers" were not Roman Catholics.

Para 15 of http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Enigma you are muddling things up, the Eastern fathers been mentioned were not under the East Orthodox Church then, there wasn't the great Schism yet. The East Orthodox Church springs up after the G.Schism, and it becomes a new entity with a new structure. Now the Patriarch is the head of the Church, which wasn't the situation before the G.Schism.

^^^ Go and do some mugging up:

perhaps starting from here https://www.nairaland.com/1039359/canon-bible-roman-catholic-church

and also here https://www.nairaland.com/1083381/apostle-peter-principle-inclusivity-via

Before any of the things/events which the Roman Catholics claim to be where they set "the Canon" of the Bible, the Eastern Orthodox people had already looooong identified "the Canon" of the Bible.

The things events claimed by the Roman Catholics as where "they" established "the Canon" of the Bible are:

1. Council of Rome 382; this has been questioned and the supposed list of Bible books identified with it shown to be a forgery or at least a document produced hundreds of years later; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decretum_Gelasianum

2. Synod of Hippo 393 --- this was actually simply a regional synod of African churches!

3. Synods of Carthage 397 etc --- again these were regional synods of African churches!

4. Council of Trent 1546 etc --- this is truly where the Roman Catholics set their canon, at least finally; see how late, how recent i.e. 16th century!

Compare with Athanasius' 39th Festal Letter of AD 367 --- at least 15 years before number 1 above (Rome 382); this is also before one goes to study the contribution of people like Origen also of Alexandria going back nearly 200 years even earlier!

Part of Athanasius' Letter of 367 http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html

3. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

4. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

5. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John.

^^

Not surprising at all, big bro.

I'll check that thread again since I don't have that priest's book with me here, but I remember he corroborated all this.

^^ I saw my own copy of Bokkenkotter's book recently; I'll check later if it is still handy.

And naturally, the Eastern orthodox (unlike the Roman Catholics) give quite some respect to Athanasius' role in developing the canon of the Bible. Well, he was one of theirs after all.

From http://www.pravoslavieto.com/docs/eng/orthodox_catechism_of_philaret.htm#ii.xv.iii.i.p41

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church

31. How many are the books of the Old Testament?

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius the Great, and St. John Damascene reckon them at twenty-two, agreeing therein with the Jews, who so reckon them in the original Hebrew tongue. (Athanas. Ep. xxxix. De Test.; J. Damasc. Theol. lib. iv. c. 17.)

33. How do St. Cyril and St. Athanasius enumerate the books of the Old Testament?

As follows: 1, The book of Genesis; 2, Exodus; 3, Leviticus; 4, the book of Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, the book of Jesus the son of Nun; 7, the book of Judges, and with it, as an appendix, the book of Ruth; 8, the first and second books of Kings, as two parts of one book; 9, the third and fourth books of Kings; 10, the first and second books of Paralipomena; 11, the first book of Esdras, and the second, or, as it is entitled in Greek, the book of Nehemiah; 12, the book of Esther; 13, the book of Job; 14, the Psalms; 15, the Proverbs of Solomon; 16, Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon; 17, the Song of Songs, also by Solomon; 18, the book of the Prophet Isaiah; 19, of Jeremiah; 20, of Ezekiel; 21, of Daniel; 22, of the Twelve Prophets.

Hmmmm, interesting view on some books!

34. Why is there no notice taken in this enumeration of the books of the Old Testament of the book of the Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of certain others?

Because they do not exist in the Hebrew.

35. How are we to regard these last-named books?

Athanasius the Great says that they have been appointed of the Fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.

Ihedinobi: ^^

Not surprising at all, big bro.

I'll check that thread again since I don't have that priest's book with me here, but I remember he corroborated all this.

It was in page 45. He said, "The Canon was virtually complete by the early decades of the second century..."

For purposes of cross reference, below is the link to a very related thread.

From catholic to "Catholic" and Back to catholic

https://www.nairaland.com/1257440/catholic-catholic-back-catholic