Posted on 02/16/2015 8:49:55 AM PST by RnMomof7
A little historical follow up
The Liber Pontificalis says quite explicitly that Peter ordained three bishops: Linus, Cletus, and Clement. The presumption is that they served concurrently, not consecutively.
https://archive.org/stream/bookofpopesliber00loom#page/4/mode/2up
Seems to jive with Hermas, no? And possibly Clement’s “we”? (Linus and Cletus are thought to have been dead already when 1 Clement was penned).
Nihil Obstat and an imprimatur mean only that the work was submitted to a bishop before publishing to ascertain that it did not contain heresy; it does mean that it represents an official statement of the Catholic version of history. That said, I’m not sure what you think is scandalous, here. A bishop (episcopus) oversees a metropolis; his authority is delegated to various pastors (presbyterus) because there are multiple parishes (ekklesiae) in a given see (metropolis). In the first century, with so few missions (ekklesiae), it was quite normal for a see and a parish to be one and the same thing, hence there was little practical division between presbyter and episcopus, other than a presbyter could be appointed by a single episcopus, rather than a minimum of three. I don’t detect any refutation of Catholic doctrine in what you seem to have surmised is a gotcha moment here. The bishop who granted a notice of Nihil Obstat certainly didn’t detect one. If you’re implying that the papal authority of Sts. Cletus, Clement and Linus is an invention of Catholic bloggers, that’s just plain absurd.
Finally, the acquiescence to the popular usage of “Roman Catholic” bears little on the objection that the modifier “Roman” is a Protestant epithet. In fact, given the emergence of fraudulent uses of the word “Catholic,” (Old Catholic Church, etc.), it’s probably a wise if unfortunate inclusion when discussing theology or identifying parishes as being in union with the pope.
By the way, were you not Catholic long enough to have heard of auxiliary bishops?
There are currently five in the Archdiocese of NY: http://archny.org/our-bishops.
There are currently seven in Rome:
http://www.vicariatusurbis.org/?page_id=379
So I’m not sure what Mr. Schultz thinks he’s proving, but there being three bishops of Rome concurrently is no skin off my nose. The old Encyclopedia even says flat out the custom is Apostolic:
“They come down to us from Apostolic times; thus Linus and Cletus were vicars, or auxiliaries, to St. Peter at Rome; Ammianus [Anianus], to St. Mark of Alexandria; Alexander, to Narcissus (aged 116 years) of Jerusalem; St. Gregory the Theologian, auxiliary in pontificals to St. Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzus; St. Augustine, coadjutor of Valerius of Hippo;”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02145b.htm
So it's not just a Protestant epithet but also a way to distinguish between, for example, SSPX?
Ukrainian (Catholic) Church an example of 'synodality' for Pope
Traditional Rites in Union Now with the Catholic Church
Catholic conservatives: A traditionalist avant-garde
The Rites of the Catholic Church [Catholic Caucus]
One and Many Churches (origins of the Church)
THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- There are many!
(Cardinal) Newman on Rites and Ceremonies
I don’t see SSPX on chart.
Also, Re: “Roman” Catholic.
Some Catholic authors include the word “Roman” to distinguish between the Western church and various Eastern churches which recognize the authority of the papacy. This is incorrect usage, however. Even though the Western church no longer uses the Latin language, the correct term is “Latin.” The use of the term “Roman” for the Latin Rite falsely implies that the Eastern patriarchates are not in full union with Rome.
Lastly, the Eastern Orthodox occasionally use the term “Catholic” to the entirety of all Orthodox churches, as opposed to specific national churches (e.g., the “Orthodox Catholic Church” as opposed to the “Russian Orthodox Church.”) Thus, out of sensitivity, some Catholic authors fumblingly refer to “Roman Catholic” as opposed to “Eastern Catholic,” but this creates undue confusion with regards to the Eastern churches in union with Rome.
I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic, but the SSPX identifies itself as an order within the Latin Rite.
“...Fellow Catholics: don’t let your hearts be troubled...”
Thanks for the encouragement. All this hate for Catholics right as they are being beheaded by Muslims is truly troubling and the work of Satan to stir up discord and hatred in people’s hearts.
The attack now, right before lent seems to have a diabolical timing.
The Coptic Christians being beheaded, although not considered in union with the Pope, are Catholic and profess all of the beliefs that are being derided by the hostile and bigoted group here on FR who distort history; the Coptics hold the same belief in the sacraments, the special Love and veneration for the Blessed Mother, etc. as the beliefs being attacked.
The Coptic Church history actually adds more proof to the Catholic position (bishops, tradition, sacraments, veneration of the Blessed Mother), since the Coptics have been there since the beginning and their use of the sacraments and love of Mary has continued in an unbroken manner since St. Mark evangelized them around A.D. 50 or thereabouts.
This makes these spurious claims from catholic haters especially inappropriate and extra vicious. I am surprised the forum allows this. I think they don’t allow jack Chick and this appears to be the same type of ugly spin.
That’s a very confused cladogram.
There is no distinction between “Latin” and “Roman.”
“Benedictine,” “Dominican” and “Cistercian” are not particular churches in the same way that “Coptic,” “Ethiopian,” “Greek Catholic,” etc. are.
Lastly, Catholics use the word “church” to refer also to various subsets of the universal church. What you seem to be calling varying rites within a rite are in most cases “particular churches” in union with each other. A particular church is a level of organization between parish church and the universal church. Those various “particular churches” listed under the (blue) rites simply share a common rite. The Latin particular church, however, uses Latin, Gallican, and Celtic rites.
You cannot disprove apostolic succession. You can argue about the primacy of the pope. But that’s an argument way way older than the doctrines of your religion. And do not say your religion is “Christian, unless of course you are a follower “Mere Christianity”.
Even if we surrender the primacy of the Pope, the tenets of “mere Catholicism” or “Mere Orthodoxy” are much more compelling than sola scriptura,
Not being sarcastic...really.
It’s just I see SSPX members here tell us the true Church is with them and VAT2 is error (some even hint heresy). Then we have the Greek, Russian, Coptics saying they are really the true Church.
One Greek Orthodox member told me what he learned from a priest. That there are many ships on the waters to salvation and only the Orthodox church is the true ship. The other ships are all trying to make port but they fight the current and have a larger chance of shipwreck. But the Orthodox ship will make port because they are the True, Holy and Apostolic Church.
>> It’s just I see SSPX members here tell us the true Church is with them and VAT2 is error (some even hint heresy). <<
The SSPX believes that the New Order mass is deficient; they adamantly insist that they are in union with the Pope as part of the One, True, Catholic church.
>> Then we have the Greek, Russian, Coptics saying they are really the true Church. <<
Yes. So? What does that have to do with the unity of the Catholic church? Incidentally, the Greek Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Russian Orthodox believe that they are individual national churches within the same universal church. But Coptic refers to a people (Egyptian), not a rite or a religion; there is also a Coptic Catholic Church and simply a Coptic Church that is not Orthodox.
>> One Greek Orthodox member told me what he learned from a priest. That there are many ships on the waters to salvation and only the Orthodox church is the true ship. The other ships are all trying to make port but they fight the current and have a larger chance of shipwreck. But the Orthodox ship will make port because they are the True, Holy and Apostolic Church. <<
I see nothing wrong with that analogy; the Catholic church does recognize the efficacy of the sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox churches. The only problem is in the lack of unity which Christ commanded. Of course, they see THEIR churches as the correct one to be united to... which only makes sense, or else why wouldn’t they quit their church and join the Catholic one?
Correction:
The “Coptic Orthodox Church” is the one I referred to as not Orthodox, by which I meant not in union with other Orthodox churches, inasmuch as it rejected all ecumenical councils after the fifth century. It is occasionally refered to as “Coptic Oriental Orthodox Church.” There is also the Alexandrian Orthodox Church, which is in union with other non-Oriental Orthodox churches, and the Coptic Catholic church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.