- This topic is empty.
- Posts
You want fruit. I don't think you're ready for what you're going to get. This thread might end up very long indeed. But here we go:
ST. FULGENTIUS, Bishop.
IN spite of family troubles and delicate health, Fulgentius was appointed at an early age procurator of his province at Carthage. This success, however, did not satisfy his heart. Levying the taxes proved daily more distasteful, and when he was twenty-two, St. Austin's treatise on the Psalms decided him to enter religion. After six years of peace, his monastery was attacked by Arian heretics, and Fulgentius himself driven out destitute to the desert. He now sought the solitude of Egypt, but finding that country also in schism, he turned his steps to Rome. There the splendors of the imperial court only told him of the greater glory of the heavenly Jerusalem, and at the first lull in the persecution he resought his African cell. Elected bishop in 508, he was summoned forth to face new dangers, and was shortly after banished by the Arian king, Thrasimund, with fifty-nine orthodox prelates, to Sardinia. Though the youngest of the exiles, he was at once the mouthpiece of his brethren and the stay of their flocks. By his books and letters, which are still extant, he confounded both Pelagian and Arian heresiarchs, and confirmed the Catholics in Africa and Gaul. An Arian priest betrayed Fulgentius to the Numidians, and ordered him to be scourged. This was done. His hair and beard were plucked out, and he was left naked, his body one bleeding sore. Even the Arian bishop was ashamed of this brutality, and offered to punish the priest if the Saint would prosecute him. But Fulgentius replied, “A Christian must not seek revenge in this world. God knows how to right His servants’ wrongs. If I were to bring the punishment of man on that priest, I should lose my own reward with God. And it would be a scandal to many little ones that a Catholic and a monk, however unworthy he be, should seek redress from an Arian bishop.” On Thrasimund's death the bishops returned to their flocks, and Fulgentius, having reëstablished discipline in his see, retired to an island monastery, where after a year's preparation he died in peace in the year 533.
ST. MACARIUS OF ALEXANDRIA.
MACARIUS when a youth left his fruit-stall at Alexandria to join the great St. Antony. The patriarch, warned by a miracle of his disciple's sanctity, named him the heir of his virtues. His life was one long conflict with self. “I am tormenting my tormentor,” replied he to one who met him bent double with a basket of sand in the heat of the day. “Whenever I am slothful and idle, I am pestered by desires for distant travel.” When he was quite worn out he returned to his cell. Since sleep at times overpowered him, he kept watch for twenty days and nights; being about to faint, he entered his cell and slept, but henceforth slept only at will. A gnat stung him; he killed it. In revenge for this softness he remained naked in a marsh till his body was covered with noxious bites and he was recognized only by his voice. Once when thirsty he received a present of grapes, but passed them untouched to a hermit who was toiling in the heat. This one gave them to a third, who handed them to a fourth; thus the grapes went the round of the desert and returned to Macarius, who thanked God for his brethren's abstinence. Macarius saw demons assailing the hermits at prayer. They put their fingers into the mouths of some, and made them yawn. They closed the eyes of others, and walked upon them when asleep. They placed vain and sensual images before many of the brethren, and then mocked those who were captivated by them. None vanquished the devils effectually save those who by constant vigilance repelled them at once. Macarius visited one hermit daily for four months, but never could speak to him, as he was always in prayer; so he called him an ” angel on earth.” After being many years Superior, Macarius fled in disguise to St. Pachomius, to begin again as his novice; but St. Pachomius, instructed by a vision, bad, rim return to his brethren, who loved him as their father. In his old age, thinking nature tamed, he determined to spend five days alone in prayer. On the third day the cell seemed on fire, and Macarius came forth. God permitted this delusion, he said, lest he be ensnared by pride. At the age of seventy-three he was driven into exile and brutally outraged by the Arian heretics. He died A. D. 394.
ST. GENEVIEVE, Virgin.
GENEVIEVE was born at Nanterre, near Paris. St. Germanus, when passing through, specially noticed a little shepherdess, and predicted her future sanctity. At seven years of age she made a vow of perpetual chastity. After the death of her parents, Paris became her abode; but she often travelled on works of mercy, which, by the gifts of prophecy and miracles, she unfailingly performed. At one time she was cruelly persecuted: her enemies, jealous of her power, called her a hypocrite and. tried to drown her; but St. Germanus having sent her some blessed bread as a token of esteem, the outcry ceased, and ever afterwards she was honored as a Saint. During the siege of Paris by Childeric, king of the Franks, Genevieve went out with a few followers and procured corn for the starving citizens. Nevertheless Childeric, though a pagan, respected her, and at her request spared the lives of many prisoners. By her exhortations again, when Attila and his Huns were approaching the city, the inhabitants, instead of taking flight, gave themselves to prayer and penance, and averted, as she had foretold, the impending scourge. Clovis, when converted from paganism by his holy wife, St. Clotilda, made Genevieve his constant adviser, and, in spite of his violent character, made a generous and Christian king. She died within a few weeks of that monarch, in 512, aged eighty-nine.
A pestilence broke out at Paris in 1129, which in a short time swept off fourteen thousand persons, and, in spite of all human efforts, daily added to its victims. At length, on November 26th, the shrine of St. Genevieve was carried in solemn procession through the city. That same day but three persons died, the rest recovered, and no others were taken ill. This was but the first of a series of miraculous favors which the city of Paris has obtained through the relics of its patron Saint.
ST. TITUS, Bishop.
TITUS was a convert from heathenism, a disciple of St. Paul, one of the chosen companions of the Apostles in his journey to the Council of Jerusalem, and his fellow-laborers in many apostolic missions. From the Second Epistle which St. Paul sent by the hand of Titus to the Corinthians we gain an insight into his character and understand the, strong affection which his master bore him. Titus had been commissioned to carry out a twofold office needing much firmness, discretion, and charity. He was to be the bearer of a severe rebuke to the Corinthians, who were giving scandal and were wavering in their faith; and at the same time he was to put their charity to a further test by calling upon them for abundant alms for the church at Jerusalem. St. Paul meanwhile was anxiously awaiting the result. At Troas he writes, “I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus, my brother.” He set sail to Macedonia. Here at last Titus brought the good news. His success had been complete. He reported the sorrow, the zeal, the generosity of the Christians, till the Apostle could not contain his joy, and sent back to them his faithful messenger with the letter of comfort from which we have quoted. Titus was finally left as a bishop in Crete, and here he, in turn, received the epistle which bears his name, and here at last he died in peace.
The mission of Titus to Corinth shows us how well the disciple caught the spirit of his master. He knew how to be firm and to inspire respect. The Corinthians, we are told, “received him with fear and trembling.” He was patient and painstaking. St. Paul “gave thanks to God, Who had put such carefulness for them in the heart of Titus.” And these gifts were enhanced by a quickness to detect and call out all that was good in others, and by a joyousness which overflowed upon the spirit of St. Paul himself, who “abundantly rejoiced in the joy of Titus.”
ST. GREGORY, Bishop.
ST. GREGORY was one of the principal senators of Autun, and continued from the death of his wife a widower till the age of fifty-seven, et which time, for his singular virtues, he was consecrated Bishop of Langres, which see he governed with admirable prudence and zeal thirty-three years, sanctifying his pastoral labors by the most profound humility, assiduous prayer, and extraordinary abstinence and mortification. An incredible number of infidels were converted by him from idolatry, and worldly Christians from their disorders. He died about the beginning of the year 541, but some days after the Epiphany. Out of devotion to St. Benignus, he desired to be buried near that Saint's tomb at Dijon; this was executed by his virtuous son Tetricus, who succeeded him in his bishopric.
ST. SIMEON STYLITES.
ONE winter's day, about the year 401, the snow lay thick around Sisan, a little town in Cilicia. A shepherd boy, who could not lead his sheep to the fields on account of the cold, went to the church instead, and listened to the eight Beatitudes, which were read that morning. He asked how these blessings were to be obtained, and when he was told of the monastic life a thirst for perfection arose within him. He became the wonder of the world, the great St. Simeon Stylites. He was warned that perfection would cost him dear, and so it did. A mere child, he began the monastic life, and therein passed a dozen years in superhuman austerity. He bound a rope round his waist till the flesh was putrefied. He ate but once in seven days, and, when God led him to a solitary life, kept fasts of forty days. Thirty-seven years he spent on the top of pillars, exposed to heat and cold, day and night adoring the majesty of God. Perfection was all in all to St. Simeon; the means nothing, except in so far as God chose them for him. The solitaries of Egypt were suspicious of a life so new and so strange, and they sent one of their number to bid St. Simeon come down from his pillar and return to the common life. In a moment the Saint made ready to descend; but the Egyptian religious was satisfied with this proof of humility. “Stay,” he said, “and take courage; your way of life is from God.”
Cheerfulness, humility, and obedience set their seal upon the austerities of St. Simeon. The words which God put into his mouth brought crowds of heathens to baptism and of sinners to penance. At last, in the year 460, those who watched below noticed that he had been motionless three whole days. They ascended, and found the old man's body still bent in the attitude of prayer, but his soul was with God. Extraordinary as the life of St. Simeon may appear, it teaches us two plain and practical lessons: First, we must constantly renew within ourselves an intense desire for perfection. Secondly, we must use with fidelity and courage the means of perfection God points out.
ST. LUCIAN, Martyr.
ST. LUCIAN was born at Samosata in Syria. Having lost his parents in his youth, he distributed all his worldly goods, of which he inherited an abundant share, to the poor, and withdrew to Edessa, to live near a holy man named Macarius, who imbued his mind with a knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and led him to the practice of the Christian virtues. Having become a priest, his time was divided between the external duties of his holy state, the performance of works of charity, and the study of sacred literature. He revised the books of the Old and New Testaments, expunging the errors which had found their way into the text either through the negligence of copyists or the malice of heretics, thus preparing the way for St. Jerome, who shortly after was to give to the world the Latin translation known as “The Vulgate.” Having been denounced as a Christian, Lucian was thrown into prison and condemned to the torture, which was protracted for twelve whole days. Some Christian visited him in prison, on the feast of the Epiphany, and brought bread and wine to him; while bound and chained down on his back, he consecrated the divine mysteries upon his own breast, and communicated the faithful who were present. He finished his glorious career in prison, and died with the words, “I am a Christian,” on his lips.
Hi CA,
How does austerity make anyone holy before God?
Where is humanism offered as a way of salvation?In what way does becoming a leader in a church of apostasy help you?
Does suffering and death for the sake of wrong theology save anyone?Is perpetual chastity a way of satiating the wrath of an angry God?
What of the man who sat on top of a pillar all his life-did that save him?Self perfectionism has always been the hope of carnal men but it is an impossibility and men who do not come to Jesus die yet in their sins.
Vanity, vanity all is vanity.Hi CA.
There is already a discussion on this subject and so I will be closing this one down.
I will leave it open so you can copy and paste your posts over there.
Thanks in advance.
The only problem with that is the title you chose. I refuse to post under that other title.
Change the title of the other one to reflect objectivity like this one and I'd be glad to.
Please respond before shutting this down.
regarding Henry VIII, and the reaction of the people, he seperated from the Catholic church due to they would not give him a divorce.
i do not support the man in his abuse of the people, he was taught well in this regard, what i do find interesting is how much the 'catholic church' took care of it's flock at the time, in history.'How did the people of England react to this? In fact, the vast bulk of the population were very angry at the way the Roman Catholic Church had used them as a source of money. To get married you had to pay; to get a child baptised (which you needed to be if you were to go to Heaven – so the Catholic Church preached) you had to pay; you even had to pay the Church to bury someone on their land (which you had to do as your soul could only go to Heaven if you were buried on Holy Ground). Therefore, the Catholic Church was very wealthy while many poor remained just that….poor. Their money was going to the Catholic Church. Therefore, there were no great protests throughout the land as many felt that Henry would ease up on taking money from them. Henry knew of the Catholic Church’s unpopularity and, therefore, used this to his advantage.'
what's the going rate these days i wonder.
Catholic Church just means universal church and therefore it is not really a true title for the Vatican led Church. The Roman Catholic Church title differentiates it from any other church that claims it is universal.
You may also want to edit the Wikipedia article on the RCC.
It says the following ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church ):
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians[note 2] and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion of the Western, or (Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008. The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope,[15] currently Pope Benedict XVI, who holds supreme authority in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head.NOTE 1:
There is some ambiguity about the title “Catholic Church”, since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity. The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get “Catholic”, means “universal”.[1] It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century.[2] After the East-West Schism, the Western Church took the name “Catholic”, while the Eastern Church took the name “Orthodox”.[3] Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name “Catholic” to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.[3] The name “Catholic Church”, rather than “Roman Catholic Church”, is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[4] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.[5][6][7] Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the “Roman” Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way.[8] At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. However, the name “Roman Catholic Church” is disliked by many Catholics, as a label applied to them by others to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy.[9] Within the Church, the name “Roman Church”, in the strictest sense, refers to the Diocese of RomeQuote (t8 @ Oct. 03 2009,15:31) Catholic Church just means universal church and therefore it is not really a true title for the Vatican led Church. The Roman Catholic Church title differentiates it from any other church that claims it is universal. You may also want to edit the Wikipedia article on the RCC.
It says the following ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church ):
The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians[note 2] and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion of the Western, or (Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008. The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope,[15] currently Pope Benedict XVI, who holds supreme authority in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head.NOTE 1:
There is some ambiguity about the title “Catholic Church”, since the Church is not the only institution to claim catholicity. The Church is referred to and refers to itself in various ways, in part depending upon circumstance. The Greek word καθολικός (katholikos), from which we get “Catholic”, means “universal”.[1] It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early second century.[2] After the East-West Schism, the Western Church took the name “Catholic”, while the Eastern Church took the name “Orthodox”.[3] Following the Reformation in the sixteenth century, the church in communion with the Bishop of Rome used the name “Catholic” to distinguish itself from the various Protestant churches.[3] The name “Catholic Church”, rather than “Roman Catholic Church”, is usually the term that the Church uses in its own documents. It appears in the title of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[4] It is also the term that Pope Paul VI used when signing the documents of the Second Vatican Council.[5][6][7] Especially in English-speaking countries, the Church is regularly referred to as the “Roman” Catholic Church; occasionally, it refers to itself in the same way.[8] At times, this can help distinguish the Church from other churches that also claim catholicity. Hence this has been the title used in some documents involving ecumenical relations. However, the name “Roman Catholic Church” is disliked by many Catholics, as a label applied to them by others to suggest that theirs is only one of several catholic churches, and to imply that Catholic allegiance to the Pope renders them in some way untrustworthy.[9] Within the Church, the name “Roman Church”, in the strictest sense, refers to the Diocese of Rome
Wikipedia? Don't make me laugh. They've been around for what? Five minutes?We've been around for what? Two thousand years? I think this one is age before beauty. Here's a history lesson:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
Roman Catholic
A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled “Roman Catholics” as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.
In the “Oxford English Dictionary”, the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading “Roman Catholic”.
The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with theSpanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)
Of the illustrative quotations which follow, the earliest in date is one of 1605 from the “Europae Speculum” of Edwin Sandys: “Some Roman Catholiques will not say grace when a Protestant is present”; while a passage from Day's “Festivals” of 1615, contrasts “Roman Catholiques” with “good, true Catholiques indeed”.
Although the account thus given in the Oxford Dictionary is in substance correct, it cannot be considered satisfactory. To begin with the word is distinctly older than is here suggested. When about the year 1580certain English Catholics, under stress of grievous persecution, defended the lawfulness of attending Protestant services to escape the fines imposed on recusants, the Jesuit Father Persons published, under the pseudonym of Howlet, a clear exposition of the “Reasons why Catholiques refuse to goe to Church”. This was answered in 1801 by a writer of Puritan sympathies, Percival Wiburn, who in his “Checke or Reproofe of M. Howlet” uses the term “Roman Catholic” repeatedly. For example he speaks of “you Romane Catholickes that sue for tolleration” (p. 140) and of the “parlous dilemma or streight which you Romane Catholickes are brought into” (p. 44). Again Robert Crowley, another Anglican controversialist, in his book called “A Deliberat Answere”, printed in 1588, though adopting by preference the forms “Romish Catholike” or “Popish Catholike”, also writes of those “who wander with the Romane Catholiques in the uncertayne hypathes ofPopish devises” (p. 86). A study of these and other early examples in their context shows plainly enough that the qualification “Romish Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” was introduced by Protestant divines who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic. In Germany, Luther had omitted the word Catholic from the Creed, but this was not the case in England. Even men of such Calvinistic leanings as Philpot (he was burned under Mary in 1555), and John Foxe the martyrologist, not to speak of churchmen like Newel and Fulke, insisted on the right of the Reformers to call themselves Catholics and professed to regard their own as the only true Catholic Church. Thus Philpot represents himself as answering his Catholic examiner: “I am, master doctor, of the unfeigned Catholic Church and will live and die therein, and if you can prove your Church to be the True Catholic Church, I will be one of the same” (Philpot, “Works”, Parker Soc., p. 132). It would be easy to quote many similar passages. The term “Romish Catholic” or “Roman Catholic” undoubtedly originated with the Protestant divines who shared this feeling and who were unwilling to concede the name Catholic to their opponents without qualification. Indeed the writer Crowley, just mentioned, does not hesitate throughout a long tract to use the term “Protestant Catholics” the name which he applies to his antagonists. Thus he says “We Protestant Catholiques are not departed from the true Cathol
ique religion” (p. 33) and he refers more than once to “Our Protestant Catholique Church,” (p. 74)On the other hand the evidence seems to show that the Catholics of the reign of Elizabeth and James I were by no means willing to admit any other designation for themselves than the unqualified name Catholic. Father Southwell's “Humble Supplication to her Majesty” (1591), though criticized by some as over-adulatory in tone, always uses the simple word. What is more surprising, the same may be said of various addresses to theCrown drafted under the inspiration of the “Appellant” clergy, who were suspected by their opponents of subservience to the government and of minimizing in matters of dogma. This feature is very conspicuous, to take a single example, in “the Protestation of allegiance” drawn up by thirteen missioners, 31 Jan., 1603, in which they renounce all thought of “restoring the Catholic religion by the sword”, profess their willingness “to persuade all Catholics to do the same” and conclude by declaring themselves ready on the one hand “to spend their blood in the defence of her Majesty” but on the other “rather to lose their lives than infringe thelawful authority of Christ's Catholic Church” (Tierney-Dodd, III, p. cxc). We find similar language used in Ireland in the negotiations carried on by Tyrone in behalf of his Catholic countrymen. Certain apparent exceptions to this uniformity of practice can be readily explained. To begin with we do find that Catholics not unfrequently use the inverted form of the name “Roman Catholic” and speak of the “Catholic Roman faith” or religion. An early example is to be found in a little controversial tract of 1575 called “a Notable Discourse” where we read for example that the heretics of old “preached that the Pope was Antichriste, shewing themselves verye eloquent in detracting and rayling against the Catholique Romane Church” (p. 64). But this was simply a translation of the phraseology common both in Latin and in the Romance languages “Ecclesia Catholica Romana,” or in French “l'Église catholique romaine”. It was felt that this inverted form contained no hint of the Protestant contention that the old religion was a spurious variety of true Catholicism or at best the Roman species of a wider genus. Again, when we find Father Persons (e.g. in his “Three Conversions,” III, 408) using the term “Roman Catholic”, the context shows that he is only adopting the name for the moment as conveniently embodying the contention of his adversaries.
Once more in a very striking passage in the examination of one James Clayton in 1591 (see Cal. State Papers, Dom. Eliz., add., vol. XXXII, p. 322) we read that the deponent “was persuaded to conforme himself to the Romaine Catholique faith.” But there is nothing to show that these were the actual words of the recusant himself, or that, if they were, they were not simply dictated by a desire to conciliate his examiners. The “Oxford Dictionary” is probably right in assigning the recognition of “Roman Catholic” as the official style of the adherents of the Papacy in England to the negotiations for the Spanish Match (1618-24). In the various treaties etc., drafted in connection with this proposal, the religion of the Spanish princess is almost always spoken of as “Roman Catholic”. Indeed in some few instances the word Catholic alone is used. This feature does not seem to occur in any of the negotiations of earlier date which touched upon religion, e.g. those connected with the proposed d'Alencon marriage in Elizabeth's reign, while in Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., before the Spanish match, Catholics are simply described as Papists or Recusants, and their religion as popish, Romanish, or Romanist. Indeed long after this period, the use of the term Roman Catholic continued to be a mark of condescension, and language of much more uncomplimentary character was usually preferred. It was perhaps to encourage a friendlier attitude in the authorities that Catholics themselves henceforth began to adopt the qualified term in all official relations with the government. Thus the “Humble Remonstrance, Acknowledgment, Protestation and Petition of the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland” in 1661, began “We, yourMajesty's faithful subjects the Roman Catholick clergy of Ireland”. The same Practice seems to have obtained in Maryland; see or example the Consultation entitled “Objections answered touching Maryland”, drafted by Father R Blount, S.J., in 1632 (B. Johnston, “Foundation of Maryland, etc., 1883, 29), and wills proved 22 Sep., 1630, and 19 Dec., 1659, etc., (in Baldwin, “Maryland Cat. of Wills”, 19 vols., vol. i. Naturally the wish to conciliate hostile opinion only grew greater as Catholic Emancipation became a question of practical politics, and by that time it would appear that many Catholics themselves used the qualified form not only when addressing the outside public but in their domestic discussions. A short-lived association, organized in 1794 with the fullest approval of the vicars Apostolic, to counteract the unorthodox tendencies of the Cisalpine Club, was officially known as the “Roman Catholic Meeting” (Ward, “Dawn of Cath. Revival in England”, II, 65). So, too, a meeting of the Irish bishops under the presidency of Dr. Troy at Dublin in 1821 passed resolutions approving of an Emancipation Bill then before a Parliament, in which they uniformly referred to members of their own communion as “Roman Catholics”. Further, such a representative Catholic as Charles Butler in his “Historical Memoirs” (see e.g. vol. IV, 1821, pp. 185, 199, 225, etc., ) frequently uses the term “roman-catholic” [sic] and seems to find this expression asnatural as the unqualified form.
With the strong Catholic revival in the middle of the nineteenth century and the support derived from the uncompromising zeal of many earnest converts, such for example as Faber and Manning, an inflexible adherence to the name Catholic without qualification once more became the order of the day. The government, however, would not modify the official designation or suffer it to be set aside in addresses presented to the Sovereign on public occasions. In two particular instances during thearchiepiscopate of Cardinal Vaughan this point was raised and became the subject of correspondence between the cardinal and the Home Secretary. In 1897 at the Diamond Jubilee of the accession of Queen Victoria, and again in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded to the throne, the Catholic episcopate desired to present addresses, but on each occasion it was intimated to the cardinal that the only permissible style would be “the Roman Catholic Archbishop and Bishops in England”. Even the form “the Cardinal Archbishop and Bishops of the Catholic and Roman Church in England” was not approved. On the first occasion no address was presented, but in 1901 the requirements of the Home Secretary as to the use of the name “Roman Catholics” were complied with, though the cardinal reserved to himself the right of explaining subsequently on some public occasion the sense in which he used the words (see Snead-Cox, “Life of Cardinal Vaughan”, II, 231-41). Accordingly, at the Newcastle Conference of the Catholic Truth Society (Aug., 1901) the cardinal explained clearly to his audience that “the term Roman Catholic has two meanings; a meaning that we repudiate and a meaning that we accept.” The repudiated sense was that dear to many Protestants, according to which the term Catholic was a genus which resolved itself into the species Roman Catholic, Anglo-Catholic, Greek Catholic, etc. But, as the cardinal insisted, “with us the prefix Roman is not restrictive to a species, or a section, but simply declaratory of Catholic.” The prefix in this sense draws attention to the unity of the Church, and “insists that the central point of Catholicity is Roman, the Roman See of St. Peter.”
It is noteworthy that the representative Anglican divine, Bishop Andrewes, in his “Tortura Torti” (1609) ridicules the phrase Ecclesia Catholica Romana as a contradiction in terms. “What,” he asks, “is the object o
f adding 'Roman'? The only purpose that such an adjunct can serve is to distinguish your Catholic Church from another Catholic Church which is not Roman” (p. 368). It is this very common line of argument which imposes upon Catholics the necessity of making no compromise in the matter of their own name. The loyal adherents of the Holy See did not begin in the sixteenth century to call themselves “Catholics” for controversial purposes. It is the traditional name handed down to us continuously from the time of St. Augustine. We use this name ourselves and ask those outside the Church to use it, without reference to its signification simply because it is our customary name, just as we talk of the Russian Church as “the Orthodox Church”, not because we recognize its orthodoxy but because its members so style themselves, or again just as we speak of “the Reformation” because it is the term established by custom, though we are far from owning that it was a reformation in either faith or morals. The dog-in-the-manger policy of so many Anglicans who cannot take the name of Catholics for themselves, because popular usage has never sanctioned it as such, but who on the other hand will not concede it to the members of the Church of Rome, was conspicuously brought out in the course of a correspondence on this subject in the London “Saturday Review” (Dec., 1908 to March, 1909) arising out of a review of some of the earlier volumes of THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA.Quote Catholic Church just means universal church and therefore it is not really a true title for the Vatican led Church. The Roman Catholic Church title differentiates it from any other church that claims it is universal. There is only ONE Church. We are it.
One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
There is one Church CA. It is the body of Christ. Not a creation of the Roman Empire or a Roman Emperor.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.Colossians 1:24
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 03 2009,18:39) Wikipedia? Don't make me laugh. They've been around for what? Five minutes? We've been around for what? Two thousand years? I think this one is age before beauty. Here's a history lesson:
Wake up CA. 1700 years or less is probably more accurate.Also, I actually said you may want to correct the Wikipedia article if it is wrong. Like to see you try though, your edits would probably be deleted due to obvious bias. Anyway, I never said it was the authority did I. Just that you could correct it. It does after all come up as the numero dos entry when you type 'Catholic' into Google. See my point?
Got off on the wrong foot there CA.That said, the wisdom of the crowds can actually produce very good pages on Wikipedia that surpass that of other encyclopaedias. This is due to the often non-bias articles that you end up with after much debate of course. It is a bit like Open Source software. It can be very good by reason of the openness and sheer numbers of people involved. This is one reason why MS Windows is so buggy and vulnerable to viruses. The code is so secret that it isn't open for scrutiny like Open Source.
Anyway, the weakness of Wikipedia articles are the less attended ones or new ones. They can be very bad and are often written in the first place for an agenda and from a point of view of bias. If enough people edit, it sort of goes through a refining process.
Did you know that MS Encarta outsold Britannica in the encyclopaedia market? And did you know that Encarta has now been discontinued? Give you one guess why.
Talking about laughing though, isn't it more laughable to trust a Roman Catholic encyclopaedia or history book about their own history? Surely it would be about as worthy as a Jehovah Witness book written about their universal church, or the history of the Mormons and their universal church as understood by their own members?
I am glad that I am free to explore my faith and not imprisoned in any of these institutions. It would be so limiting to be told to adhere to a man made creed.
BTW, the Jewish faith is older than 2000 years and they don't embrace a trinity, rather they are very staunch about there being one God. Their weakness was not how they saw God, but that they rejected the one who came from God. They didn't recognise the messiah when he came.
I should also mention that the world is changing CA.
The printing press had a profound impact on your Church because others were able to mass produce bibles and give it to people to read. This was in a time when the RCC didn't allow peasants or commoners to read the bible.
Today an even bigger invention will make an even bigger impact on your Church. It is called the Internet.
Things are changing. Media is changing. People who held power previously are losing it. Look at print media for example.
Look for a new movement in the body of Christ against the lies and deceptions of organisations who could reach out to more people by outspending them. Now the power to publish is in the hands of many or most in the Western world and a fast growing number in the other hemispheres. Even more powerful than that is the ability for people to connect.
This will lead to some big shake ups and will impact your church just like the printing press did.
It will become harder and harder to stop the truth from coming out, but I am sure you guys will put a fight all the same.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 03 2009,11:38) The only problem with that is the title you chose. I refuse to post under that other title. Change the title of the other one to reflect objectivity like this one and I'd be glad to.
Please respond before shutting this down.
In order to keep this discussion alive, it needs to be different to the other discussion. How about we rename it. It does after all have a different slant from the other discussion, that of the so-called difference between Catholic and Roman Catholic.Can you think of an appropriate and encompassing title?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
