Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Luis R's avatar

Nope, the most appropriate new name shouldn't be "Catholic Church" but "Synodal Church." Just read the Final Document from the Synod on Synodality. Your magisterium rarely refers to the church as the "Catholic Church," but it mentions the term "Synodal Church" over thirty times, emphasizing how the Church must evolve into a Synodal Church.

I will begin with point 3 because it is completely incorrect:

3. From the earliest centuries, Church Fathers consistently used the term "Catholic" to signify those churches visibly united under apostolic succession, episcopal governance, and unity with the Roman See.

This claim is false. I can easily counter this with a few questions:

a) Do the Orthodox (same Church until 1054) agree with your interpretation of history, especially regarding jurisdictional unity with the Roman See?

Absolutely not.

b) What is the consensus among scholars and historians about the jurisdictional submission of the Patriarchates of the Pentarchy to Rome?

The majority consensus is that there was no jurisdictional primacy in the early centuries. Most of them even claim that there was no single bishop in Rome during the first century but rather a presbyterial plurality.

c) During the Schism, how many Patriarchates agreed with Rome, and how many sided with the others?

Rome stood alone while the other four Patriarchates joined together, literally 4 vs 1.

So, no, it's not as simple as you make it out to be.

1. Catholicism isn't exclusively Roman.

This point doesn't hold because you yourself admit that all rites are under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, which is why it makes sense to call it "Roman."

Additionally, many other churches claim to use the proper name "Catholic," including the Old Catholic Church, the Palmarian Catholic Church, the True Catholic Church, the Polish Catholic Church, the Russian Orthodox Catholic Church, the Chaldean Catholic Church, the Universal Catholic Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern), and many others.

If you claim to be “Catholic” I would immediately ask: What kind of Catholic?

2. Imagine referring to the President of the United States as "the Washingtonian President."

This is a false analogy. A better analogy would be one where there are over 100 presidents in America, each with a significant following. In fact, if you count all other Catholics, historic Protestants, and Evangelicals who adhere to the ancient creeds, there are more Christians outside the Roman tradition claiming to be "Catholic" than within the Roman Catholic Church.

Then you say: "Ask your Protestant friends if they're Catholic, and you'll almost always get responses like, 'No.'"

Are you aware that in many Latin American countries, Protestants are called "Cristianos," and if you ask a Roman Catholic if they are a "Cristiano," the vast majority would say, "No, I'm Católico," often taking offense at the suggestion?

According to your reasoning... well, you can see where this leads.

4. Obsession with Rome?

Huh?

5. At best, it’s redundant.

Your analogy is overly simplistic. Next time, find a better analogy.

The claim of "redundancy" isn't as simple as you make it seem.

Expand full comment

No posts