This is a theological post on being Catholic apart from Roman Catholicism.

A online friend is thinking about becoming a Roman Catholic to connect to the historical Catholic Church. I began to think how do I as a non-Roman Catholic explain that Catholic is not something that belongs to Rome but belongs to the King and the Kingdom of God. This is my attempt.

SUMMARY:
Rome instigated the first Church split beginning in 1054 as it left the fellowship with the other Church Fathers of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch ostensibly over the Holy Spirit. The Crusades blessed by Rome only worsened the problem. It continued the splitting of the Church by rejecting the Holy Spirit may have actually spoken to a lowly German Augustinian monk named Luther instead of the exalted Pope Leo X in Rome. The first Catholic Reformers of Roman led Catholicism such as those Reformers began in Wittenberg, Geneva, Zurich, and Canterbury have always seen themselves as Catholic even if their theological descendants have/did not use(d) the term. Rome until Vatican II has portrayed all other Christians as apostates. It is a given that post-Vatican II idea of “erring brethren” softens the divide but this gesture still does not absolve Rome’s refusal to admit error that perpetuates the divide nor does it affirm that Catholicity is found outside of Rome.

ARGUMENT:
I am a Catholic Christian. I am not in current communion with Rome. This fact does not repeal my Catholicity. It strengthens it. Let me explain how I am a Catholic. I am deeply indebted to God for the universal Church which is the Catholic Church. The word Catholic predates the advent of Christianity and means universal. The early Church Fathers such as Tertullian and Martyr used the term in this sense. They sought to distinguish between churches that held to universal agreed upon doctrine and those that held to particular doctrines.

The first four universal councils of the Church is where the term Catholic is used to distinguish the convictions of the universal Church with those that denied essentials of the Christian faith in favor of sectarian non-orthodox beliefs. The Orthodox and Protestant Catholics, and many but not all of their theological descendants, universally affirm these four councils wherever they may or may not stray theologically does not effect their Catholicity.

Rome presupposes several extra-biblical arguments for its authority. It believes that it alone holds Apostolic authority. It presupposes that it holds the keys to the Kingdom as Peter’s supposed successor. It sees itself as the one true universal Church leading people to God. I am not Roman Catholic because I reject these presuppositions. The Roman view misses that God through Christ is the Sovereign King of the Church and he rules it ever presently on Earth as in Heaven through the Holy Spirit and his collective universal (catholic) body called the Church. It is universal and found in a variety of expressions throughout history including but not limited to Rome, the Reformers, and the Orthodox.

The Reformers and Orthodox Church have asserted that the Roman branch of the Church has strayed from apostolic Catholicity in a number of areas.

Those areas include but are not limited to the following:
* Historical handling of dissenters and schismatics by excommunication, murder, and uncharitable character assassination.

Vatican 2 does inadequately address this issue in its “erring brethren” olive branch but that is far from dealing with the root issues.

* The abysmal handling of the East-West schism of 1054.

{Rome split the Universal Church in a extreme example of self-righteous hubris instead of Christ-exalting humility in the idea of Roman papal superiority. The split began ostensibly over the filoque clause (The Roman church inserted the phrase “from the Son”) which is the procession of the Holy Spirit in the Nicene Creed. The root issue was over authority and submission. Rome charged the Eastern church of “Judaistic” practice of using unleavened communion bread in the Eastern tradition of communion. It demanded that they stop the practice, which ironically is a more biblical practice than using leavened bread. Rome presupposed that the Holy Spirit could only primarily lead the Pope and his cardinals and not the other church fathers. The issue hung ultimately over the assertion of Roman papal superiority. This later developed in to the idea that the Pope has the same authority and canonicity as Scripture. This ultimately led to the necessity of a Reformation. The later greed of Roman popes in building St. Peter’s Basilica and the selling of indulgences led Luther to expose the temporal pride and vanity that had led the head and the heart of the Roman Church away from God.}

*The Council of Trent (1545-1563) reaction to Protestantism to declare anathema all Protestants as heretics, rejecting the five solas.

“If anyone says that the ungodly is justified by faith alone in such a way that he understands that nothing else is required which cooperates toward obtaining the grace of justification and that it is in no way necessary for him to be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.”
“If anyone says that a man is justified either solely by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness or solely by the remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured out into their hearts by the Holy Spirit and stays with them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the favor of God, let him be anathema.” -Council of Trent, Canon IX, XI.

*Doctrine of Synergism affirmed at Trent: Salvation in post-Trent Roman Catholicism being codified as Grace of God in addition to charity works of man in tandem with God. No council in Roman Catholicism has rejected this assertion.

Biblical Protestantism revolves around the issue of salvation apart from works such as buying indulgences. This led Luther to his 95 Thesis and a re-proclamaition of the biblical views of Justification and soteriology. Calvin’s stress of monergism versus the final Trentan affirmation of faith plus works later led Rome away from apostolic catholicity.

*Rome is a schismatic from apostolic catholicity in that it rejected Christ alone as found in Scripture as the sufficient guide for faith and practice as illuminated by the Holy Spirit. Christ in Scripture is not the primary starting point of communion with God.

Vatican II did address the necessity of Scripture to guide the Church but it did so in the context of papal infallibility and authority, the history of all the councils as error free and equally authoritative as Scripture, and the primacy of the Roman Church over all others. It also has not rejected the extra-biblical sacraments.

Catholicity is defined by ones allegiance to the King and his Kingdom. We are Catholic if our knees fall before the Throne of Grace. In each tradition there have been errors made some larger than the other. As stated above the Roman version of Catholicity has some major issues that must be addressed.

If Christ is your Lord and Savior then you are a Catholic because you are part of apostolic catholic Christianity if you use the term or not. One is personally affirmed in their Catholicity if they gather with the saints, observe the Sacraments of the Lord, celebrate and practice the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, affirm the teaching of the Creeds, and have a faith affirmed in the Church Fathers. Those who define Catholic merely by allegiance to Rome miss that Catholicism has its primary root in Apostolic teaching not in geographical or papal succession. One does not need to be Roman to be Catholic.

Conclusion:
As a man who once desired to enter the Roman fellowship as priest I can relate to the historical legacy of Rome. We must remember that contemporary Roman Catholicism is very different than Roman Catholicism of pre-Vatican I, Vatican I, Vatican II, and is influenced by each Papal succession but it is built upon historical errors that must be addressed before it can return to full apostolic catholicity. The greatest path to Hell is to attempt to bring Heaven to Earth without the regeneration of mankind’s collective heart. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches doctrine, even if the average Roman Catholic, priest, or even a Pope (say like Pope Benedict XVI) disagrees, that is outside of the confines of apostolic catholicity. The tradition of the Roman Church teaches that they have faithfully kept the faith unadulterated from the first century to today. If we uncritically go into a group that does not exhibit regeneration in deeds and words then we should be wary of what fruit will be produced.