Transubstantiation. What is it?

[marks]

Ah I see, you do not find Roberts twisting of the Truth and rabid attacks on all who practice their faith abominable?

Well, look again...

Merry Christmas!

Complex question above, were you aware of that? It's a logical fallacy, being manipulative. Maybe relook at that? And no, you do not speak for me.

Instead of directly addressing the matter, you turn it to me. What a surprise!! (I'm not actually surprised)

Much love!

 

[marks]

St. Peter warned in 2 Peter 1:20-21, self-interpretation of Scripture isn't the way to go.

That's not actually what that passage addresses. Would you like to study it together?

Much love!

 

[RedFan]

The word "Catholic" is certainly not in the Bible. Neither is the word Trinity and several other things Christians believe. But, there was one Church, and only one, that Jesus founded. Historically, this was the only Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Very early on, it was named "Catholic" which means "universal." Like when a baby is born. Sometimes, it isn't named for a day or two. Once it's named, the baby is still the same person, not someone different. The name doesn't change the baby.

History shows that the first group to separate from Christ's Church was the Orthodox, in 1054 A.D. (The Great Schism - see a good explanation of what happened then, here: Great Schism).

Protestantism, on the other hand, didn't start till way, way late in the game. The 16th century! And it has been continually separating into literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting and disagreeing denominations every since. That cannot possibly be the grounding for the fullness of truth that Christ gave us. The truth does not contradict itself. Christ was far wiser than to require each man, woman, and child to be his/her own Pope and reinvent the wheel with regard to the faith. So, He founded a (one) Church, with a hierarchy to lead it, and His promise to never teach doctrinal error. He left us a sure way to know His teachings. Who among you thinks you know better than Christ and can correct His teaching?

Augustin, you are right to use "Catholic" in its original sense here. There were dozens of heresies and mini-schisms in the first three centuries of Christianity but there was indeed a main stream orthodox Christianity that rose to predominate, and calling it "Catholic" is perfectly fine and appropriate.

But just so we are clear -- calling it "Roman Catholic" would be a grave mistake. The Roman See did not have any hegemony in the Greek-speaking east, where the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and eventually Constantinople were co-equal and exercised plenary authority in their own Sees and surrounding areas from the beginning. Other metropolitan bishops, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, also recognized no authority of the Roman Pope. Doctrinally, east and west were fairly well aligned, and occasions for disagreement between the major Sees were rare, but when they occurred Rome never had the last word in the east, nor even in parts of the Latin-speaking west (Carthage comes to mind). By the time of Nicaea, that is how things stood. And continued to stand right up to the "Great Schism."

The Roman Catholic Church rightly traces its roots to first century Christianity. But so does the Eastern Orthodox Church. That's why I chuckle a bit when the RCC claims to be the universal original Christian church to the exclusion of all others.

 

[Philip James]

Complex question above, were you aware of that? It's a logical fallacy, being manipulative. Maybe relook at that? And no, you do not speak for me.

Instead of directly addressing the matter, you turn it to me. What a surprise!! (I'm not actually surprised)

Much love!

ah no, the ol poor me routine wont work..

You questioned my post, on what grounds? What did I say that you disagree with? Clarify your position or take your 'poor me' routine somewhere else.

The question is not overly complex.. answer it or not but keep your attitude to yourself

Merry Christmas!

 

[marks]

Marks, I don't know if he realizes that it's what he's saying or not. I was trying to point that out to him.

I don't see your words that way.

Scripture must be interpreted correctly. And as St. Peter warned in 2 Peter 1:20-21, self-interpretation of Scripture isn't the way to go.

That passage actually is teaching something a little different. Shall we compare your church's teaching with the wording and meaning of that passage? Will your church teaching actually contradict the Scriptures themself?

Of if the Scripture makes a clear statement, which I believe to be true, and your church declares it actually says something different, which do I believe? The plain sayings of Scripture? Or a teacher who contradicts the Scriptures?

Would you join me in an examination of that passage?

One must interpret Scripture through the lens of the Church that provided it. (The Church wrote the New Testament and set the canon for it in the late 4th century at the councils of Rome, Hippo, & Carthage.) It is the Church that has Christ's guarantee of doctrinal infallibility, not the individual personally interpreting Scripture.

One must interpret Scripture by the Holy Spirit of God, and saying "the church wrote the Hew Testament", so "the church" must interpret it.

Nonesense!

That kind of takes us back to Peter's passage which you referenced. It actually refutes that view, that the church wrote the Bible. Holy men of God wrote as they were carried by the Holy Spirit. They did not just write out their personal opinions. Which is the actual meaning of the passage. And your teachers should know that.

One need only look at the confusion and chaos that exists in Protestantism, with its thousands of man-made, doctrinally disagreeing denominations to see that.

God bless!

Anecdotal evidence? I'm sticking with the Bible. You can follow your church, that's fine, but it's not the Bible. You can follow their opinions about their perceptions (anecdotal), and I will follow the Bible itself.

You can test the Bible against your teachers, I will test your teachers against the Bible.

You can claim I don't understand what the Bible says, I say, let's put that to the test. We can start with Peter, and his "private interpretations". May we look at this together?

Much love!

 

[marks]

ah no, the ol poor me routine wont work..

Seriously?

Nevermind, I'm not interested suddenly.

The question is not overly complex..

Complex Question Fallacy:

What Is the Fallacy of the Complex Question?

A complex question is a fallacy in which the answer to a given question presupposes a prior answer to a prior question.

www.thoughtco.com

A complex question is a fallacy in which the answer to a given question presupposes a prior answer to a prior question. Also known as (or closely related to) a loaded question, a trick question, a leading question, the fallacy of the false question, and the fallacy of many questions.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the classic example of the complex question. Ralph Keyes has traced this example back to a 1914 book of legal humor. Since then, he says, it "has . . . become the standard allusion to any question that can't be answered without self-incrimination" (I Love It When You Talk Retro, 2009).

Examples and Observations​

• "'Let's talk about Glaucon. Where did you get the poison you used on him?'
  "'I never!'
  "'His whole family died—wife, children, mother, the lot. Surely you feel badly about that?'
  "Didymus passed his hand over his eyes. 'I didn't poison anyone.'”
  (Bruce Macbain, The Bull Slayer: A Plinius Secundus Mystery. Poisoned Pen Press, 2013)
• "He was woken two hours later and presently a doctor examined him.
  "'What drugs were you on?' he asked.
  "Wilt stared at him blankly. 'I've never taken any drugs in my life,' he muttered."
  (Tom Sharpe, Wilt in Nowhere. Hutchinson, 2004)

The Unjustified Presumption​

"Plurium interrogationum, which translates as 'of many questions,' is otherwise known as the fallacy of the complex question. When several questions are combined into one, in such a way that a yes-or-no answer is required, the person they are asked of has no chance to give separate replies to each, and the fallacy of the complex question is committed...

• Did the pollution you caused increase or decrease your profits?
• Did your misleading claims result in you getting promoted?
• Is your stupidity inborn?

All of them contain an assumption that the concealed question has already been answered affirmatively. It is this unjustified presumption which constitutes the fallacy...

"The complex question has to be broken into simpler ones; and often the denial of the fact presumed invalidates the larger question altogether."
(Madsen Pirie, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, 2nd ed. Bloomsbury, 20

More at the link . . .

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

Seriously?

Nevermind, I'm not interested suddenly.


Complex Question Fallacy:

What Is the Fallacy of the Complex Question?

A complex question is a fallacy in which the answer to a given question presupposes a prior answer to a prior question.

www.thoughtco.com

A complex question is a fallacy in which the answer to a given question presupposes a prior answer to a prior question. Also known as (or closely related to) a loaded question, a trick question, a leading question, the fallacy of the false question, and the fallacy of many questions.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the classic example of the complex question. Ralph Keyes has traced this example back to a 1914 book of legal humor. Since then, he says, it "has . . . become the standard allusion to any question that can't be answered without self-incrimination" (I Love It When You Talk Retro, 2009).

Examples and Observations​

• "'Let's talk about Glaucon. Where did you get the poison you used on him?'
  "'I never!'
  "'His whole family died—wife, children, mother, the lot. Surely you feel badly about that?'
  "Didymus passed his hand over his eyes. 'I didn't poison anyone.'”
  (Bruce Macbain, The Bull Slayer: A Plinius Secundus Mystery. Poisoned Pen Press, 2013)
• "He was woken two hours later and presently a doctor examined him.
  "'What drugs were you on?' he asked.
  "Wilt stared at him blankly. 'I've never taken any drugs in my life,' he muttered."
  (Tom Sharpe, Wilt in Nowhere. Hutchinson, 2004)

The Unjustified Presumption​

"Plurium interrogationum, which translates as 'of many questions,' is otherwise known as the fallacy of the complex question. When several questions are combined into one, in such a way that a yes-or-no answer is required, the person they are asked of has no chance to give separate replies to each, and the fallacy of the complex question is committed...

• Did the pollution you caused increase or decrease your profits?
• Did your misleading claims result in you getting promoted?
• Is your stupidity inborn?

All of them contain an assumption that the concealed question has already been answered affirmatively. It is this unjustified presumption which constitutes the fallacy...

"The complex question has to be broken into simpler ones; and often the denial of the fact presumed invalidates the larger question altogether."
(Madsen Pirie, How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic, 2nd ed. Bloomsbury, 20

More at the link . . .

Much love!

*sigh*

Lets try this again...

Hello marks,

I hope you are having a Merry Christmas season..


What objection are you making to this declarative statement by me:

Your hatred and animosity to all those who LIVE the Faith is abominable..

 

[marks]

*sigh*

Lets try this again...

Hello marks,

I hope you are having a Merry Christmas season..


What objection are you making to this declarative statement by me:

I think I already answered that, >sigh< I intially misread it.

"I just looked at your post again . . . I think I mis-read it, I apologize. I realize now that you weren't saying he is abominable to those who live the faith, but I realize you were actually saying that he has hatred and animosity to all who live the faith, so that's not speaking for me, it's something different, it's speaking for him, and in a very negative way.
Not much better if you ask me. But then again, who is asking me?" - post 98

Then you asked me:

"Ah I see, you do not find Roberts twisting of the Truth and rabid attacks on all who practice their faith abominable?"

If you read the material I posted on Complex Questions, you will recognize this part, Don't I find his Scripture twisting abominable? to fit that descripture. It's assumed that he is twisting Scripture, and to "find it abominable" I am become complicit in declaring that he twists Scripture.

Like, have you stopped beating your wife, either way you answer, if you answer, you give tacit agreement with the presuppostion. That you beat your wife, or twist Scripture, or whatever it is.

Does this help to clarify?

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

I think I already answered that, >sigh< I intially misread it.

"I just looked at your post again . . . I think I mis-read it, I apologize. I realize now that you weren't saying he is abominable to those who live the faith, but I realize you were actually saying that he has hatred and animosity to all who live the faith, so that's not speaking for me, it's something different, it's speaking for him, and in a very negative way.
Not much better if you ask me. But then again, who is asking me?" - post 98

Then you asked me:

"Ah I see, you do not find Roberts twisting of the Truth and rabid attacks on all who practice their faith abominable?"

If you read the material I posted on Complex Questions, you will recognize this part, Don't I find his Scripture twisting abominable? to fit that descripture. It's assumed that he is twisting Scripture, and to "find it abominable" I am become complicit in declaring that he twists Scripture.

Like, have you stopped beating your wife, either way you answer, if you answer, you give tacit agreement with the presuppostion. That you beat your wife, or twist Scripture, or whatever it is.

Does this help to clarify?

Much love!

I understand the logical fallacy. i missed your 'apology message'. my apologies

As for speaking 'for him'. He's made it clear that anything you do is 'religion' and therefore to be spurned..

If you disagree with that judgement, feel free to state your reasons why..

 

[marks]

I understand the logical fallacy. i missed your 'apology message'. my apologies

As for speaking 'for him'. He's made it clear that anything you do is 'religion' and therefore to be spurned..

If you disagree with that judgement, feel free to state your reasons why..

That's not what you said.

You said he has hatred and animosity for all who live the faith. Do you no longer stand by that statement?

He stands against thinking that you are saved, or kept saved, by the works you do or don't do. I believe the same way.

Will you now say that I have hatred and animosity towards you, for instance? Do you see where all that mind-rot leads?

Go ahead, freely share your opinions of others. See where that gets you. Freely share your opinions of your perceptions of those with whom you vehemently disagree, I'm certain they are not colored by that, right?

Does that accomplish anything you want accomplished?

Much love!

 

[Philip James]

That's not what you said.

You said he has hatred and animosity for all who live the faith. Do you no longer stand by that statement?

haha. are you playing with me marks?

Of course I stand by this statement. again I ask, what is your objection to it?

He stands against thinking that you are saved, or kept saved, by the works you do or don't do. I believe the same way.

Really? So how you live your Faith is immaterial to your salvation? Rephrase the question if you wish..

and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, depending on faith

to know him and the power of his resurrection and (the) sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death,

if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity, 9 but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it, since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ (Jesus).

Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead,

I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God's upward calling, in Christ Jesus.

Let us, then, who are "perfectly mature" adopt this attitude. And if you have a different attitude, this too God will reveal to you.

Will you now say that I have hatred and animosity towards you, for instance? Do you see where all that mind-rot leads?

Well I m sure youre not talking about me but no, ive never seen you condemning anyone for living their Faith in Christ.


Indeed, and I hope you would agree, that it is right to gather as a community and with one mind, one heart, one Spirit, offer thanksgiving, Glory and Honour to our God!

That! is what we do, and have done for 2000 years, fulfilling Malachi 1:11 , through , with and in our High Priest, our King, our God, Jesus Christ..

Living that Faith! The Faith of the Church, handed down for 2000 years is what we do..

How dare I? How dare HE condemn 2000 years of his brethren...


Merry Christmas!

 

[marks]

Of course I stand by this statement. again I ask, what is your objection to it?

I think it's false. Hyperbole. Hatred and animosity? Hm. Ok, I appreciate your straight up answer! But I do not agree with making such statements in such a setting. I find it very poor form.

And no, I'm not playing games.

Much love!

 

[marks]

and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, depending on faith

Do you realize this passage is teaching us that we don't "add" to our righteousness? That Paul rejects anything he did that gave righteousness, because our own works that produce our own righteousness is not like having God's righteousness that comes through faith.

Much love!

 

[Tulipbee]

"Transubstantiation". The first part of the word "Trans" means to change. The second part of the word "Substantiation" means the substance. Catholics believe that the bread and the wine in the Eucharist changes into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. I have trouble with this because it appears to be spiritual cannibalism. What is the purpose of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus? I believe that they have taken this from John 6:53 where Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you" Was Jesus advocating cannibalism? I don't think so. The purpose of transubstantiation is to become more like Jesus.

The Bible is a spiritual book. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ" Galatians 2:20. Was Paul actually crucified with Christ? I don't think so. Paul didn't become a Christian until after Jesus returned to heaven. Spiritually speaking, Paul was crucified with Christ, but not actually or physically. Same thing with eating the flesh of Jesus and drinking his blood. Jesus also said, "I am the bread of life" John 6:51. Is Jesus bread? I don't think so. These things have a spiritual meaning. What is the spiritual meaning of these scriptures? What they mean is that Jesus is our life. We live and have our being in him and because of him. This is how we eat his flesh and drink his blood. It has a very spiritual meaning.

In the Reformed Christian perspective, the understanding of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) differs from the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Reformed theology generally holds to the view of "real presence" or "spiritual presence," emphasizing a spiritual and symbolic presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. Here's an exploration of the Reformed perspective with relevant Bible quotes:

1. Symbolic/Spiritual Presence: Reformed Christians typically interpret the words of Jesus regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a symbolic or spiritual manner. The focus is on the spiritual significance rather than a literal transformation of the elements. In this view, partaking in the Lord's Supper is a symbolic act that signifies participation in the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.
2. John 6:53 - Spiritual Meaning: The passage you mentioned, John 6:53, is often understood in Reformed theology to have a spiritual meaning rather than a literal one. Here, Jesus is emphasizing the importance of faith and union with Him. The verse is part of a larger discourse where Jesus uses metaphorical language to convey profound spiritual truths.
   John 6:53 (ESV): "So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'"
3. "I am the bread of life" - Spiritual Significance: Reformed Christians interpret statements like "I am the bread of life" (John 6:51) in a spiritual sense, emphasizing that Jesus is the source of spiritual sustenance and life.
   John 6:51 (ESV): "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
4. Spiritual Union and Identification: Reformed theology teaches that the act of partaking in the Lord's Supper is a way for believers to spiritually identify with Christ and His redemptive work. It symbolizes the believer's union with Christ and participation in the benefits of His sacrifice.
   1 Corinthians 10:16 (ESV): "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

In summary, the Reformed perspective on the Lord's Supper emphasizes a spiritual understanding of Jesus' words, focusing on the symbolic and transformative nature of the sacrament rather than a literal change of the elements into the actual flesh and blood of Christ.

 

[Philip James]

Do you realize this passage is teaching us that we don't "add" to our righteousness? That Paul rejects anything he did that gave righteousness, because our own works that produce our own righteousness is not like having God's righteousness that comes through faith.

Much love!

ah, now we're getting somewhere...

is Faith in Christ neccessary? of course it is! But that does not preclude or exempt us of DOING what is right and just! Indeed, it is necessary that we do so!

Christ Himself proclaimed that we would be judged by what we DO!

And the mercy of God endures forever..

Merry Christmas!

 

[marks]

is Faith in Christ neccessary? of course it is! But that does not preclude or exempt us of DOING what is right and just! Indeed, it is necessary that we do so!

Salvation by faith alone (me) or salvation by faith + works ( you), this is correct?

Of course we are to do what is right, and if we are born again, we will do so more and more. And that does not save us. IF we are saved, we will do the works. But doing the works does not make you saved, or keep you saved, as if you did those things for yourself.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Christ Himself proclaimed that we would be judged by what we DO!

Do you mean the Sheep/Goats?

This means you are amil, right?

Being gathered with the nations after Jesus comes will not be an enviable position, and does not include the born again. Although those who defied the Beast and gave care for the Israelites will be spared condemnation and allowed into the kingdom.

Much love!

 

[Robert Pate]

In the Reformed Christian perspective, the understanding of the Lord's Supper (Eucharist) differs from the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Reformed theology generally holds to the view of "real presence" or "spiritual presence," emphasizing a spiritual and symbolic presence of Christ in the elements of bread and wine. Here's an exploration of the Reformed perspective with relevant Bible quotes:

1. Symbolic/Spiritual Presence: Reformed Christians typically interpret the words of Jesus regarding eating His flesh and drinking His blood in a symbolic or spiritual manner. The focus is on the spiritual significance rather than a literal transformation of the elements. In this view, partaking in the Lord's Supper is a symbolic act that signifies participation in the benefits of Christ's sacrifice.
2. John 6:53 - Spiritual Meaning: The passage you mentioned, John 6:53, is often understood in Reformed theology to have a spiritual meaning rather than a literal one. Here, Jesus is emphasizing the importance of faith and union with Him. The verse is part of a larger discourse where Jesus uses metaphorical language to convey profound spiritual truths.
   John 6:53 (ESV): "So Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'"
3. "I am the bread of life" - Spiritual Significance: Reformed Christians interpret statements like "I am the bread of life" (John 6:51) in a spiritual sense, emphasizing that Jesus is the source of spiritual sustenance and life.
   John 6:51 (ESV): "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
4. Spiritual Union and Identification: Reformed theology teaches that the act of partaking in the Lord's Supper is a way for believers to spiritually identify with Christ and His redemptive work. It symbolizes the believer's union with Christ and participation in the benefits of His sacrifice.
   1 Corinthians 10:16 (ESV): "The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?"

In summary, the Reformed perspective on the Lord's Supper emphasizes a spiritual understanding of Jesus' words, focusing on the symbolic and transformative nature of the sacrament rather than a literal change of the elements into the actual flesh and blood of Christ.

Catholics want to believe that if they eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus that they will become like Jesus. One of the great heresies of Catholicism. They are practicing spiritual cannibalism.

 

[Tulipbee]

Catholics want to believe that if they eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus that they will become like Jesus. One of the great heresies of Catholicism. They are practicing spiritual cannibalism.

It's important to approach discussions about religious beliefs with respect and an understanding that individuals within a tradition may interpret their doctrines differently. Characterizing another faith as practicing "spiritual cannibalism" may not accurately represent the beliefs of that faith, and it can contribute to misunderstanding and unnecessary division.

Regarding the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist, the belief is that during the celebration of the Mass, the bread and wine used in the sacrament become, in a mysterious way, the body and blood of Christ. This belief is based on interpretations of biblical passages, including Jesus' words at the Last Supper, where he said, "This is my body" and "This is my blood."

The Catholic Church does not view the Eucharist as a form of cannibalism, as it involves a sacramental and symbolic understanding of the transformation of the bread and wine. The concept is rooted in a theological understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but it is not meant to be a literal consumption of human flesh or blood. The Catholic Church teaches that the Eucharist is a participation in the sacrifice of Christ and a means of spiritual nourishment for believers.

Different Christian traditions hold diverse views on the Eucharist, ranging from transubstantiation (as in Catholicism) to consubstantiation or symbolic representations. Each tradition has its theological reasons for interpreting the biblical passages related to the Last Supper in a particular way.

In discussions about theology and religious beliefs, it's beneficial to engage in respectful dialogue and seek to understand the perspectives of others rather than using inflammatory language or making sweeping statements about entire religious traditions. Such conversations can promote mutual understanding and contribute to respectful coexistence among people of different faiths.

 

[Augustin56]

Augustin, you are right to use "Catholic" in its original sense here. There were dozens of heresies and mini-schisms in the first three centuries of Christianity but there was indeed a main stream orthodox Christianity that rose to predominate, and calling it "Catholic" is perfectly fine and appropriate.

But just so we are clear -- calling it "Roman Catholic" would be a grave mistake. The Roman See did not have any hegemony in the Greek-speaking east, where the Sees of Alexandria, Antioch and eventually Constantinople were co-equal and exercised plenary authority in their own Sees and surrounding areas from the beginning. Other metropolitan bishops, in Jerusalem and elsewhere, also recognized no authority of the Roman Pope. Doctrinally, east and west were fairly well aligned, and occasions for disagreement between the major Sees were rare, but when they occurred Rome never had the last word in the east, nor even in parts of the Latin-speaking west (Carthage comes to mind). By the time of Nicaea, that is how things stood. And continued to stand right up to the "Great Schism."

The Roman Catholic Church rightly traces its roots to first century Christianity. But so does the Eastern Orthodox Church. That's why I chuckle a bit when the RCC claims to be the universal original Christian church to the exclusion of all others.

RedFan, there was but one Church until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox splintered off. It was called Catholic. (The "Roman" part was a polemic added way late in the game by Anglicans in the 16th or 17th century). Nowhere do we see the Church called the Orthodox Church. But we do see, in history, that it is called the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch, ordained by St. Peter (yes, that St. Peter), was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans somewhere around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. In other words, the term "Catholic Church" was already well-known and being used.

It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

BTW, here's a good video that explains the split in 1054 A.D.: