Pope: Other Christian Denominations Not True Churches

[mondar]

Once again of course the Catholic interpretation is wrong. There is no discussing it with the like of you. An no I do not deny the statement "there is no salvation outside the Church". You simply don't understand it. But you will claim expertise.

Thess, your proposition is that I do not understand it. You make the proposition and then do not defend it. Your sarcasm is not a defense.

I am not surprised that you are reading the statement by the Curia out of context, you have been doing the same thing with the bible all along.

Why dont you go to my post above made Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:09 pm and respond.

If you cannot find it, let me repeat. The Curia speaks of the "Oriental Churches" in question 3 and 4. Let me repeat part of question 3.

**For other readers, again, you can get the Curia's statement at:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... es_en.html

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation.

Now if one asks who are these "separated churches" that are not deprived of the "mystery of salvation." To answer that question you must look to the paragraph above and below. (IE: You must read the context). Notice the paragraph above.

Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth†which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unityâ€Â

Now thess, do you see that the so called "separated churches" have "numerous elements of sanctification and truth?" Do you have any clue
why the Curia put these two paragraphs back to back under the same
question?

Now the reader should be asking "What elements of sanctification and
truth" do these "separated churches" have which means they have the
mystery of salvation." This is answered under question #4. I will quote
below.

The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. “Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bondsâ€Â

The phrase "elements of sanctification and truth" are defined in question 4
as relating to the 4 elements I put in bold. These are things that relate to
the "Oriental Churches." Even the question in question #4 has the term
"oriental churches." The Curia and Pope then sees the eastern orthodox,
Greek Orthodox, russian orthodox, (etc) as having elements of
sanctification and truth. As of yet, there is no reference to protestants.
Also, protestants are not Churches of apostolic succession, many are not
sacramental, or have priests. It is obvious protestants are not being
referred to in question 3-4. You of course quoted questions 2-4 as a
reference to protestants. You are not reading what they said.

Finally in question #5 the protestants are mentioned.

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church†with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches†in the proper sense[20].

Now in the protestant section, the go over nearly the same exact terms.
Protestants do not have the 4 things put in bold. These 4 things constitute the "elements of sanctification and truth." Since the phrase "elements of sanctification and truth" were used of the Oriental churches, to say that they have the "mystery of salvation," it is an obvious denial that protestants are saved. The 4 things above make up a "constitutive element of the Church," and also make for the "mystery of salvation." Since the protestants are not a Church, the Curia is saying we protestants are all going to hell.

Thess, do you disagree with the Curia? Maybe you should rethink the things you said to RobertMazar in another thread. Either that your you had better be at the next confession to confess your error of thinking that maybe just a few protestants could escape hellfire.

 

[Devekut]

What Protestant's do not seem to understand is that as early as we have Christian communities we have the claim of Apostolic authority and Apostolic succession. After the original Apostles died the Christian community continued to claim their authority and their guidance in the bishops.

Thus, according to the earliest Christian beliefs, the office of the Apostles never ended. It was held that their authority would be, by God's own grace and guidance, passed on to successive generations.

There are only two major churches that maintain this Apostolic Succession- that is the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, these are also the two most ancient churches. They went into schism officially in about 1054. Catholics still acknowledge the Apostolic foundation and lineage of the Orthodox.

Protestantism, however, clearly breaks with 1500 years of Christian tradition regarding the Apostolic lineage, and is thus considered to remove itself from the Apostolic Faith by its decision to break the lineage.

 

[thessalonian]

It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation.

Mondar,you highlight the wrong word. the document has made it clear that Protestant churches don't fit the Catholic definition of Churches. But rather are in the category of ecclesiastical communities, i.e. Communities. #3 does in fact refer to protestants as I quoted. But again, it doesn't fit what you want to think so you will protest.

#5 also speaks about the communities. 4 defines what a Church is in Catholic theology and so it does not deal with protestant churches but 3 and 5 do in fact.


I stand by what I have said.

 

[Solo]

Is apostolic succession Biblical?

Question: "Is apostolic succession Biblical?"

Answer: The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.†Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme†over the other apostles. The Apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the Apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the Apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the Book of Acts records the Apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander†or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the 12th apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “suceed†Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas), with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority†amongst non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority†to interpret Scripture.

Alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Bible pope, Bible papacy and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Retrieved from http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html

 

[sisterchristian]

Apostolic Successors........ The Roman Catholic Church claims that their Bishops are direct successors of the Apostles, the claim is made that no other church could be true because they do not have a line of Bishops that go back to the original Apostles. Thus only the Roman Catholic church can be. The claim is that the Bishop here can be traced back to the Bishop, to the Bishop....going all the way back to Peter. The truth is that there is no evidence, there is no evidence in the new testament that the Apostles ever appointed Successors for themselves. Absolutely no evidence! Jesus also never made any provisions for this either, you would think if this was that important, Paul, Peter, James, John, somebody would've written something about it, right? You think that Jesus would've taught his disciples what to do. Rather you see, NO evidence of Apostolic succession.There were pastors ordained, there were missionaries sent out, there were teachers and Evangelists going through the churches and appointed in the Churches, But you do not see the system followed today in Roman Catholic Churches and even the Greek Orthodox Church. The Apostles were unique in their appointment and calling, to say that there are modern day Apostles is untrue. 6 ways the Apostles were unique: First of all, they were personally called by Jesus to be Apostles, You can't be personally called by Jesus on earth anymore, because he's not here physically. Secondly they were eye witnesses to his ministry, they saw Jesus live his life. Thirdly they were eye witnesses to Jesus ressurection from the dead. They saw the Lord alive after his death. Fourthly, their calling was confirmed, anybody can say that their an Apostle, but these men were confirmed by the miraculous signs and wonders they performed. God backed up their crudentials with signs and wonders. Fifthly, their teachings were inspired by God and is scripture and authoratative for every believer today. So the writings of Paul, the writings of James, the writings of John, the writings that we have in the new testament, they are Authoratative for us because the're written by our Holy Apostles. We can call them that because they were set apart by Christ. and Six, their positions were unique and they can never be replaced, no one else can ever fulfill their place. Their appointment and calling was unique. There is no visible HEAD of the church today, there is no man or woman today that can say I LEAD JESUS CHURCH. Because only Jesus can lead his church, it's his church! The Lord does give teaching gifts to his church today. In Eph.4:11 says concerning gifts he gives "And he gave some as apostles and some as prophets and some as evangelists and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the Saints, for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ. So the Lord gives apostles (with a little a) the word Apostle also means SENT ONES these are missionaries and Evangelists and those that are known to speak fourth truth (Prophetic voices among believers).

 

[mondar]

Apostolic Succession

The Roman denomination is not the only one to claim apostolic succession. Of course the Mormons also do the same thing. Rome bases its claim on several texts, none of which establish a doctrine of apostolic succession. The most famous of the texts used by Rome is Mt 16:19.

Mat 16:19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

When Peter received the keys of the kingdom, he received authority to bind and loose. However, all Christians have that same authority. Mt 18:18 uses the same identical language with regard to all Christians.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Matthew seems careful not to make any claims that Peter is above any of the others in the early Church. Matthew will later show Peter has receiving special reward, but only as one of the 12, never as the head of the 12. Notice Mt 19:28.

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

It is also to be noticed that Peter's reward does not extend to the later Church, but to later day Israel, or Israel in the regeneration. It seems to me that if Matthew is looked at as a single context, Peter is no pope, and there is no apostolic succession. Of course Peters writings also validate this opinion.

1Pe 5:1 The elders among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

Peter would never have claimed superiority over the other apostles, or even the other elders of the Church. He did claim equality with the elders in this text. The Pope and Roman denomination is so very different then Peter. The continually make claims that Peter himself never made. I always find it interesting Peters instructions to his fellow elders in 1 Peter 5:2.

1Pe 5:2 Tend the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God; nor yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

This is the same exact instruction that Christ gave Peter in John 21. John 21 is another text Rome uses wrongly to establish its false claims of authority. Peter had fallen because of his denial of Christ.

Joh 13:38 Jesus answereth, Wilt thou lay down thy life for me? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.

Then in John 21 Christ brings about a three fold command to restore Peter. Rome views John 21 as some sort of command for Peter to be Pope. This text is not about promotion, but restoration.
I guess the above is mainly about Peter, but concerning apostolic succession, James the apostle was the first to die.

Act 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the church.
Act 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

Notice that he killed James, but there is no successor to this dead apostle. After the death of James, there is only 11 apostles, until the next one is killed. You might ask why Judas was replaced in Acts 1. He was replaced not because he died, but because he was the traitor who lost his office by his betrayal of Jesus. Peter quotes the Psalms to suggest that Judas needed to be replaced. Again, Judas was replaced because he defected from the 12, and the number had to be 12. Matthew 19:28 makes it clear that there must only be 12 apostles because there are 12 tribes of Israel. Israel is their reward, and so there must be 12. See the above reference on Matthew 19:28.

In Romes dogma, it creates is false gospel from its false claims to apostolic succession. It jumps from apostolic succession to a sacramental priesthood. Rome has declared anathema all who challenge its grandiose claims. Yet, its grandiose claims are not based upon the correct reading of scriptures.

Sola glorius deus,
Mondar

 

[francisdesales]

So why must the Pope be THE representative when we ALL can be representatives of Christ? He is no greater than those of us that serve the Lord!

We ARE representatives of Christ. But we individually do not represent the unity of the Church. Just as Peter held primacy among the Apostles - but still being a man, a sinner - so too is the Pope.

Also, since men disagree on interpretation of the Scriptures and teachings of the Apostles, it makes sense that God would provide some sort of mechanism to ensure that His People would know His teachings.

Regards

 

[mondar]

We ARE representatives of Christ. But we individually do not represent the unity of the Church. Just as Peter held primacy among the Apostles - but still being a man, a sinner - so too is the Pope.

Also, since men disagree on interpretation of the Scriptures and teachings of the Apostles, it makes sense that God would provide some sort of mechanism to ensure that His People would know His teachings.

Regards

I am amazed at this attempt at a reason for the papacy. Did you ever listen to theologians argue within the Roman denomination? If God provided a mechanism within the Roman denomination to assure the same opinions are different matters God did a very poor job.

 

[RobertMazar]

As a Catholic who is Born Again I believe that Benedict XVI's mind is totally gone for making that insane statement that Protestant Churches are not True Churches. Any church that acknowledges the Deity Of Christ and the Holy Trinity is a True Church. :smt075

 

[cyberjosh]

I'm afraid I can't help you if you won't engage your mind and throw false dichotomies and invalid conclusions at me cyber. That there were local authorities does not neccessitate there being no leadership over those authorities and the evidence is overwhelming that Peter was that authority and that he passed this authority along. But you will deny because it leaves you feelinging comfortable where you are at.

Show me Scripturally where there is a Church Government position for "vicar". The highest leader I've seen in church hierarchy mentioned in the NT is "overseer/bishop". Can you prove otherwise? A simple request.

~Josh

 

[Solo]

We ARE representatives of Christ. But we individually do not represent the unity of the Church. Just as Peter held primacy among the Apostles - but still being a man, a sinner - so too is the Pope.

Also, since men disagree on interpretation of the Scriptures and teachings of the Apostles, it makes sense that God would provide some sort of mechanism to ensure that His People would know His teachings.

Regards

The "mechanism to ensure that His People would know His teachings" is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within each and every born again believer; not the false teachings of the satanic man-made religious organization of Roman Catholicism headed by a man called pope. Read the Scriptures, pray for truth, become born again, and leave the cult called Roman Catholicism!

 

[thessalonian]

Mondar,

You didn't respond to my last post. Seems you were mistaken.

 

[mondar]

Mondar,

You didn't respond to my last post. Seems you were mistaken.

LOL, I did see it and ignored it. Your post did not deal with any of the comments I had made previously. I am surprised to see that you desire me to post again on this issue. I think I see that you actually do believe that the Roman Pope and Curia are not saying all protestants are going to hell. I think that will be very difficult for you to admit since your theology in the matter is somehow different then Romes. I am not sure I understand your concepts, but I think I know what Rome is saying. It is nothing new, they have been saying it for centuries. If the pope admits protestants are going to heaven, he pretty well overturns Trent and Vatican 1. Within the Roman denomination there are two major groups. There are the old schoolers who are throwbacks to Trent, and the eccumenticalists, who want discussions with protestants. Many American Roman scholars are eccumenticalists. There is however a major group of Roman apologists that take the old school hardline here in America. Many of the Jesuits here in American are eccumentical. I used to subscribe to the "Catholic Biblical Quarterly," but gave it up after only one year.

In any case, I will respond to the new statements.

Your concept is based upon the similarity of a single term... "communities." The term does appear in the answer to question 3 and also in question 5. In question 3 you ignoring the fact that the term communities is referring to some communities in which an element of the church "subsists in." This use of the term "communities" is different then the use of the term in question 5. In question 3 because certain elements "subsist in" the Oriental churches they have the mystery of salvation. In question 5 the Curia is saying that these elements do not subsist in the "communities" of the reformation. The reason that these "communities" do not have the mystery of salvation is because they are "deprived of a constitutive element." Since according to Roman dogma salvation is found in the Church, this lack of a proper "constitutive element" means that there is no salvation among the protestants. Both the Oriental churches and the protestants are called "communities." However, what the curia is doing is making a difference between the two "communities" and not saying that they are the same.

 

[thessalonian]

It's sad you did your heals in so mondar. Have you read the works of Ludwig Ott and Karl Adam (both pre-vatican II on this issue). I can assure you the Pope has and neither of these books has ever recieved condemnation by any Pope. They are in agreement with my view of the Popes statement. Both have the Nihil Ohnstad, which is the mark of Orthodoxy and are considered completely orthodox in what they say about the Catholic faith. The are also in agreement with the current Catechism of the Cathollic Church of which Cardinal Ratzinger was a key contributor, being a member of the congregation of the Doctrine of the faith. Have you read Lumen Gentium and UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO of which much of this document is based? Have you read "Truth and Tolerance by then Cardinal Ratizinger" and his current book on the real jesus, which speak to these topics? I've read all of these and can tell you that you are distorting Benedict XVI and the Congregation's intent for the document. But you MUST.

Communities in #3 is a broader term that contains the subset of those ecclesiastical communities of the reformation. Not all ecclesisatical communities are rooted in the reformation and #5 speaks to those that are. But #3 also includes them.

I would do an LOL but it is not funny when edited MUST distort Catholicism in order to lead people in to the ditch. Your no expert as you try to pose yourself. That is for sure. The document does not say that protestants ARE saved. It leaves the question open as we do not judge those outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

 

[Solo]

The document does not say that protestants ARE saved. It leaves the question open as we do not judge those outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church.

Tell that to the many, many true believers who were murdered by the satanic edited: for not aligning themselves with the false teachings!!

 

[mondar]

Thess, oh and by the way. I claim no special knowledge of the Roman denomination. The reason you see me as more dangerous and pretending to be more knowledgable is because I am using RCC source documents. Because I use source documents does not mean I am claiming uniqueness. The reason I do this is because so many from Rome say so many different things. Should we not all be going to source documents?

Also, I dont see the document as leaving much doubt that salvation comes by the sacramental priesthood which follows the succession of apostles. This sacramental priesthood serves the holy Eucharist which contains the mystery of salvation. The status of the community of the reformation of the 16th century does not seem to be in doubt. We obviously do not have the mystery of salvation according to the Curia.

 

[thessalonian]

Edited: Argumentive

 

[thessalonian]

Thess, oh and by the way. I claim no special knowledge of the Roman denomination. The reason you see me as more dangerous and pretending to be more knowledgable is because I am using RCC source documents. Because I use source documents does not mean I am claiming uniqueness. The reason I do this is because so many from Rome say so many different things. Should we not all be going to source documents?

Also, I dont see the document as leaving much doubt that salvation comes by the sacramental priesthood which follows the succession of apostles. This sacramental priesthood serves the holy Eucharist which contains the mystery of salvation. The status of the community of the reformation of the 16th century does not seem to be in doubt. We obviously do not have the mystery of salvation according to the Curia.

Edited:

We do not limit God to his sacraments and leave the salvation of those outside the Church up to his judgement. The status of those who were Catholics and turned to heresy is of less doudt than one today who was raised in the protestant faith. Every heard of invincible ignorance? It is an offensive term to some but it mearly states that one may not be culpable because he may not have been taught some things or recieved the grace to understand them. We leave this up to God's judgement . I know, I am wrong again. Catholics don't know what they believe. :-?

I don't claim that you are saved or unsaved. I leave the judging to the one qualified. I think the Pope would agree with this. I've studied his writings a bit more than you.

 

[Solo]

Atonement I do believe this is arguementive. Tell me, do you believe in Romans 13? Apparently not. Paul said to give the body over that the soul might be saved with regard to a heretic in his day.

You rant about the killings and ignore the killings of Catholics by protestants of course. Romanist is a derogatory term. You sound so cival in most of your posts but the hatred boils underneath.

Here is a website for those who would like to read the definition of romanist and its subsequent synonyms:

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.o ... n/romanist

(I find it interesting that a Roman Catholic would think the term derogatory!)

I do not hate individuals caught up in the lies of satan for our battle is not against flesh and blood, but against prinicipalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness, against spiritual wickedness in high places. I preach the truth so that those that have ears to hear and eyes to see will excape the plagues promised to the harlot of Babylon.

I hate the lies of the devil and the lies of those that lead individuals to hell!

• 10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Ephesians 6:10-13[

 

[thessalonian]

Mr. Solo must always be right so I suppose Websters will be declared in fallible.


http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/ ... q=romanist
Romanist
- offensive term: an offensive term for a member of the Roman Catholic Church- student of ancient Rome: a student of or expert in ancient Roman history or law
- offensive term: an offensive term meaning belonging or relating to the Roman Catholic Church- of ancient Roman history: relating to or involving...



Here is dictionary.com

Ro·man·ist /ˈroʊmənɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[roh-muh-nist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. Often Disparaging and Offensive. a member of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. one versed in Roman institutions, law, etc.
3. Also, Ro·man·i·cist /roʊˈmænəsɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[roh-man-uh-sist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. a person versed in Romance languages, literature, or linguistics.
4. Romanists, Fine Arts. a group of Flemish and Dutch painters of the 16th century who traveled to Italy and returned to Flanders and Holland with the style and techniques of the High Renaissance and of Mannerism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1515–25; < NL Romanista. See Roman, -ist]

â€â€Related forms
Ro·man·is·tic, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source Ro·man·ist (rō'mə-nĭst) Pronunciation Key
n.
Offensive One who professes Roman Catholicism.
A student of or authority on ancient Roman law, culture, and institutions.

World wide webster.

Romanist
One entry found.

Romanist



Main Entry: Ro·man·ist
Pronunciation: \-nist\
Function: noun
Date: 1523
1often offensive : roman catholic
2: a specialist in the language, culture, or law of ancient Rome
 Romanist or Ro·man·is·tic \ˌrō-mə-ˈnis-tik\ adjective