And The word Was God

15/04/2026

1. On the origin of “Roman Catholic”

You claim the term predates Anglican polemics, since “Roman Church,” “Roman Pontiff,” and “Roman Rite” were already in use. That's true, Roman Church and related descriptors are ancient. But the compound label “Roman Catholic” is not attested in antiquity or the medieval period. The Oxford English Dictionary traces “Roman Catholic” in English to the late 16th century, precisely in the Reformation context. Earlier usage was “Roman Church,” not “Roman Catholic.” So while “Roman” is old, “Roman Catholic” as a fixed label is indeed a post‑Reformation coinage, often polemical.

2. On the Great Schism and Eastern usage
You claim Eastern churches distinguished Rome as “Roman” long before Anglicanism. But while it is correct that they spoke of “the Church of Rome” or “Roman obedience," they did not use “Roman Catholic” as a compound. Their distinction was geographical and ecclesial, not confessional. Keyword: confessional.
On the other hand, the Anglican polemical use of “Roman Catholic” was different: it was meant to deny Rome’s monopoly on catholicity. So while “Roman” was descriptive in the East, “Roman Catholic” as a label undoubtedly arose in the West in the Reformation era.

4. On Ignatius and catholicity

Absolutely, Ignatius of Antioch uses “Catholic Church” to mean the universal body. But this is precisely why Anglicans in the 16th century insisted on distinguishing “Catholic” from “Roman Catholic.” They wanted to claim catholicity without Rome. That distinction was polemical, even if grounded in patristic precedent.
Then again, even in the same writings of Ignatius of Antioch you cited to support a 'broad' definition of Catholic, Ignatius famously said, "Where the bishop is, there let the people be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." In the 2nd century, this was a call to strict local and universal obedience to a specific hierarchy. To use Ignatius to justify a fragmented "creedal sense" of the Church—where various groups claim the title while out of communion with one another—contradicts the very unity Ignatius died to defend.

5. On ARCIC and modern usage/adoption of "Roman Catholic."

Your claim that Vatican's adoption of “Roman Catholic” proves it is not an insult is not accurate. ARCIC’s name reflects ecumenical pragmatism, not historical origins. By the 20th century, “Roman Catholic” had become a neutral descriptor in English. But that does not erase its earlier polemical use. The Vatican itself rarely uses “Roman Catholic” in its own self‑designation; official documents overwhelmingly prefer “Catholic Church.” The adoption in ARCIC is for clarity in dialogue, not because the Vatican concedes the Anglican narrative.

6. On Christianity in Britain before Augustine

True, there were Christians in Britain before Augustine. But practically, there's no English Church without St. Augustine. How?
Assuming, but not conceding, that the English reforms were merely a return to early British Christianity, it couldn't have practically gone beyond the St. Augustine. Because, following the collapse of Roman occupation in the Anglo-Saxon (today's England), paganism increased causing a near collapse of Christianity in the place. Christianity only reasonably survived in the Celtic regions, it was practically dead in England. St. Augustine thus brought Christianity anew to England with more lasting structure/institutionality. So, the English church practically owes its life to St. Augustine, not before. So while Christianity pre‑dated Rome in Britain, the Church of England’s institutional lineage is inseparable from Rome until the Reformation.

7. On Henry VIII and the annulment

You claim break was more complex than a divorce. True, but the decisive rupture was Henry’s assertion of royal supremacy over the Church, rejecting papal jurisdiction. That was unprecedented. Whatever the papacy’s political constraints, Henry’s move was a radical reordering of authority. The Reformation in England cannot be reduced to papal politics. That, borrowing from your words, is gross oversimplification. It may have been political but culminated into a theological and ecclesiological revolution, as far as the office of Peter and the Catholic Church was concerned.

8. On Catholic continuity of the Church of England

As far as Catholicity of the Church of England is concerned, they did retain episcopal structure and creedal orthodoxy. But Rome and the Eastern churches rejected its claim to catholicity, precisely because of the break in sacramental continuity began from the Henry incident down to the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church, in Apostolicae Curae (1896), declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void". So, even if Anglicans see themselves as catholic, catholicity in the creedal sense requires sacramental validity and visible communion. Without recognised orders, Anglicanism cannot claim to be part of the same (creedal) catholicity.

9. On “Roman Catholic” as descriptor

You claim it is not an insult, but a precise identifier. Today, yes. But historically, in 16th‑century England, “Roman Catholic” was coined to deny Rome’s monopoly on catholicity. It was not neutral. Over time, it became normalized, and many dioceses now use it. But its origin was polemical, even if its current use is descriptive.

10. On the Eastern Patriarchs (1848)

True, the Eastern patriarchs used "Church of Rome," but that was jurisdictional not the confessional "Roman Catholic" coinage of the Anglicans and reformers. And regarding the statement of the patriarchs that they themselves are the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, that was a claim mutually held by both factions in schism. Till date, the Roman Catholic Church recognises the catholicity of the Eastern Church due to sacramental continuity and all. And today, both churches have made great strides towards communion as the schism documents have been mutually shredded by both factions.

11/04/2026

GOD BLESS CATHOLIC CHURCH

09/04/2026

Dear Digital Archdeacon,

Let us begin with challenging the core premise that "Catholicity" can be meaningfully separated from visible, institutional unity. It is our view that your essay’s definition of "creedal Catholicity" is historically revisionist and sociologically impractical, and several of its claims are problematic or incomplete.

1. The Meaning of “Catholic” in the Creeds/The Fallacy of "Invisible" Catholicity.

Yes, “catholic” originally meant “universal.” But the creeds were not written in a vacuum. They were formulated within the lived reality of the Church, which was a body structured around apostolic succession and communion with the bishops of the major sees, within an already established tradition. To confess the “catholic Church” was not merely to affirm an abstract or indeterminate universality, but to affirm the concrete, visible communion of the Church as it existed. That communion was not simply “any group claiming apostolic faith,” much less by even those without apostolic succession like the protestants, but the actual body of bishops united in faith, sacrament and tradition.

This becomes immediately evident in the same writings of Ignatius of Antioch you cited to support a "broad" definition of Catholic. Ignatius famously said, "Where the bishop is, there let the people be; as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." In the 2nd century, this was a call to strict local and universal obedience to a specific hierarchy. To use Ignatius to justify a fragmented "creedal sense" of the Church—where various groups claim the title while out of communion with one another—contradicts the very unity Ignatius died to defend.

If every denomination can claim to be "Catholic" based on their own interpretation of "Apostolic Faith," while teaching different dogmas on the the Sacraments, priesthood, etc., the term loses all meaning. It becomes historically anachronistic and a label of private judgment. Then "Catholicity" ceases to be "fullness of truth" but a cloak for theological pluralism.

To the Church Fathers, thus, catholicity was always tied to visible unity, not just theological or sacramental continuity, much less mere belief in Christ. You could not be "theologically Catholic" while being "institutionally broken" from the main body.

Thus, defining Catholicity as a set of shared ideas (Apostolic succession, sacraments) rather than a shared life in one body merely adopts a Protestant "Branch Theory" that the early Church would not recognize. Else, you could remind us why GAFCON refrained from creating a parallel government to Canterbury in the last minutes of the conference, like the Church of England did with Catholicism, but rather chose reformation from within.

2. The Roman Catholic Church’s Claim/The Objective Necessity of a "Center."

Your essay downplays Rome’s role, but historically the Bishop of Rome was not merely “honorary.” From the earliest centuries, Rome was appealed to as the final court of doctrinal disputes (e.g., Clement of Rome’s letter to Corinth, Irenaeus’ testimony about Rome’s preeminent authority). The Great Schism did not create Rome’s claim to catholicity—it revealed a fracture in what had already been understood as the one Catholic Church. So, while “Roman Catholic” as a label may have become more necessary after divisions, Rome’s claim to be the Catholic Church is not a late invention but rooted in early practice.

Secondly, for a "Universal" Church to exist, there must be a visible, not abstract, point of unity, a body not factions. Without a "Petrine Office" or a definitive Magisterium, "Catholicity" becomes subjective or superficial. This is evident in the Anglican Communion today, which struggles with internal divisions over doctrine; without a central authority, the "fullness of apostolic faith" is defined differently by different bishops, undermining the "wholeness" of the Church necessary for true Catholicity, which is not merely apostolic succession in isolation, but apostolic succession in communion.

3. The "Rites" Argument: Substance over Semantics.

Your essay argues that Roman Catholics wrongly equate Catholicity with the "24 Rites." However, the 24 Rites represent a REALIZED UNIVERSALITY: they prove that the Catholic Church is not just "Roman" but includes Byzantine, Coptic, and Syriac traditions. Rome’s recognition of these 24 sui iuris Churches shows that catholicity is expressed in diversity of rites, but unity of faith and communion with Peter. These groups maintain their ancient identity within a visible global unity. In this sense, therefore, the Anglican position, by contrast, is "Catholic" only in theory or aesthetic, as it lacks the organic link to the other ancient sees (Rome, Antioch, Alexandria) that the Eastern Catholic Churches possess.

4. Anglican Catholicity Vs Eastern Orthodox Catholicity.

Here’s the crux: Rome and Orthodoxy both question Anglican claims to catholicity because of the break in sacramental continuity. The Roman Catholic Church, in Apostolicae Curae (1896), declared Anglican orders “absolutely null and utterly void.” So, even if Anglicans see themselves as catholic, catholicity in the creedal sense requires sacramental validity and visible communion. Without recognized orders, Anglicanism cannot claim to be part of the same (creedal) catholicity.

Secondly, the Anglican claim rests on "reforming" the existing Church. But if a Church requires a "Reformation" that breaks communion with the rest of the West, it has effectively ceased to function as the "universal" (Catholic) body and has become a national or confessional body. True Catholicity requires consensus fidelium (the consent of the faithful); a single communion (Anglican) cannot unilaterally decide it is the "true" representative of the whole while remaining isolated from the Roman and Eastern centers.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, on the other hand, can claim catholicity more strongly than Anglicanism because it has preserved apostolic succession, valid sacraments, and visible communion across its patriarchates since the early Church, more so now that the schism with Rome has been lifted and the road to full communion begun, whereas Anglicanism’s orders and sacramental continuity are disputed by both Rome and Orthodoxy while they remain in full schism.

5. Catholic vs. Roman Catholic and the Ecumenical Perspective.

Your essay insists on distinguishing “Catholic Church” from “Roman Catholic Church.” But historically, the Catholic Church has always been identified with the communion of bishops united with Rome. To separate the two is to redefine catholicity in a way foreign to the early Church’s lived reality. Rome’s claim is not simply institutional—it is theological: unity with Peter is the visible sign of catholicity. Without that, claims to catholicity are incomplete.
Again, from an ecumenical standpoint, Anglicans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics all preserve elements of catholicity. But catholicity is not just about faith and liturgy, but about communion. The Anglican Communion, by rejecting papal authority and lacking recognized sacramental succession, stands outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.
It may preserve aspects of catholic tradition, but it cannot claim to be “the Catholic Church” in the creedal sense without communion, because catholicity is inseparable from visible unity and sacramental validity.

Summary

- “Catholic” in the creeds meant the visible, united Church, not just theological universality.
- Rome’s role as the centre of unity was recognized from the earliest centuries.
- Eastern Catholic Churches show catholicity as diversity-in-unity under Rome.
- Anglican orders are not recognized as valid, undermining claims to apostolic succession and sacramental catholicity.
- Catholicity requires valid orders strengthening claims of apostolic succession and ultimately communion with Peter; without these, claims to catholic identity are partial.

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Clarifying Identity, Communion, and Misunderstanding Across Roman, Eastern, and Anglican Traditions.

The word “Catholic” is among the most misunderstood terms in Christian theology. In contemporary usage, it is often treated as a denominational label synonymous with the Roman Catholic Church. Yet historically and theologically, the term long predates that institution’s present form and carries a far broader meaning.

This post seeks to clarify the meaning of “Catholic Church” in the creeds, distinguish between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches, and explain why the Anglican Communion rightly understands itself as part of the Catholic Church confessed in the creeds, even though it is not one of the “Catholic rites” under Rome.


1. The Meaning of “Catholic” in the Creeds

The phrase “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” appears in the Nicene Creed. Here, the term “catholic” does not refer to a denomination but to a quality of the Church.

The word comes from the Greek katholikos, meaning “according to the whole” or “universal.” It signifies:

The universality of the Church across all nations.

The fullness of the apostolic faith.

The wholeness of the sacramental life.

The continuity of the Church through time.

Thus, when early Christians confessed belief in the “catholic Church,” they were not identifying a particular jurisdiction but affirming that the Church of Christ is universal, complete, and faithful to the apostles.

This understanding was already present in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch in the early second century, long before later divisions. For him and the early Church, “Catholic Church” simply meant the visible, global community of believers united in faith, sacraments, and episcopal leadership.


2. The Emergence of the Roman Catholic Church as a Distinct Identity

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest single Christian body today, centred on the Bishop of Rome, commonly called the Pope. Historically, however, it is important to understand that:

In the early centuries, the Church was united but administratively diverse.

The Bishop of Rome held a place of honour, not absolute jurisdiction.

The term “Roman Catholic Church” only became necessary after divisions in Christendom.

The defining historical rupture came with the Great Schism, which separated the Western Church (centred in Rome) from the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

After this, “Catholic” began to be used in a more exclusive sense in the West. The Roman Church increasingly identified itself as the Catholic Church, especially in contrast to other groups.

However, from a strictly theological and historical standpoint, this is a development, not the original meaning of “Catholic” in the creeds.


3. The Eastern Catholic Churches and the “24 Rites” Argument

The Eastern Catholic Churches are a group of Churches that:

Maintain Eastern liturgical traditions.

Have their own hierarchies and disciplines.

Are in full communion with the Pope.

These include traditions such as Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, and Chaldean rites. Altogether, Rome recognises 24 “Churches sui iuris” or autonomous Churches within its communion.

When Roman Catholics argue that there are “24 Catholic rites,” they are speaking from within their own ecclesial framework. Within that framework:

“Catholic” is defined as communion with Rome

The 24 Churches are those recognised under papal authority

However, this definition is not equivalent to the meaning of “Catholic Church” in the creeds. It is a particular ecclesiological claim, not a universal definition accepted by all Christians.


4. The Anglican Claim to Catholicity

The Anglican Communion has consistently maintained that it is part of the Catholic Church in the creedal sense.

This claim rests on three foundational pillars:

a. Apostolic Succession

Anglicanism maintains the historic episcopate. Its bishops stand in continuity with the apostles through the laying on of hands.

b. Catholic Faith

Anglican doctrine affirms the core teachings of the undivided Church, including the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the authority of Scripture interpreted within tradition.

c. Sacramental Life

Anglicans uphold Baptism and the Eucharist as central sacraments and retain a liturgical structure deeply rooted in ancient Christianity.

The Thirty-Nine Articles explicitly situate Anglicanism within the historic Church, not outside it. The Anglican reformers did not see themselves as founding a new Church but as reforming abuses within the existing Catholic Church in England.


5. Why Anglicanism Is Not a “Catholic Rite” but Is Still Catholic

Here lies the central confusion.

Roman Catholics say:

“The Anglican Church is not one of the 24 Catholic rites”

This statement is correct within the Roman system, because:

Anglicanism is not in communion with the Pope.

It is not recognised as a “sui iuris” Church under Rome.

However, the Anglican response is equally important:

Anglicanism has never claimed to be one of those rites.

It does not define catholicity by communion with Rome.

It defines catholicity by continuity with the apostolic Church.

Thus, the disagreement is not about facts but about definitions.

Rome defines “Catholic Church” institutionally.
Anglicanism defines “Catholic Church” theologically and historically.


6. The Key Distinction: Catholic Church vs Roman Catholic Church

To resolve the confusion, one must distinguish between two uses of the term:

1. Catholic Church (Creedal Sense)

The universal Church of Christ.

Includes all who hold the apostolic faith.

Transcends denominational boundaries.

2. Roman Catholic Church (Institutional Sense)

A specific Church under papal authority.

One part of the wider Christian tradition.

Claims fullness of catholicity but is not identical with the whole.

This distinction is essential. The failure to recognise it leads to the mistaken assumption that:

“Catholic” equals “Roman Catholic”.

Historically, that equation is false.


7. Can the Roman Catholic Church Be Called the Catholic Church?

Yes, but with qualification.

The Roman Catholic Church can legitimately be called “the Catholic Church” in the sense that:

It preserves many elements of historic catholicity.

It represents a major portion of global Christianity.

It maintains continuity with the ancient Church.

However, it is not identical with the “Catholic Church” of the creeds, because:

The creeds refer to the whole universal Church.

That Church existed before Rome’s later institutional claims.

It includes traditions beyond Roman jurisdiction.

Thus, Rome’s usage is valid within its own framework but not exhaustive of the creedal meaning.


8. Historical Reality: One Church, Many Expressions

Before major divisions, the Church was:

One in faith.

Diverse in liturgy.

Governed by multiple episcopal centres.

After divisions, different traditions retained aspects of this catholicity:

Rome emphasised unity under the papacy.

Eastern Orthodoxy emphasised conciliarity.

Anglicanism emphasised Scripture, tradition, and reason within historic continuity.

Each claims continuity with the ancient Catholic Church, though in different ways.


9. Setting the Record Straight

To summarise clearly:

The “Catholic Church” in the creeds means the universal Church of Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church is one expression of that Church, not its entirety.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are part of Rome’s communion, not the whole Catholic Church.

The Anglican Communion is not a Roman rite but is part of the Catholic Church in the creedal sense.

Therefore:

The Anglican Church is not Roman Catholic, but it is truly Catholic.

The Roman Catholic Church is Catholic, but it is not the totality of the Catholic Church confessed in the creeds.


The confusion surrounding “Catholic” arises from the conflation of a theological term with an institutional identity. The early Church spoke of catholicity as a mark of universality and faithfulness, not as a denominational boundary.

To recover this original meaning is not merely an academic exercise. It is essential for honest ecumenical dialogue and for a proper understanding of the Church’s identity.

The Catholic Church of the creeds is larger than Rome, older than later divisions, and richer than any single expression. Within that great and historic communion, Anglicanism stands not as an outsider, but as a rightful participant in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.


Ven. Alex Uzor
Digital Archdeacon

26/07/2025

‎You exhibited some bias in your video, sir. This bias is not against the Jehovah's Witnesses but against the Catholic Church. It becomes clear when we juxtapose some of your reasonings here with things you've said about the Catholic Church not too long ago, particularly about the Holy Communion, when you were supposedly correcting the church.
‎
‎You once mocked the doctrine of the Holy Communion saying that the Catholic Church believes that during the consecration, Catholics invoke Christ and he would have to leave everything he's doing and come and enter into the bread and wine, suggesting that it was sort of ridiculously impracticable.
‎
‎But in this video, you explained that God could pray to God because God is Almighty and can become anything he wants as that's the meaning of the "I am that I am." Now, since that's the case, couldn't Christ, in the same manner, choose to become the bread and the wine at the mass without needing to "leave everything that he's doing," as the Almighty he is? What aspect of it then was impracticable? Could Christ not be [in] the bread and still anywhere else?
‎
‎Same question goes to some other protestants that oppose the Holy Communion on the basis that the last supper, which instituted the Holy Communion in Catholic doctrine, did not feature any transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, as that would be impossible based on the fact that Christ was still present in his body and blood. And so, they couldn't have feasted on his body and blood that was alive and present without it amounting to cannibalism.
‎
‎So the question is repeated to those people thus, is anything really an impossible thing for God to do? What happened to "I am that I am" which means "I can be anything I want?" What happens to "I am the God of all flesh, is there anything too hard for me?"
‎
‎The second bias is that you accused the Jehovah's Witnesses of twisting the Bible or using certain translation that suits their theology. But you also did same also when you were dealing with the Catholic Church. In this particular video: https://www.facebook.com/abeldaminaministries/videos/1340571127112879/?app=fbl, where you opposed the perceived power of the Catholic priests to forgive sins as supposedly granted them under John 20:21 and thereabouts. And in doing that, you had to use a certain TPT translation which was even in controversy at the time. In fact, it had been removed from Bible Gateway due to the controversies around it. And it was even a new translation having only the new testament at the time. Yet, you quoted that same rejected Bible and even claimed it's CLOSEST to the original Greek translation just because you want to prove a point against the Catholic Church.
‎
‎This same TPT (passion) Bible was a single authorship of one Brian Simmons. It was surprising how it was even possible that this particular translation would say something entirely different from ALL other translations altogether in history including your own favorite Bible, the KJV, yet somehow it was more correct in your view than the rest altogether, as far as John 20:21-23 was concerned. Does that not qualify as twisting the Bible too?
‎
‎These are the issues.
‎

18/05/2025

PREPARING FOR HIS INAUGURAL MASS TODAY

16/05/2025

You are blessed today and forever.

26/09/2024

How many likes can this get? 🔥🔥