A question for protestants

[nhylan]

I like how you completely ignore any of the definitions above the ones you quoted. All mankind, not just Roman Catholics. In addition to this the part you quoted also mentions there are other catholic churches besides the roman one. And when they Roman Catholic they mean the whole thing not just the Latin rite, which the dictionary established above that.

Dude, you are kind of proving my point here. There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Heck, we are even in the DICTIONARY regarding the word. Yet, for you it doesnt mean that? I find it interesting.

Hey, if you dont want my opinion, sorry. There is an ignore button on here somewhere…

Ahem, let me requore this for you

a, b, c, d… yup, all the One Church.

Adjectives :

Also, the one True Church.

I dont see your point here? The attempt to take one solitary definition and use it in isolation from the others is the problem. Remember, English is a dirty (loose, imprecise) language, and each meaning must be considered and quite often many meanings are intended. Catholic (or catholic), in reference to Christianity, refers to those people who are members of the Catholic Church, or can claim their membership in the Church through baptism. But one cannot remove the Catholic Church from the word, without eliminating the intent of the Creed. THAT is my point. A creed written by Catholics, to espouse the Catholic faith, suddenly doesnt mean Catholic (THE Church) it means catholic (any church)?

And remember, if you dont like my responding or my responses, click ignore, I wont get offended.

FSC

 

[larkin31]

Dude, you are kind of proving my point here. There is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Heck, we are even in the DICTIONARY regarding the word. Yet, for you it doesnt mean that? I find it interesting.

Hey, if you dont want my opinion, sorry. There is an ignore button on here somewhere…

Ahem, let me requore this for you

a, b, c, d… yup, all the One Church.

Adjectives :

Also, the one True Church.

I dont see your point here? The attempt to take one solitary definition and use it in isolation from the others is the problem. Remember, English is a dirty (loose, imprecise) language, and each meaning must be considered and quite often many meanings are intended. Catholic (or catholic), in reference to Christianity, refers to those people who are members of the Catholic Church, or can claim their membership in the Church through baptism. But one cannot remove the Catholic Church from the word, without eliminating the intent of the Creed. THAT is my point. A creed written by Catholics, to espouse the Catholic faith, suddenly doesnt mean Catholic (THE Church) it means catholic (any church)?

And remember, if you dont like my responding or my responses, click ignore, I wont get offended.

FSC

Why are you so chippy? Why would I ignore you? This isn’t about you or me.

Your reply takes the second half of the dictionary entry and applies it to the first. THAT is improper logic, which is the topic I am interested in here. You are clearly taking your RCC faith and imposing it back on the rest of the definition which is beyond the religious.

If I write that I have “catholic” tastes in books, I am not saying anything about religion. Are you aware of this? I am an English teacher, by the way, and your comment that English is a “dirty” (loose, imprecise) language is false.

And your claim that the religious sense of “Catholic” cannot be removed from the other uses of “catholic” is simply false and belies your bias in this regard. Which is, by the way, faulty logic.

Shall we examine the Oxford English Dictionary for the secular definitions of “catholic”? Or is that “faulty logic”? I have a complete copy in my household.

 

[larkin31]

I like how you completely ignore any of the definitions above the ones you quoted. All mankind, not just Roman Catholics. In addition to this the part you quoted also mentions there are other catholic churches besides the roman one. And when they Roman Catholic they mean the whole thing not just the Latin rite, which the dictionary established above that.

Indeed.

Some folks think that the RCC owns the word and that ALL uses must point to their church under the pope(s). Very interesting. Not very accurate, however.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I like how you completely ignore any of the definitions above the ones you quoted. All mankind, not just Roman Catholics. In addition to this the part you quoted also mentions there are other catholic churches besides the roman one. And when they Roman Catholic they mean the whole thing not just the Latin rite, which the dictionary established above that.

Actually, I think I pretty much addressed them all. Did I miss one?

And I addressed the other rites of the Catholic Church. What did I miss?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Why are you so chippy? Why would I ignore you? This isn’t about you or me.

Did you mean Chipper? Or were you implying that I have a “chip on my shoulder”? I suppose I can come off either way, depending on your point of view. If I came off like I have a chip on my shoulder I apologize for that. But I wont apologize for speaking the truth, just the same as I would never expect you to apologize for speaking what you see as the truth.

Your reply takes the second half of the dictionary entry and applies it to the first. THAT is improper logic, which is the topic I am interested in here. You are clearly taking your RCC faith and imposing it back on the rest of the definition which is beyond the religious.

Not at all. The first and second definitions are both included in the third. Although, admittedly, Roman Catholic is only one rite in the Catholic Church.

Its the same as saying that Christs command to love one another is illogical since we had these other 10 commands that were before it. The last sums up the first. In the case of Catholic (regarding religion) the last incorporates the first two.

Th UNIVERSAL Church does not mean that everyone who THINKS they are in the Church actually are. It is universal in the fact that all are called to be members, not in the fact that all who believe they are members are correct in their belief.

If I write that I have “catholic” tastes in books, I am not saying anything about religion. Are you aware of this? I am an English teacher, by the way, and your comment that English is a “dirty” (loose, imprecise) language is false.

You would be using the term “catholic” in an entirely different fashion than it is used in the Creed so it is a poor comparison, although I understand you dont see it that way.

Linguistically, English is FAR less precise than French, Spanish, Latin (although latin is much more confusing grammatically) and even German. So in that sense I am correct.

And your claim that the religious sense of “Catholic” cannot be removed from the other uses of “catholic” is simply false and belies your bias in this regard. Which is, by the way, faulty logic.

In the context the word is used, the two cannot be removed. In the context of what you wrote above they may, since it is not regarding Christianity.

For the record, my “bias” has existed since LONG before I became Catholic. I used to be the typical anti-catholic evangelical/pentecostal protestant. When I realized that using the word catholic, in a creed devised by and for Catholics, in a sense that did not refer to Catholics was wrong, I could not agree with the Creed.

Shall we examine the Oxford English Dictionary for the secular definitions of “catholic”? Or is that “faulty logic”? I have a complete copy in my household.

Cool, I have like three unabridged dictionaries (1926, 1947, and one more that I dont remember when its from and dont get me started on the exhorbitant cost of shipping THREE unabridged dictionaries…) in my apartment. Still doesnt mean a thing. The Creed was written in Latin and the Latin today means the same it did when it was formulated.

You cannot remove the original intent of a thing without destroying the integrity of that thing. If I said the declaration of independence only applies to me since it says “all MEN” then I would be wrong, just as most protestants are today regarding the Creed.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Indeed.

Some folks think that the RCC owns the word and that ALL uses must point to their church under the pope(s). Very interesting. Not very accurate, however.

Not all uses, a “catholic” interest in reading, for instance. But all Credal uses (formulated prior to about 1490 ish) do.

When written by, for, and to Catholics it must be about Catholics.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck… Its not a nissan sentra…

 

[larkin31]

Did you mean Chipper? Or were you implying that I have a “chip on my shoulder”? I suppose I can come off either way, depending on your point of view. If I came off like I have a chip on my shoulder I apologize for that. But I wont apologize for speaking the truth, just the same as I would never expect you to apologize for speaking what you see as the truth.

Not at all. The first and second definitions are both included in the third. Although, admittedly, Roman Catholic is only one rite in the Catholic Church.

Its the same as saying that Christs command to love one another is illogical since we had these other 10 commands that were before it. The last sums up the first. In the case of Catholic (regarding religion) the last incorporates the first two.

Th UNIVERSAL Church does not mean that everyone who THINKS they are in the Church actually are. It is universal in the fact that all are called to be members, not in the fact that all who believe they are members are correct in their belief.

You would be using the term “catholic” in an entirely different fashion than it is used in the Creed so it is a poor comparison, although I understand you dont see it that way.

Linguistically, English is FAR less precise than French, Spanish, Latin (although latin is much more confusing grammatically) and even German. So in that sense I am correct.

In the context the word is used, the two cannot be removed. In the context of what you wrote above they may, since it is not regarding Christianity.

For the record, my “bias” has existed since LONG before I became Catholic. I used to be the typical anti-catholic evangelical/pentecostal protestant. When I realized that using the word catholic, in a creed devised by and for Catholics, in a sense that did not refer to Catholics was wrong, I could not agree with the Creed.

Cool, I have like three unabridged dictionaries (1926, 1947, and one more that I dont remember when its from and dont get me started on the exhorbitant cost of shipping THREE unabridged dictionaries…) in my apartment. Still doesnt mean a thing. The Creed was written in Latin and the Latin today means the same it did when it was formulated.

You cannot remove the original intent of a thing without destroying the integrity of that thing. If I said the declaration of independence only applies to me since it says “all MEN” then I would be wrong, just as most protestants are today regarding the Creed.

FSC

You are no longer discussing logic. You are simply stating, “I consider Protestants wrong because they are not Catholic.”

I am not interested in claiming that you are right or wrong in your faith. That is a silly, self-righteous exercise.

The question was how can Protestants state the creed and mean it? The answer is, “Easy. The word ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’ and that is also how Protestants read it.”

Protestants don’t deny their heritage from the papal faith and they don’t reject all Catholic teachings. That would be absurd, and it is not the case.

 

[larkin31]

Not all uses, a “catholic” interest in reading, for instance. But all Credal uses (formulated prior to about 1490 ish) do.

When written by, for, and to Catholics it must be about Catholics.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, smells like a duck… Its not a nissan sentra…

See above.

I don’t tell people that their faith is wrong. This is weak logic, but as faith I have no objections.

 

[larkin31]

Actually, I think I pretty much addressed them all. Did I miss one?

You “transposed” them.

You are being “dirty” with your English.

English, because it has so many words, is ripe for dirty abuse. It is not the language that is imprecise or loose, but rather the nature of the user.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

You are no longer discussing logic. You are simply stating, “I consider Protestants wrong because they are not Catholic.”

In a sense, yes, I guess I am.

I am not interested in claiming that you are right or wrong in your faith. That is a silly, self-righteous exercise.

Perhaps, but dont forget that is how Christianity started, with Paul telling people they were living UN-Orthodox faith types. He told them to hold fast to what they had been given and not try to interpret on their own (paraphrasing here, sorry)

The question was how can Protestants state the creed and mean it? The answer is, “Easy. The word ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’ and that is also how Protestants read it.”

See my statement above regarding the declaration of independence. Taking a statement, removing it from its context, and attempting to apply it in a novel way not originally intended by the people who made that statement is wrong.

Protestants don’t deny their heritage from the papal faith and they don’t reject all Catholic teachings. That would be absurd, and it is not the case.

Most do, actually. Evangelicals do, baptists do, pentecostals do. And those are just the three I know for certain.

See above.

I don’t tell people that their faith is wrong. This is weak logic, but as faith I have no objections.

Yeah, I know its a bit…hackneyed but it still applies and the logic is sound. How many times do I have to say “the word Catholic written by Catholics, about Catholics, for Catholics, to Catholics, means Catholic”. Do you seriously assume that a Catholic would mean anything else?

And we should all attempt to correct those who are in error. If you saw someone doing heroin, would you say “Oh well, doesnt hurt me” or would you tell them to stop? I know that is a very extreme example, but the principle of the statement is what I intended to portray.

FSC

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

You “transposed” them.

You are being “dirty” with your English.

Already addressed this point. See above.

English, because it has so many words, is ripe for dirty abuse. It is not the language that is imprecise or loose, but rather the nature of the user.

No, English is ripe for dirty abuse (kinda makes me feel dirty to say something like that) because it has SO MANY DEFINITIONS for every word. Each word can mean so many things depending on context that it is very difficult to understand the intended meaning with knowing the surrounding information.

Words that have fallen into disuse were much more precise (bequeath, fullsome, dearth, midst, whence etc. ) and sadly we have lost much of the precision of the language.

I may not often use good grammar, I may not often spell right () and I may use colloquialisms too often, but I do, on occasion, know what I am talking about.

FSC

 

[larkin31]

Words that have fallen into disuse were much more precise (bequeath, fullsome, dearth, midst, whence etc. ) and sadly we have lost much of the precision of the language.

The point here is how Protestants can say the Creed and mean it: I repeat:, they can and do, in the very way that I described.

Are you done commenting on this topic?

 

[larkin31]

In a sense, yes, I guess I am.

Perhaps, but dont forget that is how Christianity started, with Paul telling people they were living UN-Orthodox faith types. He told them to hold fast to what they had been given and not try to interpret on their own (paraphrasing here, sorry)

See my statement above regarding the declaration of independence. Taking a statement, removing it from its context, and attempting to apply it in a novel way not originally intended by the people who made that statement is wrong.

Most do, actually. Evangelicals do, baptists do, pentecostals do. And those are just the three I know for certain.

Yeah, I know its a bit…hackneyed but it still applies and the logic is sound. How many times do I have to say “the word Catholic written by Catholics, about Catholics, for Catholics, to Catholics, means Catholic”. Do you seriously assume that a Catholic would mean anything else?

And we should all attempt to correct those who are in error. If you saw someone doing heroin, would you say “Oh well, doesnt hurt me” or would you tell them to stop? I know that is a very extreme example, but the principle of the statement is what I intended to portray.

FSC

The question wasn’t, “What do Catholics mean?”

You simply want to keep repeating, in various words, that Protestants are wrong.

Have at it.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

The question wasn’t, “What do Catholics mean?” True, it wasnt.

You simply want to keep repeating, in various words, that Protestants are wrong.
Actually, that is not what I want, it simply is what I feel I have to do. Just as you have done with me on this thread. I take no offense and wish that you didnt either.

Have at it.

If I must…

Reply in red above

 

[Roy5]

There are doubts in my mind about Christ establishing a church, any church. He did give us the gospel and at its heart was love for God and one another. Remember when the lawyer asked: how shall he inherit eternal life? That was a perfect opportunity for Christ to speak of church involvement or at least doctrinal requirements. Instead, he said love God and one another. When the lawyer pushed, Jesus told the beautiful parable of the Good Samaritan. Bear in the mind the Samaritans were viewed as scum by the pious Jews because they had intermarried, held to some heretical beliefs, etc.

 I wonder if Christ is pleased or disgusted with the emphasis on ornate churches and vestments, a hierarchy with all manner of precise procedures and firm traditions, claims that there is only one true version of the gospel he proclaimed, etc. He certanly must be pleased with Christians (and others) who live good lives, people of humility and generosity, priests and nuns and others who devote their lives to healing and teaching and feeding the poor. But as for the church - well,  my guess is that he doesn't give a hoot about whether we are Catholic or Congregationalist, Baptist or Buddhist, Methodist or Muslim. By their fruits he will know us, not by any label or or creed.

 Yes, this can sound like heresy, but I believe its the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 God bless all of his children who love him and seek to serve humanity.

 

[PJM]

=Dokimas;6935129]

Churches AREN’T a part of the One Church founded by Jesus including the CC. People are.

 

[PJM]

=Araninski;6936100]Well I don’t believe Jesus founded a Church, I believe Christ gave us the blessing to be called His Church to all of His faithful believers. We are one though some don’t recognize it. However this doesn’t matter at then end, all the true believers are going to be in Heaven as the Bride of Christ and everyone is going to see, the Church is one, even though in Earth people couldn’t recognize it.

God bless

So what your saying friend is the Historians are wrong?

That the Bible is wrong?

That Jesus did NOT found ANY Church? [Or just Founf the CC?]

**Mt. 16: 15 ** He [Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I singular] tell you, you are Peter, [singular] and on this rock [singular] I will build my singular] church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. [singular] 19 I [God singular] will give you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you [singular] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Eph. 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Go figure:shrug:

May Christ grant you wisdom and understanding dear friend.

 

[excubitor]

There are doubts in my mind about Christ establishing a church, any church. .

What did Christ mean then when he said
" I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

 

[larkin31]

What did Christ mean then when he said
" I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Technically, he did not speak in English, nor anything near it.

My guess is that he meant that he was establishing his following, and that he was imparting his strength of will and convictions onto it.

 

[mflorence]

=Dokimas;6935129]