Anglican Catholic Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catechesis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KjetilK said:
Luther’s Small Cathechism is not the Nicene Creed. You expressly referenced the Nicene Creed. In the Latin original of the Book of Concord, the Nicene Creed (and the Apostles’ Creed) uses catholicam.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. We confess the Nicene Creed using the words " One, Holy, Christian and Apostolic." oursavior-billings.org/index.php?page=nicene So, if we altered the wording to make our recitation closer to what Luther said in his Small Catechism, it seems that we’re simply tying things together. The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod, is obviously not the Church of Norway, but its own Confessional Lutheran church body ministering to the needs of American Lutherans ( www.lcms.org). My point was that we are what we are and names reflect this. If Roman and Byzantine Catholics would be offended by my calling myself Catholic, they may ask me why I had such a hard time simply calling myself an Evangelical Lutheran. I could prate and bluster about the words in the Creed and catholics with a small c and everything else, but the fact remains, they’d be justified in taking offense at what they might see as someone trying to appropriate their name. Again, what may be an adiaphoron to one person might be an essential point to another. It could just be common courtesy to respect a dearly held sense of identity. Just my thought.
 
LutheranScholar said:
they’d be justified in taking offense at what they might see as someone trying to appropriate their name… It could just be common courtesy to respect a dearly held sense of identity. Just my thought.
Click to expand...
Yep. What he (or she) said. 🙂
 
KjetilK said:
This is the argument I provided (and which you chose to ignore, probably because you didn’t have any reply):

There is nothing in the word ‘catholic’ itself that says you have to be in communion with Rome. In fact, if we go back to the first instance of the word, as far as we know, in the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, we see that the one thing needed for catholicity is to be in communion with one’s valid bishop:

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

He binds catholicity to being in communion with one’s valid bishop. We find this also in Lumen gentium 21, which states that the Church is where the people gather around their bishop: “In the bishops, therefore, for whom priests are assistants, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Supreme High Priest, is present in the midst of those who believe.”

Now, the Roman Catholic Church recognises the validity of the ordination of orthodox priests and bishops (including archbishops and patriarchs). Following that recognition, and following St. Ignatius’ definition of catholicity, the Orthodox are catholic. And if the Orthodox are catholic, your assertion is wrong.

Are you suggesting St. Ignatius was wrong?
Click to expand...
And this shows that the CC never asked the Orthodox to remove their “Catholic” nomenclature….how, again?
 
KjetilK said:
So we should just conclude, then, that you have no grasp of language?
Click to expand...
Careful, Kj. It’s good for you to be here and in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics.

Please remember the forum rules and be more judicious about your future postings, and you’ll be fine.
 
Saying that “Asians and Chinese are one and the same thing” IS saying that Chinese and Asian are, well, one and the same thing, i.e. that they are not merely overlapping categories, that one is not just species of the other, but that they are one and the same thing, and that there is no such category as a non-Chinese Asian.

So, when Pope Pius XII say that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing,” he is not saying that ‘the Roman Catholic Church’ is a species of ‘the Mystical Body of Christ,’ but that ‘the Roman Catholic Church’ is, well, the exact same thing as ‘the Mystical Body of Christ.’

That is simply what he says, and I honestly don’t know why one would be offended by being called ‘Roman.’ It simply means, here, ‘being in communion with the Roman Pontiff.’
 
KjetilK said:
Saying that “Asians and Chinese are one and the same thing” IS saying that Chinese and Asian are, well, one and the same thing, i.e. that they are not merely overlapping categories, that one is not just species of the other, but that they are one and the same thing,** and that there is no such category as a non-Chinese Asian.**
Click to expand...
You are correct all the way up to the bolded section. That’s the nonsequitur.
So, when Pope Pius XII say that “the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing,” he is not saying that ‘the Roman Catholic Church’ is a species of ‘the Mystical Body of Christ,’ but that ‘the Roman Catholic Church’ is, well, the exact same thing as ‘the Mystical Body of Christ.’
Click to expand...
Sure.

But not the ONLY subset of the Mystical Body of Christ.
That is simply what he says, and I honestly don’t know why one would be offended by being called ‘Roman.’ It simply means, here, ‘being in communion with the Roman Pontiff.’
Click to expand...
No one here that I’ve seen posting has been offended by being called “Roman”.

But if you call, say, a Ruthenian Catholic “Roman”, all you’ll be doing is showing your ignorance.
 
All of the above are examples of a Ruthenian Catholic explaining to multiple and varied uninformed posters that the Catholic Church is bigger than the Roman Catholic Church.

I hope that folks here will be better equipped in the future when in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics about correct nomenclature.
 
LutheranScholar said:
It seems, sir, if any change to the creed was done at all, it was done either by Martin Luther or one of his followers. " One, Holy,* Christian *and Apostolic Church" is in Luther’s Small Catechism, Third Article. ourshepherd.org/Small_Catechism.pdf
I do agree that the face of Confessional Lutheran Christianity in America is our business and the business of any Lutheran church in America who faithfully holds to the truth entire contained in the Book of Concord including its Formula. Of course, my church descends from German Lutherans, who might hold a slightly stricter interpretation of the Lutheran Confessions than their Scandinavian counterparts. Of course, holding to the Confessions is what being Confessional is all about.
Click to expand...
Actually the German church was using “One Holy Christian and Apostolic” for decades BEFORE the Reformation. It wasn’t changed by Luther or any followers, the tradition was continued by Luther.
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Actually the German church was using “One Holy Christian and Apostolic” for decades BEFORE the Reformation. It wasn’t changed by Luther or any followers, the tradition was continued by Luther.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay, thanks for the heads up, SalusaSecondus. So it was a continuation of an earlier tradition. 🙂
 
SalusaSecondus said:
Actually the German church was using “One Holy Christian and Apostolic” for decades BEFORE the Reformation. It wasn’t changed by Luther or any followers, the tradition was continued by Luther.
Click to expand...
What is “the German church”? Do you mean Catholic?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top