L
- Status
Again, a pleasure. 
S
spedteacherita
Guest
Amen, and amen!!
G
GKC
Guest
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
Cute.
Although this wasn’t addressed to me, I guess an old- style Virginian’s response to that would be, " I’m sorry, I hope your umbrella didn’t break! How clumsy of me!" 
P
Picky_Picky
Guest
Are there no old-style Virginians left? What happened?Cute.
Oops, no, don’t worry, it was just a very old umbrella.
L
LutheranScholar
Guest
They got pushed out by people from other parts of the county ( j/k.
). Actually, as a native Northern Virginian with one old style Northern Virginian grandparent ( my father’s father), I suppose I qualify as one, sort of. No, there don’t seem to be a lot left, as opposed to the native locals in other parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia. For all that, I’m glad the umbrella situation didn’t put you out too much . 
K
KjetilK
Guest
‘Catholic’ is first and foremost an adjective. In English adjectives are sometimes capitalised (like ‘the Episcopal Church’ or ‘the Supreme Court’). This might be important. But in Latin, adjectives are not capitalised, and catholicus IS and adjective. Since you have conceded my right to use the English word catholic (with a small c), and the Latin equivalent, how would you distinguish, in Latin, between catholic and Catholic? Why impose English grammar onto Latin?
You cannot find that distinction in the word itself. What you can do, however, is to add another adjective, Roman, just as Pope Pius XII did in Mystici Corporis Christi and Humani Generis. In the former, he wrote (in paragraphs 13 and 91):[1]
13 If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the one, holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman Church - we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” - an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers.
91 … For nothing more glorious, nothing nobler, nothing surely more honorable can be imagined than to belong to the one, holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman Church, in which we become members of One Body as venerable as it is unique; are guided by one supreme Head; are filled with one divine Spirit; are nourished during our earthly exile by one doctrine and one heavenly Bread, until at last we enter into the one, unending blessedness of heaven.
This encyclical is not issued to the Roman Catholics of Latin rite only, but to “our venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishiops [sic], and other local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.” The same goes for Humani Generis, where ‘the Holy See’ substituted for ‘the Apostolic See.’ Pius XII used the adjective Roman for all Christians and Christian churches in communion with him. It didn’t simply mean ‘Latin Rite Catholic
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.
Here, catholicity is bound first to being in communion with a valid bishop, as we also find in Lumen gentium 21.[2] Now, the Roman Catholic Church recognises the validity of the ordination of orthodox priests and bishops. From that recognition, and St. Ignatius’ definition of catholicity, it follows that to be part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, you need not, not even according to the Roman Catholic Church, be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. That doesn’t mean, of course, that one shouldn’t be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. But that is another question which has nothing directly to do with whether or not one is allowed to be counted as part of the Ecclesia catholica.
[1] The quote is from the English text, but the Latin original can be found in Acta Apostolica Sedis (AAS), vol. XXXV, p.193.
[2] Lumen gentium, while not using the term Roman directly in the text, is basically a commentary on Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi, with over eleven references to it. Pope Paul VI also said, in his encyclical Ecclesiam suam that he basically taught identical to Pius XII. And on June 29, 2007, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, presided by William Cardinal Levada, signed “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” in which it is said that by subsistit in, the Second Vatican Council basically said the same as Pius XII and Paul VI. (Also see AAS, vol. XCIX, p.604-608).
P
PRmerger
Guest
K
KjetilK
Guest
Please use ‘Catholic’ as a noun in a sentence without it referring to a individual (e.g. “I saw a Catholic drinking soda”) or a group of individuals (e.g. “I saw some Catholics eating pizza”). Both of those are cases of an adjective being nominalised.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep. Go for it.
#knockyourselfout
You cannot use the word “Catholic” to describe yourself, with any adjectives which indicate, “I’m a special group of Catholic who doesn’t have to submit to the vicar of Christ.”
No such thing as a Lutheran Catholic.
No such thing as an I’m-Immune-From-the-Authority-of-the-Holy-See Catholic.
All those kinds of adjectives used with the noun Catholic–NO!
Just like no Lutheran can say he’s a special kind of Lutheran who gets to say, “I’m a special group of Lutheran who doesn’t have to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.”
No such thing as a Non-Christian Lutheran.
That’s gaga lala nonsense.
And you wouldn’t tolerate any Lutheran here proclaiming that he’s a special kind of Lutheran who is immune from believing what Lutherans believe.
See?
M
Mousey
Guest
I am not sure what you are asking here or for that matter why. I would point out to you that according to the Webster Dictionary Catholic is a noun.
Is this what you want for a sentence?
A Catholic goes to Church every Sunday?
Catholics do not eat fish on Friday’s during lent.
K
KjetilK
Guest
When are you going to actually answer my points?
K
KjetilK
Guest
Well, it is an adjective first and foremost, and the two examples are exactly what I didn’t want (they refer to individuals, not the Church as such). The point is that ‘Catholic,’ as a noun, is just a nominalised adjective.
The reason I make this point is that PRmerger seems to think that there is an all-important difference between ‘catholic’ and ‘Catholic,’ and says that I, or other Christians outside of communion with Rome, can use the former but not the latter. The problem, of course, is that this kind of capitalisation is an English phenomenon, and not found in Latin, the official language of the Roman Catholic Church. In Latin catholicus is not capitalised.
So my question to PRmerger is how he wants to make a distinction between ‘catholic’ and ‘Catholic’ in a language that doesn’t have that kind of distinction. My point is, of course, that there is no such distinction, and that Roman Catholics do not have ‘exclusive right’ to the term ‘Catholic.’ But PRmerger thinks that is ‘gaga lala nonsense’ (whatever that means), and have proceeded time and time again to beg the question by citing as ‘evidence’ Roman Catholic documents that state that people using ‘Catholic’ is, or must be, in communion with Rome (at least as he reads them).
V
Vico
Guest
Quare Ecclesia Catholica gravissimum suum esse munus ducit fidei bonum tum in coniugibus tum in filiis tueri atque custodire.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19660318_matrimonii-sacramentum_lt.html1. ORIENTALIUM ECCLESIARUM instituta, ritus liturgicos, traditiones ecclesiasticas atque vitae christianae disciplinam Ecclesia catholica magni facit.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_lt.html
Sanctae Matri Ecclesiae Catholicae singularem omnino laetitiam nuper peperit promulgatio publice facta a Nationibus Unitis de anno MCMXCIV ut Anno internationalis Familiae dicato.
Ecclesialis Catholica communitas, pro suo in hac re studio atque opere, non tantum idcirco est vehementer laetata verum se etiam nunc declarare cupit eidem prorsus adhaerere incepto planeque favere.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/la/letters/1993/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19931207_card-lopez.html
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yep.
And I would add: Catholics gives their religious assent to everything here:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Emphasis, per this conversation, on this:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
There is no special group of folks who get to say, “I am just as Catholic as you are, Roman Catholic Friend. I just have a special dispensation (given by whom? I have no idea. It certainly can’t be by the pope!) to say that I don’t have to submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. My authority is myself and my interpretation of the Bible!”
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, sir!
The concept, whether it’s limned through capitalizations (in any language) or not, is universal, Kj.
There’s the word, “universal”, and its synonyms. And then there’s references to the Church which professes this:
scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
So let’s ignore the capitalizations: if you want to say that your church is “universal”, go for it. (Kind of funny, though, to have a church which identifies itself as being the Church of one very small country whose diversity is quite…lacking. How many Koreans are there again in your “universal” Church of Norway? I think to truthfully declare your church to be universal you’d have to have at least more than a dozen Koreans in your Church of Norway? Does that sound fair?) #irony
But even if we have to suspend our incredulity that a national church of a very small country is “universal”, I don’t object to your use of the word “universal” to describe your national church.
HOWEVER, if you want to say that you’re part of MY Church, but that you’re a special kind of member of MY Church who has a special dispensation to submit to no man except his own self**…then…NO.
**(“When I submit only when I agree, then the one to whom I submit, really is me!”)
So, in whatever language, capitalizations or not: the concept of universality as applied to your local church—go for it.
The concept of your being a member of MY Church but that you get to freely disassociate yourself from one (or a few) of our essential doctrines…NO!
P
PRmerger
Guest
Even more on the amusing concept of a national church wanting to profess that it is “universal” (although, as I have said, go for it! I don’t have a problem with this. It’s just kind of funny to think about)…does the sun ever set on your catholic church?
Yes, it does. I think Norway has 1 time zone? Your liturgy is celebrated how often throughout your country? Are there daily and hourly liturgies being offered?
However, in my truly universal Church, from the rising of the sun to its setting, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is being offered (Malachi 1:11). Somewhere on the planet,* at this very moment*, a Catholic Mass is being said.
#trulyuniversal
(Let’s not get into discussions on the word “universal”. Here the, er, universe of discourse, is: “universal” refers to “of, relating to, or typical of the whole of mankind or of nature”; NOT to: “of the cosmos”)
Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s always laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!”–Hilaire Belloc
K
KjetilK
Guest
PRmerger, if your argument boils down to ‘but you call your Church the Church of Norway!’ then I expect that you use the same argument against the Coptic Catholic Church (‘Coptic’ meaning ‘Egyptian’), the Eritrean Catholic Church, the Ethiopian Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, the Albanian Catholic Church, the Belarusian Catholic Church, the Bulgarian Greek Catholic Church, the Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, the Greek Byzantine Catholic Church, the Hungarian Greek Catholic Church, the Italo-Albanian Catholic Church, the Macedonian Catholic Church, the Russian Catholic Church, the Ruthenian Catholic Church, the Slovak Catholic Church, and the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
The fact is that the Church of Norway was called the Church of Norway before the Reformation. The same is true of the Church of Sweden and the Church of England.
Your own communion is built up of 23 sui iuris particular churches.
And I know that your argument is that we need to be in communion with the Pope. But instead of giving that argument, you desperately try to find some ‘fault’ with my posts. I’ve asked you this before, numerous times: Could you instead give a positive argument that conclusively shows that you must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff?
The fact is that the Church of Norway was called the Church of Norway before the Reformation. The same is true of the Church of Sweden and the Church of England.
Your own communion is built up of 23 sui iuris particular churches.
And I know that your argument is that we need to be in communion with the Pope. But instead of giving that argument, you desperately try to find some ‘fault’ with my posts. I’ve asked you this before, numerous times: Could you instead give a positive argument that conclusively shows that you must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff?
K
KjetilK
Guest
So then you are in fact NOT capable of using the word as a noun when it doesn’t refer directly to an individual (‘a Catholic’) or a group of individuals (‘some Catholics’). That shows that this IS an adjective that has, in some circumstances, been nominalised. Just like American, English, Russian, Norwegian, Orthodox, etc.
- Status