Anglican Catholic Church?

[PRmerger]

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.

Sure. I agree with the above.

Your own communion is built up of 23 sui iuris particular churches.

You are correct.

All which are subject to the Vicar of Christ.

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?

Asked and answered. Ad nauseum.

But here’s the answer,* again*.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Of course it’s an adjective, Kj. It’s just not “first and foremost” an adjective.

First and foremost, “Catholic” means a member of this Church:

https://www.catholicnews.com/religion-census-uses-data-gathered-from-500000-people-in-seven-year-period/

There is no special group of Catholics who gets to rip out pages of the Catechism, Kj.

By whose authority, BTW, are you stating that you can call yourself a member of this Church, Kj?

 

[PRmerger]

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’).

This ^^ made me smile.

Is there some other use of the word “Catholic” as a noun? If it can’t refer to “individuals” or “group of individuals”, what else is there?

 

[KjetilK]

Asked and answered. Ad nauseum.

But here’s the answer,* again*.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

By whose authority, BTW, are you stating that you can call yourself a member of this Church, Kj?

Well, I haven’t said that I am in communion with the Roman Pontiff. What I do say, however, is that you don’t have to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to call oneself a Catholic, or use the adjective Catholic about ones Church – with our without a capital C.

And what I asked for was for you to give a positive argument that conclusively shows that you must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Your ‘answer’ is to post a link to a, in print, almost 1000 pages large book. That is just not good enough. Since you are the one who claims that one have to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to call oneself a Catholic, or use the adjective Catholic about one’s Church, you are responsible for actually providing that proof.

But in case that that doesn’t happen, allow me to take a look myself. I couldn’t find the word ‘Pontiff,’ ‘Pope’ or ‘Father’ (relating directly to the Roman Pontiff) in the table of contents, but I did find the word ‘Magisterum,’ starting in paragraph 2030. Now, this document gives many statements about the Roman Pontiff, but not as far as I can see a single argument that shows why the Roman Pontiff has the kind of authority that is claimed for him. Now, that is perfectly understandable, as the CCC is a catechism. What I asked for, however, was an argument, not a statement of claims.

Is there some other use of the word “Catholic” as a noun? If it can’t refer to “individuals” or “group of individuals”, what else is there?

I didn’t say that it cannot refer to individuals or a group or groups of individuals, but that you cannot see any instance outside of that where ‘Catholic’ is a noun. This tells us that when ‘Catholic’ is used as a noun, it is basically a nominalised adjective. And that is my point. When you use ‘Catholic’ as a noun it can only refer to people who are Catholic. It doesn’t refer directly to a Church.

And since you haven’t argued for how you would distinguish between the adjective catholicus as ‘universal’ and catholicus as ‘the Church whose head is the Roman Pontif,’ my point still stands. Your ‘argument’ has basically been to post a link with a string of claims, which is basically what a catechism is, but that is not what I have asked for.

Now, please provide an actual argument.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I haven’t said that I am in communion with the Roman Pontiff. What I do say, however, is that you don’t have to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to call oneself a Catholic, or use the adjective Catholic about ones Church – with our without a capital C.

By whose authority do you say this?

And what I asked for was for you to give a positive argument that conclusively shows that you must be in communion with the Roman Pontiff. Your ‘answer’ is to post a link to a, in print, almost 1000 pages large book. That is just not good enough. Since you are the one who claims that one have to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff to call oneself a Catholic, or use the adjective Catholic about one’s Church, you are responsible for actually providing that proof.

But in case that that doesn’t happen, allow me to take a look myself. I couldn’t find the word ‘Pontiff,’ ‘Pope’ or ‘Father’ (relating directly to the Roman Pontiff) in the table of contents, but I did find the word ‘Magisterum,’ starting in paragraph 2030. Now, this document gives many statements about the Roman Pontiff, but not as far as I can see a single argument that shows why the Roman Pontiff has the kind of authority that is claimed for him. Now, that is perfectly understandable, as the CCC is a catechism. What I asked for, however, was an argument, not a statement of claims.

I didn’t say that it cannot refer to individuals or a group or groups of individuals, but that you cannot see any instance outside of that where ‘Catholic’ is a noun. This tells us that when ‘Catholic’ is used as a noun, it is basically a nominalised adjective. And that is my point. When you use ‘Catholic’ as a noun it can only refer to people who are Catholic. It doesn’t refer directly to a Church.

And since you haven’t argued for how you would distinguish between the adjective catholicus as ‘universal’ and catholicus as ‘the Church whose head is the Roman Pontif,’ my point still stands. Your ‘argument’ has basically been to post a link with a string of claims, which is basically what a catechism is, but that is not what I have asked for.

Now, please provide an actual argument.

You can ask a thousand times, and I, in my infinite patience, will keep answering with this:

All Catholics must give their religious assent to everything proclaimed here, as it is the “sure norm for teaching the faith”.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Now, ask again, and see if I’ll give a different answer.

 

[PRmerger]

Now, please provide an actual argument.

This question reminds me of a story of a petulant teenager, who keeps asking his parents to borrow their car.

Their answer is: NO. You can not borrow our car.

Petulant teen: But whyyyyyyy?

Parents with Infinite Patience: because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove the car.

Petulant teen: But that’s not a reason!

Parents with Infinite Patience: It most certainly is.

Petulant teen: It’s not a reason! Give me an actual argument.

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.

Petulant teen: But I want an actual argument.

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.

Petulant teen: that’s not a reason! It’s just you saying “blah blah blah!”

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.

Petulant teen: But I want an actual argument.

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.

Petulant teen: But I want an actual argument.

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.

Petulant teen: But I want an actual argument.

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.

Petulant teen: But I want an actual argument.

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.

Petulant teen: But I want an actual argument.

Parents with Infinite Patience: you may not borrow the car because you lost that privilege when you smoked pot and then drove our car.
Petulant teen: But I want an actual argument.

If I were that parent, I’d just keep smiling and repeating.

Even if the petulant teen thinks that by asking a thousand times he’s going to get a different answer.

 

[PRmerger]

And since you haven’t argued for how you would distinguish between the adjective catholicus as ‘universal’ and catholicus as ‘the Church whose head is the Roman Pontif,’ my point still stands.

I will repeat: whenever you can insert “universal” where the word “catholic” is, then, knock yourself out. Universal is synonymous with “catholic.” You want to say your church is “universal”, go for it.

But when you want to use the word “Catholic” meaning: those who belong to MY Church, NO. You cannot use it to describe yourself.

There is no special dispensation given (by whom would this be given, anyway??) to a special group of Catholics who can dismiss the authority of the Vicar of Christ.

Just like there is no immunity for a special group of Lutherans who can dismiss the deity of Christ.

Non-Christian Lutherans is as nonsensical as Lutheran Catholics.

 

[KjetilK]

 

[Mousey]

Well, it is an adjective first and foremost,

What dictionary are you using? According to Webster first and foremost it is a noun.

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.

People are the Church.

The reason I make this point is that PRmerger seems to think that there is an all-important difference between ‘catholic’ and 'Catholic,

She is right. One refers to the meaning of being universal and the other to the Church founded by Jesus.

’ and says that I, or other Christians outside of communion with Rome, can use the former but not the latter

Mostly true you can use it but you would be inaccurate

. 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.

Did you miss post 357 It disputes your assertion. It gives evidence that you are mistaken.

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).

We don’t speak Latin which does seem to have that distinction. English does have that distinction too and you are addressing people who’s primary language is English.

 

[boar2roar]

If it isn’t the Anglican ordinate than it is probably a member of the Protestant anglican communion or some independent protestant group using “catholic” to mean universal. Some very liberal or evangelical low churches use catholic in their name so not to much can be gathered from that

 

[GKC]

If it isn’t the Anglican ordinate than it is probably a member of the Protestant anglican communion or some independent protestant group using “catholic” to mean universal. Some very liberal or evangelical low churches use catholic in their name so not to much can be gathered from that

You can find exactly what they are, in Post 6, above. Got a link, too.

GKC

 

[KjetilK]

Mostly true you can use it but you would be inaccurate

Which is exactly the point of disagreement. Begging a question does not make it true. I have asked PRmerger to give me an argument, but she has just casually dismissed it by trying to be funny.

Until I get an actual argument that shows that Christians in communion with the Roman Pontiff have ‘exclusive rights’ to use the description ‘Catholic’ (with a capital C, of themselves and their Church) and not merely the claim that they do, I will continue to exercise my right to use it.

If PRmerger doesn’t want to give an argument, then I am free to ignore her posts. As the old Latin saying goes: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

And ironically enough, the CCC, which PRmerger has pointed towards as ‘evidence,’ nowhere states that the term ‘Catholic’ – with or without a capital C – is reserved for those in communion with the Roman Pontiff. The most relevant place, in fact, say the exact opposite (paragraphs 811-870). Here catholicity is defined in a twofold way (830-831). First, the CCC defines catholicity as the presence of Christ in the Church, citing the Epistle of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans: “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.” To understand what he means, you must see it in its full context:

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.

Now, Christ is present in the Church wherever there is a validly consecrated Bishop, which is also what you see 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.”

Second, the CCC defines catholicity as being “sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race,” citing Matthew 28:19 and Lumen gentium 13.

That is what catholicity means, according to the CCC. Now, the first part – a Church having validly consecrated Bishops – is not resverved for the churches in communion with the Roman Pontiff, as it includes the Orthodox Bishops, for instance. A Roman Catholic might try to argue that only the Catholics in communion with the Roman Pontiff is rightly “sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race,” but then they need to actually produce an argument that conclusively shows that.

 

[Mousey]

Until I get an actual argument that shows that Christians in communion with the Roman Pontiff have ‘exclusive rights’ to use the description ‘Catholic’ (with a capital C, of themselves and their Church) and not merely the claim that they do, I will continue to exercise my right to use it.

This is where I came in catholic is not a description. It is NOT an adjective but a noun as a dictionary will tell you. Nouns can be used as an adjective but that does not then mean that they are first and foremost and adjective but first and foremost they are nouns being used as an adjective.

If PRmerger doesn’t want to give an argument, then I am free to ignore her posts. As the old Latin saying goes: Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

She says you have ignored her arguments that is between you two.

And ironically enough, the CCC, which PRmerger has pointed towards as ‘evidence,’ nowhere states that the term ‘Catholic’ – with or without a capital C – is reserved for those in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

The world calls us Americans. Can anyone else call themselves Americans, can Canadians? Mexicans? People of South America? No where is American reserved for those who live in the United States but common sense does limit it to the common understanding.

If you look at the name we call ourselves, it is Catholic. If you ask most people who is a Catholic they will point out our Church not others. I found it ironic that all of the links you provided prove this point.

That is what catholicity means, according to the CCC.

What does “catholic” mean?
According to CCC this is what Catholic means

830 The word “catholic” means “universal,” in the sense of “according to the totality” or “in keeping with the whole.” the Church is catholic in a double sense: First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church."307 In her subsists the fullness of Christ’s body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation"308 which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. the Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost309 and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.
831 Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:310

All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God’s will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one… the character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.311…
834 Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome "which presides in charity."315 "For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord."316 Indeed, “from the incarnate Word’s descent to us, all Christian churches everywhere have held and hold the great Church that is here [at Rome] to be their only basis and foundation since, according to the Savior’s promise, the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.”

You claim that the CCC says the exact opposite that is

nowhere (CCC)states that the term ‘Catholic’ – with or without a capital C – is reserved for those in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

I believe you are wrong as my reading of 834 does state that and this is all under the heading of Catholic which is discussing not the name of the Church but the attribute of the Church which as is stated means universal.

 

[PRmerger]

She says you have ignored her arguments that is between you two.

Indeed.

Not sure what an argument looks like to Kj, or how something could be presented to him that would result in, “Ah, yes. That is an argument for why she maintains that ‘Catholics’ submit to the authority of the pope”.