Catholic or "Christian"?

[Amir_the_Masihi]

Even as a non-Christian, I have wondered about this simple complication of semantics. I arrived at the conclusion, like someone else on this thread, that all Catholics are Christian; but not all Christians are Catholic.

I assume that it’s from the fear of being grouped with the “Bible-bashing” fundamentalists that many Catholics avoid the label of “Christian”. But then again, I’m no Freud.

 

[CopticChristian]

Even as a non-Christian, I have wondered about this simple complication of semantics. I arrived at the conclusion, like someone else on this thread, that all Catholics are Christian; but not all Christians are Catholic.

I assume that it’s from the fear of being grouped with the “Bible-bashing” fundamentalists that many Catholics avoid the label of “Christian”. But then again, I’m no Freud.

Avoiding the label of Christian as equated with fundamentalists begs the question that Christianity commenced with whom?

Christianity at it’s inception was to bear fruit. The Gospel has been spread all over the world and is bearing fruit. In time it was called Catholic/Universal. Those that call themselves Christian absent Catholicity self procalaim themselves as not belonging to the Universal Church and that same Church has claimed it’s separated children by honoring their trinitarian baptism and calling them Christians that are separated. Some of these children absolve themselves of any relationship with the Universal Church and exist in ecclesial communities.

The Prodigal son probably denied his father and family as he wandered until he returned but that is how it is.

 

[Amir_the_Masihi]

Avoiding the label of Christian as equated with fundamentalists begs the question that Christianity commenced with whom?

Christianity at it’s inception was to bear fruit. The Gospel has been spread all over the world and is bearing fruit. In time it was called Catholic/Universal. Those that call themselves Christian absent Catholicity self procalaim themselves as not belonging to the Universal Church and that same Church has claimed it’s separated children by honoring their trinitarian baptism and calling them Christians that are separated. Some of these children absolve themselves of any relationship with the Universal Church and exist in ecclesial communities.

The Prodigal son probably denied his father and family as he wandered until he returned but that is how it is.

Indeed, I’m not one to argue, as I’m not as well-acquainted with Church history like the others here, but what you say is sound. Though, whether the “first” followers of Christ were called Christians or Catholic or anything else is like the whole ‘chicken or egg’ paradox. After all, the first followers of Christ didn’t converse in Greek or Latin, so the terms ‘Catholic’ and ‘Christian’ would surely have been alien to them.

At the end of the day, a label is just a label; it doesn’t affect the beliefs of those being labelled any more than me changing the sticker on an apple from ‘Apple’ to ‘Orange’ makes it an orange.

Peace.

Edit: What chance! I just came across this from the Catholic Legate, very relevant:

…the members of the Church of Jesus were not always called “Christians”. The term “Christian” was applied to our forefathers by Greek pagans in the city of Antioch about 10 years after Christ ascended into Heaven (see Acts 11:19-27), and it was originally a derogatory term that applied only to Gentile believers in the Gospel, as opposed to the original Jewish Christians. Before this time, the disciples of Jesus were known to their fellow Jews as “Nazarenes” (because they came from Galilee and followed Jesus of Nazareth) or, among the Jewish Christians themselves, the Christian Faith was known simply as “the Way” (e.g. Acts 9:2, Acts 18:25-26, Acts 19:23, Acts 24:14, Acts 24:22, etc.) – that is, the true expression of Israel under the New Covenant of the Messiah.

 

[CopticChristian]

Indeed, I’m not one to argue, as I’m not as well-acquainted with Church history like the others here, but what you say is sound. Though, whether the “first” followers of Christ were called Christians or Catholic or anything else is like the whole ‘chicken or egg’ paradox. After all, the first followers of Christ didn’t converse in Greek or Latin, so the terms ‘Catholic’ and ‘Christian’ would surely have been alien to them.

At the end of the day, a label is just a label; it doesn’t affect the beliefs of those being labelled any more than me changing the sticker on an apple from ‘Apple’ to ‘Orange’ makes it an orange.

Peace.

Edit: What chance! I just came across this from the Catholic Legate, very relevant:

The word Catholic was Greek, and the world at that time was greek speaking. You can investigate that and I am sure that many will tell you that I believe it was Ignatius of Antioch that coined this term, 35-117 AD, so the term was used early on. Both pieces of information are true. I believe Ignatius said "where you see the bishop, there you will see the καθολικός (katholikos) church.

 

[Amir_the_Masihi]

The word Catholic was Greek, and the world at that time was greek speaking. You can investigate that and I am sure that many will tell you that I believe it was Ignatius of Antioch that coined this term, 35-117 AD, so the term was used early on. Both pieces of information are true. I believe Ignatius said "where you see the bishop, there you will see the καθολικός (katholikos) church.

I see. Though, I know that at the time, Greek was very much what English is today. What I meant was that Jesus’ Disciples would have talked in Aramaic or Hebrew with one another, and only in Greek or Latin with gentiles. So, whatever they coined themselves as (if they did at all), it would’ve been very different to anything we know today.

That said, it’s Christ’s message that’s important to Christians/Catholics – not what it’s called, so if anyone gets into a debate about this, it’d be wise to finish it quickly, as it’s not an important matter. Nevertheless, I very much like the term ‘Catholic’ due to the universality that it implies.

 

[CopticChristian]

I see. Though, I know that at the time, Greek was very much what English is today. What I meant was that Jesus’ Disciples would have talked in Aramaic or Hebrew with one another, and only in Greek or Latin with gentiles. So, whatever they coined themselves as (if they did at all), it would’ve been very different to anything we know today.

That said, it’s Christ’s message that’s important to Christians/Catholics – not what it’s called, so if anyone gets into a debate about this, it’d be wise to finish it quickly, as it’s not an important matter. Nevertheless, I very much like the term ‘Catholic’ due to the universality that it implies.

I appreciate your thoughts. I believe the English speaking world, in particular the Protestant world, forgets that as in Europe where it is common to speak French, Italian, Portuguese and English. Many people speak more than one language. At the time of Christ people spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and other languages I am sure. This is not my area of expertise and as you know in the Middle East today there are many languages.

 

[Rainman498]

It’s really bad to run into this false dichotomy when trying to get a job. I applied for a science teaching position at a local “Christian” high school. The HR lady naturally asked me where I attended church and I said “Cathedral parish”. After that, she said that I might be more comfortable teaching elsewhere and I didn’t even get an interview or a chance to turn in a resume. I might as well have told her I was an atheist.

 

[T_More]

I am not sure I understand your approach. You ask a question as to the definition of “fruit” and without any discussion you draw a conclusion. It is impossible to discuss anything beyond this. It would be appropriate in my opinion to hold all conclusions until there is some sort of common understanding of fruit. Since I did not raise this as a point of reference I defer definition and ask for those that contributed to explain what is meant by fruits prior to drawing a conclusion. I would reserve my comment as to your JW denials after that discussion.

Coptic, what is it that they have produced as a fruit? They have misled many away from the Church and believe just about the exact opposite of what the Church teaches. How in any way shape or form is this “fruitful”, in your opinion?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic, what is it that they have produced as a fruit? They have misled many away from the Church and believe just about the exact opposite of what the Church teaches. How in any way shape or form is this “fruitful”, in your opinion?

I

would reserve my comment as to your JW denials after that discussion.

You have infered something I did not state. I asked for a definition of fruits. I did not raise the question of fruits. I reserve my comments as I said.

 

[T_More]

You have infered something I did not state. I asked for a definition of fruits. I did not raise the question of fruits. I reserve my comments as I said.

That was not my intention, and I apologize for that.

 

[UniqueName]

One would have to be pretty ignorant to really not understand that Catholics are Christians. I think this is more common with evangelical fundamentalist types than mainline Protestants, though my sense is that most of them understand full well that Catholicism is a form of Christianity but they regard it as a corrupt and illegitimate form (in other words, they’re not ignorant, they’re expressing contempt).

 

[CopticChristian]

One would have to be pretty ignorant to really not understand that Catholics are Christians. I think this is more common with evangelical fundamentalist types than mainline Protestants, though my sense is that most of them understand full well that Catholicism is a form of Christianity but they regard it as a corrupt and illegitimate form (in other words, they’re not ignorant, they’re expressing contempt).

May I cast my vote, if I have one, for immediate full membership?:thumbsup: