I wouldn’t be so sure about this, bluelake. A lot of us here at CAF came from Protestantism, or have sojoured among our separated brethren for many decades. Most of us are speaking from personal experience.
Every English translation in Strong’s Concordance (Blue Letter Bible lexicon) omits the word “catholic” (it would of course be a small “c”) because the original Greek is two words, meaning “throughout” and “all” as in churches “throughout all Judea”. The words in Acts 31 certainly do not translate as “Catholic” as in “Catholic Church” or the proper noun denoting the Church of Rome under a Pope.
note: also a meaning broadminded, liberal
Please qualify that statement.
do you subordinate, then, the actions and words of people below the actions and words of Jesus?
Surely you realize the New Testament was without puncuation, or the numbering system we know today. What difference does a little ‘c’ or captial ‘C’ play into this? The term was derived, from the examples of Greek I provided in Acts, and in St. Ignatius’ writing, it was with a capital ‘C’.
Christ established an authoritative Church. He chose men and appointed them, granting them all authority on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven. As I believe the scriptures to be the inspired word of God, I believe we are to be subject to our prelates.
The difference between Catholicism and Protestantism is the authority. Protestants have taken conversations between Christ and only His Apostles and appointed themselves to be the authority, even if it’s over themselves. They have become their own prelates, and some have appointed themselves over others. It contradicts the verse I have provided above. How are they ‘obeying their prelates and being subject to them’ if they can reject the teachings, or even the ‘prelates’ themselves?
There is nothing wrong with feeling warm fuzzies. If God did not want us to have them, He would not have created them in us. However, the Truth is not determined by our expereince of warm fuzzies. The Truth is far above our individual experiences.
Yes, Tweety, you do.
In fact, that is exactly what it is. Those who have departed from the Apostolic Teaching such as you and your spiritual ancestors, do indeed cause dissention in the Body.
SOOOOOORY and you cause a lot of dissention with those of us who do not agree, but guess thats alright?
Are you claiming that there is no difference in big C and little c?
I didn’t say you didn’t.
. This wasn’t the topic.
You asked this of another poster, and I am not interested in definitions of “trinity.” I even once belonged to a “trinity” church, and I still am not interested in the topic.
No, it is mostly some of YOUR claims that I have in my sights. I am very comfortable with the Catholic Church. And I quote each one specifically. You are developing a persecution complex, it seems. If someone else would jump in here and say the same things you do, I would object to them too.
No one denies that dissention exists in every group of humans. God has provided a way to prevent dissention, so it does not have to exist among us. If we are connected to the Head, we will be in unity. The fact that we are not is a reflection of the fact that we are improperly connnected.
You don’t need to be intimidated by the Truth, 1b. The Scriptures do not allow for disagreement and dissention in the Body. We are to be of one mind, and one heart.
No, and at such times, the unity that God desires for us is absent.
No, 1b, you are talking here about the behavior of individuals. What needs to be in unity is the DOCTRINE! Everyone will stipulate that human beings, including cardinals, make mistakes. We will also stipulate that those who have sinned against children have left the path of righteousness.
If puncuation wasn’t important to those who wrote scriptures, I don’t expect that they would capitalize the Greek that the term was derived from. The first writing, in history, to use the term ‘Catholic’, itself as opposed to the Greek the term was derived from, used a capital ‘C’. This is when we know the Church had taken on a ‘proper’ name.
I misunderstood your using the Catholic Church in Rome, under the Pope, as a ‘broadening’ of the topic. I apologize if it was not the case.
This is where I cannot help you. I don’t know how to talk a non-believer into believing. I honestly believe that is the work of the Holy Spirit.
larkin31, I didn’t fall off a ‘turnip truck’, I drove the son of a gun. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know you are here to challenge Catholics, in support of Protestantism, even though you claim to be ‘agnostic’. It’s not a complex, as much as it’s that easy to see.
I’ve shown the first time the term was documented in a writing, and if you want to check other sources for the writings of the early Church fathers, you’ll see they all use the capital ‘C’.Are you denying where the term ‘Catholic’ is derived from? It came from more than just ‘kata’. I provided BOTH Greek terms, as well as the FULL definition of each. I’m not hiding anything. Either you agree with where the term comes from or you don’t. You said in another post, you agree that it means ‘universal’. You even made an argument over little/big ‘C’. Now, it’s changed? There goes my ‘complex’ again.
If I were a Catholic in my heart I might agree with your doctrine. But since I am not I do not have to agree with them all, and do not have to justify anything except that I do not agree with you or the Catholic Church. If you are happy then brighten the corner of where you are. I know that myself 1b and many others love Jesus with all our hearts and souls.
God answers prayers. I believe He holds us accountable for the things we know. So, as I’ve said before, the Holy Spirit works without limitations. It’s ‘man’ who has the limitations. Besides, Protestantism came from the Catholic Church, it’s our hope and prayers that they have enough of the truth to be worthy of the promises of Christ. It’s not for us to judge…
I am not denying the etymology of “catholic”. I simply am interested in Tweety’s question about where it is in the Bible. Is Acts 9:31 the only scriptural reference that uses kata and olos in regard to the church? (actually, it means “throughout all Judea” in that passage). I am thinking that the terms aren’t used in conjunction to modify the church anywhere else, or you would have quoted the passage by now. But maybe not…Are you denying where the term ‘Catholic’ is derived from? It came from more than just ‘kata’. I provided BOTH Greek terms, as well as the FULL definition of each. I’m not hiding anything. Either you agree with where the term comes from or you don’t. You said in another post, you agree that it means ‘universal’. You even made an argument over little/big ‘C’. Now, it’s changed? There goes my ‘complex’ again.
All of us may be wrong, which is why the gift of infallibility is so needed. The CC is ensouled by the HS, and that is why there is perfect unity and infallibilty. When we depart from the Teaching of the HS found in the One Church, we are most likely in error.
So, is this mostly a yes, you do subordinate the actions and words of of humans to those of Jesus, or is it a mostly no? Or some other variant? I am not asking about Catholicism versus Protestantism. Do Jesus’s words and actions come first?
The authoritative Church is in scriptures. As the ‘new’ Church developed, many changes came about, including it taking on a name. A name that has lasted 2000 years. What other Church exists today that has been around the same length of time?
I’ll take this as a no, there are no other scriptural references.The authoritative Church is in scriptures. As the ‘new’ Church developed, many changes came about, including it taking on a name. A name that has lasted 2000 years. What other Church exists today that has been around the same length of time?
I’m still waiting to hear tweetymom’s response to my post, and questions.