Protestants who call themselves "Catholic"...

[CopticChristian]

Right, sorry.

Right, sorry, so what is HHS?

 

[CopticChristian]

Waldensians became Presbyterians and in some cases Methodists later on so how accurate is that statement?

I wonder about the best way to approach such people, in order to demonstrate the unity of the Catholic Church & that Protestant sects emerged around the 12th century commencing with the Waldensians that exist today.

waldensianpresbyterian.org/12-heritage/

Would this work for you?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, sorry, so what is HHS?

Health and Human Services.

 

[GKC]

The difference is is between the words catholic and Catholic. From what I’ve seen here, Protestants that know the difference have no desire to refer to themselves as Catholic.

The only non-Catholics who use the word Catholic are some of the wanna-be’s (Polish National Catholic, etc.) and maybe some of the over-the-top catholics such as SSPX.

Even the creed uses the lower case “c” catholic.

Anglicans of my variety use “Catholic”. As it is printed in the Creed in the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, and other places. We do not mean merely universal.

Though some Anglicans do.

GKC

 

[Roy5]

As has been pointed out, catholic means universal. Most mainline Protestant churches have the Apostles Creed (and others) in their hymnals, and some recite it regularly.

 The obvious idea is that the Christian community is universal. Within that broad community is the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Catholic (Orthodox) Church, etc. 

  Most well-informed Protestants I know would not refer to themselves as Catholics because of the confusion it would create. However, if pushed they would point out that they are part of the universal Christian community, this catholic (with a small 'c').

  What is the matter with that? That's the perception they have, no more or no less valid than various other claims of other ecclesial groups.  

  I know that fervent Roman Catholics are determined to be exclusivist - and take considerable pride in being the one true church. That was the attitude among Pharisees, Sadduccees and other Jewish factions. They despised Samaritans, avoided lepers, didn't talk publicly to women, and in various other ways arrogantly declared their superiority. 

  Remember how the two men stood before God? One said, thank you God that I am not like other men - like this publican here. The publican was humble, asked God to have mercy upon him. Which one was justified? Etc. You get the idea. 

  Let us be grateful that we all are children of the One God, and not boast about which tribe we belong to. This one God is ours, and we are his.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Which Tr\ibe

 

[GaryTaylor]

As has been pointed out, catholic means universal. Most mainline Protestant churches have the Apostles Creed (and others) in their hymnals, and some recite it regularly.

 The obvious idea is that the Christian community is universal. Within that broad community is the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Catholic (Orthodox) Church, etc. 

  Most well-informed Protestants I know would not refer to themselves as Catholics because of the confusion it would create. However, if pushed they would point out that they are part of the universal Christian community, this catholic (with a small 'c').

  What is the matter with that? That's the perception they have, no more or no less valid than various other claims of other ecclesial groups.  

  I know that fervent Roman Catholics are determined to be exclusivist - and take considerable pride in being the one true church. That was the attitude among Pharisees, Sadduccees and other Jewish factions. They despised Samaritans, avoided lepers, didn't talk publicly to women, and in various other ways arrogantly declared their superiority. 

  Remember how the two men stood before God? One said, thank you God that I am not like other men - like this publican here. The publican was humble, asked God to have mercy upon him. Which one was justified? Etc. You get the idea. 

  Let us be grateful that we all are children of the One God, and not boast about which tribe we belong to. This one God is ours, and we are his.

Hey Roy I may just start asking people which Tribe they are from.

 

[englishredrose]

I am an Anglican Catholic in the Anglican Communion—***Catholic ***is viewed as universal–all Christians, in all times, in all places. This is closer to the more ancient understanding of the word Catholic, as noted in The Original Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Catholic.—The word Catholic (katholikos from kath holou—throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. . . . .”
Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Catholic

Likewise I think though I get very very lost especially on these boards because of Catholic and catholic and in reality it doesn’t totally matter in that we are all Christian?

 

[CopticChristian]

As has been pointed out, catholic means universal. Most mainline Protestant churches have the Apostles Creed (and others) in their hymnals, and some recite it regularly.

 The obvious idea is that the Christian community is universal. Within that broad community is the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Catholic (Orthodox) Church, etc. 

  Most well-informed Protestants I know would not refer to themselves as Catholics because of the confusion it would create. However, if pushed they would point out that they are part of the universal Christian community, this catholic (with a small 'c').

  What is the matter with that? That's the perception they have, no more or no less valid than various other claims of other ecclesial groups.  

 ** I know that fervent Roman Catholics are determined to be exclusivist - and take considerable pride in being the one true church. That was the attitude among Pharisees, Sadduccees and other Jewish factions. They despised Samaritans, avoided lepers, didn't talk publicly to women, and in various other ways arrogantly declared their superiority. **
  Remember how the two men stood before God? One said, thank you God that I am not like other men - like this publican here. The publican was humble, asked God to have mercy upon him. Which one was justified? Etc. You get the idea. 

  Let us be grateful that we all are children of the One God, and not boast about which tribe we belong to. This one God is ours, and we are his.

Roy,

Reconcile your thoughts with the Master. He called the temple “my father’s house”. Recall that those of the Northern Kingdom whose capital was Samaria did not go to Jerusalem to worship in the temple. Now Jesus says to the Samaritan woman as it concerns worship the following.

20Our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. 21Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

The Samaritan worshipped in other than the temple and Jesus says that they worshipped what they did not know and then says that salvation is for everyone, anybody, no matter what you believe or worship…no of the Jews…

reconcile your thinking with this idea.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am an Anglican Catholic in the Anglican Communion—***Catholic ***is viewed as universal–all Christians, in all times, in all places. This is closer to the more ancient understanding of the word Catholic, as noted in The Original Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Catholic.—The word Catholic (katholikos from kath holou—throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. . . . .”
Link: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Catholic

Likewise I think though I get very very lost especially on these boards because of Catholic and catholic and in reality it doesn’t totally matter in that we are all Christian?

englishredrose,

Yes. Indeed, the fact that we are all Christians seems more important than how the word “catholic” is used. Though Catholics in Communion with Rome are very sensitive about the use of the word, as this thread demonstrates.

The Catholic Church will acknowledge that we are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ, and even proposes that all Christians are part of the OHCAC, whether aware or not. Yet, they are very guarded when it comes to use of “catholic” or “Catholic.” Definitely some irony there.

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

englishredrose,

Yes. Indeed, the fact that we are all Christians seems more important than how the word “catholic” is used. Though Catholics in Communion with Rome are very sensitive about the use of the word, as this thread demonstrates.

The Catholic Church will acknowledge that we are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ, and even proposes that all Christians are part of the OHCAC, whether aware or not. Yet, they are very guarded when it comes to use of “catholic” or “Catholic.” Definitely some irony there.

Anna

It is my opinion and belief that when the word Catholic/catholic is tossed around it has less to do with the c/C as to what is being done in the context of how it is used. There is an inclusive and exclusive use.

Those of the OHCAC should use it inclusive as to relating to Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West, Anglo Catholic a la Texas ordinate, and all baptized in the Trinitarian formula.

Exclusive use I see as those that abrogate the OHCAC and determine that the meaning is not inclusive. It becomes a tug of war…it belongs to me and not to you…no…no…not helpful in my opinion.

This is how I see it.

 

[GKC]

It is my opinion and belief that when the word Catholic/catholic is tossed around it has less to do with the c/C as to what is being done in the context of how it is used. There is an inclusive and exclusive use.

Those of the OHCAC should use it inclusive as to relating to Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West, Anglo Catholic a la Texas ordinate, and all baptized in the Trinitarian formula.

Exclusive use I see as those that abrogate the OHCAC and determine that the meaning is not inclusive. It becomes a tug of war…it belongs to me and not to you…no…no…not helpful in my opinion.

This is how I see it.

I agree with your penultimate assertion.

GKC

 

[Anna_Scott]

It is my opinion and belief that when the word Catholic/catholic is tossed around it has less to do with the c/C as to what is being done in the context of how it is used. There is an inclusive and exclusive use.

Those of the OHCAC should use it inclusive as to relating to Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic East/West, Anglo Catholic a la Texas ordinate, and all baptized in the Trinitarian formula.

Exclusive use I see as those that abrogate the OHCAC and determine that the meaning is not inclusive. It becomes a tug of war…it belongs to me and not to you…no…no…not helpful in my opinion.

This is how I see it.

CopticChristian,

I respect your right to deny that I am an Anglican Catholic, since I’m in the Anglican Communion and not the Ordinariate entering into Communion with Rome. This denial actually has no effect on me or my beliefs. So, I’m not in a tug of war. I simply answered the question of this thread started by a Catholic.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian,

I respect your right to deny that I am an Anglican Catholic, since I’m in the Anglican Communion and not the Ordinariate entering into Communion with Rome. This denial actually has no effect on me or my beliefs. So, I’m not in a tug of war. I simply answered the question of this thread started by a Catholic.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

Pen Name Anna Scott,

I am sure that you have been baptized in the Trinitarian formula and you are therefore Catholic. I deny no one. You may call yourself what you wish. Your use of the word falls within the definition as inclusive. Semantics as you know is one of being particular by definition.

You are Catholic by virtue of your baptism. I do not see you using the term as exclusive and I would modify my statement to read all those baptized in the trinitarian formula to include Anglican-Catholic, in particular Anna Scott, Lutheran-Catholic, and any one else that sees what I see as an inclusive term.

I am not the magesterium you know.

 

[GKC]

Pen Name Anna Scott,

I am sure that you have been baptized in the Trinitarian formula and you are therefore Catholic. I deny no one. You may call yourself what you wish. Your use of the word falls within the definition as inclusive. Semantics as you know is one of being particular by definition.

You are Catholic by virtue of your baptism. I do not see you using the term as exclusive and I would modify my statement to read all those baptized in the trinitarian formula to include Anglican-Catholic, in particular Anna Scott, Lutheran-Catholic, and any one else that sees what I see as an inclusive term.

I am not the magesterium you know.

Count me in.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[Anna_Scott]

Pen Name Anna Scott,

I am sure that you have been baptized in the Trinitarian formula and you are therefore Catholic. I deny no one. You may call yourself what you wish. Your use of the word falls within the definition as inclusive. Semantics as you know is one of being particular by definition.

You are Catholic by virtue of your baptism. I do not see you using the term as exclusive and I would modify my statement to read all those baptized in the trinitarian formula to include Anglican-Catholic, in particular Anna Scott, Lutheran-Catholic, and any one else that sees what I see as an inclusive term.

I am not the magesterium you know.

You’re not? Well then. . . .

Anglicans are very “inclusive,” sometimes too much so.

Peace,
Pen Name Anna Scott

 

[CopticChristian]

QUOTE=Anna Scott;9133365]You’re not? Well then. . . .

Anglicans are very “inclusive,” sometimes too much so.

Peace,
Pen Name Anna Scott

:grouphug:

It would appear to me that the OP consider that use of the term is less important than who is using it and for what purpose.

 

[pablope]

As a Baptist I feel I need to offer a bit of explanation.

Firstly, Baptists believe that their foundation goes back to biblical times because we view the church as universal. So when Christ says upon this rock I build my church we believe that he wasn’t forming one specific church. Thus any church or community of believers in Jesus Christ that confess him and believe in him with their whole heart and try to live his will in their life trance their beginning to the book of Matthew.

Secondly, this does not mean that Baptists deny any other church, denomination, or whatever you’d like to call yoursef, the ability to trance they history back to Matthew as well. We are not exclusivists. As long as you confess Jesus Christ, believe it in your heart, and try to live according to Christ’s example and requirements for us you are good wih us.

Well, first you have to determine what if from Christ and not from Christ.

As a baptist, how would you apply this passage:

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

You may not be familiar with all Baptists. My question for you would be what Baptist type are you? Here you can see the Baptist family tree.

thearda.com/Denoms/Families/Trees/familytree_baptist.asp

You may say you are good with us. The reality of that statement is that it speaks for you and anyone in close proximity that agrees. You will admit and recognize that no Protestant speaks for any other Protestant and since there is no such thing as a Protestant church then you cannot speak for all Baptists or all Protestants.

On the other hand the OHCAC says that those that are baptized in the trinitiarian formula are truly Christian and part of the OHCAC. The OHCAC tells me I must admit that anyone that is so baptized is part of the OHCAC whether they think/believe they are or not. You, if baptized, are good with Christ and that is better than good with us.

I move around a lot (work related) so I have been a member of several different baptist church that have belonged to several different conventions including Southern Baptist, American baptist, Progressive baptist, and National Baptists. Of course I can’t speak for all, but I do have a wide range of experience with Baptist churches.

I have never met a Baptist that had a “problem” with Catholics. Do Baptists and Catholics disagree on some things? Absolutely, we do. Nevertheless, I was always taught that if you have confess Christ as your savior, if you believe it in your heart, and if you try to walk in his example and according to his requirements of us, you are saved. Unlike many other protestant groups, Baptists do not believe that only Baptists are saved.

To this point, my great aunt passed away a few years back. Although she was raised Baptist, she converted to Catholicism some time in the 60s. Upon her death, she was memorialized by her Catholic Pastor and a Baptist minister. Both shared the same pulpit. Both expressed how much my aunt walked the walk, and how she was surely on her way to heaven.

Further, I want to a Catholic school when I was in grade school. We had no issues with it. My mother, to this day, goes to a Catholic masses if she cannot make it to her Baptist church (which is far away). She has been a dyed in the wool Baptist her whole life.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Well, first you have to determine what if from Christ and not from Christ.

As a baptist, how would you apply this passage:

from 1John 4…6 We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit[a] of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

Well, first, let’s put it in context. 1 John 4: 1 instructs us not to believe every spirit. Instead, we are to “try” them first. Here we are being given the tools to identify false prophets. 1 John 4: 2 says that every spirit that confessed that Christ has come in the flesh is of God. 1 John 4: 3 says that those that do not confess this are not of God, rather they are of the “spirit of anti-christ”.

I read 1 John 4:6 as saying that because were are of God we are not of the world. We have confessed Jesus Christ and are now able to speak of Christ and spread the gospel because we know him and carry his love within us. We can identify other believers by talking to them about God. If they “hear” ie are open to what we are saying and accept that Christ has come in the flesh then they also know God. However, If they cannot “hear” us or if they deny that Christ has come then they are not of God. They are false prophets speaking and acting in the spirit of error.

This idea is then reinforced in 1 John 4:15.

How do I as a Baptist apply it? I would assume I apply it the same as all other Christians. I talk to people about their faith. If they confess Christ then I know they are of God. If they do not, I know they are not. From there I try to share the Word with them if they are willing to hear it.

Do you believe something different? Why did you ask in the first place?