When other churches say the creed and use the word "catholic" why don't they just say universal?

[GKC]

A validly ordained bishop who subsequently abandons the very Church from which he received his ordination no longer has the authority to ordain other bishops. He would have been excommunicated and therefore has lost his faculties.

In any event, it really doesn’t matter, When one uses the term “catholic” in general conversation I think everyone knows who is being spoken of.

Such a bishop may ordain, or do other such things, validly, but not licitly, assuming he has a valid intent, and the external rite is valid. See Ott, FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA, p. 458.

GKC

 

[GKC]

So says your church, which has no authority to us.

His Church doesn’t say exactly that.

GKC

 

[gnosisofthomas]

His Church doesn’t say exactly that.

GKC

Haha, that’s true.

 

[cath4alltime]

Like in the Lutheran Churches, why do they say One, Holy, catholic, and apostolic church. If catholic to them means universal, why not just say universal? I get that its a tradition, but you’d think that some denominations wouldn’t like saying catholic.

We say it that way because the Church decreed that in the Council

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well - “catholic” is the English form of the Latin which is from the Greek. I mean I don’t think that “catholic” is a term that developed in “ancient” English tongues.

Well, it did, but it did just like all the other words that came from Greek or Latin. When we say, "I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church, we mean “I believe in one holy, universal, apostolic church.”

There’s an interesting article on it in the Catholic encyclopedia:

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — 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. Thus we meet such phrases as the “the catholic resurrection” (Justin Martyr), “the catholic goodness of God” (Tertullian), “the four catholic winds” (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of “the general resurrection”, “the absolute or universal goodness of God”, “the four principal winds”, etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase “Catholic Epistles” as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

 

[batman1973]

And when did that happen? When Luther was excommunicated he lost his faculties. He refused to make amends and therefore never regained his faculties. Subsequent to Luther’s excommunication who ordained him? One cannot ordain themselves.

Sorry for the delay. I honestly didn’t see your reply . This is how it was explained to me: Luther’s excommunication was invalid since the church was corrupt.(That, and he wanted to stay Catholic, the church didn’t give him much of a choice) So, he still had valid holy orders. It was also explained to me that The Lutheran Church (as a whole, not just the LCMS) is not a valid continuation of the OHCAC, but THE valid continuation One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.(Western) It is Rome that is in error, however, she has made great strides in change. But, unity will come not from Lutherans “coming to Rome,” but Rome coming home to us.

 

[joe370]

Why would we have a reservation against it?

Do you belong to the Catholic Church?

 

[JRKH]

Well, it did, but it did just like all the other words that came from Greek or Latin. When we say, "I believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church, we mean “I believe in one holy, universal, apostolic church.”

There’s an interesting article on it in the Catholic encyclopedia:

Thanks Julia…

Peace
James

 

[gazelam]

While the gnostic heresy continues to rear its head in many forms (New Age, Mormonism, etc.),

WHAT?!?!

Please explain in a nutshell how Mormonism is gnostic (in a new thread if necessary). About 99.7% of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would respond with a blank stare if you referred to the “gnostic” elements of our religion (and most probably wouldn’t even know about the silent ‘g’!). In LDS instructional classes, comparisons are made from time to time with Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish beliefs, but never gnostic. (Although I can’t say it doesn’t happen in an upper division university course.) Thanks.

And for the record, LDS worship services do not include a segment where early Christian creeds are recited.

 

[skigirl1689]

In the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod they say “I believe in one holy, Christian, and apostolic Church…” I’m not sure when they changed it, but I am guessing they did it to avoid confusion over the meaning of “catholic.”

Does it really matter if others use the word “catholic,” meaning universal? Seems like a trivial matter.

 

[Indifferently]

Roman Catholics actually don’t have any say how we prepare our liturgy, cunningly enough. And if we wish to declare ourselves members of the one, holy, Catholick and Apostolick Church, we are free to do so.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Does it really matter if others use the word “catholic,” meaning universal? Seems like a trivial matter.

It does mean “universal.” It’s what we Catholics mean when we profess it. The Nicene Creed isn’t a statement of belief in the Roman Catholic Church as a religious institution. This is right off the USCCB website:

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/

Note the lower case “c” in catholic. It’s not the name of a religion, it is the ecclesia of a humanity joined as one at the end of t time.

We believe in the universal church, the church Triumphant and the church Militant, we believe in the coming of complete ecclesia, of an apostolic gospel spread throughout the world, handed down from God to people who heard and repeated and passed on and still do. It’s a statement that transcends religions, even if many people have assumed differently.

 

[exnihilo]

The word catholic does not mean the Catholic church to those who study religion or those who have studied the meaning of the word. It does seem some people want to not use the word out of concerns with it being associated with the Catholic church. But there are also people who don’t want to concede the word to the Catholic church.

I do find the alternative ‘Christian Church’ to be interesting. Are there other kinds of churches? It seems to me the church is Christian so ‘universal Church’ would be a much better alternative. Christian Church seems repetitive.

 

[PaulDupre]

WHAT?!?!

Please explain in a nutshell how Mormonism is gnostic (in a new thread if necessary). About 99.7% of the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would respond with a blank stare if you referred to the “gnostic” elements of our religion (and most probably wouldn’t even know about the silent ‘g’!). In LDS instructional classes, comparisons are made from time to time with Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish beliefs, but never gnostic. (Although I can’t say it doesn’t happen in an upper division university course.) Thanks.

And for the record, LDS worship services do not include a segment where early Christian creeds are recited.

The principle characteristic of gnosticism is that it is a two-tiered “gospel”. There are certain teachings and mysteries that are withheld and kept secret from all but the fully initiated. Many members never achieve all the necessary qualifications to be initiated into the deeper mysteries.

Mormons may not know the word “gnostic”, but they certainly know the principles of gnosticism.

In Mormonism, only those who hold a temple recommend are allowed to know the secrets taught in the temple, including the signs, tokens and key words (sacred gestures, hand shakes and names) the knowledge of which allow one to enter into the upper levels of the celestial kingdom (the highest level of heaven). Those without this secret knowledge will never be permitted to become gods. Becoming a god (exaltation) is the goal of every latter-day saint.

Mormon prophet Brigham Young taught “salvation without exaltation is damnation”.

Ascension to godhood is an idea that also pervades gnosticism.

Many Mormons never achieve the necessary qualifications to be admitted into the temple. Requirements for gaining a temple recommend include obeying all the LDS commandments, including following the Word of Wisdom and paying a full tithe (10% of gross income). Mormonism is therefore a two-tiered “gospel”, with many members never being allowed access to the fulness of Mormon teachings.

That’s just a partial explanation of why many Christians consider Mormonism to be a gnostic religion.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[gnosisofthomas]

The principle characteristic of gnosticism is that it is a two-tiered “gospel”. There are certain teachings and mysteries that are withheld and kept secret from all but the fully initiated. Many members never achieve all the necessary qualifications to be initiated into the deeper mysteries.

Actually, the principle characteristic of Gnosticism is salvation through Gnosis, but I’ll come back to that in a bit. A “two-tiered Gospel” isn’t unique to Gnosticism, it’s a Christian concept in general… Christ Himself had outer teachings (which He presented to the masses) and inner teachings (which he revealed to His disciples), and it’s right there in the Bible.

And when he was alone, the twelve that were with him asked him the parable. And he said to them: To you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. (Mark 4:10-12)

But He’s also said that “there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed: nor hidden, that shall not be known” (Luke 12:2). So we know that Gnosis is freely available to everyone – unfortunately, most people aren’t inclined to seek it. But I believe eventually everyone will have Gnosis, it just takes time.

Outer teachings lay a foundation upon which to build. You wouldn’t expect a child to be able to read War and Peace without first teaching him the fundamentals of reading. Laying a foundation before being fully admitted to the Mysteries was always present in Christianity… Catechumens were dismissed after the Liturgy of the Word, for example, because they were not admitted to the Mystery of the Eucharist until they were properly educated and initiated. This is still reflected in the dismissal of the catechumens going through RCIA today, before the Creed; although they certainly aren’t kicked out if they stay.

Outer teachings were designed to attract converts, and also lay a foundation for deeper understanding. They were easier to understand for the average person, and once they had that foundation, they could learn the deeper significance of these things through the inner teachings.

In Mormonism, only those who hold a temple recommend are allowed to know the secrets taught in the temple, including the signs, tokens and key words (sacred gestures, hand shakes and names) the knowledge of which allow one to enter into the upper levels of the celestial kingdom (the highest level of heaven). Those without this secret knowledge will never be permitted to become gods. Becoming a god (exaltation) is the goal of every latter-day saint.

I won’t pretend to know a lot about exaltation, but from what I understand, Gnosis is what makes us different from Mormons. Gnosis isn’t something that can be taught – it’s a direct experience with God. And the big difference is that a Gnostic doesn’t become a god, or like God; Gnosis is the knowledge we are already part of God, and we remember our origin in Him, which we tend to forget when we are born into the world. At the end of time, we won’t have all these separate gods hanging around ruling our own worlds… We will be at rest in God Himself, because we are a part of Him.

Ascension to godhood is an idea that also pervades gnosticism.

Again, we don’t attain godhood. We remember that we are sparks of His Divine Light currently living in a sea of forgetfulness, and the perception of separateness – “you” and “me” – falls away, because we’re truly one in God.

That’s just a partial explanation of why many Christians consider Mormonism to be a gnostic religion.

I can see why many people would see a similarity between Gnosticism and Mormonism, but I think it comes down to a misunderstanding of what Gnosticism actually is.

 

[PaulDupre]

I can see why many people would see a similarity between Gnosticism and Mormonism, but I think it comes down to a misunderstanding of what Gnosticism actually is.

Fair enough. I am commenting as an outsider re: gnosticism, and a former insider re: LDS.

I wonder, though, if the gnosticism of today closely resembles the gnosticism I read the ECFs railing against.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Fair enough. I am commenting as an outsider re: gnosticism, and a former insider re: LDS.

I wonder, though, if the gnosticism of today closely resembles the gnosticism I read the ECFs railing against.

Sorry, I’m not sure what ECF stands for… The Church Fathers?

 

[skigirl1689]

It does mean “universal.” It’s what we Catholics mean when we profess it. The Nicene Creed isn’t a statement of belief in the Roman Catholic Church as a religious institution. This is right off the USCCB website:

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/

Note the lower case “c” in catholic. It’s not the name of a religion, it is the ecclesia of a humanity joined as one at the end of t time.

We believe in the universal church, the church Triumphant and the church Militant, we believe in the coming of complete ecclesia, of an apostolic gospel spread throughout the world, handed down from God to people who heard and repeated and passed on and still do. It’s a statement that transcends religions, even if many people have assumed differently.

And I agree with you; the OP seemed to have an issue with non-Catholics using the word “catholic” if I understood the original post correctly.

 

[PaulDupre]

Sorry, I’m not sure what ECF stands for… The Church Fathers?

Early Church Fathers.

Paul

 

[CopticChristian]

Fair enough. I am commenting as an outsider re: gnosticism, and a former insider re: LDS.

I wonder, though, if the gnosticism of today closely resembles the gnosticism I read the ECFs railing against.

Paul,

The gnosticism of gnosisthomas…is based on a group started by a Liberal Catholic. They claim, falsely, Apostolic succession. Liberal Catholics as I recall are Anglican breakaways…and they have what is called the ecclesia gnostica…since the gnostics were not translated into english until recently…they claim sacraments, and appear to suggest some relationship to Christianity…check this out…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_Gnostica

The organization now called the Ecclesia Gnostica was originally organized in England under the name the Pre-Nicene Gnostic Catholic Church in 1953[2][3][4], by the Most Rev. Richard Jean Chretien Duc de Palatine with the object of “restoring the Gnosis - Divine Wisdom to the Christian Church, and to teach the Path of Holiness which leads to God and the Inner Illumination and Interior Communion with the Soul through the mortal body of man.”[5] Born Ronald Powell, Richard Duc de Palatine had served in the Liberal Catholic Church in Australia, before moving to England. Bishop Duc de Palatine was consecrated by the Most Rev. Msg. Hugh George de Wilmott Newman (Mar Georgius I), patriarch of the Catholic Apostolic Church (Catholicate of the West) who consolidated many lines of apostolic succession.[6][7]

I like the music group…New Kids On the Block…