Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: dangus
What analysis?... there was none. All it had was some conclusions by anonymous "ecumenical" people. And what I'm saying is whoever they were, they were strongly partisan.

When believers recite the creed with the church of all ages, saying "I believe in...the holy catholic church", catholic is an improper noun. Actually, the earliest reference contrasted those in union with the apostolic bishops with the gnostics. The apostolic bishops referred to themselves as "catholic" becuase they believed that the truth was universally attainable, as opposed to the gnostics who believed in hidden meanings which only a select few enlightened people could ever penetrate.

Agreed. "Gnostic" is derived from the Greek gnosis, or knowledge, and reflected their belief in secret knowledge tied to their dualism between spirit and matter. At any rate, the point is that big-C Catholics don't have exclusive claim on the term catholic. Would this not run contrary to the thrust of the creed (which we share)? It summarizes what is necessary to believe to be a Christian and does not prescribe membership in a specific organization.

By the way, it's not an "improper noun," it's an adjective.

Right, it's an adjective, but not a proper one for the foregoing reasons.

Because there are others who consider themselves "catholic", the use of the adjective "Roman" is generally considered acceptable to MODIFY the term "Catholic". I think its kind of silly, since no-one objects to the "Disciples of Christ," "Christian Church," "Church of Christ," "Church of the apostles," or "Church of Latter-Day Saints," even though obviously all Christians believe those names apply to themselves.

I do. These names are misrepresentative and it would be unfair just to pick on Catholics. Most of these groups are less than 300 years old, and much what many Christians believe - this dispensational nonsense for example, invented by Darby in the nineteenth century - is very new. One of my biggest pet peeves are those who claim "We believe the Bible" while excluding the ecumenical creeds and in effect despising history. We have much to learn from our Catholic brethren in this regard.

The use of the name "Roman," alone, however, comes from a slander which alleges that Catholics worship the Pope. It is plainly false, and if you are going to invent names for Churches, even the name "Denny's" is preferable to "Roman."

We protestants do have grave concerns about the Mass and elements of what we would consider idolatry, but I personally believe that, however corrupt, all of the elements for salvation are present in the Roman Catholic Church.

It refers to the aggregate of the elect of God yet alive and those saints who are in heaven awaiting the eschaton.

Actually, that's the "communion of saints."

I would submit they are one and the same.

191 posted on 11/18/2003 11:12:17 AM PST by Lexinom ("No society rises above its idea of God" (unknown))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]


To: Lexinom
>>At any rate, the point is that big-C Catholics don't have exclusive claim on the term catholic.

True... That's why the adjective "Roman" is considered legitimate as a modifier of Catholic. It's the term "apostolic" (in conjunction with "catholic") which is the basis for creed-based Catholic apologism. (Of course, Orthodoxy is also apostolic.) We *do* leave it in lower cases in the creed, and always have, because the RCC does recognize that "catholic" does not mean "Roman Catholic."

>> We protestants do have grave concerns about the Mass and elements of what we would consider idolatry,

Actually this is one thing that strikes me odd just now: (and you seem quite reasonable) Protestants are all uneasy about what they often characterize as "worshipping" saints, icons, priests, Mary, or whatever. I've always thought this kinda silly, since we're simply not doing what Protestants think we're doing.

But we *do* adore the Eucharist. That's one reason why the Church is so adament abou TRANSubstantiation, instead of CONsubstantitation: If bread is present, it amounts to adoring bread, which *would* be idolatry. Since Protestants (with a few exceptions) believe that it's just bread, I would think that *this* is where accusations of idolatry arise from. I mean, we don't adore the saints, Mary, the priests or relics, but we *do* adore what y'all think is just bread.

thoughts?
192 posted on 11/18/2003 12:58:33 PM PST by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson