The Catholic church

katydid

Several times in various threads I have had to correct certain posters who insist on referring to their branch of Christianity as "The Catholic Church", although Catholicism is a very broad term for different Christian denominations.
Whenever I do, the discussion ends up being shunted into a "Catholic/Protestant" thread; which is missing the entire point; a church can be both Protestant AND Catholic. The Anglican church is.

Whatever the public perception may be of the term "Catholic church", this is a forum for the discussion of religion and of Christianity in particular. Surely here we can at least be accurate and respectful of others?

Manach

Specifically on the Anglican Church, it was at various times reference to itself as catholic in that it had claimed it was derived from the inital mission of Peter. However, again referencing works by both Eoin O'Duffy, O'Collins and off hand from works by Fr. Ronald Know who received Chesterton into the Church, Anglican's did not embrace the term CAtholic. To them is was tainted with association with Rome. This was partially done to compromise with the establishment post Charles II and as differential during the Imperial period so as to show that Britain had its own Protestant mission to civilise the world.
The Oxford and associated High Church movement has viewed with suspicion for adhering to anything associated with the image of the Gothic, Bells and incense, that was fixed in the mindset of the Victorian mind to do with Papist/Catholicism
Hence, to be accurate there is no cognitive association with Catholic and Anglican. Instead it shrove to have a third path between traditional Catholicism and more fundamental Protestantism - mixing elements of both to have its own doctrines.

Benny_Cake

katydid wrote: »

Several times in various threads I have had to correct certain posters who insist on referring to their branch of Christianity as "The Catholic Church", although Catholicism is a very broad term for different Christian denominations.
Whenever I do, the discussion ends up being shunted into a "Catholic/Protestant" thread; which is missing the entire point; a church can be both Protestant AND Catholic. The Anglican church is.

Whatever the public perception may be of the term "Catholic church", this is a forum for the discussion of religion and of Christianity in particular. Surely here we can at least be accurate and respectful of others?

I don't have any issue with a thread to discuss the use of the word. I just don't want to see other threads dragged off-topic about it, most people using "Catholic" as shorthand for "Roman Catholic" do so in good faith (and if not - report it). Given the national media often do the same, it can't be expected that the moderators here start pulling people up for what is a quite understandable use of language given the cultural context of this country.

On the topic itself, while some Anglicans embrace the word Catholic and it's associated history as part of their inheritance, wouldn't it be fair to say that others don't? You'd have a hard time finding much traces of Catholic heritage in the Anglican diocese of Sydney for example

On the other hand you have the "Society of Catholic Priests" which clearly treasure the catholic element in Anglican history. Note the unqualified use of "Catholic" btw

katydid

Manach wrote: »

Specifically on the Anglican Church, it was at various times reference to itself as catholic in that it had claimed it was derived from the inital mission of Peter. However, again referencing works by both Eoin O'Duffy, O'Collins and off hand from works by Fr. Ronald Know who received Chesterton into the Church, Anglican's did not embrace the term CAtholic. To them is was tainted with association with Rome. This was partially done to compromise with the establishment post Charles II and as differential during the Imperial period so as to show that Britain had its own Protestant mission to civilise the world.
The Oxford and associated High Church movement has viewed with suspicion for adhering to anything associated with the image of the Gothic, Bells and incense, that was fixed in the mindset of the Victorian mind to do with Papist/Catholicism
Hence, to be accurate there is no cognitive association with Catholic and Anglican. Instead it shrove to have a third path between traditional Catholicism and more fundamental Protestantism - mixing elements of both to have its own doctrines.

Whatever some Anglicans may or may not have thought about it in the past or today, the fact remains that by its own definition it is a Catholic church. There may not be a cognitive association between the two terms, but that doesn't change this fact.

katydid

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I don't have any issue with a thread to discuss the use of the word. I just don't want to see other threads dragged off-topic about it, most people using "Catholic" as shorthand for "Roman Catholic" do so in good faith (and if not - report it). Given the national media often do the same, it can't be expected that the moderators here start pulling people up for what is a quite understandable use of language given the cultural context of this country.

On the topic itself, while some Anglicans embrace the word Catholic and it's associated history as part of their inheritance, wouldn't it be fair to say that others don't? You'd have a hard time finding much traces of Catholic heritage in the Anglican diocese of Sydney for example

On the other hand you have the "Society of Catholic Priests" which clearly treasure the catholic element in Anglican history. Note the unqualified use of "Catholic" btw

Some people use the term "Catholic" for "Roman Catholic" in ignorance and in good faith. Others use it deliberately, knowing it to be inaccurate and regardless of the insult it causes to other Catholics who don't belong to the Roman Catholic denomination.

I'm not expecting moderators to pull people up for using the term, I'm trying to make people aware that they are using it wrongly if they so do, and asking them to show some respect for other Catholics.

All Anglicans "embrace" the term, in so far as it is fundamental to the church's definition of itself. It's not about "heritage", it's what it is.

Here is an explanation from the CofI website: http://ireland.anglican.org/information/6
Whether or not they use it on an every day basis is a different matter. It's not

ryan101

The fact remains the Anglican Church is a Protestant Church. It's funny we didn't see any Protestant Church in NI coming out to clarify the term Catholic, or soap boxing about it, when it was being used to incite hatred and deny Catholics their basic human rights. Likewise, I don't see anyone on any forum rushing to correct the use of Catholic when it's being used to incite hatred or make false allegations.

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

The fact remains the Anglican Church is a Protestant Church. It's funny we didn't see any Protestant Church in NI coming out to clarify the term Catholic, or soap boxing about it, when it was being used to incite hatred and deny Catholics their basic human rights. Likewise, I don't see anyone on any forum rushing to correct the use of Catholic when it's being used to incite hatred or make false allegations.

The fact remains that it is a Protestant church AND a Catholic church. Please stop cherry picking the facts you like and omitting the facts that don't suit your prejudice.

What churches do or don't do in Northern Ireland is irrelevant to this discussion, as is whether or not the term is being used on this forum to incite hatred or make false allegations. I am correcting the use of "Catholic" when it is used wrongly, and you are refusing to respect the facts, and to respect my faith.

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

The fact remains that it is a Protestant church AND a Catholic church. Please stop cherry picking the facts you like and omitting the facts that don't suit your prejudice.

What churches do or don't do in Northern Ireland is irrelevant to this discussion, as is whether or not the term is being used on this forum to incite hatred or make false allegations. I am correcting the use of "Catholic" when it is used wrongly, and you are refusing to respect the facts, and to respect my faith.

A Protestant is not a Catholic.
If I start my own Church tomorrow, and call it Catholic, it won't make it so.
I'm afraid calling other posters prejudiced does not help your case.
How other churches and the media refer to Catholics is very relevant.
As the moderator has already had to point out to you they use the term Catholic.
How is the term Catholic being used incorrectly ?

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

A Protestant is not a Catholic.
If I start my own Church tomorrow, and call it Catholic, it won't make it so.
I'm afraid calling other posters prejudiced does not help your case.
How other churches and the media refer to Catholics is very relevant.
As the moderator has already had to point out to you they use the term Catholic.
How is the term Catholic being used incorrectly ?

I suggest you follow the link I gave if you can't understand the concept of how one can be both Catholic and Protestant.

No, if you start a church and call it Catholic, it won't make it so. But neither will you declaring something not to be Catholic that is Catholic - your declaration won't change the fact that it is Catholic. I have explained to you why the term is used incorrectly; the fact that you fail to understand and/or agree doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Please explain why how the media and other sources refer to Roman Catholics is relevant?

Benny_Cake

ryan101 wrote: »

As the moderator has already had to point out to you they use the term Catholic.

I use the term Catholic church as a shorter way to refer to the Roman Catholic church, but I don't intend that to mean that Anglicans and others are not part of the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" referred to in the Nicene creed. Much as the Protestant Episcopal church in the US isn't the only Protestant church to have bishops!

Given the overwhelming dominance (in numbers) that Roman Catholicism has had in Ireland, I think it's quite understandable that Catholic is used as shorthand for Roman Catholic by many. If Onesimus still posted here, he would point out that there are also eastern rite Catholics under the authority of the Pope who aren't Roman Catholics (the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, for example).

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

I suggest you follow the link I gave if you can't understand the concept of how one can be both Catholic and Protestant.

No, if you start a church and call it Catholic, it won't make it so. But neither will you declaring something not to be Catholic that is Catholic - your declaration won't change the fact that it is Catholic. I have explained to you why the term is used incorrectly; the fact that you fail to understand and/or agree doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

Please explain why how the media and other sources refer to Roman Catholics is relevant?

Why can I not start a 'Catholic 'Church, surely it will be as Catholic as yours ?
Then I can get all bent out of shape and soap box when anyone dares say Catholic and is not referring to my new church. The fact remains it won't be the Catholic Church.
The next time someone says Jesus, perhaps you should complain that they are excluding the Brazilian named Jesus that works in our local meat plant and everyone else called Jesus, and soap box every post about Jesus to complain or exclaim 'which Jesus'. The fact remains they aren't Jesus, and it won't make them so.

Manach

katydid wrote: »

Whatever some Anglicans may or may not have thought about it in the past or today, the fact remains that by its own definition it is a Catholic church. There may not be a cognitive association between the two terms, but that doesn't change this fact.

Rather a pity to thus walk from the rich traditional of the past. For instance I've been reading historical accounts of the early Christians by Owen Chadwick, an Anglican historian. Thus to be catholic/Catholic one should embrace the community :both present and past.

mezuzaj

katydid wrote: »

Several times in various threads I have had to correct certain posters who insist on referring to their branch of Christianity as "The Catholic Church", although Catholicism is a very broad term for different Christian denominations.
Whenever I do, the discussion ends up being shunted into a "Catholic/Protestant" thread; which is missing the entire point; a church can be both Protestant AND Catholic. The Anglican church is.

Whatever the public perception may be of the term "Catholic church", this is a forum for the discussion of religion and of Christianity in particular. Surely here we can at least be accurate and respectful of others?

Catholic is used in this forum the same way as Catholic is used on the street. If you polled people about the word Catholic I guarantee you that they would mean the Church which has the Pope in Rome.

Now Catholic of course in the true sense means universal. And the Orthodox Church for example says they are the Catholic Church.

So don't take offence by its erroneous use. But the term Catholic Church today is the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

lazybones32

katydid wrote: »

Several times in various threads I have had to correct certain posters who insist on referring to their branch of Christianity as "The Catholic Church", although Catholicism is a very broad term for different Christian denominations.
Whenever I do, the discussion ends up being shunted into a "Catholic/Protestant" thread; which is missing the entire point; a church can be both Protestant AND Catholic. The Anglican church is.

Whatever the public perception may be of the term "Catholic church", this is a forum for the discussion of religion and of Christianity in particular. Surely here we can at least be accurate and respectful of others?

I know some branches still use the Apostles Creed and refer to themselves as believing in "One, Holy, catholic and Apostolic Church".
That's all fine and dandy but having to differentiate between Roman Catholicism and the other branches, in order not to 'offend' one person, is too much effort for me. I identify myself as Catholic and when telling any other Christian that I'm Catholic, they never mistook me as being 'reformed' or as a protestant catholic.
Could it be that you need to thicken your skin and not take offense when you know it's not intended? This seems like splitting hairs...

mezuzaj

The Catholic Church is made up of 23 autonomous particular churches. Roman Catholic is just one of the Churches.

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

Why can I not start a 'Catholic 'Church, surely it will be as Catholic as yours ?
Then I can get all bent out of shape and soap box when anyone dares say Catholic and is not referring to my new church. The fact remains it won't be the Catholic Church.
The next time someone says Jesus, perhaps you should complain that they are excluding the Brazilian named Jesus that works in our local meat plant and everyone else called Jesus, and soap box every post about Jesus to complain or exclaim 'which Jesus'. The fact remains they aren't Jesus, and it won't make them so.

The fact STILL remains that the Roman Catholic church is not the only Catholic church.

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

The fact STILL remains that the Roman Catholic church is not the only Catholic church.

But only in the same way Jesus is not the only person called Jesus

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

But only in the same way Jesus is not the only person called Jesus

That shows you have NO UNDERSTANDING of what Catholicism is.

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

That shows you have NO UNDERSTANDING of what Catholicism is.

Bit like claiming I have no understanding what 'Jesus' is

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

Bit like claiming I have no understanding what 'Jesus' is

I have no idea what your understanding of Jesus is, that's a matter for another discussion.

We are discussing the Catholic church in its various manifestations. Can we stick to the topic, please?

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

I have no idea what your understanding of Jesus is, that's a matter for another discussion.

We are discussing the Catholic church in its various manifestations. Can we stick to the topic, please?

We are, it's a valid comparison, i.e. Jesus the brazilian claiming that no one should use the name Jesus without referring to him and all the other Jesus's

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

We are, it's a valid comparison, i.e. Jesus the brazilian claiming that no one should use the name Jesus without referring to him and all the other Jesus's

No, it's not a valid comparison. There is only one person of Jesus relevant to Christianity, and your understanding of him may be different from mine or not. I don't know, it's a different discussion.

We are discussing the Catholic church, the church Jesus founded. The Catholic church has many denominations, including yours and mine. I recognise that fact, you don't. It's as simple as that.

Benny_Cake

Mod: Goading remarks removed. Keep it civil folks or this will be closed.

mezuzaj

katydid wrote: »

No, it's not a valid comparison. There is only one person of Jesus relevant to Christianity, and your understanding of him may be different from mine or not. I don't know, it's a different discussion.

We are discussing the Catholic church, the church Jesus founded. The Catholic church has many denominations, including yours and mine. I recognise that fact, you don't. It's as simple as that.

Hi Katy, in a way you are correct, but it was only 50 years ago that the Catholic Church (the one united to Rome) was able to open up the the broader meaning.


Lumen Gentium.

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

No, it's not a valid comparison. There is only one person of Jesus relevant to Christianity, and your understanding of him may be different from mine or not. I don't know, it's a different discussion.

We are discussing the Catholic church, the church Jesus founded. The Catholic church has many denominations, including yours and mine. I recognise that fact, you don't. It's as simple as that.

Which Jesus ? The Jesus from Brazil who is also a Christian.
See we can all do your style of trolling.

The Anglican Church is a Christian Church but it is not the Catholic Church.

You can call yourself whatever you want, and claim whatever you want, the fact will always remain the Anglican Church (unlike the 23 churches that make up the Catholic Church and recognise the Popes authority, the successor to St. Peter and who was given the keys) has no valid apostolic succession, and was set up to rubber stamp the morality and behaviour of delinquent English rulers , to confiscate property, and to rubber stamp stamp the occupation and suppression of the local population.

We could all start a church tomorrow for our own ends and call it 'catholic'. Claiming you are something does not make it so. Nothing you claim is ever going to be able to change that fact.

mezuzaj

ryan101 wrote: »

Which Jesus ? Jesus the Brazilian who is a Christian as well ?

You can call yourself whatever you want, and claim whatever you want, the fact will always remain the Anglican Church (unlike the 23 churches that make up the Catholic Church and recognise the Popes authority, the successor to St. Peter and who was given the keys) has no valid apostolic succession, and was set up to rubber stamp the morality and behaviour of delinquent English rulers , to confiscate property, and to rubber stamp stamp the occupation and suppression of the local population.

We could all start a church tomorrow for our own ends and call it 'catholic'. Claiming you are something does not make it so. Nothing you claim is ever going to be able to change that fact.

Ryana101..... fortiter in re suaviter in modo. :-) We all have history books.

ryan101

mezuzaj wrote: »

Ryana101..... fortiter in re suaviter in modo. :-) We all have history books.

Good idea. The history of the Anglican Church and it's actions in Ireland against the Catholic population would make an excellent thread.

Benny_Cake

ryan101 wrote: »

Which Jesus ? Jesus the Brazilian who is a Christian as well ?

You can call yourself whatever you want, and claim whatever you want, the fact will always remain the Anglican Church (unlike the 23 churches that make up the Catholic Church and recognise the Popes authority, the successor to St. Peter and who was given the keys) has no valid apostolic succession, and was set up to rubber stamp the morality and behaviour of delinquent English rulers , to confiscate property, and to rubber stamp stamp the occupation and suppression of the local population.

We could all start a church tomorrow for our own ends and call it 'catholic'. Claiming you are something does not make it so. Nothing you claim is ever going to be able to change that fact.

Highly debated! The Catholic position on this was set out in Apostolicae Curae in 1896, Saepius Officio was the Anglican response. I've neither the patience, nor the level of interest to read through it all so I can't do justice to either side, but Anglicans would dispute that they don't have valid apostolic succession. Additionally, since the early 20th century, some Anglican bishops have had bishops of the Old Catholic Church involved in their consecrations. I don't think that Catholics dispute the validity of Old Catholic orders. So the situation today is different to that of the late 19th-century.

ryan101

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Highly debated! The Catholic position on this was set out in Apostolicae Curae in 1896, Saepius Officio was the Anglican response. I've neither the patience, nor the level of interest to read through it all so I can't do justice to either side, but Anglicans would dispute that they don't have valid apostolic succession. Additionally, since the early 20th century, some Anglican bishops have had bishops of the Old Catholic Church involved in their consecrations. I don't think that Catholics dispute the validity of Old Catholic orders. So the situation today is different to that of the late 19th-century.

It's disputed because they don't have it.
The 'old Catholic Church' is not the Catholic Church.

So, according to your claims, which of their current bishops have valid apostolic succession and which do not ?

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

Several times in various threads I have had to correct certain posters who insist on referring to their branch of Christianity as "The Catholic Church"

Then your going to have to 'correct' the national and international media as well.
Perhaps Benny Cake can moderate and silence them for you. If only he could edit them as well.

katydid

mezuzaj wrote: »

Hi Katy, in a way you are correct, but it was only 50 years ago that the Catholic Church (the one united to Rome) was able to open up the the broader meaning.
.

The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) .

Does that sound to you like opening up to the broader meaning?

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

Which Jesus ? The Jesus from Brazil who is also a Christian.
See we can all do your style of trolling.

The Anglican Church is a Christian Church but it is not the Catholic Church.

You can call yourself whatever you want, and claim whatever you want, the fact will always remain the Anglican Church (unlike the 23 churches that make up the Catholic Church and recognise the Popes authority, the successor to St. Peter and who was given the keys) has no valid apostolic succession, and was set up to rubber stamp the morality and behaviour of delinquent English rulers , to confiscate property, and to rubber stamp stamp the occupation and suppression of the local population.

We could all start a church tomorrow for our own ends and call it 'catholic'. Claiming you are something does not make it so. Nothing you claim is ever going to be able to change that fact.

Look, I have explained to you how the Roman Catholic church is not the only Catholic church. Even leaving aside the Anglican church, there is the Eastern Orthodox church, which is also a Catholic church. If you really can't understand what "Catholic" means and that the Roman version doesn't have a monopoly on the term, I really can't explain any more.

ryan101

katydid wrote: »

Look, I have explained to you how the Roman Catholic church is not the only Catholic church. Even leaving aside the Anglican church, there is the Eastern Orthodox church, which is also a Catholic church. If you really can't understand what "Catholic" means and that the Roman version doesn't have a monopoly on the term, I really can't explain any more.

That's because the Anglican Church is not the Catholic Church. Again, you can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn't make it so.

katydid

ryan101 wrote: »

It's disputed because they don't have it.
The 'old Catholic Church' is not the Catholic Church.
?

Oh dear, Ryan, you really can't grasp this idea that the Roman Catholic church is not the final arbiter of what is right and wrong.

Can you please explain why you believe this to be so?

mezuzaj

katydid wrote: »

Does that sound to you like opening up to the broader meaning?

Well before Vatican II it was extra ecclesiam nulla salus. All Christians need to dialogue with each other. But the reality there are some major differences. Mormons call themselves Christian, but many Church's don't agree.

The Catholic Church to 99% of people is the one with the Pope. While us religiously informed people take a different view.

The Orthodox Church says they are the Catholic Church. One Holy Apostolic Catholic. I think we all need to pray and ask for God to show us the path back to unity.

Benny_Cake

Mod: This has descended into trolling and attempts to provoke other users. There is little here now that can't be discussed on the Protestant / Catholic megathread.

Unless someone is using the phrase "Catholic church" in a way that denigrates other posters it isn't the place of moderators to intervene. Not is it fair to other posters to turn their threads (asking for advice on finding a church, for example) into a debate on the use of a phrase. A degree of reasonableness and forbearance is called for.

For allegations of moderator bias, the correct venue is the Feedback forum.