When you say the word "Catholic", obviously the first things that pop in the mind are "The Pope of Rome", Roman Catholic", "the Virgin Mary", and a few other things. There seems to be a problem with this however, seeing that this is not actually "Catholic", but the "Roman Catholic Church".

 

Therefore Clergy and Laity, I would like to ask you "What does it mean to be Catholic?"

 

-are you familiar with where the word came from?

-are you familiar with who claims the title Catholic today?

-are you familiar with who can/should authentically be considered Catholic?

-what exactly is believed by Catholics about God?

-what exactly is believed about the blessed virgin Mary?

-what does the term "the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" mean?

-did the first Protestants stop considering themselves to be Catholic? Why or why not?

 

No more assumptions, guessing, or prejudice. Since we claim to be Christians, lets hit the hard facts about this subject that was apart of Christianity for 2,000 years.

 

Views: 246

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The thing that makes me sad about this is that people are against this term "Catholic", but don't even know why they are. Should I or anyone else respect that from Christians, especially from Clergy?

Catholic means one universal Christian church. But is that really the case with all of the schisms in the church? Let's be realistic here! The church hasn't been united as one since its infant stages in scripture.

The only thing that's happened over time is America protects us from persecution with freedom of religion. And certain groups are more tolerant of other groups than they were throughout history. The schisms sre still there, the tension is still there.  

Yes the Schisms are there. Part of the Schisms is the neglect of the understanding of the term Catholic. Believe me, its way more significant than you make it sound.

Thats not true at all.

I viewed your profile so now I better understand your views and position. Much of what we've discussed here is man made practices and far from being biblical. You don't find the terms or the principles in scripture. Catholic was a term that surfaced in the 2nd Century, used by a man (Ignatius) to describe the universal church. The scriptures declare that we are the "body of Christ". One Lord, one faith, one baptism. As I read several articles on church history, it's very clear that "men" caused the schisms and confusion we are experiencing today. And "men" are continuing this cycle today. The Lord's return is the only thing that will unite the true church.

"The scriptures declare that we are the "body of Christ". One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

 

Aren't those your words? Indeed they are. Why then do you speak as if they don't directly reflect what the term Catholic Church means? You're right in that Bishop Ignatius of Antioch first used the term. His words were: "wheresoever the Bishop shall appear, there let the people gather also. Even as where ever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church". Why then is this not considered a "Biblical term" to you? Is it because you can't find the word in the pages of your Bible?

A lot of those books by Ignatius and other do not line up with God's true word.

1 John 2:19 - They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

 

A lot of those words by those men can not be coutned as scripture because they were not authorized to write scripture, nor do their doctrine line up with what Jesus and his apostles and prophets taught. And I know this from reading them. It is twisted and mxied up. John teaches us that the word was with God and is also God and His word was made flesh..but they don't teach that. They teach One Bishop, many deacons...but Paul, the one who first gave us qualifications for bishops, never said ONE bishop; they did! Paul gave same qualificantions for bishops and deacons in the same letter and even greeted all the bishops and deacons in the same place in another of his epistles. Igantius focuses so much on THE bishop as if the bishop is God himself. "reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ" one says "and the bishop as the father" ... no, sir, that doesn't sound God inspired to me. There is a twist up in their letters and writings. Their "Apostle's Creed" is messed up. It is all tainted and twisted sir. Pope? That isn't biblical! And you believe their writings? They are far from God's word. Just because they mention history of the scriptures in between doesn't mean they are inspired by God or truth. God has what He chose as scripture and all for a reason. These people drifted away from the truth and created a "new" doctrine, which caused a ripple in a lot of stuff....

Catholic is Universal, but what's universal about a church that does not follow the apsotles' doctrine? That does not flow in the word of truth, but confusion believed to be truth? Nothing.

This is where some of the lack of understanding lies.

 

-It is interesting that you quoted Apostle John in order to refute Bishop Ignatius, especially since John trained Ignatius.

-When Paul greeted the Bishops of the Galatians, you have to keep in mind that Galatia was not a single city, but a region of cities. Therefore, each city had a Bishop. Thus the Galatians had multiple Bishops covering the multiple cities. If you familiarize yourself with the history of the structure of the Church, you would see that 9 out of 10 times, a single Bishop was in charge of the Church in that city, and such a structure was received from the Apostle who planted it (Antioch, Rome, Babylon, Alexandria, etc.), and the names of the places that you see in the Bible were not always single cities, but entire regions and nations. The New Testament does not give all the details of the structure and ecclesiology of the Church. Anyone who reads it would know this. Therefore, the Church has always relied not only on sacred Scripture, but Apostolic Tradition and Synods. When the three were used together by the guidance of the All-Holy Ghost, the Church had little if any problems.

-You need multiple Bishops for the work they have to do (tend to the people directly), while you need but one Bishop for the job he/she must do (oversee the Church; superintendent;management). You need multiple workers, not multiple bosses. 

-When it comes to canonized Scripture, it was the writings of these Antioch that helped you today understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the first place. You think that you just got it easy, but these Scriptures came only because they were defended by men like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrnia, and the like. When heretics were popping up left and right, these men anchored the Church with orthodox doctrine. 

-When it speaks of "reverencing the Bishop/Presbytery/Deacon", it doesn't mean worship them. Any person can see that if they actually read it. It speaks of honoring God by honoring them. You don't see this because you haven't looked at it. If you think that this is not of God, then I suggest you go to your Bible, look at where God said that "Aaron shall be your Prophet and you (Moses) shall be as God before them" in the book of Exodus. When you find it, you then make the choice to either a) rethink your opinion of what "reverencing" means, or b) cut that piece of Scripture out of the Bible.

-The term "Pope" is not unbiblical at all. You are only speaking about it in a negative light because 1) the Pope of Rome today is not how he should be, and that all you know about it, 2) you may not be familiar with the fact that there are multiple Bishops claiming the title of "Pope", 3) you have ignored the fact that the Apostles John and Paul both speak of you having fathers (Pope meaning "Father" in Latin) in the faith. So why is it unbiblical seeing that the Bible validates the title?

-The only way the "Nicene Creed" or the "Apostles Creed" is invalid is if you adhere to the heretical "Oneness Doctrine", which was proven false from day one. 

 

Now that we have covered all of that, let us address the issues directly, shall we? I answered your statements piece by piece, now can you give me that same respect and do the same?

-are you familiar with where the word came from?

-are you familiar with who claims the title Catholic today?

-are you familiar with who can/should authentically be considered Catholic?

-what exactly is believed by Catholics about God?

-what exactly is believed about the blessed virgin Mary?

-what does the term "the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" mean?

-did the first Protestants stop considering themselves to be Catholic? Why or why not?

 

So let us address these subjects right now:

 

-are you familiar with who claims the title Catholic today?

-are you familiar with who can/should authentically be considered Catholic?

-what exactly is believed by Catholics about God?

-what exactly is believed about the blessed virgin Mary?

-what does the term "the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" mean?

-did the first Protestants stop considering themselves to be Catholic? Why or why not?

 

1. Many might claim to be Catholic, but the RCC considers themselves as the true Catholic Church and them alone.

2. This depends on who's setting the standard. Today people claim to be many things regardless of what's been established as orthodox. In my first answer I gave you what the RCC thinks about it. And I have documentation to prove it.

3. It varies

4. It varies, but most claim she is the mother of God.

5. Catholics call it the four marks of the church and it's only applicable to the RCC.

6. The Protestants stop considering alot of things as the RCC became more corrupt. But I think they do still see the church as one, holy, universal, Apostolic Church, built on the foundation of the apostles, Jesus being the cheif cornerstone. 

Catholic might have began as a harmless term, I don't know. But as used in the RCC it is wicked. And the apostles, Paul, appointed elders/bishops/pastors to succeed them as overseers of the churches. Acts 20:28. Elder/bishop/pastor/shepherd is the same person, different names used for him. Check the Greek translations. Episcipalianism, papacy, and other church governmental structures aren't biblical. The pastor and deacon are the two officers of the church. This is what I believe according to scripture. I understand others believe differently. I'm gone until tomorrow. Peace.

1. Ok, thats Rome. There are nearly 1 Billion Christians who strongly disagree with them. In fact, even Rome has said that they acknowledge other Catholic Churches who are not in full communion with them. 

2. We deal with the fat so much that we are unfamiliar with what meat even looks like. Therefore, lets begin by dealing with the original standard of what it meant to be Catholic. 

3. It varies, but not as much as it does with Protestants. Lets say "in general", like question #2. 

4. True, and she actually is. When you look at the fact that Jesus is God in flesh, and she was His mother, this is too easy to grasp. The only way one can't grasp that is if they deny the virgin birth and/or deny His deity in some way (i.e. Nestorianism). What else is truly believed amongst Catholics about her?

5. Since when was this " only applicable to the RCC"? Do you know how many would be offended by that statement?

6. Many Protestants have abandoned their Catholic identity simply because they hate Rome. Its like saying "I don't like being called black because of other black folks". If Rome is going bad, fine, separate from Rome, but that is why they were called the "Roman CAtholic Church", so to make a distinction between them and other Catholics worldwide. Archbishop Villatte once said "I saw plainly while on the one hand Romanism has added much error and corruption to the primitive faith, Protestantism had not only taken away Roman errors, but also a part of the primitive deposit of faith." Why should this continue? There is no excuse....

RSS

© 2021   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service