Catholic means "universal," today there are various rites within the Catholic Church, such as the Roman rite, but it is still the Catholic Church.
I think I was the one that already told you this way back in
post # 324 linked.
It is well agreed upon that the word "Catholic" was used to define Christ's Church because various heresies occurred, and there is only one Catholic Church.
The word "catholic" as first discussed with you as to it's use was shared with you in
post # 324 linked showing that the term means "universal" application to Church is not and never has been a reference to the Roman Catholic Church
in isolation from every other Church that existed in the times of the Apostles and after their time.
Jesus and the Apostles were not Roman Catholic. There were many Church's outside of Rome. The word "catholic" simply means "universal" and all Christians believers defined in the scriptures are the "universal Church" as all those who believe and follow what God's Word says (see
John 3:36;
Matthew 7:21;
John 10:26-27;
1 John 2:3-4). The Greek meaning of "Church" ἐκκλησία (ekklēsía | ek-klay-see'-ah) G1577 simply means an assembly of believers who believe and follow what God's Word says. It does not mean the "Roman Catholic Church".
The Catholic Church chose Sunday as a special day to meet for the breaking of the bread because Jesus rose on the third day, Sunday.
Agreed. It is a man-made teaching and tradition that has led many away from God and His Word to break the commandments of God just as Jesus warns us about in His own words where he days in Matthew 15:3-9 that if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us away from Gods Word to break the commandments of God we are not worshiping God. So it begs the question if we follow man-made teachings and traditions that lead us to break the commandments of God who are we worshiping? There is not a single scripture in all of God's Word that says Gods' 4th commandment of the 10 commandments have now been abolished and we are now commanded to keep Sunday as a holy day of rest. Can you show me where it says this in the scriptures? - There is none.
We do have mass on weekdays but Sunday, the Lord's Day, is special.
Sunday is not "the Lords day" according to the scriptures. The claim that Sunday as "the Lords day" is simply a man-made teaching that is
unsupported by the scriptures.
Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread,... RSVCE
According to the scriptures, Gods' people met everyday to break bread. God's people meeting everyday to break bread does not make everyday the Lords day now does it? Also, there is no scripture in the entire bible that states Sunday or the first day of the week is "the Lords day". This is simply a man-made teaching and tradition unsupported by scripture.
- Acts of the Apostles 2:46-47 [46], And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,[47], Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
So Acts of the Apostles 20:7 was no different to the disciples meeting every other day of the week breaking bread. For your interest the reason why the disciples were meeting together on the first day of the week was because Paul was departing the next day and would not be seeing them anymore for some time.
The ancient Didache also describes the practices of Catholics in the first century: Of Sunday Worship 14. Assemble on the Lord's Day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until they have been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, "Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations."
Once again the Didache is a man-made document that is not scripture that is unsupported by scripture from an unknown source and date outside of the bible with no date and author that mysteriously appeared in 1873. Because the document has no author or date scholars cannot agree when the didache was written and argue anywhere up to 400 AD. Let's be clear
the Didache is not God's Word. Also, if many scholars are of the view that Didache 14:1 that you posted is also a mistranslation of the original Koine Greek does not include the Greek word [day] and the manuscript has no reference point to day and time.
Here is the evidence.
Didache 14:1a in the original Koine Greek reads....
Κατὰ κυριακὴν δὲ κυρίου συναχθέντες κλάσατε ἄρτον καὶ εὐχαριστήσατε, προεξομολογησάμενοι τὰ παραπτώματα ὑμῶν, ὅπως καθαρὰ ἡ θυσία ὑμῶν ᾐ.
Didache 14:1a in the original Greek to literal English....
According to 'the Lord's things' of Lord: gather break bread and give thanks, confessing out
Mistranslated to English....
Didache 14:1a as mistranslated to the English with
no reference point to time for translation reads....
"But every Lord's [day;
not in original Greek] gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving";
[14] another translation begins, "On the Lord's own [day]".
The first clause in Greek, "κατά κυριακήν δέ κυρίου", literally means in English "
On the Lord's of the Lord", a unique and unexplained double possessive, and translators supply the elided noun, e.g., "day" (ἡμέρα
hemera), "commandment" (from the immediately prior verse 13:7), or "doctrine". This is one of two early extra biblical Christian uses of "κυριακήν" where it does not clearly refer to Sunday or a fixed point in time for reference because textual readings have given rise to questions of proper translation as there is no reference point to time or day. According to the scriptures breaking bread of bread is also
not a reference point because this was done daily or weekly at any time of the week *Acts of the Apostles 2:42, 20:7. (see
Ambiguous references).
I provided some detail to your questions in post 32, if there is something specifically more I can inform you about I would be glad to do so. We simply will have to agree to disagree about the writers of the NT.
You did not write
post # 32. Could you please tell me your views on the two questions posted in
post # 327? Perhaps you missed it.
Hope this was helpful.
