Catholic: What It Means, Past, Present, Future

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
What It Means to Be Catholic: The Past, the Present, and the Future

What does “Catholic” really mean?

In order to answer that question, to the benefit of Catholic and non-Catholic alike, I’d like to examine the core distinguishing elements of catholicity. I hope to reveal the inner logic of the word, which is the unity of the people of God in all eras, in every place, in dogma and worship, and in life and death.

Apart from Acts of the Apostles, chapter 9, which uses a similar phrase, “Catholic” is first used to describe the Church by St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostles Peter, Paul, and John, who died a martyr in Rome around A.D. 107.

Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Since St. Ignatius presents the term without explanation, it is reasonable to take this title or mark of the Church as apostolic. From this point on, the Church is called Catholic by many early Church Fathers, including Irenaeus, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, Augustine of Hippo, and many others, in a variety of different contexts. Augustine speaks of the Catholic community in each city being so notoriously unique that everyone knew who they were, though by this time many heretical sects claimed the title of Christian.

Grammatically, the Greek word καθολικός means “according to the whole,” or more popularly, “universal.” With the transition in the European and west African regions from Greek to Latin in the third century, the Latin equivalent catholicus began to be used as a proper name for that papal, episcopal, clerical, monastic, and lay society present in every city and region and organized around the city of Rome.

The most important reference to the catholicity of the Church is in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed, in which belief in the Church and her identity is made an article of faith equally important to and dependent on the divinity and activity of the Holy Spirit. From the original Greek:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

The simplest and most enduring sense in which the Church is Catholic is hierarchically. The whole and complete Church, the Church that is truly universal, is the one ruled by the pope and governed in every city by bishops in communion with him, because she stands united under a single authority and listens to one voice: that of Christ, far above the din of political schemes, cultural and national quarrels, and ecclesiastical disagreements. This is the sense best understood today, and in this respect, being Catholic means embracing the pope’s communion; being subject to his lawful commands; listening to and obeying that bishop who rules in union with him; and most importantly, believing all that has formally issued from the Chair of Peter in every century.

The Church is also Catholic in the unity of its parts within the whole. As a society spread throughout the world, she holds one and the same faith in every place. She worships with one voice and makes one solemn sacrifice, though in many rites, and she listens to one teaching authority. Despite the fact the Church adapts herself to every nation and culture, she first baptizes them and then infuses them with one wisdom: Christ. Because of this, one region and another must exhibit visible unity in prayer, sacraments, and doctrine. The Latin rite cannot appear substantially different from the Greek rite, nor can Greek doctrine differ substantially from Roman. Each rite and tradition challenges the others to remain faithful to the Holy Spirit, the invisible soul of the visible Church. This principle emphatically excludes the practice of offering the sacrifice of the Mass in whatever style or liturgical orientation one pleases and casts doubt on the wisdom of reforming the text and especially the ars celebrandi of the Mass, not to mention the divine office and the other six sacraments. No less does it exclude the habit of some Greek rite Catholics and nearly all Greek Orthodox of pretending that disunity in dogmatic theology is legitimate diversity.

Is this all that it is to be Catholic? Far from it! On the contrary, the most important aspects of catholicity are invisible. Catholic unity at its heart is the unity of the Holy Trinity. It is the unity of the Son of God with His human nature, which He received by the gracious fiat of Mary, mother of God and of us all. It is the unity of the whole Church, the Body of Christ, with its head, Jesus. Lastly, it is the unity of all His members in every time, both living and dead, so that “God may be all in all” and that we “may be one” as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are, and that “neither death nor life will separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28, John 17:21, Rom. 8:38-39). Moreover, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

In the final analysis, Christ is the Church, and the Church is Christ, and the Church embraces as her members all the righteous patriarchs and prophets of the Old Covenant freed from limbo by Christ’s harrowing of Hades. One Holy Spirit speaks of one holy God in one holy Church from Adam to today. In the words of St. Ignatius:

[Christ] is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church. All these have for their object the attaining to the unity of God. But the gospel possesses something transcendent: the appearance of our Lord, Jesus Christ, His passion and resurrection. For the beloved prophets announced Him, but the gospel is the perfection of immortality. All these things are good together, if you believe in love.

These principles mean that the Church militant, the Church triumphant, and the Church suffering all constitute one body whose members enjoy one communion of saints. This is why we invoke the names of our departed over the consecrated gifts at the Mass and seek the prayers of the martyrs and saints in heaven, confident that we can both help and be helped by those who no longer sojourn with us.

Moreover, because the one Church is as old as humanity, and because one Spirit “has spoken through the prophets in one apostolic Church,” the ritual of the sacrifice of the Mass, the celebration of the sacraments, and the hierarchical constitution of the Church militant are foreshadowed in the Levitical ordinances imposed on the Hebrews by Christ through Moses. With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem forty years after our God’s resurrection and thirty years before the death of his apostle John, Christ’s sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist displaces and fulfills all the Levitical sacrifices and is that worship that infallibly pleases God and is offered to his name by every nation.

According to the prophet Malachi:

From the rising of the sun even to the going down thereof my name has been glorified among the gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering: for my name is great among the gentiles, saith the Lord Almighty.

With this broad vision, and knowing we worship the God of the prophets, Jesus Christ our Lord, the necessity of liturgical continuity with the past becomes blindingly evident. If the Catholic Church is prophesied by and foreshadowed in the Hebrew people, our worship is temple worship and should exceed the glory of the Levitical cult in Solomon’s temple, inasmuch as “we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor. 3:18). The mystical liturgical cult of our Church is foreshadowed in temple, tabernacle, and ultimately the garden of Eden, and brought to its fulfillment on that sacred night when Christ our Lord took the sacrifices of Melchizedek, gave thanks to His Father through them, transubstantiated them into Himself, and offered Himself under those signs in anticipation of his crucifixion and resurrection.

In conclusion, then, I’ll leave you with the fulfillment of Malachi’s words in Christ’s covenant, in the words of the Roman canon, which dates to the first century after Nicaea:

Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed passion, the resurrection from the dead, and the glorious ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy bread of eternal life and the chalice of everlasting salvation. Be pleased to look upon these offerings with a serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as once you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim.
 

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Site Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,411
5,519
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟609,344.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Some time back I wrote this for our Parish Website (Anglican) - and I was remonded of it when I read your post.
Catholic.jpg
Catholic, from the Greek phrase ‘kata holos‘, meaning “according to the whole”. The word in common English can mean either “all-embracing” or ‘universal’, and is sometimes used in a Church context as “relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the whole Church.”

It was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope.

From an Anglican perspective catholic implies or means directly the church which,
  • is Jesus centred on prayer and the sacramental life.
  • has a focus in mission
  • declares the ancient creeds,
  • whose ordained ministry includes the Historic Episcopate (Bishops), Priests and Deacons;
  • is faithful to the the Canon of Scripture,
  • is determined to serve all people, especially the weak and the marginalised
  • exercises a prophetic voice, with a call for social justice
Sometimes people mistake certain practices in the church as being catholic, such as burning incense, lighting candles, wearing vestments, and the like. Whilst these practices are within the catholic church, they by no means define it. Another confusion that people make is that of thinking it is simply defined by that part of the church that has it’s focus of authority centered in Rome. Quite clearly this misses the point on several scores, such as to exclude the Eastern Orthodox Churches governed by the five Oecumenical Patriarchs, and of course the Anglican Church, The Old Catholics, and numerous other Churches who clearly are Catholic with the proper understanding of the term..

All three creeds (Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian) make reference to a belief in the Catholic Church – and clearly that belief is not acknowledging that there is another congregation down the street. There have been several efforts to rephrase the creed and use another word, (such as universal) however this always seems to fall short of the force and strength of a word that we have used for most of the life of the Church. Far better we understand what it means.

A very important part of our understanding of Catholic is our historic connection to the Church, not simply in every place, but also in every time. It is this connection through time that is expressed in the notion of Apostolic Succession – a line of Bishops tracing back to the Apostles, and therefore to Jesus.

It is importantly a Church for all People, at All Times, and in All Places. To hold the catholic faith is to be inclusive.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: archer75
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It is comforting to know that all Christians are members of the invisible, catholic church known to God and that none shall ever perish.
It is, isn't it? But don't count on calling yourself "Christian"...not speaking of you, specifically, but you can deny your salvation by sin.
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is, isn't it? But don't count on calling yourself "Christian"...not speaking of you, specifically, but you can deny your salvation by sin.
Not by definition. It's only true in the counterfeit churches.
 
Upvote 0

WebersHome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 7, 2017
2,140
460
Oregon
✟368,343.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
-
A large percentage of the active Catholics that I encounter on the world wide web assume I parted company with Rome over some petty dispute. Not so. The Church has never disappointed me nor done anything to make me angry, insult me, or hurt my feelings. The 24 years that I was affiliated with Rome were very satisfactory. I was proud, pleased, and happy to be a Roman Catholic; and fully persuaded in my own mind that Catholicism is the one true religion.

But Rome's version of Jesus and the New Testament's version are not in agreement. For example, Christ made this statement.

John 6:39 . .This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of what He gave me

Now, one aspect of Christ about which I am positive is that he is very serious about complying with his Father's will; thus he stated:

John 8:29 . .The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do what is pleasing to Him.

Were Christ to fail at complying with his Father's will. i.e. were he to lose even one single thing of what his Father has given him, then it would be dishonest of Christ to claim to "always" please God. He might be able to claim pleasing God a high percentage of the time, but certainly not always.

Now, one of the things that his Father has given Christ for safe keeping is sheep (John 10:27-30). Were Jesus to lose one single head of those sheep-- even just one --he would fail to always please his Father.

Regarding those sheep, Jesus stated:

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."

It has actually been suggested that the sheep are an exception. In other words; it's been suggested that there's nothing to prevent the sheep from taking themselves out of Jesus' hand.

The posit is actually a vote of no-confidence in the good shepherd's determination to succeed at pleasing God; and reveals a belief that the sheep have enough strength and cunning to overpower their shepherd and run off.

Were the good shepherd only human, then I would be inclined to agree with the posit that his sheep might get past him and run off. But the Bible teaches that Christ is not only a human, but also the divine architect of the entire cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy. So then, the good shepherd has at his disposal all the powers and abilities of the supreme being to utilize in keeping his Father's sheep right where he wants them to be.

Surely no one in a right mind would dare to suggest that sheep have sufficient powers and abilities of their own at their disposal to overcome Christ. Were that the case, the sheep would have no need of his services; the sheep could shepherd themselves.

But even were the sheep to somehow manage to escape Christ's hand, they would still have his Father's hand to contend with; and good luck getting away from Almighty God!

Now, seeing as how the good shepherd has all the powers of the supreme being at his disposal to keep the sheep, then it shouldn't take too much more to persuade the sheep that it's okay to fully trust in this next statement of his.

John 10:9 . . I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.

Were Christ a so-so shepherd; then he wouldn't dare say "will be" saved; no, he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would leave him some room for error. But when Christ says "will be" he's claiming a 0.0% failure rate. That's how confident Christ is that he will lose nothing of what his Father has given him.

/
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,078
13,323
72
✟366,895.00
Faith
Non-Denom
-
A large percentage of the active Catholics that I encounter on the world wide web assume I parted company with Rome over some petty dispute. Not so. The Church has never disappointed me nor done anything to make me angry, insult me, or hurt my feelings. The 24 years that I was affiliated with Rome were very satisfactory. I was proud, pleased, and happy to be a Roman Catholic; and fully persuaded in my own mind that Catholicism is the one true religion.

But Rome's version of Jesus and the New Testament's version are not in agreement. For example, Christ made this statement.

John 6:39 . .This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of what He gave me

Now, one aspect of Christ about which I am positive is that he is very serious about complying with his Father's will; thus he stated:

John 8:29 . .The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do what is pleasing to Him.

Were Christ to fail at complying with his Father's will. i.e. were he to lose even one single thing of what his Father has given him, then it would be dishonest of Christ to claim to "always" please God. He might be able to claim pleasing God a high percentage of the time, but certainly not always.

Now, one of the things that his Father has given Christ for safe keeping is sheep (John 10:27-30). Were Jesus to lose one single head of those sheep-- even just one --he would fail to always please his Father.

Regarding those sheep, Jesus stated:

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."

It has actually been suggested that the sheep are an exception. In other words; it's been suggested that there's nothing to prevent the sheep from taking themselves out of Jesus' hand.

The posit is actually a vote of no-confidence in the good shepherd's determination to succeed at pleasing God; and reveals a belief that the sheep have enough strength and cunning to overpower their shepherd and run off.

Were the good shepherd only human, then I would be inclined to agree with the posit that his sheep might get past him and run off. But the Bible teaches that Christ is not only a human, but also the divine architect of the entire cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy. So then, the good shepherd has at his disposal all the powers and abilities of the supreme being to utilize in keeping his Father's sheep right where he wants them to be.

Surely no one in a right mind would dare to suggest that sheep have sufficient powers and abilities of their own at their disposal to overcome Christ. Were that the case, the sheep would have no need of his services; the sheep could shepherd themselves.

But even were the sheep to somehow manage to escape Christ's hand, they would still have his Father's hand to contend with; and good luck getting away from Almighty God!

Now, seeing as how the good shepherd has all the powers of the supreme being at his disposal to keep the sheep, then it shouldn't take too much more to persuade the sheep that it's okay to fully trust in this next statement of his.

John 10:9 . . I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.

Were Christ a so-so shepherd; then he wouldn't dare say "will be" saved; no, he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would leave him some room for error. But when Christ says "will be" he's claiming a 0.0% failure rate. That's how confident Christ is that he will lose nothing of what his Father has given him./

Thank you for your excellent post. I have known many Christians like you and I thank God that He keeps His promises.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Not by definition. It's only true in the counterfeit churches.
Not so. Lifelong Christians who turn their back on God before they die lose their salvation. It has nothing to do with denomination.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,078
13,323
72
✟366,895.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Not so. Lifelong Christians who turn their back on God before they die lose their salvation. It has nothing to do with denomination.

Yes, it is a great pity that God cannot keep His sheep in His fold (John 10:27-30).

27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rick Otto
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Not so. Lifelong Christians who turn their back on God before they die lose their salvation. It has nothing to do with denomination.
That's another false doctrine along with the misleading remark about denominations, a different topic entirely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeaconDean
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
-
A large percentage of the active Catholics that I encounter on the world wide web assume I parted company with Rome over some petty dispute. Not so. The Church has never disappointed me nor done anything to make me angry, insult me, or hurt my feelings. The 24 years that I was affiliated with Rome were very satisfactory. I was proud, pleased, and happy to be a Roman Catholic; and fully persuaded in my own mind that Catholicism is the one true religion.

But Rome's version of Jesus and the New Testament's version are not in agreement. For example, Christ made this statement.

John 6:39 . .This is the will of the one who sent me; that I should not lose anything of what He gave me

Now, one aspect of Christ about which I am positive is that he is very serious about complying with his Father's will; thus he stated:

John 8:29 . .The one who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, because I always do what is pleasing to Him.

Were Christ to fail at complying with his Father's will. i.e. were he to lose even one single thing of what his Father has given him, then it would be dishonest of Christ to claim to "always" please God. He might be able to claim pleasing God a high percentage of the time, but certainly not always.

Now, one of the things that his Father has given Christ for safe keeping is sheep (John 10:27-30). Were Jesus to lose one single head of those sheep-- even just one --he would fail to always please his Father.

Regarding those sheep, Jesus stated:

"I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand."

It has actually been suggested that the sheep are an exception. In other words; it's been suggested that there's nothing to prevent the sheep from taking themselves out of Jesus' hand.

The posit is actually a vote of no-confidence in the good shepherd's determination to succeed at pleasing God; and reveals a belief that the sheep have enough strength and cunning to overpower their shepherd and run off.

Were the good shepherd only human, then I would be inclined to agree with the posit that his sheep might get past him and run off. But the Bible teaches that Christ is not only a human, but also the divine architect of the entire cosmos with all of its forms of life, matter, and energy. So then, the good shepherd has at his disposal all the powers and abilities of the supreme being to utilize in keeping his Father's sheep right where he wants them to be.

Surely no one in a right mind would dare to suggest that sheep have sufficient powers and abilities of their own at their disposal to overcome Christ. Were that the case, the sheep would have no need of his services; the sheep could shepherd themselves.

But even were the sheep to somehow manage to escape Christ's hand, they would still have his Father's hand to contend with; and good luck getting away from Almighty God!

Now, seeing as how the good shepherd has all the powers of the supreme being at his disposal to keep the sheep, then it shouldn't take too much more to persuade the sheep that it's okay to fully trust in this next statement of his.

John 10:9 . . I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.

Were Christ a so-so shepherd; then he wouldn't dare say "will be" saved; no, he'd have to tone it down a bit and say "can be" saved. That would leave him some room for error. But when Christ says "will be" he's claiming a 0.0% failure rate. That's how confident Christ is that he will lose nothing of what his Father has given him.

/

Another passage of scripture that shows the same thing, is:

"And he said, A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found." -Lk. 15:11-24 (KJV)

I'm wondering, if anybody can show me where the prodigal son ceased to be his father's son by anything he did.

Let's say the prodigal son was named "Smyth". Sure he left his fathers house, went out and spent his money on "wine, women, and song" as the old saying goes.

When did the son cease to be a "Smyth"?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yahchristian

Active Member
Mar 3, 2017
389
73
65
South Carolina
✟20,400.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What does “Catholic” really mean?

Whereas all believers are part of the "catholic" (lowercase c) or universal church. The word "Catholic" (capital C) normally means those who believe "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (Catholic catechism 882).
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,078
13,323
72
✟366,895.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Whereas all believers are part of the "catholic" (lowercase c) or universal church. The word "Catholic" (capital C) normally means those who believe "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (Catholic catechism 882).

Excellent post. It is quite clear that Catholics put their faith in the Pope. My faith, on the other hand, is in Jesus Christ alone.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Whereas all believers are part of the "catholic" (lowercase c) or universal church. The word "Catholic" (capital C) normally means those who believe "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (Catholic catechism 882).
I don't believe it matters or changes the meaning of the word by capitalizing the first letter.
 
Upvote 0

Root of Jesse

Admiral of the Fleet/First Sea Lord
Site Supporter
Jun 23, 2011
18,910
3,646
Bay Area, California
Visit site
✟354,065.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Excellent post. It is quite clear that Catholics put their faith in the Pope. My faith, on the other hand, is in Jesus Christ alone.
Actually, our faith in Christ goes through the Pope.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Yahchristian

Active Member
Mar 3, 2017
389
73
65
South Carolina
✟20,400.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't believe it matters or changes the meaning of the word by capitalizing the first letter.

Capitalization does matter.

The word "Catholic" (capital C) is a proper name (same with "Progressive" with a capital P). Whereas the word "catholic" (lowercase c) is not (same with "progressive" with a lowercase p).

In other words, the difference between the statements "I am a member of the catholic church" and "I am a member of the Catholic church" is similar to the difference between the statements "I have a progressive insurance plan" and "I have a Progressive insurance plan".

So... The word "Catholic" (capital C) is a proper name of those who believe "the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (Catholic catechism 882).
 
Upvote 0