Does "catholic" really mean universal?

[Cappadocious]

Catholic means according to the whole, not universal.

 

[Job8]

"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. ... Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned?

This is an excellent example of sophistry or casuistry. By any kind of logic, it does follow that anyone who is NOT visibly within the [RCC] Church is damned. Indeed, that is clearly spelled out in Trent.

Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved.

It depends on what one means by "saved". If it means saved through Sacramentalism, then anyone who violates the rules of Sacramentalism is not saved. And logically, anyone who rejects Sacramentalism is automatically damned.

If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say."

Since Trent rejects justification by grace through faith, this can only mean that someone is simply playing semantic games, e.g. "we cannot always say". Of course you can say it, but you dare not say it.

Catholic meant universal (the whole if you wish), but means Roman Catholic (from Catholic Answers):

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was 'universal' or 'general.' . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

 

[tz620q]

They found out that it meant nothing more than becoming Roman Catholics, period.

Which is precisely what the Traditional Anglican Communion had been trying to have happen for several years before the Anglican Ordinariate was established in 2009.

 

[Albion]

Which is precisely what the Traditional Anglican Communion had been trying to have happen for several years before the Anglican Ordinariate was established in 2009.

You'll have to explain that comment a little bit further before I can respond. I think we are in some disagreement, but "which is..." leaves me wondering what you are referring to exactly.

 

[tz620q]

You'll have to explain that comment a little bit further before I can respond. I think we are in some disagreement, but "which is..." leaves me wondering what you are referring to exactly.

I studied this a bit more and maybe I shouldn't have used the term Traditional Anglican Communion without qualifying that in both the establishment of the Anglican Use parishes starting in 1980 and the Personal Ordinariate in 2009, it was only parts of TAC that asked the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to look at setting up "Anglican" dioceses within the RCC.

 

[John 1:1 GodCZU]

To be precise, all that language your referring to is in my post but it is the quote of Kallistos Ware, titular Metropolitan of Diokleia.

This is an excellent example of sophistry or casuistry. By any kind of logic, it does follow that anyone who is NOT visibly within the [RCC] Church is damned. Indeed, that is clearly spelled out in Trent.

It depends on what one means by "saved". If it means saved through Sacramentalism, then anyone who violates the rules of Sacramentalism is not saved. And logically, anyone who rejects Sacramentalism is automatically damned.

Since Trent rejects justification by grace through faith, this can only mean that someone is simply playing semantic games, e.g. "we cannot always say". Of course you can say it, but you dare not say it.

Catholic meant universal (the whole if you wish), but means Roman Catholic (from Catholic Answers):

 

[Job8]

To be precise, all that language your referring to is in my post but it is the quote of Kallistos Ware, titular Metropolitan of Diokleia.

Correct. And Kallistos was playing word games, rather than dealing with the Truth.

 

[Erose]

And yet Catholics in general refuse to be honest about this. According to Trent all those who reject Roman Catholic doctrine are "accursed" -- bound for Hell. Therefore their Canons essentially state that those who KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY do not accept them "LET HIM BE ANATHEMA". The truth of the matter is that Protestants and non-Catholic Christians are "heretics" in the eyes of the RCC, and all the sweet ecumenical talk is pure deception.

You really have to understand moral theology on this matter. Not everything is black and white, when it comes to being culpable to a sinful act. For a sin to be mortal, i.e. for it to be a rejection of God it requires three things: 1) It has to be a grave matter. 2) One must know that the act is sinful. 3) One must commit the act freely. If any of these three things are missing or reduced then the one who is committing the sin may not be either fully culpable or not as culpable.

Most Protestants especially today, do not know (and this is from the perspective of the Catholic Church) that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of faith. In fact quite a large number have been taught that the Catholic Church is either a false religion, not Christian, or just lost and confused. So it is kind of hard for someone to know that they are suppose to be a Catholic, when they have been taught all their lives that being Catholic is not being either a Christian or living the fullness of faith. So most Protestants do not possess the second criteria above, and thus they are not culpable.

Concerning the "...Let him be anathema!" statement. You should also understand that this extended suffix is used in declarations of Dogma. When this statement is used, especially in the Councils this is an infallible statement of Dogma being declared.

 

[Erose]

To expand a little on what Cappadocius is saying the word "Catholic" does in a sense mean universal, whole, fullness, etc. In the full understanding of the word in relation to the Church is that Catholic refers to the Church have the whole or full revealed truth given to us by Christ. It also means that the Church possesses the full or whole means of salvation, through the Sacraments, given to mankind by Christ.

An analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle. When you have all the pieces in place you can see the "whole" picture right? When you start removing pieces are trying to put pieces in holes that they don't belong you no longer have the "whole" image; but rather a skewed or marred image. And if there is enough pieces missing, or enough pieces that don't belong added then the image can become completely unrecognizable. The Catholic Church believes and teaches that she possesses all the right pieces in all the right places and thus presents the full or complete image of Jesus Christ, who is our head.

That is what Catholic means.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You really have to understand moral theology on this matter. Not everything is black and white, when it comes to being culpable to a sinful act. For a sin to be mortal, i.e. for it to be a rejection of God it requires three things: 1) It has to be a grave matter. 2) One must know that the act is sinful. 3) One must commit the act freely. If any of these three things are missing or reduced then the one who is committing the sin may not be either fully culpable or not as culpable.

Most Protestants especially today, do not know (and this is from the perspective of the Catholic Church) that the Catholic Church possesses the fullness of faith. In fact quite a large number have been taught that the Catholic Church is either a false religion, not Christian, or just lost and confused. So it is kind of hard for someone to know that they are suppose to be a Catholic, when they have been taught all their lives that being Catholic is not being either a Christian or living the fullness of faith. So most Protestants do not possess the second criteria above, and thus they are not culpable.

Concerning the "...Let him be anathema!" statement. You should also understand that this extended suffix is used in declarations of Dogma. When this statement is used, especially in the Councils this is an infallible statement of Dogma being declared.

Thank you for the amusing post. It reminded me of the intense discussions going on today in Iran. Moderate Islamists maintain a similar view regarding the culpability of infidels. If an infidel fails to know that Iran is the greatest country in the world and the location of the fullness of truth, then they say that the infidel is not culpable and should not be beheaded. When, however, these truths are revealed to the infidel and he rejects them, he should be beheaded. Radical Islamists, however, maintain that all infidels and especially Jews and Christians have known these truths for centuries and, therefore, should be beheaded at the earliest opportunity.

I count it a privilege to be considered not to be culpable by the Catholic Church, although I realize that my time in the cleansing shower of purgation might be a bit longer than that of the average Catholic.

 

[Erose]

Thank you for the amusing post.

Hopefully it was informative as well.

It reminded me of the intense discussions going on today in Iran. Moderate Islamists maintain a similar view regarding the culpability of infidels. If an infidel fails to know that Iran is the greatest country in the world and the location of the fullness of truth, then they say that the infidel is not culpable and should not be beheaded. When, however, these truths are revealed to the infidel and he rejects them, he should be beheaded. Radical Islamists, however, maintain that all infidels and especially Jews and Christians have known these truths for centuries and, therefore, should be beheaded at the earliest opportunity.

Granted this is an extreme case; but yes you can see that even the Muslims have an understanding of basic moral culpability. In all reality I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.

I count it a privilege to be considered not to be culpable by the Catholic Church, although I realize that my time in the cleansing shower of purgation might be a bit longer than that of the average Catholic.

There is a greater privilege in learning the fullness i.e. catholicity of the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

In short, the word's meaning is closer to "authentic" than to "worldwide" (which is what most people immediately think).

That being the case, it's not surprising that people of both Catholic and Protestant faiths affirm, with their prayers and in their worship services, that they are aligned with the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" faith. It's all a matter of which belief system one thinks of as the original Christian faith (and, as we all know, many different denominations think theirs is the true faith as Christ delivered it to the church).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hopefully it was informative as well.

Granted this is an extreme case; but yes you can see that even the Muslims have an understanding of basic moral culpability. In all reality I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.

There is a greater privilege in learning the fullness i.e. catholicity of the Catholic Church.

It was informative. Perhaps it might comfort you to know that we Protestants believe that members of your denomination who have placed their trust and faith in Jesus Christ will not be held culpable for all of the other errors they might be prone to believe. Moreover, they will not be forced to endure torment in a non-existant Purgatory for who-knows how long.

 

[Erose]

In short, the word's meaning is closer to "authentic" than to "worldwide" (which is what most people immediately think).

That being the case, it's not surprising that people of both Catholic and Protestant faiths affirm, with their prayers and in their worship services, that they are aligned with the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic" faith. It's all a matter of which belief system one thinks of as the original Christian faith (and, as we all know, many different denominations think theirs is the true faith as Christ delivered it to the church).

Yes I agree. Now we go back to the big debates on which of us is right!

 

[Erose]

It was informative. Perhaps it might comfort you to know that we Protestants believe that members of your denomination who have placed their trust and faith in Jesus Christ will not be held culpable for all of the other errors they might be prone to believe. Moreover, they will not be forced to endure torment in a non-existant Purgatory for who-knows how long.

Glad to hear. Course I am kind of saddened by the idea of not being purged and cleaned up before going to see my King.

 

[Albion]

Yes I agree. Now we go back to the big debates on which of us is right!

That's right. Almost everyone thinks of his own understanding of the faith as the original one and, therefore, as the "Catholic" faith. All of them can't be equally correct about that, of course, but they all can think and say this with equal conviction.

 

[Erose]

That's right. Almost everyone thinks of his own understanding of the faith as the original one and, therefore, as the "Catholic" faith. All of them can't be equally correct about that, of course, but they all can think and say this with equal conviction.

True. Quite frankly I don't know why anyone would stay with a church or faith tradition that they don't believe teaches the fullness of the Gospel.