RCC does not equal Catholic

i would like to make the request that posters be careful in their use of the word 'catholic' as it does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church but to all believers around the world.

yes i am well aware of the common usage of the word 'catholic' but it is time to make the distinction so that confusion can be avoided. the RCC is not a christian church but teaches false doctrines and practices anti-scriptural ideas and there is a big difference between that sect and the true catholic church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

i would like to make the request that posters be careful in their use of the word 'catholic' as it does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church but to all believers around the world.

yes i am well aware of the common usage of the word 'catholic' but it is time to make the distinction so that confusion can be avoided. the RCC is not a christian church but teaches false doctrines and practices anti-scriptural ideas and there is a big difference between that sect and the true catholic church.

---

I do not think there is any real confusion. When you capitalize the word Catholic, it is referring to a proper noun. All proper nouns are capitalized. When the word is uncapitalized, it is not a proper noun and so its root meaning of "universal" is understood. For the Catholic, the teachings of the Church are the most complete due to its derived authority coming from Christ to Peter and p***ed on succession. The term "Roman Catholic" is a Protestant creation. The Oxford English Dictionary states that the term "romish, Roman" and other such terms were offensive terms used singularly. Do to a political treaty in France between warring factions, the Church signed onto a peace treaty drafted by the Protestants that used the term "Roman Catholic." Most Catholics do not use the two words together due to this construct, but occasionally does make it necessary to use when dicussiong Old Catholic and Anglo-Catholic as not being a part of the Catholic Church. I think you will notice in the Nicene Creed that Lutherans/Anglicans do not capitalize the word. In the Catholic and even the Orthodox, the word is capitalized "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Actually, it is has been awhile since I have been to an Anglican comunion or a Lutheran communion in some time, so the Anglican communion might capitalize it. I do recall the Methodist when citing the Creed to not capitalize it. At any rate, I think nobody is confused at the English usage of the term. You are en***led to believe what you will regarding the teachings of the Catholic Church and you can very well call yourself catholic. I have no problems with that. But in terms of what the horse's mouth teaches, and what you think they teach has been an eye opener for me when I as a Protestant actually read the Catechism and looked at the bibliographical notes that quoted scripture, papal encyclicals, the Summa Theologica, and other such Early Church Father references that substantiates the Catholic teaching. I therefore left my misconceptions behind grounding in a better research methodology than just quoting secondary and sometimes third source materials. Jack Chic is not a reliable reference and so is anyone that fails to cite their references properly.

Quote:

---

I do not think there is any real confusion

---

the proper term is 'Roman catholic Church' not 'Catholic', the latter is used because too many people get lazy.

Quote:

---

Jack Chic is not a reliable reference and so is anyone that fails to cite their references properly.

---

you are one insulting person and a hypocrite as you did not cite properly either. one big long paragraph is the sign of a mentally disturbed person, by the way, and your ***umptions destroy your other posts as well as this one and what's left of your credibility.

Quote:

---

The term "Roman Catholic" is a Protestant creation.

---

actually it is not and if you want to be part of academia, learn to cite sources to support your points.

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (OED 2nd ed. CD-ROM version 3.1).

sigh... do you actually read what people right? let me quote myself to demonstrate what i mean:

Quote:

---

would like to make the request that posters be careful in their use of the word 'catholic' as it does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church but to all believers around the world.

---

do you know what a request is? it is requiring a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer or an 'okay' will do or even a 'sorry, no can do'

i am well aware of the usages of the word 'catholic' which is why i made the REQUEST for clarification. if you cannot comply, no problem but leave your sermons at the door.

but since you have gone into history here is what webster has to say on the topic:

Quote:

---

C̵ATH´OLIC̵, a. [Gr. καθολικος, κατα and ολικος, from ολος, the whole; L. catholicus; Fr. catholique; Sp. catolico; It. cattolico.]
Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
2. Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man.
3. Liberal; as catholic principles.
Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church.

Webster, N. 2006. Noah Webster's first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Reprint of the 1828 ed. published under ***le: An American dictionary of the English language. Foundation for American Christian Education: Anaheim, CA

---

yes i bolded those words for a purpose--it shows that the RCC took the word to imply a standing for their sect when they do not deserve such recognition.

but such appropriations seem to be the order of the day for the RCC church as they claim to be the true church based upon an erroneous doctrine--apostolic succession.

there is NO teaching in the Bible which states that the true church has apostolic succession, there is NO teaching in the Bible that apostolic succession took place. thus, like the mormon church, the RCC sect is building a false image and lying to the people of the world.

(reference: Recently the new Pope issued a statement that the Roman Catholic Church was the true church of God and all the others were the fakes. He based his position on the R.C.C.’ doctrine of apostolic succession { http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm }. )

the true church follows Jesus and His disciples not false doctrines.

archaeologist,

You wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

the proper term is 'Roman catholic Church' not 'Catholic', the latter is used because too many people get lazy.

---

You're completely wrong.

1) The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church.

2) 'Roman Catholic" is a term largely invented by Protestants as a pejorative. You don't have to believe me. Look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary.

3) Only in English is the Protestant phrase 'Roman Catholic' commonly used. Because of the cultural importance of English, this is now happening more often in other languages, but it is still only standard in English.

Your later comments to Columcille were offensive and unnecessary. I have no idea who you are and quite frankly don't care. Your lack of knowledge does not impress me either.

Like I said, look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary - a publication written and edited by Protestants at a Protestant university press - and see that you're completely wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

sigh... do you actually read what people right? let me quote myself to demonstrate what i mean:



do you know what a request is? it is requiring a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer or an 'okay' will do or even a 'sorry, no can do'

i am well aware of the usages of the word 'catholic' which is why i made the REQUEST for clarification. if you cannot comply, no problem but leave your sermons at the door.

---

I am a Catholic and I hold certain doctrines to be catholic: the incarnation of Christ, the Trinity, and the resurrection. In essense, I would recite the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. So in terms of my usage, I as a Catholic am not going to create some sort of English Academy like the French and think there is some sort of pure English holy language. You certainly do not have the authority as a linguist to dictate any sort of proper request as to how the English language is to communicate itself. The usage for the word "Catholic" is found in context as a fitting proper noun that everyone already recongizes as the "Roman Catholic Church." I see no reason to add the word Roman because the Latin Rite's jurisdiction is not limited to Rome but to all its diocese around the world and in the Orthodox Church since they also capitalize "Catholic" in the Nicene Creed and also for the fact that to restate Roman Catholic over and over again is redundant.

Quote:

---

You're completely wrong.

---

this would disagree withyou

http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Catholic_Church


and this

Quote:

---

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

---

would indicte thatthe authorities of the RCC worked hard to promote their deception and imply that they rule all christendom by their altered terminology

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

then as everywhere else, the RCC seems to appropriate certain comments and apply it to themselves when the context and the intent are quite oppopsite:

Quote:

---

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

---

as would this;

Quote:

---

A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned.

In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic".

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

---

actually this last site is quite informative and you should read it as it is not practicing deceptionike the RCC.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/rcatholi.htm

though i am well aware that the term 'Catholic' is used to refer to the RCC for piont of discussion on this board, those who referto the RCC should use the initials RCC or the words Roman catholic simply because they are NOT the universal churchnor are they a christian one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

this would disagree withyou.

---

Actually it agrees with me. Notice how it says "common" name. It does not say "official" name. I already pointed out - CORRECTLY - that "Only in English is the Protestant phrase 'Roman Catholic' commonly used."

I was right. The website you picked actually agreed with me. How embarr***ing for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

would indicte thatthe authorities of the RCC worked hard to promote their deception and imply that they rule all christendom by their altered terminology.

---

Actually the article you cited said what I said. Again, you have proven me correct. Thanks for the ***ist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

then as everywhere else, the RCC seems to appropriate certain comments and apply it to themselves when the context and the intent are quite oppopsite:.

---

And what you cite proves me right yet again. After all the New Oxford Dictionary says:

"A qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. Out of condescension for these dissidents, the members of that Church are wont in official documents to be styled "Roman Catholics" as if the term Catholic represented a genus of which those who owned allegiance to the pope formed a particular species. It is in fact a prevalent conception among Anglicans to regard the whole Catholic Church as made up of three principal branches, the Roman Catholic, the Anglo-Catholic and the Greek Catholic. As the erroneousness of this point of view has been sufficiently explained in the articles CHURCH and CATHOLIC, it is only needful here to consider the history of the composite term with which we are now concerned."

And that too is what I said - that it is a Protestant creation.

"In the "Oxford English Dictionary", the highest existing authority upon questions of English philology, the following explanation is given under the heading "Roman Catholic"."

The following, what you posted, is NOT ALL of what is contained in the OED. I am not surprised that you only posted one portion.

And yet, nothing in that p***age went against what I posted. Everything you posted confirmed that what I posted was correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

though i am well aware that the term 'Catholic' is used to refer to the RCC for piont of discussion on this board, those who referto the RCC should use the initials RCC or the words Roman catholic simply because they are NOT the universal churchnor are they a christian one.

---

You poor, sad creature. Even though you deny Christ by your actions I still freely admit that you are a Christian if you acknowledge Christ as the Messiah, Son of God and your Lord Who died for your sins. And yet you cannot do the same for Catholics. You lack charity as well as truth. What a pity.

Quote:

---

Actually it agrees with me. Notice how it says "common" name. It does not say "official" name.

---

pulease, grasping at straws, it also does NOT say it is NOT the official name of the organization. in fact it does not mention any official name for the organization which leads me to suspect that RCC is the official name.

Quote:

---

Actually the article you cited said what I said. Again, you have proven me correct. Thanks for the ***ist

---

no you missed the ppoiont of the quote used, here it is again and let's see if you can get it:

Quote:

---

The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself

---

if you want to do battle of the dictionaries, webster's agrees with me:

Quote:

---

Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church

---

notice the word 'appropriate' this is another usage of the word which denotes taking without authorization and shows that the RCC is trying to deceive unbelievers into thinking they are the true church when they are not.

Quote:

---

You poor, sad creature. Even though you deny Christ by your actions

---

such a comment shows you do not follow Christ and that you are trying to convince yourself that you are still a christian even though you follow false doctrines and a non-christian sect.

Quote:

---

And yet you cannot do the same for Catholics. You lack charity as well as truth. What a pity.

---

of course i cannot do that for the RCC people, they are NOT christian and adhere to false doctrines and follow a false leader. i am in obedience to Christ whereas you are not.

p.s. by the way, webster's also has this within its pages:

Quote:

---

RO´MISH, a. [from Rome.] Belonging or relating to Rome, or to the religion professed by the people of Rome and of the western empire, of which Rome was the metropolis; catholic; popish; as the Romish church; the Romish religion, ritual or ceremonies.

---

it is clear that the RCC is practicing deception and can't even admit what their real name was or is.

You wrote:

"pulease, grasping at straws, it also does NOT say it is NOT the official name of the organization."

And yet everyone knows it ISN'T the official name of the Church - unless they are poorly educated or catechized. It's just that simple.

"in fact it does not mention any official name for the organization which leads me to suspect that RCC is the official name."


Based on an internet article written by God only knows who? Again, that makes no sense.


"no you missed the ppoiont of the quote used, here it is again and let's see if you can get it:...if you want to do battle of the dictionaries, webster's agrees with me:"

1) I would have to see proof of that.
2) Why would an English phrase show up in Latin documents?
3) Why would the English bishops care if they were bound by anti-Catholic laws in England to use the phrase 'Roman Catholic' since the 17th century or even earlier? Why would it matter?


"notice the word 'appropriate' this is another usage of the word which denotes taking without authorization and shows that the RCC is trying to deceive unbelievers into thinking they are the true church when they are not."

And, again, nonsense. The Catholic Church IS the Christian Church of the early centuries. It simply kept the name it always had. It never had 'Roman Catholic' as its name.


"such a comment shows you do not follow Christ and that you are trying to convince yourself that you are still a christian even though you follow false doctrines and a non-christian sect."

Nope. I look at your attacks on Christ's Church and see your words. They speak for themselves.


"of course i cannot do that for the RCC people, they are NOT christian and adhere to false doctrines and follow a false leader. i am in obedience to Christ whereas you are not."

See what I mean? You have no charity and care nothing for the truth, but you claim you are in obedience to Christ. Christ never taught us to hate the truth or to be uncharitable.

"p.s. by the way, webster's also has this within its pages:Quote:
RO´MISH, a. [from Rome.] Belonging or relating to Rome, or to the religion professed by the people of Rome and of the western empire, of which Rome was the metropolis; catholic; popish; as the Romish church; the Romish religion, ritual or ceremonies."


And 'Romish' is a pejorative. Check the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary and see.

"it is clear that the RCC is practicing deception and can't even admit what their real name was or is."

Webster wrote in English and was an anti-Catholic Protestant like other anti-Catholic Protestants of his era - all that just proves my point.

You failed again.

over the years i have noticed a trend--almost every person who subscribes to an alternatve to the Bible always make the claim that they are christian YET they do not follow the Bible as God's word, accept what it says in Gen. 1-10, (or other p***ages), claim there are other ways to salvation, teach false doctrines and so on.

even when it has been shown that they are wrong, with evidence, they still make the claim. do you want to know why that is?

simple. they want the rewards and benefits of God without the cost He says they must endure. they want their own ways because they do not want to do things God's way or take the time to work through the dificult p***ages of scripture and the idea that God punishes those who disobey His commands.

they also want to be 'inclusive' which means that they do not care how someone lives, they want everyone to be admitted to heaven. they do not want to be sent to hell YET they refuse God's way to salvation and invent their own alternativesso they do not have to humble themselves and be a servant to God.

being a RCC is NOT the same as being a christian and the RCC does not equal being catholic, for their teachings put them outside of biblical criteria for inclusion in that group. they should, instead of appropriating ***les they have no right to own, drop their false doctrines, dismiss their saints and other unscriptural practices and return to Jesus and his teachings.

those that contiue to hang on to their false ideas do so desperately trying to convince themselves that they are right YET cannot find any support in the Bible and look to men to shore up their 'faith'.

archeologist,

You wrote:

"over the years i have noticed a trend--almost every person who subscribes to an alternatve to the Bible always make the claim that they are christian YET they do not follow the Bible as God's word, accept what it says in Gen. 1-10, (or other p***ages), claim there are other ways to salvation, teach false doctrines and so on."

I accept the Bible as God's Word. You're wrong again. This is becoming rather routine. You make claims. They're refuted.

I will stick with my claim--RCC does not = catholic. it is not the true church, it is not of God though there are a few true believers within its boundaries. unfortunately, there is not enough to rid the sect of its heresies and false teachings/practices.

Well...

If "Roman Catholic" is not concise, then how about

PAPIST?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kentuckypreacher

Well...

If "Roman Catholic" is not concise, then how about

PAPIST?

---

How about Catholic? That's what we call ourselves. That's what our Catechism is called. That's what our Church is called.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

I will stick with my claim--RCC does not = catholic.

---

Your claim. Unproven. Unsubstantiated. Unsupported by evidence. Must be a Protestant thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

it is not the true church, it is not of God though there are a few true believers within its boundaries. unfortunately, there is not enough to rid the sect of its heresies and false teachings/practices.

---

The Catholic Church is THE Church. You're in sect. Your sect is puny. Most likely your sect is little known or even unknown to history. Your sect may have been founded last year or a century ago or perhaps about 470 years ago. In any case, compared to THE Church, it is just a novelty, a sect and it was founded by a man, just a man while the Church was founded by God.

I don't mind calling you "Catholic" (instead of "Roman Catholic") - either way, neither is a New Testament name, or description, of the Lord's church (see Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2; et al.).:)

You wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kentuckypreacher

I don't mind calling you "Catholic" (instead of "Roman Catholic") - either way, neither is a New Testament name, or description, of the Lord's church (see Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2; et al.).:)

---

You're right as far as I know. The word 'Trinity' also never appears. 'Bible' also never appears in the New Testament as we use it today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by archaeologist

i would like to make the request that posters be careful in their use of the word 'catholic' as it does NOT refer to the Roman Catholic Church but to all believers around the world.

---

you better define your terms then each time you post something, because I (and about a billion other people) use the term "Catholic" to mean only the Roman Catholic Church....


So if its a big deal to you, then you better get used to needing to provide a definition of what you mean by the term each time you post on it.