Arian Catholics

[Halcyon]

It was more a question of "according to the whole" vs. "throughout the whole" that caught my eye.

I'm confused, does it really matter?

My understanding is that Polycarp wanted to unite all the separate 2nd century churches under one banner, that of the universal/catholic Christian church. To do this he would need to remove all he saw as heresy, so that all Christians believed pretty much the same thing. Thus creating a "belief according to the whole" which is identical to a "belief throughout the whole", isn't it?

If someone today identifies their Church as Catholic, aren't they just saying that they are the true church (as they see it), uniting all true believers?
I mean, the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox are truly Catholic nowadays as they do not encompass all Christian churches, but they do believe they encompass all true believers, do they not?

Am i totally wrong?

 

[doppelganger]

If someone today identifies their Church as Catholic, aren't they just saying that they are the true church (as they see it), uniting all true believers?
I mean, the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox are truly Catholic nowadays as they do not encompass all Christian churches, but they do believe they encompass all true believers, do they not?

Am i totally wrong?

I think you are exactly right. You can see this method in action in the exchange between JamesthePersian and I about Constantius II's bringing back of the Arians. The Arians are not "Roman Catholic" even if the Roman Emperor says they are, if I choose to define "Catholic" solely by reference to whether they agree or not with the dogmas to which I hold. It is the fundamental tautology that underlies the entire "orthodox" approach to religion - those who agree with the symbolic language in which I prefer to profess my faith are "Catholic" as they share in the "true" faith, and those who disagree aren't of the faith at all.

How many people does it take to make a "Catholic" faith? Given the method of orthodoxy, you could accomplish it with only one.

the doppleganger

 

[Quiddity]

I'm confused, does it really matter?

My understanding is that Polycarp wanted to unite all the separate 2nd century churches under one banner, that of the universal/catholic Christian church. To do this he would need to remove all he saw as heresy, so that all Christians believed pretty much the same thing. Thus creating a "belief according to the whole" which is identical to a "belief throughout the whole", isn't it?

If someone today identifies their Church as Catholic, aren't they just saying that they are the true church (as they see it), uniting all true believers?
I mean, the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox are truly Catholic nowadays as they do not encompass all Christian churches, but they do believe they encompass all true believers, do they not?

Am i totally wrong?

It does matter to us. I don't really personally care if you call us the smurfs as long as you understand that being a smurf isn't just a label, but that it means something. It's subscribing to smurf tenets and beliefs. If somebody else wants to be a smurf, then he/she can investigate what it takes to be smurf.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of the world ascribes "Catholic" to a particular group, irregardless of what others want to call themselves.

It serves no purpose and good to use such vague terms as Christians. I do not wish to adopt yet another word (before, as I'm sure James will agree, everyone was a Christian and it was rather easy to see who they were). The word catholic seems to be going in the same direction that the word Christian is in. A meaningless and vague word.

 

[Halcyon]

It does matter to us. I don't really personally care if you call us the smurfs as long as you understand that being a smurf isn't just a label, but that it means something. It's subscribing to smurf tenets and beliefs. If somebody else wants to be a smurf, then he/she can investigate what it takes to be smurf.

Lol, smurf tenets, that had me chuckling .

Nonetheless, the vast majority of the world ascribes "Catholic" to a particular group, irregardless of what others want to call themselves.

It serves no purpose and good to use such vague terms as Christians. I do not wish to adopt yet another word (before, as I'm sure James will agree, everyone was a Christian and it was rather easy to see who they were). The word catholic seems to be going in the same direction that the word Christian is in. A meaningless and vague word.

I can understand that perfectly. I guess all i'm saying is that, from my understanding of the nature of the word and its original usage, any church can claim to be catholic if they believe they encompass the whole truth.

But i can see why it must be annoying for you to see this happen, as the word Catholic has, over time, come to refer to your group alone.

 

[James the Persian]

Strictly speaking the word Catholic refers to the faith rather than the Church and only secondarily to the Church. The Catholic Church is that Church which upholds the Catholic faith, that faith which was held from the beginning, by all and everywhere, to paraphrase St. Vincent of Lerins. In other words it's not about the universality of the Church institution (it's not a universality of authority). The sense in which catholic can be translated as universal is only as in common. The commonality of the faith of all churches. This is why in non-Greek speaking Orthodox countries the word catholic is translated not as universal but rather as something closer to conciliar. The Greeks (from whose language the word comes) understand it to mean exactly this. I think, to be honest, that this is also what RCs usually mean (though some clearly go for the dominance of the papacy interpretation) when they translate it universal also, but the reason I will always point out that this is not a particularly good translation is because of all of the other baggage that comes with the term universal in English. Outsiders seem more apt to pick up on this than on the universal faith idea as expressed by, amongst others, St. Vincent.

James

 

[Quiddity]

think, to be honest, that this is also what RCs usually mean (though some clearly go for the dominance of the papacy interpretation) when they translate it universal also, but the reason I will always point out that this is not a particularly good translation is because of all of the other baggage that comes with the term universal in English.

That's a first. Never have I heard an RC apologist use the word universal in Catholic and connect it to the papacy. But it certainly makes sense why you guys wouldn't like it. In fact, I see now why "according to the whole" is more popular to you guys. If it is a more correct translation, so be it. Everything I have pulled thus far shows nothing of the word "according". I'm more then willing to subscribe to this translation (it makes little difference to us) if that is the case. Perhaps you have something more useful that can help me in my very poor Greek?

 

[James the Persian]

That's a first. Never have I heard an RC apologist use the word universal in Catholic and connect it to the papacy. But it certainly makes sense why you guys wouldn't like it. In fact, I see now why "according to the whole" is more popular to you guys. If it is a more correct translation, so be it. Everything I have pulled thus far shows nothing of the word "according". I'm more then willing to subscribe to this translation (it makes little difference to us) if that is the case. Perhaps you have something more useful that can help me in my very poor Greek?

My point was not that RC apologists use universal in this way (though I've certainly met RC lay folk who do). I'm with you on that, which is why I wrote what I did at the end of my last post. The thing that bothers me is that outsiders (usually Protestant) often do pick up on the word and assume that it means universal dominion over the Church by the Pope. Not everything I write is aimed at RCs even though you seem very quick to take things personally even when I make pains to add comments that effectively absolve the RCC of blame for whatever I am commenting on.

My Greek is probably not much better than your own, but I accept the explanations of Greek speaking clergy when they tell me what kata holos means. I'd note that if you search for kata holos on Google, the first page of results will give you at least 3 RC sites that say it means 'according to the whole' rather than universal, as well as several from other churches, such as ours. I really don't think there is any dispute on the matter and universal is, therefore, a poor translation as it is way too broad and leaves both you and I open to misguided attacks by those Englsih speakers who jump at the wrong meaning of the word. That's why I think it is best avoided though, in a narrow sense, it is not strictly speaking wrong, rather it is imprecise.

As for evidence of kata meaning 'according to' in Greek (as well as down, it is true, but prepositions often have multiple meanings in any language and 'down whole' clearly makes no sense), just look at how the Gospels are named in Greek. For instance, the Gospel according to Mark is 'kata Markou'. I doubt there's any need to go on.

James

 

[Quiddity]

My point was not that RC apologists use universal in this way (though I've certainly met RC lay folk who do). I'm with you on that, which is why I wrote what I did at the end of my last post. The thing that bothers me is that outsiders (usually Protestant) often do pick up on the word and assume that it means universal dominion over the Church by the Pope. Not everything I write is aimed at RCs even though you seem very quick to take things personally even when I make pains to add comments that effectively absolve the RCC of blame for whatever I am commenting on.

It was not by mistake that I only quoted the part that specifically talks of RC. It is not my intentions to see RCism where there isn't. I'd much rather agree and be at peace with you James. I don't want to nitpick at things. I'd rather talk about the things that truly seperate us.

My Greek is probably not much better than your own, but I accept the explanations of Greek speaking clergy when they tell me what kata holos means. I'd note that if you search for kata holos on Google, the first page of results will give you at least 3 RC sites that say it means 'according to the whole' rather than universal, as well as several from other churches, such as ours. I really don't think there is any dispute on the matter and universal is, therefore, a poor translation as it is way too broad and leaves both you and I open to misguided attacks by those Englsih speakers who jump at the wrong meaning of the word. That's why I think it is best avoided though, in a narrow sense, it is not strictly speaking wrong, rather it is imprecise.

As for evidence of kata meaning 'according to' in Greek (as well as down, it is true, but prepositions often have multiple meanings in any language and 'down whole' clearly makes no sense), just look at how the Gospels are named in Greek. For instance, the Gospel according to Mark is 'kata Markou'. I doubt there's any need to go on.

I was no longer questioning kata holos, but rather how the word "according" is a part of it. Or is this a latter addition? Just like some RC's and Protestants can take the word universal, so to can it happen with according.

 

[James the Persian]

I was no longer questioning kata holos, but rather how the word "according" is a part of it. Or is this a latter addition? Just like some RC's and Protestants can take the word universal, so to can it happen with according.

I already answered this in the quote above. The 'Gospel according to Mark' is 'Evangelion kata Markou' when written in Greek. Kata is the only preposition in the phrase and the only word shared between that phrase and kata holos and hence it should be clear that kata means according to in this context. The other meanings of kata (such as down) which could be a possibility simply don't make sense. Is that clearer?

James