Punished for wanting accuracy - Catholic church

katydid

The Mustard wrote: »

Try Emperor of France then.

Nice try. Failure to respond to my point noted :eek:

katydid

Calina wrote: »

It is absolutely a label and if you are not capable of understanding why I used it here, you're not qualified to argue about any linguistic matter. A label is a term describing something.



It is not a pretty basic religious term. You need to understand that vernacular language sometimes uses terms differently to expert languages. While you're discussing matters of religion, I suspect the population of posters on Christianity is not made up exclusively of theologians. For this reason, you, as a responsible contributor should recognise that common usage of the term Catholic Church in Ireland tends to act as a synonym for Roman Catholic Church.

Are you going to explain what you mean with your comment about "ethos" or was it a pointless communication?

This doesn't surprise me.

The word "label" is a deliberately loaded one - but if you want to take it at is basic meaning, sure, let's use it. "Catholic" is a label, as is "Roman Catholic". So, what's wrong with using the correct "label" to describe something?

It is a basic religious term with a specific meaning. I am well aware of the difference between vernacular usage and other usage. Maybe not when you're discussing religion in the pub - although even in that context people can still use language respectfully and accurately - but certainly in the context of a forum concerned with religion. You don't have to be a theologian to understand fairly basic concepts like that there are several churches that come under the umbrella "label" of Catholicism.

Are you suggesting that the non-theologians amongst us are incapable of understanding something as simple as that?

bumper234

katydid wrote: »

The word "label" is a deliberately loaded one - but if you want to take it at is basic meaning, sure, let's use it. "Catholic" is a label, as is "Roman Catholic". So, what's wrong with using the correct "label" to describe something?

It is a basic religious term with a specific meaning. I am well aware of the difference between vernacular usage and other usage. Maybe not when you're discussing religion in the pub - although even in that context people can still use language respectfully and accurately - but certainly in the context of a forum concerned with religion. You don't have to be a theologian to understand fairly basic concepts like that there are several churches that come under the umbrella "label" of Catholicism.

Are you suggesting that the non-theologians amongst us are incapable of understanding something as simple as that?

bumper234 wrote: »

So from now on if someone mentions Islam they should have to type in Sunni, Shiite, Sufism, Ahmadiyya etc when speaking about Muslims?

????

Overheal

katydid wrote: »

How is using respectful and accurate language to describe a person's faith"catering to minor details"? My Catholicism is an important part of my faith - I chose to become a member of the Anglican faith because it is both Catholic and Protestant. It is important that the Catholic nature of my church and others that are not connected to Rome is acknowledged, not dismissed as irrelevant.

Oh so you're Anglican.

Overheal

An File wrote: »

This is one of the maddest Feedback threads I've seen in years. SOTS would be proud.

WOAH. Let's take a step back here and I want you to THINK about what you just said.

Pat Mustard

katydid wrote: »

Nice try. Failure to respond to my point noted :eek:

Is it? Napoleon is one of several self-declared monarchs in history. That was your point there, no?

I've supported my point about use of the title "the Catholic Church" by reference to a reliable source.

You have just made assertions, which you have not supported.

And your argument is pedantic, at best.

Overheal

Yeah this is incredibly pedantic

The OP wants the term Catholic to either be Roman Catholic or Catholic when referred to not roman. Are you offended by it? Why should you be if you're Anglican?

"It is both Catholic and Protestant" no it's Anglican. Christianity is not binary. Catholicism and Protestantism make up the 2 biggest denominations; Anglican is the third largest. This article reports as many as 41,000 denominations of Christianity exist - many of which are about as significant as one or two people feeling their view is more important than everyone else's and demands they change to accommodate

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

So the point of the thread seems to be defeated: no point in changing the colloquial definition of The Catholic Church. And no reason to be offended by the deeds of the Catholic Church if you're an Anglican. This quote:

"My Catholicism is an important part of my faith - I chose to become a member of the Anglican faith because it is both Catholic and Protestant." Is inane and self contradicting. The Anglican Church is the Anglican Church. I suggest the OP read up on the definition of their faith a bit better.

catallus

Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age."
— Matthew 28:18-20

There is only one Catholic Church and that's the one headed by the Pope in the Vatican. The OP is factually, contextually, historically and theologically incorrect to posit otherwise.

katydid

bumper234 wrote: »

So from now on if someone mentions Islam they should have to type in Sunni, Shiite, Sufism, Ahmadiyya etc when speaking about Muslims?

Of course, if they are making specific reference to Sunni, Shiite etc.

katydid

catallus wrote: »

Jesus drew near and said to them, "I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth. Go, then, to all peoples everywhere and make them my disciples: baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you. And I will be with you always, to the end of the age."
— Matthew 28:18-20

There is only one Catholic Church and that's the one headed by the Pope in the Vatican. The OP is factually, contextually, historically and theologically incorrect to posit otherwise.

Where did Jesus give authority to the Pope, considering there were no such thing as priests or bishops when he was speaking?

catallus

katydid wrote: »

Where did Jesus give authority to the Pope, considering there were no such thing as priests or bishops when he was speaking?

If you have to ask a question like that, given that you seem to be complaining about the finer points of what is and what is not the meaning of Catholicism, I would advise that you educate yourself on the matter and no try to pick fights based on incorrect opinions.

You claim to be a catholic but say you reject Rome, and it's important to you that you be not associated with that church. It is nonsensical.

bumper234

katydid wrote: »

Of course, if they are making specific reference to Sunni, Shiite etc.

And if they are talking about Muslims in general the way people are talking about Catholics in general?

Dav

OK, enough.

This is truly one of the most pointless Feedback threads I have ever seen.

OP, this is as close to an official ruling as you can expect - deal with it. Unless you're actively discussing the differences between the "flavours" of Catholicism, Catholic and Roman Catholic are absolutely 100% interchangeable and there is no way I'm going to suggest that anyone should have to specify when they're having a generalised discussion.