In a message dated 1999-10-04 20:50:57 Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
> err...I would have thought that the term "Catholic" only makes sense in
> contrast to the term "heretic". Since heresy is the stubborn adherence to
> principles that contradict dogmas held by the "Church", I fail to see how
> there could have been, if there were no heretics, any "Catholics" during
> the period in which the NT was being composed. And please don't trot out
> the fact that S. Paul uses the term: it simply means 'sect' in Greek.
But the authors of the New Testament do identify specific heresies and
schisms in the early Church, so by that definition they could consider
themselves "Catholic". In particular, see 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 (where
Paul rebukes the Corinthians for incipient schisms) and more importantly
1 John 4:2-3, which advises "testing spirits" by means of a doctrinal test
that would weed out adherents of the Docetist heresy.
-- David Knott
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|