Catholic Christian<\/em>\u00a0is impermissible terminology is illogical and unfounded, in my opinion.<\/p>\nIf the objection is, as he argues, that Catholicism is seen as something \u201cadded to\u201d being a Christian, I reply by saying that this is not how I have ever regarded it (i.e., since my conversion). To me it is the fullness of Christianity, while Protestantism is a truncated, abbreviated, skeletal, least-common-denominator type of Christianity.<\/p>\n
Christianity rightly understood in all its fullness, colors and multi-faceted nature is Catholicism, of course. How it somehow follows that saying\u00a0Catholic Christian<\/em>\u00a0is an implicit acceptance of [C.S.] Lewisian \u201cmere Christianity\u201d (which I have been relentlessly critical of for fifteen years, though Lewis remains my favorite author) I know not. Perhaps Bushman himself isn\u2019t even arguing this, and his opinions are wrongly being used to draw this erroneous conclusion.<\/p>\nThere are all sorts of words which are misunderstood. But it doesn\u2019t follow that we therefore cease using them. We need to carefully\u00a0define<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0explain<\/em>\u00a0our terms.<\/p>\nI no more need to refrain from saying\u00a0Catholic Christian<\/em>\u00a0than I have to refrain from saying\u00a0Socratic philosophy<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0Thomist philosophy<\/em>\u00a0on the grounds that no other type of philosophy can pass muster with those, so we need to simply say\u00a0Socratic method<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0Thomism<\/em>\u00a0as\u00a0identical<\/em> <\/strong>with philosophy, with all the other philosophies being mere pretenders. It simply doesn\u2019t follow.<\/p>\nBushman is obviously reacting to certain liberal outlooks which retire from an enthusiastic, confident presentation of the Catholic faith as the fullness of faith. Alas, it\u2019s not a problem I have ever had. :-) I get accused of being a \u201ctriumphalist\u201d all the time, and my insistence on the Newmanian requirement of accepting the entire faith or bust does not exactly endear me to Protestant dialogue opponents either. So he is preaching to the choir on this. But I don\u2019t see why I would have to stop saying\u00a0Catholic Christian\u00a0<\/em>in order to speak about these other things.<\/p>\nCertainly it is tomfoolery to suggest (as the inimitable John Lowell did) that to merely use the term suggests a terribly deficient ecclesiology. As just described, I don\u2019t have that! So at least in my case, there is no truth to the charge at all.<\/p>\n
Most of the article is not about this terminology. Since he allows for the latitude of speaking of other Christians, the contention that\u00a0Catholic Christian\u00a0<\/em>either must mean or even imply some non-Catholic ecclesiology, collapses.<\/p>\nIn fact, he is not even internally consistent if in fact he were to take a strict position himself that the phrase\u00a0must\u00a0mean what Mr. Lowell claims it intrinsically means, by his use of the term\u00a0non-Catholic Christians<\/em>. It\u2019s real simple: if there are\u00a0non-Catholic<\/em>\u00a0Christians, then there must be\u00a0Catholic<\/em>\u00a0Christians, on the basis of the comparison and contrast, and the English language.\u00a0Non-Catholic Christians\u00a0<\/em>are those who are Christians without being Catholics. They are a type of Christian distinguished by not being Catholic.<\/p>\nTherefore, the group they are being linguistically contrasted with must be\u00a0Catholic Christians<\/em>. There are more than one type of Christian, so it follows inexorably through the function of language and logic that\u00a0Catholic Christian<\/em>\u00a0must be permissible as simply an instance of indicating a smaller sub-group of the larger sociological\/religious group, which the author freely concedes (and indeed\u00a0must<\/em>, if he is to follow the teaching of Vatican II).<\/p>\nThat being the case, this contention collapses in a heap. The only way it can succeed is to assert something which the author didn\u2019t do: that Catholics are the only Christians, period. In that case, one could only describe Protestants as\u00a0non-Catholics<\/em>, since\u00a0Catholic<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Christian<\/em>\u00a0are absolutely identical. It would be nonsensical to describe them in that hypothetical situation as\u00a0non-Catholic Christians<\/em>. So this view must be discarded as internally incoherent and illogical.<\/p>\nAt best one can only say that the phrase\u00a0Catholic Christian<\/em>\u00a0may be misunderstood. But since that is true of almost\u00a0any<\/em>\u00a0word these days, especially in the vexed world of religious controversies, it really isn\u2019t saying much at all.<\/p>\nAnd note that this is coming from a person who fights \u201cwars\u201d about terminology all the time, and indeed, thinks it is important to do so. I refuse to use\u00a0Reformation\u00a0<\/em>without quotes because I reject the description. I reject it because it was not what that word implies at all. Rather, it was a revolution or revolt. So I use those terms. I reject\u00a0Enlightenment\u00a0<\/em>on similar grounds, because it presupposes that the spiritual and intellectual and cultural heritage of the highly Christian Middle Ages was a \u201cdarkness\u201d from which \u201cprogressive\u201d 18th-century man joyfully escaped.<\/p>\nI just don\u2019t see any problem here, though. Christianity is a rather large group. There are different kinds of Christians. Catholicism is one of these. One then (hopefully) proceeds to defend and proclaim it as\u00a0quintessential<\/em>\u00a0Christianity and the\u00a0best<\/em>\u00a0kind. But classifying it as part of the larger group of Christianity does not undermine that endeavor in the least.<\/p>\n* * *<\/p>\n
John Lowell wrote:<\/p>\n
I\u2019m terribly sorry, but the simile you offer us is in no way apt, Chris. In your illustration, Roman is an adjective and Catholic is a noun, much like Melkite Catholic might be. The unmistakable meaning of Catholic, used as it is in Hahnspeak, \u201cCatholic Christian\u201d, misrepresents our teaching. \u201cCatholic\u201d is improperly used as an adjective in this case.<\/span><\/p>\nThis is thoroughly wrongheaded once again. I deny that there is a \u201cgrammatical\u201d argument in the sense in which John intends this, at all. He implies that it is intrinsically indicative of an inferior brand of Christianity or Catholicism, if one simply uses\u00a0Catholic Christian<\/em>\u00a0in the sense that\u00a0Catholic<\/em>\u00a0functions grammatically as an adjective.<\/p>\nThis doesn\u2019t fly because John is apparently overlooking crucial category distinctions and different possibilities of relationships between ideas (thus, it is again, at bottom, I think, a logical or thinking problem here).<\/p>\n
In our present case,\u00a0Christianity<\/em>\u00a0is an umbrella term. As such, it necessarily contains less information than sub-groups contained \u201cunder\u201d it (as strictly a matter of classification). It does not follow that describing a form of\u00a0x Christianity<\/em>\u00a0makes x\u00a0less\u00a0than\u00a0Christianity<\/em>\u00a0as if\u00a0Christianity<\/em>\u00a0were the qualitatively greater concept of the two.<\/p>\nThis follows, not only logically and grammatically, but also theologically, since, in fact, the Catholic Church recognizes other forms of Christianity beside itself, though it regards them as less full manifestations of same.<\/p>\n
After all, Orthodoxy arose in the 11th century. Unless someone asserts that it is a less than Christian faith, then one must be able to distinguish Orthodoxy from Catholicism, as two different forms of Christianity. Thus:\u00a0Catholic<\/em>\u00a0Christianity and\u00a0Orthodox<\/em>\u00a0Christianity.<\/p>\nIn other words, from a Catholic perspective, there is a form of Christianity beside itself, but not as full and complete as itself. Catholicism remains the fullest expression of Christianity (thus greater than [mere]\u00a0Christianity) and so\u00a0Catholic<\/em>\u00a0is the greater concept than\u00a0Christianity<\/em>, while it still remains perfectly permissible and proper to say\u00a0Catholic Christianity<\/em>.<\/p>\nIn fact, it should also be noted that even C. S. Lewis\u2019s own notion of \u201cmere Christianity\u201d presupposed this. His analogy to the house held that \u201cmere Christianity\u201d was the common hall in the house that all shared. Yet the fullest expressions of anyone\u2019s particular Christianity remained in individual rooms.<\/p>\n
Thus, you have \u201crooms of the house\u201d yet the rooms are in a real sense greater than the house. They are the sub-category in one sense, but the greater notion of the two in another. The rooms are greater than the hall where all Christians met in the context of common beliefs. The hall is generic Christianity, but the rooms are fuller expressions of particular Christian belief-systems.<\/p>\n
If that is insufficient to reveal the fallacies and category mistakes entertained by John in his analysis, then we may suggest various analogies.<\/p>\n
For example, there is the umbrella category of \u201cmusic,\u201d which is, of course, almost unimaginably huge. Yet it contains less \u201ccontent\u201d than the categories underneath it.\u00a0Classical music<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0gospel music<\/em>\u00a0immediately brings forth in one\u2019s mind rich images and sounds. Is\u00a0classical music<\/em>\u00a0somehow inferior to\u00a0music<\/em>\u00a0because it is more specific and merely because in the phrase\u00a0classical\u00a0<\/em>is an adjective describing a particular kind of\u00a0music<\/em>? Of course not.<\/p>\nWe could take that analogy a step further, making a\u00a0reductio ad absurdum<\/em>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Mozartian classical music is a deficient form of music because, after all, the Mozartian aspect is inferior to the classical category, since it is an adjective describing the latter, and\u00a0classical<\/em>\u00a0is inferior to\u00a0music<\/em>\u00a0because it describes that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\nIs the fallacy here evident and obvious yet? I should think so!<\/p>\n
There are also, of course, qualitative distinctions in the \u201cadjectival\u201d categories. If we were to compare\u00a0Mozart\u2019s classical music<\/em>\u00a0to\u00a0Armstrong\u2019s classical music<\/em>\u00a0(I toyed with some written and electronic \u201ccompositions\u201d right after high school, as I had majored in music), it would be obvious immediately which thing was the vastly superior of the two.<\/p>\nHow about filmmaking? There is that large umbrella category, which would encompass anything, even up to crude home movies or even pornography (if we are referring strictly to the process of making movies which can be played back).<\/p>\n
So if we say\u00a0Hitchcockian filmmaking<\/em>\u00a0or\u00a0Kubrickian filmmaking<\/em>\u00a0are Stanley Kubrick or Alfred Hitchcock somehow \u201cinferior\u201d to the concept of \u201cfilmmaking\u201d? Again, no. It doesn\u2019t even make sense to say that. Rather, they are two directors who produced excellent manifestations of film, and examples of that art. The Kubrick film is an infinitely fuller expression of film than home movies of our kids made in the Armstrong household (no matter how cute and endearing we think they are).<\/p>\nHow about art? You have sculpture as a larger category. Then you have\u00a0Rodin\u2019s sculpture<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Michelangelo\u2019s sculpture<\/em>. Are we to say that no other sculpture exists because Michelangelo made his glorious\u00a0David<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Pieta<\/em>? No, of course not. Does it degrade Michelangelo or imply that someone else was a greater sculptor to simply say that his work was a\u00a0species<\/em>\u00a0of sculpture? Again, no, of course not.<\/p>\nLikewise, the fact that\u00a0Catholic\u00a0<\/em>describes a type of\u00a0Christianity<\/em>\u00a0and is an adjective in the phrase\u00a0Catholic Christian<\/em>\u00a0has no bearing whatsoever on the supposed proposition which allegedly follows from this, that it makes\u00a0Catholicism<\/em>\u00a0subservient to\u00a0Christianity<\/em>\u00a0and somehow compromises the fullness of Catholic ecclesiology.<\/p>\nThe only possible compromise in ecclesiology in this scenario is the tacit assumption in Lowell\u2019s \u201cargument\u201d that there are no other forms of Christianity rightly so-called besides Catholicism. That clearly clashes with Vatican II ecclesiology, therefore is a deficient ecclesiology.<\/p>\n
He wants to argue that he doesn\u2019t assume this presupposition? I hope he does so, but then his whole contention about \u201cCatholic Christian\u201d will collapse. As far as I am concerned, it already\u00a0has<\/em>, based on logic, grammar, and Catholic magisterial teaching. No one\u00a0has<\/em>\u00a0to use this terminology (just like no one\u00a0has<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0to pray the Rosary or believe in Fatima and Lourdes), but it is not in the slightest un-Catholic or sub-Catholic or theologically questionable to do so.<\/p>\n***<\/p>\n
(originally 3-23-06)<\/p>\n
Photo credit:<\/strong>\u00a0Beautiful stained glass from the interior of\u00a0St. Vitus Cathedral,\u00a0Prague, Czech Republic. Taken on the 7-5-04<\/span>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a> \/\u00a0\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n***<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Background: the claim was made in a previous discussion on the validity of the apostolate of Scott Hahn\u00a0that the use of the descriptive phrase\u00a0Catholic Christian\u00a0is improper. I vigorously denied this, arguing that it is a matter of the English language and category distinctions, and a way to linguistically counter the common anti-Catholic assumption that Catholics […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":22158,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[131],"tags":[1168,6099,1119,163,6105,6102,4500,2605],"class_list":["post-22155","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-church-ecclesiology","tag-catholic","tag-catholic-christian","tag-catholic-church","tag-ecclesiology","tag-orthodox-christian","tag-protestant-christian","tag-roman-catholic","tag-roman-catholic-church"],"yoast_head":"\n
"Catholic Christian" Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"It follows by language & logic that\u00a0"Catholic Christian"\u00a0must be permissible as an instance of indicating a smaller sub-group of a larger sociological \/ religious group.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\""Catholic Christian" Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"It follows by language & logic that\u00a0"Catholic Christian"\u00a0must be permissible as an instance of indicating a smaller sub-group of a larger sociological \/ religious group.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-08-07T17:02:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/08\/CathedralPrague2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"426\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html\",\"name\":\"\\\"Catholic Christian\\\" Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-07T17:02:44+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-07T17:02:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"It follows by language & logic that\u00a0\\\"Catholic Christian\\\"\u00a0must be permissible as an instance of indicating a smaller sub-group of a larger sociological \/ religious group.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"“Catholic Christian” Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"\"Catholic Christian\" Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?","description":"It follows by language & logic that\u00a0\"Catholic Christian\"\u00a0must be permissible as an instance of indicating a smaller sub-group of a larger sociological \/ religious group.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\"Catholic Christian\" Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?","og_description":"It follows by language & logic that\u00a0\"Catholic Christian\"\u00a0must be permissible as an instance of indicating a smaller sub-group of a larger sociological \/ religious group.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2018-08-07T17:02:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":426,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/08\/CathedralPrague2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html","name":"\"Catholic Christian\" Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-08-07T17:02:44+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-07T17:02:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"It follows by language & logic that\u00a0\"Catholic Christian\"\u00a0must be permissible as an instance of indicating a smaller sub-group of a larger sociological \/ religious group.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2018\/08\/catholic-christian-implies-a-non-catholic-ecclesiology.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"“Catholic Christian” Implies a Non-Catholic Ecclesiology?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22155","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22155"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22155\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22158"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22155"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22155"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22155"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2018\/08\/CathedralPrague2.jpg\")
<\/div>\n