Topic: Name of this forum

[Anastasios]

Dear in Christ,

Sorry to be undecided on the name of this forum. Orthodox Christians tend to get mad when Roman and Eastern Catholics are called just "Catholics" and Eastern Catholics get mad when you call them "Roman" Catholics; I don't want to anger people over the title--because then they might not post about other issues!  Is "Papal" Catholic a better term, or am I going to offend the Copts or Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria (who also have a Pope!) just kidding.

in Christ,

anastasios

[The young fogey]

Well, I think it's a bit redundant since big C Catholic is universally understood to mean Papal Catholic but I'm cool with Papal Catholic here.

[Mor Ephrem]

I'm OK with "Papal Catholic" only because I know what it's supposed to stand for, but I'm not too hot on it.  Besides sounding rather awkward to me, what kind of Catholics does that make the Orthodox?  "Patriarchal Catholic"?  Or "Catholicosal Catholic"?  Maybe "Metropolitan Catholic"?  It defines a Church based on its chief hierarch and not anything else.  Better, in my opinion, to bring back the "Roman" and keep it that way...

My two paise on the matter...

[Nigula Qian Zishi]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I understand why some do not want to have it say Orthodox-Catholic, and I'm no fan of Orthodox-Papal Catholic either, so maybe Orthodox-Pope of Rome or Orthodox-Catholics in Communion with Rome, or maybe its just easier with Orthodox-Roman Catholic like Mor said. God Bless.

[Orthodoc]

I think 'Catholics in communion with Rome', Orthodox Catholics, and either Oriental Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox Catholics would be sufficient.  
It certainly would be agreeable to me.

Orthodoc

Somehow, the 'Papal Catholic' though accurate reminds me of a Protestant trying to be offensive.,

[Frobie]

I love being called a papist, but maybe the forum could have a more general title involving "ecumenism" or east-west reunification (or schism) or something. The more general term "apostolic" is good, too. That way people aren't offended or scratching their heads as to the intent of the forum.

[SamB]

Let's start off this board afresh, sweeped clean of this argument.

Catholic, Roman Catholic (for Westerners), Eastern Catholic, Byzantine Catholic

Orthodox, Orthodox Catholic

Surely we can manage with this.

Surely.....?

In IC XC
Samer

[maqhth]

Samey writes:

>>>Let's start off this board afresh, sweeped clean of this argument.

Catholic, Roman Catholic (for Westerners), Eastern Catholic, Byzantine
Catholic, Orthodox, Orthodox Catholic

Surely we can manage with this.

Surely.....?<<<

Roman Catholic Orthodox?

I really think that this topic itself reflects the identity crisis of the Byzantine Catholics.  On the one hand, you have the role of being a bridge to the east, on another you are to be an example of how "Orthodoxy" can thrive under Papal supremacy, and on another you are to establish your own identity distinguishing itself from the western RCC "rites"...  The issue is how to give your Church[es] a distinguishing name that shows its ties to Rome, with Whom it is in communion, yet differentiates itself from Eastern Orthodoxy, with Whom it is not in communion.

Since this forum is NOT a forum of folks who are THE Orthodox Church, to call itself Orthodox Christianity risks the censure of the Orthodox for whom this forum does not speak.  This is a place for ByzCath's to hang out and talk about issues relating to their Church and it's relationship to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as other interesting stuff of parishes, worship, and the like.   You folks have lived in a kind of suspended identity for a long time, and are being called now by the Pope to expand your role in the interest of re-acquiring the 'missing lung' of the Roman Church, of which you are a part...  And Eastern Orthodoxy is the 'missing' part, and we Eastern Orthodox do indeed regard ourselves as the Orthodox Church, of whatever country, so that for us to see the ByzCath's calling themselves Orthodox seems to be a kind of presumption. Understandable, but not quite 'there' for us, yet one can call  oneself whatever one wishes.  To illustrate the point, what would you say for an EO forum to be called ByzCath Forum?  They are Byzantine [some of them, anyway!], and they are a catholic Church, so it would not exactly be a false title, necessarily, but would indeed be misleading...

I know when I first saw the title, I was immediately overjoyed to see another Orthodox list, until I saw that it was my old friends here in a new format...  So I am glad to see you still intact, and will resubmerge to my normal lurker status...

geo

[SamB]

I did not manage to follow you precisely, but if you're under the impression that this is a Byzantine Catholic forum with an Orthodox name, then no, this is in fact an Orthodox board, but there are some of the old clique of Byzantine Catholics on the list, and a smattering of Orientals.

Roman Catholic Orthodox?

I was referring to the Orthodox in my second line, not to Catholics.

But....

so that for us to see the ByzCath's calling themselves Orthodox seems to be a kind of presumption.

...here you've demonstrated how uncouth the Orthodox find it when BC's start calling themselves by that name publicly.  Even if accompanied by the qualifier "in communion with Rome", it will push some people's buttons.

Hence, why there is no need for arguing or making a fuss over the acceptance of capital C "Catholic" (with no qualifier, such as is the case with "Orthodox Catholic") as referring to Catholics by default, when used in public discussion.  Of course in private, everyone considers himself a claimant to the titles "Catholic" and "Orthodox", but in a public forum, let's keep things simple.

As for Byzantine vs. Roman, one of course may tackle the important question of whether EC's are in fact RC's by another name (it's a very good topic of discussion), but let's stick to terms conventionally used.

As you put it well, regardless of whether a title is technically correct, one must keep in mind that as this is a forum open to the public, departing from the usage of terms as commonly understood by potential lurkers will only mislead.

In IC XC
Samer

[MKG]

Not this topic again! How about we all agree to use normal terminology we all know intuitively to be right, and forget this topic ever existed.

Michael King

[SamB]

Amen.

Please, let us consign it to oblivion.

Orthodox/Catholic Discussion, Anastasios.  It will do.

The parenthetical note will only give people a quizzical look, and probably make them think we are referring to vagantes with ostentatious titles.

In IC XC
Samer

[Nigula Qian Zishi]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Since this forum is NOT a forum of folks who are THE Orthodox Church, to call itself Orthodox Christianity risks the censure of the Orthodox for whom this forum does not speak.  This is a place for ByzCath's to hang out and talk about issues relating to their Church and it's relationship to Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, as well as other interesting stuff of parishes, worship, and the like.

Umm, as of the time I write this according to the poll at the convert forum here, about 75% of all the posters ARE Othodox and less than 25% are Eastern Catholics. So welcome aboard and feel free to discuss Orthodoxy, as that is the purpose of the board. God Bless!

[Orthodoc]

[Not this topic again! How about we all agree to use normal terminology we all know intuitively to be right, and forget this topic ever existed.]

Which is?  I'm assuming that you are stating that ONLY the Roman Church and its variuos Rites has the authority to call itself 'Catholic'.  No Orthodox Catholic with any knowledge of their church and its history will agree to that.  And hopefully no Oriental Orthodox will either.

I like the 'Catholics In Communion with Rome' as an identity for all those who are under the authority of Rome by being 'In Communion' with it.  Is there anything in that title that isn't correct?  If so, please explain what it is.

Orthodoc

[The young fogey]

Orthodox/Catholic Discussion, Anastasios.  It will do.

It will do.

[anEasternCatholic]

How about the one we use:
    EASTERN CATHOLIC???

There are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches -- Orthodox in Communion with Rome?  Several are Byzantine Catholic, but not all are.  The term Eastern Catholic is general enough and we use it, too, in explaining who we are to Roman Catholics, many of who do not like the word Orthodox, but like the phrase, Orthodox in Communion with Rome, or for short-- EASTERN CATHOLIC.

By the way, if you use that term and you wish me to change my name here, I will do so, but only if I'm asked to do so.  I like being an Eastern Catholic.  I like being Orthodox in Communion with Rome.

By the way, to be specific, I am Byzantine Catholic -- Ruthenian.

Thank you, Lord, for allowing me to return to the faith of my ancestors.!
 

[The young fogey]

Just like both Anglo-Catholics and the lowest-church evangelical Anglicans are both Anglican, so it is with all the Catholics including of course the Romans: they're covered by the term Catholic with a large C. I don't think this folder was meant only for discussion of Orthodox-EASTERN Catholic relations (moot since it's all one deal under the Pope anyway) but Orthodox-Catholic relations, period.

[Orthodoc]

[There are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches -- Orthodox in Communion with Rome?]

Perhaps you can explain to us why you believe you are still Orthodox even though by being 'in communion with Rome'   you are also under it's authority and are required to accept its dogma which is Roman Catholic rather than Orthodox Catholic. (See the canons of your  Eastern Catholic church listed below)

I can only gather that by accepting the title 'Orthodox In Communion with Rome'  you are relegating your religious identity to one that is based purely on Ritual. Since, at this point,  that is the only similiarity  your church shares with the Holy Orthodox Catholic faith.

Regarding the two titles we are discussing  (Catholics In Communion With Rome/Orthodox In Communion With Rome) lets just concentrate on what it means to  be 'In Communion With Rome'  by going into the "CODE OF CANONS OF THE EASTERN CATHOLIC CHURCHES" and pointing out Canons that put your church under the authority of the Pope regardless of the sui juris status that you claim -

Canon 32:  No one can validly transfer to another Church sui juris WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

Under "The Roman Pontiff" -

Canon 43: <snipe>  By virtue of his office (munus) he possesses SUPREME, FULL, IMMEDIATE AND UNIVERSAL ORDINARY POWER IN THE CHURCH WHICH HE IS ALWAYS ABLE TO EXERCISE FREELY.

Canon 45:  By virtue of his office (munus), the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power OVER THE ENTIRE CHURCH but also obtains the primacy power OVER ALL THE EPARCHIES AND THEIR GROUPINGS.  <snipe>

Canon 46, Item 2:  The participation of patrarchs AND ALL OTHER HIERACHS WHO PRESIDE OVER CHURCHES SUI  JURIS in the synod of Bishops IS REGULATED BY SPECIAL NORMS ESTABLISHED BY THE ROMAN PONTIFF HIMSELF.

Under "The College of Bishops" -

Canon 50:  The college of bishops  EXCERCIZES POWER OVER THE ENTIRE CHURCH IN A SOLEMN MANNER IN AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

Under 'Patriarchal Churches" -

Canon 92:  The Patriarch is to manifest hierachal communion with the Roman
Pontiff,  Successor to St Peter, through the fidelity, reverence, AND OBEDIENCE  THAT ARE DUE TO THE SUPREME PASTOR OF THE ENTIRE CHURCH.

Regarding Required Dogma of the sui juris Churches within the RCC -

Canon 597: (1) The Roman Pontiff, in virtue of his office (munus),  ENJOYS INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY if, as  SUPREME PASTOR AND TEACHER OF ALL THE CHRISTIAN FATHFUL  whose duty it is to confirm his fellow believers in the faith, HE PROCLAIMS BY A DEFINITIVE ACT THAT A  DOCTINE OF FAITH  OR MORALS IS TO BE HELD.

(2)  The college of Bishops also POSSESSES INFALLIBLE TEACHING AUTHORITY if the bishops, assembled in an ecumenical council, exercise their  teaching authority, and, as teachers and judges of faith and morals FOR THE ENTIRE CHURCH, DECLARE THAT A DOCTRINE OF FAITH AND MORALS MUST BE HELD DEFINITIVELY; <snipe>

Canon 598:  (1) A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith  all those things contained in the word of God written and handed down, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and at the same time proposed AS DIVINELY REVEALED EITHER BY THE SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH OR BY ITS ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM THAT IS MANIFESTED BY THE COMMON ADHERENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITHFUL UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF THE SACRED MAGISTERIUM; THEREFORE, ALL ARE BOUND TO AVOID ANY DOCTRINES WHATSOEVER CONTRARY TO THEM.

(2)  Furthermore, each and every thing set forth definitively by the magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore,  ANYONE WHO REJECTS PROPOSTIONS THAT ARE TO BE HELD DEFINITIVELY SETS HIMSELF AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Canon  1436:  (1)  A PERSON WHO DENIES SOME TRUTH THAT MUST BE BELIEVED BY DIVINE AND CATHOLIC FAITH, OR WHO CALLS IT INTO DOUBT, OR TOTALLY REJECTS THE CATHOLIC FAITH, AND DOES NOT RECONSIDER,
THOUGH LEGITIMATELY WARNED, IS TO BE PUNISHED AS A HERETIC OR AN APOSTATE WITH A MAJOR EXCOMMUNICATION;MOREOEVER, A CLERIC CAN BE PUNISHED WITH OTHER PENALTIES, NOT EXCLUDING DEPOSITION.

(2)  IN ADDITION TO THESE CASES, WHOEVER OBSTINATELY REJECTS A TEACHING THAT THE ROMAN PONTIFF OR THE COLLEGE OF BISHOPS, EXERCISING EXERCISING THE AUTHENTIC MAGISTERIUM, HAVE SET FORTH TO BE HELD DEFINITIVELY, OR WHO AFFIRMS WHAT THEY HAVE CONDEMNED AS ERRONEOUS, AND DOES NOT RETACT AFTER HAVING BEEN LEGIMATELY WARNED, IS TO BE PUNISHED WITH AN APPROPRIATE PENALTY.

ááá
[I like being an Eastern Catholic.  I like being Orthodox in Communion with Rome.]

But you don't agree with being identified as 'Catholic In Communion With Rome'?
Your statement makes no sense.

[Thank you, Lord, for allowing me to return to the faith of my ancestors.!
]

The faith of your ancestors was the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.  Your mother Church is the church of Constantinople not Rome.  Pleas explain the above statement.

Orthodoc

P.S.:  Think I recognize your writing style.  How are things in the Byzantine Forum?
ááá
ááá
á

[anEasternCatholic]

  Oh, yes, I thought my comments made sense!  I repeat, I like the phrase, "Orthodox in Communion with Rome."  (But not all Byzantine Catholics like it.)  In our contemporary world, the word Catholic means 'in union with Rome.'

We are currently under the Patriarch of Rome.  We used to be under the Patriarch of Constantinople.  I pray for everybody.  I try to love everybody.

I also love to learn from everybody.  Thank you for recognizing my writing style.   Actually when I had to re-register for this forum, I tried to use the name "an EasternCatholic" and fingers went too fast and it came out Eastern Christian.  I'm going to try again.

Isn't contemporary technology wonderful!!??!!??  

[anEasternCatholic]

It worked!!!
I got my beloved old name back:  anEasternCatholic.  This technology works fine!!  

[The young fogey]

The concept of 'Orthodox in communion with Rome' is quixotic; wishful thinking. Such are a minority among the Byzantine Catholics and usually are converts, such as ex-Romans or those who have come in from Protestantism, another religion or no religion. They try to live in the Catholic communion as it should be, but slam against the wall of the reality of that Church as it presently is and for a long time has been.  (Born, ethnic members don't want to be called that.) Eastern Catholicism is orthodox, but no longer Orthodox. It is Roman Catholicism with an Eastern veneer. 'In communion with Rome' means 'under Rome'.  The term doesn't offend me, since those who use it personally do believe in Orthodoxy, but I know that it doesn't reflect reality.

[Dan Lauffer]

Serge,

I must agree.  But there is also a paradigm which seems compelling to me and perhaps others that goes like this: As long as the Church is in disunion it is neither Catholic, Orthodox, or Apostolic.  As much as I believe theology to be more important than ecclesiology I do not believe that Jesus prayer for unity is just for show.  

Let us say that the Lord is as much irritated with Orthodox arrogance as He is with Catholic arrogance and one can add any adjective to either one chooses.

Dan Lauffer

[The young fogey]

Dan,

I appreciate your charity but that paradigm really says there is no Church! Was Jesus lying when He said He'd be with us always, even to the close of the age? Does the Creed lie when it says 'And in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church'?

There are a few options as a way out of this.

1. 'The Pope is the vicar of Christ' - the Catholic side is the Church. (I like the Pope a lot and can see a place for primacy since the Fathers seemed to, but can't quite buy that Rome is the mother of all the Churches like that Yuri chap professed in the news on that other thread.)
2. 'The Church is the communion of all Orthodox bishops' - the Orthodox side is the Church. (Yes, true in theory, but what of all the rows - setting up Old Calendarist altar against altar in places like Greece, Bulgaria and even Russia? Or the mess in Ukraine with two former Orthodox groups claiming to be 'the Ukrainian Orthodox Church'?)
3. 'The Church is the communion of [take your pick] non-Chalcedonian or Assyrian bishops.' (A small Church indeed, that - no offence, Mor Ephrem. I remember being told the Orientals don't hold to such an exclusive view.)
4. The high-Anglican branch theory that points out that what all the apostolics have in common far outweighs the differences and so collectively can be called the Church even though these groups aren't in communion with each other. (I can buy that in some form if you subtract the Anglican Communion, some of whose members came up with the idea!)

What I'd like to see: something like the Catholic communion but where the Eastern Churches aren't 'Uniates' but have real clout and unbastardized rites, etc. (Impossible when 'Rome is the mother of all the Churches'?) And a cleaned-up, unliberalized Roman Church. (I'm not really talking fifties-ism here - rooting out the problems going back to the causes of the Renaissance if need be?)

[Mor Ephrem]

3. 'The Church is the communion of [take your pick] non-Chalcedonian or Assyrian bishops.' (A small Church indeed, that - no offence, Mor Ephrem. I remember being told the Orientals don't hold to such an exclusive view.)

No offence taken, Serge.  We are small, but we like to think of ourselves as the faithful remnant.  

The Oriental Orthodox, similar to the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics, also hold that their communion "is the Church".  And they mean that in the same way Rome means it when she says it, and the way the EO does when she says it, with one exception.  The Oriental Orthodox do believe they "are the Church", but they also don't take it as far as the Eastern Orthodox by saying that everything outside Oriental Orthodoxy is a great unknown.  They do recognise the "Churchness" of other groups, I guess you could say.  Certainly, common Christological declarations and official, patriarchal level allowances for intercommunion under certain circumstances between the OO and the RC give witness to that.  We recognise the RCC as a Church, with apostolic succession and valid sacraments, but as one not in communion with "the Church" (being the OO communion...really, our position is similar to the RC way of looking at the East).  I suppose similar agreements could happen with Eastern Orthodoxy, but they don't often happen, and I assume that's because the EO would rather get all the doctrinal issues out of the way before even thinking of that (joint statements between the EO and the OO having been made, I see no reason why this should not happen, and we do allow EO to commune with us under certain conditions, but it is a one way street for now).  The notable exception is an agreement between the Patriarchate of Antioch and the Greek Patriarchate of Antioch, which allows for certain sacraments, under certain conditions, recognition of marriages, and a bunch of other stuff, if I'm not mistaken.