Author Topic: Words other than "catholic" in the English creed? (Read 3701 times)

CRCulver · « **on:** September 03, 2009, 03:37:34 AM »

Have there been any translations of the Divine Liturgy into English that use a word other than "catholic" in the Nicene Creed ("one holy, catholic and apostolic church")? I'm simply getting a bit frustrated by introducing non-Orthodox friends in English-speaking parts to the beauty of our liturgy, but as soon as the Creed is recited they say, "Hey, wait a minute, I thought you said this was an Orthodox church." Unfortunately, "catholic" is pretty much identical to "Roman Catholic" for most English speakers.

Romanian and Church Slavonic use a word best equivalent to English "conciliar" for their translation of Greek katholikê. That seems helpful.

mike · « **Reply #1 on:** September 03, 2009, 03:56:12 AM »

Universal?

ozgeorge · « **Reply #2 on:** September 03, 2009, 08:54:28 AM »

Quote from: mike on September 03, 2009, 03:56:12 AM

Universal?

"Universal" doesn't convey the full meaning of "Catholic".
The adjective "Katholiki" comes from "kata" ("according to") and "olos" ("the whole"). "According to the whole" doesn't simply mean "universal", but rather that each "part" of the Church under a Bishop is not simply a "part" but functions as "the whole". In other words, your parish Church under your Bishop is just as complete a Church with the fullness of Grace as is the entire Church throughout the world.
I don't think "conciliar" conveys the full meaning either, but is closer to the mark than "universal".

Orthodoc · « **Reply #3 on:** September 03, 2009, 09:45:54 AM »

Quote from: ozgeorge on September 03, 2009, 08:54:28 AM

Quote from: mike on September 03, 2009, 03:56:12 AM
Universal?
"Universal" doesn't convey the full meaning of "Catholic".
The adjective "Katholiki" comes from "kata" ("according to") and "olos" ("the whole"). "According to the whole" doesn't simply mean "universal", but rather that each "part" of the Church under a Bishop is not simply a "part" but functions as "the whole". In other words, your parish Church under your Bishop is just as complete a Church with the fullness of Grace as is the entire Church throughout the world.
I don't think "conciliar" conveys the full meaning either, but is closer to the mark than "universal".

Exactly! I have been threatned with expulsion from more than one religious discussion for defending my right as an Orthodox Christian to claim my Catholic identity! There is no Canon within the church that gives Rome the exclusive rights to word Catholic in their title. It is very important that we do no concede this ident to them considering how they constantly utilize it to revise history. Did you know that, according to Rome, Russia/Ukraine accepted christianity from the pope because it did so 66 years before the Orthodox left the Catholic Church? Or at least this is what papal Catholics are taught. So many have chastised me (including some in this site) for using the ident Orthodox Catholic and refering to those under the pope (especially those within the Easter Rite) as papal Catholics. But that is exactly what they are. I do it not to insult (they should be proud to be identitied with the pope if they submit to him) but to distinguish their Catholicity from mine. I was baptised an Orthodox Catholic and I will die an Orthodox Catholic. I love the response I usually get back which is -"Ask the average man/woman on the street where the nearest Catholic Church is and see where they send you!" My response is always the same -
"My religious identity is not determined by the average man/woman on the street but by the canons of the church and the early church fathers. Ask the average man/woman on the street if Mormons are Christian and they will tell you yes." So when your friends respond a they do teach them the truth. It's a perfect time to set them straight.

Orthodox

scamandrius · « **Reply #4 on:** September 03, 2009, 12:07:27 PM »

Growing up Lutheran we used the word "christian" in substitution for "catholic." The reason for this translation in the creed wasn't necessarily because of Romaphobia (although that's different, way different, now) but because in the German version of the Creed, translated by Martin Luther, the word Catholic was translated into christliche which can only be translated into English as Christian. However, when I started using the word "catholic" when reciting the creed, I got a lot of nasty looks, especially from my dad, who, good as he is, is very fundamentalist when it comes to church. When you tried to explain that catholic and christian are not synonymous in this context and that catholic was the original wording in the creed, he would reply that we are not catholic and never will be!

Margaret Anne · « **Reply #5 on:** October 04, 2009, 12:17:12 AM »

Unfortunately, many people who refuse to use the word small 'c' catholic are only demonstrating an irrational hatred. Hatred is the correct word. Hatred is the emotion that can enable people who might otherwise be rational to do something irrational because of a word they do not understand. This is not behaving according to Christ instructions to love one another. It is not only the word that is hated, but all that is associated with it, without love or comprehension.

When we are asked about our faith, we have the perfect opportunity to educate others. These are the opportunities we must educate ourselves and others to be prepared to respond.

1) The word 'catholic' is originally Greek, not Latin or Roman.

2) It is from two Greek words 'katha', or 'according to,' and o'lon or 'the wholeness or completeness.' And 'katha olon' originally referred to the completeness of the faith or worship of God by all of creation -- before there were any divisions in Christianity. So, the words pre-date the 'Roman' Catholic split from Orthodox Christian belief and practice of faith.

3) Until the Great Schism in 1054, Christianity was, indeed, a 'completeness or wholeness of belief' and worship in the Trinity. Ironically, the application of these words to identify the Western and Eastern Christians came about to distinguish the incompleteness of the faith. Western Christianity which has altered the understanding of Christian belief and faith from the unchanging beliefs held in Eastern Christianity, has identified itself as complete, which it is not and cannot be without reunification with the Eastern Church -- and all of the 54,000-odd Protestant 'churches.'

4) Then, you can explain the origin of the word 'orthodox' (The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in 80 AD) and exactly the differences in Eastern and Western beliefs and practices, and how and why they came about. If you do not personalize this misunderstanding of words by making it a badge of honor, it is really an opportunity to expose people to Orthodoxy, and a Christian history they no nothing about.

By taking this approach, you have an opportunity introduce the concept that Latin Christians, not Greek Christians broke the 'completeness of faith and worship', and final straw was the entire (many bishops) Eastern refusal to accept Papal (one bishop's power-grab) authority. That in itself is something that gets 'Catholic-hating' Protestant's attention right away. You see, we realized Rome's arrogant error long before the Reformation, and that begs the explanation that we never developed indulgences and the other errors that Luther lead the charge to reject. And, how did that happen? .. which gives you more opportunity to educate.

What does 'claiming' your 'catholicism' say about anyone except an angry pride? Why not, instead, in a very conciliar way give people something new to mull over? They might actually return to you with more questions, or try to prove you wrong -- and end up learning more things they didn't know about our ancient faith. Is it more important to show forth a loving, gentle Christ-like countenance in answering questions about Orthodox belief, history and knowledge? OR to win an argument?

HandmaidenofGod · « **Reply #6 on:** October 04, 2009, 12:31:06 AM »

Quote from: CRCulver on September 03, 2009, 03:37:34 AM

Have there been any translations of the Divine Liturgy into English that use a word other than "catholic" in the Nicene Creed ("one holy, catholic and apostolic church")? I'm simply getting a bit frustrated by introducing non-Orthodox friends in English-speaking parts to the beauty of our liturgy, but as soon as the Creed is recited they say, "Hey, wait a minute, I thought you said this was an Orthodox church." Unfortunately, "catholic" is pretty much identical to "Roman Catholic" for most English speakers.

Romanian and Church Slavonic use a word best equivalent to English "conciliar" for their translation of Greek katholikê. That seems helpful.

My parish uses "Universal" instead.

HandmaidenofGod · « **Reply #7 on:** October 04, 2009, 12:33:37 AM »

Quote from: Margaret Anne on October 04, 2009, 12:17:12 AM

Unfortunately, many people who refuse to use the word small 'c' catholic are only demonstrating an irrational hatred. Hatred is the correct word. Hatred is the emotion that can enable people who might otherwise be rational to do something irrational because of a word they do not understand. This is not behaving according to Christ instructions to love one another. It is not only the word that is hated, but all that is associated with it, without love or comprehension.

When we are asked about our faith, we have the perfect opportunity to educate others. These are the opportunities we must educate ourselves and others to be prepared to respond.

1) The word 'catholic' is originally Greek, not Latin or Roman.

2) It is from two Greek words 'katha', or 'according to,' and o'lon or 'the wholeness or completeness.' And 'katha olon' originally referred to the completeness of the faith or worship of God by all of creation -- before there were any divisions in Christianity. So, the words pre-date the 'Roman' Catholic split from Orthodox Christian belief and practice of faith.

3) Until the Great Schism in 1054, Christianity was, indeed, a 'completeness or wholeness of belief' and worship in the Trinity. Ironically, the application of these words to identify the Western and Eastern Christians came about to distinguish the incompleteness of the faith. Western Christianity which has altered the understanding of Christian belief and faith from the unchanging beliefs held in Eastern Christianity, has identified itself as complete, which it is not and cannot be without reunification with the Eastern Church -- and all of the 54,000-odd Protestant 'churches.'

4) Then, you can explain the origin of the word 'orthodox' (The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians in 80 AD) and exactly the differences in Eastern and Western beliefs and practices, and how and why they came about. If you do not personalize this misunderstanding of words by making it a badge of honor, it is really an opportunity to expose people to Orthodoxy, and a Christian history they no nothing about.

By taking this approach, you have an opportunity introduce the concept that Latin Christians, not Greek Christians broke the 'completeness of faith and worship', and final straw was the entire (many bishops) Eastern refusal to accept Papal (one bishop's power-grab) authority. That in itself is something that gets 'Catholic-hating' Protestant's attention right away. You see, we realized Rome's arrogant error long before the Reformation, and that begs the explanation that we never developed indulgences and the other errors that Luther lead the charge to reject. And, how did that happen? .. which gives you more opportunity to educate.

What does 'claiming' your 'catholicism' say about anyone except an angry pride? Why not, instead, in a very conciliar way give people something new to mull over? They might actually return to you with more questions, or try to prove you wrong -- and end up learning more things they didn't know about our ancient faith. Is it more important to show forth a loving, gentle Christ-like countenance in answering questions about Orthodox belief, history and knowledge? OR to win an argument?

Whoa, I think you are assuming an awful lot here and making a LOT of judgments with very few facts.
Ever think that maybe it comes out of confusion rather than hatred?

ytterbiumanalyst · « **Reply #8 on:** October 04, 2009, 12:45:39 AM »

Quote from: CRCulver on September 03, 2009, 03:37:34 AM

Have there been any translations of the Divine Liturgy into English that use a word other than "catholic" in the Nicene Creed ("one holy, catholic and apostolic church")? I'm simply getting a bit frustrated by introducing non-Orthodox friends in English-speaking parts to the beauty of our liturgy, but as soon as the Creed is recited they say, "Hey, wait a minute, I thought you said this was an Orthodox church." Unfortunately, "catholic" is pretty much identical to "Roman Catholic" for most English speakers.

Romanian and Church Slavonic use a word best equivalent to English "conciliar" for their translation of Greek katholikê. That seems helpful.

Sounds like we just need to better educate people on the meaning of "catholic."

Margaret Anne · « **Reply #9 on:** October 04, 2009, 01:11:06 AM »

Is it rational and loving to deny the word 'catholic' in the creed? Confusion is a state that exists until someone is educated, or seeks education. I have encountered this on many, many occasions myself, and had many, many conversations about the world 'catholic' and its meaning with Protestant people who are openly hostile toward the Roman Catholic Church. So, I am speaking from a body of experience going back many, many years and not just making an assumption.

Several friends of mine have family in churches that have eliminated the word 'catholic' without substitution in the creed, because of stated hostility toward the Roman Catholic Church, it's hierarchy, and its history. That hostility is freely admitted by those people, it is not a figment of my imagination or an assumption in any way.

IF the philioque is a critical aspect of the Creed, is the 'catholic' nature of the faith any less important? What are these people changing, eliminating in the Creed? What truth about the orthodox nature of faith are they, knowingly or unknowingly denying by eliminating it? Are they allowing their ignorance and bigotry to dissolve the truth of orthodox Christianity? Can I in a non-confrontational way turn their assumptions around, and get them to consider that there is 'one faith' given to us by the Apostles? Is this about my pride, or can I be Orthodox and evangelical in a conciliar way?

Father H · « **Reply #10 on:** October 05, 2009, 10:11:11 AM »

I am not really sure what the debate is about. In the office for the reception into the Church, the Church is called the "Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church." In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, it is "the Orthodox Catholic Church." In the pan-Orthodox councils of the 19th century and the catechisms of the 17th and 16th centuries it is the "Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church." In the local synods of the 20th century it is the "Orthodox Catholic Church" (for example, the synod of bishops of the Church of Greece, this is the case--it is not simply the "the Orthodox Church" but rather "the Orthodox Catholic Church"). In the messages of the primates it is the "Orthodox" and "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (capital "C"). St. Paisius Velichovsky and Dositheus of Jerusalem, for example, simply and repeatedly call it "the Catholic Church" without even referencing the term Orthodox throughout their writings. Even the saints of the 20th century repeatedly use "Orthodox Catholic Church" in their writings. It is the name of the Church, not just small c but large c. Why in the past half century this has diminished in usage simply because there may be confusion with the Roman Communion is beyond me. Why "give up" a name that most properly belongs to the continuation of God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of the first millenium when none of the saints up until our own time nor even the hierarchs even in our own time?

Father H · « **Reply #11 on:** October 05, 2009, 10:20:34 AM »

Look even at the news section on the disagreement in the dialogue between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and the recent letter of
Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus to Archbishop Hieronymos of Athens
"You are well known at a pan-Orthodox level for Your deep-rooted adherence to the lofty and Apostle-delivered institution of synodicity in the administration of our Most Holy, Undivided Orthodox Catholic Church - an institution that You have defended courageously and with utmost awareness during Your voluminous Pontifical ministry."

Orthodoc · « **Reply #12 on:** October 05, 2009, 12:40:53 PM »

Quote from: FatherHLL on October 05, 2009, 10:11:11 AM

I am not really sure what the debate is about. In the office for the reception into the Church, the Church is called the "Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church." In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, it is "the Orthodox Catholic Church." In the pan-Orthodox councils of the 19th century and the catechisms of the 17th and 16th centuries it is the "Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church." In the local synods of the 20th century it is the "Orthodox Catholic Church" (for example, the synod of bishops of the Church of Greece, this is the case--it is not simply the "the Orthodox Church" but rather "the Orthodox Catholic Church"). In the messages of the primates it is the "Orthodox" and "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" (capital "C"). St. Paisius Velichovsky and Dositheus of Jerusalem, for example, simply and repeatedly call it "the Catholic Church" without even referencing the term Orthodox throughout their writings. Even the saints of the 20th century repeatedly use "Orthodox Catholic Church" in their writings. It is the name of the Church, not just small c but large c. Why in the past half century this has diminished in usage simply because there may be confusion with the Roman Communion is beyond me. Why "give up" a name that most properly belongs to the continuation of God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of the first millenium when none of the saints up until our own time nor even the hierarchs even in our own time?

Thank you Father! Your post is very well written and right on!

Orthodoc

stashko · « **Reply #13 on:** October 05, 2009, 02:29:53 PM »

Serbs use Saborna Apostolska Crkva,,,in the creed ,,iv very rarely heard if at all ,catholicka apostolic church,in the creed...Maybe i wasn't paying attention or something...

Alveus Lacuna · « **Reply #14 on:** October 05, 2009, 03:34:00 PM »

Quote from: stashko on October 05, 2009, 02:29:53 PM

Serbs use Saborna Apostolska Crkva,,,in the creed ,,iv very rarely heard if at all ,catholicka apostolic church,in the creed...

What does Saborna mean?

Father H · « **Reply #15 on:** October 05, 2009, 03:57:47 PM »

Quote from: Alveus Lacuna on October 05, 2009, 03:34:00 PM

Quote from: stashko on October 05, 2009, 02:29:53 PM
Serbs use Saborna Apostolska Crkva,,,in the creed ,,iv very rarely heard if at all ,catholicka apostolic church,in the creed...

What does Saborna mean?

varient of soborna: conciliar; brought together, collective

CRCulver · « **Reply #16 on:** October 20, 2009, 02:29:50 AM »

Quote from: FatherHLL on October 05, 2009, 10:11:11 AM

Why "give up" a name that most properly belongs to the continuation of God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of the first millenium when none of the saints up until our own time nor even the hierarchs even in our own time?

No one is "giving up" anything in avoiding the world "catholic", simply choosing a translation of the Greek world katholikos that is in tune with current usage. The Slavs and Romanians didn't "give up" anything when they chose sobor.

Basil 320 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 20, 2009, 05:33:56 AM »

To the Post: "Conciliar" is not a translation of "Catholic" by any means, as described in subsequent replies. "Universality" is another word that that is synonymous with the Church's understanding of "Catholic." Also, "Catholic" is not used as a proper noun in the Creed, you can tell your inquiring friends; and advise them that this is the 4th century "Symbol of Faith," or Creed, promulgated when the Church was one; prior to the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation.

This article of the Creed doesn't name the church, but describes it, it is "One," it is "Holy," it is "Catholic," as defined above, and it is "Apostolic." Don't forget to point out the difference in the Creed from the Western Churches, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who, together with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and glorified..." The distinction in this article, is the primary reason for the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The writings of the Church Fathers (first several centuries) refer to the Church both as "Catholic" and as "Orthodox." In the end, we consider it the Christian Church. Liturgically, we refer to Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Holy Orthodox Churches, as "the Holy Churches of God," (see the 2nd petition of the Great Litany of the Divine Liturgy).

Fr. John Meyendorf, of blessed memory, had written that the ethnic epithets (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc.) began in the late 17th and 18th centuries, when ethnic movements in the Balkan States were fomenting nationalist revolutionary sentiment, some within the Orthodox Churches, from the Ottoman Empire, in order to promote ethnic nationalism.

username! · « **Reply #18 on:** October 20, 2009, 10:26:18 AM »

A few parishes around my parts still say "universal" instead of "catholic" in the creed. I blame this on the early English translation they still use. Since at least two of the places I know about use 70% Slavonic I gather they never felt the need to update their English Divine Liturgy translation (plus it might cost 25 dollars to replace the books.. and since the treasurer thinks the church money is theirs.... they wouldn't fathom spending 25 dollars on something like that... but oh yeah, they'll be the first ones to tell you they won 50 bucks at the slot machines and only spent 25 dollars to do so..).

stashko · « **Reply #19 on:** October 20, 2009, 12:18:53 PM »

Thank you ! Father Hill..For explaining the word saborna [soborna]in english...Hope i Got this other word correct ,that i heard a few times [ Vaseljenska crkva ] in the creed as well.......Blagoslovi Oce...

Liz · « **Reply #20 on:** October 20, 2009, 01:57:33 PM »

Quote from: ytterbiumanalyst on October 04, 2009, 12:45:39 AM

Quote from: CRCulver on September 03, 2009, 03:37:34 AM
Have there been any translations of the Divine Liturgy into English that use a word other than "catholic" in the Nicene Creed ("one holy, catholic and apostolic church")? I'm simply getting a bit frustrated by introducing non-Orthodox friends in English-speaking parts to the beauty of our liturgy, but as soon as the Creed is recited they say, "Hey, wait a minute, I thought you said this was an Orthodox church." Unfortunately, "catholic" is pretty much identical to "Roman Catholic" for most English speakers.

Romanian and Church Slavonic use a word best equivalent to English "conciliar" for their translation of Greek katholikê. That seems helpful.
Sounds like we just need to better educate people on the meaning of "catholic."

Agreed! We have the same problem with 'catholic' in our liturgy. It's a great word, we should just tell more people what it really means.

mike · « **Reply #21 on:** October 20, 2009, 03:17:08 PM »

Quote from: Basil 320 on October 20, 2009, 05:33:56 AM

Fr. John Meyendorf, of blessed memory, had written that the ethnic epithets (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc.) began in the late 17th and 18th centuries, when ethnic movements in the Balkan States were fomenting nationalist revolutionary sentiment, some within the Orthodox Churches, from the Ottoman Empire, in order to promote ethnic nationalism.

Eastern Orthodoxy was called "Greek faith" during Orthodox-Uniate polemics in 16th-17th centuries in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Father H · « **Reply #22 on:** October 20, 2009, 06:22:25 PM »

Quote from: Basil 320 on October 20, 2009, 05:33:56 AM

To the Post: "Conciliar" is not a translation of "Catholic" by any means, as described in subsequent replies. "Universality" is another word that that is synonymous with the Church's understanding of "Catholic." Also, "Catholic" is not used as a proper noun in the Creed, you can tell your inquiring friends; and advise them that this is the 4th century "Symbol of Faith," or Creed, promulgated when the Church was one; prior to the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation.

This article of the Creed doesn't name the church, but describes it, it is "One," it is "Holy," it is "Catholic," as defined above, and it is "Apostolic." Don't forget to point out the difference in the Creed from the Western Churches, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who, together with the Father and the Son, is worshiped and glorified..." The distinction in this article, is the primary reason for the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The writings of the Church Fathers (first several centuries) refer to the Church both as "Catholic" and as "Orthodox." In the end, we consider it the Christian Church. Liturgically, we refer to Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Holy Orthodox Churches, as "the Holy Churches of God," (see the 2nd petition of the Great Litany of the Divine Liturgy).

Fr. John Meyendorf, of blessed memory, had written that the ethnic epithets (Greek, Bulgarian, Serbian, etc.) began in the late 17th and 18th centuries, when ethnic movements in the Balkan States were fomenting nationalist revolutionary sentiment, some within the Orthodox Churches, from the Ottoman Empire, in order to promote ethnic nationalism.

I agree with most of what you have said here. Although it is true that they are adjectives that describe the Church, and it is true that ultimately it is most simply "the Church of God," I must disagree with you and side with the Fathers as to the fact that Catholic (Katholikos) is indeed part of the name of the Orthodox Church. St. Cyril of Jerusalem states explicitely in his catechesis that "Catholic" is a "name peculiar to this holy Church" and that the Catechumens are to employ it in conversation once they become Orthodox (Cat.Lect. 18.26). Likewise, St. Maximus the Confessor states that the term "Catholic" is one of the names given by God to the Church. Also, while it is true in the litanies we speak of the local Orthodox Churches, in the Anaphora we speak of the Church in singular, we speak of God's "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," which the Liturgy of St. Basil adds "which is from one end of the world to the other." You are correct on the ethnic epithets.

Basil 320 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:51:52 AM »

I do not disagree with you Fr. Hll, and thank you for the specific quotes from the Fathers. I had mentioned that the Fathers referred to the Church as both "Orthodox" and "Catholic."

Alveus Lacuna · « **Reply #24 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:56:25 AM »

Quote from: Liz on October 20, 2009, 01:57:33 PM

Agreed! We have the same problem with 'catholic' in our liturgy. It's a great word, we should just tell more people what it really means.

But does the Anglican Communion really see themselves as being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church in the same way that the other ancient communions do, or in some different way? For example, as far as I know Anglicans do not consider themselves to be the fullness of the Church Militant, but rather a part of it. Also, they are not Apostolic in the sense that they claim to be within the lineage of any apostolic succession. Not accusing, just seeking clarification.

Liz · « **Reply #25 on:** October 21, 2009, 05:31:56 AM »

Quote from: Alveus Lacuna on October 21, 2009, 12:56:25 AM

Quote from: Liz on October 20, 2009, 01:57:33 PM
Agreed! We have the same problem with 'catholic' in our liturgy. It's a great word, we should just tell more people what it really means.

But does the Anglican Communion really see themselves as being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church in the same way that the other ancient communions do, or in some different way? For example, as far as I know Anglicans do not consider themselves to be the fullness of the Church Militant, but rather a part of it. Also, they are not Apostolic in the sense that they claim to be within the lineage of any apostolic succession. Not accusing, just seeking clarification.

I'm not aware that 'catholic' carries any connotations that could refer to the Church Militant. As far as I understand it, the Church is catholic because she is the spiritual home of all Christians. As to Apostolic, brighter and better-informed people than I am (with a whole lot of tortured logic

) have thrashed this one out and posit that the Anglican Church can claim that it is continuing the apostolic succession.

NorthernPines · « **Reply #26 on:** October 21, 2009, 12:31:46 PM »

Quote from: Alveus Lacuna on October 21, 2009, 12:56:25 AM

But does the Anglican Communion really see themselves as being the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church in the same way that the other ancient communions do, or in some different way? For example, as far as I know Anglicans do not consider themselves to be the fullness of the Church Militant, but rather a part of it. Also, they are not Apostolic in the sense that they claim to be within the lineage of any apostolic succession. Not accusing, just seeking clarification.

You know, I don't know about the "Catholic" issue, and that is something I've wondered about too. I think they see themselves as a part of the whole and thus "whole", but not the "only" whole, if that makes sense...

However Anglicans do claim Apostolic Succession. In fact, I think Rome accepted their Apostolic Succession until about 120 years ago when it became "questionable" due to some linguistic dispute in the ordination rite, and I'm pretty sure Orthodoxy accepted it up until the 1950's at least as far as historical lineage is concerned, (though not in matters of the faith of course). Obviously since the ordination of women Rome and Orthodoxy has kind of denied their Apostolic Succession even in terms of pure lineage but I still believe most historians say they have as good of a claim to Apostolic Succession as Rome and EOy do. But for sure Anglicans certainly do claim they have Apostolic Succession. I know this because a Lutheran pastor friend of mine deals with the Episcopal Church's insistence of Apostolic Succession for their intercommunion which they have but the ELCA doesn't have, (though the ELCA is working towards it, however the ELCA doesn't re-ordain current pastors under Apostolic Succession, only newly ordained pastors have it now, while older ones (the majority) do not). Again, I'm not talking about what we EO mean by "Apostolic Succession", only what say a historian would mean by it; a lineage of laying on of hands going back to the Apostles traceable (or so they and we claim) through historical records.

Ortho_cat · « **Reply #27 on:** October 21, 2009, 02:54:55 PM »

We are Orthodox Catholic Church, and we're not ashamed to admit it!

Orthodoc · « **Reply #28 on:** October 21, 2009, 03:58:00 PM »

Quote from: Ortho_cat on October 21, 2009, 02:54:55 PM

We are Orthodox Catholic Church, and we're not ashamed to admit it!

RIGHT ON!!!!

Orthodoc

Fr. George · « **Reply #29 on:** October 21, 2009, 04:44:17 PM »

The history of the Creed is marked by the strong desire to keep doctrinal accuracy. Since we have a word that directly translates the word in question (katholikin = Catholic), and thus clearly can portray the accurate understanding of the original, I see no need or good purpose in changing the word that we currently use (i.e. Catholic).

Yes, some people use the word Catholic incorrectly. This should not change our resolve - most of the Creed needs and deserves an intricate explanation in order to be digested by faithful and non-faithful alike; why should we shy away from doing so when others encounter a problem with the word Catholic?

Alveus Lacuna · « **Reply #30 on:** October 21, 2009, 08:53:11 PM »

I agree! Many do not understand the difference between "begotten" and "made", or what it means to be "of one essence with the Father." Why, then should the Church shy away from its Catholicism? The rest of the Creed requires explanation, why not this part as well?

Liz · « **Reply #31 on:** October 22, 2009, 02:02:22 AM »

Quote from: Alveus Lacuna on October 21, 2009, 08:53:11 PM

I agree! Many do not understand the difference between "begotten" and "made", or what it means to be "of one essence with the Father." Why, then should the Church shy away from its Catholicism? The rest of the Creed requires explanation, why not this part as well?

Exactly! And if you only use the proper words, you gain such a lot of doctrinal understanding out of necessity - because those words are precise. Christianity is all about the Word - it's sad when people assume that individual terms aren't important.

Father H · « **Reply #32 on:** October 22, 2009, 03:23:54 PM »

Quote from: Fr. George on October 21, 2009, 04:44:17 PM

The history of the Creed is marked by the strong desire to keep doctrinal accuracy. Since we have a word that directly translates the word in question (katholikin = Catholic), and thus clearly can portray the accurate understanding of the original, I see no need or good purpose in changing the word that we currently use (i.e. Catholic).

Yes, some people use the word Catholic incorrectly. This should not change our resolve - most of the Creed needs and deserves an intricate explanation in order to be digested by faithful and non-faithful alike; why should we shy away from doing so when others encounter a problem with the word Catholic?

Well said

Eugenio · « **Reply #33 on:** October 23, 2009, 12:23:45 AM »

No offense to my Catholic bretheren, but we Orthodox should not surrender the word "catholic" to the Roman Catholic Church!

Earlier generations of Orthodox Christians in this country had no problem defining themselves as "catholic". Which is why you had jurisdictions such as the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church", and the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America."

The very names of these churches showed that they were a witness to Christ's church...both Orthodox (right worshiping) and catholic (universal).

I'm sorry, but Rome does not hold sole copyright on the word "catholic".

Father H · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2009, 08:09:19 PM »

Quote from: Eugenio on October 23, 2009, 12:23:45 AM

No offense to my Catholic bretheren, but we Orthodox should not surrender the word "catholic" to the Roman Catholic Church!

Earlier generations of Orthodox Christians in this country had no problem defining themselves as "catholic". Which is why you had jurisdictions such as the "American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church", and the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America."

The very names of these churches showed that they were a witness to Christ's church...both Orthodox (right worshiping) and catholic (universal).

I'm sorry, but Rome does not hold sole copyright on the word "catholic".

Let's not forget St. Raphael's jurisdiction: "The Syrian Greek Orthodox Catholic Mission in North America"

mike · « **Reply #35 on:** October 23, 2009, 08:33:03 PM »

That names are awesome!

News:

Author Topic: Words other than "catholic" in the English creed? (Read 3701 times)