Author Topic: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?  (Read 25540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« on: October 21, 2010, 10:37:08 PM »
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

by Kenneth D. Whitehead

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language. The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church. There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father's home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.

Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.

In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these "non-Roman" rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.

So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it. That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.

Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope. This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"--not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.

The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church. It is not ever called "the Christian Church," either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called "The Oxford Book of the Christian Church," the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.

There is, of course, a Protestant denomination in the United States which does call itself by that name, but that particular denomination is hardly what the Oxford University Press had in mind when assigning to its reference book the title that it did. The assignment of the title in question appears to have been one more method, of which there have been so many down through history, of declining to admit that there is, in fact, one--and only one--entity existing in the world today to which the designation "the Catholic Church" in the Creed might possibly apply.

The entity in question, of course, is just that: the very visible, worldwide Catholic Church, in which the 263rd successor of the Apostle Peter, Pope John Paul II, teaches, governs and sanctifies, along with some 3,000 other bishops around the world, who are successors of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church." There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.

The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

Again, it was already understood that the Church was "catholic" because -- to adopt a modern expression -- she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be "universal" in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that "the powers of death shall not prevail" against her (Mt 16:18).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: "The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, "[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature'" (no. 868).

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, "Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Catecheses, xviii, 26).

The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.




http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2010, 02:25:15 AM »
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?

by Kenneth D. Whitehead

The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church.

The term Roman Catholic is not used by the Church herself; it is a relatively modern term, and one, moreover, that is confined largely to the English language.

Not exactly. Most languages either use a calque of "Roman Catholic" or use different terms for relating to the Vatican (based on a loan from Latin "catholicus" and another for the Universal Church, e.g. in Arabic (the largest language not developed under the Vatican) "kaathuuliikii" vs. "jaami'ii"; or Romanian (Latin, but in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church and not the Vatican) "catolic" vs. "sobornicesc." Not without interest, the "Romanian Church United with Rome" and the Latin church conflate "catolic" and "sobornicesc").  Only in English is there confusion that when Orthodox use the term "Catholic," we of course refer to ourselves.

The English-speaking bishops at the First Vatican Council in 1870, in fact, conducted a vigorous and successful campaign to insure that the term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council's official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included.

So it would seem that the use of the term "Catholic" to describe the Vatican isn't as value neutral as you have made it out to be. Btw, not that it matters what the First Vatican Council did: in all the documents of the Arians, they refer to themselves as the "Catholic Church."

Similarly, nowhere in the 16 documents of the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as "I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church." Simply that -- Catholic Church.

Which why we, the One, Holy, Catolic and Apostolic Church, should not repeat his mistake: he was not a bishop of the Catholic Church.

There are references to the Roman curia, the Roman missal, the Roman rite, etc., but when the adjective Roman is applied to the Church herself, it refers to the Diocese of Rome!

Why the Vatican had to invent the concept and term "Byzantine." Another obnoxious usage.

Cardinals, for example, are called cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, but that designation means that when they are named to be cardinals they have thereby become honorary clergy of the Holy Father's home diocese, the Diocese of Rome. Each cardinal is given a titular church in Rome, and when the cardinals participate in the election of a new pope. they are participating in a process that in ancient times was carried out by the clergy of the Diocese of Rome.

Indeed, as it only concerned Rome.  No one mentioned the Pope of Rome in the diptychs except his peers, the four other patriarchs, the Archbishop of Cyprus and the Catholicoi of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan/Caucasian Albania. The system of titular churches grows out of the embassy Churches each autocephalous Church had and has in the other Churches: St. Peter's for instance was the metochian of Constantinople.

Although the Diocese of Rome is central to the Catholic Church, this does not mean that the Roman rite, or, as is sometimes said, the Latin rite, is co-terminus with the Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church today, as in the past.

Latinization-need I say more?

In our day, much greater emphasis has been given to these "non-Roman" rites of the Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council devoted a special document, Orientalium Ecclesiarum (Decree on Eastern Catholic Churches), to the Eastern rites which belong to the Catholic Church, and the new Catechism of the Catholic Church similarly gives considerable attention to the distinctive traditions and spirituality of these Eastern rites.

All in the process of the Vatican attempting to appropriate the "mark of the Church:Catholic" unto itself.

So the proper name for the universal Church is not the Roman Catholic Church. Far from it.

Indeed!

That term caught on mostly in English-speaking countries;

it was promoted mostly by Anglicans, supporters of the "branch theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of three major branches, the Anglican, the Orthodox and the so-called Roman Catholic. It was to avoid that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in warning the Church away from ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood.

To be fair, the confusion between "catholic" and the Vatican church caught on mostly (barring languages which developed under the Vatican-and its inquisition-sway) in English-speaking countries; it was promoted mostly by Ultramontanists, supporters of the "papal theory" and now the "lung theory" of the Church, namely, that the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed was supposed to consist of those bishops in submission to the so-called Roman Pontiff. It was to promote that kind of interpretation that the English-speaking bishops at Vatican I succeeded in directing  the church of the Vatican towards to ever using the term officially herself: It too easily could be misunderstood, which was the point.

Today in an era of widespread dissent in the Church, and of equally widespread confusion regarding what authentic Catholic identity is supposed to consist of, many loyal Catholics have recently taken to using the term Roman Catholic in order to affirm their understanding that the Catholic Church of the Sunday creed is the same Church that is united with the Vicar of Christ in Rome, the Pope.

Others have taken to insist on the term "Catholic" for the same purpose.

This understanding of theirs is correct, but such Catholics should nevertheless beware of using the term, not only because of its dubious origins in Anglican circles intending to suggest that there just might be some other Catholic Church around somewhere besides the Roman one: but also because it often still is used today to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is something other and lesser than the Catholic Church of the creed. It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"--not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed.

Which it is not. Hence why the term "Catholic" should never be used by the Orthodox, whose understanding of this term is correct, to refer to the Vatican's ecclesiastical community under the Vatican.

The proper name of the Church, then, is the Catholic Church.

Indeed it is, ever since the Patriarch of Antioch used it writing to a bishop suffragan now to the Patriarch of Constantinople refering to the equality of the all bishops.

The sumpreme pontiff of the Vatican, however, is not in the Catholic Church.

It is not ever called "the Christian Church," either. Although the prestigious Oxford University Press currently publishes a learned and rather useful reference book called "The Oxford Book of the Christian Church," the fact is that there has never been a major entity in history called by that name; the Oxford University Press has adopted a misnomer, for the Church of Christ has never been called the Christian Church.

Not entirely true, but besides the point here: membership in the Catholic Church was never defined by communion with the bishop of Rome.

There is, of course, a Protestant denomination in the United States which does call itself by that name, but that particular denomination is hardly what the Oxford University Press had in mind when assigning to its reference book the title that it did.

Not any more than St. Ignatius had the bishop of Rome in mind when the Patriarch of Antioch wrote to the bishop of Smyrna, nor the Patriarch of Jerusalem, St. Cyril, had a "supreme pontiff" in mind when he was catechizing his flock: "If ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens "houses of the Lord"), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God" (Catechetical Lectures, XVIII, 26).

The assignment of the title in question appears to have been one more method, of which there have been so many down through history, of declining to admit that there is, in fact, one--and only one--entity existing in the world today to which the designation "the Catholic Church" in the Creed might possibly apply.

Indeed! Just as the Vatican entitling its catechism "the Catechism of the Catholic Church" is one more method of trying to appropriate that designation.

The entity in question, of course, is just that: the very visible, worldwide Catholic Church, in which the 263rd successor of the Apostle Peter, Pope John Paul II, teaches, governs and sanctifies, along with some 3,000 other bishops around the world, who are successors of the apostles of Jesus Christ.

No, that's the Vatican, whose supreme pontiff and his 3,000 bishops are not the valid successors of the Apostles of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church consists of the very visible worldwide Catholic Church in which 165th successor of the Apostle Peter, Patriarch Ignatius IV along with the bishops, successors of the Apostles in numerous Holy Sees, whose primates he commemorates in his diptychs and their primates commemorate him in theirs, teaches, governs and sanctifies.

As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church." There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

St. Igantius doesn't even mention the bishop of Rome when he writes to his fellow Christians in Rome-the only letter where he does not harp on his leit motif of the episcopacy-let alone no mention that the bishop in Smyrna had to be in submission-in union with if you prefer-to the bishop of Rome.

Thereafter, mention of the name became more and more frequent in the written record. It appears in the oldest written account we possess outside the New Testament of the martyrdom of a Christian for his faith, the "Martyrdom of St. Polycarp," bishop of the same Church of Smyrna to which St. Ignatius of Antioch had written. St. Polycarp was martyred around 155, and the account of his sufferings dates back to that time. The narrator informs us that in his final prayers before giving up his life for Christ, St. Polycarp "remembered all who had met with him at any time, both small and great, both those with and those without renown, and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."

We know that St. Polycarp, at the time of his death in 155, had been a Christian for 86 years. He could not, therefore, have been born much later than 69 or 70. Yet it appears to have been a normal part of the vocabulary of a man of this era to be able to speak of "the whole Catholic Church throughout the world."

The name had caught on, and no doubt for good reasons.

The term "catholic" simply means "universal," and when employing it in those early days, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna were referring to the Church that was already "everywhere," as distinguished from whatever sects, schisms or splinter groups might have grown up here and there, in opposition to the Catholic Church.

which taught the Orthodox Faith.

The term was already understood even then to be an especially fitting name because the Catholic Church was for everyone, not just for adepts, enthusiasts or the specially initiated who might have been attracted to her.

Again, it was already understood that the Church was "catholic" because -- to adopt a modern expression -- she possessed the fullness of the means of salvation. She also was destined to be "universal" in time as well as in space, and it was to her that applied the promise of Christ to Peter and the other apostles that "the powers of death shall not prevail" against her (Mt 16:18).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church in our own day has concisely summed up all the reasons why the name of the Church of Christ has been the Catholic Church: "The Church is catholic," the Catechism teaches, "[because] she proclaims the fullness of the faith. She bears in herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She speaks to all men. She encompasses all times. She is 'missionary of her very nature'" (no. 868).

A Catholic Catechism-Bishop Hilarion's-puts it this way:
Quote
The word Catholic (Greek katholike) means ‘universal’, uniting Christians dispersed around the world, and including the saints and the departed. St Cyril of Jerusalem says that ‘the Church is called Catholic because she universally and unremittingly teaches all that ought to be a part of human knowledge — the dogma of the visible and the invisible, the heavenly and the earthly...’ At first, the Church was a tiny community consisting of the disciples of Christ in Jerusalem. By the end of the first century, however, due to the preaching of the apostles, communities had been formed in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus and in other towns of Europe, Asia and Africa. All of these communities, each headed by its own bishop, comprised a single ‘universal’ Church with Christ as the head.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#33

So the name became attached to her for good. By the time of the first ecumenical council of the Church, held at Nicaea in Asia Minor in the year 325 A.D., the bishops of that council were legislating quite naturally in the name of the universal body they called in the Council of Nicaea's official documents "the Catholic Church." As most people know, it was that same council which formulated the basic Creed in which the term "catholic" was retained as one of the four marks of the true Church of Christ. And it is the same name which is to be found in all 16 documents of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Church, Vatican Council II.

Vatican [II] so said, but no such twenty-first Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church has ever taken place. Misappropriation of the term "Catholic" does not make it so. The ecclesiastical community which produced the 16 documents (btw, are they all claimed as infallible?) abandoned that basic Creed of true (i.e. Orthodox) Catholic Church of Christ in 1014.

It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, "Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Catecheses, xviii, 26).

I think I heard that somewhere. ^.

The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.

And the name the Church had for nearly a millenium or so before the Vatican's ecclesiatical community expropriated it.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
Ah, I see the choir loft in whose direction he preached this. But we don't use organs (or shouldn't), so we don't sing to that tune.

It is rather odd that you started this thread to prove my point:
Well, you are on our forum, you know.  If you didn't want to show respect in our house, you'd be shown the door (or the Private Fora ;) ).

It's funny, whenever Eastern Orthodox come to a Catholic forum I am a member of they are shown a lot of respect and certainly not called pejorative names. Nothing like how some Eastern Orthodox on here deal with Roman Catholics.

The second most viewed thread in the 8 year history of OC.net is one that discusses claimed discrimination of Orthodox Christians at a Catholic forum... ;)  As for personal experience, I've been banned from a few Catholic forums in my time as an Orthodox Christian (though I'm sure I was being an a-hole and deserved it).

To be fair, when I was referring to the Catholic forum I am a member of, I wasn't talking about the Catholic Answers Forum, which, while I am a member of it, I rarely if ever log on there.

Speaking of CAF, when they abolished the Eastern Christian forum and renamed it the Eastern Catholic Forum (IIRC), it was for the specific purpose of dumping the Orthodox into the Non-Catholic Forum, along with the Muslims, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and Atheists, because we "aren't Catholic."

Just confirmed more my resolve in the importance of terminology and getting it correct.

So basically you are admitting that you are using the decision that the administration of a Catholic forum made as justification to be rude and insulting to all Catholics. How is that fair?
I thought we had some rules in place on this forum that forbids deliberately calling churches by derogatory names. I would think that ialmisry refusing to call Catholics anything except "the Vatican" would fall under this too since he's deliberately not calling us by the name we wish to be called.

Unfortunately you wish to be called the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that title is already spoken for.

Rather odd, since your supreme pontiff claims as his titles "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God," that you find it "derogatory."

Now that's not true at all. You are diverting the issue entirely because I never once said I wanted you or anyone else on this forum to refer to my Church as the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." I wouldn't expect you to since, of course, we each believe our own Church to be that Church. I see no reason why you can't refer to my Church as the "Catholic Church," which has become the official post-schism title of my Church, just as your Church's post-schism title is the "Orthodox Church." You aren't admitting anything by calling us Catholic, you are just referring to us by our official title. The fact that I call you Orthodox doesn't indicate that I believe you are truly orthodox.

Also, of all the various titles of the Pope, why do you choose to focus on just that one?
We are not defined by schism. Since we are not "post-schism," we don't have an "official post-schism title." It is after LOOOONG debates that I adopted the policy of Truth on the matter.

All I meant by post-schism is after the schism. After the schism your Church adopted the name "Orthodox" whereas my Church adopted the name "Catholic," even though our Churches both consider ourselves to be catholic and orthodox.

I've been told otherwise many a time by your coreligionists, and based on setting the terms of the debate, I refuse to debate on those terms.

So now we're all the same? If you tried to group all blacks or all gays into a homogeneous group you'd be considered a bigot. Why do you feel it's okay to do so with Catholics?

Orthodox theology precludes accepting that as the official title of your church. Indeed, it is only by economy that we can refer to your ecclesial community as a "church."

Show me an official Orthodox teaching which says you can only refer to members of the Roman Catholic Church using offensive terminology. Your love and desire to be right seems to overpower your call to be charitable.

What you believe is between you and God and whom you choose to get involved. If you involve me, calling a spade a spade are my terns.

That doesn't mean you have to be disrespectful to me or other Catholics just because you don't agree with our beliefs.

Because that is the only one with a basis in Truth and reality.  I dealt with that some here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30219.msg477983/topicseen.html#msg477983

From the Byzantine schismatic view only, not from the teaching of the Church (see what I did there? I can play too ;) )
Pastor Aeternus and Lumen Gentium tells us otherwise.

I would like to see a quote in context saying that the Vatican is the Church. I doubt you'll find one.

I differ to the Romanian rights to the term. As it is, the only Orthodox bishop in Rome is Romanian. I'm less worried about the rights of us Roman Orthodox (Ruum Urthuudhuuks) to the term, but support the Greeks to their right to Romaios.

The term Vatican hits the nail on the head as to what form of catholic you consider yourselves to be.

Give me a break. I doubt anyone who hears the title "Roman Catholic Church" is going to think of Romanian Orthodox. Everyone knows what Roman Catholic means. Quit being stubborn.

It seems you source doesn't "know what Roman Catholic means": "It is commonly used by some dissenting theologians, for example, who appear to be attempting to categorize the Roman Catholic Church as just another contemporary "Christian denomination"--not the body that is identical with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the creed," as it is NOT identical with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Creed, which it has mutilated.

It seems the sensitivity comes from the Vatican being viewed as it views the Anglicans and other Protestants, as demonstrated here.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2010, 02:41:47 AM »
ialmistry,

We are the Catholic Church. It is a plain fact of language. "Holy Orthodoxy" and "Orthodox Church" and "Orthodox Christian" are used far more by your side than "Catholic Church" or "Catholic Faith" or "Catholic Christian".

St. Augustine has you nailed.

As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

Even if it is only for politeness, you are still forced to acknowledge with your mouth that the Church of Rome and all her sisters are the Church Catholic.
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2010, 03:20:42 AM »
ialmistry,

speaking of names, corrected that for you too.

We are the Catholic Church. It is a plain fact of language. "Holy Orthodoxy" and "Orthodox Church" and "Orthodox Christian" are used far more by your side than "Catholic Church" or "Catholic Faith" or "Catholic Christian".

Oh? Where do you get your statistics? We profess our Faith in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," everyday, and we don't have the Vatican in mind.

Quote
St. Augustine has you nailed.

Well he had his issues: what in particular are you alleging?

Quote
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

If they do, they are heretics. And if they subscribe to the Vatican's lung theory, confusing the Orthodox Catholic Church with the Vatican, they are heretics.

Btw, most languages have two different words for Catholic as in us, and catholic in the sense of Vatican.

Quote
Even if it is only for politeness, you are still forced to acknowledge with your mouth that the Church of Rome and all her sisters are the Church Catholic.
Oddly enough your coreligionists keep accusing me of being impolite because I won't kow tow to your supreme pontiffs claims.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2010, 07:26:59 AM »
Touching on another thorny issue, that the Frankish church currently in the Vatican claims mistakenly to be the Catholic Church it's pretty much like black people whose families have been in the Americas or in Europe for over three or four generations, incuding having numerous inter-marriages and want to be called "Afro". They have long broke that "pure" line of tradition. It's an honest but wrong belief that is so old and so dense inside the community itself that it seems true.

The point is that the Frankish revolution that created the papal church is also what created the West as a new civilization, thus the ideological lies and forgeries of a thousand years ago have acquired due to time the "feel" of a venerable tradition, not to mention God's infinite mercy who will not deny His grace to honest pious peope who are totally oblivious or rightly skeptic about such developments.



« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 10:02:26 AM by Schultz »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2010, 09:55:45 AM »
I had thought I recognized Mr. Whitehead's name:
Quote
Very often in the history of Christianity, "reformers", by whatever name, have aspired to return to "the early Church". The Church of their own day, for whatever reason, fails to live up to what they think Christianity should be: in their view there has been a falling away from the beautiful ideals of the early Church.

In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church Was The Catholic Church, Kenneth Whitehead shows how the early Church has, in fact, not disappeared, but rather has survived and persisted, and is with us still. "Reformers" are not so much the ones needed by this Church as are those who aspire to be saints–to follow Christ seriously and always to fulfill God's holy will by employing the means of sanctification which Christ continues to provide in the Church.

Whitehead shows how the visible body which today bears the name "the Catholic Church" is the same Church which Christ established to carry on and perpetuate in the world his Words and his Works–and his own divine Life–and to bring salvation and sanctification to all mankind. Despite superficial differences in certain appearances, the worldwide Catholic Church today remains the same Church that was originally founded by Jesus Christ on Peter and the other apostles back in the first century in the ancient Near East. The early Church, in other words, was always!–nothing else but–the Catholic Church.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/kwhthd_ancntheresies_july05.asp

Another Ultramontanist tract which doesn't quite know what to do with the Orthodox witness.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2010, 11:46:16 AM »
ialmistry,
Quote
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

If they do, they are heretics.

Seriously? ::)

An Orthodox priest who's asked for directions to the nearest Catholic Church, and politely gives directions to the nearest "Roman Catholic Church allied with the Vatican", is a heretic?  

How about this situation, then?  You have just witnessed a terrible hit-and-run accident.  While waiting for the police and ambulance to arrive, you rush to comfort the injured person, an elderly lady clutching her Rosary in her hand.  She is obviously close to death but manages to find the strength to whisper to you, "Please - a Catholic priest - please ..."

You then get on your cell phone and call St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, right up the street, and request a priest.

Are you a heretic?   :police:
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 11:46:58 AM by theistgal »
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2010, 01:30:03 PM »
ialmistry,
Quote
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

If they do, they are heretics.

Seriously? ::)

An Orthodox priest who's asked for directions to the nearest Catholic Church, and politely gives directions to the nearest "Roman Catholic Church allied with the Vatican", is a heretic?  

How about this situation, then?  You have just witnessed a terrible hit-and-run accident.  While waiting for the police and ambulance to arrive, you rush to comfort the injured person, an elderly lady clutching her Rosary in her hand.  She is obviously close to death but manages to find the strength to whisper to you, "Please - a Catholic priest - please ..."

You then get on your cell phone and call St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, right up the street, and request a priest.

Are you a heretic?   :police:

Of course not! He'd never do that. He'd give her a 15 minute speech about the misuse of the term Catholic Church.

"I reject your reality and insert my own!"  ;D

I'm going to need this.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2010, 01:47:45 PM »
Although this is increasingly sounding like one of those jokes ("So, Isa and dying Catholic woman come into a bar..."), this rises an interesting question that is at the core of religious dialogue:

Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2010, 02:46:43 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2010, 03:26:03 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

I usually don't mind when people don't. If they thought we were orhodox, they'd be Orthodox, either if they are RCs, or Protestants.

I think that for true dialogue to develop all the cards have to be on the table, and that *does* not mean it is offensive.


My greatest criticism to most of what goes on today, not only in religion, is that *everything* is offensive, to the point it shuts up some underlying principles that, if not there, are show-stoppers for an honest conversation.

We have three great branches of Christianity: the Orthodox, the RCs and the Protestants (I don't think the Christianity and the Church are the same thing). Truth is that, culturally, Christianity has become Hinduism: it's an umbrella word to name a lot of different religions that share more or less the same words, symbols and culture, but which disagree vehemently about the proper subject of their faith. I deeply reject the idea that Church and Christianity are the same thing. There are multiple Christianities, but just one Church - and just a couple of the Christianities actually believe this.

If we understand this, than we can, in a civilized and respectful way, debate on terms like: "I know that in your own understanding you think your church is the original one, but we think that it has actually deviated in x and y. Let me show why."

From this we will either agree to disagreem or convinve the other part, or the audience. Those should be, in my opinion, the terms and tone of all inter-church dialogues.

« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 03:27:06 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,723
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2010, 05:25:18 PM »
ialmistry,
Quote
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

If they do, they are heretics.

Seriously? ::)

An Orthodox priest who's asked for directions to the nearest Catholic Church, and politely gives directions to the nearest "Roman Catholic Church allied with the Vatican", is a heretic?  

How about this situation, then?  You have just witnessed a terrible hit-and-run accident.  While waiting for the police and ambulance to arrive, you rush to comfort the injured person, an elderly lady clutching her Rosary in her hand.  She is obviously close to death but manages to find the strength to whisper to you, "Please - a Catholic priest - please ..."

You then get on your cell phone and call St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church, right up the street, and request a priest.

Are you a heretic?   :police:

In the time it took my phone's slow internet connection to look up the nearest Roman Catholic Church's phone number the lady died  :'(

Of course, the real Catholic priest is on speed-dial.  Maybe he would be kind enough to be on hand, given the situation.
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2010, 06:20:39 PM »
Of course, the real Catholic priest is on speed-dial.  Maybe he would be kind enough to be on hand, given the situation.

If I was dying and someone stubbornly brought me a Byzantine priest simply because I said "Catholic" which they associated with their faith instead of mine, I would be more than a little angry...which would probably make me die right then. Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?

Offline mike

  • A sexual pervert with limited English reading comprehension
  • Protostrator
  • ***************
  • Posts: 24,872
  • Polish Laser Jesus shooting down schismatics
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of Białystok and Gdańsk
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2010, 06:36:47 PM »
Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?

If you regretted for your sins like being in a schism...
Hyperdox Herman, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - fb, Eastern Orthodox Christian News - tt

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?
"No one is paying attention to your post reports"
Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2010, 06:38:27 PM »
Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?

If you regretted for your sins like being in a schism...

Wow..

I'm going to need this.

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2010, 06:44:10 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Oh but it does hurt my friend.  Because it upholds your false revisionist history that it was we Orthodox who broke from that original 'One Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church' in the Creed.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Why should we condone your false claims?  Our purpose in calling you Roman Catholic or papal Catholic is to distinguish our Catholicity from yours. 

Orthodoc
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2010, 06:46:47 PM »
Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?

If you regretted for your sins like being in a schism...
So I, too, am guilty of the sin from an Eastern Orthodox standpoint even though I've never been part of the Eastern Orthodox Church? I thought, to be in schism, you had to originally be a member in the first place.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2010, 07:04:06 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Oh but it does hurt my friend.  Because it upholds your false revisionist history that it was we Orthodox who broke from that original 'One Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church' in the Creed.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Why should we condone your false claims?  Our purpose in calling you Roman Catholic or papal Catholic is to distinguish our Catholicity from yours. 

Orthodoc

You may be more Catholic than he is Catholic, but to deny the names commonly used because they give you heartburn will result in pet names for everyone.

I'm going to need this.

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,723
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2010, 07:06:05 PM »
Of course, the real Catholic priest is on speed-dial.  Maybe he would be kind enough to be on hand, given the situation.

If I was dying and someone stubbornly brought me a Byzantine priest simply because I said "Catholic" which they associated with their faith instead of mine, I would be more than a little angry...which would probably make me die right then. Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?

I was merely trying to show the absurd extremity of the scenario we were given.  Hit and run, devout elderly lady, requesting a priest with her last dying gasps... it doesn't really matter who I call, no one is going to arrive in time to administer the Eucharist or hear a final confession.  The entirety of the situation was designed to manipulate a specific emotional response, bypassing my rational objections to the use of the term "Catholic" by churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

The fact of the matter is, in the given scenario my time is better spent trying to make the elderly lady as comfortable as possible within her last two or three breaths, making sure no further injury comes to her before the ambulance arrives, administering CPR, etc, than worrying about a priest.  I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about theological semantics, but at the same time I'm not going to go running up the street or rely on my cell's slow internet signal in the slim hope that the lady will be either alive or still there (physically).  While tending to the lady I might yell at one of the growing crowd of gapers to call a priest, and leave it to their brains who to call, and when the ambulance arrives I would tell the paramedics that the woman is Roman Catholic and to have a priest or chaplain waiting at the hospital.

As for your feelings of anger, the question is how are you dying?  Are you dying in the middle of the street like the elderly lady in the above example?  If you're far enough from death that there is a likely chance of the priest showing up in time to administer Holy Unction I might politely ask "a Roman catholic priest?" just for purposes of clarification (for all I know you might be Old Catholic, or had a slight hitch in your voice while asking for an Anglo-Catholic priest), just as in similar circumstances I would hope someone might clarify "Orthodox Christian?" before running off and grabbing the closest rabbi with a black hat.

Now, were it in a hospital, and death was imminent but not immediate, I might josh you a little about the term "Catholic", but seeing as how I am visiting your bedside I would think we were close enough friends to share in a little last-minute joke at the end of a lifetime of good-natured debate.
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2010, 08:29:26 PM »
I was merely trying to show the absurd extremity of the scenario we were given.  Hit and run, devout elderly lady, requesting a priest with her last dying gasps... it doesn't really matter who I call, no one is going to arrive in time to administer the Eucharist or hear a final confession.  The entirety of the situation was designed to manipulate a specific emotional response, bypassing my rational objections to the use of the term "Catholic" by churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Sure it was extreme, but I'm just trying to point out that whether you like it or not (and I know you don't!  ;D) most people, in normal, everyday conversation, have a very clear understanding of which church is meant by the words "Orthodox" and the words "Catholic".

I understand your objections from an abstract point of view, but I'm trying to point out that reality is what it is.  Like it or not, "Orthodox" means either "Orthodox Christianity" or "Orthodox Judaism" to most people, and "Catholic" means "Roman Catholic" to most people.  Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Sorry!  :'(
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 08:29:46 PM by theistgal »
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2010, 08:31:54 PM »
P.S. Having said all that, let me add that I don't agree with some of the R.C. posters here, who want OC.net to ban the use of terms such as "the Vatican" to mean the Roman Catholic Church.

You can call us whatever you want; it's your forum.  If we don't like it, we can leave.  That, too, is reality.  :)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2010, 08:33:08 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Oh but it does hurt my friend.  Because it upholds your false revisionist history that it was we Orthodox who broke from that original 'One Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church' in the Creed.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Why should we condone your false claims?  Our purpose in calling you Roman Catholic or papal Catholic is to distinguish our Catholicity from yours.  

Orthodoc

You may be more Catholic than he is Catholic, but to deny the names commonly used because they give you heartburn will result in pet names for everyone.


To defend the Catholicity our church is far from giving you all a pet name.  It is sticking up for the truth.  I can't help wonder what your motives were in starting this thread.  It wasn't to trol by any chance, was it?

In calling you either 'Roman Catholic' or 'papal Catholic' were are not denying the Catholicity of your church.  Why do you try and us the Catholicity of our's?

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 08:36:27 PM by Orthodoc »
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #22 on: October 22, 2010, 08:45:34 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Oh but it does hurt my friend.  Because it upholds your false revisionist history that it was we Orthodox who broke from that original 'One Holy CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church' in the Creed.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  Why should we condone your false claims?  Our purpose in calling you Roman Catholic or papal Catholic is to distinguish our Catholicity from yours.  

Orthodoc

You may be more Catholic than he is Catholic, but to deny the names commonly used because they give you heartburn will result in pet names for everyone.


To defend the Catholicity our church is far from giving you all a pet name.  It is sticking up for the truth.  I can't help wonder what your motives were in starting this thread.  It wasn't to trol by any chance, was it?

In calling you either 'Roman Catholic' or 'papal Catholic' were are not denying the Catholicity of your church.  Why do you try and us the Catholicity of our's?

Orthodoc

I don't think any Roman Catholics mind if you call yourself Catholic (or preferably Orthodox Catholic to avoid confusion), as long as you acknowledge them by one of their recognized names.

While papal Catholic would probably be seen as a jab, Roman Catholic is quite common and accepted. There are others here that won't even acknowledge that much and insist on more derogatory names such as "Romanist", "Roman Catholic Institution", and "the Vatican". If I mistakenly grouped you in with those, I'm sorry.


My motive in this debate/argument/fightclub is to insure that both sides can discuss theology, without getting bogged down by derogatory remarks that have no purpose but to incite anger on the other party.

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #23 on: October 22, 2010, 10:11:19 PM »
Of course, the real Catholic priest is on speed-dial.  Maybe he would be kind enough to be on hand, given the situation.

If I was dying and someone stubbornly brought me a Byzantine priest simply because I said "Catholic" which they associated with their faith instead of mine, I would be more than a little angry...which would probably make me die right then. Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?
The only Byzantine priests I know of are in communion with your supreme pontiff, so what would be your problem?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #24 on: October 22, 2010, 10:17:03 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Rather odd posting this, when you started the thread with a quote which proves why we need precision in terminology.  Again, the "insult" stems from the Vatican not liking to be looked at as it looks on the Protestants.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #25 on: October 22, 2010, 10:22:15 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Rather odd posting this, when you started the thread with a quote which proves why we need precision in terminology.  Again, the "insult" stems from the Vatican not liking to be looked at as it looks on the Protestants.

I don't know what the Vatican thinks, but I know that's not why I find it insulting.

I'm going to need this.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #26 on: October 22, 2010, 10:27:43 PM »
Of course, the real Catholic priest is on speed-dial.  Maybe he would be kind enough to be on hand, given the situation.

If I was dying and someone stubbornly brought me a Byzantine priest simply because I said "Catholic" which they associated with their faith instead of mine, I would be more than a little angry...which would probably make me die right then. Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?
The only Byzantine priests I know of are in communion with your supreme pontiff, so what would be your problem?
But suppose that the RC grandmother were dying and asked for a Catholic priest to give her the last Rites? Would you then call an Eastern Orthodox priest and would he administer the Last Rites to this gentle elderly,  theologically unsophisticated, dying Catholic grandmother?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 10:29:20 PM by stanley123 »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #27 on: October 22, 2010, 10:32:59 PM »
Of course, the real Catholic priest is on speed-dial.  Maybe he would be kind enough to be on hand, given the situation.

If I was dying and someone stubbornly brought me a Byzantine priest simply because I said "Catholic" which they associated with their faith instead of mine, I would be more than a little angry...which would probably make me die right then. Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?
The only Byzantine priests I know of are in communion with your supreme pontiff, so what would be your problem?
But suppose that the RC grandmother were dying and asked for a Catholic priest to give her the last Rites? Would you then call an Eastern Orthodox priest and would he administer the Last Rites to this gentle elderly,  theologically unsophisticated, dying Catholic grandmother?
Of course not: not being in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, she couldn't viaticum or absolution from an Orthodox Catholic priest anyways.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2010, 10:37:05 PM »
Of course, the real Catholic priest is on speed-dial.  Maybe he would be kind enough to be on hand, given the situation.

If I was dying and someone stubbornly brought me a Byzantine priest simply because I said "Catholic" which they associated with their faith instead of mine, I would be more than a little angry...which would probably make me die right then. Would a Byzantine priest give me the Eucharist in such a situation if I was dying?
The only Byzantine priests I know of are in communion with your supreme pontiff, so what would be your problem?
But suppose that the RC grandmother were dying and asked for a Catholic priest to give her the last Rites? Would you then call an Eastern Orthodox priest and would he administer the Last Rites to this gentle elderly,  theologically unsophisticated, dying Catholic grandmother?
Of course not: not being in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, she couldn't viaticum or absolution from an Orthodox Catholic priest anyways.
???Of course not????
But I mean isn't that the point that some of the posters have been trying to make? That if a person asks for directions to a Catholic Church or for a Catholic priest, it would be generally understood that it means a Church in union with Rome?

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #29 on: October 22, 2010, 11:40:22 PM »

???Of course not????
But I mean isn't that the point that some of the posters have been trying to make? That if a person asks for directions to a Catholic Church or for a Catholic priest, it would be generally understood that it means a Church in union with Rome?

It's obvious that being charitable is not their forté. By their fruits they shall be known.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 11:44:12 PM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #30 on: October 22, 2010, 11:43:48 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Rather odd posting this, when you started the thread with a quote which proves why we need precision in terminology.  Again, the "insult" stems from the Vatican not liking to be looked at as it looks on the Protestants.

Well yes, the article that I posted in the OP states that our Church should be called the Catholic Church because that is what we believe, that we are the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, however, and I also don't think it is orthodox. That doesn't mean that I am not going to use the word "Orthodox" when referring to your Church just because I don't believe it to be orthodox. The same courtesy should apply to us. After the Schism, the West became known as the Catholic Church and the East became known as the Orthodox Church. My original point is that no one should be squeamish when it comes to using terminology that is familiar to the majority. You don't have to believe we are catholic to call us Catholic, just as we don't have to believe you are orthodox to call you Orthodox. It's called courtesy...you should try it.

It's obvious that being charitable is not their forte. By their fruits they shall be known.

Hopefully someone who is getting ready to join the Eastern Orthodox Communion does not run across ialmisry's posts before converting. It might just sour their opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy.

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #31 on: October 22, 2010, 11:47:07 PM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Rather odd posting this, when you started the thread with a quote which proves why we need precision in terminology.  Again, the "insult" stems from the Vatican not liking to be looked at as it looks on the Protestants.

Well yes, the article that I posted in the OP states that our Church should be called the Catholic Church because that is what we believe, that we are the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, however, and I also don't think it is orthodox. That doesn't mean that I am not going to use the word "Orthodox" when referring to your Church just because I don't believe it to be orthodox. The same courtesy should apply to us. After the Schism, the West became known as the Catholic Church and the East became known as the Orthodox Church. My original point is that no one should be squeamish when it comes to using terminology that is familiar to the majority. You don't have to believe we are catholic to call us Catholic, just as we don't have to believe you are orthodox to call you Orthodox. It's called courtesy...you should try it.

It's obvious that being charitable is not their forte. By their fruits they shall be known.

Hopefully someone who is getting ready to join the Eastern Orthodox Communion does not run across ialmisry's posts before converting. It might just sour their opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Yes, what a big turnoff. Especially the post about our church being the Frankish Church; as if the Byzantine Emperor didn't meddle in their affairs. The iconoclastic period is a prime example.


 Birds of a feather flock together.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2010, 11:56:46 PM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #32 on: October 23, 2010, 12:06:16 AM »

???Of course not????
But I mean isn't that the point that some of the posters have been trying to make? That if a person asks for directions to a Catholic Church or for a Catholic priest, it would be generally understood that it means a Church in union with Rome?

It's obvious that being charitable is not their forté. By their fruits they shall be known.

And ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.

Enabling error is neither our forté, nor true charity.  You impart no citrus to an apple by playing along with it thinking its an orange. By their juice ye shall know them.

Quote
Vatican text angers Protestants

Pope Benedict has approved a new text asserting that Christian denominations outside Roman Catholicism are not true Churches in the full sense of the word.

The document, issued by a Vatican watchdog, has been criticised as offensive by some Protestants.

The text was written by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by Pope Benedict before his election as Pope.

It states that Christ established only one Church here on earth.

Other Christian denominations, it argues, cannot be called Churches in the proper sense because they cannot trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

The new text is basically a re-statement of another document known as Domine Jesus, published in the year 2000 under the signature of the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope.

That document set off a storm of criticism from Protestant and Anglican leaders who felt that the Vatican was failing to take into account progress made towards re-establishing Christian unity in talks with Rome over a period of many years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6289014.stm

so those so concerned with "charity" might help the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with its logs, before tackling our specks.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #33 on: October 23, 2010, 12:10:47 AM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Rather odd posting this, when you started the thread with a quote which proves why we need precision in terminology.  Again, the "insult" stems from the Vatican not liking to be looked at as it looks on the Protestants.

Well yes, the article that I posted in the OP states that our Church should be called the Catholic Church because that is what we believe, that we are the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, however, and I also don't think it is orthodox. That doesn't mean that I am not going to use the word "Orthodox" when referring to your Church just because I don't believe it to be orthodox. The same courtesy should apply to us. After the Schism, the West became known as the Catholic Church and the East became known as the Orthodox Church. My original point is that no one should be squeamish when it comes to using terminology that is familiar to the majority. You don't have to believe we are catholic to call us Catholic, just as we don't have to believe you are orthodox to call you Orthodox. It's called courtesy...you should try it.

It's obvious that being charitable is not their forte. By their fruits they shall be known.

Hopefully someone who is getting ready to join the Eastern Orthodox Communion does not run across ialmisry's posts before converting. It might just sour their opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Yes, what a big turnoff. Especially the post about our church being the Frankish Church; as if the Byzantine Emperor didn't meddle in their affairs. The iconoclastic period is a prime example.

We are not iconoclasts, but you still have your filioque.

The Emperor of the Romans (I presume that is what you mean by "the Byzantine Emperor") did meddle in our affairs: every Ecumenical Council was called by one. On the other hand, the Emperor were the ones always trying to force some union scheme on the Orthodox, trying to sell the Church out to the Vatican.


 
Quote
Birds of a feather flock together.
Indeed.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #34 on: October 23, 2010, 12:17:19 AM »
I hope other Orthodox Christians don't get the wrong impression of me. I hope you can understand my position. It is hard to read some blatant disrespectful posts towards Roman Catholics while sitting on my hands. I mean, one can only take so much until you express what you feel. I just don't understand the logic of calling someone that they themselves consider disrespectful. I really don't and I can only surmise that it has a lot to do with an egoistic, capricious attitude. Doing so goes against the concept of christian charity, in my book.

For those that insist on being disrespectful, just imagine a coworker or your boss calling you by an ethnic derogatory term that offends you. Imagine that even after telling them that the use of such terms offend you.
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline FormerReformer

  • Convertodox of the convertodox
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,723
    • Music and Orthodoxy
  • Faith: Convertodox
  • Jurisdiction: Netodoxy
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #35 on: October 23, 2010, 12:19:17 AM »

Well yes, the article that I posted in the OP states that our Church should be called the Catholic Church because that is what we believe, that we are the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, however, and I also don't think it is orthodox. That doesn't mean that I am not going to use the word "Orthodox" when referring to your Church just because I don't believe it to be orthodox. The same courtesy should apply to us. After the Schism, the West became known as the Catholic Church and the East became known as the Orthodox Church. My original point is that no one should be squeamish when it comes to using terminology that is familiar to the majority. You don't have to believe we are catholic to call us Catholic, just as we don't have to believe you are orthodox to call you Orthodox. It's called courtesy...you should try it.



Just out of curiosity, how exactly do think the Orthodox Church is not orthodox?  And if you don't think it's orthodox, then why call it Orthodox?  You call it "courtesy", but I prefer plain speech and would consider it rude if you disagreed with me and my definitions and yet went along with my falsities.  So, just who are you being courteous to?

If one day I went around wanting to be called an "African American" even though a) I have never even BEEN to Africa, and b) am not black would you refer to me as such?  

But seriously I would like an answer to the first question before getting sidetracked into the rest of my post, to me that's the most important part.  Call us what you will, preferably what you consider to be the most definitive, but if you need to call us what we call ourselves to serve your own sense of the courteous, that is fine as well. But if any actual conversation is going to get done we need to know exactly what our definitions are.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 12:20:00 AM by FormerReformer »
"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #36 on: October 23, 2010, 12:21:23 AM »
Are we something just because we believe we are? Can't we just be wrong about our self-identity? Can't another person, sometimes, know better, see our condition in a more accurate way precisely for not being involved in our own context?

Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

Rather odd posting this, when you started the thread with a quote which proves why we need precision in terminology.  Again, the "insult" stems from the Vatican not liking to be looked at as it looks on the Protestants.

Well yes, the article that I posted in the OP states that our Church should be called the Catholic Church because that is what we believe, that we are the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, however, and I also don't think it is orthodox. That doesn't mean that I am not going to use the word "Orthodox" when referring to your Church just because I don't believe it to be orthodox. The same courtesy should apply to us. After the Schism, the West became known as the Catholic Church and the East became known as the Orthodox Church. My original point is that no one should be squeamish when it comes to using terminology that is familiar to the majority. You don't have to believe we are catholic to call us Catholic, just as we don't have to believe you are orthodox to call you Orthodox. It's called courtesy...you should try it.

It's called enabling....I don't have to try crack cocaine to tell you it's bad for you.

Again, your OP amply demonstrates the importance of setting the terms of the debate. Mr. Whitehead goes at length on the term "Catholic" which have nothing to do with the Vatican, except that it-as he openly admits-claims that title for its own exclusive use.

It's obvious that being charitable is not their forte. By their fruits they shall be known.

Hopefully someone who is getting ready to join the Eastern Orthodox Communion does not run across ialmisry's posts before converting. It might just sour their opinion of Eastern Orthodoxy.
Or strengthen them, as I've been told.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #37 on: October 23, 2010, 12:25:25 AM »
I hope other Orthodox Christians don't get the wrong impression of me. I hope you can understand my position. It is hard to read some blatant disrespectful posts towards Roman Catholics while sitting on my hands. I mean, one can only take so much until you express what you feel. I just don't understand the logic of calling someone that they themselves consider disrespectful. I really don't and I can only surmise that it has a lot to do with an egoistic, capricious attitude. Doing so goes against the concept of christian charity, in my book.


Well in the Good Book a premium is put on fidelity to Truth; self esteem, not so much.

You are quite free here, or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned, to express any feeling you want.  You just aren't entitled to expect me or anyone else to coddle them.

Quote
For those that insist on being disrespectful, just imagine a coworker or your boss calling you by an ethnic derogatory term that offends you. Imagine that even after telling them that the use of such terms offend you.

If the term Vatican offends you, take it up first with its sovereign.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #38 on: October 23, 2010, 12:26:06 AM »
I was referring to dodo birds that insist on disrespecting us, not angels . I hope you remember that the Pope of Rome challenged your patriarch and Byzantine Emperor during the iconoclastic period.
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #39 on: October 23, 2010, 12:27:10 AM »

Well yes, the article that I posted in the OP states that our Church should be called the Catholic Church because that is what we believe, that we are the Catholic Church. I don't believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Catholic Church, however, and I also don't think it is orthodox. That doesn't mean that I am not going to use the word "Orthodox" when referring to your Church just because I don't believe it to be orthodox. The same courtesy should apply to us. After the Schism, the West became known as the Catholic Church and the East became known as the Orthodox Church. My original point is that no one should be squeamish when it comes to using terminology that is familiar to the majority. You don't have to believe we are catholic to call us Catholic, just as we don't have to believe you are orthodox to call you Orthodox. It's called courtesy...you should try it.



Just out of curiosity, how exactly do think the Orthodox Church is not orthodox?  And if you don't think it's orthodox, then why call it Orthodox?  You call it "courtesy", but I prefer plain speech and would consider it rude if you disagreed with me and my definitions and yet went along with my falsities.  So, just who are you being courteous to?

If one day I went around wanting to be called an "African American" even though a) I have never even BEEN to Africa, and b) am not black would you refer to me as such?  

But seriously I would like an answer to the first question before getting sidetracked into the rest of my post, to me that's the most important part.  Call us what you will, preferably what you consider to be the most definitive, but if you need to call us what we call ourselves to serve your own sense of the courteous, that is fine as well. But if any actual conversation is going to get done we need to know exactly what our definitions are.
LOL. I'm not sure what conversation is going on, when people say things they do not beleive.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #40 on: October 23, 2010, 12:33:24 AM »
I was referring to dodo birds that insist on disrespecting us, not angels .

If you think I'm disrespecting you, wait for the questioning on the filioque in the hereafter: as the Fathers said to those who dare to compose a different Faith "Anathema!"

Quote
I hope you remember that the Pope of Rome challenged your patriarch and Byzantine Emperor during the iconoclastic period.
What Patriarch? The Iconoclasts' "council" of Hieria is called the "headless council" because no patriarch attended nor sent delegates.

I do remember that Pope Vigilius of Rome challenged the Patriarchs and Emperor Justinian of the Romans, who held the Fifth Ecumenical Council over Rome's objections.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #41 on: October 23, 2010, 12:34:12 AM »
I hope other Orthodox Christians don't get the wrong impression of me. I hope you can understand my position. It is hard to read some blatant disrespectful posts towards Roman Catholics while sitting on my hands. I mean, one can only take so much until you express what you feel. I just don't understand the logic of calling someone that they themselves consider disrespectful. I really don't and I can only surmise that it has a lot to do with an egoistic, capricious attitude. Doing so goes against the concept of christian charity, in my book.


Well in the Good Book a premium is put on fidelity to Truth; self esteem, not so much.

You are quite free here, or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned, to express any feeling you want.  You just aren't entitled to expect me or anyone else to coddle them.

Quote
For those that insist on being disrespectful, just imagine a coworker or your boss calling you by an ethnic derogatory term that offends you. Imagine that even after telling them that the use of such terms offend you.

If the term Vatican offends you, take it up first with its sovereign.
It does offend me but you are too arrogant to cease. But that doesn't matter because in the end you'll have to answer to a higher power. Actually, you (and me) will be accountable for every idle word that comes forth from your mouth (in this case your keyboard). I normally do not speak to people that disrespect me and you really take the cake.

 I did notice that you were absent for a few days and I thought that your conscience had got the best of you. I thought you were doing penance for all that you have spewed, but here you are to prove me wrong.
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #42 on: October 23, 2010, 12:36:49 AM »

If you think I'm disrespecting you, wait for the questioning on the filioque in the hereafter: as the Fathers said to those who dare to compose a different Faith "Anathema!"

The same goes for you.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 12:37:30 AM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #43 on: October 23, 2010, 12:43:02 AM »
I hope other Orthodox Christians don't get the wrong impression of me. I hope you can understand my position. It is hard to read some blatant disrespectful posts towards Roman Catholics while sitting on my hands. I mean, one can only take so much until you express what you feel. I just don't understand the logic of calling someone that they themselves consider disrespectful. I really don't and I can only surmise that it has a lot to do with an egoistic, capricious attitude. Doing so goes against the concept of christian charity, in my book.


Well in the Good Book a premium is put on fidelity to Truth; self esteem, not so much.

You are quite free here, or anywhere else as far as I'm concerned, to express any feeling you want.  You just aren't entitled to expect me or anyone else to coddle them.

Quote
For those that insist on being disrespectful, just imagine a coworker or your boss calling you by an ethnic derogatory term that offends you. Imagine that even after telling them that the use of such terms offend you.

If the term Vatican offends you, take it up first with its sovereign.
It does offend me but you are too arrogant to cease. But that doesn't matter because in the end you'll have to answer to a higher power. Actually, you (and me) will be accountable for every idle word that comes forth from your mouth (in this case your keyboard). I normally do not speak to people that disrespect me and you really take the cake.

 I did notice that you were absent for a few days and I thought that your conscience had got the best of you. I thought you were doing penance for all that you have spewed, but here you are to prove me wrong.
See what I mean about placing false hope in self delusions?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2010, 01:20:38 AM »
Well, as my 99-year-old grandpa George (a Methodist with an icon of St George on his wall) likes to say, "I don't really care *what* you call me, just don't call me late for dinner!"

And with that, I'll exit this thread and go to bed.

Good night, fellow followers of Jesus Christ! :)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline prodromos

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #45 on: October 23, 2010, 08:11:23 AM »
Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

I cannot agree.

My wife and three children were born in Thessaloniki, the capital of Macedonia, the central northern region of Greece. They are all proud Macedonians.
Unfortunately there is a former Yugoslav state which, through communist funded propaganda coupled with a general lack of knowledge in the West, have convinced the world that they are in fact Macedonians. They have taken a regional description and turned it into an ethnicity, albiet one they have no historical connection to (the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe).

My wife and children find the usurping of their identity very distressing, and make the most of every opportunity to educate people on the facts of the matter.

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #46 on: October 23, 2010, 10:26:54 AM »
OK, so bottom line here seems to be that not only do you want the right to call us whatever YOU want, but also to forbid us to call ourselves whatever WE want, and instead meekly adopt whatever name YOU feel is appropriate.

The former seems fair; the latter seems  not.
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #47 on: October 23, 2010, 11:51:23 AM »
OK, so bottom line here seems to be that not only do you want the right to call us whatever YOU want, but also to forbid us to call ourselves whatever WE want, and instead meekly adopt whatever name YOU feel is appropriate.

The former seems fair; the latter seems  not.

Perhaps when we get to Heaven Christ will instruct us to be very quiet when passing the Eastern Orthodox section since, you know, they will think they are the only ones there. :P

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #48 on: October 23, 2010, 12:52:44 PM »
Well, it always helps after a discussion like thus, Wyatt, to log off the Net and go hang out with some "real live Orthodox" - they're much friendlier in person. :D
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Orthodoc

  • Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,526
  • Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #49 on: October 23, 2010, 01:00:59 PM »
OK, so bottom line here seems to be that not only do you want the right to call us whatever YOU want, but also to forbid us to call ourselves whatever WE want, and instead meekly adopt whatever name YOU feel is appropriate.

The former seems fair; the latter seems  not.

No one is denying the Roman Catholic Church its Catholicity.  We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it suddenly didn't become a no no to refer to you as Roman Catholics!  What we deny you is the right to exclusively take the ident of Catholic as strictly your own.  Which is what you are in here demanding. Come up with an ident that enables us to distinguish your Catholicity from ours (which the term Roman Catholic does) and we will use it.  Until then what right do you have to come in here and demand what we refer to you as?   As has already been stated, if you don't like it then post elsewhere.

I, along with other Orthodox Catholics, have seen to many false historical claims that the Orthodox broke from the (Roman) Catholic Church in 1054.  There are even false claims that the people of Rus accepted Christianity from the Pope since 988 was 66 years before the Orthodox broke from the (Roman) Catholic Church!  

You call us arrogant because we deny you the right to falsify history & rewrite it as well!  What's more arrogant than that?

Orthodoc
« Last Edit: October 23, 2010, 01:03:41 PM by Orthodoc »
Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2010, 02:17:33 PM »
No one is denying the Roman Catholic Church its Catholicity.
Ialmisry is.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it suddenly didn't become a no no to refer to you as Roman Catholics!
If you notice, I have said time and again that, even though I don't like the wording "Roman Catholic" usually, I would not take offense to it being used on this forum since you guys consider yourself to be catholic as well. I don't like words like Romanist, Papist, under the Vatican, and othe terms ialmisry and a few others refuse to let go of.

What we deny you is the right to exclusively take the ident of Catholic as strictly your own.  Which is what you are in here demanding.
I am not demanding it. Perhaps the author of the article in the OP is, but I posted that more to grab everyone's attention and as a conversation starter.

Come up with an ident that enables us to distinguish your Catholicity from ours (which the term Roman Catholic does) and we will use it.  Until then what right do you have to come in here and demand what we refer to you as?   As has already been stated, if you don't like it then post elsewhere.
The problem is I think there are some on this forum that do not think we are catholic in any sense of the word, which is why they choose to use derogatory terms. There's that, and also that some people just like to use offensive terms to push our buttons.

I, along with other Orthodox Catholics, have seen to many false historical claims that the Orthodox broke from the (Roman) Catholic Church in 1054.  There are even false claims that the people of Rus accepted Christianity from the Pope since 988 was 66 years before the Orthodox broke from the (Roman) Catholic Church!
It depends on which communion you belong to. To us, you broke from us...to you, we broke from you. It's an age old argument that's not going to be settled any time soon. 

You call us arrogant because we deny you the right to falsify history & rewrite it as well!  What's more arrogant than that?
Again, it's only falsehood to the Eastern Orthodox. To us, you broke with the See of Peter.

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2010, 02:59:40 PM »
Orthodoc, I don't think I called you arrogant - if I did, I apologize.

And it's OK with me if you say "Roman Catholic" - though I'll continue to call myself "Byzantine Catholic' since that's actually in the official name of my church.

But as I said before, call us whatever you like. We're just visitors here.
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,820
  • "With great power comes great electric bill."
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2010, 03:30:41 PM »

And it's OK with me if you say "Roman Catholic" - though I'll continue to call myself "Byzantine Catholic' since that's actually in the official name of my church.
I have read some Church history, but I am a little murky with the Byzantine Catholics.  Is it correct that their Liturgy tends to be more Eastern, but they are under the jurisdiction of Rome?

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2010, 04:00:17 PM »
Yes.  We use the Divine Liturgy, and we are in communion with Rome.
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,104
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2010, 06:03:56 PM »
And it's OK with me if you say "Roman Catholic" - though I'll continue to call myself "Byzantine Catholic' since that's actually in the official name of my church.

Out of curiosity, when did your Church start calling itself Byzantine Catholic? I only ask because it's my understanding that the word Byzantine isn't too old (c. 17th century?), and some people seem to dislike it.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2010, 06:15:20 PM »
Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

I cannot agree.

My wife and three children were born in Thessaloniki, the capital of Macedonia, the central northern region of Greece. They are all proud Macedonians.
Unfortunately there is a former Yugoslav state which, through communist funded propaganda coupled with a general lack of knowledge in the West, have convinced the world that they are in fact Macedonians. They have taken a regional description and turned it into an ethnicity, albiet one they have no historical connection to (the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe).

My wife and children find the usurping of their identity very distressing, and make the most of every opportunity to educate people on the facts of the matter.
I thought that in 336 BC Philip II of Macedon conquered the area which lies now in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and that the Romans included this area in their Province of Macedonia?

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2010, 06:45:21 PM »
And it's OK with me if you say "Roman Catholic" - though I'll continue to call myself "Byzantine Catholic' since that's actually in the official name of my church.

Out of curiosity, when did your Church start calling itself Byzantine Catholic? I only ask because it's my understanding that the word Byzantine isn't too old (c. 17th century?), and some people seem to dislike it.

I have absolutely no idea, though I'm pretty sure it was before I started attending it, five years ago.  ;D

I don't claim to be an expert on the topic, and quite frankly, I don't care whether it was in the 17th century or the 7th century.  That's what it's called now.   :angel:
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Paisius

  • Ditry Pope-loving ecumenist
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Depends on the mood
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2010, 07:15:53 PM »
Yes.  We use the Divine Liturgy, and we are in communion with Rome.


i.e. under the jurisdiction of Rome.  ;)

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2010, 08:22:55 PM »
(shrug) If it pleases you to say it that way, go for it.
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #59 on: October 23, 2010, 09:34:59 PM »
OK, so bottom line here seems to be that not only do you want the right to call us whatever YOU want, but also to forbid us to call ourselves whatever WE want, and instead meekly adopt whatever name YOU feel is appropriate.

The former seems fair; the latter seems  not.

Perhaps when we get to Heaven Christ will instruct us to be very quiet when passing the Eastern Orthodox section since, you know, they will think they are the only ones there. :P
Stealing jokes from the Uniterians?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #60 on: October 23, 2010, 09:54:35 PM »
No one is denying the Roman Catholic Church its Catholicity.
Ialmisry is.

We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it suddenly didn't become a no no to refer to you as Roman Catholics!
If you notice, I have said time and again that, even though I don't like the wording "Roman Catholic" usually, I would not take offense to it being used on this forum since you guys consider yourself to be catholic as well. I don't like words like Romanist, Papist, under the Vatican, and othe terms ialmisry and a few others refuse to let go of.

Like One? Holy? Catholic? Apostolic? Yes, our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church will not let go our her true titles.


What we deny you is the right to exclusively take the ident of Catholic as strictly your own.  Which is what you are in here demanding.
I am not demanding it. Perhaps the author of the article in the OP is, but I posted that more to grab everyone's attention and as a conversation starter.
Be more careful what you wish for.

Come up with an ident that enables us to distinguish your Catholicity from ours (which the term Roman Catholic does) and we will use it.  Until then what right do you have to come in here and demand what we refer to you as?   As has already been stated, if you don't like it then post elsewhere.
The problem is I think there are some on this forum that do not think we are catholic in any sense of the word, which is why they choose to use derogatory terms. There's that, and also that some people just like to use offensive terms to push our buttons.

Let's take the term "Roman Catholic": your source isn't crazy about it, although I'm sure he likes it more than papist (which is, however, an accurate term). So some of you can tolerate it, others can't. So we can't please you all, even if that was our purpose in life. Of course, you all would be quite pleased if we called you Catholic, call the sovereign of Vatican city the Vicar of Christ etc., but Christ would be less than pleased at that.

I, along with other Orthodox Catholics, have seen to many false historical claims that the Orthodox broke from the (Roman) Catholic Church in 1054.  There are even false claims that the people of Rus accepted Christianity from the Pope since 988 was 66 years before the Orthodox broke from the (Roman) Catholic Church!
It depends on which communion you belong to. To us, you broke from us...to you, we broke from you. It's an age old argument that's not going to be settled any time soon.

Who changed the Creed. See, quite settled.

And by no stretch of even an Ultramontanist historian's imagination, can the Rus be said to have received Christianity from the Vatican, or even Rome.

You call us arrogant because we deny you the right to falsify history & rewrite it as well!  What's more arrogant than that?
Again, it's only falsehood to the Eastern Orthodox. To us, you broke with the See of Peter.
Patriarch Ignatius IV and the Holy Synod of Antioch is in every Orthodox diptych.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #61 on: October 23, 2010, 10:49:19 PM »
A small portion from an op I wrote on another forum: 

The fact is that both Communions have a variety of official and acceptable forms of their names. In official documents, the Orthodox Church in its most simple form is “The Church of God.” However, this certainly would be confusing to use in ecumenical dialogue. A longer form is “the Orthodox Church of God” or even longer “the Orthodox Catholic Church of God.” In some official documents and councils it is simply “the Catholic Church,” but again, this would be confusing to use given that this is the common shorter form of the name for the Roman Catholic Church that we find especially since Vatican II and most commonly in the English speaking world.

Both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church officially utilize the longer form of the name: “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” In other words, the reason for the Orthodox Church commonly calling it the “Roman Catholic Church” rather than simply “the Catholic Church” is that the Orthodox Church likewise retains the name “Catholic” in its official name. Officially both Churches retain the name the “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Because this caused confusion after the Great Schism, for example, in the official documents of the 19th century the Orthodox Church is termed, in its longer form, the “Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church” (Encyclicals of 1848 and 1895) and the Roman Catholic Church is termed the “Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church” (Vatican I pronouncements and related encyclicals—see below). The order of the words is not important, in that we find also, in Orthodoxy, “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church” and in Roman Catholicism “Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church.” Or again, we find in the same documents the shorter form of “Orthodox Catholic Church” in the Orthodox documents and “Roman Catholic Church” in Vatican I and related encyclicals. The “Roman” when used in this context refers to the Roman Pontiff, not to “rites.” This has become a little confusing in that the Latin rite is sometimes called the “Roman rite,” especially by Ruthenians and others.

Again, there are various acceptable shorter terms to use for the Roman Catholic Communion. As we see, “Catholic Church” has become of frequent usage. But there are other acceptable forms. The name "Holy Roman Church" referring to the entire communion is found, for example, in the Council of Trent Session 3 "Decree touching the Symbol of Faith," and in Vatican I, Session 2 : 6 January 1870, Profession of Faith . Later in the same session of Vatican I, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome must "acknowledge the holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church, the mother and mistress of all the churches." Therefore, we also have the following as officially a longer form of its name: "The holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman Church" (Vatican I session 3 Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith). We find the same phrase all in capitals this time in Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) by Pius XII. However, "Roman church" by itself without anything added is utilized to refer to the local Church in Rome throughout the rest of the council's pronouncements.

We see in Vatican I it is clearly also the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" In fact, we see in the acts of the first Vatican Council that the proposal by a few English speaking Bishops to change its official naming of the Church from "Sancta Romana Catholica Ecclesia" (The Holy Roman Catholic Church) to "Sancta Catholica Ecclesia" (The Holy Catholic Church). The move to eliminate the word “Roman” from the official name was defeated by an overwhelming majority, as was a second vote to even put a comma in between Roman and Catholic (cf. Theodore Granderath. Constitutiones Dogmaticae Sancrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani. (Herder 1892), pp. 5, 27). The council stuck to the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” for all rites and actually require the acknowledgement of the whole church as “Roman” is session II profession of faith and also in session III dogmatic constitution of the catholic faith. This is the official name of the Church used by Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri (1929). In Humani Generis (1950) we likewise find: "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing." No doubt, as of Vatican II, the preference is simply “Catholic Church” in common usage, and that is the most common usage today.

Nonetheless, the phrase “Roman Catholic Church” is what is used in the agreements signed by TH; Paul VI and Athenagoras; JP II and Rowan Williams (Anglican), and between Benedict and Bartholomew. It is used in many other places as well. John Paul II himself jointly named it the Mixed Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church . This was again out of respect for the Orthodox usage of the name as well.

Now, that is regarding the names of the Church. But what of their adherents? In terms of adherents to either communion, we most of the time utilize “Orthodox” or “Catholics” when speaking of one another. Officially, Orthodox are termed “Orthodox Christians” (or in longer form “Orthodox Catholic Christians,” although the latter has fallen somewhat into disuse especially in English speaking countries with regard to adherents of the Orthodox Church), although is still in official catechisms.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #62 on: October 24, 2010, 12:39:54 AM »
I never cared For the word Catholic  ,I wouldn't mind If we Orthodox got rid of the word Catholic,Just Like the pope of rome Got rid of the title Patriarch of the west....I myself Never Use that word .....I use Orthodox Christian Church or Churches Instead.. ;D

But Again it's Not What I Like Or Want, But What The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church Wants to be called i guess, By it's Ancient Title..... ;D

« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 12:50:24 AM by stashko »
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #63 on: October 24, 2010, 05:12:46 AM »
ialmistry,

speaking of names, corrected that for you too.

We are the Catholic Church. It is a plain fact of language. "Holy Orthodoxy" and "Orthodox Church" and "Orthodox Christian" are used far more by your side than "Catholic Church" or "Catholic Faith" or "Catholic Christian".

Oh? Where do you get your statistics? We profess our Faith in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," everyday, and we don't have the Vatican in mind.

Quote
St. Augustine has you nailed.

Well he had his issues: what in particular are you alleging?

Quote
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

If they do, they are heretics. And if they subscribe to the Vatican's lung theory, confusing the Orthodox Catholic Church with the Vatican, they are heretics.

Btw, most languages have two different words for Catholic as in us, and catholic in the sense of Vatican.

Quote
Even if it is only for politeness, you are still forced to acknowledge with your mouth that the Church of Rome and all her sisters are the Church Catholic.
Oddly enough your coreligionists keep accusing me of being impolite because I won't kow tow to your supreme pontiffs claims.

I apologize for messing up your name.

However, it is strikingly telling that your self-identification next to your name is "Orthodox" whereas mine is "Catholic".

St. Augustine still says you're full of fail.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle."

Everyone knows I'm Catholic, and everyone knows you're not, and that you're proud of it. And in what languages are the Orthodox called the cognate or translation for Catholic, and the Catholics called something else entirely?
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2010, 05:34:58 AM »
I never cared For the word Catholic  ,I wouldn't mind If we Orthodox got rid of the word Catholic,Just Like the pope of rome Got rid of the title Patriarch of the west....I myself Never Use that word .....I use Orthodox Christian Church or Churches Instead.. ;D

But Again it's Not What I Like Or Want, But What The Holy Orthodox Catholic Church Wants to be called i guess, By it's Ancient Title..... ;D


We called ourselves Catholic long before we called ourselves Orthodox (I mean "we" as in the pre-schism Church, brother).

The only reason you reject the name is because it is usually associated with the Holy Roman Church.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 05:37:08 AM by WetCatechumen »
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2010, 07:41:15 AM »
ialmistry,

speaking of names, corrected that for you too.

We are the Catholic Church. It is a plain fact of language. "Holy Orthodoxy" and "Orthodox Church" and "Orthodox Christian" are used far more by your side than "Catholic Church" or "Catholic Faith" or "Catholic Christian".

Oh? Where do you get your statistics? We profess our Faith in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," everyday, and we don't have the Vatican in mind.

Quote
St. Augustine has you nailed.

Well he had his issues: what in particular are you alleging?

Quote
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

If they do, they are heretics. And if they subscribe to the Vatican's lung theory, confusing the Orthodox Catholic Church with the Vatican, they are heretics.

Btw, most languages have two different words for Catholic as in us, and catholic in the sense of Vatican.

Quote
Even if it is only for politeness, you are still forced to acknowledge with your mouth that the Church of Rome and all her sisters are the Church Catholic.
Oddly enough your coreligionists keep accusing me of being impolite because I won't kow tow to your supreme pontiffs claims.

I apologize for messing up your name.

No problem. I've gotten used to it (the intrusive t is very common). As for messing up the Church's good name...

However, it is strikingly telling that your self-identification next to your name is "Orthodox" whereas mine is "Catholic".

What does "Orthodox in Communion with Rome" tell you?  I could have put "theist," "Judeo-Christian," "Chalcedonian," "Christian," etc. and they would also all have been correct.

St. Augustine still says you're full of fail.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle."
Since Orthodox is the opposite of heretic, and is the equivalent of Catholic, I guess you are proving the good Doctor wrong.  Since in his own day, every thing I've seen the Arians wrote they refer to themselves as "Catholic," I'm not sure how correct or just smug he was being. The CE on this "The one clear idea underlying all is orthodox as opposed to heretical, and Kattenbusch does not hesitate to admit that in Cyprian we first see how Catholic and Roman came eventually to be regarded as interchangeable terms," as usual ignores the problems of citing St. Cyprian as an authority on this.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
It also has this interesting tidbit:
Quote
The Anglican Bishop of Carlisle, in an article published in the Hibbert Journal for January, 1908, and entitled "The Catholic Church, What Is It?", seems to carry the modern formula, Catholic = comprehensive, to its most extreme lengths. No principle of cohesion seems to be left except this, that the Catholic Church is that which bans nothing. The bishop conceives of it, apparently, as an institution invested by Christ with unlimited power to add to its numbers, but no power to expel. It must surely be plain that practical common sense pronounces against such a conception not less strongly than the plain words of our Lord in the Gospel or the consistent attitude of the Fathers.

Everyone knows I'm Catholic, and everyone knows you're not, and that you're proud of it.

God, Christ, the saints and the Fathers knows the Church I belong to is the Catholic Church.  What others think is not my concern.

And in what languages are the Orthodox called the cognate or translation for Catholic, and the Catholics called something else entirely?
I gave a couple of examples: in Romanian (whose bishop of Rome is the real Roman Catholic Church). The Romanian wikipedia has a interesting paragraph on the matter:
Quote
The word "sobornicească" [which, if you google translate comes up "Catholic"] in the orthodox version replaces the Greek word katholikos, which means "universal." The change is due to translation of the Slavonic, and was taken into Romanian. More information in the second reference [of the article].  It should be noted that not only the Romanian Orthodox translation of "katholikos" avoided with "catolic" to avoid confusion with the Church of Rome. The Finnish Orthodox Church uses both the Finnish version and the Swedish wording of the creed that can be translated as "universal" or "comprehensive" ("allmänlig" in Swedish and "yhteiseen" in Finnish).
Someone has posted disputing that last part, but the wikipedia articles in Swedish and Finnish on the matter (reflecting perhaps the Lutheran churches) show it as described above.  In Arabic "jaami'i" is the term used (shaamili would be another); kaathuuliiki means the Vatican, and only the Vatican, i.e. it doesn't mean universal. In Russian and Ukrainian, the same distinctions apply: ask where the nearest Соборна/Вселенска Church is, you will be directed (or should be) to the nearest Orthodox one (of which, of course, there are plenty). Same in Romania, although there the "Romanian Church in union with Rome-Greek Catholic" so called, and its "Latin" sister (although the Romanian Orthodox Church is the Latin Catholic Church), specifically adopted the term "catolica" in its creed, to sow confusion. However, both are honest that, in contrast with the Latin Orthodox Church, both use the filioque, a most anti-Catholic addition.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2010, 09:39:06 AM »
Are we still arguing about this, or are you just bored? I thought FatherHLL did a good job making his point.

I'm going to need this.

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2010, 10:16:18 AM »
According to the most authoritative source available - the Verizon Yellow Pages - my church is under "Churches - Catholic, Eastern", and the EO church where we attended Vespers last night is under "Churches - Orthodox".

Perhaps you should contact them and protest. ;D
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2010, 11:26:50 AM »
P.S. Having said all that, let me add that I don't agree with some of the R.C. posters here, who want OC.net to ban the use of terms such as "the Vatican" to mean the Roman Catholic Church.

You can call us whatever you want; it's your forum.  If we don't like it, we can leave.  That, too, is reality.  :)
Well, in this case, if they will not ban terms which sole purpose is to be offensive, they might as well just take the final step and ban all of us. If they will not stand up for us to be respected then it is clear they really do not want us here.

Well, it always helps after a discussion like thus, Wyatt, to log off the Net and go hang out with some "real live Orthodox" - they're much friendlier in person. :D
Unfortunately, I only know one Eastern Orthodox Christian in real life (when I knew him he was still Protestant), but he lives in Washington state now so we can only converse over Facebook. From the conversations I have had with him, he seems pretty extreme and fanatical like some of the cyberdoxy that I've run across here, so I am not getting a very good picture of their Church at all. His zeal seems to be rooted in the fact that he is not Catholic and rejects the Pope. It is strange to me that their (the Eastern Orthodox) joy seems to be based on what they are not rather than what they are.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 11:27:10 AM by Wyatt »

Offline dcommini

  • Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,230
  • Beannachd Dia dhuit
    • Life of an Orthodox Soldier
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2010, 12:05:33 PM »
P.S. Having said all that, let me add that I don't agree with some of the R.C. posters here, who want OC.net to ban the use of terms such as "the Vatican" to mean the Roman Catholic Church.

You can call us whatever you want; it's your forum.  If we don't like it, we can leave.  That, too, is reality.  :)
Well, in this case, if they will not ban terms which sole purpose is to be offensive, they might as well just take the final step and ban all of us. If they will not stand up for us to be respected then it is clear they really do not want us here.

Well, it always helps after a discussion like thus, Wyatt, to log off the Net and go hang out with some "real live Orthodox" - they're much friendlier in person. :D
Unfortunately, I only know one Eastern Orthodox Christian in real life (when I knew him he was still Protestant), but he lives in Washington state now so we can only converse over Facebook. From the conversations I have had with him, he seems pretty extreme and fanatical like some of the cyberdoxy that I've run across here, so I am not getting a very good picture of their Church at all. His zeal seems to be rooted in the fact that he is not Catholic and rejects the Pope. It is strange to me that their (the Eastern Orthodox) joy seems to be based on what they are not rather than what they are.

I have encountered this same attitude among many Roman Catholics, they are so proud that they are not Protestant or even Orthodox. Likewise I know many Protestants who are deathly proud not to be a "Papist" or a "Closet Catholic" (Orthodox). I think this is a problem of pride that very many people struggle with.

That said I will say this: I am glad that I am no longer a Protestant and I am glad that I am not Roman Catholic because I know that I would be ascribing myself to the wrong Church if I were either of the two. I can say this because I did a lot of studying when I was in Iraq before I decided that the Orthodox Church is the true Church of Christ.

I have heard many Roman Catholics describe themselves as Roman Catholics to avoid confusion with other types of catholic that are out there. But I believe that Roman Catholic should only be used to describe the Catholic Churches that follow the Church of Rome (Latin Rite (I hope that makes sense)). I understand that theistgal is a Byzantine Catholic and I would not call her a Roman Catholic; there is a female in my old National Guard unit that is Ukrainian Catholic, but I would not call her Roman Catholic although both types of Churches are in communion with Rome. It seems to me that those I know who are not strictly Roman Catholic (such as Byzantine, Ukrainian and others) do not mind being called by a certain identifier to separate them from Roman Catholics (because of differences in worship styles and other things).
To me Roman Catholic is just an identifier of what type of Church it is.

In our culture Catholic has become synonymous with Roman Catholic, but this does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church is THE Catholic Church, rather it is simple ignorance on our culture to realize that not every Church that claims to be Catholic is Roman Catholic. But why do we Orthodox use Orthodox? We believe that we are the correctly worshipping Church, as passed down from the Apostles. I have seen plenty of people use Orthodox Catholic to describe the Orthodox Church, in our services we call ourselves Catholic and Orthodox. I do believe that Orthodox Catholic is the proper term, but like I said, Catholic has become synonymous with Roman Catholic in our culture and most Orthodox Churches I have seen use only the Orthodox identifier as to not cause confusion. But just because our church buildings say Orthodox on the outside does not mean that we do not call (ad ascribe) ourselves Catholic AND Orthodox on the inside (to clarify that we are the correctly worshipping Catholic Church as opposed to any other Catholic claiming Church).
OblSB

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...

Offline Deacon Lance

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,916
  • Faith: Byzantine Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2010, 01:29:33 PM »
This has become a little confusing in that the Latin rite is sometimes called the “Roman rite,” especially by Ruthenians and others.

That is the correct term.  There is no Latin Rite but several Rites that use Latin as its mother liturgical language.  There is a Latin Church with several Rites: the Roman (with various usages), Ambrosian, and Mozarabic
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2010, 03:02:14 PM »
The reason why each thing has a certain word ascribed to it and not others (or more than one word) are historical and social. A good example is that the country United States of America is conventionally called just "America" while that is also the name of the entire continent. When I use "America" to refer to the U.S. I'm not implying that it is the only country in America, I'm only acknowledging social usage of the word in *English*. I once even had a rather funny conversation with a Muslim in the U.K. who asked me where Brazil was. I replied it is in "South-America" and, with an inquisitive face, he commented he didn't know it was part of the United States. I then had to explain about the continent, about the concept of name usage and so on. Fortunately, though, today he knows that there are three Americas, that you *may* refer to the U.S. as America, although it is the name of the continent and that New York is neither the capital of Brazil, nor of the United States, nor of America.

There is no such a thing as "Eastern" Christianity, or "Eastern" Church. The Church was born in the East, it is the "Western" Church that is the variation on the original theme.It is Western Christianity that was the cultural colony that severed its link to the "metropolis" and started a new development of its own which, in my opinion, broke away spiritually from the original. Western Christianity today is in the same situation of the *new* countries of America: you can clearly trace their origins back to Portugal, Spain and England. But they have long ceased to be Portugal, Spain and England. Likewise, you can clearly trace the origins of the Western Church to Rome, to the Church of the first Millenium. But this historical succession of facts also show that it has become something different. Not entirely different because the Western Church was once the "colony" of the original Church from the East, but different enough to be something else. One can do a very careful study of how American society (referrign now to the U.S.) has a lot of "Britishness" in it, language being the most striking element of course. After all, the American Dream was first dreamed by British subjects. But both the British and the American person can see how they are, today, two different cultures altogether. Of course, for a Chinese or an Indian, they will look very much like each other, but we are closer than that culturally, and we can see their ultimate "otherness" regarding each other.

Culturaly, I think the West is the greatest human achievement there is. But spiritually, it's not the Church. Although there are Greek elements in Western civilization, only the Greeks are the Greeks, despite their time of captivity under the Turks.  In a similar fashion, only the Church, originally born in the East, is the Church, despite its time of captivity too, and the Western churches, despite having elements of the Church in them, are something entirely different, although it may not look like that to a non-Christian.

The "Roman" "Catholic" "Church" and the Protestant "Churches", have much of the Church in them. But they are not churches, they are not catholic, and in the sense of the Greek-Roman Empire culture, they are not Roman. They are Frank-Germanic through and through in terms of culture, specially if we understand that those tribes had incorporated much of Roman law into them. But when a rabbit eats a lettuce, the lettuce becomes the rabbit. When the Frank-Germanic cultures "ate" the Roman culture, it became Frank-Germanic.

The greatest collective neurosis of the West lies precisely in its delluded self-image that it is a continuum of the Western Roman Empire, while it never was. The civilization that exists today under the name of West - again, I think it is the greatest human achievement of history - is, in fact, a continuum of foedaratii tribes which were satellites to the Empire. As mentioned before, they incorporated some Roman elements, but these elements became Frank-Germanic in the process. The West is something new, it is what happened when barbaric tribes "digested" some Roman elements. This new civilization was consolidated during and by the Caroligean Empire, which marks the rupture, and even cultural and political independence from the Greek-Roman Empire, creating not a new country, but a new civilization. Part of this process, though, is the said neurosis, that is, that we were "Romans" and not "Romanized Frank-Germans".

If we remember that "catholic" is not a name, but one of the four attributes of the Church, we can see clearly which of the groups claiming to be the Church really is. "Catholic" makes reference to the source of authority of the Church, to the proper "locus" of the infallibility to use a term dear to Western theology.

And what is the source of the infallibility according to this attribute set in the Symbol of Faith? The word explains itself: "kat'holic" from the Greek "kata holos", meaning, according to the whole. That is where the Spirit of Truth manifests Himself ultimately: from the whole.

Any "church" which, in face of controversies, think that the infallible authority of the Spirit of Truth will manifest itself in the Scriptures or in the Pope, even if only in very specific situations, is not, by definition, "kat'holic", catholic. It may rightfuly be named "kata papas" or "kata biblios", but not "kata holos".

Everytime a "papist" faithful says that the ultimate authority of the Church (1)"according to the whole" will come (2)"according to the Pope", what he is doing is just stating a contradiction in terms that is not obvious because he says the first term using an archaic term (the word "catholic"), and the second using contemporary language.  But once you put both terms in the same language, the impossibility of the idea is self-evident. The Church "according to the whole" (kata holic) cannot be "according to the pope"(kata papic) nor "according to the bible" (kata biblic) - not sure if the Greek suffixes are correct, but the logic is pretty straight-forward.

That is why I use to say that the fundamental heresy of Western ecclesiology is that of katamerism, from "kata meros", meaning "according to a part" or "according to a piece", by which one piece of the whole is chosen from and above it to be the sole vehicle of the infallibility of the Holy Spirit, while the actual tradition of the Church is that the Spirit may use any part of the Church, primate, bishop, priest, deacon, laity, Scripture, Nature, relics, saints, monks, Sacraments, Angels, synods, emperors and even non-Christians to bring the Church back to the right faith, the right worship, to Orthodoxy.

That infallibillity is an attribute of the Holy Spirit I think it is undeniable. But what is the mistake of the katamerists? When they attribute to one of the parts of the Church the exclusivity of this infallibility, what they are looking for is a sure source in human terms. But, what is the point of an infallible papal ex cathedra utterance, or of an infallible scripture if the one hearing is still fallible? For communication is not just the production of information, but its transmission and reception. The mistake of the catamerists is fully disclosed in this: that even if we had one infallible source, that the means and the receivers are still fallible would still render this fact pointless, since the message could be corrupted in the means or misunderstood by the receiver. The whole point of the "infallible source" is renderred useless.

Now, if the Church is not informed infallibly about truth from a single infallible source, but is infallibly guided by an infallible Holy Spirit, than, the imperfection of each of the "means" becomes pointless, because when one fails in a certain aspect, this can be compensated by another that succeeds there and fails in another. The Spirit blows where He wills, like a song fom a choir where everybody and everything sing, not from a solo the others just follow.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 03:04:47 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #72 on: October 24, 2010, 08:31:11 PM »
Non-offensive terms:
The Latin Church (For Roman Catholics)
The Byzantine Churches in Communion with Rome (For Byzantine Catholics)
The Oriental Churches in Communion with Rome (For Oriental Catholics)
Why not "Christians in communion with Rome".
While I think that such is silly, at least they are accurate adjectives, and descriptions. If you won't call us by our proper name, then at least refer to us by accurate, non-offensive descriptions.

There is no need to resort to historically offensive names, such as "Romanisits" or silly names, like "The Vatican" which is not the name of a Church, but only a city-state within Italy.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #73 on: October 24, 2010, 11:10:13 PM »
There is no such a thing as "Eastern" Christianity, or "Eastern" Church.
Really?
This is another one of those truly incredible statements found on this board.
I find it difficult to believe that there is no such thing as Eastern Christianity. For one thing, wikipedia has a whole article on just that subject: Eastern Christianity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Christianity
I don't see one single objection to the use of this term in the wikipedia discussion section.
"Eastern Christianity refers collectively to the Christian traditions and churches which developed in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, the Middle East, Northeastern Africa, and India over several centuries of religious antiquity."
"Today there are four main branches or families of Eastern Christianity, each of which has distinct theology and dogma.

the Assyrian Church of the East
the Eastern Orthodox Churches
the Oriental Orthodox Churches
the Eastern Catholic Churches."
« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 11:12:02 PM by stanley123 »

Offline Aindriú

  • Faster! Funnier!
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,918
    • Blog
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #74 on: October 24, 2010, 11:27:27 PM »
Hold on..







Ok, I feel better.

I'm going to need this.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #75 on: October 24, 2010, 11:30:17 PM »
Non-offensive terms:
The Latin Church (For Roman Catholics)
The Byzantine Churches in Communion with Rome (For Byzantine Catholics)
The Oriental Churches in Communion with Rome (For Oriental Catholics)
Why not "Christians in communion with Rome".
While I think that such is silly, at least they are accurate adjectives, and descriptions. If you won't call us by our proper name, then at least refer to us by accurate, non-offensive descriptions.

There is no need to resort to historically offensive names, such as "Romanisits" or silly names, like "The Vatican" which is not the name of a Church, but only a city-state within Italy.
Very odd when such claims are maid
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

Even if it is only for politeness, you are still forced to acknowledge with your mouth that the Church of Rome and all her sisters are the Church Catholic.
St. Augustine still says you're full of fail.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle."

Everyone knows I'm Catholic, and everyone knows you're not, and that you're proud of it.

Yet no one has a problem knowing  who I mean when I say Vatican. No mystery. No secret.  The conventicle with this in every one:
It seems that some are not as interested in getting terminology correct as they are in insulting Catholics.
If you mean your coreligionists, you all must be sado-masichistic then, because in every one of your churches I've seen this

up in front. In fact I recall a discussion on CAF on how it can't be lower than the US flag, even in the US (there were dissenters on that ).

This conversation reminds me of a near and dear colleague I had in college who was Mormon: in a conversation about Mormonism, I refered to them as non-Christian, which she was highly offended by (she actually had raised the issue, refering to Mormons as Christians and expressing disbelief at those who believed otherwise).  There was no doubt that she perceived it as an insult, but it was equally obvious that there was no way around the fact that Mormonism is from Christianity but not of Christianity.

Now the proof of that is quite simple: the Church (the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox one) cannot receive Mormon "baptism" even by econmy, and it is only by economy that any non-Orthodox Christian can be refered to as "Christian."  Proof need not be provided to the Vatican about the Mormons status, as the Vatican shares our view (the Mormons share our view too, but just in reverse. But neither of us care what the Mormons think on anything), but must (and can be) provided from a historical or comparative religion/history of religions POV.  That perspective is not determinative, however. The Church's is.

The OP makes the claim that the Church has never been described as "Christian."  It has been described as "Catholic," and remains quite odd-or rather disingenuous-on that basis to complain of the Orthodox refusal to let the Vatican denominate itself by a "mark of the Church." Why we should capitulate at setting the terms of debate have not been explained. Like the Mormon with the title "Christian" (many Mormons nonetheless practicing Christian virtures), there is no way around the Vatican using the term "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the real Catholic Church.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #76 on: October 24, 2010, 11:46:06 PM »
... there is no way around the Vatican using the term "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the real Catholic Church.

Another statement that is difficult to believe, at least if you place any credence in what the Orthodox wikipedia says. According to the orthodox wikipedia:
"The term Catholic Church refers to those Churches (including the Eastern Catholic Churches and other non-Latin rite churches) in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. "
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Roman_Catholic_Church
I don't see anyone Orthodox Christian or not, objecting to this in the discussion section of the Orthodox wikipedia.
BTW, what is Orthodox wiki:

"It's a place for Orthodox Christians to share their knowledge and perspectives. ...
It's pan-Orthodox. ...
It has many audiences—it's a resource for non-Orthodox as well as Orthodox clergy and laity.
It's a discussion forum with attention to the development of documentation to help clarify / articulate some fundamental issues in Church life.
It has a specific bias.
Although OrthodoxWiki contains many links to external sites, it aspires to be much more than a human edited directory. Encyclopedia-like articles are considered a valuable part of this enterprise. The most fundamental aspect of all this is the consolidation of a "knowledge landscape" within Orthodoxy."


Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #77 on: October 24, 2010, 11:48:12 PM »
"Eastern Christianity refers collectively to the Christian traditions and churches which developed in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, the Middle East, Northeastern Africa, and India over several centuries of religious antiquity."


Really. The "Church that developed in the Middle East" is the phrase that is absurd, just like saying that Chinese Taoism is the Taoism that developed in China in contrast to Taoism that emerged in the U.S.

Christ was born in the Middle-East, all the Apostles were Middle-Easterns, the Mother Church of all is the Church of Jerusalem, whose Patriarch, and the only one that is there since St. James, is the Orthodox Patriarch.

But then St. Paul also preached more to the West, didn't he? Where exactly? Athens, Corinth, Tessalonike...and when we go to Greece, what do we find there? The same Church that is in Jerusalem!

Nobody is really sure if St Peter or St. Paul, or both or neither founded the church in Rome. We know for sure that St. Peter founded the church in Antioch. And which is this church that is the only one assuredly petrine? The Antiochian Church which is....the Orthodox Church!  

But St. Peter had a disciple St. Mark, who founded the church in Alexandria and there the Church is clearly Roman Cath... ops..no... it's Orthodox. My bad. :)

The only traditional see that is not Orthodox is the only one which was forced by a barbarian emperor to introduce a new clause in the Creed and whose rightfully ordained bishops were murdered to be substituted by his generals and captains... the only one that was taken over by the ascension of the tribe of the Franks into a new civilization. They even tried to move the Roman see to France a couple of centuries later. For many centuries when one thought "Pope" or "Catholic Church" they thought "France".

So basically we have the Middle-Eastern and Greek churches, the very first ones, being Orthodox. The Petrine sees, Antioch and Alexandria are Orthodox. Rome was Orthodox until the Frank-Germanic rise of the West. The West, which received the Church from the Middle-East and from Hellenic-Latin culture, is the variation. The standard and core from what the Western Church is but a mutation is what exists in the Middle-East and Greece.

But nothing of this is in Wikipedia, so surely it can't be true. What a fool I am. :)
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #78 on: October 25, 2010, 02:45:10 AM »
But nothing of this is in Wikipedia, so surely it can't be true. What a fool I am. :)
You said that there was no such a thing as "Eastern" Christianity.
It is not only wikipedia that disagrees with you. The University of London disagrees with you as they have a Centre of Eastern and Orthodox Christianity, Department for the Study of Religions, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
Also there is a site called http://easternchristianity.com/index.html
and yes, it does concern itself with Eastern Christianity in the Middle East.
 

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #79 on: October 25, 2010, 02:53:03 AM »
There is no such a thing as "Eastern" Christianity....
This would be news to the division of Religion and Philosophy of the University of Cumbria, which has an entire webpage dedicated to Eastern Christianity:
http://philtar.ucsm.ac.uk/encyclopedia/christ/east/eastessay.html


Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #80 on: October 25, 2010, 03:07:17 AM »
There is no such a thing as "Eastern" Christianity, or "Eastern" Church.

I think that the authors of the following books might take issue with the statement that there is no such thing as Eastern Christianity:
1. History of Eastern Christianity by
Aziz S. Atiya
2. The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity (Blackwell Companions to Religion)  by
Ken Parry
3. Eastern Christianity in the Modern Middle East (Culture and Civilization in the Middle East)
Anthony O'Mahony (Editor), Emma Loosley (Editor)
4. Cambridge History of Christianity: Volume 5, Eastern Christianity by Michael Angold
5.
Prayers from the East: Traditions of Eastern Christianity by Richard Marsh
6. The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude : Seventh-Twentieth Century [Paperback]
Bat Ye'Or
7. Eastern Christianity and the Cold War, 1945-91 (Routledge Studies in the History of Russia and Eastern Europe) by Lucian N. Leustean
8. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Vladimir Lossky (Mar 1, 1997)
9. Introduction to Eastern Christian Spirituality: The Syriac Tradition by Seely J. Beggiani



Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #81 on: October 25, 2010, 11:24:27 AM »
Non-offensive terms:
The Latin Church (For Roman Catholics)
The Byzantine Churches in Communion with Rome (For Byzantine Catholics)
The Oriental Churches in Communion with Rome (For Oriental Catholics)
Why not "Christians in communion with Rome".
While I think that such is silly, at least they are accurate adjectives, and descriptions. If you won't call us by our proper name, then at least refer to us by accurate, non-offensive descriptions.

There is no need to resort to historically offensive names, such as "Romanisits" or silly names, like "The Vatican" which is not the name of a Church, but only a city-state within Italy.
I like this idea. At the very least, the Eastern Orthodox have to admit that we are Christians since they consider Protestants to be Christians as well. I would not mind "Christian in communion with Rome." Although I have a feeling ialmisry would corrupt that and say something like "Christian under the Vatican" or something.  :D

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #82 on: October 25, 2010, 11:38:43 AM »
The reason why each thing has a certain word ascribed to it and not others (or more than one word) are historical and social. A good example is that the country United States of America is conventionally called just "America" while that is also the name of the entire continent. When I use "America" to refer to the U.S. I'm not implying that it is the only country in America, I'm only acknowledging social usage of the word in *English*. I once even had a rather funny conversation with a Muslim in the U.K. who asked me where Brazil was. I replied it is in "South-America" and, with an inquisitive face, he commented he didn't know it was part of the United States. I then had to explain about the continent, about the concept of name usage and so on. Fortunately, though, today he knows that there are three Americas, that you *may* refer to the U.S. as America, although it is the name of the continent and that New York is neither the capital of Brazil, nor of the United States, nor of America.

There is no such a thing as "Eastern" Christianity, or "Eastern" Church. The Church was born in the East, it is the "Western" Church that is the variation on the original theme.It is Western Christianity that was the cultural colony that severed its link to the "metropolis" and started a new development of its own which, in my opinion, broke away spiritually from the original. Western Christianity today is in the same situation of the *new* countries of America: you can clearly trace their origins back to Portugal, Spain and England. But they have long ceased to be Portugal, Spain and England. Likewise, you can clearly trace the origins of the Western Church to Rome, to the Church of the first Millenium. But this historical succession of facts also show that it has become something different. Not entirely different because the Western Church was once the "colony" of the original Church from the East, but different enough to be something else. One can do a very careful study of how American society (referrign now to the U.S.) has a lot of "Britishness" in it, language being the most striking element of course. After all, the American Dream was first dreamed by British subjects. But both the British and the American person can see how they are, today, two different cultures altogether. Of course, for a Chinese or an Indian, they will look very much like each other, but we are closer than that culturally, and we can see their ultimate "otherness" regarding each other.

Culturaly, I think the West is the greatest human achievement there is. But spiritually, it's not the Church. Although there are Greek elements in Western civilization, only the Greeks are the Greeks, despite their time of captivity under the Turks.  In a similar fashion, only the Church, originally born in the East, is the Church, despite its time of captivity too, and the Western churches, despite having elements of the Church in them, are something entirely different, although it may not look like that to a non-Christian.

The "Roman" "Catholic" "Church" and the Protestant "Churches", have much of the Church in them. But they are not churches, they are not catholic, and in the sense of the Greek-Roman Empire culture, they are not Roman. They are Frank-Germanic through and through in terms of culture, specially if we understand that those tribes had incorporated much of Roman law into them. But when a rabbit eats a lettuce, the lettuce becomes the rabbit. When the Frank-Germanic cultures "ate" the Roman culture, it became Frank-Germanic.

The greatest collective neurosis of the West lies precisely in its delluded self-image that it is a continuum of the Western Roman Empire, while it never was. The civilization that exists today under the name of West - again, I think it is the greatest human achievement of history - is, in fact, a continuum of foedaratii tribes which were satellites to the Empire. As mentioned before, they incorporated some Roman elements, but these elements became Frank-Germanic in the process. The West is something new, it is what happened when barbaric tribes "digested" some Roman elements. This new civilization was consolidated during and by the Caroligean Empire, which marks the rupture, and even cultural and political independence from the Greek-Roman Empire, creating not a new country, but a new civilization. Part of this process, though, is the said neurosis, that is, that we were "Romans" and not "Romanized Frank-Germans".

If we remember that "catholic" is not a name, but one of the four attributes of the Church, we can see clearly which of the groups claiming to be the Church really is. "Catholic" makes reference to the source of authority of the Church, to the proper "locus" of the infallibility to use a term dear to Western theology.

And what is the source of the infallibility according to this attribute set in the Symbol of Faith? The word explains itself: "kat'holic" from the Greek "kata holos", meaning, according to the whole. That is where the Spirit of Truth manifests Himself ultimately: from the whole.

Any "church" which, in face of controversies, think that the infallible authority of the Spirit of Truth will manifest itself in the Scriptures or in the Pope, even if only in very specific situations, is not, by definition, "kat'holic", catholic. It may rightfuly be named "kata papas" or "kata biblios", but not "kata holos".

Everytime a "papist" faithful says that the ultimate authority of the Church (1)"according to the whole" will come (2)"according to the Pope", what he is doing is just stating a contradiction in terms that is not obvious because he says the first term using an archaic term (the word "catholic"), and the second using contemporary language.  But once you put both terms in the same language, the impossibility of the idea is self-evident. The Church "according to the whole" (kata holic) cannot be "according to the pope"(kata papic) nor "according to the bible" (kata biblic) - not sure if the Greek suffixes are correct, but the logic is pretty straight-forward.

That is why I use to say that the fundamental heresy of Western ecclesiology is that of katamerism, from "kata meros", meaning "according to a part" or "according to a piece", by which one piece of the whole is chosen from and above it to be the sole vehicle of the infallibility of the Holy Spirit, while the actual tradition of the Church is that the Spirit may use any part of the Church, primate, bishop, priest, deacon, laity, Scripture, Nature, relics, saints, monks, Sacraments, Angels, synods, emperors and even non-Christians to bring the Church back to the right faith, the right worship, to Orthodoxy.

That infallibillity is an attribute of the Holy Spirit I think it is undeniable. But what is the mistake of the katamerists? When they attribute to one of the parts of the Church the exclusivity of this infallibility, what they are looking for is a sure source in human terms. But, what is the point of an infallible papal ex cathedra utterance, or of an infallible scripture if the one hearing is still fallible? For communication is not just the production of information, but its transmission and reception. The mistake of the catamerists is fully disclosed in this: that even if we had one infallible source, that the means and the receivers are still fallible would still render this fact pointless, since the message could be corrupted in the means or misunderstood by the receiver. The whole point of the "infallible source" is renderred useless.

Now, if the Church is not informed infallibly about truth from a single infallible source, but is infallibly guided by an infallible Holy Spirit, than, the imperfection of each of the "means" becomes pointless, because when one fails in a certain aspect, this can be compensated by another that succeeds there and fails in another. The Spirit blows where He wills, like a song fom a choir where everybody and everything sing, not from a solo the others just follow.


What in heaven's name are you talking about?

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #83 on: October 25, 2010, 11:53:46 AM »
Come on, folks, Fabio's post is perfectly clear when read in context.  He's saying that what is called the "Eastern Church" today was originally simply "the Church", and only had to be designated as "Eastern" when the Western civilization, culture *and church* developed later.

Makes perfect sense to me and quite logical too.
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #84 on: October 25, 2010, 12:18:38 PM »
Non-offensive terms:
The Latin Church (For Roman Catholics)
The Byzantine Churches in Communion with Rome (For Byzantine Catholics)
The Oriental Churches in Communion with Rome (For Oriental Catholics)
Why not "Christians in communion with Rome".
While I think that such is silly, at least they are accurate adjectives, and descriptions. If you won't call us by our proper name, then at least refer to us by accurate, non-offensive descriptions.

There is no need to resort to historically offensive names, such as "Romanisits" or silly names, like "The Vatican" which is not the name of a Church, but only a city-state within Italy.
Very odd when such claims are maid
As much as you would love to be styled Catholic, if I approached you on the street and ask where the nearest Catholic Church is, yes, you might be a smart aleck and tell me that it was the nearest Orthodox Church - but even clergy in your church distinguish between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church.

Even if it is only for politeness, you are still forced to acknowledge with your mouth that the Church of Rome and all her sisters are the Church Catholic.
St. Augustine still says you're full of fail.

"Although all heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if any one ask where is the Catholic place of worship none of them would venture to point out his own conventicle."

Everyone knows I'm Catholic, and everyone knows you're not, and that you're proud of it.

Yet no one has a problem knowing  who I mean when I say Vatican. No mystery. No secret.  The conventicle with this in every one:
It seems that some are not as interested in getting terminology correct as they are in insulting Catholics.
If you mean your coreligionists, you all must be sado-masichistic then, because in every one of your churches I've seen this

up in front. In fact I recall a discussion on CAF on how it can't be lower than the US flag, even in the US (there were dissenters on that ).

This conversation reminds me of a near and dear colleague I had in college who was Mormon: in a conversation about Mormonism, I refered to them as non-Christian, which she was highly offended by (she actually had raised the issue, refering to Mormons as Christians and expressing disbelief at those who believed otherwise).  There was no doubt that she perceived it as an insult, but it was equally obvious that there was no way around the fact that Mormonism is from Christianity but not of Christianity.

Now the proof of that is quite simple: the Church (the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox one) cannot receive Mormon "baptism" even by econmy, and it is only by economy that any non-Orthodox Christian can be refered to as "Christian."  Proof need not be provided to the Vatican about the Mormons status, as the Vatican shares our view (the Mormons share our view too, but just in reverse. But neither of us care what the Mormons think on anything), but must (and can be) provided from a historical or comparative religion/history of religions POV.  That perspective is not determinative, however. The Church's is.

The OP makes the claim that the Church has never been described as "Christian."  It has been described as "Catholic," and remains quite odd-or rather disingenuous-on that basis to complain of the Orthodox refusal to let the Vatican denominate itself by a "mark of the Church." Why we should capitulate at setting the terms of debate have not been explained. Like the Mormon with the title "Christian" (many Mormons nonetheless practicing Christian virtures), there is no way around the Vatican using the term "Catholic" to distinguish itself from the real Catholic Church.

You can still refer to us as Christians. You are just being difficult and you know it.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #85 on: October 25, 2010, 12:20:41 PM »
Non-offensive terms:
The Latin Church (For Roman Catholics)
The Byzantine Churches in Communion with Rome (For Byzantine Catholics)
The Oriental Churches in Communion with Rome (For Oriental Catholics)
Why not "Christians in communion with Rome".
While I think that such is silly, at least they are accurate adjectives, and descriptions. If you won't call us by our proper name, then at least refer to us by accurate, non-offensive descriptions.

There is no need to resort to historically offensive names, such as "Romanisits" or silly names, like "The Vatican" which is not the name of a Church, but only a city-state within Italy.
I like this idea. At the very least, the Eastern Orthodox have to admit that we are Christians since they consider Protestants to be Christians as well. I would not mind "Christian in communion with Rome." Although I have a feeling ialmisry would corrupt that and say something like "Christian under the Vatican" or something.  :D
Of course he would. For the netodox, it's not about truth or charity, but about believing that they are right.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #86 on: October 25, 2010, 02:02:53 PM »
Come on, folks, Fabio's post is perfectly clear when read in context.  He's saying that what is called the "Eastern Church" today was originally simply "the Church", and only had to be designated as "Eastern" when the Western civilization, culture *and church* developed later.

Makes perfect sense to me and quite logical too.

Thank you, theistgal. It's really not difficult.

In fact, all I'm saying is that in the 9th century, as part of the process of the rise of Western civilization, these new peoples forgot - no in a rational way, but in social-psychological way - that the Church originated in the Middle-East and that it's first steps outside that region were in Greek lands. Considering they were fighting an invader people from the Middle-East and were getting culturally and politically independent from the Romaic (Byzantine) Empire which was hellenized, it's not difficult to see why they could not conceive that their dear Church could not have anything to do spiritually with either of them. They completely lost that the Western Church was the variation - even if a valid one.

Let's use an analogy: imagine that the U.S. converted in mass to Taoism. Obviously, for quite long time, it would become culturally dependent of China, but probably, as with all converts, very orthodox in the precepts of the new doctrine. Probably, the followers in China would have both respect for their orthodoxy and a certain despise for their "barbaric" ways. The new converts would see the old land authorities as lax, and unecessarily sophisticated. Yet, the new American Taoism would clearly be influenced by local culture, by the previous Protestant civilization. We can even picture exegitical debates over the Tao te King.

Move forward to nine centuries later. American Taoism, obviously, would have developed greatly in these centuries. Some of the original chinese followers would even have questioned if it was still Taoism and the issue would be blurry. Then the American Taoists bring up texts from many centuries ago, where even the Chinese show respect for their orthodoxy. But instead of seeing in that the acceptance of the "masters" over a dedicated "disciple" they argue that from the beginning it was acknowledged that America sets the standard of what Taoism is or is not. That it is something inherent to the country itself, and that those who diverge with it are off the "Way".  With this argument, they say the Chinese have left the path of the Tao, since they do not agree with the new developments, and start calling them "Eastern Taoists", the "Chinese". The Taoist Temple of Wa-Shin-Ton is proclaimed the infallible voice of the Tao, something that, they claim, is proven by those texts praising its Orthodoxy from the first centuries. They proclaim that all the "Eastern Taoism" temples are illegitimate and that only those temples that acknowledge the Wa-Shin-Ton Temple are following the Tao. Eventually, they proclaim that the Wa-Shin-Ton Temple is the visible manifestation of the invisible Tao. The Chinese, the original Taoists, say that is an absurd, that the Tao is inexpressible and manifest in everything, not exclusively in a single temple. The now self-proclaimed "Taoists" break up definitely with the "Eastern Taoists" not accepting their proclamation of faith (which is in fact, the very original one), but, in an act of "merciful" kindness offer them a maternal hand if only they submit to the Wa-Shin-Ton Temple and return to the True Path. The Chinese refuse. Presenting texts from nine centuries before, the Americans further accuse the "Eastern Taoists" of even having abandoned English, the "original" language of Taoism. Outraged by the madness, the Chinese simply close relations with the Americans.

Centuries later, the now Ah-meri-Kahns, speaking a new language that comes from the mix of English and Chinese, are absolutely sure that although Taoism originated physically in China, it only blossomed in the Yu-Ehs. Those radical schismatic Chinese Eastern Taoists abandoned English, the original language of the Tao, abandoned the Tao itself to cultivate their strange and enigmatic politics. Oh, only if they returned to the True Tao, accepting to submit to the millenium old venerable Wa-Shin-Ton Temple.... Never mind that the "schismatic" Taoism is what is practiced in all the cities and lands mentioned in ancient Taoist documents. Never mind that Chinese is the language in these documents. "Western Taoism" is the only true one.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 02:12:39 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #87 on: October 25, 2010, 02:31:45 PM »
Come on, folks, Fabio's post is perfectly clear when read in context.  He's saying that what is called the "Eastern Church" today was originally simply "the Church", and only had to be designated as "Eastern" when the Western civilization, culture *and church* developed later.

Makes perfect sense to me and quite logical too.

Thank you, theistgal. It's really not difficult.

In fact, all I'm saying is that in the 9th century, as part of the process of the rise of Western civilization, these new peoples forgot - no in a rational way, but in social-psychological way - that the Church originated in the Middle-East and that it's first steps outside that region were in Greek lands. Considering they were fighting an invader people from the Middle-East and were getting culturally and politically independent from the Romaic (Byzantine) Empire which was hellenized, it's not difficult to see why they could not conceive that their dear Church could not have anything to do spiritually with either of them. They completely lost that the Western Church was the variation - even if a valid one.

Let's use an analogy: imagine that the U.S. converted in mass to Taoism. Obviously, for quite long time, it would become culturally dependent of China, but probably, as with all converts, very orthodox in the precepts of the new doctrine. Probably, the followers in China would have both respect for their orthodoxy and a certain despise for their "barbaric" ways. The new converts would see the old land authorities as lax, and unecessarily sophisticated. Yet, the new American Taoism would clearly be influenced by local culture, by the previous Protestant civilization. We can even picture exegitical debates over the Tao te King.

Move forward to nine centuries later. American Taoism, obviously, would have developed greatly in these centuries. Some of the original chinese followers would even have questioned if it was still Taoism and the issue would be blurry. Then the American Taoists bring up texts from many centuries ago, where even the Chinese show respect for their orthodoxy. But instead of seeing in that the acceptance of the "masters" over a dedicated "disciple" they argue that from the beginning it was acknowledged that America sets the standard of what Taoism is or is not. That it is something inherent to the country itself, and that those who diverge with it are off the "Way".  With this argument, they say the Chinese have left the path of the Tao, since they do not agree with the new developments, and start calling them "Eastern Taoists", the "Chinese". The Taoist Temple of Wa-Shin-Ton is proclaimed the infallible voice of the Tao, something that, they claim, is proven by those texts praising its Orthodoxy from the first centuries. They proclaim that all the "Eastern Taoism" temples are illegitimate and that only those temples that acknowledge the Wa-Shin-Ton Temple are following the Tao. Eventually, they proclaim that the Wa-Shin-Ton Temple is the visible manifestation of the invisible Tao. The Chinese, the original Taoists, say that is an absurd, that the Tao is inexpressible and manifest in everything, not exclusively in a single temple. The now self-proclaimed "Taoists" break up definitely with the "Eastern Taoists" not accepting their proclamation of faith (which is in fact, the very original one), but, in an act of "merciful" kindness offer them a maternal hand if only they submit to the Wa-Shin-Ton Temple and return to the True Path. The Chinese refuse. Presenting texts from nine centuries before, the Americans further accuse the "Eastern Taoists" of even having abandoned English, the "original" language of Taoism. Outraged by the madness, the Chinese simply close relations with the Americans.

Centuries later, the now Ah-meri-Kahns, speaking a new language that comes from the mix of English and Chinese, are absolutely sure that although Taoism originated physically in China, it only blossomed in the Yu-Ehs. Those radical schismatic Chinese Eastern Taoists abandoned English, the original language of the Tao, abandoned the Tao itself to cultivate their strange and enigmatic politics. Oh, only if they returned to the True Tao, accepting to submit to the millenium old venerable Wa-Shin-Ton Temple.... Never mind that the "schismatic" Taoism is what is practiced in all the cities and lands mentioned in ancient Taoist documents. Never mind that Chinese is the language in these documents. "Western Taoism" is the only true one.

This elaborate and, indeed, rather interesting analogy would make sense if the Roman Church didn't come on the scene until, say, the 800s or 900s A.D., but alas, that would be false history. St. Peter and St. Paul went to Rome and Christianity existed in Rome at the very beginning. To say otherwise would be to lie about facts for the sake of bolstering the Eastern Orthodox position. We are obviously going to have disagreements about the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church, but to try to say that the Roman Church was the innovation and that it came much later is inaccurate. Sure, it was not the first Church, but was and is an important center of Christianity and one where the two greatest figures in Christendom are buried.

Offline Russell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 173
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #88 on: October 25, 2010, 03:08:11 PM »
and one where the two greatest figures in Christendom are buried.
When did Saint Peter and Saint Paul become greater than Jesus or the Virgin Mary?
Mathe 24:36

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #89 on: October 25, 2010, 03:27:21 PM »
This elaborate and, indeed, rather interesting analogy would make sense if the Roman Church didn't come on the scene until, say, the 800s or 900s A.D., but alas, that would be false history. St. Peter and St. Paul went to Rome and Christianity existed in Rome at the very beginning. To say otherwise would be to lie about facts for the sake of bolstering the Eastern Orthodox position. We are obviously going to have disagreements about the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Universal Church, but to try to say that the Roman Church was the innovation and that it came much later is inaccurate. Sure, it was not the first Church, but was and is an important center of Christianity and one where the two greatest figures in Christendom are buried.

Wyatt,

here lies the heart of the issue. RCs think that the institution they belong is exactly the same from the first centuries, mostly because the name is the same. We, on the other hand, see clearly that the original Roman Church *ceased* to exist socially and spiritually after the rise of the Western Civilization with the Caroligean Empire.


I'll give a closer analogy. The *new* religious institution was related to the previous one like the U.S. is to the U.K. If we are to try to define where, culturally, the English and American cultures have their borders, then, too we will find that it is almost impossible to define. But if we look at elements from each culture, for example comedy, we can see that British and American comedy are very different.

Now, notice that the Americans *could*, in a way, have claimed that they are the True Brits. They could have said that England was the one that had ceased being England. But, of course, we can see clearly that America had something new in it. It was the American collonists who had ceased being British although many of them were not entirely aware of that and, of course, independence only deepened the differences.

The Caroligeans proclaimed their "independence" from the Romaic (Byzantine) Empire precisely by saying that their old lieges had ceased being Romans and Christians altogether. This allowed them to create a new "Holy Roman Empire" that any historian can confirm was not holy, was not Roman and was not an empire. But independence they got at the expense of creating the myth of the "fall" of the "East".  They succesfully managed to change in the minds of people the common sense perception that the West was the variation and the East the original. The reformation of the Roman See was an absolute necessity in this process and it is one that took yet another couple of centuries. With Nicholas II and his immediate successors, the papacy could start getting rid of that influence, but they could not see that it had already altered deeply the character of the Western Church, and their solutions to the problem of the Frank-Germanic oppression only furthered those changes. The Franks, now the French, would even reconquer their early domain during the Avignon Papacy period.

From a historical point of view, it is clear that the institution that was taken over by the Franks in the 9th century, and the one that emerged from Council of Constance in the 15th century are completely different. The first was culturally Roman, linked to the Emperor of the Romaic Empire, seat of the head of the bishops. The later was culturally Frank-Germanic (the whole West was. "Frank-Germanic" is what the "Modern West" is), an institution that joined the secular and the spiritual in the pope (he would even literally become a head of state), independent and above all secular kingdoms, truly the first globalized institution, and the pope was seen as the supreme bishop of the whole church instead of the "president" of the synod of bishops. It's dogma was influenced by this restructure deeply, since how you view the worldly Body of Christ that is the Church, influences how you view Christ Himself. All the dogmatic issues that had been raised for the purpose of independence from the Romaic empire were consolidated and the newly reformed Church was ready for the Renaissance and the brave new world that age was creating.

So, to make it short, the Papal Church that exists today, despite using the same name, is not the Roman Church of the first 9 centuries of Christianity. This Roman Church was consumed by the rise of the West as a new civilization, and out of its remains and "reinterpreting" old symbols and words, a new institution was made. Notice also that we both, RCs and Orthodox acknowledge that. That is why the RC has a thouroughly described doctrine of "development" of faith, which aims precisely at explaining how can it, being so clearly different from what it was, still be the same. Even the doctrine of development of faith acknowledge there are new things, only that it supposes that these new things are just the old ones explained in more detail, and therefore are legitimate changes. For us, it is clear that these are *really* new teachings and that the supposition that the Roman Church of the first 9 centuries is saying the same thing is but a projection of modern ideas into the past. The current Roman Church has simply set a trap for itself with the concept of infallibility. It can't bring itself to criticize the formulations of the past. Each new idea is "what has always been said" and we know it is because it was said today. It's the circular argument I mentioned elsewhere. I know the Roman Church never changed its ideas because what we say today explains what was said in the past. So, with today's explanation I find the meaning of what was said then. I use this meaning as proof that what we are saying today is the tradition because it was "then" the same as it "now", although the source of this knowledge is the infallible authority of today's pope. Knowing it or not, today's Rome has simply created a vicious circle in which the current pope or magisterium can always prove itself right by attributing whatever meaning they want to what came earlier. Giving infallibility to the pope, they also gave infallibility to the present over the past, which is the very principle of rewriting history: "The past proves I'm right, but I'm the only one with the right to say what the past means", or as has been said elsewhere in the forum "the Roman Church has the prerrogative of defining the meaning of every word it used".


This historical change *may* have been a malicious purposeful change in some people.. in Charlesmagne himself most probably, but the truth is that for 99% of the time it wasn't. Even the new popes simply believed what they had received and with each new change the Western Christians truly believe that the new interpretation is the one "always believed" by all Christians. This started with Charlesmagne cunning political lies and became ingrained in the very mentality of Western Christianity. This "virus" came out of its host body yet bringing some pieces of it with it in the Protestants and came to full independence in the post-Christian social and political movements. Sometimes it would show its ugly head in the early secularism and gnosticism of medieval and renaissance times, but it only matured in our own times.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 03:45:48 PM by Fabio Leite »
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,493
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #90 on: October 25, 2010, 04:12:53 PM »
Of course believing something doesn't automatically make it true. The root of the problem is that some like to show disrespect to other people's beliefs, even to the point where they refuse to call other people by the name they wish to be called. I don't care whether Eastern Orthodox Christians believe they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church or not, it still does not hurt to call us by the name we wish to be called which is "Catholic." You don't see me refusing to call you guys Orthodox even if I may not believe you are.

I cannot agree.

My wife and three children were born in Thessaloniki, the capital of Macedonia, the central northern region of Greece. They are all proud Macedonians.
Unfortunately there is a former Yugoslav state which, through communist funded propaganda coupled with a general lack of knowledge in the West, have convinced the world that they are in fact Macedonians. They have taken a regional description and turned it into an ethnicity, albiet one they have no historical connection to (the Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe).

My wife and children find the usurping of their identity very distressing, and make the most of every opportunity to educate people on the facts of the matter.

What real harm has actually been done in the FYROM naming dispute? Seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. I'm a little disturbed by the air of racialism that often permeates the Macedonia disputes.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #91 on: October 25, 2010, 08:07:51 PM »
Come on, folks, Fabio's post is perfectly clear when read in context.  He's saying that what is called the "Eastern Church" today was originally simply "the Church", and only had to be designated as "Eastern" when the Western civilization, culture *and church* developed later.

Makes perfect sense to me and quite logical too.
That's not what he said.
He says that there is no such thing as Eastern Christianity.
Let's see:
There's no such thing as the Catholic Church in union with Rome.
There's no such thing as the Eastern Church.
There's no such thing as Eastern Christianity?
It kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland!

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #92 on: October 25, 2010, 08:16:12 PM »
Russell - you are aware that neither Our Lord Jesus Christ nor the Theotokos are currently "buried" anywhere - right? :)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #93 on: October 25, 2010, 09:32:33 PM »
Russell - you are aware that neither Our Lord Jesus Christ nor the Theotokos are currently "buried" anywhere - right? :)

He knew what he was saying when he said it. He was being polemical. Obviously whenever I said "the two most important people in Christendom" I meant besides God the Son and the Blessed Virgin Mary. Once again it's more unfair demonizing of the Catholic Church that will go unnoticed, although it won't go unnoticed completely. Countless people who have been curious about Eastern Orthodoxy and have lurked on this forum have probably been turned off just by some of the strong personalities on here.

Offline WetCatechumen

  • Roman Catholic
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 297
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #94 on: October 26, 2010, 04:25:10 AM »
Russell - you are aware that neither Our Lord Jesus Christ nor the Theotokos are currently "buried" anywhere - right? :)

That's pretty much the proof for the Assumption. Why do we not have claimants to the relics of the Theotokos?

Because there aren't any. We've got claimants for everything else.

Honestly, it's good evidence for the Resurrection as well.
"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,787
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: Mongol-Finnic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Priestly Society of St. John Ireland
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #95 on: October 26, 2010, 05:02:22 AM »
That's pretty much the proof for the Assumption. Why do we not have claimants to the relics of the Theotokos?

Not that I'd reject Assumption but actually we do have relics of the Mother of God.

Quote from: Christminster
Perhaps most unusual of our relics – and certainly the
rarest – are those of the holy Mother of God. These include
a small piece of her veil, a hair from her head, and a small
stone from her house in Ephesus. The veil relic is from
Rome; the hair relic was handed on to us byDomAugustine
Whitfield, having been in the possession of the Monastery
of Mount Royal for some time; and the stone was brought
to us by a pilgrim to the holy house.

I think I've seen a piece of her veil also in New Valamo Monastery in Finland.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2010, 05:03:39 AM by Alpo »
I just need to find out how to say it in Slavonic!

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #96 on: October 26, 2010, 09:14:51 AM »
Come on, folks, Fabio's post is perfectly clear when read in context.  He's saying that what is called the "Eastern Church" today was originally simply "the Church", and only had to be designated as "Eastern" when the Western civilization, culture *and church* developed later.

Makes perfect sense to me and quite logical too.
That's not what he said.
He says that there is no such thing as Eastern Christianity.
Let's see:
There's no such thing as the Catholic Church in union with Rome.
There's no such thing as the Eastern Church.
There's no such thing as Eastern Christianity?
It kind of reminds me of Alice in Wonderland!

Yeah, I don't believe stanley123 exists either. It's clearly a random quantic event that causes random disturbances on the server of the forum to generate the semblance of sensiency. Much like biological evolution. :)
Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,675
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #97 on: October 26, 2010, 11:15:02 AM »
That's pretty much the proof for the Assumption. Why do we not have claimants to the relics of the Theotokos?

Not that I'd reject Assumption but actually we do have relics of the Mother of God.

Quote from: Christminster
Perhaps most unusual of our relics – and certainly the
rarest – are those of the holy Mother of God. These include
a small piece of her veil, a hair from her head, and a small
stone from her house in Ephesus. The veil relic is from
Rome; the hair relic was handed on to us byDomAugustine
Whitfield, having been in the possession of the Monastery
of Mount Royal for some time; and the stone was brought
to us by a pilgrim to the holy house.

I think I've seen a piece of her veil also in New Valamo Monastery in Finland.

I think he was referring to so-called "First class relics" such as pieces of bone which we have for most every other saint including the parents of the Theotokos.
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #98 on: October 26, 2010, 09:06:42 PM »

Nobody is really sure if St Peter or St. Paul, or both or neither founded the church in Rome. We know for sure that St. Peter founded the church in Antioch. And which is this church that is the only one assuredly petrine? The Antiochian Church which is....the Orthodox Church!
Well, let's see:

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 190 A.D.:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

and he goes on to say:

..by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious  Apostles, Peter and Paul, that  Church which has by tradition and the faith which comes down to us having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world: and it is in her that all faithful have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
  
St. Cyprian of Carthage in Letters 252 A.D.:

..they dare to set sail and carry letters of schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.


St. Peter of Alexandria in The Soul 311 A.D. :

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome.


Eusebius Pamphilus 303 A.D.:

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.

and again:

Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome.

Quote
But St. Peter had a disciple St. Mark, who founded the church in Alexandria and there the Church is clearly Roman Cath... ops..no... it's Orthodox. My bad. :)

St. Damasus I in The Decree of Damasus 382 A.D.:

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist,who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of the truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people.


St. Ignatius in Letter to the Romans 110 A.D.:

to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is: to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2010, 09:28:31 PM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #99 on: October 26, 2010, 09:14:05 PM »
It's clearly a random quantic event that causes random disturbances on the server of the forum to generate the semblance of sensiency. Much like biological evolution. :)
Perhaps you mean sentience here, which is the state of being conscious?

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #100 on: October 27, 2010, 12:33:21 PM »

Nobody is really sure if St Peter or St. Paul, or both or neither founded the church in Rome. We know for sure that St. Peter founded the church in Antioch. And which is this church that is the only one assuredly petrine? The Antiochian Church which is....the Orthodox Church!
Well, let's see:

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 190 A.D.:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

and he goes on to say:

..by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious  Apostles, Peter and Paul, that  Church which has by tradition and the faith which comes down to us having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world: and it is in her that all faithful have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
  
St. Cyprian of Carthage in Letters 252 A.D.:

..they dare to set sail and carry letters of schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.


St. Peter of Alexandria in The Soul 311 A.D. :

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome.


Eusebius Pamphilus 303 A.D.:

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.

and again:

Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome.

Quote
But St. Peter had a disciple St. Mark, who founded the church in Alexandria and there the Church is clearly Roman Cath... ops..no... it's Orthodox. My bad. :)

St. Damasus I in The Decree of Damasus 382 A.D.:

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist,who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of the truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people.


St. Ignatius in Letter to the Romans 110 A.D.:

to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is: to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.


The Fathers have spoken :D

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #101 on: October 27, 2010, 12:55:48 PM »

Nobody is really sure if St Peter or St. Paul, or both or neither founded the church in Rome. We know for sure that St. Peter founded the church in Antioch. And which is this church that is the only one assuredly petrine? The Antiochian Church which is....the Orthodox Church!
Well, let's see:

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 190 A.D.:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

and he goes on to say:

..by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious  Apostles, Peter and Paul, that  Church which has by tradition and the faith which comes down to us having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world: and it is in her that all faithful have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
  
St. Cyprian of Carthage in Letters 252 A.D.:

..they dare to set sail and carry letters of schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.


St. Peter of Alexandria in The Soul 311 A.D. :

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome.


Eusebius Pamphilus 303 A.D.:

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.

and again:

Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome.

Quote
But St. Peter had a disciple St. Mark, who founded the church in Alexandria and there the Church is clearly Roman Cath... ops..no... it's Orthodox. My bad. :)

St. Damasus I in The Decree of Damasus 382 A.D.:

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist,who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of the truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people.


St. Ignatius in Letter to the Romans 110 A.D.:

to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is: to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.


Well I am sure this does not constitute a consensus!!

M.

Offline Fabio Leite

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,790
    • Vida Ortodoxa
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #102 on: October 27, 2010, 01:48:40 PM »
Nobody is really sure if St Peter or St. Paul, or both or neither founded the church in Rome. We know for sure that St. Peter founded the church in Antioch. And which is this church that is the only one assuredly petrine? The Antiochian Church which is....the Orthodox Church!
Well, let's see:

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 190 A.D.:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

and he goes on to say:

..by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious  Apostles, Peter and Paul, that  Church which has by tradition and the faith which comes down to us having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world: and it is in her that all faithful have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

[/quote]

Irineus' claim is widely dismissed today because it is completely unsubstantiated. Interestingly enough, he does not talk about any petrine succession, but succession of the bishops from the Apostles (in this case two), that is, traditional Catholic doctrine that the collegiate of bishops succeeds the collegiate of the Apostles and not any personal inheritance of charismas.
  
Quote
St. Cyprian of Carthage in Letters 252 A.D.:

..they dare to set sail and carry letters of schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.


Again, traditional Catholic teaching contradict papal claims. The Chair of Peter is the collegiate of bishops (that is why the synod could say that Leo, by expressing what they all though, had Peter speaking through him - and, by the way, it is the very source of the ex cathedra concept), that is why a distinction is made "the chair of Peter and the principal Church", which the Roman church was when Orthodox. What modern RCs have extreme difficulty to see is that  Rome's Orthodoxy was the source of it being the principal church, and not that by being principal it determined what orthodoxy is.

Quote
St. Peter of Alexandria in The Soul 311 A.D. :

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome.

Again, tradition disproves papal claims. The focus on the martyrdom of St. Peter (and St. Paul's) in Rome is *the* major theme in Roman holiness. That is, the place of martyrdom of the saints become holy, Rome was the place of martyrdom of two of the greatest saints and of many more less well known. *That* is what made Rome special in terms of ecclesiastical tradition and *not* any special onthological prerrogative of its bishop.

Quote
Eusebius Pamphilus 303 A.D.:

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.


Here is one of the reason most historians do not trust Ireneus. Most Fathers go more like with Eusebius that when Peter arrived he may have been declared a bishop but he was not the first bishop. He "remained" a bishop in a city where there was already a Christian community, he did not found the community.

Quote
and again:

Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome.


Again, the focus on martyrdom, a traditional mark of glory to any place. Not to foundation.

Quote
St. Damasus I in The Decree of Damasus 382 A.D.:

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist,who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of the truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people.

I always get rathe surprised how what is explicit in the text can be so deturped by caroligean ideology. St. Damasus explains very clearly. Over and over he explains that the See of Peter (See of Peter because he was martyred there, not because he founded it) is proeminent *because* it "has neither stain, nor blemish, nor anything like it".  That *martyrdom* is what associated a person to a place is explicitly stated regarding the second see talking of St. Mark that he "finished his glorious martyrdom".  Antioch, which is recognizedly founded by St. Peter, is the only one that "belonged" to him and again, its honour comes from the honour given to Christians there.

Peter was much praised by the Orthodoxy of his faith, which was shown in the fruits of his work and in his martyrdom. Never, never in anything like a "semicalvinist" (or should we say that calvinists are "pan-papal) predestination of a person.

Quote
St. Ignatius in Letter to the Romans 110 A.D.:

to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is: to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.
You give me the impression that you think you're discussing with Protestants. Who doesn't know that Rome had first place? Only that, unlike later ideological propaganda would have it, it was not because a predestination of the Roman bishop, but because it had three things: the dignity of being the place of martyrdom of both St. Peter and St. Paul and of many martyrs, the admirable Orthodoxy of its faith, its secular proeminence.

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #103 on: October 27, 2010, 03:30:58 PM »

Nobody is really sure if St Peter or St. Paul, or both or neither founded the church in Rome. We know for sure that St. Peter founded the church in Antioch. And which is this church that is the only one assuredly petrine? The Antiochian Church which is....the Orthodox Church!
Well, let's see:

St. Irenaeus in Against Heresies 190 A.D.:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

and he goes on to say:

..by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious  Apostles, Peter and Paul, that  Church which has by tradition and the faith which comes down to us having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world: and it is in her that all faithful have maintained the Apostolic tradition.
  
St. Cyprian of Carthage in Letters 252 A.D.:

..they dare to set sail and carry letters of schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.


St. Peter of Alexandria in The Soul 311 A.D. :

Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome.


Eusebius Pamphilus 303 A.D.:

The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years.

and again:

Nero is the first, in addition to all his other crimes, to make persecution against the Christians, in which Peter and Paul died gloriously at Rome.

Quote
But St. Peter had a disciple St. Mark, who founded the church in Alexandria and there the Church is clearly Roman Cath... ops..no... it's Orthodox. My bad. :)

St. Damasus I in The Decree of Damasus 382 A.D.:

The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist,who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of the truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where he first dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people.


St. Ignatius in Letter to the Romans 110 A.D.:

to the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is: to the Church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency of love, named of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father.

St. Paul writes the Epistle to the Romans, to a Church that already existed although St. Paul is quite explicite that he had not yet been there (Rom. 1:11, 15:23), and hence could not found it, and although he lists at length the members of that Church (Rom. 16) he does not mention St. Peter at all, odd if St. Peter founded the Church at Rome.  Acts 18:2 tells us Christians were in Rome before 51.

Now I do believe that SS Peter and Paul (plural) established the episcopate at Rome, because that is what the Fathers and the consensus of Tradition and the Faithful teach, e.g. St. Irenaeus:
Quote
Since, however, it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles
Note SS. Peter AND Paul:Ultramontanists like to gloss over that "and" part. Hence the quote you supplied (or rather your quote trawl) from St. Irenaeus "and he goes on to say" (3:3:4-3:4:1)"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.  Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"

Search "Firmilian" and see what St. Cyprian also has to say translating and publishing the letter in the West in Latin.

Decree of Damasus? Is that the False Decretal of Damasus?

St. Ignatius refers to the Church "the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans," i.e. Italy. In the same letter, unlike all his others, he does not address the bishop (I believe St. Clement was the one, and at the time towards his own exile and martyrdom in Georgia), and does not talk of the episcopate as his leit motif. He says nothing about any alleged need of a bishop to be in submission (or if you prefer, communion) with the bishop at Rome in order to be a Catholic bishop and the source of the local Catholic Church.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ChristusDominus

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 936
  • Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #104 on: October 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM »

You give me the impression that you think you're discussing with Protestants. Who doesn't know that Rome had first place? Only that, unlike later ideological propaganda would have it, it was not because a predestination of the Roman bishop, but because it had three things: the dignity of being the place of martyrdom of both St. Peter and St. Paul and of many martyrs, the admirable Orthodoxy of its faith, its secular proeminence.


I know who I am discussing this with. It's just that you, and others here, sometimes pose the same arguments as Protestants do. For instance you say that no one is really sure if St Peter or St Paul really did establish the Church in Rome. I provided writings of the Fathers and you dismiss them (St. Irenaeus) on the basis of lack of credibility or give your own personal interpretation of the text. By tradition we know that they did establish the Church in Rome.

 Let's say for the sake of argument that they didn't. Then why would the other Apostolic sees acknowledge the see of Rome as being Apostolic up until the great schism? If St's Peter and Paul didn't found the Church in Rome, then who  did? Why would you honor a Church that never had Apostolic succession? That, in of itself is contradictory.




St Damasus I A.D. 382 in The Decree of Damasus:

.. we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world compromise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the angelic voice of Our Lord and Savior, who says: "you are Peter, upon this rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

St Cyprian in his Letter of Cyprian to all his people A.D.251:

There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord.

What you do with the evident writings of the Early Church Fathers is totally up to you, Fabio. I just provided information and your personal interpretation remains just that; a personal interpretation.

« Last Edit: October 27, 2010, 08:47:30 PM by ChristusDominus »
There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #105 on: November 10, 2010, 09:15:54 AM »

You give me the impression that you think you're discussing with Protestants. Who doesn't know that Rome had first place? Only that, unlike later ideological propaganda would have it, it was not because a predestination of the Roman bishop, but because it had three things: the dignity of being the place of martyrdom of both St. Peter and St. Paul and of many martyrs, the admirable Orthodoxy of its faith, its secular proeminence.


I know who I am discussing this with. It's just that you, and others here, sometimes pose the same arguments as Protestants do. For instance you say that no one is really sure if St Peter or St Paul really did establish the Church in Rome. I provided writings of the Fathers and you dismiss them (St. Irenaeus) on the basis of lack of credibility or give your own personal interpretation of the text. By tradition we know that they did establish the Church in Rome.

 Let's say for the sake of argument that they didn't. Then why would the other Apostolic sees acknowledge the see of Rome as being Apostolic up until the great schism? If St's Peter and Paul didn't found the Church in Rome, then who  did? Why would you honor a Church that never had Apostolic succession? That, in of itself is contradictory.

Any Orthodox see, by definition, has Apostolic Succession.  As for Rome's founding, it has the same founders (recorded in the Bible) SS. Peter and Paul, and yet it is in third place.  And in the East, which has many Apostolic sees (unlike the West which has one), we acknowledge the primacy of Constantinople, which did not have such  position before, although founded personally by an Apostle (again, we have many such sees).

Quote
St Damasus I A.D. 382 in The Decree of Damasus:

.. we have considered that it ought to be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world compromise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the angelic voice of Our Lord and Savior, who says: "you are Peter, upon this rock I shall build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Isn't this among the False Decretals, like the Donation of Constantine?

Btw, neither Alexandria nor Antioch were placed in second or third place by conciliar decisions either: like Rome, the basis of their primacy derived from their importance in the secular order (which attracted the Apostles and more important bishops).

Quote
St Cyprian in his Letter of Cyprian to all his people A.D.251:

There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord.

St. Cyprian goes on to speak of each and all  bishops being succeessors of St. Peter. And as I mentioned above, look at his correspondance with Firmilian.

Quote
What you do with the evident writings of the Early Church Fathers is totally up to you, Fabio. I just provided information and your personal interpretation remains just that; a personal interpretation.
And your Ultramontanist interpretations remain that, Ultramontanist.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #106 on: November 10, 2010, 05:17:33 PM »
RCs think that the institution they belong is exactly the same from the first centuries, mostly because the name is the same.
Do EO think that their Church is exactly the same from the first centuries?

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,104
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #107 on: November 10, 2010, 05:21:30 PM »
RCs think that the institution they belong is exactly the same from the first centuries, mostly because the name is the same.
Do EO think that their Church is exactly the same from the first centuries?

Our hats are undoubtedly cooler now. We have more theological jargon now as well. The rest is about the same. :)

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #108 on: November 10, 2010, 09:21:00 PM »
This discussion has reached a remarkable level of silliness.  We can cut through much of the silliness if we simply make some basic linguistic distinctions, specifically, between proper names and descriptive terms.  A proper name is a term that designates a specific entity independently of descriptive meaning.  Proper names are bestowed or asserted.  My first name is "Alvin," given to me by my parents and subsequently recognized by others.  Occasionally a person might change the name given to him by others and assert another name in its place.  In either case, my proper name does not usually tell you anything about me--it simply designates me.  Proper names may originally be grounded in descriptive content, as when, for example, an individual is nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair; but through continued use the name assumes an independent status that continues to designate the individual even when the descriptive content changes, as when Red's hair turns grey. 

There is little doubt that "Catholic" very quickly became a proper name for the Christian Church.  This pronomial usage is found in St Pacian of Barcelona in the third century.  "Christian is my name," he writes, "but Catholic my surname. The former gives me a name, the latter distinguishes me. By the one I am approved; by the other I am but marked."  It is also the case that groups that that we would probably judge to be schismatic or heretical often claimed this proper name for themselves.  This is neither surprising nor controversial. 

At some point in history, Eastern Christians began to invoke "Orthodox" as a proper name in contrast to their Western brethren who continued to identify themselves as the "Catholic" Church.  Of course, the Orthodox always understood themselves as descriptively catholic and continued to attribute to themselves this ancient title; but in common usage "Orthodox" became the proper name for the Eastern Churches.  When did "Orthodox" assume pronomial status?  Before the schism?  afterwards?  I do not know.  I have not been able to find a history of the linguistic usage of these terms.  Perhaps it's the case that "Orthodox" functioned as a proper name for the Church before the schism, in which case it's a matter of the Eastern Churches claiming one proper name for themselves and the Western Church claiming another proper name for themselves.  What is important to remember, though, is that proper names function as proper names precisely because they designate individuals or entities without reference to content. 

So let's return to the example cited earlier in this thread:  if a person on a street corner is asked, "Where is the Catholic Church?" and "Where is the Orthodox Church?" he will rightly point to two different congregations.  That's the way proper names work.  Latin Christians certainly understand themselves as being the orthodox Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Orthodox."  Similarly, Eastern Christians certainly understand themselves as being the catholic Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Catholic."  This is just the way matters have worked out historically; it's just the way things are.  There's no point in making a big deal about it.  Proper names are determined by usage.   

But there remains the issue of civility.  My name is "Alvin."  This name was given to me by my parents.  It is by this name I introduce myself to others.  Of course, nobody is compelled to name me "Alvin," but if you were to call me "Joe" and continue to call me "Joe" despite my protestations and corrections, well, I think that we would all judge such behavior as rude.   

 

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #109 on: November 11, 2010, 12:44:59 AM »
This discussion has reached a remarkable level of silliness.  We can cut through much of the silliness if we simply make some basic linguistic distinctions, specifically, between proper names and descriptive terms.  A proper name is a term that designates a specific entity independently of descriptive meaning.  Proper names are bestowed or asserted.  My first name is "Alvin," given to me by my parents and subsequently recognized by others.  Occasionally a person might change the name given to him by others and assert another name in its place.  In either case, my proper name does not usually tell you anything about me--it simply designates me.  Proper names may originally be grounded in descriptive content, as when, for example, an individual is nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair; but through continued use the name assumes an independent status that continues to designate the individual even when the descriptive content changes, as when Red's hair turns grey. 

There is little doubt that "Catholic" very quickly became a proper name for the Christian Church.  This pronomial usage is found in St Pacian of Barcelona in the third century.  "Christian is my name," he writes, "but Catholic my surname. The former gives me a name, the latter distinguishes me. By the one I am approved; by the other I am but marked."  It is also the case that groups that that we would probably judge to be schismatic or heretical often claimed this proper name for themselves.  This is neither surprising nor controversial. 

At some point in history, Eastern Christians began to invoke "Orthodox" as a proper name in contrast to their Western brethren who continued to identify themselves as the "Catholic" Church.  Of course, the Orthodox always understood themselves as descriptively catholic and continued to attribute to themselves this ancient title; but in common usage "Orthodox" became the proper name for the Eastern Churches.  When did "Orthodox" assume pronomial status?  Before the schism?  afterwards?  I do not know.  I have not been able to find a history of the linguistic usage of these terms.  Perhaps it's the case that "Orthodox" functioned as a proper name for the Church before the schism, in which case it's a matter of the Eastern Churches claiming one proper name for themselves and the Western Church claiming another proper name for themselves.  What is important to remember, though, is that proper names function as proper names precisely because they designate individuals or entities without reference to content. 

So let's return to the example cited earlier in this thread:  if a person on a street corner is asked, "Where is the Catholic Church?" and "Where is the Orthodox Church?" he will rightly point to two different congregations.  That's the way proper names work.  Latin Christians certainly understand themselves as being the orthodox Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Orthodox."  Similarly, Eastern Christians certainly understand themselves as being the catholic Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Catholic."  This is just the way matters have worked out historically; it's just the way things are.  There's no point in making a big deal about it.  Proper names are determined by usage.   

But there remains the issue of civility.  My name is "Alvin."  This name was given to me by my parents.  It is by this name I introduce myself to others.  Of course, nobody is compelled to name me "Alvin," but if you were to call me "Joe" and continue to call me "Joe" despite my protestations and corrections, well, I think that we would all judge such behavior as rude.   

 
This is not clear, since some Orthodox will call their Church the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #110 on: November 11, 2010, 12:56:42 AM »
This discussion has reached a remarkable level of silliness.  We can cut through much of the silliness if we simply make some basic linguistic distinctions, specifically, between proper names and descriptive terms.  A proper name is a term that designates a specific entity independently of descriptive meaning.  Proper names are bestowed or asserted.  My first name is "Alvin," given to me by my parents and subsequently recognized by others.  Occasionally a person might change the name given to him by others and assert another name in its place.  In either case, my proper name does not usually tell you anything about me--it simply designates me.  Proper names may originally be grounded in descriptive content, as when, for example, an individual is nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair; but through continued use the name assumes an independent status that continues to designate the individual even when the descriptive content changes, as when Red's hair turns grey. 

There is little doubt that "Catholic" very quickly became a proper name for the Christian Church.  This pronomial usage is found in St Pacian of Barcelona in the third century.  "Christian is my name," he writes, "but Catholic my surname. The former gives me a name, the latter distinguishes me. By the one I am approved; by the other I am but marked."  It is also the case that groups that that we would probably judge to be schismatic or heretical often claimed this proper name for themselves.  This is neither surprising nor controversial. 

At some point in history, Eastern Christians began to invoke "Orthodox" as a proper name in contrast to their Western brethren who continued to identify themselves as the "Catholic" Church.  Of course, the Orthodox always understood themselves as descriptively catholic and continued to attribute to themselves this ancient title; but in common usage "Orthodox" became the proper name for the Eastern Churches.  When did "Orthodox" assume pronomial status?  Before the schism?  afterwards?  I do not know.  I have not been able to find a history of the linguistic usage of these terms.  Perhaps it's the case that "Orthodox" functioned as a proper name for the Church before the schism, in which case it's a matter of the Eastern Churches claiming one proper name for themselves and the Western Church claiming another proper name for themselves.  What is important to remember, though, is that proper names function as proper names precisely because they designate individuals or entities without reference to content. 

So let's return to the example cited earlier in this thread:  if a person on a street corner is asked, "Where is the Catholic Church?" and "Where is the Orthodox Church?" he will rightly point to two different congregations.  That's the way proper names work.  Latin Christians certainly understand themselves as being the orthodox Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Orthodox."  Similarly, Eastern Christians certainly understand themselves as being the catholic Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Catholic."  This is just the way matters have worked out historically; it's just the way things are.  There's no point in making a big deal about it.  Proper names are determined by usage.   

But there remains the issue of civility.  My name is "Alvin."  This name was given to me by my parents.  It is by this name I introduce myself to others.  Of course, nobody is compelled to name me "Alvin," but if you were to call me "Joe" and continue to call me "Joe" despite my protestations and corrections, well, I think that we would all judge such behavior as rude.   

 
This is not clear, since some Orthodox will call their Church the Orthodox Catholic Church.
I wonder how long it would take me to get banned if I started referring to their Church as the "Eastern Heterodox Church"?

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,104
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #111 on: November 11, 2010, 01:25:32 AM »
But there remains the issue of civility.  My name is "Alvin."  This name was given to me by my parents.  It is by this name I introduce myself to others.  Of course, nobody is compelled to name me "Alvin," but if you were to call me "Joe" and continue to call me "Joe" despite my protestations and corrections, well, I think that we would all judge such behavior as rude.   

I agree completely. Regarding the usage of the term Orthodox, it would indeed be interesting to hear when exactly it took root. I know that at least as early as the mid-4th century that writers were speaking of an "orthodox faith," as for example when St. Athanasius said:

"But besides all these things, they had not only received those who were formerly degraded and ejected on account of the heresy of Arius, but had even promoted them to a higher station, advancing Deacons to the Presbytery, and of Presbyters making Bishops, for no other end, but that they might disseminate and spread abroad impiety, and corrupt the orthodox faith." - (Defense Against the Arians, 1, Ch. 3 [§ 47])

And St. Gregory the Theologian, somewhat later, spoke of "the Orthodox Church":

"As soon as I received letters from the Clergy asking me not to forget them in their present circumstances, I looked round about me, and remembered your love and your right faith and the zeal with which you are ever possessed for the Churches of God; and therefore I sent my beloved Eustathius, my Deacon and helper, to warn your Reverence, and to entreat you, in addition to all your toils for the Churches, to meet me, and both to refresh my old age by your coming, and to establish in the Orthodox Church that piety which is so famous, by giving her with us (if we may be deemed worthy to have a share with you in the good work) a Shepherd according to the will of the Lord, who shall be able to rule His people.  For we have a man before our eyes, and you are not unacquainted with him; and if we are permitted to obtain him I know that we shall acquire great boldness towards God, and shall confer a very great benefit upon the people who have called upon our aid.  I beg you again and again to put away all delay, and to come to us before the bad weather of the winter sets in." - Epistle 42
 
...but I'd like to know when exactly "the Orthodox Church" came into being as a term, especially one regularly applied to what we now call the Orthodox Church. I'd do a search for the term, but all I have available to me is the Schaff early Church Fathers set, and I'm not sure how complete that set is up through the mid-to-late 4th century. Maybe I'll give it a shot anyway, just out of curiosity.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #112 on: November 11, 2010, 02:04:55 AM »
This discussion has reached a remarkable level of silliness.  We can cut through much of the silliness if we simply make some basic linguistic distinctions, specifically, between proper names and descriptive terms.  A proper name is a term that designates a specific entity independently of descriptive meaning.  Proper names are bestowed or asserted.  My first name is "Alvin," given to me by my parents and subsequently recognized by others.  Occasionally a person might change the name given to him by others and assert another name in its place.  In either case, my proper name does not usually tell you anything about me--it simply designates me.  Proper names may originally be grounded in descriptive content, as when, for example, an individual is nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair; but through continued use the name assumes an independent status that continues to designate the individual even when the descriptive content changes, as when Red's hair turns grey.  

There is little doubt that "Catholic" very quickly became a proper name for the Christian Church.  This pronomial usage is found in St Pacian of Barcelona in the third century.  "Christian is my name," he writes, "but Catholic my surname. The former gives me a name, the latter distinguishes me. By the one I am approved; by the other I am but marked."  It is also the case that groups that that we would probably judge to be schismatic or heretical often claimed this proper name for themselves.  This is neither surprising nor controversial.  

At some point in history, Eastern Christians began to invoke "Orthodox" as a proper name in contrast to their Western brethren who continued to identify themselves as the "Catholic" Church.  Of course, the Orthodox always understood themselves as descriptively catholic and continued to attribute to themselves this ancient title; but in common usage "Orthodox" became the proper name for the Eastern Churches.

Every Sunday (every day actually), we confess our Orthodox Faith in our Church as "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It had been that way long before the Vatican accepted the change in the Creed, and has continued until this day.

What did we call our "Western brethren"? Latins, and other names I won't repeat.

Quote
When did "Orthodox" assume pronomial status?  Before the schism?  afterwards?  I do not know.  I have not been able to find a history of the linguistic usage of these terms.  Perhaps it's the case that "Orthodox" functioned as a proper name for the Church before the schism, in which case it's a matter of the Eastern Churches claiming one proper name for themselves and the Western Church claiming another proper name for themselves.  What is important to remember, though, is that proper names function as proper names precisely because they designate individuals or entities without reference to content.

Someone is assuming that we ever considered "Catholic" a proper name of the Vatican.  That came later, but the word for "Catholic" is a foreign loan of Latin "catholicus," not the word we use for our Church in the Creed, i.e. in Arabic "kaathuuliikii" versus "jaami'ii"

Quote
So let's return to the example cited earlier in this thread:  if a person on a street corner is asked, "Where is the Catholic Church?" and "Where is the Orthodox Church?" he will rightly point to two different congregations.

Where's the street?

In Moscow, you asking the first question "где католическая церковь?" will give you directed to the one under the Vatican (only one IIRC in Moscow), but "где Кафолическая/Соборная церковь?" will not: it might get you directed to the Orthodox Cathedral (Собор)

Quote
That's the way proper names work.  Latin Christians certainly understand themselves as being the orthodox Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Orthodox."  Similarly, Eastern Christians certainly understand themselves as being the catholic Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Catholic."  
Take a look at the "Service book of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Apostolic (Greco-Russian) Church"
http://books.google.com/books?id=hVIXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Hapgood+Orthodox+Orthodox-Catholic&hl=en&ei=eH7bTIymLMGjnAfYs7gX&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Search "Catholic." Then search "Roman-Latin." See who they are refering to.

Quote
This is just the way matters have worked out historically; it's just the way things are.
::)
Quote
There's no point in making a big deal about it.

Then why are you?

Quote
 Proper names are determined by usage.
   

Whose?

Quote
But there remains the issue of civility.  My name is "Alvin."  This name was given to me by my parents.  It is by this name I introduce myself to others.  Of course, nobody is compelled to name me "Alvin," but if you were to call me "Joe" and continue to call me "Joe" despite my protestations and corrections, well, I think that we would all judge such behavior as rude.
 

I have an ex-wife (her father confessor stating it was odd she filed, as I had all the grounds, including adultery. Cardinal Umberto's bull) who, despite what the dissolution decree says, continues to use my name, although she remarried. Besides her arrest for child endangerment and other actions which have drawn social approbation, there is the problem of her (now) second ex husband (who has his own arrest and conviction record, next to hers) who, because she continues to use my name, new officers who answer the call (I often have to employ the police to see my children etc.) confuse with me: fortunately usually one of the older officers is there to straighten things out.

As my sons say "you're divorced. Why does she still use your name?" Needless to say, I'd rather she drop it. I'm thinking of suing for defamation, to be rid of the association.

Now as to civility, you make a number of assumptions which seem to be based on how the hoi polloi see/do things in the US. That's not the same story elsewhere, particularly where the Orthodox Churches are.

My son's name is Stephan. Not Stephen. You are "kaathuuliikii," not "jaami'ii." You're not even Кафолический
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 02:06:12 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #113 on: November 11, 2010, 02:18:54 AM »
But there remains the issue of civility.  My name is "Alvin."  This name was given to me by my parents.  It is by this name I introduce myself to others.  Of course, nobody is compelled to name me "Alvin," but if you were to call me "Joe" and continue to call me "Joe" despite my protestations and corrections, well, I think that we would all judge such behavior as rude.    

I agree completely. Regarding the usage of the term Orthodox, it would indeed be interesting to hear when exactly it took root. I know that at least as early as the mid-4th century that writers were speaking of an "orthodox faith," as for example when St. Athanasius said:

"But besides all these things, they had not only received those who were formerly degraded and ejected on account of the heresy of Arius, but had even promoted them to a higher station, advancing Deacons to the Presbytery, and of Presbyters making Bishops, for no other end, but that they might disseminate and spread abroad impiety, and corrupt the orthodox faith." - (Defense Against the Arians, 1, Ch. 3 [§ 47])

And St. Gregory the Theologian, somewhat later, spoke of "the Orthodox Church":

"As soon as I received letters from the Clergy asking me not to forget them in their present circumstances, I looked round about me, and remembered your love and your right faith and the zeal with which you are ever possessed for the Churches of God; and therefore I sent my beloved Eustathius, my Deacon and helper, to warn your Reverence, and to entreat you, in addition to all your toils for the Churches, to meet me, and both to refresh my old age by your coming, and to establish in the Orthodox Church that piety which is so famous, by giving her with us (if we may be deemed worthy to have a share with you in the good work) a Shepherd according to the will of the Lord, who shall be able to rule His people.  For we have a man before our eyes, and you are not unacquainted with him; and if we are permitted to obtain him I know that we shall acquire great boldness towards God, and shall confer a very great benefit upon the people who have called upon our aid.  I beg you again and again to put away all delay, and to come to us before the bad weather of the winter sets in." - Epistle 42
 
...but I'd like to know when exactly "the Orthodox Church" came into being as a term, especially one regularly applied to what we now call the Orthodox Church. I'd do a search for the term, but all I have available to me is the Schaff early Church Fathers set, and I'm not sure how complete that set is up through the mid-to-late 4th century. Maybe I'll give it a shot anyway, just out of curiosity.
The usage had been the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic Church. The Confession of Dositheus and the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) states:
Quote
Dositheus, by the mercy of God, Patriarch of Jerusalem, to those that ask and inquire concerning the faith and worship of the Greeks, that is of the Eastern Church, how it thinks concerning the Orthodox faith, in the common name of all Christians subject to our Apostolic Throne, and of the Orthodox worshippers that are sojourning in this holy and great city of Jerusalem (with whom the whole Catholic Church agrees in all that concerns the faith) publishes this concise Confession, for a testimony both before God and before man, with a sincere conscience, and devoid of all dissimulation....Let it be sufficient for the reputation of the falsehoods of the adversaries, which they have devised against the Eastern Church, that they allege in support of their falsehoods the incoherent and impious Chapters of the said Cyril [Lucaris]. And let it be for a sign not to be contradicted {cf. Luke 2:34} that those heretics have unjustly make maliciously false statements against us, as though they spoke the truth. But let it be for a sign to be believed, that is for reformation of their innovations and for their return to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which their forefathers also were of old, and [who] assisted at those Synods and contests against heretics, which these now reject and revile. For it was unreasonable on their part, especially as they considered themselves to be wise, to have listened to men that were lovers of self and profane, and that spoke not from the Holy Spirit, but from the prince of lies, and to have forsaken the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which God hath purchased with the Blood of His own Son, {cf. Acts 20:28} and to have abandoned her. For otherwise there will overtake those that have separated from the Church the pains that are reserved for heathens and publicans. But the Lord who has ever protected her against all enemies, will not neglect the Catholic Church. To Him be glory and dominion unto the ages of the ages. Amen.
http://www.crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
That is the beginning and end, and throughout he refers to "the Catholic Church": he means, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, not the Vatican.

The adoption of "Orthodox" as anything specific occured in the Middle East in the modern age, when the European powers, their colonies, and the creation of the Vatican jurisdictions popularized the foreign loan "kaathuuliikii." The distinction isn't made in Greek, Coptic, etc. however-usage being fixed in the 4th century, so "urthuudhuks" was popularized.

The Longer Catechism of the Holy, Orthodox, Catholic Eastern Church St. Philaret (1830):
Quote
261.  How does it agree with the unity of the Church, that there are many separate and independent churches, as those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Russia?

These are particular churches, or parts of the one Catholic Church: the separateness of their visible organization does not hinder them from being all spiritually great members of the one body of the Universal Church, from having one Head, Christ, and one spirit of faith and grace. This unity is expressed outwardly by unity of Creed, and by communion in prayer and Sacraments.

270.  Why is the Church called Catholic, or, which is the same thing, Universal?

Because she is not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

The Apostle Paul says that the Word of the Gospel is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit (Coloss. i. 5, 6), and that in the Christian Church there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all. Coloss. iii. 11. They which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham. Gal. iii. 9.

271.  What great privilege has the Catholic Church?

She alone has the sublime promises that the gates of hell shall not prevail against her; that the Lord shall be with her even to the end of the world; that in her shall abide the glory of God in Christ Jesus throughout all generations forever; and consequently that she shall never apostatize from the faith, nor sin against the truth of the faith, or fall into error.

We undoubtingly confess, as sure truth, that the Catholic Church can not sin, nor err, nor utter falsehood in place of truth; for the Holy Ghost, ever working through his faithful ministers the fathers and doctors of the Church, preserves her from all error. (Missive of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, Art. 12.)

272.  If the Catholic Church contains all true believers in the world, must we not acknowledge it to be necessary for salvation that every believer should belong to her?

Exactly so. Since Jesus Christ, in the words of St. Paul, is the Head of the Church, and he is the Saviour of the Body, it follows that, to have part in his salvation, we must necessarily be members of his body, that is, of the Catholic Church. Eph. v. 23.

The Apostle Peter writes that baptism saveth us after the figure of the ark of Noah. All who were saved from the general deluge were 489saved only in the ark; so all who obtain everlasting salvation obtain it only in the one Catholic Church.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.vi.iii.ii.html

When not using the name "Catholic Church," it seems we used "Eastern Church" more than "Orthodox Church," though the believers were called "Orthodox" often. As was the Patristic usage.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 02:31:00 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #114 on: November 11, 2010, 02:21:13 AM »
This is not clear, since some Orthodox will call their Church the Orthodox Catholic Church.

As recent as the 1848 Encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs we find the term "Catholic Church" employed in a pronominal sense, claiming the title as their own.  But in popular usage, even among ecclesiastics, I think it is accurate to say that "Orthodox Church" denotes the communion of autocephalous Eastern Churches and "Catholic Church" denotes Churches in communion with Rome.  If you were to ask the typical Orthodox Christian the question, "Where is to be found the local Catholic Church?" he probably is not going to answer, "Oh, you must mean St Innocent Orthodox Church right around the corner."  

It is of course understandable that the two ancient communions would each continue to claim for themselves the ancient titles of the Church, but the need to differentiate has forced the two communities to adopt different titles for purposes of identification.  I am reminded of a Star Trek: Next Generation episode in which Riker is accidentally cloned.  The two Rikers are identical in every respect.  They each legitimately claim to be William Thomas Riker, but since it would be confusing for both to continue under the name William (Bill), the clone eventually decides to go by the name Thomas.  

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #115 on: November 11, 2010, 02:37:48 AM »
This is not clear, since some Orthodox will call their Church the Orthodox Catholic Church.

As recent as the 1848 Encyclical of the Orthodox Patriarchs we find the term "Catholic Church" employed in a pronominal sense, claiming the title as their own.  But in popular usage, even among ecclesiastics, I think it is accurate to say that "Orthodox Church" denotes the communion of autocephalous Eastern Churches and "Catholic Church" denotes Churches in communion with Rome.

accuracy, eh, Alvin?  That's a tad beyond the question of what you want to be called. If your birth certificate said "Alvin," but you wanted to be called "Joe," in most cases you can do that. But in some cases-like getting a drivers license-they will insist on your accurate, i.e. legal, name.

Quote
 If you were to ask the typical Orthodox Christian the question, "Where is to be found the local Catholic Church?" he probably is not going to answer, "Oh, you must mean St Innocent Orthodox Church right around the corner."  
Besides your insistence that common ignorance (which is what you are implying) should determine usage, you also ignore that the majority of Orhtodox don't use the same term for Catholic as they use for the Vatican.

Quote
It is of course understandable that the two ancient communions would each continue to claim for themselves the ancient titles of the Church, but the need to differentiate has forced the two communities to adopt different titles for purposes of identification.  I am reminded of a Star Trek: Next Generation episode in which Riker is accidentally cloned.  The two Rikers are identical in every respect.  They each legitimately claim to be William Thomas Riker, but since it would be confusing for both to continue under the name William (Bill), the clone eventually decides to go by the name Thomas. 
Notice how the derivative had to get a new name.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 02:39:50 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #116 on: November 11, 2010, 11:45:14 AM »
accuracy, eh, Alvin?  That's a tad beyond the question of what you want to be called. If your birth certificate said "Alvin," but you wanted to be called "Joe," in most cases you can do that. But in some cases-like getting a drivers license-they will insist on your accurate, i.e. legal, name.

Sure, people go by nicknames all the time.  I was baptized "Alvin."  My relatives call me "Little Al."  My friends call me "Al."  And you may call me "Father Kimel."  

Personal names and titles are determined by dubbing and usage.  

The real issue in this thread is that of civility and courtesy.  If I insist on addressing you by an appellation that you do not recognize as your personal name and which you find insulting, then I am guilty of linguistic violence.  Followers of Jesus eschew violence.    

« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 11:45:45 AM by akimel »

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #117 on: November 11, 2010, 11:57:21 AM »
accuracy, eh, Alvin?  That's a tad beyond the question of what you want to be called. If your birth certificate said "Alvin," but you wanted to be called "Joe," in most cases you can do that. But in some cases-like getting a drivers license-they will insist on your accurate, i.e. legal, name.

Sure, people go by nicknames all the time.  I was baptized "Alvin."  My relatives call me "Little Al."  My friends call me "Al."  And you may call me "Father Kimel."  

Personal names and titles are determined by dubbing and usage.  

The real issue in this thread is that of civility and courtesy.  If I insist on addressing you by an appellation that you do not recognize as your personal name and which you find insulting, then I am guilty of linguistic violence.  Followers of Jesus eschew violence.    



I agree.

On a secular level, this discussion reminds me of the endless debates between the North Vietnamese and America delegations to the initial Paris Peace Talks in the 1970's. While they argued for what seemed to be months about the size and type of table they would sit at during the negotiations, thousands of young Americans and Vietnamese were killed or maimed as the war waged on. Today, those countries seem to be allies or at least non-belligerents.

One truth we ALL have to keep in mind is the name that the Jihadists have applied to all Christians - infidels.

May God have mercy on us all!

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #118 on: November 11, 2010, 02:34:22 PM »
This discussion has reached a remarkable level of silliness.  We can cut through much of the silliness if we simply make some basic linguistic distinctions, specifically, between proper names and descriptive terms.  A proper name is a term that designates a specific entity independently of descriptive meaning.  Proper names are bestowed or asserted.  My first name is "Alvin," given to me by my parents and subsequently recognized by others.  Occasionally a person might change the name given to him by others and assert another name in its place.  In either case, my proper name does not usually tell you anything about me--it simply designates me.  Proper names may originally be grounded in descriptive content, as when, for example, an individual is nicknamed "Red" because of his red hair; but through continued use the name assumes an independent status that continues to designate the individual even when the descriptive content changes, as when Red's hair turns grey. 

There is little doubt that "Catholic" very quickly became a proper name for the Christian Church.  This pronomial usage is found in St Pacian of Barcelona in the third century.  "Christian is my name," he writes, "but Catholic my surname. The former gives me a name, the latter distinguishes me. By the one I am approved; by the other I am but marked."  It is also the case that groups that that we would probably judge to be schismatic or heretical often claimed this proper name for themselves.  This is neither surprising nor controversial. 

At some point in history, Eastern Christians began to invoke "Orthodox" as a proper name in contrast to their Western brethren who continued to identify themselves as the "Catholic" Church.  Of course, the Orthodox always understood themselves as descriptively catholic and continued to attribute to themselves this ancient title; but in common usage "Orthodox" became the proper name for the Eastern Churches.  When did "Orthodox" assume pronomial status?  Before the schism?  afterwards?  I do not know.  I have not been able to find a history of the linguistic usage of these terms.  Perhaps it's the case that "Orthodox" functioned as a proper name for the Church before the schism, in which case it's a matter of the Eastern Churches claiming one proper name for themselves and the Western Church claiming another proper name for themselves.  What is important to remember, though, is that proper names function as proper names precisely because they designate individuals or entities without reference to content. 

So let's return to the example cited earlier in this thread:  if a person on a street corner is asked, "Where is the Catholic Church?" and "Where is the Orthodox Church?" he will rightly point to two different congregations.  That's the way proper names work.  Latin Christians certainly understand themselves as being the orthodox Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Orthodox."  Similarly, Eastern Christians certainly understand themselves as being the catholic Church; but neither they nor anyone else pronomially name them as "Catholic."  This is just the way matters have worked out historically; it's just the way things are.  There's no point in making a big deal about it.  Proper names are determined by usage.   

But there remains the issue of civility.  My name is "Alvin."  This name was given to me by my parents.  It is by this name I introduce myself to others.  Of course, nobody is compelled to name me "Alvin," but if you were to call me "Joe" and continue to call me "Joe" despite my protestations and corrections, well, I think that we would all judge such behavior as rude.   

 
This is not clear, since some Orthodox will call their Church the Orthodox Catholic Church.
I wonder how long it would take me to get banned if I started referring to their Church as the "Eastern Heterodox Church"?
Do you wish to try?

First, though, show us any Orthodox member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who uses the term "Heterodox" in any form or fashion to refer to our Church.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #119 on: November 11, 2010, 02:40:30 PM »
accuracy, eh, Alvin?  That's a tad beyond the question of what you want to be called. If your birth certificate said "Alvin," but you wanted to be called "Joe," in most cases you can do that. But in some cases-like getting a drivers license-they will insist on your accurate, i.e. legal, name.

Sure, people go by nicknames all the time.  I was baptized "Alvin."  My relatives call me "Little Al."  My friends call me "Al."  And you may call me "Father Kimel."

I had thought so, but I had checked the profile before getting familiar, and it didn't say anything.

Quote
Personal names and titles are determined by dubbing and usage.
 

And by court order.

This often comes up, e.g. in Greek Catholic Church of Wilkes-Barre v. The Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, 195 Pa. 425
Quote
Rev. Alexis Toth took charge of the church and congregation as pastor, who has continued as pastor up to the present time; that since Rev. Toth became the pastor of the church, a petition was presented to the court of common pleas of Luzerne county to No. 964, October term, 1893, setting forth, "that the petitioners are trustees for the Greek Catholic Church of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and held as such trustees, certain church lots in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and that it is the wish and desire of the congregation known as the Greek Catholic Church of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, to have the lots conveyed to the petitioners and to the Right Rev. Nicholas, Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, with jurisdiction over the United States, of San Francisco, California, as trustees for the St. Mary's Russian Greek Orthodox Catholic Church of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania," which is the proper name of said Greek Catholic Church of Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, and praying for a decree accordingly.

It is also undisputed that before Rev. Toth became pastor of the church and prior to the acceptance of this congregation and church under the jurisdiction of the Bishop Nicholas, Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska, with jurisdiction over the United States, and before the decree of the court making Bishop Nicholas one of the trustees, the Rev. Toth and Bishop Nicholas required trustees of the church property and the officers of the societies of St. Peter and Rome and St. John the Baptist, to sign a renunciation of their belief or connection with the "United Greek Catholic Church," of which the following is an extract:

"We, the undersigned, trustees of the Annunciation Church, and inhabitants of the City of Wilkes-Barre, State of Pennsylvania, and also we, the officers of the following societies, viz, St. Peter and Paul, St. Nicholas and St. John the Baptist of the same church and city, humbly beseech your eminency that you kindly accept us and our church in your protection and your spiritual jurisdiction, and thereupon we, as Uniates with this writ declare:

"1. That we renounce the United Church and religion and that we wish to return to the same church and religion to which church our ancestors belonged, and to the very church of our Lord Jesus Christ, such as the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church.

"2. That we reject all new inventions of the Roman and United Church, such as the primacy of the pope and his infallibility, and the doctrine of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and all the errors which are cast away by the only one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Further we confess the creed of Nicea Constantinople, without any heretical additions 'and son' (doctrine of Holy Ghost); also we confess that only what our Saviour, Jesus Christ, his Saint Apostles and the Saint Fathers of the church and the seven Universal Councils taught, which doctrine is taught only by the Holy Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church at present time, from which church our ancestors, not by their own fault, but through severe persecution, were compelled to abandon. Therefore we return to our Very and Holy Mother, the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church, and thus subject ourselves spiritually to your Eminency and Holy Synod of Russia. We beg and desire from our hearts that you mercifully accept (us) in your Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.

"3. We hereby grant and deliver to the jurisdiction of your Eminency, our church property, parsonage; . . . also all documents in relation with the said church to the amount of ten thousand dollars, and the keys of the said church."

The foregoing was not only signed by the trustees and officers, of said societies, but also by those persons who were to be taken into the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church. It is also undisputed and acknowledged by all parties to this controversy that the United Greek Catholic Church is an organization separate and distinct from the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church, and that its doctrines, tenets, rules, etc., are the same as the Roman Catholic Church, except in some matters of discipline, both acknowledging the pope as the ecclesiastical head of the church and acknowledging the authority of the bishops appointed by him. While the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church differs in many respects in its faith, doctrines, tenets, rules, etc., from the United Greek Catholic Church, and acknowledges as its spiritual or ecclesiastical head "the Synod of Russia, consisting of bishops appointed by the czar of Russia."

There has been a very great amount of evidence given by a large number of witnesses on the part of the defendant to show that the actual belief and religious convictions of these witnesses are and always have been in accordance with the faith, belief and practice of the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church. A large majority of these witnesses have testified that the teachings of Rev. Toth and the conduct of the services by him, are exactly the same as those of Revs. Dzuby and Stetsovitch, and the same as those of the priests where they attended in the old country. These witnesses as well as most of the congregation called by the plaintiffs, have shown very great ignorance in regard to what they really believe or as to what is the difference between these two warring churches in matters of faith or teachings, and we are compelled to feel that they have shown so little knowledge of the matters they testify to, as to entitle their testimony upon these points to very little weight upon matters of church doctrine or belief or as to the forms of service.

Again much evidence has been given in the way of church history and from the writing of learned, able and competent men as to the conflicts between the Greek Church proper and the Roman Catholic Church, and also as to the history of the United Greek Church and of the countries where these United churches are located, and it has been most ably contended by counsel for the defendants that these members of the United churches are kept in ignorance of the fact that the church acknowledges the pope as its ecclesiastical head, and adheres to all the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, and that they, the lay members, suppose they belong to the Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church. It would be exceedingly interesting as a historical question, to go into this church history and attempt to trace the history of these churches from the earliest period down to the present, and to ascertain the real facts as to the schisms and controversies, but we do not feel that it could throw any light upon, or in any way assist in deciding the present controversy. It is enough for us to know that at the time this church was begun there was a "United Greek Catholic Church," having regular creeds, organizations and all that pertains to any denomination of Christians, and that there was also at the same time, an Orthodox Greek Catholic Russian Church in same condition as to creeds, etc.

The deed from Elizabeth Kosek, trustee to Mike Jevcsak, Andrew Pevowarnick and Michael Pevowarnick is to them as trustees of the Greek Catholic Church of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and successors. Under this deed these men might be trustees of the United Greek Catholic Church or they might be trustees of the Orthodox Greek Catholic Church so far as the deed is concerned. By its wording it does not particularly indicate which of the parties to this controversy was intended.

This then is a case where from the writing creating the trust, we are unable to discover what particular form of worship was intended or to which of the two churches the name of Greek Catholic Church is to be applied.


Quote
The real issue in this thread is that of civility and courtesy.


Matthew 15:12 Then came His disciples, and said to Him: Dost thou know that the Pharisees, when they heard this word, were scandalized? 13 But he answering, said: Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14 Let them alone: they are blind, and leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. 15 And Peter answering, said to him: Expound to us this parable. 16 But He said: Are you also yet without understanding?

Quote
If I insist on addressing you by an appellation that you do not recognize as your personal name and which you find insulting, then I am guilty of linguistic violence.  Followers of Jesus eschew violence.
 
And the apologetics get quite inventive:
Quote
Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html

And who is going to throw the first stone here at Jesus?

Becoming a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven doesn't mean being emascualted from testifying and manning up to the Truth.

Brand names are trademarked. Persons sue for infringement, and for defamation. Calling yourself "Joe Smith" if your name is "Alvin Kimel" is one thing. It is quite another if you start using "Joe Smith"'s identity and credit.

So it's not an issue of "civility and courtesy" anymore that the pro-life-anti-abortion/pro-choise-pro-abortion debate is:

Quote
How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name? by Kenneth D. Whitehead
The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church. It is not, by the way, properly called the Roman Catholic Church, but simply the Catholic Church...

...It was still back in the fourth century that St. Cyril of Jerusalem aptly wrote, "Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Body, the Mother of all, which is the Spouse of Our Lord Jesus Christ" (Catecheses, xviii, 26).

The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed. It was inevitable that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would adopt the same name today that the Church has had throughout the whole of her very long history.
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm
http://www.stpiusri.org/ministries/fr-peters-blog/142

Quote
When did the Church established by Jesus Christ get the name Catholic?
Christ left the adoption of a name for His Church to those whom he commissioned to teach all nations. Christ called the spiritual society He established, "My Church" (Mt. xvi, 18), "the Church" (Mt. xviii, 17). In order to have a distinction between the Church and the Synagogue and to have a distinguishing name from those embracing Judaic and Gnostic errors we find St. Ignatius (50-107 A.D.) using the Greek word "Katholicos" (universal) to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ. St. Ignatius was appointed Bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome. It is in his writtings that we find the word Catholic used for the first time. St. Augustine, when speaking about the Church of Christ, calls it the Catholic Church 240 times in his writings.
http://www.infocatholic.com/faq.aspx#q8

Quote
What "Catholic" Means
The term "Catholic" is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes: "As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was 'universal' or 'general.' . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1).

Thus people who recite the creeds mentally inserting another meaning for "Catholic" are reinterpreting them according to a modern preference, much as a liberal biblical scholar does with Scripture texts offensive to contemporary sensibilities.

Included in the quotes below are extracts from the first creeds to use the term "Catholic"; so that the term can be seen it its historical context, which is supplied by the other quotations. It is from this broader context that the meaning of the term in the creeds is established, not by one’s own notion of what the term once meant or of what it ought to mean...

Cyril of Jerusalem..."And if you ever are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the house of the Lord is—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens ‘houses of the Lord’—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God" (ibid., 18:26).

The Apostles’ Creed
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen" (Apostles’ Creed [A.D. 360 version, the first to include the term "Catholic"]).
  
Council of Constantinople I
"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets; in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" (Nicene Creed [A.D. 381]).

Augustine
"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is catholic and which is called catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" (The True Religion 7:12 [A.D. 390]).

"We believe in the holy Church, that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics and schismatics call their own congregations churches. But heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God; schismatics, however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations, although they believe the same things we do. Consequently, neither heretics nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church loves God, and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor" (Faith and Creed 10:21 [A.D. 393]).

In the Catholic Church . . . a few spiritual men attain [wisdom] in this life, in such a way that . . . they know it without any doubting, while the rest of the multitude finds [its] greatest safety not in lively understanding but in the simplicity of believing. . . . [T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397])...

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004
http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

Hmmm. Those quotes of SS. Cyril ("Inquire not simply where the Lord's house is, for the sects of the profane also make an attempt to call their own dens the houses of the Lord; nor inquire merely where the church is, but where the Catholic Church is.") and Augustine ("the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house") and the Vatican's comments-"The same inquiry needs to be made in exactly the same way today, for the name of the true Church of Christ has in no way been changed," "The term "Catholic" is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many...claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written," "The Creed which we recite on Sundays and holy days speaks of one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. As everybody knows, however, the Church referred to in this Creed is more commonly called just the Catholic Church" "NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors"-seem familiar....
So let's return to the example cited earlier in this thread:  if a person on a street corner is asked, "Where is the Catholic Church?" and "Where is the Orthodox Church?" he will rightly point to two different congregations.  
I thought so.

We are not living in ignorant times like the parishioners of St. Mary's in Wikes-Barre and their ancestors. In the days of identity threft, we know the importance of keeping ownership of your own good name.

Civility and courtesy. Translate:ignore the usage of the term "Catholic" in the Orthodox countries, and impose on the Orthodox members of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 02:44:13 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #120 on: November 11, 2010, 04:46:41 PM »
First, though, show us any Orthodox member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who uses the term "Heterodox" in any form or fashion to refer to our Church.
Show me anyone in our Church who refers to our entire Church as "the Vatican."

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #121 on: November 11, 2010, 05:22:14 PM »
First, though, show us any Orthodox member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who uses the term "Heterodox" in any form or fashion to refer to our Church.
Show me anyone in our Church who refers to our entire Church as "the Vatican."
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #122 on: November 11, 2010, 05:30:30 PM »
Yes, civility and courtesy!  I am not offended that you do not believe that Catholic churches belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.  But I am offended that you name Catholics and their churches by terms that they find insulting and offensive, and I would be offended and embarrassed by your behavior if I was Orthodox.  Despite theological disagreements, there is no reason why the parties should not address each other with respect, forbearance, and love.  The gospel of Christ demands nothing less.   

May I suggest that more important than the names "Catholic" and "Orthodox" is the name "Christian."  Christians should behave like Christians.   

At the final judgment it will not matter who wears the label "Catholic," "Orthodox," or "Protestant."  All that will matter is the presence of Love in our hearts and how we have lived, and not lived, that out in our lives.  That is the whole purpose of the Church in this life--to train and form us in the way of divine love through the power of the Holy Spirit.  Our zeal is worth nothing if it is not filled with love, compassion, gentleness, forgiveness.  We will be judged by every word we write on this forum.  We will not be asked, "Did you defend the honor of the holy orthodox and catholic Church and attack her enemies?"  We will be asked, "Did you love your neighbor?"  And whether one likes it or not, on this forum Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are neighbors. 

Even if it were true--but I do not believe that it is true--that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the enemy of the Orthodox Church, that would not justify violence, hatred, and disrespect.  Quite the contrary.  Christ commands us to love our enemies.  "The grace of God," St Silouan reminds us, "is not in the man who does not love his enemies."   


Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #123 on: November 11, 2010, 06:35:48 PM »
Yes, civility and courtesy!

Where's the street?

In Moscow, you asking the first question "где католическая церковь?" will give you directed to the one under the Vatican (only one IIRC in Moscow), but "где Кафолическая/Соборная церковь?" will not: it might get you directed to the Orthodox Cathedral (Собор)

Quote
I am not offended that you do not believe that Catholic churches belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.  But I am offended that you name Catholics and their churches by terms that they find insulting and offensive,
Show me anyone in our Church who refers to our entire Church as "the Vatican."
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm

Quote
and I would be offended and embarrassed by your behavior if I was Orthodox.

But you are not. Yet you have already stated that you have taken offense. I can't speak to your embarrassment.

You all have been shown polemics by your coreligionists revolving just on the Vatican laying claim to the title "Catholic." Yet we are told that ceding the title is just "for convience sake..." "for accuracy's sake...." "for usage's sake...." etc. Never "for Truth's sake...."  I'd blush if I had to make such an argument.

Quote
Despite theological disagreements, there is no reason why the parties should not address each other with respect, forbearance, and love.  The gospel of Christ demands nothing less.
   

Quote
May I suggest that more important than the names "Catholic" and "Orthodox" is the name "Christian."  Christians should behave like Christians.
 

Quote
At the final judgment it will not matter who wears the label "Catholic," "Orthodox," or "Protestant."

If that's the gospel you want to preach, why not Mormon, Jehovah Witness or even Muslim as well?

Quote
All that will matter is the presence of Love in our hearts and how we have lived, and not lived, that out in our lives.  

Kumbaya.

John 2:15 And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew. 16 And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic. 17 And his disciples remembered, that it was written: The zeal of thy house hath eaten me up.

Our Lord said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me."

Quote
That is the whole purpose of the Church in this life--to train and form us in the way of divine love through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Spirit of Truth.

Quote
Our zeal is worth nothing if it is not filled with love, compassion, gentleness, forgiveness
Mercy mixed with fear. Jude 1:23

Quote
We will be judged by every word we write on this forum.

I'm well aware of that.

Fr. John Carappi, whom I listen to a lot, tells that when he went to seminary, the dean told them in assembly that as priests and teachers they bear the responsibility for those they teach, and thus if they did not teach in accordance with the magisterium they would bear the penalty for the souls they led or let astray. "So you are going to get the full, unvarnished Truth here" he concluded "because I'm not going to hell for any of you."

Quote
Nine ways to participate in  another's sin
1. By defense.
2. By silence.
3. By participation.
4. By concealment.
5. By praise.
6. By provacation.
7. By consent.
8. By command.
9. By counsel.
http://bibletidbits.blogspot.com/2009/09/9-ways-to-participate-in-anothers-sin.html
Your ecclesiastical community claims that the title Catholic is the "third mark of the Church," deriving that from our Creed. I will neither counsel nor command any Orthodox or anyone else, to misapply that title, whether for politeness, courtesy or political correctness. I will not conceal the mistake, nor participate in propogating its usage, nor provoke others to follow it. I will not praise nor will I defend a misappropriated right to use it.  And I will not consent to it by silence.

Quote
We will not be asked, "Did you defend the honor of the holy orthodox and catholic Church and attack her enemies?"  

The Fathers thought otherwise, and acted on that belief. That is why we are here.

Quote
We will be asked, "Did you love your neighbor?"  And whether one likes it or not, on this forum Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox are neighbors.  

Enabling is not love.

Quote
Even if it were true--but I do not believe that it is true--that the (Roman) Catholic Church is the enemy of the Orthodox Church, that would not justify violence, hatred, and disrespect.
To your Vatican I say, "Physician, hear thyself."

Quote
 Quite the contrary.  Christ commands us to love our enemies.  "The grace of God," St Silouan reminds us, "is not in the man who does not love his enemies."  
Calling a spade a spade shows no lack of charity:would we not insult Mr. John Doe's wife by calling his mistress "Mrs. John Doe"?
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 06:37:27 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #124 on: November 11, 2010, 06:53:06 PM »

Fr. John Carappi [Sic, fixed this for you], whom I listen to a lot, tells that when he went to seminary, the dean told them in assembly that as priests and teachers they bear the responsibility for those they teach, and thus if they did not teach in accordance with the magisterium they would bear the penalty for the souls they led or let astray. "So you are going to get the full, unvarnished Truth here" he concluded "because I'm not going to hell for any of you."


Calling a spade a spade shows no lack of charity:would we not insult Mr. John Doe's wife by calling his mistress "Mrs. John Doe"?

Then let us get down to it.  Since the the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which are all particular Churches in communion with Rome, you are not only rude in make the kinds of nominal references you make but you are wrong in arrogating to yourself something you throw away by working so hard to try to impose your Lutheran biases against the Catholic Church.

I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.

Mary

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #125 on: November 11, 2010, 08:30:58 PM »

Fr. John Carappi [Sic, fixed this for you],

You did? Looks the same.

whom I listen to a lot, tells that when he went to seminary, the dean told them in assembly that as priests and teachers they bear the responsibility for those they teach, and thus if they did not teach in accordance with the magisterium they would bear the penalty for the souls they led or let astray. "So you are going to get the full, unvarnished Truth here" he concluded "because I'm not going to hell for any of you."


Calling a spade a spade shows no lack of charity:would we not insult Mr. John Doe's wife by calling his mistress "Mrs. John Doe"?

Then let us get down to it.  

Let's.

Since the the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which are all particular Churches in communion with Rome,
No, communion with Rome isn't determinative, although the Catholic Church is in communion with Bishop Siluan of Rome.

The Catholic Church consists of those Churches in communion with those bishops, living and departed (SS. Linus, Clement, Leo, Agatho, etc. together with Christ's Apostles), in her Orthodox diptychs.

you are not only rude in make the kinds of nominal references you make but you are wrong in arrogating to yourself

I haven't arrogated anything to myself.  I do not say the Catholic Church consists in communion with me.  I just stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions I received of the Apostles.

Who is wrong?  The Vatican arrogating to itself the power to change the definiton of "Catholic" and misshape it into a reference to itself, something unknown to St. Ignatius when he penned the earliest known use of the term, or the Orthodox, who have continued to use the title "Catholic" as Patriarch St. Ignatius and the Fathers used it?

something you throw away by working so hard to try to impose your Lutheran biases against the Catholic Church.

What Lutheran biases?

I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
LOL. You don't even have authority under the Vatican to grant anything, and since the Vatican's authority is void, well....your need is not our necessity.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 08:33:24 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #126 on: November 11, 2010, 08:51:19 PM »

LOL. You don't even have authority under the Vatican to grant anything, and since the Vatican's authority is void, well....your need is not our necessity.

Just referring to my personal address for you, brother Catholic.   :laugh:

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #127 on: November 11, 2010, 09:39:30 PM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #128 on: November 11, 2010, 09:41:44 PM »
First, though, show us any Orthodox member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who uses the term "Heterodox" in any form or fashion to refer to our Church.
Show me anyone in our Church who refers to our entire Church as "the Vatican."
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
That's the website for Vatican City, not the Roman Catholic Church. You've still not made your point.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #129 on: November 11, 2010, 09:54:04 PM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions. 

This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.

Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.

M.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #130 on: November 11, 2010, 10:33:19 PM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions. 

This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.

Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.

M.
I don't believe in pretending he is in full communion with our Church when he is not.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #131 on: November 11, 2010, 10:42:45 PM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions. 

This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.

Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.

M.
I don't believe in pretending he is in full communion with our Church when he is not.

Clearly as an Orthodox Catholic, he is not.  But that does not make him less a Catholic.  It makes him different from you and from me.  It might be good to give some thought to the concepts of "material" and "formal" that Pope Benedict has used with regard to the schism.

And then in pastoral terms it goes back to what was mentioned some days ago: in some thread which I now forget: that we commune constantly with people who do not believe as we believe: whose faith is weak: who are beset by one ignorance or another: whose hearts and minds are not capable of grasping the nuances of one teaching or another...on and on and on.

At any rate...you cannot strip him of that which even your own hierarchs are instructed to teach...and that is that he is an Orthodox Catholic.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #132 on: November 11, 2010, 10:58:26 PM »
Clearly as an Orthodox Catholic, he is not.  But that does not make him less a Catholic.  It makes him different from you and from me.  It might be good to give some thought to the concepts of "material" and "formal" that Pope Benedict has used with regard to the schism.
I take issue with referring to him as an "Orthodox Catholic" since I believe him to neither be orthodox nor catholic. Perhaps I will call him by titles he wishes to be called when he calls us by the titles we wish to be called. I do not feel compelled to extend such titles as long as he continues to persist in spitting in our faces.

And then in pastoral terms it goes back to what was mentioned some days ago: in some thread which I now forget: that we commune constantly with people who do not believe as we believe: whose faith is weak: who are beset by one ignorance or another: whose hearts and minds are not capable of grasping the nuances of one teaching or another...on and on and on.
The difference is we were talking about those in full communion with us. He is not.

At any rate...you cannot strip him of that which even your own hierarchs are instructed to teach...and that is that he is an Orthodox Catholic.
I know of no Church teaching that requires us to refer to him as an "Orthodox Catholic." That seems like compromising too much for the sake of misguided ecumenism.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2010, 10:59:01 PM by Wyatt »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #133 on: November 11, 2010, 11:08:05 PM »
Clearly as an Orthodox Catholic, he is not.  But that does not make him less a Catholic.  It makes him different from you and from me.  It might be good to give some thought to the concepts of "material" and "formal" that Pope Benedict has used with regard to the schism.
I take issue with referring to him as an "Orthodox Catholic" since I believe him to neither be orthodox nor catholic. Perhaps I will call him by titles he wishes to be called when he calls us by the titles we wish to be called. I do not feel compelled to extend such titles as long as he continues to persist in spitting in our faces.

And then in pastoral terms it goes back to what was mentioned some days ago: in some thread which I now forget: that we commune constantly with people who do not believe as we believe: whose faith is weak: who are beset by one ignorance or another: whose hearts and minds are not capable of grasping the nuances of one teaching or another...on and on and on.
The difference is we were talking about those in full communion with us. He is not.

At any rate...you cannot strip him of that which even your own hierarchs are instructed to teach...and that is that he is an Orthodox Catholic.
I know of no Church teaching that requires us to refer to him as an "Orthodox Catholic." That seems like compromising too much for the sake of misguided ecumenism.

I am not going to argue with you over any of this.  You are taking offense when you should be thanking anyone who belittles you for the opportunity to be charitable as our Lord is charitable, forgiving as He is forgiving.

I would strongly recommend letting go of the offense fully and in the love of the Christ trusting in your place in the Body of Christ and being open to those who are said clearly to belong in Sister Churches....

M.


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #134 on: November 11, 2010, 11:18:43 PM »

I have an ex-wife (her father confessor stating it was odd she filed, as I had all the grounds, including adultery. Cardinal Umberto's bull) who, despite what the dissolution decree says, continues to use my name, although she remarried. Besides her arrest for child endangerment and other actions which have drawn social approbation, there is the problem of her (now) second ex husband (who has his own arrest and conviction record, next to hers) who, because she continues to use my name, new officers who answer the call (I often have to employ the police to see my children etc.) confuse with me: fortunately usually one of the older officers is there to straighten things out.

As my sons say "you're divorced. Why does she still use your name?" Needless to say, I'd rather she drop it. I'm thinking of suing for defamation, to be rid of the association.

Now as to civility, you make a number of assumptions which seem to be based on how the hoi polloi see/do things in the US. That's not the same story elsewhere, particularly where the Orthodox Churches are.

You seem to be driven by a number of personal issues in your assessments of Church doctrine.  It is something you hold in common with Father Ambrose, the difference being that you periodically talk about your triggers and Father Ambrose simply reacts to his.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with personal experience but it certainly adds something of an extra bit of vehemence to your discussions.

It is telling that there is much to much information here that is not necessary to the point.  The story, as far as you've told it here and in other threads, makes me think that emotions do, on occasion, impair your judgment and insight and lead you into behaviors that are objectively questionable with respect to the issues of vice and virtue.

Mary

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #135 on: November 11, 2010, 11:47:57 PM »
First, though, show us any Orthodox member of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church who uses the term "Heterodox" in any form or fashion to refer to our Church.
Show me anyone in our Church who refers to our entire Church as "the Vatican."
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
That's the website for Vatican City, not the Roman Catholic Church. You've still not made your point.
http://www.vatican.va/index.htm
Maybe your computer is broken. When I go to that address there is the emblem of your supreme pontiff, an image of St. Peter's Basilica (the metochion of Constantinople), "Holy See" written in Chinese, French, German, Italian, English, Latin, Spanish and Portuguese. Do a search on that address you have the label "Official Web Site of the Holy See, Vatican Official Web Site."

If you press on the English "The Holy See" you go to
http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm
Where there is a picture of the sovereign of the Vatican city-state labelled "Benedict XVI". In a circle counter clockwise "Vatican Secret Archives" (!), "Vatican Library," "Vatican Museums," "Vatican Publishing House," "Info," "Peter's Pence," "News Photos," "WYD," "S.C.D.," "Liturgical Year," "Saints Blessed," and "Site Map." Down the right side is pictures "Santiago de Compastela: Barcelo 2010" (Relevant Radio tells me that your pope is visiting/visited there), "Abuse of Minors-the Church's Response," "Basilica of Saint Peter Virtual Tour" (it is as I remember when I was there), "Archivo Storico de Propaganda Fide" (i.e. the Inquisition), "Latest Updates." "Papal Basilicas and Chapels" is on the other side, with a picture of what seems to be where your pope comes out after they say "habemus papam." Wiithin the circle is a picture of the statue of St. Peter on St. Peter's square with 'Papal Archive' under it, then "the Roman Curia" under an ancient carved Chi-Rho, "Liturgical Celebrations" under a gilded bound Gospel, "Other Offices" under a picture of St. Peter's dome, then News Services and Resource Library. Press on that
http://www.vatican.va/archive/index.htm
and you get a choice of "The Bible" ("the New American Bible," done, as its introduction relates, under the auspices of the Vatican), the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," the "Code of Canon Law" (yours), "II Vatican Council" (your last one), "Books" and "Jubilee 2000."

Yep, you're all acounted for there.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #136 on: November 12, 2010, 12:18:48 AM »

I have an ex-wife (her father confessor stating it was odd she filed, as I had all the grounds, including adultery. Cardinal Umberto's bull) who, despite what the dissolution decree says, continues to use my name, although she remarried. Besides her arrest for child endangerment and other actions which have drawn social approbation, there is the problem of her (now) second ex husband (who has his own arrest and conviction record, next to hers) who, because she continues to use my name, new officers who answer the call (I often have to employ the police to see my children etc.) confuse with me: fortunately usually one of the older officers is there to straighten things out.

As my sons say "you're divorced. Why does she still use your name?" Needless to say, I'd rather she drop it. I'm thinking of suing for defamation, to be rid of the association.

Now as to civility, you make a number of assumptions which seem to be based on how the hoi polloi see/do things in the US. That's not the same story elsewhere, particularly where the Orthodox Churches are.

You seem to be driven by a number of personal issues in your assessments of Church doctrine.  It is something you hold in common with Father Ambrose, the difference being that you periodically talk about your triggers and Father Ambrose simply reacts to his.

I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with personal experience but it certainly adds something of an extra bit of vehemence to your discussions.

It is telling that there is much to much information here that is not necessary to the point.  The story, as far as you've told it here and in other threads, makes me think that emotions do, on occasion, impair your judgment and insight and lead you into behaviors that are objectively questionable with respect to the issues of vice and virtue.
So we have the power to read hearts over the net, do we? LOL. Get that with the psych decree?

The documentation I provide for my "assessements of Church doctrine" aren't written by me, and hence aren't "driven by a number of [my] personal issues." Fr. Ambrose's "personal issues" do not drive the Russian Orthodox Church, who documents he simply obeys and quotes as representating the authoritative voice of the Orthodox Church, as opposed to those "more conservative Orthodox priests" you hob knob with. That they do not accord with your dreams for our Church is neither our problem nor responsibility.

As to the ex-wife's clinging to my name like a barnacle, well, it reminded me of others insisting on using a name they did not remain true to, defaming it for the true owner.

As to vice and virtue, because I don't take my cues from the Vatican (with whom I do agree on a lot of matters in this area, but often not for the same reason), is not indicative of anyting more than I do not accept Vatican I. But we already knew that, didn't you?

Btw, did I miss your answer?
something you throw away by working so hard to try to impose your Lutheran biases against the Catholic Church.

What Lutheran biases?

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #137 on: November 12, 2010, 12:21:34 AM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions. 

This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.

Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.

M.
I don't believe in pretending he is in full communion with our Church when he is not.
I haven't taken communion from your ecclesiastical communities since I embraced Orthodoxy.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #138 on: November 12, 2010, 12:47:14 AM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions. 

This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.

Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.

M.
I don't believe in pretending he is in full communion with our Church when he is not.
I haven't taken communion from your ecclesiastical communities since I embraced Orthodoxy.
Good to hear you haven't received the Most Holy Eucharist in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church since you embraced the eastern heterodoxy.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #139 on: November 12, 2010, 01:35:24 AM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions. 

This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.

Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.

M.
I don't believe in pretending he is in full communion with our Church when he is not.
I haven't taken communion from your ecclesiastical communities since I embraced Orthodoxy.
Good to hear you haven't received the Most Holy Eucharist in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church since you embraced the eastern heterodoxy.
Not from a lack of trying on your church's part to give it to me. Having embraced the Orthodoxy of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though, I have to remain true to the Catholic name and her exclusive communion.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #140 on: November 12, 2010, 09:16:11 AM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.

That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions. 

This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.

Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.

M.
I don't believe in pretending he is in full communion with our Church when he is not.
I haven't taken communion from your ecclesiastical communities since I embraced Orthodoxy.
Good to hear you haven't received the Most Holy Eucharist in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church since you embraced the eastern heterodoxy.
Not from a lack of trying on your church's part to give it to me. Having embraced the Orthodoxy of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though, I have to remain true to the Catholic name and her exclusive communion.

The we won't expect you when communion between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church resumes.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #141 on: November 12, 2010, 11:48:18 AM »
I only grant you the title Catholic as a charity, brother Catholic, not as a necessity.
Which you really should not do because ialmisry is not (nor I doubt will ever be) Catholic.
That's not real.  Our Church recognizes all canonical Orthodox jurisdictions as Orthodox Catholic jurisdictions.
This kind of disagreeable discussion over names is really very fruitless.  One needs to be careful not to become the very thing that one abhors.
Only in Christ is true charity possible.  Some may well bear the name Catholic and have very little to do with the charity of the Christ.
M.
I don't believe in pretending he is in full communion with our Church when he is not.
I haven't taken communion from your ecclesiastical communities since I embraced Orthodoxy.
Good to hear you haven't received the Most Holy Eucharist in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church since you embraced the eastern heterodoxy.
Not from a lack of trying on your church's part to give it to me. Having embraced the Orthodoxy of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though, I have to remain true to the Catholic name and her exclusive communion.

The we won't expect you when communion between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church resumes.
Once again, since Orthodoxy is the communion of Catholic Church, there is nothing to resume.

Should the Vatican repent, and her sovereign and supreme pontiff Benedict XVI and the bishops under him be vested as Orthodox hiearchs and take their place in the Orthodox diptychs of the Catholic Church, why won't I take communion from them.

All they (and the rest of you) have to do is to say I do:
Quote
The power of granting absolution to such persons, and of uniting them to the Church, properly devolveth on a Bishop. Nevertheless, that the converts to Orthodoxy may not be tempted to return to their heresy by reason of delay, it is wiser and more expedient that the Bishop should delegate his power, and grant his blessing therewith, to a Priest well versed in divine lore, and who is competent to instruct such a person in the articles of the Orthodox faith, and to correct his erroneous opinions.

Therefore, first of all, the penitent shall be examined with due caution (either by the Bishop or by the person to whom he hath delegated his authority) as to the particulars of his errors.

Then must he be convinced of them.

Thereafter, he shall be instructed in the doctrine of the Orthodox faith, and confirmed therein.

And when the appointed examination and instruction have been completed, with all precaution shall the Bishop require from the penitent the confession of all his sins, which he can recall, from his youth up.

And the Bishop shall not immediately thereafter grant him absolution ; but after the confession and exhortation, he shall go with him into the Church, and shall place him before the church doors, in the church porch.

And the Bishop, vested in his priestly stole and pall {omofidr) and mitre, and having in his left hand his pastoral staff, shall take his seat upon his throne (but 1f a Priest holding power to this end from the Bishop officiate, he shall be vested in his priestly stole and chasuble, and shall stand), at the door of the Church.

And if the convert cometh to the Orthodox Faith from the Roman-Latin Confession, the Bishop shall question him, and shall say :

Wilt thou renounce the errors and false doctrines of the Roman-Latin Confession ? And he shall reply : I will.

Then the Bishop demandeth of him, from whatever confession he may come : Dost thou desire to enter into the communion of the Orthodox-Catholic Faith? Answer. I do.

Then the Bishop, rising, signeth him with his right hand, in the form of a cross, saying :

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

And laying his hand upon the bowed head of the convert, he shall recite the following Prayer :

The Deacon saith: Let us pray to the Lord.
The Choir. Lord, have mercy.

In thy Name, O Lord God of truth, and of thine Only-begotten Son, and of thy Holy Spirit, look upon thy servant, N., whom thou hast graciously enabled to have recourse unto thy Holy Orthodox Church, and to take refuge under the shadow of her wings. Remove far from him {her) his {her) former errors, and fill him {her) with the true faith, and hope, and love which are in thee. Enable him {her) to walk in all thy commandments, and to fulfil those things which are well-pleasing unto thee; for if a man do these things, he shall also find life in them. Inscribe him {her) in thy Book of Life, and unite him {her) to the flock of thine inheritance: and may thy Name be glorified in him {her), together with that of thy beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of thy Life-giving Spirit. Let thine eyes ever look upon him {her) with mercy, and let thine ears alway receive the voice of his {her) supplication. Make him {her) to rejoice in the work of his {her) hands, and in all his {her) generation, that he {she") may render praise unto thee, may sing, worship and glorify thy great and exalted Name, and magnify thee alway, all the days of his (her) life.

Exclamation. For all the Powers of heaven sing praises unto thee, and thine is the glory, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen.

After the Prayer, the Bishop {or Priest) shall say to the convert:

Wherefore renounce now, with all thy heart, thine errors, and false doctrines, and mistakes of judgment, and confess the Orthodox-Catholic Faith.

And the Bishop questioneth the convert from the Roman-Latin Confession.

Dost thou renounce the false doctrine that, for the expression of the dogma touching the Procession of the Holy Spirit, the declaration of our Saviour Christ himself: " who proceedeth from the Father " : doth not suffice ; and that the addition, of man's invention : " and from the Son " : is required ?

Answer. I do.

Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that it doth not suffice to confess our Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the Universal Church ; and that a man, to wit, the Bishop of Rome, can be the head of Christ's Body, that is to say, of the whole Church ?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief that the holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord equal spiritual power, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince: And that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor: And that the Bishops of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch and others are not, equally with the Bishop of Rome, successors of the Apostles ?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce the erroneous belief of those who think that the Pope of Rome is superior to the (Ecumenical Councils, and infallible in faith, notwithstanding the fact that several of the Popes have been heretics, and condemned as such by the Councils ?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Dost thou renounce all the other doctrines of the Western Confession, both old and new, which are contrary to the Word of God, and to the true tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the seven CEcumenical Councils?

Answer. I do.

Bishop. Hast thou renounced all ancient and modern heresies and false doctrines which are contrary to the teachings of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Eastern Church ?

Answer. I have.

Bishop. Dost thou desire to be united unto the Holy OrthodoxCatholic Eastern Church ?

Answer. I desire it with all my heart.

Bishop. Dost thou believe in one God, who is adored in the holy Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit : and dost thou worship him as thy King and thy God ?

Answer. I believe in one God who is glorified and adored in the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and I worship him as my King and my God.

Then he maketh one lowly reverence, kneeling and bowing his head to the earth, and reciteth the Creed.

I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of his Father before all worlds ; Light of Light, Very God of very God, Begotten, not made ; Being of one Essence with the Father; By whom all things were made; Who, for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man. And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried. And the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead ; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets. In one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

Bishop. Blessed is God, who enlighteneth every man that cometh into the world.

Bishop. Dost thou believe and confess that power hath been given by our Saviour Christ unto the Orthodox-Catholic Church to bind and to loose : and that whatsoever, by virtue of that power, is bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven ?

Answer. I believe and confess it.

Bishop. Dost thou believe and confess that the Foundation, Head, and Great High Priest and Chief Shepherd of the Holy OrthodoxCatholic Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; and that Bishops, Pastors and Teachers are appointed by him to rule the Church ; and that the Guide and Pilot of that Church is the Holy Spirit ?

Answer. I believe and confess that this Church is the Bride of Christ, and that therein is true salvation, which was in the Ark of Noah at the Flood.

Bishop. Dost thou promise true obedience, unto thy life's end, in guidance which is salutary unto the soul, to the Most Holy Governing Synod of All the Russias; to the Most Holy Patriarch, the Equal-of-the-Apostles {or to the Ecclesiastical Authorities of the Autocephalous Provincial Church); and to the Bishop of this Diocese, as the true Pastors appointed by the Holy Spirit; and to the Priests ordained by them ?

Answer. I promise it, with heart unfeigned.

Then the Bishop giveth him the end of his pall {omophorion) {if a Priest officiate, he giveth him the end of his priestly stole) in his right hand, saying;

Enter thou into the Orthodox Church ; and cast away all the errors and false doctrines wherein thou hast dwelt: and honour the Lord God, the Father Almighty, and his Only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, one true and living God, the holy Trinity, one in Essence and indivisible.

And having thus spoken, he leadeth the convert into the Church, holding the end of the pall {or of the priestly stole), and placeth him in front of the tribune, where, upon a table, is laid the book of the Holy Gospels ; and when he. hath taken his place, the convert immediately looseth the end of the pall from his hand. And as they enter the Church, the Reader shall read:

Psalm Lxvii.

God be merciful unto us, and bless us, and show us the light of his countenance, and be merciful unto us; that thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God; yea, let all the people praise thee. O let the nations rejoice and be glad ; for thou shalt judge the folk righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Let the people praise thee, O God ; yea, let all the people praise thee. Then shall the earth bring forth her increase; and God, even our own God, shall give us his blessing. God shall bless us; and all the ends of the world shall fear him.

And when the Psalm is finished, the Bishop commandeth the convert to kneel down before the Holy Gospels.

A nd when he hath done this, the Bishop reciteth the following Verses :

Send thy Holy Spirit, and they shall be created; and renew the face of the earth.

Turn again, O Lord, how long ? And be entreated for thy servant. The crooked places shall be made straight, and the rough ways plain. O Lord my God, save thy servant, who putteth his trust in thee. Be thou unto him, O Lord, a pillar of strength against the face of the enemy.

Let the enemy in nowise prevail against him, and let not the son of iniquity go about to offend him.

Hear my prayer, O Lord, and let the voice of my cry come unto thee.

Then immediately the Deacon shall say ;

Let us pray to the Lord.
Choir. Lord, have mercy.


And the Bishop, with all devoutness, shall recite the following Prayer:

O Lord God Almighty, who alone art holy, and restest in the Saints ; who, because of thy great and incalculable love toward mankind, dost alwayoffer unto them that have sinned divers manners of repentance,and dost show unto them that have wandered from the truth the right path unto knowledge of thee, the only true God, who art glorified and adored in the Trinity, that not one of them should perish, but that all may be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the truth: We thank thee, we glorify thee, and we magnify thee, for that thou hast now shed down into the heart of this, thy reason-endowed creature, N., the li*ht which is unto the knowledge of thy truth; and hast graciously enabled him {her) to have recourse unto thy Holy Apostolic Orthodox-Catholic Church. Illumine his {her) heart, O Lord, we humbly beseech thee, with the perfect light of the grace of thy Holy Spirit unto the enlightening of his {her) mind in the truth of thy Holy Gospel. Grant that he {she) may unfeignedly, irrevocably and without hypocrisy unite himself {herself) unto thy Holy Catholic Church, and truly accept and confess the Orthodox-Catholic faith. Number him {her) with thy chosen flock, and unite him {her) to the body of thy Holy Church. Make him {her) a vessel of honour, and the temple of thy Holy Spirit; that, being ever nourished and guided by the Same, he {she) may keep thy saving commandments; and that doing thy gracious, acceptable and perfect will, he {she) may be counted worthy to receive thy heavenly good things, together with all those who are well-pleasing in thy sight. For thou art the God of mercy and compassion and love toward mankind, and wiliest that all men should be saved ; and unto thee do we ascribe glory, to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, now, and ever, and unto ages of ages. Choir. Amen.

And after the Prayer, the Bishop commandeth him to stand, saying :

Rise, and stand aright: stand with fear.

And he, rising, saith :

This true faith of the Holy Orthodox-Catholic Church, which I now voluntarily confess and unfeignedly hold, I will firmly maintain and confess whole and in its fulness and integrity, until my last breath, God being my helper; and will teach it and proclaim it, so far as in me lieth ; and will strive to fulfil its obligations cheerfully and with joy, preserving my heart in purity and virtue. And in confirmation of this, my true and sincere profession of faith, I now kiss the word of Christ my Saviour. Amen.

Then the Bishop giveth him the Holy Gospels and the cross to kiss. And after he hath kissed them, he saith :

Blessed is God, who willeth that all men should be saved, and should come unto the knowledge of the truth: Blessed is he forevermore. Choir. Amen.

Then he saith to the convert :

Bow thy knees before the Lord God, whom thou hast confessed, and receive remission of thy sins.

And the convert kneeleth down and boweth his head, having his eyes cast down.

Then the Bishop {or he who hath received this power from him), pronounceth the absolution thus : {The form of absolving such a convert from Excommunication, and from his sins, and of joining him unto the Holy Catholic Church}

Our Lord and God Jesus Christ committed unto his Apostles the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and bestowed upon them the full power through his grace, both to bind and to loose a man from his sins upon earth : May the same, through his unspeakable mercy, pardon and absolve thee. And I, by his almighty power, given unto me, an unworthy Bishop {or Priest), through his holy Apostles and their successors, do pardon and absolve thee, my child (N.), from all thy sins: and do unite thee unto the assembly of the faithful, and unto the body of Christ's Church : and do communicate thee with the Divine Sacraments of the Church: In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Then the Bishop saith to him :

Rise, brother {sister), and as a faithful servant of Jesus Christ pray thou unto him with us, that he will vouchsafe unto thee, through anointment with the holy Chrism, to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit.

And rising, the convert standeth with all emotion.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hVIXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA454&lpg=PA454&dq=Hapgood+reception+converts+bishop&source=bl&ots=LHgODrkea9&sig=D0I5OkyrNk3ptjTehB8ikyAui58&hl=en&ei=HFrdTNi9JNKonQfA7ICzDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
The doors of repentance are always open, and the Father ever waiting with open arms:
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 11:51:57 AM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #142 on: November 12, 2010, 12:10:40 PM »

Once again, since Orthodoxy is the communion of Catholic Church, there is nothing to resume.


There is the resumption of communion between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church which is being discussed between Catholic hiearachs and canonical Orthodoxy.  

It seems to be taking precedence over all other bi-lateral discussions.

« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 12:11:17 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #143 on: November 12, 2010, 01:07:55 PM »

Once again, since Orthodoxy is the communion of Catholic Church, there is nothing to resume.


There is the resumption of communion between Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church which is being discussed between Catholic hiearachs and canonical Orthodoxy.  

It seems to be taking precedence over all other bi-lateral discussions.
Not that that would say much, but it is also not true: the talks between the EO and OO on formal, official, canonical resumption of communion of the Catholic Church, unlike those talks with the Vatican (which can't even produce public statements, let alone signed ones) have already born fruit.  The talks you refer to are withering on the vine, and by their fruits ye shall know them.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #144 on: November 12, 2010, 01:26:33 PM »
Just out of curiosity, ialmistry, when you read that news story a few weeks ago about the Muslim attack on a Syriac Catholic church in Baghdad, did you immediately complain to all the news organizations (including not to mention biro over at the "Christian News" subforum here at OC.net - http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30936.0.html) that they should have described it as a "Vatican" church?
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 01:30:32 PM by theistgal »
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #145 on: November 12, 2010, 02:15:10 PM »
Just out of curiosity, ialmistry, when you read that news story a few weeks ago about the Muslim attack on a Syriac Catholic church in Baghdad, did you immediately complain to all the news organizations (including not to mention biro over at the "Christian News" subforum here at OC.net - http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30936.0.html) that they should have described it as a "Vatican" church?
Were it a story of about the Western Ukraine, with Orthodox attacking (and then there would be the question of "attack") one of the churches the Vatican is in possession of, I might be so inclined, but Muslim attacks on churchs of any sort in the Islamic world, no.  The Muslims make no distinction: after Pope Benedict's correct citation of the Emperor Manuel on Muhammad, several Orthodox Churches were attacked.

To anticipate the next question-not necessarily yourself, but others, as they have done so already-why should we make the distinction? Experience. The Turk enthroned an Imam in Agia Sophia, not a prostitute as did the Crusaders, and Prince St. Stefan the Great, called "Champion of the Christian Faith" by the Vatican, complained of facing the Muslims in battle while being stabbed in the back by the Champions of the Vatican. We have learned the example of Grand Prince St. Alexander Nevsky that resisting an enemy without is easier than containing an enemy within bent on your destruction.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #146 on: November 12, 2010, 02:50:26 PM »
Just out of curiosity, ialmistry, when you read that news story a few weeks ago about the Muslim attack on a Syriac Catholic church in Baghdad, did you immediately complain to all the news organizations (including not to mention biro over at the "Christian News" subforum here at OC.net - http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30936.0.html) that they should have described it as a "Vatican" church?
Were it a story of about the Western Ukraine, with Orthodox attacking (and then there would be the question of "attack") one of the churches the Vatican is in possession of, I might be so inclined, but Muslim attacks on churchs of any sort in the Islamic world, no.  The Muslims make no distinction: after Pope Benedict's correct citation of the Emperor Manuel on Muhammad, several Orthodox Churches were attacked.

To anticipate the next question-not necessarily yourself, but others, as they have done so already-why should we make the distinction? Experience. The Turk enthroned an Imam in Agia Sophia, not a prostitute as did the Crusaders, and Prince St. Stefan the Great, called "Champion of the Christian Faith" by the Vatican, complained of facing the Muslims in battle while being stabbed in the back by the Champions of the Vatican. We have learned the example of Grand Prince St. Alexander Nevsky that resisting an enemy without is easier than containing an enemy within bent on your destruction.

Whatever.  I don't know any Catholics (excuse me, Vaticanists!) offhand, who are bent on destroying the Orthodox Church today.

I'll grant you that was the case in the not-distant-enough past, but let's face it, we Christians have a pretty sorry history, over the last 2,000+ years, of trying to destroy each other.

(The Orthodox aren't exempt either:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins )
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 02:56:21 PM by theistgal »
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #147 on: November 12, 2010, 03:52:51 PM »
Just out of curiosity, ialmistry, when you read that news story a few weeks ago about the Muslim attack on a Syriac Catholic church in Baghdad, did you immediately complain to all the news organizations (including not to mention biro over at the "Christian News" subforum here at OC.net - http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30936.0.html) that they should have described it as a "Vatican" church?
Were it a story of about the Western Ukraine, with Orthodox attacking (and then there would be the question of "attack") one of the churches the Vatican is in possession of, I might be so inclined, but Muslim attacks on churchs of any sort in the Islamic world, no.  The Muslims make no distinction: after Pope Benedict's correct citation of the Emperor Manuel on Muhammad, several Orthodox Churches were attacked.

To anticipate the next question-not necessarily yourself, but others, as they have done so already-why should we make the distinction? Experience. The Turk enthroned an Imam in Agia Sophia, not a prostitute as did the Crusaders, and Prince St. Stefan the Great, called "Champion of the Christian Faith" by the Vatican, complained of facing the Muslims in battle while being stabbed in the back by the Champions of the Vatican. We have learned the example of Grand Prince St. Alexander Nevsky that resisting an enemy without is easier than containing an enemy within bent on your destruction.

Whatever.  I don't know any Catholics (excuse me, Vaticanists!) offhand, who are bent on destroying the Orthodox Church today.

The seizure of Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, Czechoslovakia (particalarly egregious, as the communist let any who wanted to go under the Vatican do so in the 60's) and the policies in Poland, the abandonment of the St. George Cathedral in Lviv (after seizing it, again) the mother church of the UCCC to stab Kiev in the heart with a new (and due to the minority of commnunicants there as opposed to the larger numbers out east, not needed) cathedral, the covetting of the title of "Patriarch of Kiev-Halych and All Ukraine" by the flock of the Ukrainian cardinal (while the primate of the Copts and the primate of the Melkites who have submitted to the Vatican are forbidden to dare to use the traditional Orthodox title of Pope which Pope Shenoudah and Pope Theodore have), Pope John Paul II remarks that if the Romanians were real Romans "they would be Roman Catholic," the publication and distribution of the CCC in Romania in Romanian shortly after its pumulgation and years before its appearance in English and other languages with large numbers (as opposed to the tiny Romanian speaking number in Romania) of followers of the Vatican-in fact near (perhaps before) the Spanish and Portuguese (the largest part of the Vatican's followers) editions, the campaign against the restrictions on the Vatican's activities in Russia while giving moral (and other) support against the freedom of the Protestants to preach in Latin America, the Latin Patriarchate over the Eastern city of Jerusalem, the rush to give diplomatic recognition and support of Croatians with a blind eye to anti-Serb activities in and outside of Croatia (witness the ongoing lawsuit in the US against the Croatian Franciscans), the collaboration of the with the Muslim secessionists to raise a cathedral in Pristina Kosovo, etc. etc. etc. tell us otherwise.

Quote
I'll grant you that was the case in the not-distant-enough past, but let's face it, we Christians have a pretty sorry history, over the last 2,000+ years, of trying to destroy each other.

(The Orthodox aren't exempt either:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_the_Latins )
There is a tad bit of difference between shooting an intruder, squater or treacherous guest in your own home and journeying over land and sea to break into the home of someone you disagree with, shoot him, and confiscate his home.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2010, 03:53:53 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,240
  • don't even go there!
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #148 on: November 12, 2010, 08:20:16 PM »
In other words, "I'm right - stop trying to confuse me with the facts!" :)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #149 on: November 12, 2010, 09:33:26 PM »
In other words, "I'm right - stop trying to confuse me with the facts!" :)
No, "I'm right-and here are the facts that support that."
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #150 on: November 12, 2010, 11:34:30 PM »
In other words, "I'm right - stop trying to confuse me with the facts!" :)
No, "I'm right-and here are the facts that support that."
Your humility is astounding.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #151 on: November 13, 2010, 12:12:56 AM »
In other words, "I'm right - stop trying to confuse me with the facts!" :)
No, "I'm right-and here are the facts that support that."
Your humility is astounding.
Orthodoxy also means "right glory"
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #152 on: November 13, 2010, 12:35:34 AM »
In other words, "I'm right - stop trying to confuse me with the facts!" :)
No, "I'm right-and here are the facts that support that."
Your humility is astounding.
Orthodoxy also means "right glory"
Is the "glory" referring to glorification of God or glorification of self?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,592
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #153 on: November 13, 2010, 01:14:27 AM »
In other words, "I'm right - stop trying to confuse me with the facts!" :)
No, "I'm right-and here are the facts that support that."
Your humility is astounding.
Orthodoxy also means "right glory"
Is the "glory" referring to glorification of God or glorification of self?
God and His Church.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Re: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?
« Reply #154 on: November 13, 2010, 11:53:15 AM »