Author Topic: How Did the Catholic Church Get Her Name?  (Read 25339 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,241
  • 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.”

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: 2,126
  • 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: 9,749
  • Why am I still here?
  • Faith: New Calendarist
  • 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: 6,674
  • 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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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?

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,000
  • It's raw!
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"?

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,000
  • It's raw!
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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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: 41,533
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