OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 04:05:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Rome's jurisdiction over Eastern Catholics  (Read 3425 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« on: January 29, 2012, 10:44:41 PM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K
Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,032


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2012, 11:31:12 PM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority?  

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic?  

Thanks!
K


Before I comment, I shall beat a 'dead horse.' We Orthodox proclaim that the Orthodox Church is the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, as we profess in the unadulterated Nicene Creed. Hence, you have to be more 'specific' in your  questions. When you use the term 'Catholic' it appears that you are referring to the Church of Rome, a/k/a the Roman Catholic church.

Back to your questions.

I believe that Eastern Catholics do not like to be called "Roman Catholics" as they are not "Roman Catholics." They profess to be members of self-ruling Churches (i.e. 'sui juris') who submit to the authority of the Pope of Rome. Hence, I would suspect that by merely being Eastern Catholics they are subject to the authority of the Pope and would not object to that obvious fact being so stated.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the various documents of Union with Rome from the 16th and 17th centuries which purport to guarantee the 'Eastern-ness' of the praxis and teachings of the Eastern Catholic churches and the reiteration of them as being 'sui juris' following Vatican 2, their congregants are subject to Roman doctrines and Canon law, among those are the ones regarding divorce and contraception.

Finally, I am not sure what you mean with respect to St. Peter Mohyla, Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia in the mid 17th century. While he was no doubt influenced by Western thought, his Confessions were published in defense of Orthodoxy during a period of great stress caused by the Reformation on the one hand and the Union of Brest on the other. It can be argued that St. Peter sought a methodology to understand the Papacy in terms of the primacy as it may have first functioned in priniciple during the first millennium. He remains a controversial figure for a number of reasons, but it is largely undisputed in scholarly circles that he was a bulwark to prevent the spread of Jesuit influence into Russia herself and to stem the then-growing influence of the Unia at the time of his episcopacy. Not an easy question with a simple answer I am afraid.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 11:31:43 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2012, 09:09:51 AM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

When I read this question, I thought "copy cat!" since I also started a thread on that topic last night.

Then I realized that you actually started your thread about 10 minutes before mine. Boy are my cheeks red.  Grin

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

I believe that Eastern Catholics have a similar process, but I'll leave it for Catholic posters to say how similar.

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K

I don't see how it could be considered "Catholic", given what Catholics dogmatically defined in the 19th century.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2012, 11:13:07 AM »

Hi,

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

2) Are Eastern Catholics allowed to divorce and remarry like Orthodox or must go through tribunal to establish nullity of marriage like Catholics?  (ie. Eastern Catholics have same prohibition on divorce as Roman Catholics?  Contraception too?)

3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K

1.  Eastern Catholics are NOT Roman Catholics and generally don't like being referred to as such.  Some will make a bigger deal of it than others.  We are, however, *fully* Catholic.

2.  Being fully Catholic means that we are subject to the same laws as Roman Catholics regarding divorce, remarriage, contraception, abortion, etc.

3.  I'm not sure  I understand your question.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2012, 05:39:05 PM »

Eastern Catholics seem to quietly ignore some Roman Catholic teachings....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

"This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite
Catholics.  Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a
patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among
whom the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the
first. 

"Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

The last sentence is a puzzle.  The agreement, so the Eastern Catholics claim, states that they will not be asked to believe anything more than they believed at the time of union.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2012, 06:00:44 PM »

Eastern Catholics seem to quietly ignore some Roman Catholic teachings....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

"This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite
Catholics.  Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a
patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among
whom the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the
first. 

"Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

The last sentence is a puzzle.  The agreement, so the Eastern Catholics claim, states that they will not be asked to believe anything more than they believed at the time of union.

Just to clarify, the above is referring to the Melkites specifically, and not necessarily to all Eastern Catholics.

It also has nothing in particular to do with the OP's questions as I understood them (or not, as the case may be  Wink).
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2012, 06:28:24 PM »

Eastern Catholics seem to quietly ignore some Roman Catholic teachings....

http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/EASTRITE.TXT

"This is one of the most disaffected groups among the Eastern Rite
Catholics.  Unlike other Byzantine Catholics, this group is headed by a
patriarch who is accustomed to seeing himself as one of the equals among
whom the Pope of Rome (the Patriarch of the West) is agreed to be the
first. 

"Other
sources of disagreement are the Immaculate Conception, Papal Supremacy and
Infallibility, Purgatory, and the Filioque, and to a lesser extent
remarriage after divorce; in short, all the matters that remain primary
points of disagreement between Orthodox and Catholics.  The terms of the
original agreement are clear that agreement with Rome on these matters is
expected."

The last sentence is a puzzle.  The agreement, so the Eastern Catholics claim, states that they will not be asked to believe anything more than they believed at the time of union.

Just to clarify, the above is referring to the Melkites specifically, and not necessarily to all Eastern Catholics
.

The Melkites are the third or fourth largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches.  They are not alone in their attitudes.

You will note that the article speaks of them as "the most disaffected" of the Eastern Rite Catholics.  All share the Melkite position to a degree when push comes to shove.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2012, 06:30:41 PM »



It also has nothing in particular to do with the OP's questions as I understood them (or not, as the case may be 
Wink).

It certainly has to do with Point 2 of the OP.
Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2012, 06:55:14 PM »

There was also a interview with the then Patriarch(Major Archbishop)  Husar of the UGCC where he stated that the particular beliefs of the RCC such as the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, et. al. were only valid theological opinions but not required beliefs. It has been a few years since I read the article I will try to find.

Edit: Here is the article. It seems that he says that these beliefs are theological concepts not faith. Whatever that means. He also seems to think that these beliefs are complimentary with the Orthodox Faith. I must disagree.

http://risu.org.ua/en/index/expert_thought/interview/823/
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 07:06:38 PM by ICXCNIKA » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2012, 07:12:24 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion

http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2006D.htm



It is interesting for us Orthodox Christians that some of the Eastern Catholic Churches disagree with the Church of Rome over the number of Ecumenical Councils and teach that there are only seven. For example, from the official web site of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton (in communion with Rome).

8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox

Source  ::  http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm

and
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2007C.htm

Logged
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,032


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2012, 08:46:35 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion

http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2006D.htm



It is interesting for us Orthodox Christians that some of the Eastern Catholic Churches disagree with the Church of Rome over the number of Ecumenical Councils and teach that there are only seven. For example, from the official web site of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton (in communion with Rome).

8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox

Source  ::  http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm

and
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2007C.htm



That is interesting and you reminded me of that.

I would note that the idea of treating the so-called 'Ecumenical Councils' of the Church of Rome as nothing more than 'general synods' is one of the thoughts that some on the Orthodox side have expressed as well.

The problem with that is that while many of the points of divergence between east and west could be viewed as 'theologoumena' upon which we agree to disagree (as was the case with any number of approaches and issues of the first millennium united Church) Rome has chosen to proclaim them as inviolable dogma and come up with a few new ones to boot. How they could back down from a thousand years of so stating is the biggest problem.

I suspect that just as we anticipate that any agreement by the Orthodox with Rome would lead to some sort of schism within Orthodoxy, the same would occur within the Church of Rome should she come to agreement with us. Self proclaimed 'sedevacantists' would simply proclaim the see of Rome vacant and go on their merry way.
Logged
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2012, 09:07:21 PM »

Quote
"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Great scott!

And Rome no doubt knows this but does nothing--why? 

And why would these odd Eastern Catholics join to Rome, when they believe essentially as Orthodox? 

Be men of principle...none of this duplicity-
K
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2012, 10:06:01 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I.

I disagree. He didn't actually say it isn't true. He only said that it isn't a dogma and "can not be imposed on anyone".

He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion

That seems more accurate.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2012, 10:09:00 PM »

Quote
"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Great scott!

And Rome no doubt knows this but does nothing--why? 

I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. Actually, I'm a little surprised that you regard it as a bad thing, given what your profile says.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2012, 10:09:46 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I.

I disagree. He didn't actually say it isn't true. He only said that it isn't a dogma and "can not be imposed on anyone".

I amend my words ---  if a Catholic prefers not to believe in papal infallibility then it is not truth. But if any Catholic chooses to believe it then it is truth.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 10:10:38 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2012, 10:25:10 PM »

May I present evidence which indicates a really serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches - about the number of Ecumenical Councils and consequently which teachings are de fide and obligatory for the faithful:


Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical" Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"

~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

Notice how the implications.  The Melkite Archbishop is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I.

I disagree. He didn't actually say it isn't true. He only said that it isn't a dogma and "can not be imposed on anyone".

I amend my words ---  if a Catholic prefers not to believe in papal infallibility then it is not truth. But if any Catholic chooses to believe it then it is truth.

No, whether it's true or not isn't changed by people believing it or not believing it.

"Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it?"
- A Man For All Seasons
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2012, 10:29:50 PM »

While I'm at it, this seems like a good quote too ...

Norfolk: I'm not a scholar, as Master Cromwell never tires of pointing out, and frankly I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not. But damn it, Thomas, look at those names... You know those men! Can't you do what I did, and come with us for friendship?
- A Man For All Seasons

Maybe Norfolk had the "uniatism" idea first, and the Catholics just stole it from him. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #17 on: January 30, 2012, 10:40:27 PM »

2.  Being fully Catholic means that we are subject to the same laws as Roman Catholics regarding divorce, remarriage, contraception, abortion, etc.

What does "we" mean in this sentence?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #18 on: January 31, 2012, 12:22:42 AM »

If I thought it were possible to be Roman Catholic and not accept what it itself states is necessary to be Roman Catholic, I may have stayed. But the documents from the post schism councils state very clearly that one must accept the decrees or be anathema.

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.

I do not and cannot accept universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility--that's why I am becoming Orthodox.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #19 on: January 31, 2012, 12:24:21 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?
Logged
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #20 on: January 31, 2012, 12:36:20 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?

Because I am not an ancient Church. I'm just me. I've read the council documents and I cannot accept some of the cannons. I'm a rule follower. If the RCC says I have to accept certain things (which i dont) to be RC then I personally cannot remain in communion.

Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #21 on: January 31, 2012, 12:48:02 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?

Because I am not an ancient Church. I'm just me. I've read the council documents and I cannot accept some of the cannons. I'm a rule follower. If the RCC says I have to accept certain things (which i dont) to be RC then I personally cannot remain in communion.


But what if you requested a canonical transfer to the Melkite Catholic Church? Then your beliefs could remain the same as they are now and you would be in agreement with your Church.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 12:53:59 AM by Wyatt » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #22 on: January 31, 2012, 08:14:55 AM »

If I thought it were possible to be Roman Catholic and not accept what it itself states is necessary to be Roman Catholic, I may have stayed. But the documents from the post schism councils state very clearly that one must accept the decrees or be anathema.

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.

I do not and cannot accept universal jurisdiction or papal infallibility--that's why I am becoming Orthodox.

Some years ago I thought about this a lot, and the conclusion I came to (for what it's worth) was that the Pope could excommunicate anyone who didn't accept papal infallibility, but that he didn't have to.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #23 on: January 31, 2012, 08:15:47 AM »

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #24 on: January 31, 2012, 10:18:37 AM »

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #25 on: January 31, 2012, 10:21:59 AM »

If you don't accept papal infalabiliy you must still accept it. Vatican I is clear on this. I think the only reason the Melkite Church is allowed to say such things is because Rome does not want to lose them.
Doesn't the fact that the Melkite Church believes such things and remains in communion with us mean that you could have too? I mean, I don't understand it personally, but if it is not an obstacle for communion for the Melkites, why should it be for you?

Because I am not an ancient Church. I'm just me. I've read the council documents and I cannot accept some of the cannons. I'm a rule follower. If the RCC says I have to accept certain things (which i dont) to be RC then I personally cannot remain in communion.


But what if you requested a canonical transfer to the Melkite Catholic Church? Then your beliefs could remain the same as they are now and you would be in agreement with your Church.

I explored this possibility at one point. But I came to the conclusion that I don't want to retain "union" with Rome just for the sake of holding on to what's familiar. Plus, if I were honest with the bishop and told him I wanted an canonical transfer because I reject Vatican I and II, I doubt that he'd allow it.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


« Reply #26 on: January 31, 2012, 10:40:22 AM »

Hi,


3) An Orthodox that allows Rome primacy (like Met. Moghila of Kiev 17th Cent), but not jurisdiction: is that Orthodox or Catholic? 

Thanks!
K
A historical question:  please direct me to the primary source in which Metr. Petro Mohyla approved "Rome primacy"?  I read Ukrainian, Russian and Church Slavonic.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,121



« Reply #27 on: January 31, 2012, 11:11:12 AM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #28 on: January 31, 2012, 11:39:40 AM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.

I don't get it either. I'd like to hear from some Melkites on this issue.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #29 on: January 31, 2012, 11:50:33 AM »

If you don't accept papal infallabiliy you must still accept it.

But if it is flat, will the Pope's command make it round? And if it is round, will the Pope's command flatten it?


No. But if you want to be a member of a particular church, I think it is best to follow that church's rules.

Interesting that you state this as a principle in general. The way a lot of Catholics talk about it, it sounds more like a special property of the pope that he is unable to be in full communion with anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,032


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2012, 12:01:55 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.

How can a Melikite in union with the Rome be part of the 'Catholicity of the Church of Rome' when the universal pastorate of the Bishop of Rome and his infallibility with respects to his 'ex cathedra' pronouncements of faith can be questioned and even denied. Rome surely does not view this matter as a mere 'theologoumenon'. Doesn't the entire foundation of Rome's historical position on this matter come crashing down as if built upon sand - applying - take a breath- a logical, scholastically based proof?

I can see, I think, how the Melkites can reconcile this, but I do not see how Rome allows this, if it is in fact the case.

Please, someone from within the Melkite community, please try to explain. Thanks!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 12:03:17 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2012, 12:02:36 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,121



« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2012, 12:37:37 PM »

Yes, but are dogmas 'all-or-nothing' propositions?  I thought they were.

The Anglicans have agreed to not really hold too tightly to dogmatic principles.  Are you saying the RCC likewise has a less stringent view of dogma?


That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,032


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2012, 01:48:14 PM »

Yes, but are dogmas 'all-or-nothing' propositions?  I thought they were.

The Anglicans have agreed to not really hold too tightly to dogmatic principles.  Are you saying the RCC likewise has a less stringent view of dogma?


That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.

If you are saying that, then are acknowledging that the primary impediments to a reunion of east and west are less daunting than they have appeared for 1000 years or so? Or, as is often the case when east and west speak to each other, is it the 'different' way of looking at things and expressing them (going back to the early Fathers of east and west)which keeps us from fully understanding what the other is saying?
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,121



« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2012, 02:07:45 PM »

It is much easier for me to look at Roman Catholicism as a different religion from Orthodox Christianity than it is to say we are still the same religion with slight variances.  I think there are profound differences that are not entirely appreciated.

Take, for example, the very 'simple' things we have read about Roman Catholicism here on the forum, and how quickly we are told that we don't understand what these things mean when we start to discuss them.  Quickly, it becomes apparent that we do not share the same approaches or even a common vocabulary in terms of meaning, even if the words are the same.

This does not mean that I hate RCs or their church, in fact I have a great deal of respect for them and admire the earnestness of many if not most.  But, I do not confuse them with us or our beliefs or our approach.  To respect them truly means to acknowledge the differences.

In order for there to be some reunion, there will have to be profound changes on both sides: the Orthodox will have to learn a lot more tolerance of different traditions (everyone who isn't a Byzantine has left the building), and the Roman Catholics will have to renounce their theological pronouncements after the schism.  I don't see interest in either side in doing these things, so I really don't even think about it.  They are two different religions.  I don't think RCs need us to be happy, and the same is true of us.


Yes, but are dogmas 'all-or-nothing' propositions?  I thought they were.

The Anglicans have agreed to not really hold too tightly to dogmatic principles.  Are you saying the RCC likewise has a less stringent view of dogma?


That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have  in different 'compartments'? 

I think you just summarized why the TAC isn't in the Anglican Communion.

However, you're speaking of it in all-or-nothing terms -- as though a body either contains different theologies or doesn't contain different theologies -- rather than a matter of degrees. In reality, every body contains different theologies to one extent or another: for example, the Anglican Communion contains a wider variety of different theologies than the Church of Rome does.

If you are saying that, then are acknowledging that the primary impediments to a reunion of east and west are less daunting than they have appeared for 1000 years or so? Or, as is often the case when east and west speak to each other, is it the 'different' way of looking at things and expressing them (going back to the early Fathers of east and west)which keeps us from fully understanding what the other is saying?
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2012, 02:52:34 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way:  that perhaps the Catholic Church is well aware of what she teaches and what is necessary to preserve the core of truth in a teaching.

Some of you, [not you Podkarpatska, I am just using your note to respond to the whole business here], are more than willing to make fun of me when I try to point you in what are the logical directions of my Church's teachings, but you are more than willing to fuzz around with and presume about teachings that you feel so absolutely certain that you know.

If you think that the pope is unaware of the Melkite position then you are all silly-fellers.

M.
Logged

militantsparrow
Laurence
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 616


militantsparrow
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2012, 03:54:35 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way:  that perhaps the Catholic Church is well aware of what she teaches and what is necessary to preserve the core of truth in a teaching.

Some of you, [not you Podkarpatska, I am just using your note to respond to the whole business here], are more than willing to make fun of me when I try to point you in what are the logical directions of my Church's teachings, but you are more than willing to fuzz around with and presume about teachings that you feel so absolutely certain that you know.

If you think that the pope is unaware of the Melkite position then you are all silly-fellers.

M.

I think I understand Roman Catholicism pretty well. I think everyone realizes that the Pope is aware of the Melkite position. What we're asking, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, is why does he allow it?
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
podkarpatska
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,032


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2012, 04:46:41 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way:  that perhaps the Catholic Church is well aware of what she teaches and what is necessary to preserve the core of truth in a teaching.

Some of you, [not you Podkarpatska, I am just using your note to respond to the whole business here], are more than willing to make fun of me when I try to point you in what are the logical directions of my Church's teachings, but you are more than willing to fuzz around with and presume about teachings that you feel so absolutely certain that you know.

If you think that the pope is unaware of the Melkite position then you are all silly-fellers.

M.

I think I understand Roman Catholicism pretty well. I think everyone realizes that the Pope is aware of the Melkite position. What we're asking, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, is why does he allow it?


I really don't think I do understand the Roman Catholic Church all that well. While her scope is 'universal' across the planet, there are times she seems like a huge monolithic giant and other times when she seems like a large co-operative apartment complex with tenants at each other's throats about co-op rules and regulations. Whether she truly is a 'different religion' than Orthodoxy depends, I think, upon the moment.

Like many of us, I am perplexed by seemingly contradictory strands of teaching and 'enforcement' on her part. Some days I lean towards Father Giryus' statement that although we have superficial similarities we are two different religions. Other days,  I lean the other way.

What one means by being a 'different' religion is the kicker though. If you put a Hindu next to a Jew next to an Animist, it is easy to determine that they are all 'different' religions. But put an American Lutheran next to an Episcopalian next to a Methodist next to a Presbyterian next to a.... you get the picture... Are those 'different' 'religions' or are they one religion - trinitarian Christian but different 'sects'?

An argument can be made that the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches are such that are less than the progressive differences among the 'sects' I mentioned in the prior paragraph.

Many here are converts from Protestantism, I suspect that it is easier for you to see Orthodoxy and Protestant denominations as being different 'religions.' Since most Protestants I know clearly see Catholicism as being a very different belief set as compared to any particular Protestant sect, I suspect converts from Protestantism have no problem viewing us as being a totally different 'religion' from the RCC.

Those who left Byzantine Catholicism for Orthodoxy for the most part view themselves as  continuing in Orthodoxy upon the correct path from which their former Church deviated. I know that to be the case with respect to the many individuals I have known over the years who made that journey. However, few, if any of them viewed Eastern Catholicism as being a 'different religion.' I am curious therefore, as to how converts to Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism or vice-versa view their former affiliation.

By know you are probably as confused by my post as am I.

Actually that is my point, for when we speak of things like faith, belief and religion we often run into difficulty explaining our points of view within the limitations of our language and most of the time we tend to talk past each other.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2012, 06:03:21 PM »

That's what's so hard for me to understand: how could One Body have different theologies in different 'compartments'?   So, it would be strange to join the RCC but not accept some of its views of reality, or agree to communion without agreement as to the entire corpus of beliefs.


I don't get this at all.

If the teaching of the Melkite Greek Catholic church is actually as has been stated here, I fail to see how this could be reconciled on any level with the 'Magisterium's' understanding of Pastor Aeternus and Vatican 1.


It does not seem to have occurred to many of you that your "understandings" of Catholic teaching may be deficient in some way

Fortunately, the Catholic posters on this forum constantly remind us of that possibility.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2012, 02:52:32 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2012, 04:14:30 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

But never mind, whatever it is you or anyone else who is not Catholic would like us to call ourselves or not call ourselves, we *do* call our Church the Catholic Church.  I imagine we will continue for some long time to do so.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2012, 05:26:41 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

My apologies, I should have elaborated on that portion of my post. The issue I was talking about isn't that you guys claim to be the Catholic Church; the issue is with Catholics who try to get other people to call you "the Catholic Church". Does that help?

But never mind,

Oh. Too late. 

whatever it is you or anyone else who is not Catholic would like us to call ourselves or not call ourselves, we *do* call our Church the Catholic Church.  I imagine we will continue for some long time to do so.

Yes, I imagine you will too.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2012, 05:28:57 PM »

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now),
...

See my profile, or better yet click on the asterisk.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2012, 05:36:27 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority? 

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

My apologies, I should have elaborated on that portion of my post. The issue I was talking about isn't that you guys claim to be the Catholic Church; the issue is with Catholics who try to get other people to call you "the Catholic Church". Does that help?


Unfortunately, Peter, it really doesn't help.  Yes, we call our Church the Catholic Church.  We "try to get other people to call [us] the Catholic Church"? But that is what we *are*.  What else would we have others call us? 

As for your religious identity, I've clicked the asterisk, read the post, and it's *still* unclear to me just what you are or with whom you are in communion, if anyone.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2012, 05:54:02 PM »

1) Do Eastern Catholics not like being called "Roman Catholic" or told they are under Rome's authority?  

My personal feeling is that I generally don't see any need to call them "Roman Catholics". I would use "Catholics" to mean "Latin Catholics and Eastern Catholics collectively".

The issue, for me, is when Catholics try to get people to call them "the Catholic Church". That I have a problem with.

What would you, now an Anglican (is that correct?  I'm a little confused as to your religious identity now), have us call ourselves?  If we are, as you say, "Catholics", should not our Church be called the "Catholic" Church, that is, the Church of the Catholics?

My apologies, I should have elaborated on that portion of my post. The issue I was talking about isn't that you guys claim to be the Catholic Church; the issue is with Catholics who try to get other people to call you "the Catholic Church". Does that help?


Unfortunately, Peter, it really doesn't help.  Yes, we call our Church the Catholic Church.  We "try to get other people to call [us] the Catholic Church"? But that is what we *are*.  What else would we have others call us?  

As for your religious identity, I've clicked the asterisk, read the post, and it's *still* unclear to me just what you are or with whom you are in communion, if anyone.
It is interesting that other communions are content to call themselves by a different name until they hear us call ourselves the "Catholic Church," then all of a sudden they want that title for themselves. Why do the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Churches each refer to themselves as the "Orthodox Church" and members of the Anglican Communion call themselves the Church of England, the Anglican Church, or the Episcopal Church, and yet when they hear us call our Church the Catholic Church it grinds their gears? They are perfectly fine using a different title for their Church until they hear us using the word "Catholic" to describe ourselves and our Church.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, I don't see what the problem is. Before the Great Schism, the unified pre-schism Church referred to itself as catholic and orthodox, right? After the Schism, the Eastern Churches began using "Orthodox" as their title and we used "Catholic." That's just the way the terminology evolved. Why, now, is it all of a sudden an issue? I refer to my Church as orthodox with a small "o" to avoid confusion since it is not a part of either the Oriental Orthodox communion or Eastern Orthodox communion. I would never think to gripe to the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox to drop the word "Orthodox" from their name, even though I believe my Church to be fully orthodox.

I could see it being a problem if we started wanting people to always call us the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," since the other communions believe themselves to be the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," but that is not what we're doing. We're simply calling ourselves by the name that has been used for our Church for ages: the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 05:55:57 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.183 seconds with 72 queries.