OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 12:32:28 AM *
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: Is the Catholic Church Catholic?  (Read 3503 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Anastasia1
My warrior name is Beyoncé Pad Thai
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Occasionally traveling, Armenian.
Posts: 1,193



« on: February 03, 2013, 04:25:10 PM »

We know they aren't exactly Orthodox these centuries, but are they still Catholic (outside of meaning under Roman leadership)?
Logged

Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. (2 Cor 2:6)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2013, 04:28:00 PM »

Coca-Cola is catholic, McDonalds...
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2013, 04:37:40 PM »

Some Orthodox would argue that part of being catholic is having a "wholeness," and because of what they've lost that Roman Catholicism is not really catholic. I believe it was Khomiakov and others who spoke this way.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 951


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2013, 06:10:00 PM »

Not exactly sure. I mena, you talk about the Catholic Chruch, just about anybody in the world knows who and what your talking about. But when you bring up Orthododxy, most people who not belong to a particular ethnic group just scratch their heads in confusion. In the sense of UNIVERSAL, the Orthodox Church is about as Catholic as Tesco- it's in a lot of places, but you wouldn't know about unless you either grew up with it or researched it later.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2013, 06:33:39 PM »

yes
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 03:42:16 AM »

yes

POM nominee for ability to effectively construct a solid answer without rambling!


Logged

Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2013, 03:47:33 AM »

yes

POM nominee for ability to effectively construct a solid answer without rambling!

But it's less than 5 characters, so it's disqualified!  Tongue
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2013, 11:51:32 AM »

yes

POM nominee for ability to effectively construct a solid answer without rambling!

But it's less than 5 characters, so it's disqualified!  Tongue

Yes it is Catholic.
 Tongue
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 11:52:19 AM by J Michael » 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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2013, 12:18:42 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2013, 12:25:26 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.

How 'bout you start, by backing up your statement  Cool.  (I am, by the way, in partial agreement with you, but I also think it's a frivolous, divisive, and basically irrelevant discussion.)
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,478


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2013, 12:28:28 PM »

Time to insert predictable Orthodox response:

"Is the Catholic Church Catholic? Of course we are....if you are referring to the ROMAN Catholic Church, then no."
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2013, 12:31:39 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
The phrase "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" are often used to mean:
1. the Diocese of Rome
2. the Roman Rite
3. the Latin Church
4. the entire Roman Communion (which we also call the Catholic Church)
I would suggest that calling any of those 4 things "the Roman Church" or "the Roman Catholic Church" might be a bad idea. (Well, unless your goal is to maximize confusion.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2013, 02:30:53 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
The phrase "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" are often used to mean:
1. the Diocese of Rome
2. the Roman Rite
3. the Latin Church
4. the entire Roman Communion (which we also call the Catholic Church)
I would suggest that calling any of those 4 things "the Roman Church" or "the Roman Catholic Church" might be a bad idea. (Well, unless your goal is to maximize confusion.)

How about "The Roman Church Outside of Rome"?
Logged
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2013, 02:43:30 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
Jeez, stop using curse words to attack other posters.  I consider that two infractions in one.  -username! Orthodox-Catholic Section moderator...hello to you too. :/
 You are being placed on two weeks' post moderation.  I consider the language to be two infractions.  One for the language itself and the other for attacking another poster.  In the future please refrain from doing so.
-Username! Section Moderator of the Orthodox-Catholic forum.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 04:51:17 PM by username! » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2013, 04:03:32 PM »

How about "The Roman Church Outside of Rome"?

New name for the Vatican?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #15 on: February 04, 2013, 04:59:03 PM »

But Voltaire, how is it not Roman?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,847



« Reply #16 on: February 04, 2013, 05:23:22 PM »

The Orthodox was refered as the Catholic Church by the Councils and Early Fathers and therefore if we want to nitpick the RCC is not the Catholic Church. However in day-to-day speech and on internet forums the RCC must be refered as the Catholic Church since everything else would be silly.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2013, 05:37:21 PM »

The Orthodox was refered as the Catholic Church by the Councils and Early Fathers and therefore if we want to nitpick the RCC is not the Catholic Church. However in day-to-day speech and on internet forums the RCC must be refered as the Catholic Church since everything else would be silly.

Not to mention the fact that it *is* Catholic  Wink.  And, according to Catholics, The Church (or at the very least, a part of The Church).  Wink  (Yes, yes, I know...according to Orthodox, it is not The Church, or a part thereof--big sigh.)
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 05:38:36 PM by J Michael » 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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2013, 06:15:04 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.

How 'bout you start, by backing up your statement  Cool.  (I am, by the way, in partial agreement with you, but I also think it's a frivolous, divisive, and basically irrelevant discussion.)

Well good. It was a take-off on "Coffee Talk" anyway.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #19 on: February 04, 2013, 06:17:25 PM »

Time to insert predictable Orthodox response:

"Is the Catholic Church Catholic? Of course we are....if you are referring to the ROMAN Catholic Church, then no."

But the Orthodox Church IS the ROman Catholic Church.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
dzheremi
No longer posting here.
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,383


« Reply #20 on: February 04, 2013, 06:48:58 PM »

The sense of being geographically widespread is a secondary development from the original meaning of "Catholic" that is preserved in the Orthodox Church and by Orthodox Christians. It's sort of like how "apostolic" can be used to mean "founded by an apostle" and "handed down from the apostles" (in the case of doctrine). One is much more meaningful to me as an Orthodox Christian, so I frankly don't care if those in union with Rome want to use the other, less meaningful definitions (since who could argue that Rome-affiliated churches are more widespread throughout the world?) in order to claim that they are "Catholic" and/or "Apostolic". Sure, you guys are everywhere, and St. Peter was certainly an apostle... Smiley

Logged

choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2013, 08:06:31 PM »

The sense of being geographically widespread is a secondary development from the original meaning of "Catholic" that is preserved in the Orthodox Church and by Orthodox Christians. It's sort of like how "apostolic" can be used to mean "founded by an apostle" and "handed down from the apostles" (in the case of doctrine). One is much more meaningful to me as an Orthodox Christian, so I frankly don't care if those in union with Rome want to use the other, less meaningful definitions (since who could argue that Rome-affiliated churches are more widespread throughout the world?) in order to claim that they are "Catholic" and/or "Apostolic". Sure, you guys are everywhere, and St. Peter was certainly an apostle... Smiley



LOL
Gotta love that "we are geographically everywhere therefore we are the true Church" argument.  Does that mean the true Church didn't exist in the First Millennium when there was no Christian Church in the Pacific Islands, Australia, South East Asia, Japan, etc.?  Also there is a cult in the Philippines, an LDS knock-off, which this is one of the things they are trying to achieve to prove the authenticity of their faith.  That they have a temple in every country and a member from every nationality and ethnicity.  They will often brag about their missions in Africa and South America and show-off photos of foreigners (ie. non-Filipinos) being part of their religion.  I never knew that the Roman Catholic Church subscribes to such petty, cultish thought.
Logged
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #22 on: February 04, 2013, 08:30:47 PM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 08:33:23 PM by Orthodox11 » Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #23 on: February 05, 2013, 10:19:46 AM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.



 Grin
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #24 on: February 05, 2013, 11:20:13 AM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.



 Grin

What did you honestly expect? The two-lung theory?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2013, 11:47:48 AM »

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church. So i'd say no, the Roman church is not Catholic at present.



 Grin



What did you honestly expect? The two-lung theory?

Works for me!  Grin  But then, I *am* CATHOLIC, just not Roman  Wink

Maybe one day, with an abundance of God's grace, we will restore full communion between us.  Until then, I can but pray, and try *not* to engage in the endless, circular bickering that we seem so good at.
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2013, 12:01:02 PM »

The two lung theory doesn't fit in with the Eucharistic view of the Church.  The two lung theory suggests that:

a. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is of equal dignity as all the other non-Roman/Latin/Vatican Churches combined
b. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is only half the Church and half the Truth without the other Churches
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2013, 12:04:07 PM »

Didn't Pope John Paul II used this offal metaphor for Eastern Catholics? When was it used for the first time?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2013, 12:06:37 PM »

Didn't Pope John Paul II used this offal metaphor for Eastern Catholics? When was it used for the first time?

He wrote extensively on it but I believe he wasn't the first one to float that idea.  I could be wrong.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2013, 12:48:40 PM »

The two lung theory doesn't fit in with the Eucharistic view of the Church.  The two lung theory suggests that:

a. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is of equal dignity as all the other non-Roman/Latin/Vatican Churches combined
b. The Roman/Latin/Vatican Church is only half the Church and half the Truth without the other Churches

a.  Can you cite a reference for that?  My understanding is there isn't necessarily a hierarchy of dignity amongst the various Churches, one or more having more or less than any of the others.  But, I could be wrong.

b.  I think you're possibly misunderstanding the analogy (but then, maybe I am!).  A body (the Church, east and west) cannot live without lungs.  It can, however, live with only one lung (the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church), or even a part of one lung.  Not necessarily as fully or with as much vibrance, but still a full life.  Does that make sense? 

All analogies, I think, break down and fail at some point, especially if picked apart ad infinitum to the most minute of their minutiae.  But, I could be wrong, there, too  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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,409


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #30 on: February 05, 2013, 12:51:11 PM »

I would simply say it depends upon what one means by catholic, and that I can respect those who answer in a different manner than I will in good conscience according to their own faith and tradition, and I hope others can find it in their hearts to reciprocate even if disagreeing.

We are faced with two types of usage: the early patristic and etymological usage as wholeness, fullness, completeness [compare the Heb. word shalom/peace often with the meaning of wholeness] and the later historical usage with geographical emphasis, which has also come into common use in modern languages. Roman Catholics emphasize the latter; Orthodox often emphasize the former

The Greek word, καθόλου (katholou) is a composite of two other Greek words:
κατά meaning "according to," and
όλος meaning "whole."

Jordan Bajis's Common Ground contains a good discussion:
Quote from: Jordan Bajis
"The ancient Church understood catholicity to mean wholeness, fullness, integrity, and totality. This is the primary meaning of the Greek word katholou (καθόλου), catholic. Another popular misunderstanding of the word catholic is 'universal,'[1] as in 'the church which exists throughout the world. This was not at all the early Christian understanding of the word. The Church of the first centuries used the word catholic as a synonym for the fullness of Truth, not as a geographical description. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, 35-107 (the first Christian father to use the term in reference to the Church) states that the Church is catholic because in her assembly, the faithful welcome the presence of Christ in all His Truth. The idea of a universal Church as being constituted by all "churches" throughout the world, never occurred to Ignatius... Actually it was not until the 5th century  -and then only in the West- that catholicity began to take on a geographical emphasis.
For centuries 'catholicity' never implied the sum total of all individual local churches, but was a reference to the Church's inner being. Catholicity is a matter of the Church's inward unity in wholeness, not her outward administrative structure throughout the world...  If the Church is catholic in her very being, and not because of her existence as a world-wide structure, then it follows that the unity of the Church is realized through a shared Faith and a shared life, not just an shared administration.[2] The early Church did not believe that her doctrine was catholic because she existed everywhere, but because the very nature of Truth is catholic. Her unity was based on Truth, not on form or politics. The Church was one by virtue of her possessing the one, identical, and whole Faith of the Church, not because each Local Church submitted to a central bureaucratic structure" (Jordan Bajis, Common Ground, pp. 160f). [such central bureacratic structure would be an historical anachronism for the earliest centuries of the Church in any case despite amateur apologetic arguments to the contrary].
_______
[1]"In the West, it [the word Catholic] was generally understood as 'universal.' However if this was the meaning of the word, it is not quite clear... why the early Latin translators of the creeds [like the Nicene where it reads 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church'] kept in the text the Greek form catholica ecclesia instead of using universalis... The reason for this phenomenon is that the various translators were aware of the difficulty of translating katholike by a single word in any language. If katholikos is ever to be translated by 'universal' it still does not have a geographical but a philosophical connotation [where it would mean 'all inclusive']. As applied to the Church, 'catholic' first of all implies the idea of fullness; etymologically it derives from the adverb kathelon, 'on the whole,' opposed to kata meros, 'partially'" (John Meyerendorff, "The Orthodox Concept of the Church," St. Vladimir's Quarterly, Vol 6, No 2, p. 61).
[2]"The idea of the visible Church and its unity has been prominent in the East since the time of Victor of Rome (AD 190) when, having attempted to excommunicate the Churches of Asia for keeping Easter after their own reckoning, he was reproved by Irenaeus for introducing into the Church the idea that a rigid uniformity, rather than a common faith, was the bond of union. In the West, however, Cyprian's conception of the Church was dominant. Although he regarded the church as a spiritual entity, he approached it with a practical and legalistic attitude, 'owing much in analogies borrowed from Roman Law and conditioned by the problems created by the Novationist schism'" (Methodios Fouyas, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism (Oxford University Press, 1972), 117, citing J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 294).

If one as an Orthodox Christian affirms Orthodoxy truly contains the "fullness" of the faith, they are essentially claiming Orthodoxy is the true "catholic" faith (or fullness of the faith, same meaning). Roman Catholics will disagree, but I think a fair-minded Roman Catholic can at least give a nod to the idea that Orthodox Christians who affirm that are simply being true to their/our claim to the fullness of the faith (being true to their conscience). If we did not affirm that, we would not be Orthodox. In that sense, at least, we would not say that Roman Catholicism is the fullness of the faith (else we would probably not be Orthodox, but Roman Catholic).

No insult is intended to my/our Roman Catholic friends who disagree! As an Orthodox Christian I affirm Orthodoxy  the fullness (catholicity) of Christianity, and do not think of Roman Catholicism as possessing catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word catholic. But I don't hesitate to use the appellation Roman Catholic for historical reasons and just plain to get along, though I also sometimes also use the term Latin Catholic (not in reference to rites etc., but in the literal geographical sense of Latium, i.e. Rome), again, never with disrespect intended.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 01:07:50 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #31 on: February 05, 2013, 01:12:17 PM »

I would simply say it depends upon what one means by catholic, and that I can respect those who answer in a different manner than I will in good conscience according to their own faith and tradition, and I hope others can find it in their hearts to reciprocate even if disagreeing.

We are faced with two types of usage: the early patristic and etymological usage as wholeness, fullness, completeness [compare the Heb. word shalom/peace often with the meaning of wholeness] and the later historical usage with geographical emphasis, which has also come into common use in modern languages. Roman Catholics emphasize the latter; Orthodox often emphasize the former

The Greek word, καθόλου (katholou) is a composite of two other Greek words:
κατά meaning "according to," and
όλος meaning "whole."

Jordan Bajis's Common Ground contains a good discussion:
Quote from: Jordan Bajis
"The ancient Church understood catholicity to mean wholeness, fullness, integrity, and totality. This is the primary meaning of the Greek word katholou (καθόλου), catholic. Another popular misunderstanding of the word catholic is 'universal,'[1] as in 'the church which exists throughout the world. This was not at all the early Christian understanding of the word. The Church of the first centuries used the word catholic as a synonym for the fullness of Truth, not as a geographical description. For example, Ignatius of Antioch, 35-107 (the first Christian father to use the term in reference to the Church) states that the Church is catholic because in her assembly, the faithful welcome the presence of Christ in all His Truth. The idea of a universal Church as being constituted by all "churches" throughout the world, never occurred to Ignatius... Actually it was not until the 5th century  -and then only in the West- that catholicity began to take on a geographical emphasis.
For centuries 'catholicity' never implied the sum total of all individual local churches, but was a reference to the Church's inner being. Catholicity is a matter of the Church's inward unity in wholeness, not her outward administrative structure throughout the world...  If the Church is catholic in her very being, and not because of her existence as a world-wide structure, then it follows that the unity of the Church is realized through a shared Faith and a shared life, not just an shared administration.[2] The early Church did not believe that her doctrine was catholic because she existed everywhere, but because the very nature of Truth is catholic. Her unity was based on Truth, not on form or politics. The Church was one by virtue of her possessing the one, identical, and whole Faith of the Church, not because each Local Church submitted to a central bureaucratic structure" (Jordan Bajis, Common Ground, pp. 160f). [such central bureacratic structure would be an historical anachronism for the earliest centuries of the Church in any case despite amateur apologetic arguments to the contrary].
_______
[1]"In the West, it [the word Catholic] was generally understood as 'universal.' However if this was the meaning of the word, it is not quite clear... why the early Latin translators of the creeds [like the Nicene where it reads 'one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church'] kept in the text the Greek form catholica ecclesia instead of using universalis... The reason for this phenomenon is that the various translators were aware of the difficulty of translating katholike by a single word in any language. If katholikos is ever to be translated by 'universal' it still does not have a geographical but a philosophical connotation [where it would mean 'all inclusive']. As applied to the Church, 'catholic' first of all implies the idea of fullness; etymologically it derives from the adverb kathelon, 'on the whole,' opposed to kata meros, 'partially'" (John Meyerendorff, "The Orthodox Concept of the Church," St. Vladimir's Quarterly, Vol 6, No 2, p. 61).
[2]"The idea of the visible Church and its unity has been prominent in the East since the time of Victor of Rome (AD 190) when, having attempted to excommunicate the Churches of Asia for keeping Easter after their own reckoning, he was reproved by Irenaeus for introducing into the Church the idea that a rigid uniformity, rather than a common faith, was the bond of union. In the West, however, Cyprian's conception of the Church was dominant. Although he regarded the church as a spiritual entity, he approached it with a practical and legalistic attitude, 'owing much in analogies borrowed from Roman Law and conditioned by the problems created by the Novationist schism'" (Methodios Fouyas, Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Anglicanism (Oxford University Press, 1972), 117, citing J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, p. 294).

If one as an Orthodox Christian affirms Orthodoxy truly contains the "fullness" of the faith, they are essentially claiming Orthodoxy is the true "catholic" faith (or fullness of the faith, same meaning). Roman Catholics will disagree, but I think a fair-minded Roman Catholic can at least give a nod to the idea that Orthodox Christians who affirm that are simply being true to their/our claim to the fullness of the faith (being true to their conscience). If we did not affirm that, we would not be Orthodox. In that sense, at least, we would not say that Roman Catholicism is the fullness of the faith (else we would probably not be Orthodox, but Roman Catholic).

No insult is intended to my/our Roman Catholic friends who disagree! As an Orthodox Christian I affirm Orthodoxy  the fullness (catholicity) of Christianity, and do not think of Roman Catholicism as possessing catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word catholic. But I don't hesitate to use the appellation Roman Catholic for historical reasons and just plain to get along, though I also sometimes also use the term Latin Catholic (not in reference to rites etc., but in the literal geographical sense of Latium, i.e. Rome).

Not that I'm Roman Catholic ( Cheesy), but as a Catholic no insult was taken by your excellent post.  Until such time as we are able to resolve our differences as Orthodox and Catholic, and resume full communion with one another, I'm willing to take the position that we must agree to disagree with each other about some things, all the while maintaining the fullest and deepest respect for each other.  Without such respect, we shouldn't even be talking with each other. 

As a non-Roman Catholic, my understanding has always been that the (non-Orthodox) Catholic Church (in all its various parts) does indeed possess "catholicity in the classical patristic and etymological sense of the word catholic."
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,409


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #32 on: February 05, 2013, 01:14:29 PM »

^Well said and, I take it (as usual with you), in a true spirit of friendliness.
Logged

Silly Stars
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #33 on: February 05, 2013, 01:26:07 PM »

^Well said and, I take it (as usual with you), in a true spirit of friendliness.

Absolutely! 
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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #34 on: February 05, 2013, 02:44:17 PM »

a.  Can you cite a reference for that?  My understanding is there isn't necessarily a hierarchy of dignity amongst the various Churches, one or more having more or less than any of the others.  But, I could be wrong.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.  So I don't know why, even within the Catholic Communion where the East is composed of 22 sui juris Churches and the West is just one sui juris, one would think that the two lung theory espouses equal dignity when it clearly states that half of the fullness of Church is in Rome itself, and the other half is found in all other non-Roman Churches.  So the Russian Church is just a percentage of the half together with the Greeks, Antioch, Alexandria, Malankara, etc.

Orientale Lumen states that the full catholicity of the Church is expressed not by one tradition or one Church, but by all traditions and all Churches together.  Which again begs the above question, why is the West one lung by itself, and the East which is composed of many Churches just one lung all together?

b.  I think you're possibly misunderstanding the analogy (but then, maybe I am!).  A body (the Church, east and west) cannot live without lungs.  It can, however, live with only one lung (the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church), or even a part of one lung.  Not necessarily as fully or with as much vibrance, but still a full life.  Does that make sense?

Sure, but again that model is not Eucharistic.  Even if you would say that each Church is an equal part of a whole, it goes against the Eucharistic model of the Church where each Church is the fullness of the Kingdom of God in itself, and each Church in communion with one another form the One Church.  The same way that the Body of Christ is not any less the body of Christ if one or two people are not part of it.  The Body of Christ is full and complete whether there is one believer in it or 10 billion.  Communion is a mystery where the fullness is present regardless of the number of physical members.  It cannot be divided and the multitude come together as one.

All analogies, I think, break down and fail at some point, especially if picked apart ad infinitum to the most minute of their minutiae.  But, I could be wrong, there, too  Wink.

I think the Eucharistic model makes the most sense and doesn't break down at all.  The Eucharist itself is central to our faith and the understanding of communion applies to all aspects of our faith.  From the Trinity to the Church to our Salvation, all is by Communion.  How can be 3 persons be one God?  Communion.  How can a multitude be one body?  Communion.  How can several Churches scattered geographically around the world each headed by its own bishop be one Church?  Communion.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #35 on: February 05, 2013, 02:55:10 PM »

The problem of the two-lung theory vs. the Eucharistic model is that in the event of a schism, such as the one at 1054 (or whatever year you subscribe to), you lose the other lung.  In this model you then believe that the Church is gasping for air, it is incomplete.  It can still live, but it lacks the fullness.  People who live on one lung certainly cannot perform as well as those who have both lungs.

In the Eucharistic model, one is as good as many.  So the Church is full and complete even if there is only one bishop heading one Church professing the true faith against everyone else who has schismed or apostatized.  This is not to say that we don't need anyone else, of course we do.  But it does not mean that we become anything less without the others if they decide to believe in heresy and deviate from the true faith.  The same way is that is one piece of bread of the Eucharist more Jesus than the other?  No.  The biggest piece and the smallest particle contains the fullness of Christ, the same way a Church that is true to the faith is the fullness of the Kingdom of God on Earth even if another Church schisms or falls into heresy.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #36 on: February 05, 2013, 02:59:18 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,094


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #37 on: February 05, 2013, 03:02:57 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

I certainly had several Catholics (online) speak to me as though the two lungs theory meant Orthodox, not just Eastern Catholics. Though that was in the days of Pope John Paul II, and the same people spoke as though a "reunion" would be happening any day.
Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #38 on: February 05, 2013, 03:04:50 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

I certainly had several Catholics (online) speak to me as though the two lungs theory meant Orthodox, not just Eastern Catholics. Though that was in the days of Pope John Paul II, and the same people spoke as though a "reunion" would be happening any day.

That's sort of my point. I just am not sure that is what was/is meant. Not back then, not now.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,960



« Reply #39 on: February 05, 2013, 03:10:43 PM »

The Roman Catholic Church is neither Roman, nor Catholic, nor the Church. Discuss.
The phrase "Roman Church" or "Roman Catholic Church" are often used to mean:
1. the Diocese of Rome
2. the Roman Rite
3. the Latin Church
4. the entire Roman Communion (which we also call the Catholic Church)
I would suggest that calling any of those 4 things "the Roman Church" or "the Roman Catholic Church" might be a bad idea. (Well, unless your goal is to maximize confusion.)

How about "The Roman Church Outside of Rome"?
That would would be the Romanian Orthodox Church, but it is in Rome now.
Logged

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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #40 on: February 05, 2013, 03:12:01 PM »

Quote
Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.

I keep seeing this, on the Internet, but I never took this to mean WE were the "other lung", EC's for certain, but not us. Please correct me here.

In Orientale Lumen, Pope John Paul II wrote this:

Our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters are very conscious of being the living bearers of this tradition, together with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. The members of the Catholic Church of the Latin tradition must also be fully acquainted with this treasure and thus feel, with the Pope, a passionate longing that the full manifestation of the Church's catholicity be restored to the Church and to the world, expressed not by a single tradition, and still less by one community in opposition to the other; and that we too may be granted a full taste of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church which is preserved and grows in the life of the Churches of the East as in those of the West.

Tell me how you understand it.  To me the implication here is that the fullness only exists if all traditions are in communion with one another.

By the way, Pope John Paul II never used the word "lung" in Orientale Lumen.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


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


« Reply #41 on: February 05, 2013, 03:20:42 PM »

a.  Can you cite a reference for that?  My understanding is there isn't necessarily a hierarchy of dignity amongst the various Churches, one or more having more or less than any of the others.  But, I could be wrong.

Orientalium Ecclesiarum basically reversed centuries old teaching that the Roman Church is above all Churches.  But the two lung theory suggest that the West (ie. Church in Rome) is one lung, and the East (EO, OO and ACotE) is the other lung.  So I don't know why, even within the Catholic Communion where the East is composed of 22 sui juris Churches and the West is just one sui juris, one would think that the two lung theory espouses equal dignity when it clearly states that half of the fullness of Church is in Rome itself, and the other half is found in all other non-Roman Churches.  So the Russian Church is just a percentage of the half together with the Greeks, Antioch, Alexandria, Malankara, etc.

Orientale Lumen states that the full catholicity of the Church is expressed not by one tradition or one Church, but by all traditions and all Churches together.  Which again begs the above question, why is the West one lung by itself, and the East which is composed of many Churches just one lung all together?

Okay, now I'm getting out of my depth  Embarrassed Embarrassed.  I'll have to (one day when I have time and am not able to sleep  Grin) go back and re-read O.E. and O.L.--and hope I understand them.  And no, I'm not kidding  Cool.

But, here's my feeble understanding so far: The two lung theory or expression or whatever was an analogy to try to illustrate that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are both parts of the Body of Christ.  You and xariskai are both Orthodox.  You are both also individuals.  As such, you are both parts of the Body of Christ. Papist and I are both Catholic.  We are both also individuals.  As such, we are both parts of the Body of Christ.  I hope I'm making sense  Wink.

One lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Catholic Communion".  The other lung of the Church is all those Churches comprising the "Orthodox Communion".  The two lungs are not functioning in harmony with one another and therefor the whole Body is unwell.  That's the schism between us.  Am I oversimplifying this, or, more likely, just talking nonsense?  Anyway, that is my understanding.


b.  I think you're possibly misunderstanding the analogy (but then, maybe I am!).  A body (the Church, east and west) cannot live without lungs.  It can, however, live with only one lung (the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church), or even a part of one lung.  Not necessarily as fully or with as much vibrance, but still a full life.  Does that make sense?

Sure, but again that model is not Eucharistic.  Even if you would say that each Church is an equal part of a whole, it goes against the Eucharistic model of the Church where each Church is the fullness of the Kingdom of God in itself, and each Church in communion with one another form the One Church.  The same way that the Body of Christ is not any less the body of Christ if one or two people are not part of it.  The Body of Christ is full and complete whether there is one believer in it or 10 billion.  Communion is a mystery where the fullness is present regardless of the number of physical members.  It cannot be divided and the multitude come together as one.

And...

All analogies, I think, break down and fail at some point, especially if picked apart ad infinitum to the most minute of their minutiae.  But, I could be wrong, there, too  Wink.

I think the Eucharistic model makes the most sense and doesn't break down at all.  The Eucharist itself is central to our faith and the understanding of communion applies to all aspects of our faith.  From the Trinity to the Church to our Salvation, all is by Communion.  How can be 3 persons be one God?  Communion.  How can a multitude be one body?  Communion.  How can several Churches scattered geographically around the world each headed by its own bishop be one Church?  Communion.

I believe you just described my understanding of what the Catholic Church (all those Churches in communion with Rome) is and believes itself to be.  

I know the Orthodox don't hold this view (except some, sometimes  Grin), but the Catholic Church believes itself to be in communion with the Orthodox Church--in *imperfect* communion (please don't ask me to elaborate on that  Cool!).  That would account for the 2 lungs not working together properly; that is our schism.

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating--we are talking of analogies and models, etc.  Well, just as a map is not the territory, so too is a model not that which it tries to represent.

Phew!  Now I need a drink and a nap  Grin Grin.



Now, if none of what I just wrote is acceptable or understandable, then just refer to my post in reply #31 above and we can just leave it at that.  Wink  Now for that drink and a nap  Grin Grin.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2013, 03:26:06 PM by J Michael » 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

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #42 on: February 05, 2013, 03:28:54 PM »

One last comment before I blow myself and everyone else away with my bloviating

If only Bill O'Reilly would invite you on his show ...
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #43 on: February 05, 2013, 03:29:26 PM »

Didn't Pope John Paul II used this offal metaphor for Eastern Catholics? When was it used for the first time?

I don't care much for the offal metaphor.  Sad
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,144



« Reply #44 on: February 05, 2013, 03:30:31 PM »

But anyhow ...

Even those in the early Church who accepted the sacraments of schismatics, Optatus of Milevis for example, said quite unequivocally that they were no longer Catholic by virtue of their not being in communion with the rest of the Church.

Hence why we (Catholics, I mean) call ourselves "the Catholic Church", not "one part of the Catholic Church".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
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 0.158 seconds with 74 queries.