is the One Holy...Church the CATHOLIC church alone, or the Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

before you answer, consider that the Catholic Church considers the Orthodox church to be a “True Church”, and that it considers it to be truly Apostolic, and its sacraments as valid.
So does that mean that the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church is JUST the Church headed by the Pope, or does it include the Orthodox as well?

I realize this may be a short thread, because there is a fairly definitive answer to the question. I just don’t know what the answer is…Thanks!:slight_smile:

“. . . this true Church of Jesus Christ - which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church. . .” (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi13)

". . . the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing. . . . " (Pius XII, Humani Generis, 27)

“. . . the one Church of Christ . . . subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.” (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 8)

“It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word ‘subsists’ can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith . . .” (CDF,
Responses to Some Questions. . . June 29, 2007)

YES :thumbsup:

Someone who not only has heard of Mystici Corporis Christi but actually refers to it.

We gotta talk. I am currently in a pretty intensive group study with some associates of mine on this very topic.

This encyclical, in my opinion, was the greatest encyclical of the 20th century. And the 20th century Popes gave us many of them. Just an opinion mind you. If only our non-Catholic brothers and sisters would take this doctrine seriously, sectarian divisions would begin to dry up and blow away.

The depth of this encyclical is just incredible.

Oops, pardon my enthusiasm. :blush:

Thank you :slight_smile:

i think, while being totally open to correction, that the fullness of the True Faith resides only in the RCC.

apostolic succession and valid sacraments does not imply possession of the fullness of the faith.

i believe the differences in doctrinal and moral teachings between the two to be “relatively” minor, but still real.

the reason that the fullness resides in only a single faith tradition is because Jesus made it clear that He wanted His followers to be one, a single flock, united in Him with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me since we deny the Papal claims and are in schism that the RCC should not consider us in the same breath of one Holy Catholic and apostolic church. The feeling is mutual mind you.

Of the four markers: One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic. The CCC says very little separates the Orthodox from full communion with the Catholic Church. I think that the Orthodox Churches aren’t One because of the theological divisions between those Orthodox Churches united with SCOBA compared to the Armenian Church & the Coptic Church & the Ethiopian Church, etc. I think the Orthodox Churches aren’t Catholic because they are not “whole & complete” as they are not united with Rome/the Pope. The Holy marker for the most part they are separated from the rest of the world with the exception that they have lined up with the world in terms of divorce/remarriage & use of artificial birth control being permissible to greater or lessor degrees depending on which Orthodox Church. The Apostolic marker is undisputed, they have that marker! :slight_smile:

While I certainly understand the issues that are preventing east and west from uniting I find the above to be a very strong statement. To declare a valid priesthood and sacraments is no small matter.

Since when did man ever possess the power to separate what God has joined together?
We are united as One through our head Jesus Christ via the Sacramental economy of salvation. Though the we are many members we always remain as one body in Christ Jesus.

As far as the valid priesthood and sacraments are concerned, no one has the power to separate what God has joined together.

Pride, authority appears to be the problem that continues to bruise the body of Christ, not the “VALID” sacraments and priesthood of Christ.

The pride of men from history (on both sides) that allowed the secular powers to become an influence in the magesterium is the foundation of the schism, not the chair of Peter.

There are no Papal “claims” let us be clear here to when the Popes have spoken excathedra (from the Chair of Peter) that never contradict Sacred Scripture or the Sacred Tradition of the apostels nor the early church Fathers teachings. In fact these three pillars of the Church support and give witness to Peter’s Chair and authority not to mention Jesus who gave Peter the keys singularly.

If we remove the secular powers and pride that surround both the Eastern Patriarchs and the Popes from history. The argument of Papal authority looses all it’s flavor.

Peace be with you

How do you maintain the One description while in schism? Is your definition of “one” and of “unity” tailored in such a way that schism and disunity somehow disqualifies everyone else when it happens to them but never when it happens to you? This is something I’ve got to see.

Definition of schism is; The act of causing or “trying” to cause a split or division in the church (Websters dictionary third edition).

The Orthodox are in schism not the same as protestantism seperatists who have left the valid priesthood and valid sacraments of Jesus Christ.

Schism is a “tear” not a complete separation from the body of Christ.

If you have the proper biblical faith of the sacramental economy that Christ revealed and instituted in his body the Church. You would gain the wisdom and understanding when Roman Catholics and Orthodox Catholics discuss faith issues leaves the carnal mind in the dust.

What is it that you do not understand “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”? Then maybe I could show or introduce the mysteries of God that have no boundaries.

Simply put what is of the flesh is flesh and what is of the spirit is spirit. God does not change, it is man who puts forth the effort to change.

Roman Catholics and or Orthodox Catholics not in full communion with the chair of Peter remain united as one through the valid sacraments. The tear or schism begins with authority “the flesh” not the spirit to which both members come to the one head in Christ through the sacramental economy.

Roman Catholic church’s never re-baptise validly baptized seperated brethren. This short example should give credence to what I have revealed here. One should ask the Orthodox position here?

Peace be with you

The Church does recognize that the Orthodox Church is apostolic and maintains valid Sacraments.

I’m not sure that addresses IgnatianPhilo’s point, bzkoss236. When it comes to dogma, it’s X (dogma) or anathema.

With that in mind, my Church’s ecclesiology demands that I believe that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God is the Orthodox Church. Whatever happens outside of it is not for me to judge, but I am confident of the life that is to be found within it.

Greetings bzkoss236:), as you may already know that some Eastern Orthodox Church’s never left communion with the popes and still other Eastern Orthodox church’s have returned back to communion with the popes. I ask humbly, What is your take on those few Orthodox Church’s who refuse to partake of Holy communion with the Popes? This is an act from Orthodoxy that I believe sets the real tone of this thread for me.

Peace be with you

If we have not been seperated why do I not partake in the eucharist at a Catholic church? Our churches are not the one holy catholic apostolic church. We would do well to recognise this to solve the problem.

You are incorrect, there are no theological differences between the Orthodox “Churches” (it is really one Church). If you are referring to the non-Chalcedonian Oriental churches, then yes there are theological issues with them, they are not presently part of the Orthodox Church. You are also incorrect in asserting that the Orthodox Church is “lined up with the world” on divorce/remarriage and artificial birth control.

Let us do the reckoning here. I dont take communion with your community because you reject communion with me. You don’t take communion in my latin rite because you refuse to partake of the oneness that is offered to you in peace and love from my latin rite. It is you, yourself who prevents yourself from communion in my Rite.

For the record “there is only one body, one faith, one baptism in one Lord Jesus Christ”. If you view the sacraments as do your Orthodox early Church Fathers, we are in agreement that there is only one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and that Church is the mystical body of Christ how? Sacramentally, we become partakers of his divine nature. There is never two different bodies of Christ.

We are never separated sacramentally, unless you claim to have power to divide and separate the body of Christ? Schism is not the same as separated.

I refuse to succumb to the pride of men who pretend they have the power to divide what God has joined together. I will not subject my peace to pride that prevents healing in the body of Christ. I have no problem with the authority of Jesus Christ and the Church Jesus built upon Peter.

A man Refusing communion to another man does not possess the power to separate the body of Christ, nor the sacraments.

What’s interesting is that in the Greek Gallican Byzantine liturgy we partake of communion yet, if you are of the same Greek Byzantine liturgy refuse communion with the Latin rite. You see we are united in one body in Christ sacramentally maybe by choice of men some do refuse, in either case God’s will be done.

Peace be with you

QUOTE=Schism hater;10680370]You are incorrect, there are no theological differences between the Orthodox “Churches” (it is really one Church).

If what you say is true? then why are not all Orthodox autocephalous church’s not in communion with another in fact reject one another’'s communion and bishops in times past.

How can the Orthodox be one church when they have no one Vicar of Christ on earth that unites them all as one?

Can you define what you mean by “it is really one Church”? How is this visible on earth?

Because the Orthodox church’s are all independent of another, some Orthodox churches accept contraception and divorce, while other Orthodox churches hold to the Pope’s line of teaching on contraception and divorce by not allowing the practice. You see we don’t have that kind of freedom in the Western Church to believe independently apart from our unity to the head who is Christ.

But we all oppose abortion.:thumbsup:

who speaks for the orthodox (non-RCC) churches?

who has the final say in their various branches or among their many bishops?

if anyone knows, i am seriously interested in learning the answer.

to whom do ALL of the bishops of the various eastern orthodox branches yield for the definitive decision in matters of faith and morals?

we know in the RCC that is the pope. we know that bishops who do not yield to the teachings of the pope in matters of faith and morals are not in full communion with the RCC.

is there a similar function or person in the orthodoc churches?

if there is not a similar person or function in the orthodox churches, that absence would make them significantly different from the RCC where all yield to the Chair of Peter.

Careful not to throw too many stones there, Gabriel. Why is the Roman Catholic Church not in communion with every community that calls itself “Catholic”, like the Polish National Catholic Church?

How can the Orthodox be one church when they have no one Vicar of Christ on earth that unites them all as one?

Why would the Orthodox subscribe to a Roman Catholic idea like their Patriarch(s) being the “Vicar of Christ” in the first place?

Can you define what you mean by “it is really one Church”? How is this visible on earth?

Why would you assume that it’s any less visible than in your church? I am not even a member of Schism Hater’s communion, but I’d be willing to wager dollars to donuts that they probably commemorate their Patriarchs (plural) at every liturgy, and that when someone from within the communion shows up to a church other than the particular one into which they were baptized (e.g., a Russian at an Antiochian parish or something like that), they all share the same cup. So I don’t see the point of this kind of questioning. In fact, in my 5-6 years in the RCC, I don’t remember any Patriarch of the Eastern churches being mentioned at all, while at the Ruthenian liturgy I attended, they definitely mentioned then-Pope Benedict (as is the case in the older recordings of the Maronite liturgy that I have, where they mention the Pope of Rome, as well as their own Patriarch). So from where I’m sitting it looks like the Orthodox are a bit balanced in their conception of unity than you guys are, since again, what makes us united is that we are in union with one another (EO with EO and OO with OO, of course), not that we are all under a particular bishop whose church and leadership largely doesn’t care about us. (The current RC Pope being something of an exception, I suppose, given the apparently role that the Greek Catholics had in his formation, but we’ll see if this has any practical effect on how things are. I kinda doubt it will.)

Because the Orthodox church’s are all independent of another, some Orthodox churches accept contraception and divorce, while other Orthodox churches hold to the Pope’s line of teaching on contraception and divorce by not allowing the practice.

Such things are largely considered pastoral matters, and hence governed by economia. That you see this as “some churches agree with the Pope but others don’t” just shows how unhelpful your Rome-centric ecclesiology is to actually understanding the answers Schism Hater might give you. That’s pretty funny in a conversation about why we aren’t in union with Rome. Many RCs seem to believe that this is stubbornness and an accompanying inability to see how good you guys have it, what a great benefit to unity it is to all be with the Roman Pope, etc. You only focus on what you have and how we fit into it according to you, and are completely unable to grasp how things can work differently without Rome being in the picture.

You see we don’t have that kind of freedom in the Western Church to believe independently apart from our unity to the head who is Christ.

Be sure to pass that message on to your own. I know there are plenty who need to hear it.