A stranger asks for the Catholic Church

[pocohombre]

• Universal in this case means according to the whole, iow, the same exact faith preached and believed everywhere.
  I gave you the links to prove my point.

Looked at some of it, and all say it may have begun as a general term for universal but then became known more of a name to distinguish form other churches. From first to second century is what your sites suggests for the change in more specific usage. Maybe, maybe not, or at least I am not sure it meant much more by Nicea time. As far as Ignatius he did use it once. He used the term church many times (Church of God,Church at Smryna etc) but only once as Catholic.… It is still a stretch in my opinion that it ties into the Acts quote of “thru out” but it is close (but no cigar). …One must also ask just what was the church at each historic juncture that the term “catholic” is applied. For instance at the Council at Nicea there is no indication that the Bishop of Rome was the head, so that the one, holy, apostolic, and “catholic” church seemed patriarchal, unlike todays"RCC… You have explained your position well and with calmness and passion…PS. I am gonna quote Ignatius to Phila. next time when talking about how we are a royal prietshood that we can all enter into the holy of holies. “The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest is better; to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been trusted with the secrets of God. He is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church”. and church here means everybody as your site states:“The word (ecclesia/church) as a technical expression had been transferred to* the community of Christian believers*.” Cath. Encyl.

 

[KnitNut]

So let me just ask you this for my own education. If you were in a large metropolitan area and someone asked you where the “Orthodox Church” is, what would you tell them?

I happen to be in a large metropolitan area. There are probably 30 EO parishes, maybe more, within a 15 mile radius of my home. If asked for “the Orthodox Church”, I’d direct them to the nearest, of course…about 1/2 mile away. Why is this such a big deal?

How about the reverse? We also have loads of parishes in the Roman Communion in the area - would I be wrong, if asked about nearby RC churches, to screen the inquirer for preferences - traditional/folk/charismatic/teen, English/Spanish/Korean language services, etc? There are quite a few non-Latin parishes…so maybe I should ask “which” Catholic…because of course the Melkites aren’t going to be enthralled if I send them to a RC service, by your logic. Honestly, this thread perplexes me on several levels.

 

[steve_b]

This kind of polemic is one of the reasons I seldom read your posts these day. (Well, along with the fact that I’ve read enough of your past posts that hardly anything you say now is new to me, but you get the idea.)

I’m used to your posts as well.
P:

But having said that, I am curious what your take would be on a situation where the reverse happened … i.e. a group of Catholics deciding to become Orthodox as a result of dialogue with the Orthodox?

Do you have an example where entire Churches decide to switch from Catholic to Orthodox?

 

[steve_b]

Looked at some of it, and all say it may have begun as a general term for universal but then became known more of a name to distinguish form other churches. From first to second century is what your sites suggests for the change in more specific usage.

Ignatius was bishop in both centuries. Therefore “Catholic Church” in the first century was understood to be as it is understood today. Paul was already making the point about division from the Church being condemned in his writings. It’s obvious, Church therefore, can’t be a nebulous squishy term or idea. People Paul is instructing know what he means. When Paul says, “I warn you as I warned you before, that those who live like this (divided from the Church) won’t inherit heaven.” [Gal 5:19-21]

Therefore salvation is tied to being “in” the Church and remaining “in” the Church
p:

Maybe, maybe not, or at least I am not sure it meant much more by Nicea time.

Read the history before Nicea. I gave you links. As you know, space per post is limited. but you know where to go for the information
p:

As far as Ignatius he did use it once. He used the term church many times (Church of God,Church at Smryna etc) but only once as Catholic.…

he only has to say Catholic Church once in the way he said it, and it works whenever he says Church throughout his writings.
p:

It is still a stretch in my opinion that it ties into the Acts quote of -]“thru out”/-] but it is close (but no cigar). …

“according to the whole” καθ’,ὅλης,[τῆς (http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm),
ἐκκλησία,καθ’,ὅλης,[τῆς (http://bibleapps.com/greek/3588.htm), [Acts 9:31]
p:

One must also ask just what was the church at each historic juncture that the term “catholic” is applied. For instance at the Council at Nicea there is no indication that the Bishop of Rome was the head, so that the one, holy, apostolic, and “catholic” church seemed patriarchal, unlike todays"RCC…

Nicea was in 325.

• Did you look at the links I gave talking about the previous 290 years to Nicea?
• Clement of Rome settling sedition among bishops in Corinth Greece ~80 a.d. during apostolic times. St John is still alive and living in Ephesus, much closer to Corinth than Clement over in Rome.
• Ignatius refers to Rome as the Church that holds the presidency. As I’ve pointed out, he was bishop of Antioch from ~69 a.d. to ~107 a.d. Ignatius was a direct disciple of St John.
• How about Irenaeus, was from Smyrna (present day turkey) and made bishop of Lyon, (present day France). He writes that all must agree with the Church of Rome on account of it’s pre-eminent authority. And that comes from the apostles Peter and Paul.

I gave you the links to read. It’s a sample. The amount of material to read is quite large. The more you read from that history the more your questions will be answered.
p:

You have explained your position well and with calmness and passion…PS. I am gonna quote Ignatius to Phila. next time when talking about how we are a royal prietshood that we can all enter into the holy of holies. “The priests indeed are good, but the High Priest is better; to whom the holy of holies has been committed, and who alone has been trusted with the secrets of God. He is the door of the Father, by which enter in Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the prophets, and the apostles, and the Church”. and church here means everybody as your site states:“The word (ecclesia/church) as a technical expression had been transferred to* the community of Christian believers*.” Cath. Encyl.

btw, Ignatius is using the language he was taught by the apostles. When he writes “royal priesthood” he’s using the language of Peter. [1 Peter 2:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter+2:9&version=RSVCE) . But don’t confuse priesthood of believers with the ministerial priesthood. They are vastly different.

 

[SteveVH]

Sort of like how a traditionalist RC might not be enthralled with being sent to the rock guitar mass at the RC church nearest my house. It doesn’t mean the traddies & the guitar-mass fans are each any less RC, right? Just different expressions of the same thing, both OK within your hierarchy. Honestly, wouldn’t MOST people of ANY faith be more comfortable in their home parish? That doesn’t mean visiting another church within their faith tradition is a big taboo. Greek Orthodox & Russian Orthodox are both within the Eastern Orthodox Communion. Not a big deal. (And hey, my jurisdiction is ROCOR and my “home turf” DL is in English. In Boston. Go figure.)

Lest we forget about the original topic: “A stranger asks for the Catholic Church…”. If one of the Greek Orthodox persuasion comes into town, to what Church would you imagine he might be asking for directions? My only point is that he is not going to ask for the “Orthodox Church” in the first place (because there is no Church with a sign outside that says “Orthodox Church”) and referring him to the “Orthodox Church” just isn’t going to cut it. It’s that simple. This has nothing to do with Catholic being better than Orthodox or Orthodox being better than Catholic. It is just the way it is due to the nature of our Churches.

 

[SteveVH]

If they were here in ABQ, I’d take them with me to St. Bishoy COC. Duh.

If we were somewhere else, I’d send them to wherever the nearest OO church is. If they specifically wanted an EO church, I assume they’d tell me and I’d find the nearest EO church (well, realistically they probably wouldn’t ask me; they’d ask some Byzantine person by looking up EO churches in the phone book or something). If they didn’t tell me I’d assume they don’t bother with or understand the schism, in which case we’d still be going to the nearest OO church. It’s not terribly complicated.

Thank you. So in most cases they would have to specify the exact Church they were looking for and you would assume that they would tell you in the first place. That is all I have been saying. They would have to specify what “Orthodox” Church they were seeking.

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you. So in most cases they would have to specify the exact Church they were looking for and you would assume that they would tell you in the first place. That is all I have been saying. They would have to specify what “Orthodox” Church they were seeking.

No. They would only have to specify EO if they wanted that, since I’m OO so I don’t naturally default to “Oh, they mean Chalcedonian”, unlike most people. And I hardly think it’s the worst thing in the world that they be exposed to Coptic Orthodoxy if they want to go to an Orthodox Church. Only if they specified that they want an EO church would I direct them to one.

This is a different matter than what you have been talking about, which is different jurisdictions within one communion (IIRC, you mentioned Greek and Russian; those are both EO, so it really doesn’t matter; EO can go to any EO church, just like OO can go to any OO church, just like Catholics can go to any Catholic church…we’re absolutely the same in that regard, which is why your point is so confusing to KnitNut and everyone else who knows how communion works). In my case, my answer is influenced by the fact that I am not in communion with the EO, but this is a different issue than whether or not anyone would feel comfortable in a particular jurisdiction (since OO and EO are different communions entirely, not simply different jurisdictions like the examples you have brought up).

Each communion (OO, EO, RCC) is internally consistent, and functions in basically the same way when it comes to communing people across different jurisdictions. Whether it’s Ethiopians in Coptic churches, Greeks in Russian churches, or Latins in Maronite churches, there is no confusion or need to specify that you mean this jurisdiction and not another, because whichever particular church you go to is the Church at that particular location.

 

[dzheremi]

My only point is that he is not going to ask for the “Orthodox Church” in the first place (because there is no Church with a sign outside that says “Orthodox Church”) and referring him to the “Orthodox Church” just isn’t going to cut it. It’s that simple. This has nothing to do with Catholic being better than Orthodox or Orthodox being better than Catholic. It is just the way it is due to the nature of our Churches.

FYI: I posted several examples of Orthodox churches that just say “Orthodox Church” or “Orthodox mission” on their signs a few pages ago, in post #133. And those are just what came up on the first page of a Google search. I’ve seen more in real life. It seems to be pretty common, particularly in the USA with OCA churches (one of the pics in post #133 is of a banner for an OCA church that just says “Orthodox Church”, while indicating that it is OCA at the web address listed below it in small font).

And again, it has to do with the nature of your Church because only 2% of your communion isn’t Roman Catholic, so it is safe for you to assume that you can point anyone to an RC church and that will be fine. What you don’t seem to realize is that even though the EO and OO communions are more diverse, from the perspective of Orthodox Christians of either communion, it’s just as safe to point an inquirer to any particular church and they’ll be just as fine. Particularly for the OO, not every jurisdiction has a church in every place (here in ABQ it’s Coptic only, unless you want to drive 6 hours to Phoenix to visit…another Coptic church. ), so this entire conversation is strange and beside the point. OF course all OO come here…we’re like the Roman Catholic Church is in the many places that don’t have Eastern Catholic churches (i.e., the only game in town for our people in communion with us). But that doesn’t reflect anything about the nature of our communion…it just means Copts tend to congregate in the middle of the desert in large numbers, and really, if you know their history, who is surprised by that?

 

[SteveVH]

No. They would only have to specify EO if they wanted that, since I’m OO so I don’t naturally default to “Oh, they mean Chalcedonian”, unlike most people. And I hardly think it’s the worst thing in the world that they be exposed to Coptic Orthodoxy if they want to go to an Orthodox Church. Only if they specified that they want an EO church would I direct them to one.

This is a different matter than what you have been talking about, which is different jurisdictions within one communion (IIRC, you mentioned Greek and Russian; those are both EO, so it really doesn’t matter; EO can go to any EO church, just like OO can go to any OO church, just like Catholics can go to any Catholic church…we’re absolutely the same in that regard, which is why your point is so confusing to KnitNut and everyone else who knows how communion works). In my case, my answer is influenced by the fact that I am not in communion with the EO, but this is a different issue than whether or not anyone would feel comfortable in a particular jurisdiction (since OO and EO are different communions entirely, not simply different jurisdictions like the examples you have brought up).

Each communion (OO, EO, RCC) is internally consistent, and functions in basically the same way when it comes to communing people across different jurisdictions. Whether it’s Ethiopians in Coptic churches, Greeks in Russian churches, or Latins in Maronite churches, there is no confusion or need to specify that you mean this jurisdiction and not another, because whichever particular church you go to is the Church at that particular location.

Thanks. I stand corrected. And if I am ever asked where the Orthodox Church is I won’t worry about to which Orthodox Church they are referring. They should be fine with whatever they find. Good to know.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

FYI: I posted several examples of Orthodox churches that just say “Orthodox Church” or “Orthodox mission” on their signs a few pages ago, in post #133. And those are just what came up on the first page of a Google search. I’ve seen more in real life. It seems to be pretty common, particularly in the USA with OCA churches (one of the pics in post #133 is of a banner for an OCA church that just says “Orthodox Church”, while indicating that it is OCA at the web address listed below it in small font).

And again, it has to do with the nature of your Church because only 2% of your communion isn’t Roman Catholic, so it is safe for you to assume that you can point anyone to an RC church and that will be fine. **What you don’t seem to realize is that even though the EO and OO communions are more diverse, from the perspective of Orthodox Christians of either communion, it’s just as safe to point an inquirer to any particular church and they’ll be just as fine. Particularly for the OO, not every jurisdiction has a church in every place **(here in ABQ it’s Coptic only, unless you want to drive 6 hours to Phoenix to visit…another Coptic church. ), so this entire conversation is strange and beside the point. OF course all OO come here…we’re like the Roman Catholic Church is in the many places that don’t have Eastern Catholic churches (i.e., the only game in town for our people in communion with us). But that doesn’t reflect anything about the nature of our communion…it just means Copts tend to congregate in the middle of the desert in large numbers, and really, if you know their history, who is surprised by that?

That is good to know.

So it would be like me looking for a Spanish service of the Latin Rite?

Or do you have different rites as well?

 

[dzheremi]

That is good to know.

So it would be like me looking for a Spanish service of the Latin Rite?

Or do you have different rites as well?

I can’t speak for the EO (they are much more uniform than we are, in this regard), but that is not the case in the OO communion. The liturgies are very different. IIRC, the Ethiopians and Eritreans have 14 anaphoras. The Copts have three. I don’t know about the Armenians or Syriacs. The most common liturgy celebrated by the Syriac Orthodox is that of St. James, the oldest extant liturgy still in use (rooted in the original church of Jerusalem; because of this, it is often called “The Liturgy of St. James, the Brother of Our Lord”). We don’t usually refer to them as “rites” (unless it’s more Copts adopting RC terminology we don’t really understand like the RCs do, which unfortunately does happen, leading to a lot of confusion between some in your communion and mine), but there are certainly different liturgies, and differing usages of the same liturgy, in our churches.

Coptic Orthodox liturgy of St. Basil: youtube.com/watch?v=IV6k-I2JBg0
Syriac Orthodox qurbono of St. James, as prayed by the Malankara Orthodox Church (Indian Syriac Orthodox): youtube.com/watch?v=2R7CDzKG5E8 (note how the church is “St. Mary’s Orthodox Church”, with no ethnic identifier. )
Syriac Orthodox qurbono of St. James, as prayed by the Syriac Orthodox (Middle Eastern): youtube.com/watch?v=FnXcKYNOsAw
Armenian Apostolic Badarak for Easter: youtube.com/watch?v=4wMlKVWYyak
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Kidase: youtube.com/watch?v=AlHVnDUewgU
Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Kidase (basically the same as above, but this clip happens to be from Good Friday; the Eritreans only attained autocephaly in 1993, after they won their civil war against Ethiopia): youtube.com/watch?v=4Fqll6DpUFE

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks. I stand corrected. And if I am ever asked where the Orthodox Church is I won’t worry about to which Orthodox Church they are referring.

:big smile: Whew, I was starting to think we’d never get there.

 

[Peter_J]

No. They would only have to specify EO if they wanted that, since I’m OO so I don’t naturally default to “Oh, they mean Chalcedonian”, unlike most people.

You’re making me nostalgic for 10 years ago (before I started spending too much time discussing religion on the internet) when I would hear “the Orthodox” and not wonder whether they meant EO or OO.

 

[SteveVH]

:big smile: Whew, I was starting to think we’d never get there.

I don’t think there is an Orthodox Church of any stripe within 300 miles of me. But if the question ever arises I’ll let you know the outcome.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m used to your posts as well.

Do you have an example where entire Churches decide to switch from Catholic to Orthodox?

Not off the top of my head, but I might with a little checking. (The Malankara case comes to mind.) But I would point out that, by the way you worded the question, this would only count cases where an Eastern Catholic church went Orthodox – any subset of the Latin Church going Orthodox wouldn’t be an entire church.

But examples aside, do you have any opinion in general about groups of Catholics (whether an entire church or not) becoming Orthodox?

 

[steve_b]

Not off the top of my head, but I might with a little checking. (The Malankara case comes to mind.) But I would point out that, by the way you worded the question, this would only count cases where an Eastern Catholic church went Orthodox – any subset of the Latin Church going Orthodox wouldn’t be an entire church.

It could be an example of either an Eastern Catholic Church, or a diocese in the Latin rite picking up stakes and leaving the Catholic Church for an E Orthodox Church. Do you have an example?
P:

But examples aside, do you have any opinion in general about groups of Catholics (whether an entire church or not) becoming Orthodox?

The Catholic Church is crystal clear on this.

As 846 in the CCC says, “.Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it”

846 Sounds harsh to some ears, but it’s absolutely scriptural. See Rom [16:17-20 & Gal 5:19-21] which I’ve quoted dozens of times on these forums. Paul said, People who divide from the Church and remain so, i.e. divide from the only Church Jesus started, with Peter as the leader, (the Catholic Church) will not inherit heaven. As far as I’m concerned, there’s only one response from us that works…okay Lord I’m hear to do your will.​

If you’ll notice, Orthodox are classified in the non-Catholic section of forums.

Ones only escape from that warning and consequence above, is ignorance, providing that ignorance is innocent. If the information is readily available, and one won’t learn or refuses to learn what they should know on this subject, they are no longer innocently ignorant but culpable for what they are doing. ( 1791 paraphrased ).

 

[Peter_J]

846 Sounds harsh to some ears,​

I don’t think harshness is really an issue here. I myself don’t take a very positive view of people leaving Catholicism … and, for that matter, I don’t expect Eastern Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Eastern Orthodoxy (or Oriental Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Oriental Orthodoxy).

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I don’t think harshness is really an issue here. I myself don’t take a very positive view of **people leaving Catholicism **… and, for that matter, I don’t expect Eastern Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Eastern Orthodoxy (or Oriental Orthodox to take a very positive view of people leaving Oriental Orthodoxy).

That was me for about 25 years… There is a poster that has a sig line from Archbishop Fulton Sheen that says something about a lot people not liking their idea of what they think the Catholic Church is vs a few people not liking the idea of what the Catholic Church actually is. Again going from memory

I think this subject is a lot more deeper than what it is on face value as Faith is something very personal and we are motley by nature. (Not just the Anglicans, GKC ).

 

[pocohombre]

btw, Ignatius is using the language he was taught by the apostles. When he writes “royal priesthood” he’s using the language of Peter. [1 Peter 2:9](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter+2:9&version=RSVCE) . But don’t confuse priesthood of believers with the ministerial priesthood. They are vastly different.

Thank you .Agree it is language from Peter and Exodus 19 I think. Disagree on the two priesthoods,or the purpose for them.Ignatius says nothing of this ministerial priesthood doing something differently in the Holy of holies.Ignatius more than anyone mentions presbyters/bishops and their role, but implies here we all have equal access to the priestly throne, the whole church has access, both your classes of priest. That is what Ignatius, like Peter and Exodus, says.

 

[steve_b]

Disagree on the two priesthoods,or the purpose for them. Ignatius says nothing of this ministerial priesthood doing something differently in the Holy of holies. Ignatius more than anyone mentions presbyters/bishops and their role, but implies here we all have equal access to the priestly throne, the whole church has access, both your classes of priest. That is what Ignatius, like Peter and Exodus, says.

A priest is not a bishop, but a bishop besides being a bishop is also a priest.

either way, both positions (ministerial priest, or bishop) are different positions than the priesthood of believers.