B
BVMFatima
Guest
Haha, we would say the same for the East ofcorse.I was gonna go for “heretic schismatics”
I say that lovingly and jokingly
- Status
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Certainly the feeling is mutual
B
BVMFatima
Guest
IndeedCertainly the feeling is mutual
P
Peter_J
Guest
Not intrinsically.
I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say “nonsense” (see above).
P
Peter_J
Guest
This is just what I’ve been saying. Sadly, saying it doesn’t seem to make any difference – I don’t mean just on this specific thread but on the whole forum (maybe even on the internet generally). It’s like there’s some kind of black hole that sucks in any statement like “Churches are not rites” so nobody hears it.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Actually, even that isn’t quite right. There’s the Latin Church, and there’s the Roman Rite (the rite most commonly used in the Latin Church). So the correct term would be “Latin Catholics” or “Roman-Rite Catholics”.
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
Ultimately you are right that the Church is not intrinsically Roman, but as we do not seem to have the authority to change the fact that the bishop of Rome is the successor of St. Peter and thus an essential point of unity for the Church, we might say the Church is permanently Roman (at least until the Second Coming).
D
Daniel_Lysinger
Guest
Well - Eastern Catholics are Catholics, and “Catholic” means universal. We are all one body 
J
jjkadavil
Guest
No. My church is Syrian Catholic
G
guanophore
Guest
Many people do use it this way, since they also recognize as the visible sign of Christs’ Church on earth the successor of Peter, Bishop of Rome. However, it is important to respect their non-Latin liturgies, languange and customs that they received from their Apostolic successors that were not “Latin”.
B
BVMFatima
Guest
So since I’m a Catholic of the Latin Church, Roman would just mean the whole Church or just the Latins?
T
theistgal
Guest
You can use it either way if you want. As long as you understand, and support, the right of non-Latin Rite Catholics to say they’re not Roman, but are still Catholics.
S
Surnaturel
Guest
There is some confusion because of the historical circumstances that have shaped RC ecclesiologal identity. The aggrandizement of papal power was necessary in its historical context, the disintegration of the Roman Empire particularly Rome itself, although, admittedly, this power has been yielded horribly at certain times.You can use it either way if you want. As long as you understand, and support, the right of non-Latin Rite Catholics to say they’re not Roman, but are still Catholics.
The essence, however, hasn’t changed: the fullness of the Body of Christ is in the Catholic Church which consists of a billion people of all different colors, cultures, and tongues. The Roman Church is a local church and its bishop, the pope, is the head of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, then, is not singularly the Roman Church but all of the Churches in communion with Rome.
The EO and Protestants, from an RC perspective, are still mystically connected to the Body but they are lacking since they aren’t in Communion with Catholics (Roman, Byzantine, Melkite, etc.)
V
Vico
Guest
The authority of the Supreme Pontiff compliments the authority of each bishop in the Catholic Church. It allows for his intervention in the life of the local churches with exceptional circumstances. The Supreme Pontiff is the head of the college of bishops and acts in communion with them all.
P
Peter_J
Guest
True, but not very helpful in terms of agreeing on names because, for example, the Eastern Orthodox consider themselves to be the fullness of the Body of Christ.
G
guanophore
Guest
I was thinking about this today. I listen to Orthodox radio a lot, and today I was listening to a podcast about ethnicity. I realized that one reason the Roman Church has become much more widespread and overcome cultural and linguistic barriers is because early on the Magesterium declared Latin to be the “language of the Church”. Had the Eastern Church done this with, say, Greek, there would not be such an ethnically restricted membership in the Orthodox communion. A woman called in from Canada, frustrated because she could not learn about the faith in her Ukranian Church because she did not speak the language.
I see this lack of universality in the East one of the drawbacks/shortcomings. Even if all Eastern Christians new the liturgy in Greek they could better participate in Divine Liturgy, especially outside their country of origin.
S
Surnaturel
Guest
That’s true. However, I think it does help to understand the distinction and unity of the Eastern Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches in that they are each particular churches who believe that the fullness of the Body of Christ dwells in their communion (as you said, that much is similar to the Orthodox Church). Accordingly, it shows that ‘Rome’ is not the Catholic Church alone but the Catholic Church, from RC/EC perspective, subsists in and is the RC/EC (Lumen Gentium.
An important distinction, it seems to me, is that the Catholic Church believes that the Orthodox Church has valid sacraments and apostolic succession and that they are particular churches, but they are in a deficient state as compared to RC/EC because they are not in communion whereas from many Orthodox Christians I have spoken with they do not budge that the Catholic Church has the same, although I have never seen any official literature on this.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Unfortunately, there are many Eastern Orthodox who say that they are the Catholic Church and what Roman Catholics call the Catholic Church should be called by another name. They use terms which may be offensive, although they don’t seem to think that they are such. For example, they might use the term Vatican Church, Church of Rome or some other more offensive term. The Eastern Orthodox claim that they are the Catholic Church is based upon their version of the Nicene creed, which they say is unchanged from the original version for the Catholic Church. They say that the RCC has made an unwarranted and unilateral change in the creed by adding the term filioque to the creed and this addition was never agreed to by the East.
J
jjkadavil
Guest
The coinage of the term "Roman Catholic’ itself does not make sense to me. Catholic means universal where Roman is confining to a particular place.
I am a member of Eastern catholic church. Actually we have nothing to do with Rome. When we trace our apostolic succession, it comes from St. Thomas who came to our place in AD 52. We maintained our apostolic succession together with the church in Persia which also founded by St. Thomas. We have our own Eucharistic liturgy prepared by the disciples of St. Thomas. We are perfect in following what our Lord in its every originality.
St. Peter was the leader of the group in which St. Thomas was. That way we enjoy the papacy. Popes respect the identity of individual churches is the crucial aspect of this great unity.
The term catholic becomes meaningful when churches like ours are part of catholic church. If we were Roman as well, it wouldn’t be called catholic any more.
In the 16th century, Roman missionaries (Portuguese) came to our place and made a big mess in our church. Still we are suffering from that. Eastern churches have longer tradition than Roman church. Eastern churches were founded before Roman church. Still they did it to us. It was like a child being removed from his mother forcefully. This was followed by the Coonan cross oath (bent cross: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonan_Cross_Oath) with which we lost our brothers from our unity. I feel happy for them some times. Because they live in the pure individuality where we are still mixed and messed up.
Somebody wrote here that it is unfortunate that eastern orthodox churches call themselves catholic church. I ask why not? Peter founded the church in Antioch first. They are an individual church and they have the apostolic succession. And I personally believe they stay more (much more) close to the originality of Christianity.
I at times think why we are not under the throne of the church in Antioch being a eastern church???
I am a member of Eastern catholic church. Actually we have nothing to do with Rome. When we trace our apostolic succession, it comes from St. Thomas who came to our place in AD 52. We maintained our apostolic succession together with the church in Persia which also founded by St. Thomas. We have our own Eucharistic liturgy prepared by the disciples of St. Thomas. We are perfect in following what our Lord in its every originality.
St. Peter was the leader of the group in which St. Thomas was. That way we enjoy the papacy. Popes respect the identity of individual churches is the crucial aspect of this great unity.
The term catholic becomes meaningful when churches like ours are part of catholic church. If we were Roman as well, it wouldn’t be called catholic any more.
In the 16th century, Roman missionaries (Portuguese) came to our place and made a big mess in our church. Still we are suffering from that. Eastern churches have longer tradition than Roman church. Eastern churches were founded before Roman church. Still they did it to us. It was like a child being removed from his mother forcefully. This was followed by the Coonan cross oath (bent cross: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonan_Cross_Oath) with which we lost our brothers from our unity. I feel happy for them some times. Because they live in the pure individuality where we are still mixed and messed up.
Somebody wrote here that it is unfortunate that eastern orthodox churches call themselves catholic church. I ask why not? Peter founded the church in Antioch first. They are an individual church and they have the apostolic succession. And I personally believe they stay more (much more) close to the originality of Christianity.
I at times think why we are not under the throne of the church in Antioch being a eastern church???
G
guanophore
Guest
You are right jjkadavil. It is my prayer that my Latin brethren will come to know and appreciate the unique nature of the sui juris Eastern Catholics.
This unfortunate tale is found throughout the Eastern churches. It is regrettable. It is a form of ignorance that humans so easily confuse language and culture with eternal truth.
Human pride always causes mixups, and forcing one’s culture on others does create problems. In every place where Latin Catholics have forced their culture on our Eastern brethren, separation and disunity have resulted. The biggest split is the Great Schism of 1054.
You are right, there is no good reason not to affirm the valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments of the Orthodox.
It is good you have remained in communion with the successor of Peter.
Hopefully one day it will not be “Rome or Antioch” but Rome AND Antioch!
- Status