Catholic but non-Roman

[BVMFatima]

You should not call yourself Catholic unless you are in communion with Rome according to Rome’s definition. If you are Catholic but not of the Latin Rite, you could still call yourself Roman Catholic, since all Catholics used to be called Roman Catholics.

But some time in the past, when I was asleep or something, identifying oneself by Rite became important, I have never known why - ego, I think would be the honest answer. Anyway, if you are an Eastern Rite Catholic you may refer to yourself as an Eastern Rite Catholic, a Roman Catholic, or simply a Catholic and that would be fine with me. But apparantly some people with thin skins would be highly offended. But if you are Eastern Orthodox, you should call yourself either Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox. Of course then you may have trouble with one or the other of the latter groups. Go figure?? Wish everyone would just be calm and get along.

I don’t understand why they would want to call themselves Roman Catholic when that’s the Latin Rite

 

[Peter_J]

You should not call yourself Catholic unless you are in communion with Rome according to Rome’s definition. If you are Catholic but not of the Latin Rite, you could still call yourself Roman Catholic, since all Catholics used to be called Roman Catholics.

I don’t know about the term “Roman Catholic”, but “Roman-Rite Catholic” is a clear well-defined term, encompassing the majority of Latin Catholics but excluding Mozarabic-Rite Catholics, Ambrosian-Rite Catholics, Bragan-Rite Catholics, etc.

 

[Peter_J]

I used the term “validly celebrated” in order to exclude certain groups (e.g., Anglicans) that claim to celebrate the Eucharist, but which I do not believe can actually do so because they have not maintained apostolic succession or the orthodox faith.

P.S. - Another way of expressing my point would be to say “wherever the Eucharist is ‘truly’ or ‘really’ celebrated.” The point of the additional terms being to exclude those who claim to have maintained apostolic succession and the orthodox faith, but who in reality have not done so.

The trouble there, I think, is that it causes “We’re Catholic” to mean “We consider our sacraments to be valid”.

 

[BVMFatima]

I don’t know about the term “Roman Catholic”, but “Roman-Rite Catholic” is a clear well-defined term, encompassing the majority of Latin Catholics but excluding Mozarabic-Rite Catholics, Ambrosian-Rite Catholics, Bragan-Rite Catholics, etc.

agreed, I’m actually in a discussion with Anglicans who claim all Catholics are Roman, even the East which ticks me off

 

[Peter_J]

I think you’ve been making a lot of sense, dzheremi, maybe a little too much for your own good (enter Spanish Inquisition) … not really, but seriously … I guess my concern is that if Orthodox don’t avail themselves of opportunities to call themselves “Catholic”, then the ability to do so disappears or at least shrinks (even more than it already has).

 

[dzheremi]

I think you’ve been making a lot of sense, dzheremi, maybe a little too much for your own good (enter Spanish Inquisition) … not really, but seriously … I guess my concern is that if Orthodox don’t avail themselves of opportunities to call themselves “Catholic”, then the ability to do so disappears or at least shrinks (even more than it already has).

That’s sort of my point of referring to our liturgical texts and traditions that include “Catholic” self-referentially, though: The opportunity does not shrink, because it’s not relative to whatever others claim.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think you’ve been making a lot of sense, dzheremi, maybe a little too much for your own good (enter Spanish Inquisition) … not really, but seriously … I guess my concern is that if Orthodox don’t avail themselves of opportunities to call themselves “Catholic”, then the ability to do so disappears or at least shrinks (even more than it already has).

I’m not sure I agree with that assessment. It is a bit like saying Catholics don’t avail themselves of opportunities to call themselves “Orthodox” (and we see that in the west the term has been largely taken over by Protestants). Our Catholicism isn’t dependent on the perception of others. And though this tact does mean that we have to put up with junior Catholic apologists claiming the Roman Catholic Church is correct because some first century saints said the true church is Catholic, it really isn’t that big a deal.

 

[BVMFatima]

I’m not sure I agree with that assessment. It is a bit like saying Catholics don’t avail themselves of opportunities to call themselves “Orthodox” (and we see that in the west the term has been largely taken over by Protestants). Our Catholicism isn’t dependent on the perception of others. And though this tact does mean that we have to put up with junior Catholic apologists claiming the Roman Catholic Church is correct because some first century saints said the true church is Catholic, it really isn’t that big a deal.

Please note that Roman Catholic means the Latin Church.

 

[Ignatius]

It was suggested to me once that I call myself Catholic but not Roman on another website. How would you react if an Orthodox did that? Would you agree or disagree? Would it bother you? Why?

Are you in full communion with the Holy See?

 

[Anastasia13]

The opportunity does not shrink, because it’s not relative to whatever others claim.

It’s possible for that to change within a group though.

 

[dzheremi]

What do you mean, Anastasia?

 

[Peter_J]

Are you in full communion with the Holy See?

I don’t want to go back and reread the thread, but I’m pretty sure that at some point it was made clear that Anastasia13 isn’t in communion with Rome.

 

[Anastasia13]

What do you mean, Anastasia?

Ignatius asked if I was in communion with the Holy See, while the answer is imperfectly, recognized on their part and not officially on my church’s part, then I could be told that I am not Catholic*. In another setting where it is less a matter of the abstract discussion of this concept, an Orthodox could receive a lot of objections and be told that they are not Catholic.

*Though the possibility exists also that I would be told that this is a confusing title and possible that I should not use it.

**This is of course in addition to the added effort to correct a misstatement as to whether one’s Orthodox church is Catholic.

 

[dzheremi]

I see. I think we might be talking about different things here. When I say our claims to Catholicity are not dependent on other people’s claims, I mean that. I don’t mean that others will accept or agree (or not accept or disagree) with those same claims; you’re right that the acceptance of others will vary based on the situation. But the claim of Catholicity itself…I mean, it’s right there in our liturgical texts, and is borne out in our history. If other people do not agree, it doesn’t matter, because other people’s ideas of what Catholicity is or what it means or how we may or may not fit those ideas have no bearing on our history and certainly cannot have any effect on our liturgy. Our Fathers who composed our liturgical texts were not the Amazing Kreskin, and did not place the words “Catholic” or “Orthodox” into the liturgies of our churches with knowledge that some day someone in Rome or Constantinople or wherever would take exception to our self-identification with those terms.

So I guess you could say the opportunity “shrinks” if you are letting the level of acceptance you find among non-Orthodox dictate whether or not you can call yourself Catholic, but that’s an individual decision. That really has nothing to do with the Church and its Catholicity; that has to do with how you choose to present yourself. If I only ever called myself “Coptic” (rather than “Orthodox” or “Coptic Orthodox”), it wouldn’t take too much investigation on the part of whoever I was talking to to find out that I mean “Coptic Orthodox”. They’d just have to ask similar questions as people have been asking you about this “Catholic, but not Roman” idea: Who is your bishop? Who do you recognize as Patriarch? (or, in RC terms, are you united with Rome?)

 

[Anastasia13]

I see. I think we might be talking about different things here. When I say our claims to Catholicity are not dependent on other people’s claims, I mean that. I don’t mean that others will accept or agree (or not accept or disagree) with those same claims; you’re right that the acceptance of others will vary based on the situation. But the claim of Catholicity itself…I mean, it’s right there in our liturgical texts, and is borne out in our history. If other people do not agree, it doesn’t matter, because other people’s ideas of what Catholicity is or what it means or how we may or may not fit those ideas have no bearing on our history and certainly cannot have any effect on our liturgy. Our Fathers who composed our liturgical texts were not the Amazing Kreskin, and did not place the words “Catholic” or “Orthodox” into the liturgies of our churches with knowledge that some day someone in Rome or Constantinople or wherever would take exception to our self-identification with those terms.

That’s actually really beautiful.

 

[Zekariya]

I see. I think we might be talking about different things here. When I say our claims to Catholicity are not dependent on other people’s claims, I mean that. I don’t mean that others will accept or agree (or not accept or disagree) with those same claims; you’re right that the acceptance of others will vary based on the situation. But the claim of Catholicity itself…I mean, it’s right there in our liturgical texts, and is borne out in our history. If other people do not agree, it doesn’t matter, because other people’s ideas of what Catholicity is or what it means or how we may or may not fit those ideas have no bearing on our history and certainly cannot have any effect on our liturgy. Our Fathers who composed our liturgical texts were not the Amazing Kreskin, and did not place the words “Catholic” or “Orthodox” into the liturgies of our churches with knowledge that some day someone in Rome or Constantinople or wherever would take exception to our self-identification with those terms.

This is very true!

Pope St Cyril of Alexandria, pray for us that we might have full communion with each other, you, the great defender of orthodoxy, who worked things out with John of Antioch.

 

[Apotheoun]

I think you’ve been making a lot of sense, dzheremi, maybe a little too much for your own good (enter Spanish Inquisition) … not really, but seriously … I guess my concern is that if Orthodox don’t avail themselves of opportunities to call themselves “Catholic”, then the ability to do so disappears or at least shrinks (even more than it already has).

I agree that dzheremi’s posts make a lot of sense, that is, if you buy into the common use (or rather misuse) of the terms, but I do not accept that common usage as somehow normative or theologically accurate. As far as I am concerned, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are Catholic, and that is true whether Roman Catholics wish to admit it to be so or not.

 

[Zekariya]

I agree that dzheremi’s posts make a lot of sense, that is, if you buy into the common use (or rather misuse) of the terms, but I do not accept that common usage as somehow normative or theologically accurate. As far as I am concerned, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are Catholic, and that is true whether Roman Catholics wish to admit it to be so or not.

I agree. The Eastern Orthodox Christians and Oriental Orthodox Christians are Catholic (not in communion with Rome).

The Oriental Orthodox were basically forced out of communion with Rome by the imperial Church due to miscommunication and politics. The fact that the OOs held to St Cyril of Alexandria’s Miaphysite Christology is the whole reason they were kicked out (or rather begun to be kicked out) at Chalcedon. The Catholic Church has now accepted the Miaphysite Christology as orthodox in joint dialogues with the Oriental Orthodox Church.

 

[Peter_J]

Reading this thread, I got to thinking, why is it that Anglo-Catholics, Old Catholics, and the PNCC call themselves “Catholic” as opposed to (say) “Orthodox”? (I started a thread for that question in the Non-Catholic Religions forum, rather than tacking it onto this thread.)

 

[Anastasia13]

The Oriental Orthodox were basically forced out of communion with Rome by the imperial Church due to miscommunication and politics. The fact that the OOs held to St Cyril of Alexandria’s Miaphysite Christology is the whole reason they were kicked out (or rather begun to be kicked out) at Chalcedon. The Catholic Church has now accepted the Miaphysite Christology as orthodox in joint dialogues with the Oriental Orthodox Church.

I was looking for something I thought I saw on this the other day, but I only found the Assyrian agreement. If you find this, can you let me know?