difference in East and West -- really any that different?

[concretecamper]

So if there is one person remaining and he is a bishop, can he elect himself Pope?

Actually, there is that greater discussion that no one dares to start. The RCC teaches that to be saved one must be under the Pope. So if an RC dies during the period of sedevacante, do they go to hell?

Salvation is through the Church. It is biblical. Just because you cannot accept it and it seems to upset you does not change that fact. God bless…

BTW…I find your examples ammusing. What if there are only 2 people left alive…a woman and a priest…is his vow of celibacy negated so the human race can continue. Do you see how silly you are being?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

So if there is one person remaining and he is a bishop, can he elect himself Pope?

Actually, there is that greater discussion that no one dares to start. The RCC teaches that to be saved one must be under the Pope. So if an RC dies during the period of sedevacante, do they go to hell?

If he is a cardinal I suppose he can elect himself to the Papacy. If there are no cardinals left then unless there is a secret contingency plan for electing the Pope (which I think there should be in case there is a terrorist attack on a conclave, though not necessarily a secret one) then we would be in a sedevacantist scenario. The Catholic Church would still be there, but the Papacy would remain vacant indefinitely.

Of course if a Catholic dies in a state of grace it does not matter if there happened not to be a living Pope at that precise moment. We don’t all become schismatics the moment a Pope dies or resigns. The Pope is a very important safeguard for Catholic unity and for that reason I doubt that God will ever allow the Papacy to be vacant for a very long period, but he is not the only or highest basis for unity. This is indeed a very interesting subject, maybe for a new thread.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If he is a cardinal I suppose he can elect himself to the Papacy. If there are no cardinals left then unless there is a secret contingency plan for electing the Pope (which I think there should be in case there is a terrorist attack on a conclave, though not necessarily a secret one) then we would be in a sedevacantist scenario. The Catholic Church would still be there, but the Papacy would remain vacant indefinitely.

Of course if a Catholic dies in a state of grace it does not matter if there happened not to be a living Pope at that precise moment. We don’t all become schismatics the moment a Pope dies or resigns. The Pope is a very important safeguard for Catholic unity and for that reason I doubt that God will ever allow the Papacy to be vacant for a very long period, but he is not the only or highest basis for unity. This is indeed a very interesting subject, maybe for a new thread.

But historically there were times the Papacy was vacant for years, and there were times there was more than one Pope and people don’t agree on who the real Pope is.

 

[KathleenGee]

During times of disagreement, there is always God’s will present, and it took a woman to reveal it to who should be pope.

Christ chose Peter to head His church, and as the apostles had a right to successors so does the head have a right to successors.

As faith grew and was fragmented by clericalism and dissension, culturals, politics, renaissance and secularism, all the more we need one person to represent all who have faith in Christ.

I don’t believe Christ sees the Church as split in two. He sees and wills only one Church.

And if there is just one Catholic in a diocese, that person can either drive to another diocese to Mass or make a spiritual communion. Today one can get a dispensation and watch the Mass on EWTN.

The Church will always exist as a communion, a gathering of believers. Not until the end of the world, and then we will have a new heaven and a new earth.

 

[elizaveta01]

For all other Christians, notably Orthodox, reconciliation on infallibly is the only issue that separates the Church

Not really, there are a number of issues.

Mandatory celibacy for the clergy, the Marian doctrines, the belief in the Mass as a sacrifice, sola ecclesia vs regula fide vs sola scriptura, the rites for Mass/Liturgy, the number and effect of the sacraments, the role of women in the Church, divorce vs annullment etc. Even the idea that a Church can be dogmatic is not accepted by many Christians.

Also, who is going to give. It is basically impossible for the Catholic Church to change dogmas like infallibility without destroying it’s own structure and none of the other churches, Orthodox or Protestant, will ever accept it.

And even if you overcome these problems, there are a huge number of Orthodox and Protestant people who harbor an almost genetic fear/hatred/distrust of anything even remotely Catholic. Also, the history of violence between the groups in both the reformation/counter reformation and the crusades continues to be an influence.

Like many I feel great sorrow for the fracturing of the Church and I pray for it to return to what it should be, one body. But I just don’t see it happening.

 

[Peter_J]

So far everyone seems to be equating “the East” with Eastern Orthodox. Within the Catholic Church are other rites besides Roman, including Eastern.

These ^^ were pretty much my first thoughts, when I found this thread, too.

I meant Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy and why they can’t seem to unite, be in communion, etc.

We’ve actually been trying to get away from the term “Roman Catholic”, which many see as referring only to Roman-Rite Catholics.

 

[Peter_J]

From the various “East/West” comparisons in this forum, both sides come up with arguments that seem equally valid (to my questioning Protestant mind).

If it makes you feel any better, I’m a life-long Catholic who has studied these matters a great deal, and I still can’t come up with an easy way to tell which is the one-true-church.

 

[KathleenGee]

EIF5A…

Agree with you. Because the Latin and Orthodox churches…with all the different rites within, are part of the universal Christian Church, as it once was called, Catholic - Greek word, only meaning universal.

We just have different regional, cultural takes on things. As JPII said, we can learn from one another…the better tact. One is more outward, open to change and cultural assimilation and intellectual definitions, the other steadfast, deep, and mystical in approach to faith. Both are needed.

 

[ConstantineTG]

EIF5A…

Agree with you. Because the Latin and Orthodox churches…with all the different rites within, are part of the universal Christian Church, as it once was called, Catholic - Greek word, only meaning universal.

This is wrong. Katolikos in Greek means “whole”, not “universal”. This means that the Catholic Church is not a big piece subdivided into little pieces called the Roman, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, etc. It means that every little diocese is whole and complete, even if the greater whole does not exist.

 

[Deconi]

This is wrong. Katolikos in Greek means “whole”, not “universal”. This means that the Catholic Church is not a big piece subdivided into little pieces called the Roman, Greek, Russian, Ukrainian, etc. It means that every little diocese is whole and complete, even if the greater whole does not exist.

“Universal” is a perfect and legitimate meaning of Katoliko!

Maybe you like being contentious but the ‘Universal’ encompasses all creation!

In laymen’s terms, if they found life on Mars, that ‘life’ is included in Katoliko.

(see the sig)

 

[ConstantineTG]

“Universal” is a perfect and legitimate meaning of Katoliko!

Maybe you like being contentious but the ‘Universal’ encompasses all creation!

In laymen’s terms, if they found life on Mars, that ‘life’ is included in Katoliko.

(see the sig)

Just because I have a different view I am contentious?

Commentaries on Patristics conclusively agree that the Church Fathers do mean “whole” when they say “Catholic Faith”. “Universal” really doesn’t make any sense if you read the Fathers. They are not talking about a faith that is everywhere, even in the known world back in the first to third centuries they know that many corners of the world are no Christian, or even Jew. “Whole” is the appropriate context in the writings as it describes the complete and true (orthodox) faith that is found wherever there is a Church.

 

[KathleenGee]

Constantine, I am beginning to wonder if you are drawing from certain anti-Latin sources within Orthodoxy. Truthfully, I have the impression it is the Orthodox who have antagonism sometimes here on CAF.

I was not raised or taught or ever heard any contention against the Orthodox in my entire faith formation in the Latin Church.

I was taught that Katholico meant universal.

The name of the ancient church was simply Universal Christian Church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Constantine, I am beginning to wonder if you are drawing from certain anti-Latin sources within Orthodoxy. Truthfully, I have the impression it is the Orthodox who have antagonism sometimes here on CAF.

I was not raised or taught or ever heard any contention against the Orthodox in my entire faith formation in the Latin Church.

I was taught that Katholico meant universal.

The name of the ancient church was simply Universal Christian Church.

No, it means whole. And it isn’t from an anti-Latin source. You can go to even a modern dictionary an look up “Catholic” and you will see that it also means whole:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/catholic

That is the original meaning and intent of the Fathers. Remember, the word first came up in Greek, so it’s use is in accordance with the context of Greek speakers.

 

[LionHeart777]

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a lot of info about the term Catholic and it’s uses from antiquity, through the Fathers and beyond in the article, “Catholic”.

A couple of quotes I wanted to cite in the sense of “universal.”

One (embedded in this paragraph and which I will bold) is from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

Among the Greeks it was natural that while Catholic served as the distinctive description of the one Church [one of the uses discussed in the article], the etymological significance of the word was never quite lost sight of. Thus in the ‘Catechetical Discourses’ of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 347) he insists on the one hand (sect. 26): ‘And if ever thou art sojourning in any city, inquire not simply where the Lord’s house is–for the sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens, houses of the Lord–nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of the holy body the mother of us all.’ On the other hand when discussing the word Catholic, which already appears in his form of the baptismal creed, St. Cyril remarks: (sect. 23) ‘Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other.’ But we shall have occasion to quote this passage more at length later on.

(Ibid.)

St. Augustine is cited in this quote from the Council of Trent:

The third mark of the Church is that she is Catholic, that is, universal; and justly is she called Catholic, because, as St. Augustine says,** ‘she is diffused by the splendour of one faith from the rising to the setting sun’.** Unlike republics of human institution, or the conventicles of heretics, she is not circumscribed within the limits of any one kingdom, nor confined to the members of any one society of men, but embraces within the amplitude of her love, all mankind, whether barbarians or Scythians, slaves or freemen, male or female.

(Ibid.)

I don’t think anyone would doubt that the semantic range of katholicos encompasses “…throughout the whole…” (Ibid.) But I believe at also encompasses “universal” (Ibid), and these quotes demonstrate this. Thus we read in one of the definitions given by Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary entry for “universal”:

2 a : present or occurring everywhere

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a lot of info about the term Catholic and it’s uses from antiquity, through the Fathers and beyond in the article, “Catholic”.

A couple of quotes I wanted to cite in the sense of “universal.”

One (embedded in this paragraph and which I will bold) is from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

(Ibid.)

St. Augustine is cited in this quote from the Council of Trent:

(Ibid.)

I don’t think anyone would doubt that the semantic range of katholicos encompasses “…throughout the whole…” (Ibid.) But I believe at also encompasses “universal” (Ibid), and these quotes demonstrate this. Thus we read in one of the definitions given by Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary entry for “universal”:

But “present, occurring everywhere” is not true until the last 100 years or so. There was no Catholic presence in the Americas in the First Millennium, or in Japan, or in Australia, etc. And “encompassing the whole” isn’t necessarily a geographical meaning. The “whole” meaning complete, meaning everything is there. When St. Ignatius of Antioch said that where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, he means that within each individual bishop exists the entirety of the Church. He is stating that each Bishop is not a part of a bigger body, but a complete body in itself.

 

[LionHeart777]

But “present, occurring everywhere” is not true until the last 100 years or so. There was no Catholic presence in the Americas in the First Millennium, or in Japan, or in Australia, etc. And “encompassing the whole” isn’t necessarily a geographical meaning. The “whole” meaning complete, meaning everything is there. When St. Ignatius of Antioch said that where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, he means that within each individual bishop exists the entirety of the Church. He is stating that each Bishop is not a part of a bigger body, but a complete body in itself.

I think you are taking “present, occurring everywhere” too literally. In the Gospel of St. Matthew ch. 27:45 we read:

[45] Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over the whole earth, until the ninth hour.

Source: drbo.org/chapter/47027.htm

But I don’t think this necessarily has to mean literally, “the whole earth”.

Haydock’s Bible Commentary says:

…— Over all the earth, until the ninth hour. It could be no miracle to be night in the opposite hemisphere; but whether it was in all those parts of the world where, of course, it should have been light, is doubted. Origen thinks this darkness was only in Palestine, and the neighbouring countries: for as to the words, over the whole earth, or over the whole land, we find one kingdom or empire, by a common way of speaking, called the whole earth, or the whole world…

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id45.html

If memory serves, people attacking the claims of Christians use this verse or it’s parallel verses to try to disprove one or more of their claims.

Similarly, I don’t think that Sts. Cyril and Augustine have in view the places you are talking about because they probably didn’t know of their existence. But their quotes seem pretty clear to me that they are talking about something different than you are, and that they are talking in the sense of “present, occurring everywhere”, albeit perhaps not literally everywhere. How could they not be when St. Cyril says “’…throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other…’” and St. Augustine says, “’…from the rising to the setting sun…’” ?

(Source: Thurston, Herbert. “Catholic.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 27 Jun. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm.)

As far as St. Ignatius, I’m not sure in what sense he means it, I was only referring to these two examples. Like I said, the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia discusses more than one use of the term.

 

[LionHeart777]

Here is a “larger version” of the quote of St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

“’[The Church] is called catholic, then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth, and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly, and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned, and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body, and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in the spiritual gifts of every description’ (Catechetical Lectures 18:23 [A.D. 350]).”

Source: catholic.com/tracts/what-catholic-means

 

[KathleenGee]

Where I am, the Latin and Orthodox Churches are one in the heart of the Lord. It is He and not us Who sustains the Church.

I see the Latin and Orthodox Churches as the one Universal Christian Church of antiquity.

About one remaining Catholic left in Spokane, and the Church existing, we assume this Catholic was confirmed by his bishop. If he is Catholic, he is in communion with the Holy Father and bishops.