1
1holycatholic
Guest
That would be inaccurate as well.
Does any existing ecclesialistical body have ALL four of the marks of the church exclusively to itself?
- Status
B
Bluegoat
Guest
No, but that is because the Latin Church thinks that the filioque is already implied in what was there. That is also the explanation for why it was ok to add the filioque in the first place. So by that estimation, by saying the Creed without it, the Eastern Catholics still are saying the same thing the Latin Catholics are.
The Orthodox don’t see it that way. Not only do they not say it, they don’t think it is implied in what is there, it is untrue, and was added against the dictum that the statement was complete as it was. It is a big fat misunderstanding of God’s nature.
Now, a good question would be whether the Eastern Catholics believe in the Latin explanation, even though they don’t recite the formula. I would assume that they do, which would separate them from their Orthodox brethren as far as belief goes, even if their practice is the same.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Well, just looking at what various groups claim as part of their understanding of themselves, I think for me apostolic and catholic are fairly clear in their meaning. Many Christian groups understand their calling as being catholic in the sense of being meant for all humanity. There are many that don’t bother with apostolic at all, and I think there are others that have very different understandings of what it means. Most Christians also recognize being holy as important.
I think one is the most difficult for me, both in the sense of what it should mean and who embodies it. I think many claim it in one sense or another. But I may be inclined to think that no Christian group embodies it perfectly, both because empirically none has been actually able to keep it together, but also, to be truly one would imply, I suspect, perfect charity (among other things), and none of us have it.
Now, all who dwell in Christ are made one through him. And if I thought it included most of the members of one church and not many of the others I suppose that might mean something, but I am not sure I believe that. And I don’t really have any way to know in any case.
I think one is the most difficult for me, both in the sense of what it should mean and who embodies it. I think many claim it in one sense or another. But I may be inclined to think that no Christian group embodies it perfectly, both because empirically none has been actually able to keep it together, but also, to be truly one would imply, I suspect, perfect charity (among other things), and none of us have it.
Now, all who dwell in Christ are made one through him. And if I thought it included most of the members of one church and not many of the others I suppose that might mean something, but I am not sure I believe that. And I don’t really have any way to know in any case.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
LOL…well thank the Lord I have you here 1holy, to set me straightThat would be inaccurate as well.
Saying “Roman” Catholic is so so so far off, so inaccurate, so inconceivably far from the truth, you’re right. I’ll work on it. lol So on all those applications that say Roman Catholic as a choice or in my school’s history book where it says Roman Catholic church, or in the other many places where we see this all the time, I’ll start getting the white-out goin’…
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
Then please be sure to educate the Holy See on this matter. It appears that they have no problem using the term “Roman Catholic”:
Commission for Unity and Mission" took place November 20-24, 2001.will be known as****Roman Catholic
[ and the Orthodox Church was held at Mount Saint Mary’s College and Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, USA from July 9 to 19, 2000. The Commission was hosted with great generosity by Cardinal William H. Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, with the assistance of the President, Rector and others of Mount Saint Mary’s College and Seminary.the Roman Catholic Church](The eighth plenary session of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was held at Mount Saint Mary’s College and Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, USA from July 9 to 19, 2000. The Commission was hosted with great generosity by Cardinal William H. Keeler, Archbishop of Baltimore, with the assistance of the President, Rector and others of Mount Saint Mary’s College and Seminary.)
No ignorant protestant wrote those lines.
I think one of the goals of the Protestant Reformation was to return to this “golden age” of the Church. Sadly, that has yielded the intended results, to say the least.To me it would make more sense to look for the Church that has maintained the early belief and praxis of the Church and submit to it, rather than study about it and then try to implement various aspects.
The “Messianic Jews” come to mind when I say this. Rather than enter into one of the Orthodox Churches, they look at liturgies and practices of the Orthodox Church and see if they jive with their current belief of what the Apostolic Church was like. Rather than be a part of the Church with the four marks, they wish to try to create it. You cannot create something already in existence.
Not fuzzy at all, Andrew. Actually, as usual, right to the point. And actually, I think you make an interesting observation about the early Reformers.
But it still leaves open the question, which Church is the *one * Church with these 4 marks. It cannot be both Rome and the Orthodox, unless we are saying that the one Church exists in both. And if that is the case, why can’t it then exist in others, like the PNCC, or Anglican and Lutheran groups who can show apostolic succession.
Jon
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think from an Orthodox perspective, since things like a valid priesthood and apostolic succession don’t exist outside of the OC, they can make a good argument that the others simply aren’t really part of the one church.
It’s more difficult for Catholics, since their understanding could, theoretically, allow for a group that had broken away to retain such things validly. So they have to go to some trouble to argue, for example, that Anglican orders are not valid, whereas Orthodox ones are. But I agree, there is no reason there could not be another schism within the Catholic Church, which would mean the one church was found somehow in three political bodies, even ones that were not in any kind of communion, but rather were in discord.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Those are terms used by Anglicans and various Eastern Orthodox appearing in ecumenical documents. Your second link is a bad, and it has two misleading terms - there is also no such thing as the “Orthodox Church.”
H
Harpazo
Guest
There sure is.
Whether you believe there is such a thing or not is irrelevant to its existence. 
In Christ,
Andrew
1
1holycatholic
Guest
You’re Bulgarian Orthodox, right?There sure is.
In Christ,
Andrew
bulgarian-orthodox-church.org
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
The documents with those names however were posted by the Holy See. Hence, Catholics are indeed willing to use the terms “Roman Catholic” to describe themselves. It’s just that you (and perhaps some others here) who are not. That, in my opinion, puts you at odds with the Holy See. When I add to that my experience of the Catholic Church apart from this board, what I see is that many of the posters here do not represent the Catholic Church as well as do its flesh and blood representatives in the real world. For, were I to make my assessment of the Catholic Church based soley on this board’s membership my conclusion would be that ironically it is the Catholic Church, among all of the various ecclesiastical bodies that present themselves to the world as visible expressions of the body of Christ, which is the least catholic church of all.
E
emeraldcoast
Guest
You do realize that both of our Churches came together as the Commission with the initials ARCIC. ARCIC= Anglican - Roman Catholic International Commission . Read this agreed statement by both of our Churches. anglicancommunion.org/ministry/ecumenical/dialogues/catholic/arcic/docs/mary_grace%20_and_hope.cfm --Roman Catholic is all over it.
God Bless!
1
1holycatholic
Guest
The Anglican Communion does not constitute a “Church,” there is only one Church, the Catholic Church and Anglicans are not in communion with it.
Please point out the where the term “Roman Catholic” appears in the document defining the Church:
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
or in the teaching of the Church:
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
It’s the Catholic Church, not just the Latin Rite. “Roman Catholics” are those Catholics in the Diocese of Rome. There are Melkite, Maronite and Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Churches in my area and they are members of the Catholic Church and are most assuredly not “Roman Catholics.”
G
Grace_Seeker
Guest
And when we begin talking about the truly catholic Church (i.e. that Church which is the unviersal body of Christ) even leaders of the Latin Rite recognize that Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, and a whole host (pun intended) of other followers of Christ are a part of that body. Why they term them members of the body of Christ but not part of the universal Church is beyond me, but aside from you who dispute that here on CAF, I don’t find that the general view even in the (Roman) Catholic Church. So, I’m not going to needlessly worry about it. I find you a minority even in your own institution. Needless to say, even though you might hold a heretical view, that doesn’t exclude you from the body of Christ any more than I am. So, we are all part of the one Church. You may not be catholic, but you are certainly Catholic; and I may not be Catholic, but I’m certainly Christian. And the Church is catholic enough to make room for both of us. Even if you don’t recognize it as so, Christ does. And his authority is the only one that really matters.
H
Harpazo
Guest
I guess you could say that, but I just consider myself Orthodox. I’m actually Italian, so maybe I’m Italian Orthodox.
That website is not the Bulgarian Patriarchal Website though. That is a schismatic Old-Calendarist offshoot. The actual website for the Bulgarian Patriarchate is here and the American Bulgarian Eparchial website is here.
In Christ,
Andrew
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Oh the irony.I guess you could say that, but I just consider myself Orthodox. I’m actually Italian, so maybe I’m Italian Orthodox.
That website is not the Bulgarian Patriarchal Website though. That is a schismatic Old-Calendarist offshoot. The actual website for the Bulgarian Patriarchate is here and the American Bulgarian Eparchial website is here.
In Christ,
Andrew
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
As William Shatner said in “Airplane II,”…“I guess irony can be pretty ironic sometimes…”Oh the irony.
Problem is, I don’t see the irony in the post to which you quoted?
1
1holycatholic
Guest
Oh the irony.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Why does this have a “Who’s on first?” feel to it? I feel like Bud Abbott here?
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Even if there is one, it means nothing; for the marks are of no practical value. As is proved by the fact that no such body is recognised, except by its own adherents. Marks of identification that don’t identify are not much use There are Churches of varying size that lay claim to these marks - but the other claimants, do not concede that the claims of their rivals are justified.
- Status