I Attended My First Divine Liturgy!

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I realize I might have not expressed adequately what I meant by universal.

The Roman Catholic Church has 1.3 BILLION members spread out over all the continents. The 23 sui iuris churches in communion with RCC have very small numbers, and each church has its comparatively small regional area of influence. Consider the extent not only of the Roman Empire but also the Portuguese, Spanish and French colonies which spread Catholicism too. The total number of Orthodox, consisting of many different churches which are marked by their regions, on the other hand has only 350 MILLION members.

This isn’t a numbers game, it’s about who retains the apostolic faith.

Catholic means “complete”, not “universal.” The Greek word for universal is Ecumenical. So when people criticize the lack of “Catholicism” in Orthodoxy, they usually refer to its historical geographic confines, but this is disingenuous. “Catholicism” isn’t about some universal, pan-cultural faith ideal that transcends national borders. That is certain a part of the Catholic faith, but it is not the correct application of the term. When one speaks of the Catholic faith, one means the “whole” or “complete” Christian faith.

When St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the relationship between the apostolic bishop and the laity beneath him constituting the Catholic Church, he meant that “there is the COMPLETE Church.” Meaning that the local bishop and his flock lack nothing. There is no mention of papal prerogatives, as the “Papacy” had not yet co-opted that title from its historical place of origin, the Patriarchate of Antioch. Anyway, the point is that we Orthodox Christians believe ourselves to be the Catholic Church in the sense that we possess the complete faith without any deficiencies. So we are Catholic in that we are whole; we lack nothing.

I think it is against forum policy to refer to Holy Orthodoxy as the Catholic Church, but my only intention in doing this was to clearly express our self-understanding and ecclesiology. This is impossible to do without referring to our Catholicity.

By the way, is Catholic a Greek or a Latin word?

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

There is no mention of papal prerogatives, as the “Papacy” had not yet co-opted that title from its historical place of origin, the Patriarchate of Antioch.

Correction: Alexandria, not Antioch

 

[Mariamkutty]

This isn’t a numbers game, it’s about who retains the apostolic faith.

Catholic means “complete”, not “universal.” The Greek word for universal is Ecumenical. So when people criticize the lack of “Catholicism” in Orthodoxy, they usually refer to its historical geographic confines, but this is disingenuous. “Catholicism” isn’t about some universal, pan-cultural faith ideal that transcends national borders. That is certain a part of the Catholic faith, but it is not the correct application of the term. When one speaks of the Catholic faith, one means the “whole” or “complete” Christian faith.

When St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the relationship between the apostolic bishop and the laity beneath him constituting the Catholic Church, he meant that “there is the COMPLETE Church.” Meaning that the local bishop and his flock lack nothing. There is no mention of papal prerogatives, as the “Papacy” had not yet co-opted that title from its historical place of origin, the Patriarchate of Antioch. Anyway, the point is that we Orthodox Christians believe ourselves to be the Catholic Church in the sense that we possess the complete faith without any deficiencies. So we are Catholic in that we are whole; we lack nothing.

I think it is against forum policy to refer to Holy Orthodoxy as the Catholic Church, but my only intention in doing this was to clearly express our self-understanding and ecclesiology. This is impossible to do without referring to our Catholicity.

By the way, is Catholic a Greek or a Latin word?

I find that the Book of Acts is a must read to understand the history of Christianity in apostolic times. The missionary work of Apostle Paul described in the Book of Acts is also very valuable to understand the spread of Christianity.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

I find that the Book of Acts is a must read to understand the history of Christianity in apostolic times. The missionary work of Apostle Paul described in the Book of Acts is also very valuable to understand the spread of Christianity.

Why are you bringing this up? Are you suggesting that I haven’t read the Acts of the Apostles?

 

[Mariamkutty]

This isn’t a numbers game, it’s about who retains the apostolic faith.

Catholic means “complete”, not “universal.” The Greek word for universal is Ecumenical. So when people criticize the lack of “Catholicism” in Orthodoxy, they usually refer to its historical geographic confines, but this is disingenuous. “Catholicism” isn’t about some universal, pan-cultural faith ideal that transcends national borders. That is certain a part of the Catholic faith, but it is not the correct application of the term. When one speaks of the Catholic faith, one means the “whole” or “complete” Christian faith.

When St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the relationship between the apostolic bishop and the laity beneath him constituting the Catholic Church, he meant that “there is the COMPLETE Church.” Meaning that the local bishop and his flock lack nothing. There is no mention of papal prerogatives, as the “Papacy” had not yet co-opted that title from its historical place of origin, the Patriarchate of Antioch. Anyway, the point is that we Orthodox Christians believe ourselves to be the Catholic Church in the sense that we possess the complete faith without any deficiencies. So we are Catholic in that we are whole; we lack nothing.

I think it is against forum policy to refer to Holy Orthodoxy as the Catholic Church, but my only intention in doing this was to clearly express our self-understanding and ecclesiology. This is impossible to do without referring to our Catholicity.

By the way, is Catholic a Greek or a Latin word?

I will admit I had always imagined Catholic means universal in a geographical sense. Now I get it that there is another meaning to the term which means complete faith.

But I wonder if any Christian church would consider itself as not having a complete faith, after all there is only one Bible and all Christians use the same Bible even if minor interpretations may differ from church to church.

 

[Mariamkutty]

Are you suggesting that I haven’t read the Acts of the Apostles?

I am not suggesting that you have not read the Acts of the Apostles. But it just occurred to me that it is Apostle Paul who spent a lot of time in missionary work and all the places he visited are listed in detail. It also occurred to me that there was some disagreement between Paul and Apostle Peter.

So the word Catholic may mean different things to different groups of Christians, even though they read the same Bible. So even if in apostolic times it was possible to have slightly different understandings, why be surprised about differences centuries down the line?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alvaeus,

Catholic means “complete”, not “universal.” The Greek word for universal is Ecumenical.

To be exact, Catholic means “universal” in the sense of pervading comprehensively and completely.

Ecumenical means “universal” only in the sense of geography.

You can keep Ecumenical for the Patriarch of Constantinople. We’ll keep Catholic for the Church.

So when people criticize the lack of “Catholicism” in Orthodoxy, they usually refer to its historical geographic confines, but this is disingenuous. “Catholicism” isn’t about some universal, pan-cultural faith ideal that transcends national borders. That is certain a part of the Catholic faith, but it is not the correct application of the term. When one speaks of the Catholic faith, one means the “whole” or “complete” Christian faith.

When St. Ignatius of Antioch spoke of the relationship between the apostolic bishop and the laity beneath him constituting the Catholic Church, he meant that “there is the COMPLETE Church.” Meaning that the local bishop and his flock lack nothing. There is no mention of papal prerogatives, as the “Papacy” had not yet co-opted that title from its historical place of origin, the Patriarchate of Antioch. Anyway, the point is that we Orthodox Christians believe ourselves to be the Catholic Church in the sense that we possess the complete faith without any deficiencies. So we are Catholic in that we are whole; we lack nothing.

I think it is against forum policy to refer to Holy Orthodoxy as the Catholic Church, but my only intention in doing this was to clearly express our self-understanding and ecclesiology. This is impossible to do without referring to our Catholicity.

Thank you, but I’ll stick to the Fathers.

“Now it [the Church] is called Catholic because it is throughout the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universaly and completely…and because it brings into subjection to godliness all the race of mankind…and because it universally treats the whole class of sins…”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Discourses 23

By the way, is Catholic a Greek or a Latin word?

It’s English.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mariamkutty]

Ecumenical means “universal” only in the sense of geography.

Ecumenical in the West European, Roman Catholic and Protestant tradition means interdenominational. So if a service is conducted with pastors and priests of different Christian denominations, say Lutheran and Roman Catholic, it is called an Ecumenical service.

 

[Aramis]

I will admit I had always imagined Catholic means universal in a geographical sense. Now I get it that there is another meaning to the term which means complete faith.

But I wonder if any Christian church would consider itself as not having a complete faith, after all there is only one Bible and all Christians use the same Bible even if minor interpretations may differ from church to church.

So having 6 less books, including ones which provide praxis that was carried forward by the early church is “the same bible”?

Or the New World Translation, exclusively used by one particular sect, translated by a guy with an 8th grade education?

Or the Mormons adding an additional dozen-plus books and calling the scripture?

Or several sects using ONLY the new testament and Psalms?

Within the general label “Christian” are such a variety that few generalizations can be held.

Within the Catholic and Orthodox Communions, however, most of the generalizations hold true for Catholic, EO, OO, Assyrian, Jacobite, and Armenian alike; the similarities are so strong that they are clearly a breed apart from the rest. Even the additional books of the EO and the Ethiopians add nothing contrary to the rest. (and were not forbidden, but also were not included, when the council mandated the required books, unlike the “Gnostic scriptures.”)

 

[Mariamkutty]

So having 6 less books, including ones which provide praxis that was carried forward by the early church is “the same bible”?

Or the New World Translation, exclusively used by one particular sect, translated by a guy with an 8th grade education?

Or the Mormons adding an additional dozen-plus books and calling the scripture?

Or several sects using ONLY the new testament and Psalms?

Within the general label “Christian” are such a variety that few generalizations can be held.

Within the Catholic and Orthodox Communions, however, most of the generalizations hold true for Catholic, EO, OO, Assyrian, Jacobite, and Armenian alike; the similarities are so strong that they are clearly a breed apart from the rest. Even the additional books of the EO and the Ethiopians add nothing contrary to the rest. (and were not forbidden, but also were not included, when the council mandated the required books, unlike the “Gnostic scriptures.”)

When I refer to the Bible I mean only the canon that was agreed upon by the early Christian churches and finalized very early on. I am not referring to parts and versions of Bibles used by any sect or new branches of Christianity such as the Mormons. Some Christian churches seem to concentrate on the Old Testament only and call their version of Christianity “Prophetic.” There are far too many new churches to keep track of, so it makes no sense to go into a discussion about them. In the spirit of this particular forum, Eastern Catholicism with its whole focus on apostolic origins, I did not have in mind modern day churches.

 

[Mariamkutty]

So having 6 less books, including ones which provide praxis that was carried forward by the early church is “the same bible”?

Or the New World Translation, exclusively used by one particular sect, translated by a guy with an 8th grade education?

Or the Mormons adding an additional dozen-plus books and calling the scripture?

Or several sects using ONLY the new testament and Psalms?

Within the general label “Christian” are such a variety that few generalizations can be held.

Within the Catholic and Orthodox Communions, however, most of the generalizations hold true for Catholic, EO, OO, Assyrian, Jacobite, and Armenian alike; the similarities are so strong that they are clearly a breed apart from the rest. Even the additional books of the EO and the Ethiopians add nothing contrary to the rest. (and were not forbidden, but also were not included, when the council mandated the required books, unlike the “Gnostic scriptures.”)

When I refer to the Bible I mean only the canon that was agreed upon by the early Christian churches and finalized very early on. I am not referring to parts and versions of Bibles used by any sect or new branches of Christianity such as the Mormons. Some Christian churches seem to concentrate on the Old Testament only and call their version of Christianity “Prophetic.” There are far too many new churches to keep track of, so it makes no sense to go into a discussion about them. In the spirit of this particular forum, Eastern Catholicism with its whole focus on apostolic origins, I did not have in mind modern day churches which do not use the Standard version of the Bible.