Orthodox believe the same as Roman Catholics?

[Jonathan_Cid]

Yes and no. They would be offended if by Catholic you meant in union with Rome. They do consider themselves part of the original Church, and they are.

It is one of the problems with language. Latin Rite Catholic in union with Rome is too long. RCC is easier, Catholic alone is even shorter.

Agreed. You’re right. But from the experience I’ve had, they do actually use the word Catholic and they mean in it in the sense of the original, true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[ralphinal]

Agreed. You’re right. But from the experience I’ve had, they do actually use the word Catholic and they mean in it in the sense of the original, true Church founded by Jesus Christ.

And they are correct to do so. There is no real reason to say that they are not now or were never a part of the original Church.

Catholic means universal. They were a part of the universe. Simple as that.

I just wish we had a way to be clear as to when we are and are not including them

For example, when we say non-catholic, do we mean any and all churches not in union with Rome or do we mean those churches taht are not the Latin Rite in Union with Rome?

FOr non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, and non-in union with Rome other Rites, does Protestant mean only those who are based on the Original Reform Churches, not including Anglican and its spinoffs?

It hurts my head

 

[TriuneUnity]

And they are correct to do so. There is no real reason to say that they are not now or were never a part of the original Church.

Catholic means universal. They were a part of the universe. Simple as that.

I just wish we had a way to be clear as to when we are and are not including them

For example, when we say non-catholic, do we mean any and all churches not in union with Rome or do we mean those churches taht are not the Latin Rite in Union with Rome?

FOr non-Catholic, non-Orthodox, and non-in union with Rome other Rites, does Protestant mean only those who are based on the Original Reform Churches, not including Anglican and its spinoffs?

It hurts my head

Traditionally, the term Protestant was only applied to the Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed churches. Nowadays, however, it more or less refers to any non-Catholic Christian. The term itself should be rejected, largely because it has lost its historical context, similar to the term “evangelical.” The term was developed from a Diet (court) that took place in Germany in 1529 called the 2nd Diet of Speyer. In it, the German Catholic princes along with the Holy Roman Emperor revoked the rights of Lutherans to have “state” churches within their duchies. The Lutherans “protested” this decision and were thus referred to as Protestants. The Reformed adopted the label several years later. It doesn’t refer to protesting the Roman church.

For what it’s worth, Roman Catholic should probably be dropped, too. I guess you’d have to blame Elizabeth for that

 

[ralphinal]

Traditionally, the term Protestant was only applied to the Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed churches. Nowadays, however, it more or less refers to any non-Catholic Christian. The term itself should be rejected, largely because it has lost its historical context, similar to the term “evangelical.” The term was developed from a Diet (court) that took place in Germany in 1529 called the 2nd Diet of Speyer. In it, the German Catholic princes along with the Holy Roman Emperor revoked the rights of Lutherans to have “state” churches within their duchies. The Lutherans “protested” this decision and were thus referred to as Protestants. The Reformed adopted the label several years later. It doesn’t refer to protesting the Roman church.

For what it’s worth, Roman Catholic should probably be dropped, too. I guess you’d have to blame Elizabeth for that

True.

 

[Peter_J]

But I note that most Orthodox object to Eastern Catholics calling themselves “Orthodox in Communion with Rome”.

Well then, if Orthodox can claim that the name “Orthodox” belongs to them, why can’t Roman Catholics claim that the name “Catholic” belongs to us?

I don’t have any problem calling Old Catholics “Old Catholics” or calling Anglo-Catholics “Anglo-Catholics”, but to me “Catholics” without a qualifiers means Roman Catholics. If an Anglo-Catholic asked me to call him a “Catholic in Communion with Cantebury”, I would have to decline.

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

Well, but - Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, etc… can and still do call themselves “orthodox”.

I try to look at Catholic as the Church of Jesus Christ, and look at Old, Roman, Orthodox, etc… as “branches”. Personally, to refer to the whole “tree” I would simply say “Catholics”, but I would distinguish between the branches. And, there’s no reason why two branches couldn’t be in “communion” with one another. (Although I tend to wonder about that - there’s but one Communion, and that’s the Catholic Communion… Although I understand what people mean by being “in communion with”…)

 

[Peter_J]

Jonathan,

I hope you won’t think I’m totally unsympathetic to your position. Nevertheless, I do see it as a form of “Branch Theory” – albeit a milder form than what is typically meant by “Branch Theory” in Anglican circles.

On a related topic, the following is a snippet from that interview with Reverend Dr. Roald Flemestad of the Nordic Catholic Church (which came up on another thread recently, but I forget which one):

Does the Nordic Catholic Church entertain the “branch theory” of the Church that has been embraced by certain high-church Anglicans?

RF: Well, if the “branch theory” means that all denominations are really equal but, by chance, historically different expressions of the same faith, then I do not accept it. Historically, there is but One Church, Catholic and Apostolic. Realizing that Christ did not leave behind a religious philosophy or a set of ideas that could comfort the soul, but that he sent out Twelve Apostles as the foundation of his Church, we could not in our predicament isolate ourselves from that historical mission and let ourselves be satisfied with some sort of pseudo-ecclesial arrangement as some sort of pet project.

Thus, we could resort to neither a nostalgic project of creating a “continuing church” based upon an idealized Lutheran past, nor an ahistorical utopianism in the form of some sort of new ecumenical arrangement for dissatisfied high-church Protestants. We had to look for a church! We had to find a given historical church institution that had the catholicity we needed and would show the pastoral generosity to support us as a group.

That said, there’s an Orthodox saying, “We know where the Church is, but not where it isn’t.” There are people of true faith that can be examples for us all in Protestant churches—I’m not for a minute doubting that—and if their lives are such, it must be the work of the Holy Spirit. So even if I am critical of the branch theory, I wouldn’t say that the “charismatic overflow” of the Holy Spirit does not exist in places other than the historic apostolic churches.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, but - Roman Catholics, Old Catholics, etc… can and still do call themselves “orthodox”.

Yes we do – with a lower-case “o” mind you.

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

Yes we do – with a lower-case “o” mind you.

You’re right, but what I’m trying to get it is that the Church is one and the same, and all these terms apply. I’m sure many would disagree, however.

 

[prodromos]

Yes and no. They would be offended if by Catholic you meant in union with Rome. They do consider themselves part of the original Church, and they are.

A small correction. We do not consider ourselves ‘part’ of the original Church as that is an alien concept in our ecclesiology. We are the Church. Every Orthodox bishop surrounded by his flock is 100% the Church, lacking absolutely nothing. Each parish around the bishop is wholly the Church, not parts of a larger body.

John.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ I had a feeling that an Orthodox poster would chime in to say that.

 

[Peter_J]

To be fair, I’m sure I would say something if someone said “Roman Catholics consider themselves part of the Church”.

 

[Peter_J]

Jonathan et al.,

While we’re talking about whether “Catholic” (with a capital-C and without a qualifier) means “Roman Catholic” or something broader, we should also take into consideration this practical difficulty: namely, the title of this sub-forum is “Non-Catholic Religions”, which according to my understanding means “Non-RC Religions”, i.e. all those who are not in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI (including Orthodox, Protestants, and non-Christians). But if “Non-Catholic” is instead understood to mean everyone except for Roman Catholics, Orthodox, PNCC, and Old Catholics (and possibly some Lutherans and Anglicans), then the Orthodox (etc.) wouldn’t really belong on this sub-forum. Indeed where on the whole Catholic Answers Forum would they (and you) belong? We would need to have a new sub-forum titled “Catholics who aren’t in full communion with the Pope” or “Catholics who aren’t Roman Catholic” or just "Orthodox, PNCC, Old Catholics … ".

I’m not trying to be difficult, but quite frankly I just don’t see that happening.

 

[Jonathan_Cid]

Jonathan et al.,

While we’re talking about whether “Catholic” (with a capital-C and without a qualifier) means “Roman Catholic” or something broader, we should also take into consideration this practical difficulty: namely, the title of this sub-forum is “Non-Catholic Religions”, which according to my understanding means “Non-RC Religions”, i.e. all those who are not in full communion with Pope Benedict XVI (including Orthodox, Protestants, and non-Christians). But if “Non-Catholic” is instead understood to mean everyone except for Roman Catholics, Orthodox, PNCC, and Old Catholics (and possibly some Lutherans and Anglicans), then the Orthodox (etc.) wouldn’t really belong on this sub-forum. Indeed where on the whole Catholic Answers Forum would they (and you) belong? We would need to have a new sub-forum titled “Catholics who aren’t in full communion with the Pope” or “Catholics who aren’t Roman Catholic” or just "Orthodox, PNCC, Old Catholics … ".

I’m not trying to be difficult, but quite frankly I just don’t see that happening.

I wish that would happen! But I see what you’re saying, and I don’t see it happening either. I know the Old Catholics would just put “Catholic Church” on a Church building and think nothing of it. (Of course, we would have a visible sign, probably inside before entering the actual sanctuary, or something explaining our status in regard to Rome, etc. so that there aren’t any allegations of deception) But I see what you’re saying about the way the word is typically used.

 

[Peter_J]

I wish that would happen! But I see what you’re saying, and I don’t see it happening either.

If it did happen, I wouldn’t complain. I’d be just as happy with that arrangement as with the existing arrangement.

Now, looking at it another way, some might like it better if this forum were called “Non-RC Religions” instead of “Non-Catholic Religions”.

I just started a poll, Orthodox posters, do you participate less on this forum because it’s called “Non-Catholic Religions Forum”? (as opposed to “Non-RC Religions Forum”).