Orthodox Catholic surely!

[Lilyflower]

I am amazed at how many good Catholics here and else-where call themselves ‘Roman’ Catholic.

My understanding is that ‘Roman’ is a descriptor that was imposed on us by those who are not faithful to the traditions and apostolic succession. Certainly in my part of the world, it is intended to be derogatory.

It seems to me that there are basically three types of Catholic: the faithful - who are Orthodox in their Catholic faith, liberal wishy washy-not quite sure what they believe themselves therefore non-Orthodox - Catholic and those who have fallen away - generally called lapsed.

Why have we adopted this derogatory title and not just call ourselves, those of us who believe that ‘when Rome has spoken, the case is closed’ just ‘Catholic’ or ‘Orthodox Catholic’.

 

[LilyM]

Because there are lots of churches out there calling themselves Catholic that aren’t in communion with Rome - Old Catholics and Liberal Catholics among others. I don’t want the church I belong to to be confused with either of them.

And ‘Orthodox’, well, there are lots of churches out there calling themselves Orthodox too. I always think of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches with that term, so do most people. Again I don’t want my church to be confused with theirs.

I for one am very proud to call myself Roman Catholic, however the term may have originated. I am proud that our church began with St Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, and has remained faithful to his spiritual heirs of Rome ever since, and would never deny that Rome has always been the spiritual home and centre of my faith.

“Methodist” began as a derogatory term, I believe, as did “Quaker”. Members of these churches are usually OK with the those names now, what’s wrong with us retaining ‘Roman’ as a positive term.

 

[antimon]

I am a Catholic and belong to the Roman (latin) rite, therefore I am a Roman Catholic. What’s the problem?

 

[Claire_from_DE]

In this part of the world the term is just to identify us, no offense intended. Most non-Catholics don’t even know about the other Catholic rites. I only use the term orthodox Catholic to correct someone who calls me a conservative Catholic (few would call me a liberal Catholic although I do like the mass in English).

 

[John_Higgins]

antimon:

I am a Catholic and belong to the Roman (latin) rite, therefore I am a Roman Catholic. What’s the problem?

The problem is that our Eastern brethren are also Roman Catholics.

John

 

[historyb]

I am amazed at how many good Catholics here and else-where call themselves ‘Roman’ Catholic.

My understanding is that ‘Roman’ is a descriptor that was imposed on us by those who are not faithful to the traditions and apostolic succession. Certainly in my part of the world, it is intended to be derogatory.

It seems to me that there are basically three types of Catholic: the faithful - who are Orthodox in their Catholic faith, liberal wishy washy-not quite sure what they believe themselves therefore non-Orthodox - Catholic and those who have fallen away - generally called lapsed.

Why have we adopted this derogatory title and not just call ourselves, those of us who believe that ‘when Rome has spoken, the case is closed’ just ‘Catholic’ or ‘Orthodox Catholic’.

I was taught that both were right. Roman Catholic refers to the rite, and I like it. Most of the time I just say Catholic though. If I were of the Eastern rites I would say I was Orthodox Catholic. http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/1535/2centsfinalci9.gif

 

[lak611]

I have a friend who is Methodist but has Russian Orthodox family members. When I said “Orthodox Catholic” once, he thought I was referring to the Russian Orthodox Church. “Roman Catholic” does not confuse him.

 

[lak611]

Another time I was discussing my cousin’s children’s CCD program. I asked her if it was “orthodox”, lower-case, meaning correct. She did not understand and asked me why I would be asking about the Orthodox Church. Other than on these fora, most people I talk to think of the second defintion, not the first.

 

[Lilyflower]

I have a friend who is Methodist but has Russian Orthodox family members. When I said “Orthodox Catholic” once, he thought I was referring to the Russian Orthodox Church. “Roman Catholic” does not confuse him.

I was introduced to Orthodoxy and all things Catholic by a former contributor to CAF. He was an amazing fellow. Anyhow, he introduced me to the concept of Orthodox Catholic and I have never called myself anything ever since but Orthodox Catholic.

Blessings and peace

 

[mark_a]

Why have we adopted this derogatory title and not just call ourselves, those of us who believe that ‘when Rome has spoken, the case is closed’ just ‘Catholic’ or ‘Orthodox Catholic’.

We are (lower case “o”) orthodox Catholic.

I’ve read from some Orthodox (here on this forum) that in Europe and Asia, it’s not unusual for Orthodox to refer to themselves as (upper case “O”) Orthodox Catholic.

So, I think calling ourselves orthodox Catholic instead of Orthodox Catholic might confuse even the Orthodox and Catholics.

 

[lak611]

We are (lower case “o”) orthodox Catholic.

I’ve read from some Orthodox (here on this forum) that in Europe and Asia, it’s not unusual for Orthodox to refer to themselves as (upper case “O”) Orthodox Catholic.

So, I think calling ourselves orthodox Catholic instead of Orthodox Catholic might confuse even the Orthodox and Catholics.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, other than on these fora, nobody knows what lower-case orthodox means. My own family is confused by the term.

 

[Lilyflower]

We are (lower case “o”) orthodox Catholic.

I’ve read from some Orthodox (here on this forum) that in Europe and Asia, it’s not unusual for Orthodox to refer to themselves as (upper case “O”) Orthodox Catholic.

So, I think calling ourselves orthodox Catholic instead of Orthodox Catholic might confuse even the Orthodox and Catholics.

Point taken, I see what you mean.

Blessings and peace

 

[Ite_ad_Ioseph]

I assumed ‘Roman Catholic’ meant ‘Catholic of the Roman Rite’, and ‘Byzantine Catholic’ meant ‘Catholic of the Byzantine Rite’. I don’t know how an Eastern Catholic is Roman. Eastern Catholicism, in my opinion, is any rite that is the Roman Rite, as Rome is as wets as you can get and the Sarum, Mozarabic, etc. rites aren’t really used any more. Unless the proper authority says I’m wrong.
Pax

 

[LilyM]

I assumed ‘Roman Catholic’ meant ‘Catholic of the Roman Rite’, and ‘Byzantine Catholic’ meant ‘Catholic of the Byzantine Rite’. I don’t know how an Eastern Catholic is Roman. Eastern Catholicism, in my opinion, is any rite that is the Roman Rite, as Rome is as wets as you can get and the Sarum, Mozarabic, etc. rites aren’t really used any more. Unless the proper authority says I’m wrong.
Pax

Eastern Catholics are also correctly called Roman in that they, just like Latin Rite Catholics (and I prefer to call it the ‘Latin’ rather than the ‘Roman’ Rite for such reasons), are subject to the Bishop of Rome, aka the Pope.

 

[Lilyflower]

I assumed ‘Roman Catholic’ meant ‘Catholic of the Roman Rite’, and ‘Byzantine Catholic’ meant ‘Catholic of the Byzantine Rite’. I don’t know how an Eastern Catholic is Roman. Eastern Catholicism, in my opinion, is any rite that is the Roman Rite, as Rome is as wets as you can get and the Sarum, Mozarabic, etc. rites aren’t really used any more. Unless the proper authority says I’m wrong.
Pax

I really like your signature. That is really powerful. I have saved it to ‘my documents’ for future references on this forum. Excellent choice.

Blessings and peace.

 

[EasterJoy]

It seems to me that there are basically three types of Catholic: the faithful - who are Orthodox in their Catholic faith, liberal wishy washy-not quite sure what they believe themselves therefore non-Orthodox - Catholic and those who have fallen away - generally called lapsed.

It seems to me that there are also Catholics who are so “orthodox” that they no longer feel any need to be obedient to authority. Where do those who are under the mistaken impression that they are entirely orthodox fall on your spectrum…or doesn’t your imaginary number line go that far to the right?

On a serious note, be quite sure that there are people who are not in obedience who are quite clear on what it is that they believe. Think Martin Luther. Call him what you will, the man wasn’t wishy-washy. To be blunt, he thought himself more Catholic than the Pope…and, in retrospect, a few of his complaints had a legitimate basis, even if not an accurate diagnosis.

“Lukewarm” and “left” have no necessary correlation. Among Catholics, there are hot-on-fire chapter-and-verse liberals who know exactly what they believe and why, who make every effort to remain in compliance with Rome, as well as lukewarm never-missing-Mass-is-the-sum-of-all-Catholicism conservatives who put almost nothing into the practice of the faith, save their Sunday and Holy Day obligation and grace before meals. (Among these are the ones who look at you kind of funny when they find out that you read theology after the age where you’re going to have exams on it.)

As for the lapsed, bad catechesis favors a loss of faith, but you will nevertheless find the full range of catechesis among the lapsed, too. The evil one has ways around a good education… material contentment and the lures of worldly success being among them.

 

[Lilyflower]

It seems to me that there are also Catholics who are so “orthodox” that they no longer feel any need to be obedient to authority. Where do those who are under the mistaken impression that they are entirely orthodox fall on your spectrum…or doesn’t your imaginary number line go that far to the right? .

I don’t understand. How can anyone be 'so orthodox that they no longer feel any need to be obedient to authority? That is a contradiction. Anyone so feeling, surely cease to be Catholic. What has this got to do with Catholics who follow traditional orthodox teaching? Sorry but just can’t get your point. Orthodox is about being sound in doctrine.

On a serious note, be quite sure that there are people who are not in obedience who are quite clear on what it is that they believe. Think Martin Luther. Call him what you will, the man wasn’t wishy-washy. To be blunt, he thought himself more Catholic than the Pope…and, in retrospect, a few of his complaints had a legitimate basis, even if not an accurate diagnosis.

Luther was a very intelligent man if somewhat overwraught. He had a number of problems, not least his insistence on spending hours in the confessional purging himself of the most trivial of faults, much to the frustration of his confessors. Brilliant but a little too complex. Was he of sound doctrine? You tell me!

“Lukewarm” and “left” have no necessary correlation. Among Catholics, there are hot-on-fire chapter-and-verse liberals who know exactly what they believe and why, who make every effort to remain in compliance with Rome, as well as lukewarm never-missing-Mass-is-the-sum-of-all-Catholicism conservatives who put almost nothing into the practice of the faith, save their Sunday and Holy Day obligation and grace before meals. (Among these are the ones who look at you kind of funny when they find out that you read theology after the age where you’re going to have exams on it.)

I do not know who you have described here but it certainly is not orthodox Catholics since Christ in John commands us to ‘love one another’ Jn 15: 17 who are most likely to be found in organisations such as the SVP KSC CWL Catenians and the many third Orders.

As for the lapsed, bad catechesis favors a loss of faith, but you will nevertheless find the full range of catechesis among the lapsed, too. The evil one has ways around a good education… material contentment and the lures of worldly success being among them

I suggest that bad catechesis is less to do with lapse and more to do with personal choice. We are all of us free to accept or reject the Gospel. Likewise seeing Mother Church as the prescription or merely a catholic religious social club.

Blessings and peace

 

[EasterJoy]

I am amazed at how many good Catholics here and else-where call themselves ‘Roman’ Catholic.

My understanding is that ‘Roman’ is a descriptor that was imposed on us by those who are not faithful to the traditions and apostolic succession. Certainly in my part of the world, it is intended to be derogatory.

It seems to me that there are basically three types of Catholic: the faithful - who are Orthodox in their Catholic faith, liberal wishy washy-not quite sure what they believe themselves therefore non-Orthodox - Catholic and those who have fallen away - generally called lapsed.

Why have we adopted this derogatory title and not just call ourselves, those of us who believe that ‘when Rome has spoken, the case is closed’ just ‘Catholic’ or ‘Orthodox Catholic’.

I don’t understand. How can anyone be 'so orthodox that they no longer feel any need to be obedient to authority? That is a contradiction. Anyone so feeling, surely cease to be Catholic. What has this got to do with Catholics who follow traditional orthodox teaching? Sorry but just can’t get your point. Orthodox is about being sound in doctrine.

My point is that you are talking about several different things, which will yield far more than three kinds of Catholics. Orthodox, liberal, having particular beliefs that one can articulate, and faithful are all different things.

A) how conservative or liberal one is–correct doctrine will sometimes fall on the conservative and sometimes on the liberal end, if you use politics as a yardstick. Although many tenets of the faith are currently viewed as “conservative”, an orthodox Catholic isn’t necessarily politically conservative on all counts. A orthodox Catholic has to be willing to disagree with those who are politically similar on other issues, in order to follow Church teaching. The Popes’ encyclicals, which are all orthodox, have gotten both the liberals and the conservative upset, depending on the topic.

B) how well-catechized one is, which has two components–you can be “orthodox” and not have a clue why you believe what you believe or you can fall outside orthodoxy and have an intellectually-rigorous reason for being there. Good catechesis is both orthodox and intellectually rigorous.

C) whether or not what one believes is allowed to transform one’s life. A person who is poorly catechized with regards to intellectual rigor but who believes what the Church teaches and makes every effort to turn his or her entire life over to Christ is on better ground than someone who is intellectually unassailable, but doesn’t live it. For a baptized Catholic, to be lapsed is to gravely fail to live the faith…which, as you point out, can happen whether or not you know what your faith teaches. Unfortunately, it is possible to be both intellectually orthodox and lapsed…although I wouldn’t argue with anyone who contends that true orthodoxy (correct belief) requires orthopraxy (correct practice).