Protestants/Orthodoxy/ and the One Church confusion. Who is Catholic?

[WillC]

Hi there everybody. I’ve been seeking truth heavily the last few years. And in the last two weeks I have hit a point of confusion.

The belief that is held by all those within the Catholic Church is that… well, it is the true Catholic Church! The bearer of all truth, apostolic succession and authority, Bride of Christ, etc.

I was going through what ‘orthodox’ protestants (conservative lutherans / anglo catholics) and what the Orthodox Churchs believe regarding the “one Catholic Church” in the creeds. And I’ve seen a large split on the meaning.

The Orthodox cousins are recognized as having proper apostolic succession and a proper Eucharist. So much so that we can freely attend each other’s services.

But I was reading an article on this site that quotes numerous Church Fathers on the use of the “Catholic” Church ( “Roman Catholic?” is the artlicle). It seems that the Orthodox Church is held in the same manner as the protestants. It is said that the schismatics don’t hold the term “Catholic” in their church name because they are outside of Her. They must call themselves anything other than “Catholic” because they are not part of Christ’s Church.

When comparing the orthodox and conservative protestants, I see two groups that believe in the Holy Trinity and Christ’s work on Calvary, but both rebuke the Catholic Church for their own reasons. Some reasons being of more importance than others, but still. Both disregard the Papacy. Both hold to Church traditions UNTIL they left (generally). Both don’t recognize anything canonized after their exodus (at least not officially).

Why does the Catholic Church recognize the Orthodox as being under the banner of Christ’s Church, but not conservative protestants? It’s kinda confusing. Why aren’t both considered outsiders that need to return? Or why aren’t the conservative protestants seen as more distant cousins, but of the family? (Other than Eucharistic reasons.)

 

[1ke]

So much so that we can freely attend each other’s services.

Depends on what you mean by this.

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox sacraments and does not prohibit a Catholic from receiving in the Orthodox Churches. But the Orthodox typically do not allow it.

And the Orthodox do not allow their members to commune in the Catholic Church nor “freely attend” Catholic Mass.

Orthodox Divine Liturgy does not fulfill the Sunday obligation for Catholics. I think “freely attend” is a bit overstated.

is said that the schismatics don’t hold the term “Catholic” in their church name because they are outside of Her. They must call themselves anything other than “Catholic” because they are not part of Christ’s Church.

That isn’t really true. The Catholic Church has no say in what they call themselves.

The Orthodox began calling themselves that to distinguish from the Church in the West, implying it was NOT orthodox.

The Catholic Church did not give the Orthodox their name, else it would certainly not have been “orthodox” that was chosen.

It seems that the Orthodox Church is held in the same manner as the protestants

This isn’t true. The Orthodox are true particular Churches and the Protestant denominations are not.

Why does the Catholic Church recognize the Orthodox as being under the banner of Christ’s Church, but not conservative protestants?

Again, the Orthodox are true Churches— they have apostolic succession and holy orders— while Protestant denominations are not. Protestant denominations do not have valid apostolic succession or holy orders. They are ecclesial communions.

Both hold to Church traditions UNTIL they left (generally).

This is categorically not true.

Why aren’t both considered outsiders that need to return?

The Orthodox are outside communion with the Pope. They are in need of “return”. Some have, hence Eastern Catholic Churches (with the exception of a few Eastern Catholic Churches who were always in communion with Rome).

Not sure where you got the impression they differ from Protestants in that regard.

See the Church document Ut Unum Sint.

Or why aren’t the conservative protestants seen as more distant cousins, but of the family?

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[WillC]

Ok. Sorry, my post is a little all over the place. There are a lot of questions because I’ve had numerous priests explain the Catholic Church’s relationship with other churches differently.

How can the Orthodox be true Churches if they are not in Communion with the papacy? And thereby not in communion with Rome?

What do you mean its categorically not true that each sect follows traditions until they left?

And… how do you answer individual sections of a post like you did? Sorry, new user.

 

[1ke]

How can the Orthodox be true Churches if they are not in Communion with the papacy?

They are true Churches because they have apostolic succession (i.e. Bishops) and valid holy orders.

That’s what a Church is.

And thereby not in communion with Rome?

Bishops who break communion with Rome are still bishops. That was true in the first century and true today. it didn’t take long for the first schisms to happen, nor the first heresies. Some of which resulted in temporary breaks of communion while others resulted in permanent breaks.

Some resulted in loss of apostolic succession, others didn’t. The Protestant heresies denied the sacraments and broke apostolic succession.

The book Dissent From The Creed might be helpful to you.

What do you mean its categorically not true that each sect follows traditions until they left?

Protestant denominations do not preserve the Catholic teachings up until the break with Rome. They deny major portions of Catholic teaching.

And… how do you answer individual sections of a post like you did? Sorry, new user.

Use the Quote feature.

You can highlight text in the original post you want to quote and click the “quote” button that appears.

 

[WillC]

Ugh… I just dont understand how half the Church can break away for a thousand years, not believe any counsel after the 11th century as being valid, deny the Papacy, ask Catholic converts to rebuke Catholic ‘heresies’ and still be recognized as being a part of the Catholic Faith. But the few ‘orthodox’ protestants (if you could really call any protestants orthodox. I dont have a better word.) who I can agree with more in certain areas are not true churches.

I feel that both are outside Christ’s Church. And the true validity of the Church can’t exist in two different forms. But that God’s mercy can and does extend to them who believe in the Trinity and Atonement. Just because the Orthodox dont hold as many heresies doesn’t mean they are not still outside of the Catholic Church.

I need more understanding and study. There is so much out there. Forgive my ignorance and thank you for your responses.

 

[CourtingTex]

As a former Catholic who left decades ago, for me Jesus Christ created one church and one church, the Church of Jesus Christ, this is clear in the New Testament. At that time as I was seeking to be part of the church organized by Jesus Christ ---- did it exist or not? At that time, I had doctrinal issues about Catholicism.

 

[adf417]

Hi courtingTex

I just dont understand why all former Catholics who left for this same reason cant come up with a reasonable response to the question - so, why are you not all of the same faith after leaving Catholicism?

Peace!!!

 

[MarkRome]

I feel that both are outside Christ’s Church. And the true validity of the Church can’t exist in two different forms.

Because Christ is present in His Church through the Sacraments, primarily the Eucharist. The Orthodox have valid sacraments therefore are included as a Church. Remember, only those with valid Holy Orders are considered Churches. Protestant groups, including Lutherans, are considered ecclesial communities, not Churches.

Just because the Orthodox dont hold as many heresies doesn’t mean they are not still outside of the Catholic Church.

They are outside the Catholic Church but they still are Churches (see above).

 

[WillC]

They are outside the Catholic Church but they still are Churches (see above)

I understand that.

I see it as this.
The Catholic Church is the true Church. Any outside are not part of the True Church in a physical sense.

Orthodox are outside the Catholic Church. They have apostolic authority, but it is ‘cracked’ since theyre bishops are not necessarily recognized by the Papacy. They have a valid Eucharist. So they have Christ in a physical AND spiritual sense.

Trinitarian Protestants, especially ones that don’t deny a real presence, are outside the Catholic Church, but have Christ in a spiritual way by faith. They don’t have authority or Christ in a Physical way. “Where two or three are gathered in My Name…”

Both are outside Christ’s physical Church. Both broke away. Some went farther away than others. But being 2 inches out the door and 2 miles out the door is still outside the Church.

Does that make sense? I guess I just do t understand why Catholics seem okay with the Orthodox people being outside, but not ok with the Protestants outside. Saying that one is saved and the other will have a harder time. (From what I have been told)

But Both need to come inside! To come home!

 

[MarkRome]

But Both need to come inside! To come home!

Agreed! The Church seeks unity with both Orthodox and Protestant. Lots of strides have been made over the years.

I guess I just do t understand why Catholics seem okay with the Orthodox people being outside, but not ok with the Protestants outside. Saying that one is saved and the other will have a harder time. (From what I have been told)

I would put it this way. Through Baptism ALL have been saved, are in the process of being saved, and have a hope of future salvation. The Sacraments are aids on the journey and without them, yes, it is a harder road.

 

[WillC]

I would put it this way. Through Baptism ALL have been saved, are in the process of being saved, and have a hope of future salvation. The Sacraments are aids on the journey and without them, yes, it is a harder road.

Hmm… see, that is a simple and yet eloquently put explanation. Thank you for that

 

[1ke]

I guess I just do t understand why Catholics seem okay with the Orthodox people being outside, but not ok with the Protestants outside.

No. The Church doesn’t teach this. Where did you get the idea the Church is “ok” with either?

Again: read Ut Unum Sint. Read the documents of Vatican II on ecumenism.

Saying that one is saved and the other will have a harder time.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach what you’ve written here.

It doesn’t teach anyone is “saved” much less saved corporately.

That’s Protestant terminology and thinking.

 

[WillC]

Ut Unum Sint.

Gotcha.

It doesn’t teach anyone is “saved” much less saved corporately.

Yes it is protestant terminology. It was more to simplify the statement.

 

[Genesis315]

Why does the Catholic Church recognize the Orthodox as being under the banner of Christ’s Church, but not conservative protestants?

Neither are. The Catholic Church teaches at Vatican II in Lumen Gentium that the Church of Christ on earth is “an entity with visible delineation” and the marks that visibly delineate it are “profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.” The Council’s decree on the Eastern Churches sums it up briefly: “The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government”.

Valid sacraments are not enough–being jointed in hierarchical communion (which includes the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, according to Catholic doctrine) is also necessary for the Church to be the Church.

Granted, we do acknowledge that “many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.” In the case of the EOs we can go so far as to say they have particular Churches (ie valid bishops and the people attached to them celebrating a common Eucharist). But, they cannot be said to be part of the one universal (“catholic”) Church as professed in the Creed–that one Church of Christ, cannot be said to subsist in them.

Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium used the Latin phrase “subsistit in” to emphasize that permanent and unique identity of the Catholic Church alone as the one Church of Christ. Some tried to interpret this phrase as admitting a branch theory, with said “subsistence” being broader than the Catholic Church and including, say, the EOs or others. As a result, Rome has had to correct this wrong idea.

Dominus Iesus

The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium.

CDF Resp. to Certain Questions Re. Doctrine on the Church

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.
…
Nevertheless, the word “subsists” can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe… in the “one” Church).

CDF Comm. re same

In fact, precisely because the Church willed by Christ actually continues to exist (subsistit in) in the Catholic Church, this continuity of subsistence implies an essential identity between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church…In choosing the word “subsistit” the Council intended to express the singularity and non “multipliability” of the Church of Christ.

Contrary to many unfounded interpretations, therefore, the change from “est” to “subsistit” does not signify that the Catholic Church has ceased to regard herself as the one true Church of Christ.