Question for Catholic converts

  • Thread starter Thread starter Coeurpieux
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do you guys call yourselves Christians or Catholics??
I believe Pope Francis said we should work towards reunion with the Orthodox, not bash them and their (totally valid and Christian) Eastern Rite church.
 
Yes, there are references to Christians calling the Church Catholic very early on. Particularly in the Nicene Creed which was professed in the year 325, about 700 years before the schism.

Earliest reference is St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the year 107

en.wikipedia.org

Catholic (term) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Coeurpieux said:
The way i see it, you are being schismatic yourself, if you believe Christianity had been Catholic since the beginning…
Click to expand...
@AugustTherese @Coeurpieux
I think you both are vastly oversimplifying the situation.

You are both hung up on a word “catholic” which meant something different before the schism than it did afterward.

Mt 16:18. … You are Peter Upon this rock I build my church. Jesus establishes his Church.
Mt 28: 19. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations… Christ’s Church will be made up of many nations.

So, after 33 AD we have one Church made up of many national churches with their own distinctive traditions. They were all held together by apostolic succession and a recognition of Rome as preeminent… until they were not.

Those who disagreed (for a variety of reasons) with Rome denied the preeminence of Rome. Both sides excommunicated each other and the Eastern churches continued their apostolic churches (small “c”) and national traditions without communion with Rome.

It is a matter of history that Rome did not and could not leave itself. Indeed, several other national churches (small “c”) and traditions remained with Rome as the Church (big “c”) was originally organized. Thus, those who did not remain in communion with Rome can be said to have “left” or broken away from the one Church (big “c”) instituted by Christ because this Church never ceased to exist.

Those in the East see things differently. Over the centuries, they came to question whether or not it was correct that Christ made Peter the head. However, it is worth pointing out that they did not really begin to question the primacy of Rome until after the fall of the Roman Empire. It’s a matter of history that the Eastern portion of the former Roman Empire remained wealthy and prosperous and eventually became the Byzantine Empire whilst the Western portion of the Former Roman Empire descended into chaos as various groups vied for control over disparate territory.

But, again, it should be noted that the Roman Church and those other churches in communion with it never ceased to exist or function as Christ’s Church.

So, despite a millennia of differences, disagreements, and hurt feelings, we should remain hopeful that the Eastern Churches will return to communion with Rome.
 
The dictionary meaning of "Catholic " is universal. I dont think the early Christians called themselves “Catholic” in the sense of being separate from the Orthodox.
That would have been schismatic
 
Coeurpieux said:
early Christians called themselves “Catholic” in the sense of being separate from the Orthodox.
Click to expand...
Of course they didn’t, there was no schismatic eastern orthodox church to delineate themselves from yet.
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
You are both hung up on a word “catholic” which meant something different before the schism than it did afterward
Click to expand...
Except, the word ‘Catholic’ has meant the exact same thing it did when Christ founded His Church 2,000 years ago as it does today.
 
Yes, but it was not used the same way. Usage means something. Some linguists would argue that usage means everything.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Yes, but it was not used the same way. Usage means something. Some linguists would argue that usage means everything.
Click to expand...
I, nor the Catholic Church, can help the fact that schismatics and heretics want to call themselves Catholic. That is not meant to be uncharitable; that is meant to provoke a call to repentance to come home to the One Church Christ founded.
 
Thank you for taking the time to frame this response. I agree wholeheartedly that the Orthodox Church ( capital C, as every church that is ancient and beautiful deserves that small courtesy) is wrong to deny the primacy of Rome and the Roman Pope, even though the faith they profess is the faith of Christ and the Apostles which Catholics hold as well.
However, the issue we are discussing here is not whether or not Orthodoxy is valid, but where or not it can be traced back to Christ, which it doubtlessly can.
I believe that I have ruffled some feathers during this discussion. Please let it be understood that i mean no harm and only view this whole discussion as a debate, not as an attack on anyone else and certainly not on the Catholic Church, the church i have chosen for myself and hope to join soon.
Incidentally, have you ever considered that in the East, where the Eastern Rites were prevalent, it would have only been natural for people to see Rome and the Western Rites as being the ones in schism, as the rites in use in churches in the Eastern Roman Empire were Eastern ones.
 
Did you just choose a small part of my post and respond accordingly?
 
If we really want to be honest about it, from a historical perspective the names ‘Catholic’ and ‘Orthodox’ were weaponized.

The western Church called itself Catholic to highlight that they were the universal church and the Eastern Churches called themselves Orthodox to highlight that Rome has made too many innovations and had lost its way (in other words, the West was not orthodox in its practice).
 
Yes, that is correct. “Orthodox” is Greek and means correct belief
 
Coeurpieux said:
Incidentally, have you ever considered that in the East, where the Eastern Rites were prevalent, it would have only been natural for people to see Rome and the Western Rites as being the ones in schism, as the rites in use in churches in the Eastern Roman Empire were Eastern ones.
Click to expand...
To a certain extent I can see how they would have thought it was odd. Nevertheless, Christ set up his church so that Peter was the head. Peter’s church was in Rome.

I think that suspicion could have been handled by pastoral correction. The problem is that the Eastern church leaders became increasingly more hostile toward the primacy of Rome. If the leaders are hostile, it’s hard to imagine that the faithful would not be as well.
 
I chose the part relevant to the discussion.

Early Christians considered themselves Catholic i.e. part of the universal Church.

About a thousand years later some schismatic bishops decided to rebel against the authority of Rome. That is when there became a need to delineate Christians in communion with Rome and those that weren’t.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
I chose the part relevant to the discussion.

Early Christians considered themselves Catholic i.e. part of the universal Church.

About a thousand years later some schismatic bishops decided to rebel against the authority of Rome. That is when there became a need to delineate Christians in communion with Rome and those that weren’t.
Click to expand...
This is an oversimplified explanation of the schism. Such oversimplification only serves to foster division. Eastern churches began to question papal primacy 600-700 years before the schism.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Eastern churches began to question papal primacy 600-700 years before the schism.
Click to expand...
Of course its simplified, I’m not writing a thesis paper here.

They’re still wrong no matter how soon they started questioning it.
 
Once again,I am not saying that the Orthodox are not in schism with Rome. And i do believe that Christ made St. Peter head of the Church.
But this way of handling the situation?
You are demeaning the Eastern churches, that for hundreds of years had been communion with Rome. The Great Schism didnt make their rites invalid. And you are saying that Catholicism existed before Orthodoxy. That is absurd and illogical . And you are calling the Orthodox heretical, which is against Catholic teaching.
 
Yes, they were wrong, however, you have to acknowledge that by the time of the schism it was not just a few schismatic bishops who rejected papal primacy; it was also the Eastern clergy and the Eastern faithful.
 
You seem to be a fanatic. I am done discussing this with you. If you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only valid expression of Christianity, then you are not only contributing to the Schism but you are also alienating the Eastern Catholic churches.
I know a couple of Melkite Catholics who would explode with rage if they read what you have said about Orthodoxy
 
Coeurpieux said:
If you believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the only valid expression of Christianity
Click to expand...
The Roman Rite within the Catholic Church is not the only valid expression of Christianity. Any valid rite in communion with Rome is valid, of which the Melkites and other Eastern Catholics are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top