Question for non-Catholics

[ltwin]

While I enjoyed the read, and find the history quite fascinating, your interpolation that the reason why the Church is called Catholic being a historical accident, is plain well - silly. By the same token, shouldn’t every other group to this day be called “heretics”, since according to you this was decreed by Imperial might and no other reason?

Well, today, people can call themselves whatever they want and the civil authorities don’t really care. However, it is those who are in power who write history and give their own names to groups. Those who were in power chose to label themselves as the Catholic Church and denied other Christians the right to that name.

Instead, dissenters were labeled heretics. Often, they were named for their heresiarchs. Thus, the Arians were named for Arius. Monantists were named for Montanism. And on and on it goes. Do you really think that Arians called themselves Arians? Or that Montanists called themselves Montanists? No. These labels were supplied by “Catholic” authors.

There are other groups who refer to themselves as Catholic, for example the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other groups who recognize historical Apostolic Christianity.

Yes, because all of these groups self-consciously maintain links to the undivided church of antiquity [the EO and the OO to the unified churches of the Eastern and Western Roman worlds; the Anglicans and Lutherans to the united medieval church of Western Europe].

But you are making my point for me. Christians have called themselves catholic for a long time. Even civil authorities have regulated its usage at certain times and in certain places. And early on, the Roman Empire weighed in and put it’s considerable power behind the Christian factions that they supported. Those factions received recognition as the “Catholic” church. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox weren’t separated from the Western Church at the time, so they were all simply “Catholic.” By the sixteenth century, the Anglicans and Lutherans considered themselves simply a reformation of the ancient Catholic Church in their respective countries.

Why do many self-proclaimed non-Catholic groups shun themselves from the title/claim?

Because “Catholic” has become, in the minds of many people, associated with the Roman Catholic Church. Which was exactly the purpose of such measures as the Edict of Thessaolonica–to fix in the minds of people a clear demarcation between heresy and Catholicity; between legitimate church and unlawful conventicle. Of course, non-Catholic Christians continue to insist that they are catholic as well. However, as a label, “Catholic” is associated with the Roman Catholic Church and, thus, it’s not really an option for other churches.

Why can’t all these be true and still be the Catholic Church as the Catholic Church claims?

It could be, or it could just another variety of Christianity that has sprung forth out of the Christian diaspora.

 

[joe371]

Itwin

Well, today, people can call themselves whatever they want and the civil authorities don’t really care. However, it is those who are in power who write history and give their own names to groups. Those who were in power chose to label themselves as the Catholic Church and denied other Christians the right to that name.

You say the Catholic Church denied other Christians the right to that name. OK. Examples?

Instead, dissenters were labeled heretics. Often, they were named for their heresiarchs. Thus, the Arians were named for Arius. Monantists were named for Montanism. And on and on it goes. Do you really think that Arians called themselves Arians? Or that Montanists called themselves Montanists? No. These labels were supplied by “Catholic” authors.

Agreed. Were they dissenters/heretics…or did they promulgate doctrinal truth?

 

[guanophore]

Itwin

You say the Catholic Church denied other Christians the right to that name. OK. Examples?

It was not the Church, ,but the civil authorities supporting the Church. The Church was no doubt pleased, ,however.

 

[ltwin]

Itwin

You say the Catholic Church denied other Christians the right to that name. OK. Examples?

I said the civil authorities, with the support of Catholic bishops, denied other Christians the right to use that name. For example, after his promulgation of the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 and his determination that henceforth only Trinitarians were entitled to be Catholic and Orthodox Christians and receive the support of the state, Theodosius I deposed a number of Arian bishops in the East. Arians were not a cult-like group meeting in someone’s basement. They were fairly influential and numerous within the church’s hierarchy in the East. Several emperors, such as Constantine the Great, were at least semi-Arian in belief. As the New Catholic Encyclopedia states:

Shortly after his baptism in 380, Theodosius, totally unsympathetic to ARIANISM, ordered all Christians to profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, i.e., the NICENE CREED. He deposed the Arian bishop Demophilus of Constantinople and installed GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS. In 381 he forbade heretics to meet within cities and ordered all church buildings returned to Catholics. He then sought ecclesiastical support for his position, summoning in 381 the Council of CONSTANTINOPLE I, which finally abolished Arian claims. The acts of the council were ratified by Theodosius, who also published a decree establishing the orthodox Christian faith. Subsequently, Theodosius summoned the leaders of various heretical groups to colloquies, hoping to convert them. When his efforts failed, he promulgated laws in 383 and 384 renewing and strengthening measures against heretics.

So, not only do we have removal of bishops–by civil authorities–but we have civil authorities confiscating church buildings from those no longer deemed orthodox Christians. And of course, St. Augustine wrote that “though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.” Of course, no heretic would claim his own church as catholic because it was increasingly dangerous to do so. This statement was only made 17 years after the Edict of Thessalonica.

Agreed. Were they dissenters/heretics…or did they promulgate doctrinal truth?

I don’t understand your question. Both the Arians and Montanists were condemned as heretics. As far as can be determined from the vantage point of modern scholarship, they both certainly possessed heretical beliefs. My point is that neither group considered themselves heretics and neither group self-consciously embraced a non-catholic identity.

The Montanists did not call themselves “Montantists.” This was a label supplied by critics and opponents to de-legitimize them as simply followers of a man, a self-proclaimed “New Prophet” named Montanus. Montanists themselves called their movement “The New Prophecy” because they were a prophetical renewal movement that began originally within the church but was eventually forced out. Tertullian, a follower of the New Prophecy, certainly continued to consider himself orthodox and catholic.

Likewise, the Arians did not call themselves after Arius. In fact, many Arians would not have considered themselves disciples of Arius because they did not agree with him about everything. The term “Arian” was a pejorative created by Nicene Christians to de-legitimize Arians as simply followers of a man.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Luther and his followers never claimed to be Lutherans, and although they had the support of their local government and princes, the name stuck. Is your example indicative that such civil authority is always the means or simply an example of one instance where the two converged?