Roman Catholics, are they really Catholic?

[GregoryPalamas]

Inspired by brother David who asks if Eastern Catholics are really Catholic on the Eastern Catholic forum I thought I’d ask the obvious follow up question: Are Roman Catholics reallly Catholic? Why should Eastern Catholics be defensive? Let’s hear the reasons why Romans are really Catholics. Let’s not just assume it.

After all:

1. The Church began in the East.

2.All of the earliest councils and most of the earliest patriarchates are in the East.

1. Most of the early Theologians were from the East.
2. The Romans claim their authority based upon the papacy but we all know that there have been gaps in the the succession. We all know that Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome. A pope was even excommunicated by half of the Church.
3. Pope John Paul II asked the Roman Church to look to the “Light of the East”.

Why, indeed, should we consider the Roman Catholic Church to be really Catholic.

Herr Professor, Carson D. Lauffer, MA, MDiv, AB, All but Dissertation.

My tongue is only half way lodged in my cheek.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Inspired by brother David who asks if Eastern Catholics are really Catholic on the Eastern Catholic forum I thought I’d ask the obvious follow up question: Are Roman Catholics reallly Catholic? Why should Eastern Catholics be defensive? Let’s hear the reasons why Romans are really Catholics. Let’s not just assume it.

After all:

1. The Church began in the East.

2.All of the earliest councils and most of the earliest patriarchates are in the East.

1. Most of the early Theologians were from the East.
2. The Romans claim their authority based upon the papacy but we all know that there have been gaps in the the succession. We all know that Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome. A pope was even excommunicated by half of the Church.
3. Pope John Paul II asked the Roman Church to look to the “Light of the East”.

Why, indeed, should we consider the Roman Catholic Church to be really Catholic.

Herr Professor, Carson D. Lauffer, MA, MDiv, AB, All but Dissertation.

My tongue is only half way lodged in my cheek.

1. In Jerusalem; not in Greece
2. If all of the EC’s were in Egypt would you become a Copt?
3. There were Latin Fathers too you know- Cyprian, Tertullian, etc.
4. Whenever there was an issue with succession a Council cleared things up- like the Council of Constance for example.
5. JP II said a lot of things.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

1. In Jerusalem; not in Greece
2. If all of the EC’s were in Egypt would you become a Copt?
3. There were Latin Fathers too you know- Cyprian, Tertullian, etc.
4. Whenever there was an issue with succession a Council cleared things up- like the Council of Constance for example.
5. JP II said a lot of things.

1. Still, it’s East of Rome.
2. Perhaps. 3. Tertullian was not a Father. Besides many more came from the East. 4. Ah, then Councils supersede the Pope. That’s what the East has been saying for centuries.
3. 

 

[donmaximuso27]

Inspired by brother David who asks if Eastern Catholics are really Catholic on the Eastern Catholic forum I thought I’d ask the obvious follow up question: Are Roman Catholics reallly Catholic? Why should Eastern Catholics be defensive? Let’s hear the reasons why Romans are really Catholics. Let’s not just assume it.

After all:

1. The Church began in the East.

2.All of the earliest councils and most of the earliest patriarchates are in the East.

1. Most of the early Theologians were from the East.
2. The Romans claim their authority based upon the papacy but we all know that there have been gaps in the the succession. We all know that Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome. A pope was even excommunicated by half of the Church.
3. Pope John Paul II asked the Roman Church to look to the “Light of the East”.

Why, indeed, should we consider the Roman Catholic Church to be really Catholic.

Herr Professor, Carson D. Lauffer, MA, MDiv, AB, All but Dissertation.

My tongue is only half way lodged in my cheek.

As a response to #4, you sound more like an Orthodox Christian than a Catholic, unless I am misinterpeting what sounds like to be a denial of the succession of the Papacy. Honestly, these threads comparing Eastern Catholics vs. Western/Latin/Roman Catholics, whatever you want to call them, are ridiculous.

We need to remember what the Church teaches in the Catechism:

1200 From the first community of Jerusalem until the parousia, it is the same Paschal mystery that the Churches of God, faithful to the apostolic faith, celebrate in every place. The mystery celebrated in the liturgy is one, but the forms of its celebration are diverse.

1202 The diverse liturgical traditions have arisen by very reason of the Church’s mission. Churches of the same geographical and cultural area came to celebrate the mystery of Christ through particular expressions characterized by the culture: in the tradition of the "deposit of faith,"67 in liturgical symbolism, in the organization of fraternal communion, in the theological understanding of the mysteries, and in various forms of holiness. Through the liturgical life of a local church, Christ, the light and salvation of all peoples, is made manifest to the particular people and culture to which that Church is sent and in which she is rooted. The Church is catholic, capable of integrating into her unity, while purifying them, all the authentic riches of cultures.68

1203 The liturgical traditions or rites presently in use in the Church are the Latin (principally the Roman rite, but also the rites of certain local churches, such as the Ambrosian rite, or those of certain religious orders) and the Byzantine, Alexandrian or Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, Maronite and Chaldean rites. In "faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that Holy Mother Church holds all lawfully recognized rites to be of equal right and dignity, and that she wishes to preserve them in the future and to foster them in every way."69

I find it appalling that Catholics are attempting to discuss which Catholic Church is better, or more superior. Whether you are speaking in liturgical, historical, theological, musical, or any other form, it simply is wrong. We have different liturgies because we are the Catholic (universal) Church. No liturgy is superior then another, it is that simple. No Catholic of the Roman Rite needs to defend why they are Catholic, nor does any Catholic of any other rite. We are in valid, full communion with the Holy See, we all use valid liturgies. It is time to recognize and celebrate our unity in such a diverse world of culture, rather then trying to better another’s liturgical rite.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Honestly, these threads comparing Eastern Catholics vs. Western/Latin/Roman Catholics, whatever you want to call them, are ridiculous.

I think that’s why I posted it.

CDL

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

After all:

1. The Church began in the East.

2.All of the earliest councils and most of the earliest patriarchates are in the East.

1. Most of the early Theologians were from the East.
2. The Romans claim their authority based upon the papacy but we all know that there have been gaps in the the succession. We all know that Peter was in Antioch before he was in Rome. A pope was even excommunicated by half of the Church.
3. Pope John Paul II asked the Roman Church to look to the “Light of the East”.
   …
   My tongue is only half way lodged in my cheek.

You want banter? Let’s do it.

1. It may have started East of Rome, but Peter was still in charge from the beginning.
2. As for councils, they were fittingly held in the East because that’s where most of the early heresies originated. You’ve got to strike at the roots. As for the early patriarchies, they were of course Petrine. Until, that is, those nasty Erastian Constantinopolitans got power hungry and and decided sees should be important based on the emperor, not the Apostles. (Oh yeah, that one should sting).
3. But the West turned out the better ones in the long term.
4. “We all know” that most Eastern sees have been occupied by heretics, some rather often. We also all know that the Supreme See is judged by no one, so it’s impossible for half the Church - or the whole Church, for that matter - to excommunicate the pope.
5. Rather kind of him, wasn’t it?

 

[Nicholas82]

You want banter? Let’s do it.

1. It may have started East of Rome, but Peter was still in charge from the beginning.
2. As for councils, they were fittingly held in the East because that’s where most of the early heresies originated. You’ve got to strike at the roots. As for the early patriarchies, they were of course Petrine. Until, that is, those nasty Erastian Constantinopolitans got power hungry and and decided sees should be important based on the emperor, not the Apostles. (Oh yeah, that one should sting).
3. But the West turned out the better ones in the long term.
4. “We all know” that most Eastern sees have been occupied by heretics, some rather often. We also all know that the Supreme See is judged by no one, so it’s impossible for half the Church - or the whole Church, for that matter - to excommunicate the pope.
5. Rather kind of him, wasn’t it?

You want banter? Let’s do it.

1.) It started East of Rome, and St Peter served a role different from the modern papacy, not in charge as you understand it, but “first among equals”.

1. As for the councils, they were fittingly held in the East, because they were called by the Roman Emperor, and that was where the Capital of the Roman Empire was…Constantinople! (oh yeah, that one should sting- because it actually is historically true! Constnatinople, the “new” Rome )

3.) Yes, better ones in the long run, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas, and um… who?

4.) We all know Pope Honorius was a heretic, and it is much easier for one see to seperate itself from the Orthodox Catholic Church because of its pride than it is for the majority of the Church to become schismatic for its defense of the True and Orthodox faith. Isn’t there a pope in Alexandria too? It’s quite possible for the pope to become a heretic(he has historically) and to be excommunicated by the Church.

5.) Rather intelligent of him, considering the liturgical, moral and social decline of the area he could possibly be called Patriarch of- the West.

The Anglicans don’t care that the Pope considers their sacraments invalid, well, maybe you sort of understand how that feels!

Anglicanism is to Roman Catholicism as Roman Catholicism is to Orthodoxy. Not exactly, of course, but similarly enough.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

You want banter? Let’s do it.

1.) It started East of Rome, and St Peter served a role different from the modern papacy, not in charge as you understand it, but “first among equals”.

1. As for the councils, they were fittingly held in the East, because they were called by the Roman Emperor, and that was where the Capital of the Roman Empire was…Constantinople! (oh yeah, that one should sting- because it actually is historically true! Constnatinople, the “new” Rome )

3.) Yes, better ones in the long run, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas, and um… who?

4.) We all know Pope Honorius was a heretic, and it is much easier for one see to seperate itself from the Orthodox Catholic Church because of its pride than it is for the majority of the Church to become schismatic for its defense of the True and Orthodox faith. Isn’t there a pope in Alexandria too? It’s quite possible for the pope to become a heretic(he has historically) and to be excommunicated by the Church.

5.) Rather intelligent of him, considering the liturgical, moral and social decline of the area he could possibly be called Patriarch of- the West.

The Anglicans don’t care that the Pope considers their sacraments invalid, well, maybe you sort of understand how that feels!

Anglicanism is to Roman Catholicism as Roman Catholicism is to Orthodoxy. Not exactly, of course, but similarly enough.

As the Holy Spirit binds the Trinity into One so does the Holy Spirit bind His Church together into one. I see no valid reason why Orthodox Catholicism and Roman Catholicism continue to fuss at each other let alone why Eastern Catholicism and Roman Catholicism should fuss at each other. Ego gratification will not get us to heaven.

CDL

BTW I think I understand the intent of your post. It is good.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Inspired by brother David who asks if Eastern Catholics are really Catholic on the Eastern Catholic forum I thought I’d ask the obvious follow up question: Are Roman Catholics reallly Catholic? Why should Eastern Catholics be defensive? Let’s hear the reasons why Romans are really Catholics. Let’s not just assume it.

Just to provide a little defense for myself here. If you go to the thread I started and read my post at the opening of it you will see that I am not asking the question as has been stated here.

Seems some people just go around reading thread subject titles and then reacting to that rather than reading the post after it.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Just to provide a little defense for myself here. If you go to the thread I started and read my post at the opening of it you will see that I am not asking the question as has been stated here.

Seems some people just go around reading thread subject titles and then reacting to that rather than reading the post after it.

Your accusation is untrue. Please, go in peace and if the Lord prompts you, tell us about your journey. You would be surprised at how many people are pulling for you and for each other. We all understand that God leads us in different ways. If the Romans are wrong or if the Easterns are wrong God will make it clear in his time. Let it go.

CDL

 

[puzzleannie]

this issue has been settled for centuries, appalling that it would even be brought up here, shows an abysmal lack of appreciation for Church history to even dignify the question, and the implied question about the status of Eastern Catholics. the tone of succeeding posts illustrates precisely why it is appalling to ask the question.

 

[kitkatty]

Although Gregory Palamas started this thread only half tongue in cheek I think threads like these only serve to make for divisiveness among Catholics. Threads to compare differences to promote understanding and to celebrate the different expressions of Catholicism with all of the Churchs beautiful cultures and traditions are what are needed; honest questions where someone doesnt understand the reason why one traditon practices/approaches a belief a little differently are necessary, not this stuff. Anyone (excluding individuals who have issues with any Church teaching) who is in communion with the Pope is Catholic, plain and simple…

 

[GregoryPalamas]

this issue has been settled for centuries, appalling that it would even be brought up here, shows an abysmal lack of appreciation for Church history to even dignify the question, and the implied question about the status of Eastern Catholics. the tone of succeeding posts illustrates precisely why it is appalling to ask the question.

Both threads are appalling. Amen.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Although Gregory Palamas started this thread only half tongue in cheek I think threads like these only serve to make for divisiveness among Catholics. Threads to compare differences to promote understanding and to celebrate the different expressions of Catholicism with all of the Churchs beautiful cultures and traditions are what are needed; honest questions where someone doesnt understand the reason why one traditon practices/approaches a belief a little differently are necessary, not this stuff. Anyone (excluding individuals who have issues with any Church teaching) who is in communion with the Pope is Catholic, plain and simple…

Amen!!

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Anglicanism is to Roman Catholicism as Roman Catholicism is to Orthodoxy. Not exactly, of course, but similarly enough.

Says whom exactly?

What magisterial type of body or binding council has been held to have a definative rule on the matter?

The writings of the late Father J. Romanides have gained great currency with a number of enthusiasts here in the English speaking world, but who can move to say that his ideas of Western decline and graceless mysteries actually hold sway and are the beliefs to be held by Orthodox looking to rightly believe?

In the reception of Roman clergy into the EO, there has been at least three different canonical realities. (1) Some Byzantines, (like the Johnstown Greek Catholics, the liquidated Ukrainian Catholic Church, etc.) have been recieved into communion en masse perhaps with simple chrismation or an oath of allegiance to an Orthodox patriarch.

(2) SOME roman clergy who married post ordination were NOT recieved as priests or re-ordained because it was the perception of the hierach that the petitioned that there Roman orders were valid, and that it would be uncanonical for them to serve as Orthodox priests, having entered marriage after ordination. (3) Others have roundly ignored this idea and accepted and incardinated ex-non-Orthodox clergy who contracted marriage after ordination, recognizing the ordination as valid but not recognizing the post-ordination marriage as an impediment…

(4) Some have been re-ordained (or in the eyes of some EO, ordained for the first time!) in the same mannner certain ex-Anglicans who have come to Rome have been. While it seems to be a minority opinion among what we recognize as mainstream EO (in the US) today, some pozit that the original Roman ordination was graceless. I believe this would be the likely view of the majority of “Old Calendar” Orthodox - some of whom are in communion with SOME national churches, some of whom are not.

So as tidy as some enthusiast like to imagine the question and answer being in Orthodoxy, that is simply NOT the case in reality. If you want to say “Anglicanism is to Roman Catholicism as Roman Catholicism is to Orthodoxy.” I would like to see what your definitive sources are - aside from your personal asessments and private preferences for certain more radical polemicists.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I believe and the Church teaches that Anglicanism has fallen off the deep end of ecclesiastical life. Eastern Catholics do not believe that the Orthodox have and many Orthodox return the favor but have not acted upon it yet. We join Jesus in His prayer that we all “become one even as He and the Father are one.”

CDL

 

[PetersKeys]

Most organizations which call themselves Orthodox Catholic Churches have obtained what they consider to be valid orders from one or more groups in each of the Eastern and Western Churches, but retain few if any formal links with those original sources - Wiki

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Most organizations which call themselves Orthodox Catholic Churches have obtained what they consider to be valid orders from one or more groups in each of the Eastern and Western Churches, but retain few if any formal links with those original sources - Wiki

Just to note, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. Its information is user driven/defined so there can be many biases as well as misinformation.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Most organizations which call themselves Orthodox Catholic Churches have obtained what they consider to be valid orders from one or more groups in each of the Eastern and Western Churches, but retain few if any formal links with those original sources - Wiki

Students at the colleges where I teach cannot use wiki as a source.

CDL

 

[donmaximuso27]

Just to note, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. Its information is user driven/defined so there can be many biases as well as misinformation.

It’s really a case-by-case situation. I would never use Wikipedia as a source for a paper. However, if proper footnotes are provided, and those footnotes lead to valid sources, I see no reason why it cannot be used for an online forum. Nevertheless, each article must be carefully examined for proper citation and valid sources.