Universal Church in union w/Rome- The Catholic Church or The Roman Catholic Church?

[Marcarios]

Apparently Christ and the Virgin Mary and all the Saints in Heaven think otherwise…if the Orthodox Churches arent “catholic” then Christ didn’t get the message from the Pope…miracles abound, miracles of Ikons weeping myrhh, saints helping people reported in Greece , Russia, etc … so many miracles . how is this? You dont have all this in protestant churches? and of course the Cury De Ars and Bernedette of Lourdes? read St Vincent of Lerins ,

he says the marks of catholicity are rooted in the following of holy tradition and what has been handed down through antiquity.

If that is the case why is it that Fr Modernist moves the tabernacle so no one can see it , obviously, demonic and heretical?? what about sister Mary of the Immaculate Contraception not wearing her habit because its outdated and she is liberated femminist obviously, disobedience and pride ???

Practices and Usuage define the Catholicity of whats handed down . a Church ceases being catholic when it stops acting catholic ok… The Last time I went to a Catholic Mass I kept looking at Christ in the Eucharist ignoring the obvious abnormalities around the celebration of the Eucharist ,

like the Priest who improvs during the prayers being said adding his own words , communion in the hand etc in many ways it appeared like an Episcopalian or Lutheran service not a Catholic one…Of course one has to ask one self would St Vincent of Lerins call this “Catholic” or better yet Christ?

Point of Fact this follows for a Church that says its Orthodox it would cease being so if it did the same thing. period

 

[Marybeloved]

Apparently Christ and the Virgin Mary and all the Saints in Heaven think otherwise…if the Orthodox Churches arent “catholic” then Christ didn’t get the message from the Pope…miracles abound, miracles of Ikons weeping myrhh, saints helping people reported in Greece , Russia, etc … so many miracles . how is this? You dont have all this in protestant churches? and of course the Cury De Ars and Bernedette of Lourdes? read St Vincent of Lerins ,

he says the marks of catholicity are rooted in the following of holy tradition and what has been handed down through antiquity.

If that is the case why is it that Fr Modernist moves the tabernacle so no one can see it , obviously, demonic and heretical?? what about sister Mary of the Immaculate Contraception not wearing her habit because its outdated and she is liberated femminist obviously, disobedience and pride ???

Practices and Usuage define the Catholicity of whats handed down . a Church ceases being catholic when it stops acting catholic ok… The Last time I went to a Catholic Mass I kept looking at Christ in the Eucharist ignoring the obvious abnormalities around the celebration of the Eucharist ,

like the Priest who improvs during the prayers being said adding his own words , communion in the hand etc in many ways it appeared like an Episcopalian or Lutheran service not a Catholic one…Of course one has to ask one self would St Vincent of Lerins call this “Catholic” or better yet Christ?

Point of Fact this follows for a Church that says its Orthodox it would cease being so if it did the same thing. period

Macarios, I really don’t understand your complaints here- Are you saying that a Catholic calling her Church “The Catholic Church” amounts to an affront to the Orthodox even when the Orthodox make the same claim about their own Church? Please explain so that I can understand your view better.

 

[Diakonia]

If what you say is true, that Eastern Catholics are not regarded as separate entities, then why not refer to the Eastern catholics as Orthodox in communion with the Roman Church, or even simply Eastern Christians in communion with Rome, rather than as you put it, Roman Catholics using Eastern liturgies?

What I said is that some among our Orthodox brethren do not regard Eastern Catholic Churches as separate entities. The terminology Orthodox in Communion with Rome is terminology that presupposes Eastern Catholics satisfy (in more than shared praxis) the definition of 'O’rthodox as it is used in the common parlance - as a descriptor of the Orthodox Church. In fact, we do not do so, as least not as official entities and not in all regards, though individual Eastern Catholics may, in fact, do so in many respects (a situation which inevitably leads to the question, ‘how can you, if you remain in the Catholic Communion?’ - an unanswerable challenge.)

And while Ewtn and the Catholic Encyclopedia are not authoritative Church documents, they are accurate dispensers of knowledge about the Catholic Church and faith- Certainly, they are at least more authoritative than your own opinion here .

EWTN and the Catholic Encyclopedia, representing opinions - which is what they do, are perhaps as authoritative but no more authoritative than the opinion of anyone else knowledgeable on the topics.

The CE of 1917 (or any of the immediate predecessors thereof) is valuable as a document presenting the thoughts, understandings, etc of its time. It can also be relied upon, in many instances, for factual definitions - I rather doubt that one could successfully challenge it on the definition of an aspersorium (and I offer that as illustrative of a point, not to be facetious). In matters pertaining to East and West it reflects the principles of Latin triumphalism as were rampant in the time and even the learned observations of those such as Fortescue, students of such matters as Eastern liturgics, have definite limitations once they extend themselves beyond such matters and seek to delve into a full understanding of Eastern theology, spirituality, doctrinal understanding and expression.

EWTN’s postings on matters Eastern are, if anything, more notoriously bereft of a full understanding of Eastern Christianity than the CE, since the organization effectively lacks even the small number of persons at all knowledgeable of the East that the CE could boast. (And, Father Mitch Pacwa doesn’t count into that equation as being one who balances that out. Father’s background, as a Latin priest with faculties in the Maronite Church, affords him a limited world-view of Eastern Christianity given that the Maronite Church is among the most, if not the most, latinized of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.) The closest that EWTN came to being able to point to fielding expertise on matters Eastern was the extremely brief period when Anthony Dragnani was the resident expert on the Eastern Q&A site.

And I could use w/out the condescending tone especially in the paragraph in bold above- This is a discussion board, we discuss matters of interest to do with our faith and our Church- If it bothers you, you do not have to read or comment on every thread. If you chose to participate in the discussions, then by all means- Welcome!

The comment was not directed at you specifically (or at all, actually) but at the myriad Latin posters who see fit to dissect the relationship of East to West and of Orthodoxy to Catholicism. Those of us - Eastern and Oriental Catholic and Orthodox - who live it and have lived it, often within our own family circles, are acutely aware of what the division between and among the Communions means. Even among ourselves - and on both sides of the Bosphorus and the Dniep - there are diverse opinions, ranging from moderate and conciliatory to hard-core. Frankly, none of us are going to change the situation as it now exists - and certainly not on a discussion forum.

As to a subsequent post in which it is demanded that the Orthodox not label we Eastern and Oriental Catholics as something we do not ourselves accept as a proper label for us - ‘Roman’ Catholics, you are insisting that they express their understanding of us in our terms. Reality is there is no honesty on their part in doing so if that is what they believe. I consider myself to be an Eastern Catholic, if my Orthodox brethren choose to consider me to a Roman Catholic, I don’t have to like it or to accept it - but, it doesn’t change my own self-perception, and I can find much more important things (spiritual and secular) to discuss, dialogue, and debate with them and, in a lifetime of being an Eastern Catholic and interacting with other ECs, OCs, EOs, and OOs, I’ve never been at a loss to do so.

Categorization, particularly in view of the espoused goal that what we now term the Eastern Catholic Churches be reabsorbed - disappear - into the bosom of our Mother Churches at the time that full union is effected between East and West, is perhaps the least of concerns.

 

[Marybeloved]

EWTN’s postings on matters Eastern are, if anything, more notoriously bereft of a full understanding of Eastern Christianity than the CE, since the organization effectively lacks even the small number of persons at all knowledgeable of the East that the CE could boast. (And, Father Mitch Pacwa doesn’t count into that equation as being one who balances that out. Father’s background, as a Latin priest with faculties in the Maronite Church, affords him a limited world-view of Eastern Christianity given that the Maronite Church is among the most, if not the most, latinized of the Eastern and Oriental Churches.) The closest that EWTN came to being able to point to fielding expertise on matters Eastern was the extremely brief period when Anthony Dragnani was the resident expert on the Eastern Q&A site.

Ewtn does not need to be experts in Eastern Christianity to know that the “Roman Catholic Church” is a false designation of the universal Christian Church in communion with Rome.

Frankly, none of us are going to change the situation as it now exists - and certainly not on a discussion forum.

There are many things that don’t change as a result of internet discussion boards, doesn’t mean we don’t discuss them.

As to a subsequent post in which it is demanded that the Orthodox not label we Eastern and Oriental Catholics as something we do not ourselves accept as a proper label for us - ‘Roman’ Catholics, you are insisting that they express their understanding of us in our terms. Reality is there is no honesty on their part in doing so if that is what they believe. I consider myself to be an Eastern Catholic, if my Orthodox brethren choose to consider me to a Roman Catholic, I don’t have to like it or to accept it - but, it doesn’t change my own self-perception, and I can find much more important things (spiritual and secular) to discuss, dialogue, and debate with them and, in a lifetime of being an Eastern Catholic and interacting with other ECs, OCs, EOs, and OOs, I’ve never been at a loss to do so.

Here again is that strange (and false) reasoning I spoke about earlier- Who asked the Orthodox to “express their understanding” through labels? And labels of others, at that? Are you saying that Orthodoxy is the unique faith in this world that lacks the ability to express and defend itself w/out planting labels on others? Is this an honest (or flattering) view of the Orthodox Christians or faith? You’re saying that Orthodox must label others (with rejected offensive names) to be honest!! This is the way of a bully, not Christians in inter-faith dialogues! What honesty are people talking about?- We are not forcing anyone to believe that we are the true Church of the Creed…just to call us by our name! (A name by which the whole world knows us).

Whatever they call Catholics amongst themselves, is their business- but when you’re in an inter-faith forum or engaged in inter-religious dialogue you cannot force people into the boxes you have created for them! You call them by the name they call themselves and by which they are known around the world- I don’t understand why this would be difficult to understand:shrug:. We call the Orthodox “Orthodox”- Are we thereby expressing an understanding that we ourselves are heterodox? Why should the Orthodox think that calling Catholics “Catholics” must mean that Orthodox are not the true Catholic Church?

 

[jmj1984]

It’s not true what you say though- The Roman Church is superior because Peter is superior- But Peter in not himself the entire Church, only Christ is!- Peter is her visible head on Earth, your inference contradicts what others understand about the Council documents and the Catholic faith in general. “Roman” identifies the seat of Peter, the foundation chosen by Christ, and therefore a mark of the Church he (Christ) built, it does not follow that the universal Church is anything other than the Catholic Church- And “the Catholic Church” is what the Church calls herself.

I’m not following your argument, the church has repeatedly called herself Roman Catholic, why is this unless the Church is in fact Roman Catholic?

 

[Marybeloved]

I’m not following your argument, the church has repeatedly called herself Roman Catholic, why is this unless the Church is in fact Roman Catholic?

Where has the Church called herself Roman Catholic when referring to the whole universal Church? The docs you cited simply describe marks of the Church- I don’t see the word The Roman Catholic Church. The ewtn aricle says that the Bishops at the Council deliberately sought to remove the name and to use The usual proper name “The Catholic Church” and as far as I can see the Vatican describes the Church as “The Catholic Church” in everything!

 

[dvdjs]

As to a subsequent post in which it is demanded that the Orthodox not label we Eastern and Oriental Catholics as something we do not ourselves accept as a proper label for us - ‘Roman’ Catholics, you are insisting that they express their understanding of us in our terms. Reality is there is no honesty on their part in doing so if that is what they believe. I consider myself to be an Eastern Catholic, if my Orthodox brethren choose to consider me to a Roman Catholic, I don’t have to like it or to accept it - but, it doesn’t change my own self-perception, and I can find much more important things (spiritual and secular) to discuss, dialogue, and debate with them and, in a lifetime of being an Eastern Catholic and interacting with other ECs, OCs, EOs, and OOs, I’ve never been at a loss to do so.

I am not interested in the “honest” belief of others about my church. I am interested in the truth. If what is honestly believed is in error, then correction should be accepted; then we can move on. If correction is stubbornly resisted, then there is really precious little to discuss or to dialog about. What is the point, if “honest belief” is considered an acceptable substitute for honest reality?

 

[jmj1984]

Where has the Church called herself Roman Catholic when referring to the whole universal Church? The docs you cited simply describe marks of the Church- I don’t see the word The Roman Catholic Church. The ewtn aricle says that the Bishops at the Council deliberately sought to remove the name and to use The usual proper name “The Catholic Church” and as far as I can see the Vatican describes the Church as “The Catholic Church” in everything!

In my first post I stated

Actually the term is far older than that, the Council of Florence used it back in the 15th Century throughout the Council documents’… They adopted an attitude of opposition and, prodigal of their good name and enemies to their own honour, they strove to their utmost with pestilential daring to rend the unity of the holy Roman and Catholic church and the seamless robe of Christ’, and with serpentlike bites to lacerate the womb of the pious and holy mother herself.’

The Council of Trent also uses the term throughout 'CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Catholic Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema. ’

The Tridentine profession of faith also states ‘Since that time the Roman Catholic Church has added two articles which enter into the profession, one on the sinlessness of the Virgin Mary, and one on the infallibility of the pope, in the following words:’

The First Vatican Council also uses the term in its profession of faith states ’ **I acknowledge the
holy,
catholic,
apostolic and
Roman
church, the mother and mistress of all the churches [1] .
Likewise
all other things which have been transmitted, defined and declared by the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way
whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise.

This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved, which I now freely profess and truly hold, is what I shall steadfastly maintain and confess, by the help of God, in all its completeness and purity until my dying breath, and I shall do my best to ensure [2] that all others do the same. This is what I, the same Pius, promise, vow and swear. So help me God and these holy gospels of God**. ’

 

[jmj1984]

Yes, but you merely established that the Roman Church is central and indispensable (obviously- being the seat of Peter the Rock) and higher than all the Churches- That the universal Church is the Roman Catholic Church and not the Catholic Church, is, however just your interpretation of the documents!

I cited the article (which is cited by CAF in answer to this question) because it itself is based on those authoritative Council documents and draws a very different conclusion from you, and one that agrees with the Catholic encyclopedia. So if they’re all saying that the Church calls herself The Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Church, forgive me if I follow their inference of the facts and not your own interpretation.

One cannot get an inference from the facts that contradicts the facts themselves. I.e one cannot infer that the facts say only The Catholic Church when the facts actually state The Roman Catholic Church

 

[Swiss_Guy]

someone should email the pope, and see what he has to say, and then post it here

 

[TrueLight]

someone should email the pope, and see what he has to say, and then post it here

Let me call my Vatican contact.

 

[PbloPicasso]

The Church has many names:

Church of Christ
Church of the first born
Assemblies of God
One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Catholic Church

The term “Roman” was a poor attempt at slurring those in Rome, where the papal authority rules. However, many have absorbed the name no matter what its intention.

The Orthodox Church is really part of the Church, but is in schism. They are Catholic too, just not in communion with the authority in Rome.

 

[catsb]

I would like to point out that—jmj1984—is not randomly stating an opinion but this teaching is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This only religion that professes, teaches and believes itself to be the true church. The church derived thru the apostolic succession of Peter for over 2000 years. The very 1st Christians. When I am on my deathbed and desire a priest I want a Catholic priest, not a Catholic priest who CLAIMS to be one.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I would like to point out that—jmj1984—is not randomly stating an opinion but this teaching is directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This only religion that professes, teaches and believes itself to be the true church. The church derived thru the apostolic succession of Peter for over 2000 years. The very 1st Christians. When I am on my deathbed and desire a priest I want a Catholic priest, not a Catholic priest who CLAIMS to be one.

I agree with what you’ve spoken. Our opinions are irrelivant. If you’re directing your comments towards me, I believe the same thing. However, I did some study and discussion with many Orthodox Christians as well as priests and monks. I was considering conversion at one time before I came fully home to the Catholic Church. The are Catholics, just as much as groups like SSPX, or more precisely Sedevantists and Old Catholics. Blurred of course, but it’s a way of describing their current position within the universal Church of Christ. The Church refers to herself as Catholic and Church of Christ. There is no “official name” however many times the terms are used. This is my understanding to date.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Let me call my Vatican contact.

I am SO stupid. I should’ve just asked my friend, who is a Swiss Guard, to ask the pope. :doh2:

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I am SO stupid. I should’ve just asked my friend, who is a Swiss Guard, to ask the pope. :doh2:

I am even dumber. I am a SWISS Guard.

jk

 

[TrueLight]

I am even dumber. I am a SWISS Guard.

jk

Ha ha.

 

[steve_b]

The Catholic Church should only be referred to as Roman when referring to the Latin Catholic Church. The other 22 Catholic churches, Eastern and Oriental, are not Roman. They are fully part of the Catholic Church.

The Orthodox churches also claim that they are the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. They are our sister churches and not to be denied this name.

Catholic Answers has addressed this latter point.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935402&postcount=25
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2935437&postcount=30

Re: The Roman/Latin rite, this makes up 98%+ of the Catholic Church worldwide. All the other rites while fully Catholic make up the remaining ~2%.

 

[steve_b]

Here we go again with* insisting something because its one’s own personal viewpoint* to assert a personally perceived supremacy of the Roman Church.

Mind you that hundreds of years ago, the Roman Church did think of herself as supreme and only Church and Rite of the true Church. Remember that there was a time that the Eastern Churches were seen more as transitional Churches for people coming in from Orthodoxy into Roman Catholicism. To assert such circumstance as true today is being in denial of the truths and facts we have today. And to throw away the hard work many Popes have done over the recent decades to properly define the true universality of the Church, which incorporates all different Rites, not just Roman.

Is the highlighted text your personal viewpoint?

 

[steve_b]

It does not mean they are not.

It does not make one a better Catholic by rejecting any recognition of other churches. The Catholic Church does recognise the Orthodox churches as churches. That is important both in ecclesiology and theology. They are also recognised as having valid Apostolic succesion and valid sacraments.

It’s not that they are being denied the term churches. It’s that they are seperated from Peter and the Catholic Church. i.e. they are not Catholic, nor are they the Catholic Church.