R
Reuben_J
Guest
They are one and the same.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
o_mlly
Guest
If by “they” you refer to the schismatic churches then they certainly identify themselves as “Catholic” with a capital “C.”They are not talking about Catholics there.
mgrfoundation.info/orthocorner.html
“THE EASTERN ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH CORNER.”
orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/east_orth.aspx
To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition.
And the Roman rite recognizes that the where the Eucharist is present so also is the Catholic Church.
CCC#830 “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”
B
Bookcat
Guest
The Orthodox Churches etc might use that word but they are not currently in full communion with the Catholic Church.they certainly identify themselves as “Catholic” with a capital “C.”
"
We are very close to them and they to us -but they are not per se in full communion with the Catholic Catholic. They are Eastern Orthodox etc etc
O
o_mlly
Guest
Full communion is not the point contested. The absence of full communion does not deny the Orthodox their Catholic identity.The Orthodox Churches etc may use that word but they are not currently in full communion with the Catholic Church.
We are very close to them and they to us -but they are not per se in full communion wiht the Catholic Catholic.
The point is: The Eucharist cannot be confected outside the Catholic Church. And I repeat: Only the Catholic Church has the Eucharist.
B
Bookcat
Guest
In centuries past - one can even find heretics who have broke with the Church and embraced heresy and yet still had valid Eucharist and Baptism et al. And so according to the thought there - they too were Catholics? I think that will help clear some misunderstandings there up.Full communion is not the point contested. The absence of full communion does not deny the Orthodox their Catholic identity.
The point is: The Eucharist cannot be confected outside the Catholic Church. And I repeat: Only the Catholic Church has the Eucharist.
The Eastern Orthodox and some other Churches yes have the Eucharist - they are not though in full communion with the Catholic Church. There is a real and certain communion with the Church but they full communion is needed for them to have that full Catholic Identity.
They are very very close to - a profound closeness - a certain though imperfect communion does exist between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church- but at this time not full communion. That is something to work and pray for.
To be fully incorporated in the Catholic Church more is needed than the Eucharist.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The heretical priest remains a Catholic priest. So, yes, “they too were Catholics.”In centuries past - one can even find heretics who have broke with the Church and embraced heresy and yet still had valid Eucharist and Baptism et al. And so according to the thought there - they too were Catholics? I think that will help clear some misunderstandings there up. …
B
Bookcat
Guest
No are not Catholics in the full sense …and if he has been excommunicated - that is even more so…The heretical priest remains a Catholic priest. So, yes, “they too were Catholics.”
The person embracing a heresy in say AD 349- would not be called a Catholic - but an Arian or something of the like …he would have been called instead a heretic
To say a Heretic is a Catholic …for example to say an Arian is a Catholic…to say a Montanist is a Catholic …
is simply incorrect.
They are an Arian, or a Montanist etc.
Your mixing up concepts.
What I noted is simply the case.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Afraid not, friend. You appear to be confusing validity and liceity.No are not Catholics in the full sense …and if he has been excommunicated - that is even more so…
The person embracing a heresy in AD 451 is a* heretic*
Your mixing up concepts. What I noted above is simply the case.
A heretical Catholic priest is still a Catholic priest. If he intends to preside at Eucharist uses the correct matter and follows the proper forms to the Mass then his Mass remains valid.
Is Jesus Christ present in the Eucharist? Yes, body, blood, soul and divinity.
If Christ Jesus is there then is there the Catholic Church? Yes, CCC#830 “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”
So, Only Catholics have the Eucharist.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Arianism was started by a Catholic Priest - yes he remained a Priest -but he was no longer a Catholic (yes he was baptized a Catholic and Ordained a Catholic Priest -do not let that confuse things) - he was a heretic. An Arian - and so where those Priests who followed him…the same with other such heresies.A heretical Catholic priest is still a Catholic priest. If he intends to preside at Eucharist uses the correct matter and follows the proper forms to the Mass then his Mass remains valid.
.
Yes heretics were outside the Catholic Church via excommunication etc- and yet still had a valid Eucharist.
So then - all Protestants are actually Catholics when they gather to pray. For as Jesus said where 2 or more are gathered in his name he is there in their midst! So where they Pray he is there - and so there is the Catholic Church -hence they are in your thought - Catholics…“Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church.”
.
No.
Yes Jesus can be with them when the Pray - but just because he is there - does not make them the Catholic Church!
The Eucharist in an Eastern Orthodox Church -though valid and thus the Eucharist - does not make them all of a sudden Catholics!
B
Bookcat
Guest
Compendium of the Catechism -issued by Pope Benedict XVI
“Fully incorporated into the Catholic Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, are joined to the Church by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion. The baptized who do not enjoy full Catholic unity are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
Yes The Orthodox are in a real and profound - though imperfect- communion with the Catholic Church - but they are not in full communion.
To be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church one must not only have the Eucharist but also profess the same Faith etc and be in full communion with the Successor of Peter.
It would be incorrect to say that the Eastern Orthodox members - “are Catholics”.
Christians with us -yes - our close brothers yes -but not Catholics…
Though yes they are in an imperfect communion with us and share a great deal.
“Fully incorporated into the Catholic Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, are joined to the Church by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion. The baptized who do not enjoy full Catholic unity are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
Yes The Orthodox are in a real and profound - though imperfect- communion with the Catholic Church - but they are not in full communion.
To be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church one must not only have the Eucharist but also profess the same Faith etc and be in full communion with the Successor of Peter.
It would be incorrect to say that the Eastern Orthodox members - “are Catholics”.
Christians with us -yes - our close brothers yes -but not Catholics…
Though yes they are in an imperfect communion with us and share a great deal.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
This is no offense to y’all (and Bookcat, you happen to be right), but could y’all start a post with this somewhere else? I was just trying to respond to an erroneous claim.Compendium of the Catechism -issued by Pope Benedict XVI
“Fully incorporated into the Catholic Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, are joined to the Church by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government and communion. The baptized who do not enjoy full Catholic unity are in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”
Yes The Orthodox are in a real and profound - though imperfect- communion with the Catholic Church - but they are not in full communion.
To be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church one must not only have the Eucharist but also profess the same Faith etc and be in full communion with the Successor of Peter.
It would be incorrect to say that the Eastern Orthodox members - “are Catholics”.
Christians with us -yes - our close brothers yes -but not Catholics…
Though yes they are in an imperfect communion with us and share a great deal.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your correct that the further discussion is off topic. We can leave it there I would suggest (no need to belabor it here or elsewhere).This is no offense to y’all (and Bookcat, you happen to be right), but could y’all start a post with this somewhere else? I was just trying to respond to an erroneous claim.
My answer to the OP question - to take it back to the topic is post 13 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14272227&postcount=13
O
o_mlly
Guest
It is an inherent contradiction to claim one is a Catholic priest and that same one is not a Catholic. A validly ordained priest – whether faithful, heretical or schismatic – is a Catholic forever. Holy Orders leaves an indelible mark, “You are a priest forever.” The only reason a heretical or schismatic priest can preside at Eucharist is because he is and always will be a valid Catholic priest.Arianism was started by a Catholic Priest - yes he remained a Priest -but he was no longer a Catholic (yes he was baptized a Catholic and Ordained a Catholic Priest -do not let that confuse things) - he was a heretic. An Arian - and so where those Priests who followed him…the same with other such heresies.
Excommunication prevents one from receiving 6 of the 7 sacraments. However, excommunication does not remove the indelible mark of Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders. The excommunicated are encouraged as ongoing Catholics to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Further, the excommunicated remain Catholic in their identity and in their participation in Catholic worship. “The baptismal seal enables and commits Christians to serve God by a vital participation in the holy liturgy of the Church and to exercise their baptismal priesthood by the witness of holy lives and practical charity.”Yes heretics were outside the Catholic Church via excommunication etc- and yet still had a valid Eucharist.
Straw man alert. No one claims non-Catholics have the Eucharist. However, I think as the Church teaches that non-Catholic Christians are imperfectly “members” of the Catholic Church. So, yes Protestants are actually in a sense Catholics. ‘’”Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.”So then - all Protestants are actually Catholics when they gather to pray. For as Jesus said where 2 or more are gathered in his name he is there in their midst! So where they Pray he is there - and so there is the Catholic Church -hence they are in your thought - Catholics… No.
The validly ordained Orthodox priests do not all of sudden become Catholic – they never stop being Catholic. Only a validly ordained Catholic priest can confect the Eucharist – it is that simple.The Eucharist in an Eastern Orthodox Church -though valid and thus the Eucharist - does not make them all of a sudden Catholics!
B
Bookcat
Guest
What I noted is the case…please see the various document of the Catholic Church on the matter.
The Church uses the terms imperfect communion with the Catholic Church - not that they are “members”. We have all sorts of dialogues between the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches and Protestant ecclesial communities…we are not talking with our own members…
They yes are in a real but imperfect communion with us -with the Catholic Church - those not in full communion with the Catholic Church are not “Catholics” they are Eastern Orthodox Christians and Baptist Christians etc. Eastern Orthodox Priests are not Catholic Priests they are Eastern Orthodox Priests. Just as those who are Baptized validly in a Protestant community are not Catholics…but Protestants. Yes they are Christians - but they are not in full communion with the Catholic Church - even though there is only one baptism. Their baptism points back towards full communion but does not establish such per se. It does not make them Catholics. Nor does a valid Ordination outside the Catholic Church - make them Catholic Priests. They are Priests with valid Orders but not currently “Catholic Priest”.
Look we have been asked not to discuss this further. For it is off topic. And they are correct. So no more discussion.
A good day to you and yours!
It’s hard to answer; I guess it depends on the situation and the context in which the question is asked.
The difficulty lies in the fact that one is a subset of the other, so “first” is not an easy thing to identify (unlike, for example, Catholic and American, where one isn’t necessarily a subset of the other, so depending on which one is more important to you, you can say “I’m a Catholic before I’m an American” or vice versa). So if you’re Catholic, you are necessarily Christian. The reverse isn’t true. So it’s hard to say which comes “first”, since as a Catholic, you automatically carry the term Christian as well.
To say “I’m a Christian before I’m a Catholic” carries with it the notion that the Catholic Church and faith in its fullness is not that important to you and that being a Catholic is “optional.”
To say “I’m a Catholic before I’m a Christian” implies that the two are disjointed and that one can somehow practice Catholicism divorced from Christianity (an impossibility).
The difficulty lies in the fact that one is a subset of the other, so “first” is not an easy thing to identify (unlike, for example, Catholic and American, where one isn’t necessarily a subset of the other, so depending on which one is more important to you, you can say “I’m a Catholic before I’m an American” or vice versa). So if you’re Catholic, you are necessarily Christian. The reverse isn’t true. So it’s hard to say which comes “first”, since as a Catholic, you automatically carry the term Christian as well.
To say “I’m a Christian before I’m a Catholic” carries with it the notion that the Catholic Church and faith in its fullness is not that important to you and that being a Catholic is “optional.”
To say “I’m a Catholic before I’m a Christian” implies that the two are disjointed and that one can somehow practice Catholicism divorced from Christianity (an impossibility).
B
Bookcat
Guest
Have been called Christians since the first century
First members of the Church were called “the disciples”… (See Acts)
Later called followers of “the way” …and it seems “Nazarenes” (see Acts)
then at Antioch we started being called Christians. (See Acts)
Later in the first century the Church started to be called “Catholic” (see St. Ignatius --again at Antioch --use around the year 100–Catholic Answers will have various things on this - he presupposes his audience will know the term so it was used already in the first century)
So in time Christians began to be also called Catholics.
Now a days we have many sorts of Christians --who are indeed Christians and our brothers…whom we call Christians …though we are unhappily not yet in full communion.
Catholics are Christians who in full communion with the successor of Peter. We call ourselves Christians all the time…Pope Benedict XVI when addressing the faithful did not usually say “Catholics this or that” but called them Christians…for that is what we are (see his homilies or audiences)
Other Christians have various degrees of communion with us.
As one early Christian noted (375AD):
“If you want to know who I am,” he said, “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.”
~ St. Pacian
First members of the Church were called “the disciples”… (See Acts)
Later called followers of “the way” …and it seems “Nazarenes” (see Acts)
then at Antioch we started being called Christians. (See Acts)
Later in the first century the Church started to be called “Catholic” (see St. Ignatius --again at Antioch --use around the year 100–Catholic Answers will have various things on this - he presupposes his audience will know the term so it was used already in the first century)
So in time Christians began to be also called Catholics.
Now a days we have many sorts of Christians --who are indeed Christians and our brothers…whom we call Christians …though we are unhappily not yet in full communion.
Catholics are Christians who in full communion with the successor of Peter. We call ourselves Christians all the time…Pope Benedict XVI when addressing the faithful did not usually say “Catholics this or that” but called them Christians…for that is what we are (see his homilies or audiences)
Other Christians have various degrees of communion with us.
As one early Christian noted (375AD):
“If you want to know who I am,” he said, “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.”
~ St. Pacian
O
o_mlly
Guest
Having read Fr. Gordin’s reply, I agree that the Orthodox churches are not Catholic.It’s hard to answer; I guess it depends on the situation and the context in which the question is asked…
To say “I’m a Catholic before I’m a Christian” implies that the two are disjointed and that one can somehow practice Catholicism divorced from Christianity (an impossibility).
However to the OP’s question, Father directly answers:: Catholics should not refer to themselves as “Christians.”
Feb 26, '15, 2:50 pm
Fr. Charles Grondin Fr. Charles Grondin is offline
Apologist Join Date: July 6, 2012
Location: CAF
Posts: 2,279
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Who do we consider to be “Catholics?”
A Christian is anyone validly baptized. A Catholic is anyone baptized into the Catholic Church or officially received into Her.
Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin
Fr. Charles Grondin Fr. Charles Grondin is offline
Apologist Join Date: July 6, 2012
Location: CAF
Posts: 2,279
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Who do we consider to be “Catholics?”
A Christian is anyone validly baptized. A Catholic is anyone baptized into the Catholic Church or officially received into Her.
- “Other” Christians are any baptized persons who do not belong to the Catholic Church.
- If a Church is not in communion with the Pope then it is not considered Catholic.
Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin
B
Bookcat
Guest
Typo there above…a “not” got added there in your post.Having read Fr. Gordin’s reply, I agree that the Orthodox churches are not Catholic.
However to the OP’s question, Father directly answers:: Catholics should not refer to themselves as “Christians.”
Feb 26, '15, 2:50 pm
Fr. Charles Grondin Fr. Charles Grondin is offline
Apologist Join Date: July 6, 2012
Location: CAF
Posts: 2,279
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Who do we consider to be “Catholics?”
A Christian is anyone validly baptized. A Catholic is anyone baptized into the Catholic Church or officially received into Her.
3.*** It is not incorrect for Catholic to refer to themselves as Christians***. We are, in fact, the very first Christians.
- “Other” Christians are any baptized persons who do not belong to the Catholic Church.
- If a Church is not in communion with the Pope then it is not considered Catholic.
Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin
(I guess started to type one thing and then chose different wording…and forgot to take out that word- that happens to me sometimes when composing or editing posts)
So to clarify for those who might read this took quickly:
Catholics **should **refer to themselves as Christians.
Nope. Father uses a double negative. It is NOT incorrect, i.e. it IS correct for Catholics to refer to themselves as Christians.Having read Fr. Gordin’s reply, I agree that the Orthodox churches are not Catholic.
However to the OP’s question, Father directly answers:: Catholics should not refer to themselves as “Christians.”
Feb 26, '15, 2:50 pm
Fr. Charles Grondin Fr. Charles Grondin is offline
Apologist Join Date: July 6, 2012
Location: CAF
Posts: 2,279
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Who do we consider to be “Catholics?”
A Christian is anyone validly baptized. A Catholic is anyone baptized into the Catholic Church or officially received into Her.
3.*** It is not incorrect for Catholic to refer to themselves as Christians***. We are, in fact, the very first Christians.
- “Other” Christians are any baptized persons who do not belong to the Catholic Church.
- If a Church is not in communion with the Pope then it is not considered Catholic.
Recent apologetics answers by Fr. Charles Grondin
- Status
- Not open for further replies.