Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[Wildkit]

Why do Latin Catholics consider the Latin Church to be the Catholic Church? It is not. The predominately celebrated Roman Rite is only one Rite of the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches and Oriental Catholic Churches are not Roman…

You might look back over the archives here where many discussions, turning into shouting matches, have be hashed out here in the past regarding the " true church".

You are absolutely correct. The Catholic Church has 23 rites, but from my information, the Roman rite makes up over 98.28%, so I suspect those unknowledgeable folks just might think the way you describe.

 

[TheosisM]

Why do Latin Catholics consider the Latin Church to be the Catholic Church? It is not. The predominately celebrated Roman Rite is only one Rite of the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches and Oriental Catholic Churches are not Roman…

You might look back over the archives here where many discussions, turning into shouting matches, have be hashed out here in the past regarding the " true church".

Probably because I’d bet that the vast majority of Latin Catholics are not aware of the Eastern Catholic churches.

 

[ziapueblo]

Why do Latin Catholics consider the Latin Church to be the Catholic Church? It is not. The predominately celebrated Roman Rite is only one Rite of the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches and Oriental Catholic Churches are not Roman…

You might look back over the archives here where many discussions, turning into shouting matches, have be hashed out here in the past regarding the " true church".

Great post

I bet many Latin Catholics, which is the Church I grew up in, do not even realize that the Roman Liturgy is only one of three liturgical rites in the Latin Rite. The other two being the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite.

You could also include the numerous “rites of religious orders” such as the Dominican Rite Liturgy and Franciscan Rite Liturgy just to name a couple.

God bless,
ZP

 

[searn77]

“Orthodox” refers to the Eastern churches not in communion with Rome. Even then, there are at least two groups that use the word “Orthodox”: Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox. Oriental Orthodox are also known as Non-Chalcedonian, because they only recognize up to the 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephesus) as Ecumenical, and do not accept the Council of Chalcedon (many today say that we are all actually in agreement over Christology, just expressed differently, though that isn’t really relevant here). Oriental Orthodox churches include the Coptic Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic.

“Eastern Orthodox” is what is usually being referred to when people say “Orthodox”. These churches are not in communion with Rome. They include the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Russian Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Orthodox Church in America, Antiochian Orthodox (Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch), etc.

“Eastern Catholic” refers to churches that are in communion with Rome. Most of them have a counterpart Orthodox church.

Out of all the definitions of what people say Orthodox means, this one seems like the simplest and best explained answer to the question. The only thing I would clear up is that there are more Oriental Orthodox Churches than just the Coptic and Armenian. I don’t think this person was trying to say it was just the Armenian and Coptic Orthodox that make up the overall Oriental Orthodox Church, but I just thought I would clear this up in case there was any confusion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SingleMomMonica,

I was wondering if you knew or someone else here knew who was the first person to specifically link the Papacy with that passage in Isaiah?

I’ve not seen it linked in the ECF, but then I’m sure that I’ve not read or even heard of each ECF.

Was it an early Church Father or was it Scott Hahn, PhD or was it someone else somewhere inbetween? Anyone know?

Gregory Thaumaturgus interpreted the Isaiah passage as a reference to the gift of interpeting and understanding the Mysteries of God, in his Oration and Panegyric addressed to Origen. Not that far-fetched, I think, from the use of the Matthean passages by Catholics to refer to the indefectibility of the Church in her teaching authority.

I haven’t plumbed the rest of the Fathers. Maybe I’ll find something more concisely tying the Isaiah passage to the Matthen passage in the coming months.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Great post

I bet many Latin Catholics, which is the Church I grew up in, do not even realize that the Roman Liturgy is only one of three liturgical rites in the Latin Rite. The other two being the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite.

You could also include the numerous “rites of religious orders” such as the Dominican Rite Liturgy and Franciscan Rite Liturgy just to name a couple.

God bless,
ZP

Not 3. At least 9 now, encompasing 11 missals approved, and another in the works (a new edition of the Mozarabic), tho some are properly “uses”
Roman (OF and EF, plus Dominican Use OF) - The most common
Mozarabic - Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain
Bragan - Archdiocese of Braga, Portugul
Ambrosian - Archdiocese of Florence, Italy
Dominican - Dominican Friaries
Carmelite - Carmelite Monasteries
Carthusian - Carthusian Monastaries
Dalmatian - Dalmatia and Montenegro, tho no longer common, since the OF Roman is also available in both Church Slavonic and their local tongues.
Anglican - Anglican Ordinariates and personal parishes.

Of these, it’s arguable if Rites is the appropriate word; Missals are slightly different in meaning, but each has its own missal, and a few have more than one. That said, most Roman Church Catholics will never encounter any of the others except Dominican and Anglican. Dominican because the good friars use it on special occasions. Anglican, because there are Anglican Use Catholic Parishes scattered in the US and UK, and soon to be more worldwide.

 

[YADA]

I was wondering if you knew or someone else here knew who was the first person to specifically link the Papacy with that passage in Isaiah?

I’ve not seen it linked in the ECF, but then I’m sure that I’ve not read or even heard of each ECF.

Was it an early Church Father or was it Scott Hahn, PhD or was it someone else somewhere inbetween? Anyone know?

The writer of the Gospel According to Matthew would be the first one to link the words of Jesus to Isaiah … being a more dirent quote then many others that are connected to the Hebrew texts …

Now some have said that the quote is also of the Book of Revelation … but as Matthew came before Revelation that cannot be … Also Jesus [as the King and Ulitmate Authority and holder of the Master Key - as it were - is the One being reference in Revelation …

Now in the Gospel of Matthew - as is true Isaiah - references an authority given by the King of Kings [Jesus - the fullfillment of the Davidic Promises and Covenant] to the King’s chosen representative Simon - who is re-named Rock - the Rock upon which Jesus will build His Church and to whom Jesus gives the 'Keys" [the symboll of that authority] to open and shut what no one can close or open [in opposition] on Earth and in Heaven …

 

[Silyosha]

Dear Silyosha,

I don’t think language or culture Christianity found itself is a very good gauge to determine this. I’ll give you an example. You say, “Christianity first spread to predominantly Greek-speaking parts of the East.” If “Greek-speaking parts of the East” is really that important, I could ask, “why didn’t Christ appear when the Greek Empire was in its ascendancy? Why did Christ appear when Latin Rome was the ruling power?” If the language and culture that Christianity FIRST found itself in is to be a gauge of which Church is correct… well, let’s just say I don’t subscribe to that logic, and I hope you see why. That criteria is ultimately subject to myriad interpretations.

Blessings,
Marduk

Wow, thanks for posting this. That makes a lot of sense. The ruling power at the time could be a huge contributing factor to why Christ came when He did.

 

[Mickey]

Was it an early Church Father or was it Scott Hahn, PhD or was it someone else somewhere inbetween? Anyone know?

It was Scott Hahn.

 

[YADA]

It was Scott Hahn.

And your support for this? Because I have read and studied scriptures and made the connection before I ever heard of Scott Hahn… and I read [for the first time] the link posted earlier in this thread to an article where Hahn discusses this connection and references others who noted it previously with a notation for a period of time where this connection was not dicussed.

I come from a Protestant background and this connection was noted in several bible studies I participated in [though they did not see the office outlasting Peter - a disconnect that lead me to investiage the idea of an "office’ in scripture and the writings of the ECF - just one quick and easy example: why was it important to fill the ‘office’ of Judas but not the office held by Peter? ].

In actuality the connection and quotation is sso clearly a reference to Isaiah that I doubt that the early Church spent much time debating it … being far more concerned with truly important areas of controvesy - the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, Baptism, Eucharist, reconciling those who fell into sin back into the Church and then the various periods of persecution.

And then there is the issue of arguing from silence - when the corpus of the extant writings is not complete - a lack of mention does not mean that they failed to recognize the connection.

Today, the modern man [and woman] can tell you the dialogue from episodes of Law & Order, Sex and the City, the sports stats of the NFL, Martha Stewarts recipes and the balances of their IRA’s … the Hebrew and Christian Peoples of the 1st Century had a great grasp of the Scriptures [specially the Hebrew] and the background context …

Think of it like this … IF I said "Four Score and Seven years ago … " … you tell me the name of the literary work, the author, the place of presentation and the reasons for it …

For the average American that should be a simple task [though as time progresses I doubt that will remain the case] … For many Americans they could even give more information - like the media upon which it was written, who spoke before the author, how long that person spoke and how long the author of the subject peice took to delier his, the chronology of the events leading up to its delivery and the evvents that came after … plus the biography of the author and many other people of the time …

For the average citizen of India, China or Zimbabwa - they wouldn’t have a clue … but if you had them read the entire piece they could still be moved by the sentiment and understand it at some level - even if not in total … if they interpretated the passage without that the other information in the context of its delivery [as if that was not important] and only viewed the words as they were received and from their limited knowledge - interpretaed from the lens of their existence two hundred years after the fact - [ie it is not directly related to their historical existence] they would have a incomplete understanding - and for that person to say [to the American] that how they understood it was incorrect because it was not written in the address …

Clearly, the Apostles - listening to Jesus and Simon - that day would have heard the words of Isaiah echoing in their ears … Hearing Jesus rename Simon to Peter would echo Abram/Abraham … a significant event in the Jewish mind, naming and being re-named by God … it does not happen every day and occurred at significant moments in Salvation history … these people have a significant role [in cooperation with God] … To argue that it meant nothing - did not reference Isaiah is just not tenable …

And neither is the argument that the Prime Minister in Isaiah points to Jesus … demoting the Jesus who is the King of KINGS! to the King’s steward never made sense to me as some of my protestant brethren would have it [another reason I investigated further - it just didnot logically flow IMHO]

 

[Mickey]

And your support for this? Because I have read and studied scriptures and made the connection before I ever heard of Scott Hahn…

Because I have searched extensively and he is the only one who has ever made this connection. I have never read any connection from the Church Fathers. I suppose you can be added to the list now–since you have made this connection. I have seen a connection made from this verse to the verse in Revelation–but it is in reference to Christ—not St Peter.

Do you have any ECF references?

 

[shawnbm]

Well put, Yada. Pax tecum from a fellow convert from Protesantism.

 

[Mickey]

Well put, Yada. Pax tecum from a fellow convert from Protesantism.

Another Scott Hahn fan.

 

[ziapueblo]

Not 3. At least 9 now, encompasing 11 missals approved, and another in the works (a new edition of the Mozarabic), tho some are properly “uses”
Roman (OF and EF, plus Dominican Use OF) - The most common
Mozarabic - Archdiocese of Toledo, Spain
Bragan - Archdiocese of Braga, Portugul
Ambrosian - Archdiocese of Florence, Italy
Dominican - Dominican Friaries
Carmelite - Carmelite Monasteries
Carthusian - Carthusian Monastaries
Dalmatian - Dalmatia and Montenegro, tho no longer common, since the OF Roman is also available in both Church Slavonic and their local tongues.
Anglican - Anglican Ordinariates and personal parishes.

Of these, it’s arguable if Rites is the appropriate word; Missals are slightly different in meaning, but each has its own missal, and a few have more than one. That said, most Roman Church Catholics will never encounter any of the others except Dominican and Anglican. Dominican because the good friars use it on special occasions. Anglican, because there are Anglican Use Catholic Parishes scattered in the US and UK, and soon to be more worldwide.

More than I thought! Thanks Aramis

ZP

 

[YADA]

Because I have searched extensively and he is the only one who has ever made this connection. I have never read any connection from the Church Fathers. I suppose you can be added to the list now–since you have made this connection. I have seen a connection made from this verse to the verse in Revelation–but it is in reference to Christ—not St Peter. Do you have any ECF references?

I mentioned that reference to Revelation before [perhaps on another thread] … many protestants will use that argument … however, Matthew was written BEFORE Revelation [long before in t eh NT scripture composition timeline] … and yes, Christ holds the “keys” and is the One referred to in Revelation :yup:…

Clearly, the passage from Matthew is a quotation from Isaiah … can you read the two passages and not see that? What is it about the ‘people’ referring to this Prime Minister as Abba [Father, Papa, Pope] that you don’t get? Also, the Church does in fact recognize the authority that is held by all of the Apostolic Successors [the Bishops, Patriarchs] but the passage in Matthew where Peter receives the “keys” is distinctly different then the passage where [later] all the Apostles recieved a similar authority … that coupled with other passages illustrates a distinction in the authority [and responsibilty] given to Peter. The other Apostles do not have their names changed, the others Apostles are not singled out to strengthen the Apostles, etc …

Also, unless the King possessed a “Master Key” he could not delegate a “key” holder … and delegating authority in no way means the Kings gives up his own key or authority …The Kig is the King the Prime Minister serves at the will of the King …

As for an early references to Isaiah 22 see this from Aphraates early 4th century… and keep in mind that Matthew references Jesus as a descendent of David …

1. Also David was persecuted, as Jesus was persecuted. David was anointed by Samuel to be king instead of Saul who had sinned; and Jesus was anointed by John to be High Priest instead of the priests, the ministers of the Law. … David received the kingdom of Saul his persecutor; and Jesus received the kingdom of Israel His persecutor. David wept with dirges over Saul his enemy when he died; and Jesus wept over Jerusalem, His persecutor, which was to be laid waste. David handed over the kingdom to Solomon, and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the keys to Simon, and ascended and returned to Him who sent Him. For David’s sake, sins were forgiven to his posterity; and for Jesus’ sake sins are forgiven to the nations.(3)

…bolding mine … Isaiah 22 - we have the Davidic Kingdom in succession [David being long dead] and a hand off of the keys from an evil Prime Minister Shebna to Eliakim … that same type hand off is alluded to in this quoatation - and even stronger then Catholics would state - because Peter [and his successors] represent Christ on Earth but are not replacements for Christ …

 

[YADA]

One observation I have for discussions like this … if a certain position challenges ones opinion or understanding … the call for where is that connection made in [insert scriptures, ECF etc] … and then the only aceptable qusote would be for the quote to read something like this:

Matthew 16 …
Jesus: "Who do you say that I am? … "
Peter: "the Christ … "
*Jesus: *"Blessed art thou Simon, thou art Rock …like when I commanded Isaiah to replace Shebna, i give you the keys to the Kingdom … "

Or ECF X: "Peter was given the keys and the authority of the Church exactly as Ekiakim was in Issaiah … "

And nothing less will suffice …

Sadly, we do not have all of the written materials extant of the early church. What we have is incomplete, fragmentary … and they mostly deal with those items that were in contention [important theological stuff like the Trinity, Dual Natures of Christ, the meaning of Baptism, the Eucharist, how to combat sin that removed members from the church and how to bring them back into the fold … and dealing with various heresies and persecutions …

The parallels between Isaiah and Matthew are clearly visible - more so than many other OT/NT quotations IMHO and yet because it challenges how one views the role of Peter - it is dismissed …

Perhaps it was not written of specifically because the parallel was clearly understood and uncontroversial … Nowhere is the Hebrew texts is a clear refernce to a Chair [Seat] occupied by Moses yet Jesus speaks of it in the Gospels and the ECF clearly use that reference also for the Successor of Peter in a special sense [and yes I know every Bishop also occupies an apostolic Chair ]

 

[YADA]

…Do you have any ECF references?

Is the 4th century ECF enough for you? St Ephrem said this

… And our Lord, to show that he had received the keys from the former steward, said to Simon: To thee will I give the keys of the gates. But how could he give them to another unless he had received them from another? THe keys, therefore, which he received from Simeon the priest, he gave to ‘Simeon’ the Apostle, so that even if the Nation would not listen to the former Simeon, the Nations should listen to the other ‘Simeon.”

As this quote from St Ephram illustrates though the focus is on our Lord Jesus … Jesus first had to be reconized as being the Davidic Heir - the Messiah … Simon’s "you are the Christ… " … Peter only gains his authority by his relationship to and because of who and what Jesus is … similar ot the controversy over the Nature of Christ: Human [only], Divine [only] or both FULLY Human AND Divine … led to Mary being recognized as the Theotokos, the Mother of God …

While I [not being Ephrem] would have made the exegesis like this … Jesus, received His reign from David and thus as the fullfillment of the Davidic promises and heir to the throne, being the King of Kings and Lord of Lords received the authority from the Father … thus having received that authority and establishing His Kingdom, Jesus bestowed upon Peter the cloak of Eliakim with the keys and authority over the people such that what he opens and closes on Earth will be opened and shut Heaven …

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Yada,

Another EO criticism of the Church toppled to the ground! Thank you so much, brother Yada.

I would like to note that John Calvin explicitly made the connection between the Isaiah passage and the Matthean passage in his commentary on the Book of Isaiah. That is probably where Protestants source their understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[YADA]

Dear brother Yada,

Another EO criticism of the Church toppled to the ground! Thank you so much, brother Yada.

I would like to note that John Calvin explicitly made the connection between the Isaiah passage and the Matthean passage in his commentary on the Book of Isaiah. That is probably where Protestants source their understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thanks Mardukm, I am humbled. I always learn much from your posts -

My approach is fairly simple [the common man/mind] and I try to write in a manner that is easily understood … or as my professors said “folksy” [and though they said they enjoyed reading them I am sure they wished for one paragraph per page with 2/3rds of a page of foot notes .] and between my engineering/mathematical background which does not allow for linguistics gymnastics … and my love of history [and the study of the cultural understandings from which these writings flow] … I find it hard to reconcile some interpretations with the texts and how the early Christian community experienced them - as illustrated in the written record, the archeological record and by the living Christian Communities that inform us in how they worshipped, what they believed that has come down through two millinia …

And then typing is not my best skill and my old laptop sometimes does not place a letter even though I hit the key or it decides to place three letters for one press of the button … also, there is no autocorrect/spell check in the POST … so sometimes when I re-rad a post [or and email] I cringe - thinking “who could take me seriously?” with typos like that :bigyikes:

Blessings to you and Happy New Year

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I’ve heard this in lectures before but I’ve not seen Catholics actually offering it as an argument ‘here’.

Can you offer ‘why’ the East refused Papal Authority so early? Why was it such an issue in the early Imperial Church structure and where or what role did the early Church extend to the secular powers like that of the Emperor? I get the impression that Papal Power threatened the Emperor’s authority but I don’t know this for sure.

Is it possible to extend this discussion out to discuss the Empire and determine why this became an issue?