Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[Vico]

Well, there’s the rub.

Here we have, let us say, a hypothetical situation wherein Latin Catholics who know the difference and enough canon law do not believe in the Papal dogmas of 1870AD. They are excommunicated latae sententiae, is that not so?

…

The hypothetical Latin Catholics are different than the Orthodox and Polish National Catholics, due to their lack of invincible ignorance. (You said that the Catholics understand the canons, so they are not invincibly ignorant, they know law, circumstance, and penalty.)

There are rules for determining excommunication (full knowledge or penalty, understanding, obstinancy, etc.) so it would be inaccurate to generalize and say they are excommunicated latae sententiae.

 

[rinnie]

I have been RC all of my life. I have never quite understood this whole thing. But Now I think I have it. Thanks to alot of you, and my friend Mickey I THINK I have it figured out.

I am A Roman Catholic. But I could also be considered a part of the Holy Orthodox Church Correct. From what I am seeing there are Orthodox Church’s that are indeed in Communion with Rome which means we are one. But there are other Orthodox Church’s that are not in communion with Rome so we are not completely one. Do I got it right?

But either way we do ALL agree with the Teachings of the Catholic Church correct? It is just certain disciplines that we disagree on? DO I got it once and for all?

 

[Vico]

I have been RC all of my life. I have never quite understood this whole thing. But Now I think I have it. Thanks to alot of you, and my friend Mickey I THINK I have it figured out.

I am A Roman Catholic. But I could also be considered a part of the Holy Orthodox Church Correct. From what I am seeing there are Orthodox Church’s that are indeed in Communion with Rome which means we are one. But there are other Orthodox Church’s that are not in communion with Rome so we are not completely one. Do I got it right?

But either way we do ALL agree with the Teachings of the Catholic Church correct? It is just certain disciplines that we disagree on? DO I got it once and for all?

No, you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. There is agreement between Catholic and Orthodox on faith expressed by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, but not on later dogmas.

Those that are Catholic hold the same beliefs and that includes that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church.

The Catholic Church is made up of 23 particular Churches of which the Latin Church is the largest, and the one most people think of as Roman Catholic. The Orthodox Church is not one of the 23 particular Churches. Many of the particular Churches were formed from former members of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East, that became Catholic, between 1552 and 1930.

Some people have been calling themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, for personal or political reasons, but it is not an official designation for a Church.

Year of being a particular Catholic Church.
33 Latin, Italo-Albanian (1595 bishop), Maronite (452)
1552 Chaldean
1595 Belorussian, Ukrainian
1599 Syro-Malabar
1611 Croatian (Krizevci)
1628 Albanian
1646 Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian
1697 Romanian
1724 Melkite
1741 Coptic (Egyptian)
1742 Armenian
1781 Syrian
1846 Ethiopian-Eritrean
1861 Bulgarian
1905 Russian
1918 Macedonian
1929 Greek
1930 Syro-Malankara

 

[rinnie]

No, you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. There is agreement between Catholic and Orthodox on faith expressed by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, but not on later dogmas.

Those that are Catholic hold the same beliefs and that includes that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church.

The Catholic Church is made up of 23 particular Churches of which the Latin Church is the largest, and the one most people think of as Roman Catholic. The Orthodox Church is not one of the 23 particular Churches. Many of the particular Churches were formed from former members of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East, that became Catholic, between 1552 and 1930.

Some people have been calling themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, for personal or political reasons, but it is not an official designation for a Church.

Year of being a particular Catholic Church.
33 Latin, Italo-Albanian, Maronite
1552 Chaldean
1595 Belorussian, Ukrainian
1599 Syro-Malabar
1611 Croatian (Krizevci)
1628 Albanian
1646 Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian
1697 Romanian
1724 Melkite
1741 Coptic (Egyptian)
1742 Armenian
1781 Syrian
1846 Ethiopian-Eritrean
1861 Bulgarian
1905 Russian
1918 Macedonian
1929 Greek
1930 Syro-Malankara

Okay then let me get this clear. I am Roman Catholic that means I am not part of the Orthodox faith? They are not part of the Catholic Faith correct?

Everytime I think I get it right someones tells me I got it wrong

 

[malphono]

Okay then let me get this clear. I am Roman Catholic that means I am not part of the Orthodox faith? They are not part of the Catholic Faith correct?

Everytime I think I get it right someones tells me I got it wrong

Try substituting the word “Church” for “Faith” and it comes out just about right. Roman Catholics are of the orthodox (lower case “o”) faith. Eastern Orthodox similarly are catholic (lower case “c”).

 

[rinnie]

Try substituting the word “Church” for “Faith” and it comes out just about right. Roman Catholics are of the orthodox (lower case “o”) faith. Eastern Orthodox similarly are catholic (lower case “c”).

But doesn’t Orthodox and Catholic mean the same thing

Okay I think I am getting it. The Orthodox are just not in communion with Rome right? I guess none of them are right?

 

[Vico]

Okay then let me get this clear. I am Roman Catholic that means I am not part of the Orthodox faith? They are not part of the Catholic Faith correct?

Everytime I think I get it right someones tells me I got it wrong

The Orthodox are not part of the Roman Catholic faith.

Orthodox faith is summarized by the first seven ecumenical councils. Also in works by Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kyiv Halych and all Rus, which was approved, with amendments, by the Eastern patriarchs in 1643, and by the confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, approved by the synod of 1672.

catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

 

[rinnie]

The Orthodox are not part of the Roman Catholic faith.

Orthodox faith is summarized by the first seven ecumenical councils. Also in works by Metropolitan Petro Mohyla of Kyiv Halych and all Rus, which was approved, with amendments, by the Eastern patriarchs in 1643, and by the confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem, approved by the synod of 1672.

catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

Okay I think I got it. But it mostly has to do with the Pope right? They don’t see him as the boss lets say. Right.

 

[rinnie]

No, you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. There is agreement between Catholic and Orthodox on faith expressed by the first seven Ecumenical Councils, but not on later dogmas.

Those that are Catholic hold the same beliefs and that includes that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church.

The Catholic Church is made up of 23 particular Churches of which the Latin Church is the largest, and the one most people think of as Roman Catholic. The Orthodox Church is not one of the 23 particular Churches. Many of the particular Churches were formed from former members of Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian Church of the East, that became Catholic, between 1552 and 1930.

Some people have been calling themselves “Orthodox in communion with Rome”, for personal or political reasons, but it is not an official designation for a Church.

Year of being a particular Catholic Church.
33 Latin, Italo-Albanian (1595 bishop), Maronite (452)
1552 Chaldean
1595 Belorussian, Ukrainian
1599 Syro-Malabar
1611 Croatian (Krizevci)
1628 Albanian
1646 Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian
1697 Romanian
1724 Melkite
1741 Coptic (Egyptian)
1742 Armenian
1781 Syrian
1846 Ethiopian-Eritrean
1861 Bulgarian
1905 Russian
1918 Macedonian
1929 Greek
1930 Syro-Malankara

Okay yes I am seeing now. Like Purgatory etc.

 

[Diak]

Year of being a particular Catholic Church.
33 Latin, Italo-Albanian (1595 bishop), Maronite (452)
1552 Chaldean
1595 Belorussian, Ukrainian
1599 Syro-Malabar
1611 Croatian (Krizevci)
1628 Albanian
1646 Slovak, Hungarian, Ruthenian
1697 Romanian
1724 Melkite
1741 Coptic (Egyptian)
1742 Armenian
1781 Syrian
1846 Ethiopian-Eritrean
1861 Bulgarian
1905 Russian
1918 Macedonian
1929 Greek
1930 Syro-Malankara

This is misleading. Every Church of Apostolic origin began in 33 A.D… When a formal relationship was established with Rome is another thing entirely.

 

[Vico]

This is misleading. Every Church of Apostolic origin began in 33 A.D… When a formal relationship was established with Rome is another thing entirely.

That is why I carefully titled it “Year of being a particular Catholic Church”.

 

[Diak]

That is why I carefully titled it “Year of being a particular Catholic Church”.

Even that term runs into some difficulties as some Churches didn’t explicitly lose communion but through political circumstances were estranged or lost contact, not through a willful schism or any ecclesiological malfeasance.

“Year a particular Church formally entered into a union with Rome” is much more precise, since none can deny that any of these particular Churches date to 33 A.D. in their origin nor can deny their catholicity (c.f. Unitatis Redintegratio).

Since Rome came after Antioch, I would rethink the date of Rome, actually. Jerusalem would sensibly be first.

 

[sidbrown]

Dogma is not something negotiable. .

But it can be "developed " to the point where it means something different from what it appears to be now. Take for example the teaching that a Jew cannot be saved unless he converts. This teaching has been developed to the extent that it is now taught that a Jew can be saved.

 

[sidbrown]

Well, there’s the rub.

Here we have, let us say, a hypothetical situation wherein Latin Catholics who know the difference and enough canon law do not believe in the Papal dogmas of 1870AD. They are excommunicated latae sententiae, is that not so?

While at the same time their neighbors who are Orthodox and do not believe in the Papal dogmas (if otherwise disposed) can present themselves for communion in the very same parish. Up the street live an Old Catholic family belonging to the Polish National Catholic church who also do not believe in the Papal dogmas, and they can attend and receive. This is OK as per the Catholic church.

And upon seeing this, some Catholics who do not believe in the Papal dogmas and otherwise qualify to be excommunicated latae sententiae are saying to themselves “I don’t feel that I can call myself a Catholic, I think I will declare myself Orthodox, in communion with Rome and then I can receive the sacraments with a clean conscience without believing in these difficult dogmas”. This, even though they do not have an Orthodox bishop over them, do not confess to an Orthodox priest and are not otherwise in good standing with an Orthodox diocese or church.

Likewise, some of the area Orthodox will see this warm welcome and the convenient Catholic parish down the street which they would like to attend but absolutely do not believe in the Papal dogmas and declare “I think I will declare myself Orthodox, in communion with Rome and then I can receive the sacraments with a clean conscience”.

This seems to be a pretty big contradiction that you have pointed out. My guess is that the solution lies in the RC concept of development of dogma. Namely, that the universal jurisdiction which was promulgated and taught referred to a different situation than would exist if the Orthodox are united to the Church and so the dogma will have to be developed to align with the new situation. I think this is credible, becasue previously it was taught that a Jew cannot be saved, unless he converts, whereas now, it is not taught so. At leas that is my feeling on this issue, so it is not official in any sense.

 

[sidbrown]

Those that are Catholic hold the same beliefs and that includes that the Bishop of Rome, as Vicar of Christ, has supreme and universal power over the whole Church.

I don;t think that this is true, becsue there are millions of Catholic lay people and clergy who do not go along with the teaching on artificial birth control. What percentage of married people in the USA today do not use artificial birth control?

 

[Vico]

I don;t think that this is true, becsue there are millions of Catholic lay people and clergy who do not go along with the teaching on artificial birth control. What percentage of married people in the USA today do not use artificial birth control?

You are right, being baptized makes one Catholic, so sure there are many Catholics that do not hold to the True Faith. It is necessary to believe in the dogmas to remain faithful, but if a person does not understand the dogmas then that does not make one intentionally unfaithful. It is important to try to understand them, so that is why there are catechism and RCIA classes. Still, even with them, sometimes people do not understand. I think there are many lapsed Catholics.

 

[Vico]

But it can be "developed " to the point where it means something different from what it appears to be now. Take for example the teaching that a Jew cannot be saved unless he converts. This teaching has been developed to the extent that it is now taught that a Jew can be saved.

I believe the dogma is: Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation.

And we read in the (Latin) Catechism that we do not know what happens to unbaptised babies, but we can hope that God will be merciful.

 

[Hesychios]

Dogma is not something negotiable.

If that is what ‘development’ truly can do, then the whole concept of ‘dogma’ is meaningless.

We cannot have theology mean something different over time.

 

[Hesychios]

But doesn’t Orthodox and Catholic mean the same thing

Not according to CAF.

The place for Orthodox discussions is in the “non-Catholic” section with the JW’s and the Mormons and Muslims.

… Okay I think I am getting it. The Orthodox are just not in communion with Rome right? I guess none of them are right?

The Orthodox hold to the same Faith and ecclesiology that they held in the first nine centuries of Christianity, before the separation.

The Latin west has unilaterally added a few things.

 

[Vico]

Even that term runs into some difficulties as some Churches didn’t explicitly lose communion but through political circumstances were estranged or lost contact, not through a willful schism or any ecclesiological malfeasance.

“Year a particular Church formally entered into a union with Rome” is much more precise, since none can deny that any of these particular Churches date to 33 A.D. in their origin nor can deny their catholicity (c.f. Unitatis Redintegratio).

Since Rome came after Antioch, I would rethink the date of Rome, actually. Jerusalem would sensibly be first.

I understand what you are saying. “Year a particular Church formally entered into a union with Rome” would work fine for all but three: Latin, Maronite, and Italo-Albanian. Of course understanding that only some members of the Assyrian, Eastern, or Oriental Orthodox churches entered union with Rome at those times, so their original churches still continued in most cases.

I used 33 A.D. for the Latin Church because Christ choose Peter (in Jerusalem) and Peter went to Rome as was thus the Patriarch of Rome.

The Maronites were from the Church of Antioch, but were not established till about the schism of 451 and they established a monastary in 452, as they choose to remain Catholic.

The Italo-Greek was present early in S. Italy and Sicily using the Divine Liturgy but not with their own bishop, were eventually placed under Constantinople, then after 1054, taken back. Later Albanian Orthodox converts migrated and converted to Catholic, and the Church received a bishop of there own liturgical rite in 1595.