Who are the Catholics: The Orthodox or The Romanists, or both?

Me

[the_conscience]

I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?

[Kolokotronis]

"I will be monitoring this thread to see if these meanings are adequate to avoid disruptions on Religion Forum caucuses."

Orthodox ping

Clearly they are not. As I have already PM'd you, The Vatican considers Orthodox Christians Catholics. We are invited to partake of the Eucharist at Latin Rite Masses and all the Mysteries of the Roman Catholic Church are available to us. The Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople sit in the altar together during Liturgies. Their phemes are chanted at the end of such Liturgies. The Apostolic Succession of the hierarchies of both particular churches are mutually recognized. We are ecclesiologically and theologically Catholics whether as defined by Rome or the Orthodox Churches. The only place it seems we are NOT Catholics is here on FR.

[Cvengr]

It’s an interesting topic to warrant further study and perhaps bring us all together closer as believers through faith in Christ. From my perspective, which is dispensationally influenced, recognizes and discerns groups of believers based upon their doctrines.

The discernment of different churches or bodies of believers hinges greatly upon which doctrines individuals have advanced upon in their growth through Christ and upon soulish rationalization.

The first term of significance is belief or faith from the Greek work “PISTIS”. A person without a saving faith might include many people who have faith in God, not by Divine standards, but by worldly standards. Such would include Muslims, Judaisers, perhaps even human secularists who agree with the Ontological Argument but do not yet grasp the meaning of Christ.

I understand the “Roman Catholic” position to believe a doctrine that Jesus Christ has given Peter authority over all believers to discern who will be allowed to enter the body of believers. Accordingly those who fail to respect that authority would also lack the authority to determine who is a true believer in Christ.

The Protestant position, protesting that authority is based upon an understanding that the Word of God describes true belief as faith through Christ prior to faith through Peter and/or the Apostolic Succession. Accordingly, when a person is called by the Father, understands the Gospel, places simple faith alone in Christ alone, is immediately positionally sanctified by God the Holy Spirit, immediately baptized (thoroughly washed, LUOU not NIPTO), immediately indwelt by God the Holy Spirit, receives a regenerated human spirit, and then begins a Christian life through faith in Christ. The continuing sanctification of that believer only occurs while the believer remains in fellowship with God by being filled with God the Holy Spirit, who provides the temple for God as the regenerated human spirit, for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in our human spirit, and then is able to further sanctify our soul, for the indwelling of Jesus Christ in the believer, where we begin to take on the mind of Christ.

From the Protestant perspective, even through faith in Christ, the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal Authority, is easily believed even while a believer falls out of fellowship with God the Holy Spirit, thereby usurping the authority of God the Holy Spirit, and would be heretical.

From the “Roman Catholic” perspective, a believer who fails to first come to Christ via the Church, is not in fellowship, and all doctrine developed outside that faith is tainted or scarring the soul, still not being a true believer.

From the Islamic perspective, an intercessor isn’t required, so a true believer would be one abiding by the Koran, seeking justice by righteous thinking and behavior in accordance with the Koran. While the Muslim believer might not be perfect, there is something he can do which God will accept as being right to avoid condemnation. From the Christian perspective, without faith through Christ, the human faith independent of Christ is tainted by a corrupt mind and not holy, thereby not that of a true believer.

From the Rabbinical Judaism perspective, a true believer never gets everything fully right, but in the end, when all things are said and judged, then there is something to be said for the good that has been performed through faith in God, which God will not find it just to fully condemn. From the Christian perspective, only the things done through faith in what God provides, (Christ) will be finally judged as right by Divine Standards, discerning Judaism independent of faith in Christ as insufficient for salvation.

From a Mormon perspective, emulating the life of Christ is living through faith in Christ, providing a system of good works and morality, and spiritual advancement to become more like God. From the Protestant (and Roman Catholic) perspective, the Mormon approach without faith through Christ is a worldly and soulish approach to Christ from outside God the Holy Spirit, thereby missing the initial belief or faith in Christ, not truly believing through faith in Christ, but perhaps believing in Christ from a worldly perspective, but therefore never receiving a regenerated human spirit by God the Holy Spirit.

From the Dispensational perspective, Reformed believers have advanced from the doctrines of the early Church who got many doctrines right, and advanced in their soteriology beyond the Roman Catholic Church getting many doctrines right regarding initial salvation, but the Reformed Believers also can fall into the same worldly religious trap of considering their church as being the only true faith as a worldly Romanticism might fall into. Dispensationalism then continues to build upon faith by historical study of doctrines within their appropriate age, so that God the Holy Spirit may continue to sanctify the believer in human spirit and their soul. Of course, from a Roman Catholic perspective, continuing to build such doctrine is merely building upon a scarred soulish thinking independent of Papal authority and the Church and still heretical. In order to discern which is true requires spiritual, rather than soulish discernment.

From the above, the universal church is a body of spiritually common believers who have been sanctified by God the Holy Spirit. “Catholicism” from the Protestant perspective includes Protestants because God the Holy Spirit is the only one with authority to regenerate the human spirit, while Roman Catholics perceive this as heresy, because it denies the authority of Peter and his lineage.

While we as believers are in this world, but not of this world, we can still organize and conduct ourselves with rules applicable to believer and unbeliever alike. So our discernment of differing systems of belief and organizing our arguments respecting those differences can also be done through faith in Christ, and with the mind of Christ.

This can also be done by respecting legitimate authority, but the study of powers, authorities, principalities, and rulers is an even deeper topic.

[markomalley]

We are ecclesiologically and theologically Catholics whether as defined by Rome or the Orthodox Churches. The only place it seems we are NOT Catholics is here on FR.

And this Papist Scum has no problem with you posting on any Catholic Caucus thread. Your insights are extremely valuable and most welcome.

Having said that, I seem to remember a couple of EO folks, neither of whom I've seen around here for a while, who seemed to take great pleasure in calling Latins heretic scum, but I haven't seen either of their screen names around for a long time now.

[Dr. North]

No.

Just to Christ.

[OpusatFR]

“What spiritually deadly arrogant hubris.”

The only spritual arrogance is demonstrated by those who try to define who WE are.

[Cronos]

your question: Are the Orthodox part of the Catholic Church?


but your post asks I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?

You're debating the constraints set by the FR admins. Take it up with them.

[Cronos]

In WHAT church were you baptized? Why should that matter? I received a Trinitarian baptism. It was not a Romanist Church.

It does matter -- if you said you were "baptised" in a "Mormon church", most of us here would say you're not a catholic. If you were baptised as a believer in the Trinity and one who could recite the Nicene creed with no hesitation or disbelief, then you are Christian.

[Petrosius]

Can we not distinguish between the use of a word as a descriptive adjective and as name? When we use Catholic and Orthodox as proper names we both understand that we are talking about particular churches. To call the Western church as the Catholic Church is no more incorrect as calling the Eastern church as the Orthodox Church (or Churches). Catholics claim to possess the true orthodox faith as much as those who call themselves Orthodox, yet we understand that when we use the term Orthodox we are referring to particular churches without denying our own orthodoxy. The same can be said about the use of the terms Western Church and Eastern Church, even though the Catholic Church includes many particular churches in the East. Likewise, how many times in our conversations have we used the terms Latins and Greeks? We understand who we mean even though the term Latins includes many non-Latins such as Germans, Poles and Irish; and Greeks includes many non-Greeks such as Russian, Serbian, and (the Latin) Romanians. All these terms are generally understood proper names. Unless we are to use encyclopedia definitions to describe particular churches every time that we refer to them then we should admit the generally accepted names while at the same time understand that we all have different understandings of the nature of our churches.

[sitetest]

Dear Salvation,

Jesus founded only one Church, and that is the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Church of Christ. There is no other Church that is Christ's.

All those who are validly baptized have some communion with the Catholic Church. There is no other Church into which they could be validly baptized.

But it is true that many who are validly baptized are not formally members of the Catholic Church. This is why the Church calls them “separated brethren,” because they have some limited communion to the Church, but far less than complete communion, and certainly no juridical communion with the Church. Nonetheless, they are baptized Christians.

sitetest

[wagglebee]

Here is my take on it:

Catholic Caucus: Catholics only or those specifically invited.

Orthdox Caucus: Orthodox only or those specifically invited.

Catholic/Orthodox Caucus: Catholics AND Orthodox only or those specifically invited.

There are some topics where Catholics and Orthodox are not in agreement and it's reasonable to separate the caucuses; however, these subjects are generally more the exception than the rule.

However, since the FReeper who posted this thread is neither Catholic nor Orthodox and I can't help but escape the feeling that this thread was posted in an attempt to drive a wedge between Catholics and Orthodox. I have NEVER heard any Catholic or Orthodox FReeper refer to either Church as a "sect" and I have certainly never heard any of my Orthodox brothers use slurs like "Romanist" and "Papist".

[dangus]

The Orthodox are catholic, just like the Catholics are orthodox. And they worship at the church of Christ, which is not the Church of Christ.

The term “catholic” does not mean “universal” in the sense of being “global” as many Protestants who like to believe they are part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.” It means “universal” in the sense of being absolute, or objectively true. The non-Catholic churches of antiquity asserted that they could discover hidden meanings in the bible through altered mental states and personal revelation. They, then, used that “knowledge” to attack the apostolic churches. (”Apostolic,” here, meaning churches whose leaders (”episcopi,” or “bishops”) were appointed by the apostles.) So, “catholic,” referred to churches whose theology was derived from what was handed down from Christ via the apostles, rather than what was inferred through subjective “insights.”

As such, the term “catholic” applies to those churches whose theology is handed on from the apostles, as opposed to those who rely on their own, personal interpretation of scripture. So, yes, the Orthodox churches are catholic.

However, “Romanist” is not a suitable term to distinguish between the catholic, Orthodox church and the orthodox, Catholic church. The Roman church is but one of many theologically united, but hierarchically and ritualistically distinct churches which comprise the Catholic Church. Just as the Orthodox Church includes the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, etc., the Catholic Church includes the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Catholic Church, the Ukranian Catholic Church, etc.

Declining to call the Catholic Church, “Catholic” because there are other “catholic” churches makes as little sense as declining to call the Episcopal Church, “Episcopal” because many other churches are “episcopal,” (meaning they have bishops).

[sitetest]

Dear wagglebee,

“...I have certainly never heard any of my Orthodox brothers use slurs like ‘Romanist’ and ‘Papist’.”

Regrettably, though, I have seen at least one or two Orthodox explicitly explain that they use the term “Latin” because they refuse to countenance us as “Catholic.”

Sad but true.

sitetest

[wagglebee]

I am willing to give the Orthodox A LOT more latitude than I will give the Protestants.

[NYer]

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
St. Ambrose of Milan

[dangus]

Greeks and Russians often like to see the Roman Empire as Greek, since Greek was the lingua franca, and not Latin, at the time of Christ.

[Kolokotronis]

The point, my friend, is that our particular churches, whatever adjective we use to describe them, and of course you are right that we know what we mean when we say Catholic or Orthodox or Latin or Greek or Roman or Antiochian or Western or Eastern, are within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, schism or no schism. For the Orthodox to bar Latins or those others in particular churches in communion with Rome from Orthodox threads would seem bizarre to me and I assume to the other Orthodox posters here on FR. Given the ongoing dialogs, it is extremely important ecclesiologically and theologically for us Orthodox to hear what you Latins and others have to say. We don't need to agree. It is equally important for you folks to hear what we have to say and certainly better now than later.

There is indeed a schism; there have been many over the centuries. That does not change our Mysteria or the apostolicity of our hierarchies or how we view those elements of The Church as being held and cherished in common. We are members of One Church, the Catholic Church.

[NYer]

I believe three “Catholic Churches” exist:

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).

A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.

Those Churches that do not recognize papal authority are NOT Catholic. That would include the Orthodox and most protestant denominations.

[Cronos]

I can't help but escape the feeling that this thread was posted in an attempt to drive a wedge between Catholics and Orthodox.

And it's a rather funny way too. We have lots of better things to argue about between the Western and Eastern Church and even within the Eastern and Western Church than to argue about an FR categorisation.

Even for the term Protestants -- that's too much of an umbrella term: while you have many good, Christian Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists etc., even those terms are bandied about (like the ELCA, ECUSA, Christian Scientists, etc. are hardly Christian in their liberospeak beliefs).

[sitetest]

Dear wagglebee,

“I am willing to give the Orthodox A LOT more latitude than I will give the Protestants.”

In what way? I certainly accept that Orthodox faith is much closer to Catholic faith, that the Orthodox particular churches are real churches with valid sacraments, valid holy orders, unlike the ecclesial assemblies of the Protestants.

And if an Orthodox were to use the word “Latin” casually to distinguish a Catholic from an Orthodox, I'd certainly give the benefit of the doubt that there was no ill intent.

But here on Free Republic, at least one Orthodox specifically stated on more than one occasion that he used the term “Latin” because he refused to call us by the name “Catholic.”

I don't know if that is still this particular poster's practice, but I don't see it as much better than some of the worst of the calvinists around here.

sitetest

[Cronos]

I am willing to give the Orthodox A LOT more latitude than I will give the Protestants.

Dear brothers -- that's true, because no matter how much the Orthodox may bring up 1254, they speak with a common voice, not a cacophony of conflicting "opinions", but a sincere voice. Protestants, on the other hand, that's such a variable term -- many Lutherans and Anglicans on this forum are incredibly devout and would put us to shame. Ditto for many Baptists. I would not put them in the same group as the OPC, APC, BPC or any other acronym sect.