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]

"Those Churches that do not recognize papal authority are NOT Catholic. "

That's absolute nonsense and you as a person attending liturgy in a Maronite Church certainly ought to know that. If it were true, NYer, then the Maronites in Lebanon, from their hierarchs on down, are not Catholics as there is regular, REGULAR, intercommunion among the Maronites, the Melkites and the Orthodox and in the event of intermarriage, no "conversion" rite when, as is traditional in Lebanon, a bride begins to receive communion in and become a member of her husband's particular church. BTW, that latter practice is also the practice here!

[D-fendr]

Are the Orthodox part of the Catholic Church?

Most certainly.

[IrishCatholic]

Who is he? Voldemort?
He was mentioned (he who must not be named) as an example much the way Hitler, Pol Pot, the Klan, or Harry Reid might be mentioned. I did not call anyone (he who must not be named) but ascribed the posters comments as possibly trying to emulate (he who must not be named).

The question of the post was valid. Was the poster trying to ask a valid question or was the poster baiting Catholics with (he who must not be named) type hatred.

If your read, or had read, my post other than keying on the name (he who must not be named), you would have seen there was a valid point. Was the poster engaging in the same behavior as (he who must not be named) or was the poster a sincere person asking a question. Hence the reference to the divide between Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.

There was no abuse, no name calling, and it wasn't personal. What it was, was calling out the poster to either specify whether it was a sincere line of questioning or one more line of Catholic hatred smear threads you find here on FR. from the usual suspects.

There is a huge segment of FR that is Catholic. FR is not an anti Catholic forum. But, there is a rabid anti-Catholic set of posters here as you well know. All I wanted was the clarification of whether this poster was joining the ranks of the Know Nothings and engaging in (he who must not be named) type behavior.

The post should not have been deleted.

[Poe White Trash]

Your post is rubbish.

The Eucumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is not some Orthodox counterpart of the Bishop of Rome in either assumed authority or power, and the schism that started in 1054 is still in place. As far as I can tell, there are at least two, "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" Churches. Maybe the monophysites make three.

I've noted in my reading and discussions that what the Vatican "considers" is irrelevant to many Orthodox, who find the Church of Rome to be schismatic and heretical. As far as I can tell, the invitation you spoke of is just that, an invitation ignored by many who are not on board the eucumenical bandwagon.

I've spoken to some Orthodox friends of mine about some of the "stuff" that's posted about the Orthodox on FR, and their response is one of incredulity if not laughter. Apparently, only on FR are Orthodox Christians and the Church of Rome thought of as being the SAME "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church."

[Poe White Trash]

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

Thank you for your clarity and honesty!

[Religion Moderator]

The meanings of the caucus labels for moderating on the Religion Forum are explained at post 13.

The issue which gave rise to this thread was a complaint by an authoritative, self-confessed Catholic that Orthodox posters were disrupting a Catholic Caucus.

Disagreements among the members of a caucus should be expected on RF caucused threads to the extent they would be tolerated behind the closed doors of a church. However, if the disruptor is not a member of the caucus then the dispute cannot be aired on that particular thread.

[wagglebee]

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.

I think what you have just listed is the reason I will give the Orthodox more latitude.

The Great Scism is VERY DIFFERENT from the Protestant Reformation. The Eastern Church had disagreements with the West and the Scism occurred, but other than that the Eastern Church remained the same, they DID NOT start inventing a new theological system the way the Protestants did.

Martin Luther's departure from the Church certainly started out LOOKING similar to the Orthodox departure, but it wasn't. "Sola scriptura" was a theological INVENTION, it was not a different interpretation of Church theology.

[Religion Moderator]

Your post would have been removed anyway for potty language.

Jack Chick materials and other such materials (e.g. the false Jesuit Oath) monger hatred are not to be mentioned at all on the Religion Forum whether as a source, a slur or a strawman.

[sitetest]

Dear wagglebee,

“I think what you have just listed is the reason I will give the Orthodox more latitude.”

That doesn't exactly answer my question. I understand what reasons you might have for the additional “latitude,” but what I was asking was, in what way would you give additional “latitude”? In other words, practically speaking, what posting behavior might you tolerate from an Orthodox that you wouldn't from a non-Catholic/non-Orthodox?

sitetest

[Kolokotronis]

"The Eucumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is not some Orthodox counterpart of the Bishop of Rome in either assumed authority or power, and the schism that started in 1054 is still in place."

You are absolutely correct, Has someone told you otherwise?

"As far as I can tell, there are at least two, "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" Churches. Maybe the monophysites make three."

You are wrong. There is only one.

"I've noted in my reading and discussions that what the Vatican "considers" is irrelevant to many Orthodox, who find the Church of Rome to be schismatic and heretical."

Ah, well, the Orthodox do consider the Church of Rome to be in schism from the remiander of The Church. They of course feel the same about us. Schism, in and of itself, is not uncommon and does not mean that the schismatics are heretics. There was a schism between Moscow and Constantinople a few years ago. No one considered anyone a heretic. There was a recent breaking of communion between a metropolis of the GOA and the OCA. No heresy there either. There are those who consider the Latins heretics and Latins who consider us heretics. Most, but by no means all, of the Orthodox who feel that way belong to the various "True" Orthodox churches who are not in communion with canonical Orthodoxy. I can't speak for the Latins who espouse those views.

"As far as I can tell, the invitation you spoke of is just that, an invitation ignored by many who are not on board the eucumenical bandwagon."

I am not aware of any Orthodox in this country who have accepted the invitation, though I expect there are some. Intercommunion on the Greek islands, Santorini for example, is not uncommon and it is regular in Lebanon. What passes for modern "ecumenism" has nothing to do with it. To the extent that "ecumenism" is syncretistic, it's a heresy.

"I've spoken to some Orthodox friends of mine about some of the "stuff" that's posted about the Orthodox on FR, and their response is one of incredulity if not laughter."

Really? And what Orthodox Church are they members of, pray tell.

"Apparently, only on FR are Orthodox Christians and the Church of Rome thought of as being the SAME "Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.""

Again, really? I will grant you that if your friends are devotees of some "Honest To God, Really and Truly We're not in Communion with that Arch Heresiarch the Ecumenical Patriarch Orthodox Church of North America, Inc." I can see where you'd get that idea. :)

[Petrosius]

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.

But that was only true in the east; the lingua franca of the west was always Latin, not Greek. But even in the east, Latin was the language of government and law (including the imperial court in Constantinople) until Justinian. Hence the Corpus Iuris Civilis was promulgated in Constantinople in Latin, not Greek. The Strategekon of the Emperor Maurice in the late 6th cent. also indicates that commands in the army were still given in Latin

[D-fendr]

tell me the difference between the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church.

Oh good grief. I thought you were referring to the Eastern Orthodox. Words mean things.

[wagglebee]

I’m not inclined to give anyone a pass on hateful slurs. However, I am also aware that Catholics and Orthodox have, in moments of anger, said a great many hateful things to each other over the last nine centuries.

If an Orthodox FReeper says something like that to me, I will probably make some response. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any Orthodox FReepers who hate the Catholic Church and by extension Catholics, I cannot say the same of certain Protestants.

[Petronski]

...whether as a source, a slur or a strawman.

Added acclaim for alliteration!

[IrishCatholic]

There was no “potty language”. I do not use “potty language”. To infer that is not truthful. I do not use it on this forum and I do not use it in real life. You are insulting in inferring that and must be confused with someone else you have been monitoring.

As for (he who must not be named)is it your take you can behave like that as long as it is not named? Why is (he who must not be named) kryptonite? Because of the vile anti-Catholic comics he published. I do see you have no problem with the term “Romanists” when used in a pejorative fashion.

(He who must not be named) was not used as a source, a slur, or a strawman. The question of the poster was: was this a sincere question or was this ascribing to (he who must not be named) type behavior? It was an accurate question of the intent of a poster, and a valid question to pose it in such a fashion. All it would have taken was a simple “This is a valid question I would like to ask” and that would have ended the matter. Yet, that isn't what happened, was it?

I won't argue the point as you have the power regardless of whether you examined the content or the question. But I will not have my integrity impugned by you or anyone regardless. There was no potty language, no smears, and no inappropriate content.

IrishCatholic

[the_conscience]

Do we really want to play this game? Let me know, because I’d be happy to tweak my FRiends here who are “Heterodox Presbyterians”.

That would be making it an ad hom. There is no such implication with Romanist or Roman Catholic. It just seems fair that if one sect can use a universal than so should another. Dr. Eckleburg's suggestion allows all three branches of Christianity a universal conception.

[the_conscience]

I did.

The Moderator suggested I start a thread.

[the_conscience]

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.

If that were the definition then neither the Romanists nor the Orthodox could be defined as Catholic since they've added to what was handed down from the apostles. Maybe something like Post-Catholic would be appropriate.

[sitetest]

Dear wagglebee,

“However, I am also aware that Catholics and Orthodox have, in moments of anger, said a great many hateful things to each other over the last nine centuries.”

Yes, but the difference is that for the average Catholic, AD 1204 (or AD 1182) are long ago, obscure dates in old, dusty history books, while for the average Orthodox, it seems as if 1204 is just a little more distant in time than the day before yesterday.

“Nevertheless, I am not aware of any Orthodox FReepers who hate the Catholic Church...”

It would be mind-reading to say who hates the Catholic Church. But I will say that it is a reasonable facsimile of hatred to announce publicly that one will not call Catholics Catholics, but rather “Latins,” in denigration of their claim of catholicity.

It doesn't seem to be of a different kind than the hateful expressions of the Protestants.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Poe White Trash,

At least from the Catholic perspective, it's not really a binary sort of thing.

The Catholic Church sees the Orthodox Churches as being valid particular churches of Christ, but currently out of formal communion with the Catholic Church, which alone has the fullness of the Church of Jesus Christ. They are schismatics, but nonetheless possess the the attributes of true particular churches of Christ. We accept the apostolic nature, of the Orthodox Churches as a given.

As far as I know, Orthodoxy as a whole accepts the apostolic nature of the Catholic Church, as well.

Although there are individual Orthodox believers (or even great swaths of Orthodox) who may view the Catholic Church as no longer a true particular church (or more accurately, a true set of particular churches), my understanding of Orthodox polity is that it would likely take something on the order of an ecumenical council to formally define the Catholic Church as heretical or having lost the charism of apostolicity (at least, given the current circumstances).

Remember that we all, Catholics and Orthodox, have our own personal views of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, but all those personal views derive from, depend on, and revolve around the formal dogmas and doctrines of the Church. Thus, for us Catholics, even though some Catholics may harbor suspicions of heresy generally on the part of Orthodoxy, we can venture with certainty no farther than the formal teaching of the Catholic Church.

Conversely, it's the same for the Orthodox, but with a twist: We Catholics believe that the pope can define doctrine infallibly and in a completely binding way on all the faithful. The Orthodox believe no such thing. For the Orthodox, only an ecumenical council can pronounce infallible, binding teaching. And most Orthodox would agree that a true, valid, binding ecumenical council would require the participation, either directly or through representation, of the See of Rome.

So, I know that the Catholic Church does not formally hold the Orthodox Churches to have formally fallen into heresy, or to have lost their apostolic nature (two different questions), and I don't believe that the Orthodox Churches have formally made such judgments, either. This is regardless of what some, most, or even nearly all members of each communion might believe.

Thus, both Catholics and Orthodox believe that there is but one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Both Catholics and Orthodox believe about their own communions that the fullness of this church exists within their own communion, whether Catholics believing this of the Catholic Church, or whether Orthodox believing this of the Orthodox Churches. And both Catholic and Orthodox believe that the other are legitimately particular churches of the one, holy, CATHOLIC and apostolic church.

sitetest